YALE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

CALYIN'S TRACTS,

COXTAININQ

TREATISES ON THE SACRAMENTS,
CATECHISM OF THE CHURCH OF GENEVi\,
FORMS OF PRAYER, AXD CONFESSIONS OF FAITH.
VOL. II.

THE CALVIN TRANSLATION SOCIETY,

lUSTITUTED IN MAT M.DCCC.XIIH.

FOR THE PUBLICATION OE TRANSLATIONS OP THB WORKS OF
JOHN CALVIN.

atting ana ©Sttorial Sewtars, iHobtxt Pittaint, ip-.S.a.St.
Office, 9, iaortt)um6«lana Street, ffiainburgJ).

TRACTS

CONTAINING

TREATISES ON THE SACRAMENTS,
CATECHISM OF THE CHURCH OF GENEVA,
FORMS OF PRAYER, AND CONFESSIONS OF FAITH.

BT JOHN CALYIN.

TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL LATIN AND FRENCH
BY HENRY BEVERIDGE.

VOLUME SECOND.

EDINBURGH:
PRINTED FOR THE CALVIN TRANSLATION SOCIETY.
M.DCCCXLIX.

" CALVIN WAS AN ILLUSTRIOUS PERSO.V, AND NEVER TO BE MENTIONED WITIIOUT
A PREP.ICE OP THE HIGHEST HONOUR." — Bishop A;hlr,;:CS.
" OALVIn's COMMENTARIES REMAIN, APTER THREE CENTURIES, UNPARALLELED POR
POROE OP MIND, J03T.VES3 OP EXPOSITION, AND PR.^OnC.iL VIEWS OP CIIRISTIAXIIY."
— Bishop of Calcutta, ( Wihon.)

lesntmi at Stationtrs' SJall.]

" THE VENERABLE CALVIN." " I HOLD THE MEMORY OP CALVIN IN HIGH VENER
ATION. His W0BK3 H.WE A PLACE IN MY LIBRARY; AND IN THE STUDY OE THB
HOLY SCBIPTUEES HE 13 ONE OP THE COMMENTATORS I MOST FREQUENTLY CONSULT."
— Biihop Hursley.
" A MINISTER WITHOUT THIS IS -WITUOIT ONE OF THE BEST COMMENTARIES ON
THE SCRIPTURES, AND A VALUABLE BODY OF T>l\l>iVri."—BlclcerStelh.

EDIXBDEGII: PlilNTlD BY T. 00N3TAELE, PRINTER TO UER M.V.IES-1 ,-.

CONTENTS.
PAGB
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE, . . vii
I. Catechism of the Church of'Genteva, . 33
II. Forms of Prater, .... 95
III. Form OF ADMiNiSTEEiNG THE Sacraments, . 114.
IV. Visitation OF THE Sick, . . . 127
"V. Brief Confession of Faith, . . . 130
^^r. Confession of Faith of the Reformed Churches
of France, . . . . .137
VII. Short Treatise on the Lord's Supper, . 1 63
VIII. Mutual Consent as to the Sacraments, . 199
IX. Second Defence of the Sacraments, . 245
X. Last Admonition to Joachim Westphal, . 346
XI. True Partaking of the Flesh and Blood op
Christ, ..... 495
XII. Best Method of Concord on the Sacraments, 573

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.

The Tracts contained in the present Volume discuss sub
jects which are of the highest importance in themselves,
and to some of which special circumstances give an unusual
degree of interest at the present time. They conduct us
over a very extensive field, presenting us both with general
summaries of The Truth, in its most elementary form, and
also with leamed and profound disquisitions on more recon
dite points, particularly on the nature of our Saviour's Pre
sence in the Supper — a question which, in employing the
pens, has unhappily too often disturbed the equanimity of
the most gifted Theologians.
The first Tract in the Volume is the Catechism of the
Chuech of Geneva, which was flrst published in French in
1536, and in Latin in 1538. In its original form, it difiered
very much both in substance and arrangement from the
Catechism which is here translated, and which was likewise
published both in French and in Latin — in the former in
1541, and in the latter in 1545.
The careful revisions which the work thus underwent,
and the translations of it not entrusted to other hands, as
was usually done, but executed by Calvin himself, bespeak
the importance which he attached to it, and naturally lead
us to inquire what there is in a Catechism, considered in
itself, and what there is in this Catechism in particular, to
justify the anxious care which appears to have been bestowed
upon it ?

viii TEANSLATOE S PEEFACE.
At first sight we are apt to suppose that a Catechism is
necessarily one of the humblest of literary labours. Being
intended principally for the young, it must deal with those
truths only which can be made intelligible to youthful
minds ; and hence, as it seems, by its very nature, to exclude
everything like profound and original discussion, it may be
thought that when such a man as Calvin engaged in it, he
must have regarded it more as a relaxation than a serious
employment. In opposition to this hasty conclusion, a slight
consideration might convince us that the task whicli Calvin
undertook in framing his Catechism was every way worthy
of his powers — a task, alike delicate, difficult, and important,
in which he could not fail without doing serious mischief,
nor succeed without conferring a valuable boon, not merely
on the limited district which formed the proper sphere of
his labour, but on the Christian world.
In regard to all the ordinary branches of knowledge, it
has too long been the custom to leave the composition of
elementary treatises to those whose names had never before
been mentioned in connection with the subjects of which
they treat. It would seem to have been regarded as a chief
recommendation that they themselves knew little more than
the elements, aud were thus effectually prevented by their
ignorance from overleaping the bounds within which it was
meant to confine them. But surely when we consider that
an elementary treatise is a representation in miniature of
the whole subject of which it treats — a condensation in which
every fundamental truth is distinctly expressed, and yet
occupies no more space than its relative importance entitles
it to claim — it seems to follow of course, that it requires for
its right performance, not a mere smattering of knowledge,
but such thorough mastery as may place its possessor on a
kind of vantage-ground, from which the whole field can be
at once accurately and minutely surveyed.
The thorough knowledge, so desirable in framing an ele
mentary work on any ordinary subject, becomes still more
essential when the work in question is a general summary
from which Christian Societies are to receive their earliest
notions, and hence, in all probability, their deepest impres-

TEANSLATOE S PEEFACE. IX
sions of religious truth. Here the increased importance of
thorough knowledge arises not merely from the higher order
of the subject, but from another consideration to whicii it
is of consequence to attend. In the ordinary branches of
knowledge, neither the omission of truths which ought to
have been stated, nor the expansion of others to a greater
degree than their relative importance justifies, can lead to
very disastrous results. The worst which happens is, that
the learner is left ignorant of something with which he ought
to have been made acquainted, and has his mind fatigued,
or it may be perplexed with details which ought to have
been reserved for a later stage of his progress.
In religion, the eifect produced is of a more fatal nature.
Here the omission of fundamental truth is equivalent to the
inculcation of deadly error, while the giving of undue pro
minence to points of comparatively trivial importance is
unquestionably a principal cause of the many controversies
by which Christians, while essentially agreed, have been
unhai)pily divided. When such points not only find their
way into Catechisms, but stand forth so prominently as to
become a kind of centre round which the whole system of
Theology is made to turn, the natural consequence is, that
the persons into whose early training they so largely enter,
either regard them with a reverence which, in proportion as
it attracts them to their own particular community, repels
them from all others, or on discovering their comparative
insignificance discard them, and too often along with them,
other things which though of far higher moment, had not
been so carefully inculcated.
Christian communities have not been inattentive to the
important purposes for which a Catechism is designed, or to
which it may be made subservient ; and accordingly we find
not only that the use of them is generally diffused, but also
that particular Catechisms have been so admirably framed,
that the Churches to which they belong justly regard them
as the most valuable of huinan compositions. It is unneces
sary, and might be invidious to particularize ; but it cannot
detract from the due merits of any to say, that while this
Catechism of Geneva is unquestionably superior to all which

X translator !^ PREFACE.
previously existed, the best of those which have since ap
peared, owe much of their excellence to the free use of its
materials, and still more to the admirable standard which it
sets before them.
Without attempting anything like a complete analysis of
this celebrated Catechism, it may not be improper briefly to
glance at its contents, and the manner in which they are
arranged. The general division of the Catechism is into five heads,
which treat respectively of Faith, The Law, Prayer, The
Word of God, and the Sacraments.
The first head, viz.. Faith, after laying down the funda
mental principles, that the chief end of human existence is
to know God so as to confide in him, and that this know
ledge is to be found only in Christ, contains an expositio
of The Apostles' Creed, which, for this purpose, is divided
into four parts ; the first relating to God the Father, the
second to Christ the Son, the third to The Holy Spirit, and
the fourth to The Church, and the divine blessings bestowed
upon her.
Under the second general head, viz.. The Law, an exposi
tion is given of The Decalogue, each commandment being
taken up separately, and considered not only in its literal
sense but in accordance with the enlarged and spiritual views
which have been opened up by The GospeL
The third general head, viz.. Prater, after carefully ex
plaining that God is the only proper object of prayer, that
though the tongue ought usually to be employed, the mind
is the only proper instrument, and that, to pray aright, we
must pray both under a deep sense of our wants, and full
confidence of being heard tlirough the merits of Christ, con
cludes with an exposition of The Lord's Prayer, which, it is
stated, though not the only prayer which we may lawfully
use, is undoubtedly the model according to which every
prayer should be framed.
The fourth head, viz.. The Word of God, treats briefly of
the authority of Scripture, inculcating the duty of receiv
ing it with full persuasion of heart as certain truth come
down from heaven, and of exercising ourselves in it, not only

TEANSLATOE S PEEFACE. XI
by private reading and meditation, but also by diligent and
reverential attendance on the public services at which it is
regularly expounded.
The last general head, which treats of The Sacraments,
contains a full explanation of the nature of these solemn
Ordinances, and of the most important questions to which
they have given rise. Nothing whicii is essential to the
truth seems to be withheld, but at the same time it is im
possible not to perceive how careful Calvin here is to avoid
giving unnecessary off'ence, and how ready he ever was to
make all possible sacrifices to gain the great object on whicii
his heart was bent — the establishment of a visible and cordial
Union among all true Protestants.
The primary object which Calvin had in view in preparing
his Catechism undoubtedly was to provide for the wants of
the district in which Providence had called him to labour.
The practice of catechising, which had early been established
in the Church, and is indeed of such antiquity that some
think they can trace an allusion to it in the first verse of
St. Luke's Gospel, in which the word for " instructed "
might have been rendered " catechised,'' had before the
Reformation fallen into such neglect, that, according to
Calvin, it was either altogether omitted, or, when in use,
was only employed in teaching and thereby perpetuating
absurd and puerile superstitions. One of the first and most
laudable effbrts of the Reformers was to revive the practice,
and restore it to its pristine vigour and purity ; and hence,
in many instances, when a Church was regularly constitut
ed, catechising was regarded as part of the Public Service.
This practice seems to have been nowhere more regularly
and systematically observed than in The Church of Geneva
under Calvin, and accordingly in the early French editions
of the Catechism we find distinct markings on the margin
specifying the different portions allotted for each day's ex
amination. In this way, the whole Catechism was gone
over in fifty-five Sundays, the children coming regularly
forward to be examined by their Pastor, under the eye of
the congregation, on that part of the Catechism which they
were understood to have previously prepared.

xn translator s preface.
It seems difficult to imagine a course of training more
admirably fitted to imbue all the Members of a Community,
young and old, with the whole System of Religious Truth.
The previous preparation, the public examination at which
parents would naturally be anxious to prove • that the due
training of their children had not been neglected, and the
many opportunities of incidental instruction whicii each
lesson would afford to the Examinator, more especially on
those days when that office was performed bj' Calvin in per
son, all must have contributed powerfully to the desired
result, and made The Church of Geneva, what indeed it was
then admitted to be, one of the most enlightened Churches
in Christendom.
But though the fruits which Calvin might thus expect to
reap from his Catechism, within the district of Geneva, were
valuable enough to justify the anxious care which he ap
pears to have expended on it, it is impossible to read the
Dedication without perceiving higher aims, and admiring
the lofty aspirations with which Calvin's mind was familiar.
While he occupied the comparatively humble office of a
Pastor of Geneva, and discharged all its duties witli minute
fidelity, as if he had had no other sphere, if ever it could
have been said of any man, it may be emphatically said of
him, that his field was the world. He could not even write
a Catechism without endeavouring to employ it as a bond of
general Christian Union.
In one part of the Dedication he speaks despondingly of
the prosi)ects of Christendom, and almost goes the length of
predicting a speedy return to barbarism. It is not difficult
to account for these feelings. In contending with the colos
sal power of Rome, which, though at one time apparently
paralyzed, had again brought all her forces into the field,
Protestants could not hope either to make new conquests or
secure those which they had made, without being united.
And what was there to prevent their union ? Agreed on all
points of primary importance, there was common ground on
which they could league together, and tliere was also
enough of common danger to call for that simple exercise of
wisdom whicii consists in sinking minor differences on the

TRANSL.WOR S PREF.VCE. Xlll
approach of an exterminating foe. In such circumstances,
it must have been galling beyond description to a mind con
stituted like Calvin's to see the Truth, which might havo
been triumphant, not only arrested in its course, but in dan
ger of being trampled in the dust, because those who ought
to have combined in its defence, and so formed an invincible
phalanx, were with strange infatuation wasting all their
energies on petty intestine disputes.
Still, how gloomy soever the prospect might be, Calvin
knew well that the course of duty being plain, the only
thing which remained for him was to follow it, and humbly
submit to whatever might be the result. He had laboured
incessantly to promote Christian Union, and would labour
still, seizing every opportunity of promoting it with as much
alacrity as if he had felt assured of its success. Hence, in
the midst of all this despondency, we see him quietly en
gaged in what must at any time have been rather an irk
some task, in translating his own French into Latin, because
he had reason to believe, that by thus securing a more ex
tensive use of his Catechism, he might promote the cause
of Union.
The thought even appears to have passed through his
mind, Might it not be possible for all sound Protestants to
concur in using one common Catechism ? He distinctly
affirms that nothing could be more desirable ; but imme
diately after, with that good sense which never allowed him
amidst his loftiest imaginings to lose sight of what was
practicable, he adds, that it were vain to hope that this ob
ject, how desirable soever it might be, could ever be attained,
that every separate division of the Church would for many
reasons desire to have its own Catechism, and that, there
fore, instead of striving to prevent this, the wisest course
was for each to prepare its own Catechism, guarding, with
the utmost care, against error, and then, on interchanging
Catechisms, and learning how much they were one in fact,
though not in form, cultivate that mutual respect and good
will which constitutes the essence of true Union, and is in
deed far more valuable than mere Visible Unity.
Though Calvin could thus easily part with the idea of a

xiv translator's preface.
universal Catechism, he must certainly have been gratified
with the wide circulation which his Catechism obtained ;
and we can easily understand his feeling of honest pride,
when rebuking a writer who had affected to sneer at his
adherents as insignificant in number, he tells him more than
once of the three hundred thousand who had declared their
assent to his Catechism.
In mentioning this specific number, Calvin seems to refer
to THE Protestant Church of France, which, after full dis
cussion in its Synods, came to the resolution of adopting
Calvin's Catechism unchanged. The resolution was not less
wise in them than it was honourable, and must have been
gratifying to him. Obliged to flee from his country for his
life, he had ever after continued in exile, but thousands and
tens of thousands rejoiced to receive the law from his mouth ;
and now, by a formal act, expressing their admiration of his
talents, and perfect confidence in his integrity, resolved, that
The First Elements of Religious Truth should be communicated
to their children in the very words whicii he had taught them.
In adverting to this Resolution, we are reminded of the sad
changes which afterwards took place, when the Reformed
Church of France, not so much through the persecution of her
enemies, atrocious though it was, as by her own voluntary
declension from the faith, became almost annihilated. If she
is again to become what she once was, it can only be by
retracing her steps and returning to her first faith. In
adopting this better course, one of her earliest proceedings
should be the formal resumption of Calvin's Catechism.
The next Tracts of the present volume are Liturgical,
and possess a considerable degree of interest, both as ex
hibiting the Form of Church Service, which, under the
auspices of Calvin, was adopted at Geneva, and also as
containing at least the germ of what still appears to some a
very important desideratum — a regular Form of Public
Worship, with such a degree of latitude in the use of it as
leaves full scope for ministerial freedom.
Next follow two Confessions or Faith — the one general.

translator s preface. XV
intended as a Compendium for common use, and furnish
ing us, within very narrow limits, with an admirable Sum-
mart OF fundamental Articles ; the other, a particular
Confession of the Church of France, intended to be em
ployed on a special occasion, and still justly regarded as
a document of great intrinsic value and deep historical
interest. The latter Confession, as its title bears, was written in
1562, during the War, with the view of being presented to
a Diet of the German Empire, held at Frankfort — a design,
however, which could not be accomplished, in consequence
of the way being closed.
The War here referred to was the Civil War which broke
out in France between the Protestants, headed by the
Prince of Conde, and the Catholics, headed by the Duke of
Guise. In 1562, shortly after the celebrated Conference of
PoissT, and partly in consequence of it, the Protestants
had obtained an Edict which allowed the free exercise of
their Religion. Trusting to the legal security thus guaran
teed, they laid aside the concealments to whicii they had
often been compelled to resort, and held their meetings in
the face of day. Whether or not the Court, ruled as it was
by a Catherine de Medicis, ever intended to give fair effect
to an Edict which owed its existence much more to fear
than to liberal policy, it is needless here to discuss. The fact
is certain, that the Edict had scarcely been published when
the Duke of Guise broke in with armed force on a numerous
meeting of Protestants assembled for Public Worship at
Vassy, under the protection of the law, and perpetrated an
indiscriminate massacre. Instead of attempting to deny the
atrocity, he openly gloried in it, and appeared at Court like
one who had, by a distinguished service, merited new marks
of favour. The Protestants had now no alternative. The law,
which had been most rigidly enforced, so long as it made san
guinary enactments against them, had become a dead letter
the moment it pretended to take them under its protection ;
and, therefore, it was clear that they must either submit to
utter extermination or take up arms in their own defence.

xvi translator s preface.
Thus, not from choice, but from the powerlessness of the
law, or the treachery of those who administered it, the Pro
testants were hurried into war. In order to maintain it,
they did not confine themselves to the forces which they
might be able to bring into the field, but naturally looked
abroad, and endeavoured to make common cause with the
Protestants of other countries. Accordingly, they not only
despatched an agent to the Diet of the Germ.an Empire,
which was then about to meet at Frankfort, in order to
secure the countenance of the Protestant Princes, whose
sympathy with them on other occasions had more than once
been substantially expressed ; but they also, probably
through the instrumentality of Beza, obtained the aid of
Calvin, who, aware of the prejudices which their enemies
had endeavoured to excite against them by a gross misre
presentation of their doctrinal views, employed his pen in
drawing up the admirable Confession which is here trans
lated ; and which, while disdaining to conciliate favour by
suppressing any part of the truth, possesses the merit of
stating it in its least offensive form.
It has been already mentioned, that the existence of the
War rendered it impossible to forward the document in time
for presentation to the Diet, and hence, as a cessation of
hostilities took place shortly after, it may be thought that
the publication of the Document in such circumstances,
was not only unnecessary but unseasonable, as only tend
ing to keep alive feelings which every lover of peace must
now have been anxious to suppress. It . is not difficult,
however, to find sufficient ground to justify the publica
tion, not only in the value of the document itself, but also
in the conviction which Calvin, in common with the
most of his party, appears to have entertained, that the
peace which had been too hastily patched up would not
prove of long duration. The Confession thus published
became a kind of manifesto, proclaiming the Religious Sys
tem which THE Protestants of France entertained, and by
whicii they were determined in futuro and at all hazards
to abide.
The publication of some such Manifesto was indeed im-

translator S preface. XVll
peratively required, in order to counteract the crafty policy
which their enemies had pursued. Taking advantage of the
serious diff'erences which existed among Protestants, they
began to profess a great respect for the Confession of
Augsburg, and to insinuate that if the Protestants of France
would consent to adopt it as their National Confession, the
chief obstacles to their distinct recognition by the State
would be removed.
The hoUowness of this device is very apparent, and yet
it is impossible to deny that it was dexterously fitted to
accomplish the end which its unprincipled contrivers had
in view. It flattered the prejudices of those who were
strenuous in maintaining the Augsburg Confession, amus
ing them with the fond hope of one day seeing that Con
fession publicly recognised as the Religious Standard of
all great Protestant communities ; and it repressed the
sympathy which they naturally felt for their suff'ering
brethren in France, by suggesting a doubt whether these
sufferings, instead of being endured in the common cause
of Protestantism, were not rather the result of a bigoted
attachment to the peculiarities of their own creed. On the
other hand, the very mention of the Augsburg Confession,
as an universal Standard, aroused suspicion in the minds of
those who were not disposed to embrace it, and made them
backward in soliciting the expression of a sympathy which
in return for any present relief might ultimately have the
effieet of subjecting them to a galling yoke. It was neces
sary, therefore, that the idea of compelling the Reformed
Church of France to adopt the Augsburg Confession
should at once be set at rest ; and it clearly appears, both
from the preface to this Confession drawn up by Calvin,
and from other documents, that this was not the least im
portant of the objects which Calvin contemplated in now
publishing it. In addition to its intrinsic worth, the interest
which it excites is heightened by the fact that the life of its
distinguished author was drawing to a close, and that he
was already suff'ering from that accumulation of diseases
under which, though his mind retained all its vigour, his
body gradually sunk.
vol. ii. b

xviii translator s preface.
The next Tract of the Volume introduces us to one of
the most difficult questions in the whole compass of Theo
logy — one in regard to which, after centuries of discussion,
the Christian world is as far as ever from being agreed.
There is certainly something very mysterious in the fact, that
the most solemn and affecting Ordinance of our Religion, in
stituted by our Saviour on the very night in which he was
betrayed, and exjjressly intended to unite his followers in
the closest bonds of fellowship with himself, and with one
another, should not only have given rise to the most con
flicting opinions, but been converted into a kind of party
badge, Communities employing their particular views of it
as tests of Christian brotherhood, admitting those who sub
scribed to their views, and of course repelling all who
declined to subscribe to them.
At one extreme, we have the Church of Rome, under pre
tence of adhering to the literal sense, inventing the dogma
of Transubstantiation, and supplanting the simple Ordi
nance of Scripture by the Mass, in which none of its
original features can be recognised ; while, at the other
extreme, we have a body of most respectable Religionists
not only avowedly abandoning the literal sense, but, under
the pretext of spiritualizing it, objecting to every form of
external celebration. Between these extremes we have a
great variety of views, which seem however to admit of being
reduced to three great classes, — the views, First, of those who
regard the Elements of The Supper merely as Memorials of
our Saviour's death and Signs of his spiritual blessings ; *S'e-
condly, of those who regard them not merely as Signs but
also as Seals, holding that Christ, though not bodily, is
spiritually present, and is in an ineffable manner actually
received, not by all who communicate, but only by those
who communicate worthily: And Thirdly, of those who,
though rejecting the dogma of Transubstantiation, which
asserts that after consecration the Elements are no longer
Bread and Wine, but material flesh and blood, still strenu
ously contend for such a literal sense as makes Christ bodily
present in the Elements, and consequently gives him, under
the Elements, to all who partake of them — to the unworthy

translator's preface. xix
as well as the worthy — though with benefit only to the
latter. The wide difference between the first and the third views
early led to a very violent controversy, in which the most
distinguished Reformers were ranged on opposite sides, and
too often forgot the respect which they owed both to them
selves and to one another. Whether Zuinglius ever meant
to maintain that The Sacraments are nothing more than
empty Signs is very questionable. If he did not mean to
maintain this, his language in his earlier Writings is very
unguarded; but there is philosophy as well as charity in
the observation of Calvin, that both 2kriNGLius and (Eco-
LOMPADius, while intent on the refutation of the Mass,
which they regarded as the worst of the Papal corruptions,
not only carried their arguments as far as they could legiti
mately go, but sometimes, through misconstruction, seemed
to impugn views which they unquestionably entertained.
It is not fair to lay hold of incidental expressions which
a writer may have employed in discussing one subject, and
interpret them as if they had been uttered calmly and dis
passionately for the avowed purpose of conveying his senti
ments on some other subject. There are few writers who
could bear to be subjected to such rigorous and disingenuous
treatment, and who might not be made by means of it to
countenance sentiments which they would be the first to
disavow. True it is, however, that expressions thus inci
dentally used have too often proved the sparks from which
conflagrations have arisen, and the peace of the Christian
world has again and again been disturbed, because great
Theologians, when essentially at one, have first brooded over
imaginary diff'erences, and then allowing their passions to
become inflamed, have unfitted themselves for either giving
or receiving candid explanations.
Calvin was convinced that something of this kind had
occurred in regard to the unhappy controversy between
ZuiNGLius and Luther and their respective followers. He
was not unaware that points of great importance were
involved, and nothing would have been more foreign to

XX translator s pref.vce.
his character than to represent these differences as trivial
and unworthy of serious consideration ; but believing them
to be neither so numerous nor so vital as was supposed, he
imagined it possible, by means of an honest and faithful
statement on the subject, to furnish a kind of rallying point
for all men of moderate views, and at the same time gradu
ally calm down the violence of those who were most deeply
committed in the strife. He accordingly published his
Treatise on the Lord's Supper, a translation of which
enriches the present Volume, and with such success that it
was not only generally welcomed but received commenda
tion in quarters from which it was least to have been ex
pected — even Luther speaking of it in terms alike honour
able to himself and gratifying to the heart of Calvin.
In this Treatise Calvin advocates the second Class of
views to which we have above referred. He distinctly
asserts a True and Real Presence of Christ in The Supper — -
a Spiritual Presence by which Christ imparts himself and
all His blessings, not to all indiscriminately, but to those
only whom a living faith prepares to receive Him. To enjoy
this presence, we must not seek him in earthly Elements,
but raise our thoughts to heaven, and comply with the
well-known injunction of the primitive Church — Sursum
CORDA. Calvin seems to recoil with a kind of instinctive
abhorrence from the idea that Christ is, in any sense of the
term. Eaten by the ungodly ; and when the startling ques
tion is asked. How, then, can it be said that unworthy Com
municants are " guilty of the body and blood of the Lord ?"
he replies, that Christ being offered to them, as He is to all,
their guilt consists not in receiving Christ, (an act which
must always bring the richest blessings along with it, and
to which no man can ever owe his condemnation,) but in
refusing to receive Him, their evil heart of unbelief preclud
ing the only means of access, and so pouring contempt
on His holy Ordinance.
In opposition to those who rigidly insist on what is called
the literal sense of The Words of Institution, Calvin shows
that throughout The Sacred Volume, whenever Sacraments
are mentioned, a peculiar form of expression is employed —

translator s preface. xxi
the name of the thing signified being uniformly given to
the sign — and that, therefore, to interpret without reference
to this important fact is at once to betray great ignorance of
Scripture phraseology and deviate from the analogy of faith.
When he proceeds to consider the modern controversies
by which Protestant Bodies have been so unhappily divided,
he adopts the most pacific tone, and speaks a language
which it is impossible not to admire. Touching with the
utmost tenderness on any errors of judgment or asperities
of temper into which the great luminaries of the Reforma
tion had been betrayed, he gladly embraces the opportu
nity of paying a due tribute to their great talents and
distinguished services. He bids us reflect on the thick
darkness in which the world was enveloped when they first
arose, and then cease to wonder that the whole Truth was
not at once revealed to them. The astonishing thing is, that
they were able to deliver themselves and others from such a
multitude of errors. Considering the invaluable blessings
which they have been instrumental in bestowing upon us, it
were base ingratitude not to regard them with the deepest
reverence. Our true course unquestionably is, not indeed
to imitate but tread lightly on their faults, and at the same
time labour diligently in the imitation of their virtues.
The doctrine which Calvin inculcates in this Treatise,
and which he ever steadily maintained, has been adopted by
some of the most distinguished Churches of Christendom,
and in particular seems to be identical with that which is
contained in The Public Confessions of this country. Ac
cordingly, Bishop Cosens, in his celebrated History of
Transubstantiation, quotes at considerable length from Cal
vin's Writings — among others, from this Treatise on The
Supper — and distinctly declares (Chapter ii. § 20) that Cal
vin's " words, in his Institutions and elsewhere, are such, so
conformable to the style and mind of The Ancient Fathers,
that no Catholic Protestant would wish to use any other."
The attempt at conciliation which Calvin had thus so
admirably begun he never afterwards lost sight of. It be
came a kind of ruling passion with him ; and hence, when
ever in other countries men of like minds felt desirous to

xxu translator s preface.
co-operate in this truly Christian labour, they invariably
applied to Calvin.
Among those who thus distinguished themselves must
be mentioned Archbishop Cranmer, who held the most
liberal and enlightened views on the subject of Protestant
Union, which he laboured anxiously to promote. Among
the Zurich Letters, published by the Parker Society, are
several from him, addressed to the leading Reformers, and
urging them to take a lesson even from their enemies.
He reminds them how the Romish Church had convoked
her Council of Trent, and was vigorously endeavouring
to regain what she had lost by infusing new vigour into
her corrupt system ; and he asks, in the particular Letter
which he addressed to Calvin, " Shall we neglect to call
together a Godly Synod for the Refutation of Error, and
for Restoring and Propagating the Truth ? They are, as I
am informed, making Decrees respecting the Worship of the
Host ; wherefore we ought to leave no stone unturned, not
only that we may guard others against this Idolatry, but
also that we may ourselves come to- an Agreement on The
Sacrament. It cannot escape your prudence, how exceed
ingly The Church of God has been injured by dissensions
and varieties of opinion concerning the Sacrament of Unity ;
and though they are now in some measure removed, yet I
could wish for an Agreement on this doctrine, not only as
regards the subject itself, but also with respect to the words
and forms of expression. You have now my wish, about
which I have also written to Masters Philip (Melancthon)
and Bullinger, and I pray you to deliberate among your
selves as to the means by which this Synod may be assembled
vyith the greatest convenience."
In the above extract the Archbishop speaks of Dissen
sions and varieties of Opinion concerning The Sacrament of
Unity as having been in some measure removed. This un
doubtedly refers to the celebrated Consensus Tigurinus
which had been recently drawn up, and to which, as forming
the next Tract in our present Series, it will now be proper
briefly to refer.

TRANSLATOR S PREFACE, Xxiii
Though THE Churches of Switzerland were substantially
agreed as to The Sacraments, there were shades of difference
which, so long as they were not properly defined, it was easy
for the ill-disposed to exaggerate, and which even the well-dis
posed regarded with uneasiness, as tending to unsettle their
minds, and suggesting doubts with reference to a solemn
ordinance on which it was most desirable that their views
should be clear and decided.
As usual Calvin became the leader in this work of con
ciliation, and that nothing might interfere to prevent or
retard its accomplishment, though then suffering from the
severest of domestic calamities, he resolved, in company with
his venerable colleague Farel, to undertake a journey to
Zurich. The very minuteness of many ofthe points which
it was proposed to settle, made them unfit to be the subject of
an epistolary correspondence. Such points, by the mere fact
of being committed to writing, and formally discussed, ac
quire an importance which does not properly belong to them.
It cannot be doubted, therefore, that Calvin acted with his
wonted tact and practical wisdom in determining on a per
sonal interview.
It would be most interesting to seat ourselves along with
the distinguished men by whom The Conference was con
ducted, and follow it out into all its details ; but we must
content ourselves with a simple statement of the result.
The respect which they had previously felt for each other
soon rose to the warmth of friendship ; all obstacles melted
away, and an Agreement was drawn up, consisting of a
Series of Articles, in which all points of importance relating
to The Sacraments are clearly and succinctly defined. The
issue of The Conference gave general satisfaction, and Cal
vin and Farel returned home with the blessing of peace
makers on their heads.
It is scarcely congruous to talk of victory, when, properly
speaking, there was no contest, and the only thing done was
the establishment of peace ; and yet it is but justice to Cal
vin to remark, that if any who subscribed the Agreement
must be understood by so doing to have changed the views
which they previously entertained, he was not of the num-

xxiv TRANSLATOR S PREFACE.
ber, as there is not one of the Articles which he had not
maintained in one or other of his Works.
After the Agreement was drawn up, Calvin urged the
immediate publication of it. Certain parties, from pruden
tial considerations, would fain have delayed ; but this only
made him more anxious to proceed, and place the great ob
ject which had been gained beyond the reach of danger.
The important results anticipated from the publication of
the Agreement he thus states in a Letter to Viret, (Henri's
Life of Calvin by Stebbing,)—" The hearts of good men will
be cheered by that which has taken place : our constancy
and resolution will derive more strength from it, and we
shall be better able to break the power of the wicked. They
who had formed an unworthy opinion of us will see that we
proposed nothing but what is good and right. Many who
are still in a state of uncertainty will now know on wliat
they ought to depend. And those in distant lands who
difi"er from us in opinion, will soon, we hope, offer us their
hand." He adds, " Posterity will liave a witness to our
faith which it could not have derived from parties in a state
of strife ! but this we must leave to God."
The important service which The Agreement performed
by extinguishing strife in the Swiss Church, was only part
of the grand result which Calvin was contemplating. The
attempt which had once been made to reconcile Zuinglius
and Luther having lamentably failed, had had the contrary
effect of widening the breach between their adherents ; and
hence a general idea among the Lutherans was, that the
Swiss did not acknowledge any Real Presence of Christ in
The Sacrament. So long as that idea existed, it operated as
an insuperable barrier to any Union between these Churches.
That barrier, however, was now removed, as The Agree
ment which had been placed before the world distinctly
recognised, and of course bound every one who subscribed
it to recognise a Real Presence and Actual Participation of
Christ in the Sacrament. Hence Calvin appears to have
reverted at this time more hopefully than ever to the prac
ticability of effecting that General Protestant Union on
which his heart had long been set, and in regard to which

translator s preface. xxv
we have already seen him in communication with an ad
mirable coadjutor in the person of Archbishop Cranmer.
Calvin may have been rendered more sanguine by the fact
that his views on The Sacrament were shared by the noblest
intellect in Gerraany. Melancthon had long felt dissatis
faction with Luther's views on this subject, but his natural
timidity, increased by the ascendency of Luther, had pre
vented him from giving public expression to it. If any
scruples still remained, it was understood that The Agree
ment OF Zurich had removed them ; and it was therefore
hoped, more especially as his great master had been called
to his reward, that he would now come manfully forward,
and avowing the belief which he undoubtedly entertained,
that The Real Presence which The Agreement of Zurich re
cognised was the only presence which it was essential to
maintain, become the advocate of a Great Protestant
League on the basis of that Agreement.
But notwithstanding of all these hopeful signs, and the
satisfaction which was generally expressed, distant murmurs
began to be heard, and ultimately increased, so that Calvin
felt compelled to come forward with the admirable Exposi
tion OF THE Articles of Agreement which form the next
Tract in our Series.
In the Dedication of this Treatise to his friends at Zurich,
and the other ministers throughout Switzerland, Calvin ex
presses the greatest reluctance to be again drawn into con
troversy. He speaks with just commendation of the lead
ing divines of the Lutheran Communion who had either
approved of The Agreement, or, by maintaining silence, had
at least proved their unwillingness to disturb the peace. On
the other hand, he cannot dissemble the mingled feelings of
contempt and detestation produced in his mind by indi
viduals, equally deficient in intellect and Christian temper,
who were going about as if they had " lighted a Furies'
torch," and were determined to be satisfied with nothing
short of a Religious War. So reluctant, however, is he to
perpetuate the strife, that though he feels compelled to take
special notice of the violence and absurdity of one of these

xxvi TRANSLATOR S preface.
individuals, he withholds his name, that he may thus leave
him an opportunity of retracing his steps, and retiring from
a contest in which, though he may be able to do mischief,
he can only reap disgrace.
The individual thus referred to, but not named, and who
afterwards obtained an unenviable notoriety, was Joachim
Westphal, one of the Ministers of Hamburg. He appears to
have been one of those who, determined at all events to obtain
a name, have no scruple as to the means, provided they can
secure the end. Instead of taking Calvin's advice in good
part, and retiring from a contest to which he was unequal,
and for engaging in which he certainly could not plead any
particular call, he again came forward with a virulence and
scurrility which perhaps ought to have convinced Calvin
that it was scarcely consistent with the respect which he
owed to himself to take any farther notice of him.
As if all Agreement were sinful in its own nature, he
takes offence at the very name, and with strange incon
sistency attacks Calvin at one time for abandoning opinions
to which he stood pledged, and at another for not abandon
ing but only hypocritically pretending to abandon them !
Ridiculous charges like these, which only affected Calvin as
an individual, he could easily have disregarded, but West
phal had been connected with certain atrocious proceedings
which had stung Calvin to the quick ; and there cannot be
a doubt, that in the repeated castigations which Calvin now
inflicted, he meant Westphal to understand that he was
paying part of the penalty due for his share in these pro
ceedings. On Mart's accession to the Throne of England, a Re
formed Congregation in London, under the ministry of John
A Lasco, was immediately dispersed. A Lasco, who was a
personal friend of Calvin, and stood very high in his esteem,
embarked in a vessel with 175 individuals. A storm aris
ing, the vessel, in distress, ran into Elsinore ; but so vindic
tive was the Lutheran feeling there that the Exiles were
immediately ordered to quit the coast. On their arrival at
Hamburg, the same abominable treatment was repeated.
Westphal appears to have been personally implicated in

translators preface. XXVll
these proceedings ; and so far from showing any compunc
tion, glories in the deed. Not satisfied with his own atro
cious inhospitality, he calls upon the other towns of Ger
many to imitate it ; and, as if he had been possessed by the
spirit of a fiend, exults in the Persecutions of The Bloody
Mary, as a just judgment on The Church of England for
not holding Lutheran views on The Sacraments.
The mixed feeling of pity for the poor Exiles, and indig
nation at the conduct of their persecutors, occasions some of
the finest bursts which is to be found in any of Calvin's
Writings, while throughout the whole of this Sacramentarian
Controversy we every now and then meet with private allu
sions and digressions of an interesting nature. There is,
moreover, a great amount of Patristic learning, Calvin
labouring, and with great success, to show that his views on
The Sacrament are in strict accordance with those of the
best and earliest of The Fathers.
This unhappy revival of the controversy not only opened
up the old questions which are accordingly exhibited in all
the points of view in which Westphal and his coadjutors
were able to place them, but also incidentally brought various
other matters under discussion.
The dogma of a bodily presence in the Supper naturally
leads to a consideration of the possible ubiquity of our Sa
viour's body. Westphal and his party, in maintaining the
affirmative, not only do not pretend to explain how one and
the same body can be in nuraerous different places at the
same time, but discountenance the very idea of being able
to give any explanation. Assuming the fact that such an
ubiquity is clearly taught, they complain loudly of the intro
duction of what they call physical arguments into religion,
and descant at large on thc omnipotence of God.
In considering these arguments, Calvin is led to make
many important observations on the interpretation of Scrip
ture, and the distinct provinces assigned to Reason and
Revelation. When God speaks, men must listen implicitly ;
and if what he says is mysterious, it is thereby the fitter for
the exercise of an humble faith. But it is an abuse of the lan
guage of piety to declaim about the omnipotence of God when

xxvm translators preface.
the question considered is not what God can do, but what he
has told us he will do. In addressing us at all, he treats
us as rational beings, capable of understanding the meaning
of language ; and when, instead of attempting to pass judg
ment on what he has said, or to pry presumptuously into
matters which he has chosen to conceal, we anxiously en
deavour to ascertain the meaning which his words bear, there
cannot be doubt, that in so doing we employ our reason for
the very purpose for which it has been bestowed.
Another point incidentally brought forward is the great
principle of Toleration, and the power of the civil magistrate
in matters of religion.
Westphal repeatedly denounces the views of his opponents
as heretical, and calls for their extermination by the sword.
He even denies their title to be heard, on the simple ground
that they have been already condemned by general consent.
The absurdity of any Protestant body putting forward a
claim to general consent for any one of its peculiar tenets is
Very obvious, and is well exposed by Calvin, who rerainds
Westphal, that if general consent, or rather, majority of
consents, is to give the law in religious controversy, they
must both quit the field, and make way for another party
possessing a claim with which theirs cannot stand in com
petition. If consent is to be Westphal's law, a very slight
change will bring him, perhaps, to the only place where he
is fit to be — the camp of the Pope.
In regard to Toleration, it must be confessed that Calvin's
views are not much more enlightened than those of his op
ponent. They both agree that error is a proper subject of
cognizance by the civil magistrate, and ought, if necessary,
to be put down by the sword ; and the only apparent differ-'
ence is, that while Westphal, listening only to the violence
of passion, calls for condemnation without a hearing, Calvin
strenuously maintains that such condemnation is unjust, be
cause it provides no security against the condemnation of
truth. According to his view, therefore, a candid hearing
and careful examination ought always to precede.
It is curious that a mind like Calvin's could come thus

translator S PREFACE. XXIX
far, and then stop. It is not easy to see how any degree of
examination could make the condemnation to be just, which
would have been unjust without it. Take, for instance, any
of the numerous Protestant martyrdoms which were taking
place in France at this period, and of which Calvin so often
speaks in terms of just indignation. Would the murders
then perpetrated, by consigning unoffending Protestants to
the flames, have become justifiable, if, before sentence was
pronounced, every plea which the poor victims could urge
had been fully heard, and patiently considered ? Unques
tionably, Calvin would have been one of the first to main
tain that the proceedings were atrocious in their own nature,
and could not cease to be so in consequence of any degree of
strictness and regularity with which they might be con
ducted. It would seem, then, that the application of such a
test as this might have sufficed to convince Calvin, that if
Toleration was to be defended at all, it must be on broader
ground than that on which he had placed it. This, how
ever, is a subject on which the whole world was then in
error. In regard to it, Calvin was certainly not behind his
age. For many reasons, it is much to be wished that he
had been in advance of it ; but as he was not, nothing can
be more unfair than the virulent censure with which he has
been assailed for acting on principles which he honestly held,
and the soundness of which, moreover, was all but univer
sally recognised.
The harmony which all good and moderate men earnestly
longed for, and which at one time seemed almost secured by
The Agreement of Zurich, having been broken up by the
perverse proceedings of Westphal, a host of new controver
sialists appeared, and so uniformly fastened upon Calvin as
the object of their attacks, that in the next Tract of our
volume, viz., " On the true partaking of the Flesh and
Blood of Christ in the Holt Supper," he speaks as if
petulant and rabid men had from all quarters entered into
a conspiracy against him. In this work, while he proves
himself still able and willing to defend the truth, he gives
free and affiecting utterance to his earnest longings for re
pose. He was suffering much from disease, and perhaps had

xxx translator's preface.
a presentiment that his course on earth was soon to termi
nate. How desirable, then, that he could retire from the
storm, and spend the evening of his days in peace !
To no man, perhaps, was Calvin's heart more closely knit
than to Melancthon. They were perfectly at one on the
great controversy by which the Protestant bodies was so
unhappily divided ; and though Melancthon had not come
forward and avowed his sentiments so openly as might have
been expected, still Calvin had hoped much from the high
estimation in which he was held by all, and the great and
well-earned influence which he possessed among his own
countrymen. But Melancthon was now dead ; and Calvin,
in giving utterance to his feelings on the event, seems almost
to say that he wishes he had died along with him. There
are few passages more impressive in Calvin's writings than
that in which he here apostrophizes his departed friend :
" 0 Philip Melancthon ! For I appeal to thee, who art now
living with God in Christ, and art there M-aiting for me, till
I may be united with thee in beatific rest." It were out of
place to quote farther ; but the passage may safely be ap
pealed to against those who, while admitting the great in
tellect of Calvin, represent him as having steeled his heart
against all the softer and more amiable qualities of our
nature. On many accounts, therefore, and not merely as able dis
cussions of the subject to which they more immediately refer,
the Treatises, which form the concluding part of the pre
sent Volume, constitute an important branch of Calvin's
Writings, and could not be excluded from any Collection of
his Works. The only subject of regret is, that from thc end
less variety of forms in which the different parties, whom
Westphal induced to take up his quarrel, stated their objec
tions, the answers are necessarily repeated almost to weari
ness ; and still more, that Calvin, in dealing out the chas
tisement which Westphal undoubtedly deserved, has too
often let fall expressions, to which such a pen as his ought
never to have stooped. These, however, are comparatively
trivial blemishes, which the candid reader can easily over-

TRANSLATOR S PREFACE. XXXl
look, while he dwells with admiration on the excellencies
with which the Work abounds.
In the conclusion, Calvin again returns to his favourite
topic, and in a few brief propositions, points out the best
METHOD OF OBTAINING CONCORD. This subjcct again occupies
the Public mind, and nowhere are the principles on which it
ought to be attempted, or the means by which it is to be
carried into eff'ect, more ably stated than in these Treatises
OF Calvin.
H. B.
Edinbuegh, December 1849.

CATECHISM

THE CHURCH OF GEI^TEVA,

FORM OF INSTRUCTION FOR CHILDREN

THE DOCTRINE OP CHRIST.

TOL. II.

DEDICATION.

JOHN CALVIN TO THE FAITHFUL MINISTERS OF CHRIST
THROUGHOUT EAST FRIESLAND, WHO PREACH THE
PURE DOCTRINE OF THE GOSPEL.

Seeing it becomes us to endeavour by all means that unity of
faith, which is so highly commended by Paul, shine forth among
ui, to this end chiefly ought the formal profession of faith which
accompanies onr common baptism to have reference. Hence it
wtere to be wished, not only that a perpetual consent in the doctrine
of piety should appear among all, but also that one Catechism
were common to all the Churches. But as, from many causes, it
will scarcely ever obtain otherwise than that each Church shall
hive its own Catechism, we should not strive too keenly to
pi-event this ; provided, however, that the variety in the mode of
tdaching is such, that we are all directed to bne Christ, in whose
truth being united together, we may grow up into one body and
one spirit, and with the same mouth also proclaim whatever be
longs to the sum offaith. Cateichists not intent on this end, besides
fatally injuring the Church, by sowing the materials of dissension
iri religion, also introduce an impious profanation of baptism. For
¦where can any longer be the utility of baptism unless this remain
as its foundation — that we all agree in one faith ?
Wherefore, those who publish Catechisms ought to be the more
carefully on their guard, lest, by producing anything rashly, they
may not for the present only, but in regard to posterity also, do
grievous harm to piety, and inflict a deadly wound on the Church.
This much I wished to premise, as a declaration to my readers,
that I myself tdo, as became me, have made it my anxious care
not to deliver any thing in this Catechism of mine that ' is not'
agreeable to the doctrine received among all the pious. This de-

CALVIN S DEDICATION. 35
claration will not be found vain by those who will read with candour
and sound judgment. I trust I have succeeded at least so far that
my labour, though it should not satisfy, will be acceptable to all
good men, as being in their opinion useful.
In writing it in Latin, though some perhaps will not approve of
the design, I have been influenced by manj' reasons, all of which
it is of no use to detail at present. I shall only select such as seem
to me suflBcient to obviate censure.
First, In this confused and divided state of Christendom, I judge
it useful that there should be public testimonies, whereby churches
which, though widely separated by space, agree in the doctrine of
Christ, may mutually recognise each other. For besides that this
tends not a little to mutual confirmation, what is more to be de
sired than that mutual congratulations should pass between them,
and that they should devoutly coramend each other to the Lord?
With this view, bishops were wont in old time, when as yet consent
in faith existed and flourished among all, to send Synodal Epistles
beyond sea, by which, as a kind of badges, they might maintain
sacred communion among the churches. How much more neces
sary is it now, in this fearful devastation of tbe Christian world,
that the few churches which duly worship God, and they too scat
tered and hedged round on all sides by the profane synagogues of
Antichrist, should mutually give and receive this token of holy
union, that they may thereby be incited to that fraternal embrace
of which I have spoken ?
But if this is so necessary in the present -day, what shall our
feelings be conceming posterity, about which I am so anxious, that
I scarcely dare to think ? Unless God miraculously send help from
heaven, I cannot avoid seeing that the world is threatened with
the extremity of barbarism. I wish our children may not shortly
feel, that this has been rather a true prophecy than a conjecture.
The more, therefore, must we labour to gather together, by our
writings, whatever remains of the. Church shall continue, or even
emerge, after our death. Writings of a different class will show
what were our views on. all subjects in religion, but the agreement
which our churches had in doctrine cannot be seen with clearer
evidence than from catechisms. For therein will appear, not only
what one man or other once taught, but with what rudiments
learned and unlearned alike amongst us, were constantly imbued
from childhood, all the faithful holding them as their formal symbol
of Christian communion. This was indeed my principal reason
for publishing this Catechism.

36 CALVIN's DEDICATION.
A second reason, -which had no little weight with me, was, because
1 heard that it was desired by very many who hoped it would not be
unworthy of perusal. Whether they are right or wrong in so judg
ing is not mine to decide, but it became me to yield to their wish.
Nay, necessity was almost laid upon me, and I could not with im
punity decline it. For having seven years before published a brief
summary of religion, under the name of a Catechism, I feared that
if I did not bring forward this one, I should cause (a thing I wished
not) that the former should on the other hand be excluded. There
fore if I -wished to consult the public good, it behoved me to take
care that this one which I preferred should occupy the ground.
Besides, I deem it of good example to testify to the world,
that we who aim at the restitution of the Church, are everywhere
faithfully exerting ourselves, in order that, at least, the use of the
Catechism which was abolished some centuries ago under the Pa
pacy, may now resume its lost rights. For neither can this holy
custom be sufiiciently commended for its utility, nor can the Papists
be sufiiciently condemned for the flagrant corruption, by which they
not only set it aside, by converting it into puerile trifles, but also
basely abuse it to purposes of impure and impious superstition.
That spurious Confirmation, which they have substituted in its stead,
they deck out like a harlot, with great splendour of ceremonies,
and gorgeous shows without number ; nay, in their wish to adorn
it, they speak of it in terms of execrable blasphemy, when they
give out that it is a sacrament of greater dignity than baptism, and
call those only half Christians who have not been besmeared with
their oil. Meanwhile, the whole proceeding consists of nothing
but theatrical gesticulations, or rather the wanton sporting of apes,
without any skill in imitation.
To you, my very dear brethren in the Lord, I have chosen to
inscribe this work, because some of your body, besides informing me
that you love me, and that the most of you take delight in my writ
ings, also expressly requested me by letter to undertake this labour
for their sake. Independently of this, it would have been reason
sufiicient, that what I learned of you long ago, from the statement
of grave and pious men, had bound me to you with my whole soul.
I now ask what I am confident you will of your own accord do —
have the goodness to consult for the utility of this token of my
goodwill towards you ! Farewell. May the Lord increase you
more and more in the spirit of wisdom, prudence, zeal, and forti
tude, to the edification of his Church.
Geneva, 2d December, 1545.

CATECHISM OF THE CHURCH OF GENEVA. S7

TO THE READER.
It has ever been the practice of the Church, and one carefully at
tended to, to see that children should be duly instructed in the Chris
tian religion. That this might be done more conveniently, not only
were schools opened in old time, and individuals enjoined properly
to teach tbeir families, but it was a received public custom and
practice, to question children in the churches on each of the heads,
which should be common and well known to all Christians. To
secure this being done in order, there was -written out a formula,
which was called a Catechism or Institute. Thereafter the devil
miserably rending the Church of God, and bringing upon it
fearful ruin, (of which the marks are stiU too visible in the greater
part of the world,) overthrew this sacred policy, and left nothing
behind but certain trifles, which only beget superstition, without
any fruit of edification. Ofthis description is that confirmation, as
they call it, fuU of gesticulations which, worse than ridiculous, are
fitted only for apes, and have no foundation to rest upon. What
we now bring forward, therefore, is nothing else than the use of
things which from ancient times were observed by Christians, and
the true worshippers of God, and which never were laid aside until
the Church was wholly corrupted.

Catccljtsm of ti»f ©i^urci^ of ffieneba.
OF FAITH.
Master. — What is the chief end of human life ?
Scholar. — To know God by whom men were created.
M. What reason have you for saying so ?
S. Because he created us and placed us in this world to
be glorified in us. And it is indeed right that our life, of
which himself is the beginning, should be devoted to his
glory. M. What is the highest good of man ?
S. The very same thing.

38 CATECHISM OF THE CHURCH OF GENEVA.
M. Why do you hold that to be the highest good ?
S. Because without it our condition is worse than that of
the brutes.
M. Hence, then, we clearly see that . nothing worse can
happen to a man than not to live to God.
S. It is so.
M. What is the true and right knowledge of God ?
S. When he is so known that due honour is paid to him.
M. What is the method of honouring him duly ?
S. To place our whole confidence in him ; to study to
serve him during our whole life by obeying his will; to
call upon him in all our necessities, seeking salvation and
every good thing that can be desired in him ; lastly, to ac
knowledge him both with heart and lips, as the sole Author
of all blessings.
M. To consider these points in 'their order, and explain
them more fully — What is the first head in this division of
yours ?
S. To place our whole confidence in God.
M. How shall we do so ?
S. When we know him to be Almighty and perfectly good.
M. Is this enough ?
S. Far from it.
M. Wherefore?
8. Because we are unworthy that he should exert his
power in helping us, and show how good he is by saving us.
M. What more then is needful ?
S. That each of us should set it down in his mind that
God loves him, and is wiUing to be a Father, and the author
of salvation to him.
M. But whence will this appear?
S. From his word, in which he explains his mercy to us
in Christ, and testifies of his love towards us.
M. Then the foundation and beginning of confidence in
^od is to know him in Christ ?
*S^. Entirely so.
M. I should now wish you to tell me in a few words, what
the sum of this knowledge is ?
§. It is contained in the Confession of Faith or rather

or FAITH. 39
Formula of Confession, which all Christians have in common.
It is commonly called the Apostles' Creed, because from the
beginning of the Church it was ever received among all the
pious, and because it either fell from the lips of the Apostles,
or was faithfully gathered out of their writings.
M. Repeat it.
S. I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven
and earth ; and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who
was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the yirgin Mary,
suff'ered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried:
he descended into hell ; the third day he arose again from
the dead ; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the
right hand of God the Father Almighty, from thence he
shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in
the Holy Ghost ; the holy Catholick Church ; the commu
nion of saints ; the forgiveness, of sins ; the resurrection of
the body ; and the life everlasting. Amen.
M. To understand each point mor^ thoroughly, into how
many parts shall we divide this confession ?
S. Into four leading ones.
M. Mention thera to me.
S. The first relates to God the Father ; the second to his
Son Jesus Christ, which also embraces the whole sum of
man's redemption ; the third to the ;Holy Spirit ; the fourth
to the Church, and the Divine blessings conferred upon
her. M. Since there is no God but one,, why do you here men
tion three, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ?
S. Because in the one essence of God, it behoves., us to
look on God the Father as the beginning and , origin, and
the first cause of all things ;., next the Son, who is his etemal
Wisdora ; and, lastly, the Holy Spirit, as his energy diffused
indeed over all things, but still perpetually resident in him
self M. You mean then that there is no absurdity in holding
that these three persons are in one Godhead, and God is not
therefore divided ?
S. Just so.
M. Now repeat the first part.

40 CATECHISM OF THE CHURCH OF GENEVA.
S. " I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of
heaven and earth."
M. Why do you call him Father ?
/S. Primarily with reference to Christ who is his eternal
Wisdom, begotten of him before all time, and being sent
into this world was declared to be his Son. We infer, how
ever, that as God is the Father of Jesus Christ, he is our
Father also.
M. In what sense do you give him the name of Almighty?
S. Not as having a power which he does not exercise, but
as having all things under his power and hand ; governing
the world by his Providence, determining all things by his
will, ruling all creatures as seems to him good.
M. You do not then suppose an indolent power in God,
but consider it such that his hand is always engaged in
working, so that nothing is done except through Him, and
byhis decree.
S. It is so.
M. Why do you add " Creator of heaven and earth ?"
S. As he has manifested himself to us by works, (Rom. i.
20,) in these too we ought to seek him. Our mind cannot
take in his essence. The world itself is, therefore, a kind of
mirror in which we may view him in so far as it concerns us
to know.
M. Do you not understand by " heaven and earth" all
creatures whatever that exist ?
S. Yes, verily ; under these two names all are included,
because they are either heavenly or earthly.
M. But why do you call God a Creator merely, while it is
much more excellent to defend and preserve creatures in
their state, than to have once made them ?
S. This term does not imply that God created his works at
once, and then threw off the care ot them. It should rather
be understood, that as the world was once made by God,
so it is now preserved by him, and that the earth and all
other things endure just in as far as they are sustained by
his energy, and as it were his hand. Besides, seeing that he
has all things under his hand, it follows, that he is the chief
ruler and Lord of all. Therefore, bv his being " Creator of

OF FAITH. 41
heaven and earth," we must understand that it is he alone
who by wisdom, goodness, and power, guides the whole
course and order of nature : who at once sends rain and
drought, hail and other storms, as well as calm, who of his
kindness fertilizes the earth, and on the contrary, by with
holding his hand, makes it barren : from whom come health
and disease; to whose power all things are subject, and
whose nod they obey.
M. But what shall we say of wicked men and devils ?
Shall we say that they too are under him ?
(S. Although he does not govern them by his Spirit, he
however curbs them by his power as a bridle, so that they
cannot even move unless in so far as he permits them. Nay,
he even makes them the ministers of his will, so that un
willing and against their own intention, they are forced to
execute what to him seems good.
M. What good redounds to you from the knowledge of this
fact? S. Very much. It would go ill with us could devils and
wicked men do any thing without the will of God, and our
minds could never be very tranquil while thinking we were
exposed to their caprice. Then only do we rest safely when
we know that they are curbed by the will of God, and as it
were kept in confinement, so that they cannot do any thing
unless by his permission : the more especially that God has
engaged to be our guardian, and the prince of our salvation.
M. het us now come to the second part.
S. It is that we believe " in Jesus Christ his only Son our
Lord." M. What does it chiefly comprehend ?
S. That the Son of God is our Saviour, and it at the same
time explains the method by which he has redeemed us
from death, and purchased life.
M. What is the meaning of the name Jesus which you
give to him ?
S. It has the same meaning as the Greek word ^toTTjp,
(Soter.) The Latins have no proper name by which its force
may be well expressed. Hence the term Saviour (Salvator)
was commonly received. Moreover, the angel gave this

42 CATECHISM OF THE CHURCH OF GENEVA.
appellation to the Son of God, by the order of God himself
(Matt. i. 21.)
M. Is this more than if men had given it?
S. Certainly. For since God wills that he be oalled so, he
must absolutely be so.
M. What, next, is the force of the name Christ ?
S. By this epithet, his office is still better expressed — for
it signifies that he was anointed by the Father to be a King,
Priest, and Prophet.
M. How do you know that ?
>S'. First, Because Scripture applies anointing to these
three uses ; secondly, Because it often attributes the three
things which we have mentioned to Christ.
M. But with what kind of oil was he anointed ?
S. Not with visible oil as was used in consecrating ancient
kings, priests, and prophets, but one more excellent, namely,
the grace of the Holy Spirit, which is the thing meant by
that outward anointing.
M. But what is the nature of this kingdom of his which
you mention ?
S. Spiritual, contained in the word and Spirit of God,
which carry with them righteousness and life.
M. What of the priesthood ?
S. It is the office and prerogative of appearing in the pre
sence of God to obtain grace, and of appeasing his wrath by
the offering of a sacrifice which is acceptable to him.
M. In what sense do you call Christ a Prophet ?
S. Because on coming into the world he declared himself
an ambassador to men, and an .interpreter, and that for the
purpose of putting an end to all revelations and prophecies
by giving a full exposition of his Father's will.
M. But do you derive any benefit from this ?
8. Nay, a-U these things have no end but our good. For the
Father hath bestowed ihem on Christ that he may commu
nicate them to us, and all of us thus receive out of his fulness.
M. State this to me somewhat more fuDy.
;S^. He was filled with the Holy Spirit, and loaded with a
perfect abundance of all his gifts, that he may impart
them to us, — that is, to each according to the measure which

OF FAITH. 43
the Father knows to be suited to us. Thus from him, as
the only fountain, we draw whatever spiritual blessings we
possess. M. What does his kingdom bestow upon us ?
8. By means of it, obtaining liberty of conscience to live
piously and holily, and, being provided with his spiritual
riches, we are also armed with power sufficient to overcome
the perpetual enemies of our souls — sin, the world, the devil,
and the flesh.
M. To what is the office of priest conducive ?
8. First, by means of it he is the mediator who reconciles
us to the Father ; and, secondly, access is given us to the
Father, so that we too can come with boldness into his pre
sence, and offer him the sacrifice of ourselves, and our all.
In this way he makes us, as it w;ere, his colleagues in the
priesthood. M. There is still prophecy.
8. As it is an office of teaching bestowed on the Son of
God in regard to his own servants, the end is that he may
enlighten them by the true knowledge of the Father, instruct
them in truth, and make them household disciples of God.
M. All that you have said then comes to this, that the
name of Christ comprehends three offices which the Father
hath bestowed on the Son, that he mayitransfuse the virtue
and fruit of them into his people ?
*S'. It is so.
M. Why do you call him the only Son of God, seeing that
God designs to bestow this appellation upon us all?
8. That we are the sons of God we have not from na
ture, but from adoption and grace only, in other words, be
cause God puts us in that place,..(John i, 1 ;) but the Lord
Jesus who. was- begotten of the isubstance ofthe Father,
and is of caie essenoe with the Father, (Eph. i. 3,) is by the
best title called the only Son of God, because he alone is
his Son by nature, (Heb. i. I.)
M. You mean then, that this honour is proper to him,
as being due to him by right of nature, whereas it is
communicated to us by gratuitous favour, as being his
members ?

J
¦i4 CATECHISM OF THE CHURCH OF GENEVA.
8. Exactly. Hence with a view to this communication
he is called the First-born among many brethren. (Rom.
viii. 29.)
M. In what sense do you understand him to be " our
Lord ?"
8. Inasmuch as he was appointed by the Father to have
us under his power, to administer the kingdom of God in
heaven and on earth, and to be the Head of raen and angels.
(Col. i. 15, 18.)
M. What is meant by what follows ?
8. It shows the manner in which the Son was anointed by
the Father to be our Saviour — namely, that having assumed
our nature, he performed all things necessary to our salva
tion as here enumerated.
M. What mean you by the two sentences — " Conceived
ofthe Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary?"
8. That he was formed in the womb of the virgin, of her
substance, to be the true seed of David, as had been foretold
by the Prophets, and that this was effected by the mira
culous and secret agency of the Spirit without human con
nection. (Ps. cxxxii. 11 ; Matt. i. 1 ; Luke i. 32.)
il/. Was it of consequence then that he should assume our
nature ?
8. Very much so ; because it was necessary that the
disobedience committed by man against God should be ex
piated also in human nature. Nor could he in any other
way be our Mediator to make reconciliation between God
and man. (Rom. iii. 24; 1 Tim. ii. 5; Heb. iv. 15; v. 7.)
M. You say that Christ behoved to become man, that he
might, as it were, in our person accomplish the work of sal
vation ?
8. So I think. For we must borrow of him whatever is
wanting in ourselves : and this cannot be done in any other
way. M. But why was that effected by the Holy Spirit, and not
by the common and usual form of generation ?
8. As the seed of man is entirely corrupt, it was neces
sary that the operation of the Holy Spirit should interfere
in the generation of the Son of God, that he might not be

OF FAITH. 45
affected by this contagion, but endued with the most per
fect purity.
M. Hence then we learn that he who sanctifies us is free
from every stain, and was possessed of purity, so to speak,
from the original womb, so that he was wholly sacred to
God, being unpolluted by any taint of the human race ?
8. That is my understanding.
M. How is he our Lord ?
8. He was appointed by the Father to rule us, and having
obtained the empire and dominion of God both in heaven
and on earth, to be recognised as the head of angels and i
good men. (Eph. i. 21 ; Col. i. 18.) i
M. Why do you leap at once from his birth to his death,
passing over the whole history of his life ?
8. Because nothing is treated of here but what so pro
perly belongs to our salvation, as in a manner to contain the
substance of it.
M. Why do you not say in one word simply " was dead,"
(died,) but also add the name of the governor under whom
he suffered ?
8. That has respect not only to the credit of the state
ment, but also to let us know that his death was connected
with condemnation.
M. Explain this more clearly.
8. He died to discharge the penalty due by us, and in
this way exempt us from it. But as we all being sinners
were obnoxious to the judgment of God, he, that he might
act as our substitute, was pleased to be sisted in presence of
an earthly judge, and condemned by his mouth, that we
might be acquitted before the celestial tribunal of God.
M. But Pilate pronounces him innocent, and therefore
does not condemn him as a malefactor. (Matt, xxvii. 24.)
8. It is necessary to attend to both things. The judge
bears testimony to his innocence, to prove that he suffered
not for his own misdeeds but ours, and he is formally con
demned by the sentence ofthe same judge, to make it plain
that he endured the sentence which he deserved as our
surety, that thus he might free us from guilt.
M. Well answered. Were he a sinner he would not be a

46 CATECHISM OF THE CHURCH OF GENEVA.
fit surety to pay the penalty of another's sin ; and yet that
his condemnation might obtain our acquittal, he behoved to
be classed among transgressors ?
8. I understand so.
M. Is there any greater importance in his having been
crucified than if he had suffered any other kind of death ?
8. Very much greater, as Paul also reminds us, (Gal. iii.
13,) when he says, that he hung upon a tree to take our
curse upon himself and free us from it. For that kind of
death was doomed to execration. (Deut. xxi. 23.)
M. What ? Is not an affront put upon the Son of God
when it is said that even before God he was subjected to the
curse ?
8. By no means ; since by undergoing he abolished it,
and yet meanwhile he ceased not to be blessed in order that
he might visit us with his blessing.
M. Go on.
8. Since death was the punishment imposed on man be
cause of sin, the Son of God endured it, and by enduring
overcame it. But to make it more manifest that he under
went a real death, he > chose to be placed in the tomb like
other men.
M. But nothing seems to be derived to us from this vic
tory, sinoe we still die ?
»S^; That is no obstacle. Nor to believers is death now
any thing else than a passage to a better life.
M. Hence it follows that death is no longer to be dreaded
as if it were a fearful thing, but we should with intrepid
mind follow Christ our leader, who as he did not perish in
death, will not suffer us to perish ?
8. Thus should we act.
M. It is immediately added, " he descended into hell."
What does this mean ?
S. That he not only endured common death, which is the
separation of the soul from the body, but also the pains of
death, as Peter calls them. (Acts ii. 24.) By this expres
sion I understand the fearful agonies by which his soul was
pierced. M. Give me the cause and the manner of this.

OF FAITH. 47
(S. As in order to satisfy for sinners he sisted himself
before the tribunal of God, it was necessary that he should
suffer excruciating agony of conscience, as if he had been
forsaken of God, nay as it were, had God hostile to him.
He was in this agony when he exclaimed, " My God, my
God, why hast thou forsaken me ?" (Matt, xxvii. 46.)
M. Was his Father then offended with him ?
8. By no means. But he exercised tliis severity against
him in fulfilment of what had been foretold by Isaiah, that
" he was smitten by the hand of God for our sins and wounded
for our transgressions." (Is. liii. 4, 5.)
M. But seeing he is God, how could he be seized with any
such dread, as if he were forsaken of God ?
8. We must hold that it was in respect to the feelings of
his human nature that he was reduced to this necessity :
and that this might be, his divinity for a little while was con
cealed, that is, did not put forth its might.
M. How, on the other hand, is it possible that Christ, who
is the salvation of the world, should have been subjected to
this doom ?
8. He did not endure it so as to remain under it. For '
though he was seized with the terrors I have mentioned, he
was not overwhelmed. Rather wrestling with the powerof
hell he subdued and crushed it.
M. Hence we infer that the torture of conscience which
he bore differs from that which excruciates sinners when pur
sued by the hands of an angry God. For what was tem
porary in him is perpetual in them, and what was in him
only thfe! prick of a sting, is in them a mortal sword, which, ,,
so to speak, wounds the heart.
8. It is so. The Son of God when beset by this anguish,
ceased- not to hope in the Father. But sinners condemned ¦
by the justice of God, rush into despair, murmur against
him, and even break forth into open blasphemies.
M. May we hence infer what benefit believers receive from
the death of Christ ?
8. Eiasily. And, first, we see that it is a sacrifice by which
he expiated our sins before God, and so having appeased
the wrath of God, restored us to his favour. Secondly,

48 CATECHISM OF THE CHURCH OF GENEVA.
That his blood is a laver by which our souls are cleansed
from all stains. Lastly, That the remembrance of our sins
was effaced so as never to come into the view of God, and
that thus the handwriting which established our guilt was
blotted out and cancelled.
M. Does it not gain us any other advantage besides ?
8. Yes, indeed. For by its benefit, if we are members of
Christ, our old man is crucified, and the body of sin is de
stroyed, so that the lusts of a depraved flesh no longer reign
in us.
M. Proceed with the other articles.
8. The next is, " On the third day he rose again from the
dead." By this he declared himself the conqueror of sin
and death. By his resurrection he swallowed up death,
broke the fetters of the devil, and annihilated all his power.
M. How manifold are the benefits resulting to us from
the resurrection ?
8. Threefold. For by it righteousness was acquired for
us ; it is also a sure pledge to us of our imraortality ; and
even now by virtue of it we are raised to newness of life,
that by living purely and holily we may obey the will of God.
M. Let us follow out the rest.
8. " He ascended into heaven."
M. Did he ascend so that he is no raore on the earth ?
8. He did. For after he had performed all the things
which the Father had given him to do, and which were for
our salvation, there was no need of his continuing longer on
earth. 31. What good do we obtain from this ascension ?
8. The benefit is twofold. For inasmuch as Christ en
tered heaven in our name, just as he had come down to earth
on our account, he also opened up an access for us, so that
the door, previously shut because of sin, is now open.
Secondly, he appears in the presence of God as our advocate
and intercessor.
M. But did Christ in going to heaven withdraw from us,
so that he has now ceased to be with us ?
8. Not at all. On the contrary, he has engaged to be
with us even to the end of the world. (Matt, xxviii. 20.)

OF FAITH. 49
M. When vve say he dwells with us, must we understand
that he is bodily present ?
8. No. The case of the body which was received into
heaven is one thing ; that of the virtue which is everywhere
diffused is another. (Luke xxiv. 51 ; Acts i. 11.)
M. In what sense do you say that he " sitteth on the right
hand of the Father ?"
8. These words mean that the Father bestowed upon him
the dominion of heaven and earth, so that he governs all
things. (Matt, xxviii. 18.)
M. But what is meant by " right hand," and what by
" sitteth ?"
8. It is a similitude taken from princes, who are wont to
place those on their right hand whom they make their vice
gerents. M. You therefore mean nothing more than Paul says,
namely, that Christ has been appointed head of the Church,
and raised above all principalities, has obtained a name which
is above every name. (Eph. i. 22 ; Phil. ii. 9.)
8. It is as you say.
M. Let us pass on.
8. " From thence he will come to judge the quick and the
dead." The meaning of these words is, that he will come
openly from heaven to judge the world, just as he was seen
to ascend. (Acts i. 11.)
M. As the day of judgment is not to be before the end of
the world, how do you say that some men will then be alive,
seeing it is appointed unto all men once to die ? (Heb. ix.
27.) 8. Paul answers this question when he says, that those
who then survive will undergo a sudden change, so that the
corruption of the flesh being abolished, they will put on in-
corruption. (1 Cor. xv. 51 ; 1 Thess. iv. 17.)
M. You understand then that this change will be like
death ; that there will be an abolition of the first nature, and
the beginning of a new nature ?
8. That is my meaning.
M. Does it give any delight to our conscience that Christ
will one day be the judge of the world ?
VOL. II. D

50 CATECHISM OF THE CHURCH OF GENEVA.
8. Indeed singular delight. For we know assuredly that
he will come only for our salvation.
M. We should not then tremble at this judgment, so as to
let it fill us with dismay?
8. No, indeed ; since we shall only stand at the tribunal
of a judge who is also our advocate, and who has taken us
under his faith and protection.
M. Let us come now to the third part.
8. It relates to faith in the Holy Spirit.
M. What do we learn by it ?
8. The object is to let us know that God, as he hath re
deemed and saved us by his Son, will also by his Spirit make
us capable of this redemption and salvation.
M. How?
8. As we have purification in the blood of Christ, so our
consciences must be sprinkled by it in order to be washed.
(1 Peter i. 2 ; 1 John i. 7.)
M. This requires a clearer explanation.
8. I mean that the Spirit of God, while he dwells in our
hearts, makes us feel the virtue of Christ. (Rom. viii. 11.)
For when our minds conceive the benefits of Christ, it is
owing to tiie illumination of the Holy Spirit ; to his per
suasion it is owing that they are sealed in our hearts.
(Eph. i. 13.) In short, he alone makes room in us for them.
He regenerates us and makes us to be new creatures.
Accordingly, whatever gifts are offered us in Christ, we re
ceive by the agency of the Spirit.
M. Let us proceed.
8. Next comes the fourth part, in which we confess that
we believe in one Holy Catholic Church.
M. What is the Church ?
8. The body and society of believers whom God hath
predestined to eternal life.
M. Is it necessary to believe this article also ?
8. Yes, verily, if we would not make the death of Christ
without effect, and set at nought all that has hitherto been
said. For the one effect resulting from all is, that there is
(K Church. M. You mean then that we only treated of the cause of

OF FAITH.

51

salvation, and showed the foundation of it when we explained
that by the merits and intercession of Christ, we are taken
into favour by God, and that this grace is confirmed in us
by virtue of the Spirit. Now, however, we are explaining
the effect of all these things, that by facts our faith may be
made more firm ?
8. It is so.
M. In what sense do you call the Church holy ?
8. All whom God has chosen he justifies, and forms to
holiness and innocence of life, (Rom. viii. 30,) that his glory
may be displayed in them. And this is what Paul means
when he says that Christ sanctified the Church which he
redeemed, that it might be a glorious Church, free from all
blemish. (Eph. v. 25.)
M. What is meant by the epithet Catholic or Universal ?
8. By it we are taught, that as all believers have one head,
so they must all be united into one body, that the Church
diffused over the whole world may be one — not more. (Eph.
iv. 15; 1 Cor. xii. 12.)
M. And what is the purport of what immediately follows
concerning the communion of saints ?
8. That is put down to express more clearly the unity
which exists among the members of the Church. It is at
the same time intimated, that whatever benefits God bestows
upon the Church, have a view to the common good of all ;
seeing they all have communion with each other.
M. But is this holiness which you attribute to the Church,
already perfect ?
S. Not yet, that is as long as she has her warfare in this
world. For she always labours under infirmities, and will
never be entirely purged of the remains of vice, until she
adheres completely to Christ her head, by whom she is sanc
tified. M. Can this Church be known in any other way than
when she is believed by faith ?
8. There is indeed also a visible Church of God, which
he has described to us by certain signs and marks, but here
we are properly speaking of ^e assemblage of those whom
he has adopted to salvation by liis secret election. , This ia

52 CATECHISM OF THE CUURCH OF GENEVA.
neither at all times visible to the eye nor discernible by
signs. M. What comes next ?
S. I believe in " the forgiveness of sins."
M. What meaning do you give to the word forgiveness ?
8. That God of his free goodness forgives and pardons the
sins of believers that they may not be brought to judgment,
and that the penalty may not be exacted from them.
M. Hence it follows, that it is not at all by our own satis
faction we merit the pardon of sins, which we obtain from
the Lord ?
8. That is true ; for Christ alone gave the satisfaction
by paying the penalty.
M. Why do you subjoin forgiveness of sins to the Church ?
8. Because no man obtains it without being previously
united to the people of God, maintaining unity with the
body of Christ perseveringly to the end, and thereby attest
ing that he is a true member of the Church.
M. In this way you conclude that out of the Church is
nought but ruin and damnation ?
8. Certainly. Those who make a departure from the
body of Christ, and rend its unity by faction, are cut off
from all hope of salvation during the time they remain in
this schism, be it however short.
M. Repeat the remainder.
8. I believe in " the resurrection of the body and the life
everlasting." M. To what end is this article set down iu the Confession
of Faith ?
8. To remind us that our happiness is not situated on
the earth. The utility and use of this knowledge is twofold.
First, we are taught by it that we are to live in this world
as foreigners, continually thinking of departure, and not
allowing our hearts to be entangled by earthly thoughts.
Secondly, however the fruit of the grace of Christ bestowed
upon us may escape our notice, and be hidden from our
eyes, we must not despond, but patiently wait for the day of
revelation. M. In what order will this resurrection take place ?

OF FAITH.

53

8. Those who were formerly dead will recover their bodies,
the same bodies as before, but endued with a new quality,
that is, no longer liable to death or corruption. (1 Cor. xv.
53.) Those who survive God will miraculously raise up by
a sudden change.
M. But will this be common to the righteous and the
wicked ?
8. There will be one resurrection of all, but the condition
will be different : some will rise to salvation and blessed
ness, others to death and extreme misery.
M. Why then is eternal life only here mentioned, and is
there no mention of hell ?
8. Because nothing is introduced here that does not tend
to the consolation of pious minds ; accordingly, only the
rewards are enumerated which the Lord hath prepared for
his servants, and nothing is added as to the doom of the
wicked, whom we know to be aliens from the kingdom of
God. M. As we understand the foundation on which faith ought
to rest, it wiU be easy to extract from it a true definition of
faith. S. It wilL It may be defined — a sure and steadfast
knowledge of the paternal goodwill of God toward us, as he
declares in the gospel that for the sake of Christ he will be
our Father and Saviour.
M. Do we conceive faith of ourselves, or do we receive it
from God ?
L^. Scripture teaches that it is the special gift of God, and
this experience confirms.^
M. What experience do you mean ?
8. Our mind is too rude to be able to comprehend the
spiritual wisdom of God which is revealed to us by faith,
and our hearts are too prone either to diffidence or to a per
verse confidence in ourselves or creatures, to rest in God of
their own accord. But the Holy Spirit by his illumination
makes us capable of understanding those things which would
otherwise far exceed our capacity, and forms us to a firm
persuasion, by sealing the promises of salvation on our
hearts.

54 CATECHISM OF THE CHURCH OF GENEVA.
M. What good accrues to us from this faith, when we have
once obtained it ?
8. It justifies us before God, and this justification makes
us the heirs of everlasting life.
M. What ! are not men justified by good works when
they study to approve themselves to God, by living inno
cently and holily ?
8. Could any one be found so perfect, he might justly be
deemed righteous, but as we are all sinners, guilty before
God in many ways, we must seek elsewhere for a wortliiness
which may reconcile us to him.
M. But are all the works of men so vile and valueless that
they cannot merit favour with God ?
. 8. First, all the works which proceed from us, so as pro
perly to be called our own, are vicious, and therefore they
can do nothing but displease God, and be rejected by him.
M. You say then that before we are born again and formed
anew by the Spirit of God, we can do nothing but sin, just
as a bad tree can only produce bad fruit ? (Matt. vii. IS.)
8. Altogether so. For whatever semblance works may
have in the eyes of men, they are nevertheless evil, as long
as the heart to which God chiefly looks is depraved.
M. Hence you conclude, that we cannot by any merits
anticipate God or call forth his beneficence ; or rather that
all the works which we try or engage in, subject us to his
anger and condemnation ?
8. I understand so ; and therefore mere mercy, with
out any respect to works, (Titus iii. 5,) embraces and accepts
us freely in Christ, by attributing his righteousness to us as
if it were our own, and not imputing our sins to us.
J\L In what way, then, do you say that we are justified
by faith ?
8. Because, while we embrace the promises of the gospel
with sure heartfelt confidence, we in a manner obtain pos
session of the righteousness of which I speak.
M. This then is your meaning — that as righteousness is
offered to us by the gospel, so we receive it by faith ?
8. It is so.
M. But after we have once been embraced by God, are not

OF FAITH. 55
the works which we do under the direction of his Holy Spirit
accepted by him ?
8. They please him, not however in virtue of their own
worthiness, but as he liberally honours them with his favour.
M. But seeing they proceed from the Holy Spirit, do they
not merit favour ?
8. They are always mixed up with some defilement from
the weakness of the flesh, and thereby vitiated.
M. Whence then or how can it be that they please God ?
8. It is faith alone which procures favour for them, as we
rest with assured confidence on this — that God wills not to
try them by his strict rule, but covering their defects and
impurities as buried in the purity of Christ, he regards them
in the same light as if they were absolutely perfect.
M. But can we infer from this that a Christian man is
justified by works after he has been called by God, or that
by the merit of works he makes himself loved by God, whose
love is etemal life to us ?
8. By no means. We rather hold what is written — that
no man can be justified in his sight, and we therefore pray,
" Enter not into judgment with us." (Ps. cxliii. 2.)
M. We are not therefore to think that the good works of
believers are useless ?
8. Certainly not. For not in vain does God promise thera
reward both in this life and in the future. But this reward
springs from the free love of God as its source ; for he first
embraces us as sons, and then burying the remembrance of
the vices which proceed frora us, he visits us with his favour,
M. But can this righteousness be separated from good
works, so that he who has it may be void of them ?
8. That cannot be. For when by faith we receive Christ
as he is offered to us, he not only promises us deliverance
from death and reconciliation with God, but also the gift of
the Holy Spirit, by which we are regenerated to newness of
life ; these things must necessarily be conjoined so as not
to divide Christ from himself.
M. Hence it follows that faitli is the root from which all
good works spring, so far is it from taking us off from the
studv of them ?

56 CATECHISM OF THE CHURCH OF GENEVA.
8. So indeed it is ; and hence the whole doctrine of the
gospel is comprehended under the two branches, faith and
repentance. M. What is repentance ?
8. Dissatisfaction with and a hatred of sin and a love of
righteousness, proceeding from the fear of God, which things
lead to self-denial and mortification of the flesh, so that we
give ourselves up to the guidance of the Spirit of God, and
frame all the actions of our life to the obedience of the
Divine will.
M. But this second branch was in the division which was
set down at first when you showed the method of duly wor
shipping God.
8. True ; and it was at the same time added, that the true
' ,and legitimate rule for worshipping God is to obey his will.
M. Why so ?
8. Because the only worship which he approves is not
that which it may please us to devise, but that which he
hath of his own authority prescribed.

OF THE LAW, THAT IS, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
OF GOD.

M. What is the rule of life which he has given us ?
8. His law.
M. What does it contain ?
8. It consists of two parts ; the former of which contains
four commandments, the latter six. Thus the whole law
consists of ten commandments in all.
M. Who is the author of this division ?
8. God himself, who delivered it to Moses written on two
tables, and afterwards declared that it was reduced into ten
sentences. (Exod. xxiv. 12; xxxii. 15; xxxiv. 1 ; Deut. iv.
13 ; X. 4.)
M. What is the subject of the first table ?
8. The offices of piety towards God.
M. Of the second ?

OF THE LAW, OR TEN COMMANDMENTS. 57
8. How we are to act towards men, and what we owe them.
M. Repeat the first comraandment or head.
8. Hear, 0 Israel, I am Jehovah thy God, who brought
thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage :
thou shalt have no other gods before me.
M. Now explain the meaning of the words.
8. At first he makes a kind of preface to the whole law.
For when he calls himself Jehovah, he claims right and
authority to command. Then in order to procure favour for
his law, he adds, that he is our God. These words have the
same force as if he had called himself pur Preserver. Now
as he bestows this favour upon us, it is meet that we should
in our tum show ourselves to be an obedient people.
M. But does not what he immediately subjoins, as to de
liverance and breaking the yoke of Egyptian bondage, apply
specially to the people of Israel, and to them alone ?
8. I admit this as to the act itself, but there is another
kind of deliverance which applies equally to all men. For
he has delivered us all from the spiritual bondage of sin, and
the tyranny of the devil.
M. Why does he mention that matter in a preface to his
law? 8. To remind us that we will be guilty of the greatest
ingratitude if we do not devote ourselves entirely to obe
dience to him.
M. And what does he require under this first head ?
8. That we maintain his honour entire and for himself
alone, not transferring any part of it elsewhere.
M. What is the honour peculiar to him whicii it is un
lawful to transfer elsewhere ?
8. To adore him, to put our confidence in him, to call
upon him, in short to pay him all the deference suitable to
his majesty.
M. Why is the clause added, " Before my face ?"
8. As nothing is so hidden as to escape him, and he is the
discemer and judge of secret thoughts, it means that he re
quires not the honour of outward affection merely, but true
heartfelt piety.
M. Let us pass to the second head.

58 CATECHISM OF THE CHURCH OF GENEVA.
8. Thou shalt not sculpture to thyself the image, or form
any of those things whicii are either in heaven above or on
the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth. Thou
shalt not adore nor serve them.
M. Does it entirely prohibit us from sculpturing or paint
ing any resemblance ?
8. No ; it only forbids us to make any resemblances for
the sake of representing or worshipping God.
M. Why is it unlawful to represent God by a visible
shape ?
8. Because there is no resemblance between him who is
an eternal Spirit and incomprehensible, and a corporeal, cor
ruptible, and lifeless figure. (Deut. iv. 15; Acts xvii. 29 ;
Rom. i. 23.)
M. You think then that an insult is offered to his majesty
when he is represented in this way ?
8. Such is my belief
M. What kind of worship is here condemned ?
8. When we turn to a statue or image intending to pray,
we prostrate ourselves before it : when we pay honour to it
by the bending of our knees, or other signs, as if God were
there representing himself to us.
M. We are not to understand then that simply any kind
of picture or sculpture is condemned by these words. We
are only prohibited from making images for the purpose of
seeking or worshipping God in them, or which is the same
thing, for the purpose of worshipping them in honour of God,
or abusing them in any way to superstition and idolatry.
8. True.
M. Now to what end shall we refer this head ?
8. As under the former head he declared that he alone
should be worshipped and served, so he now shows what is
^ ^ the correct form of worship, that he may call us off from all
\\ superstition, and other vicious and carnal fictions.
M. Let us proceed.
8. He adds the sanction that he is Jehovah our God, a
strong and jealous God, who avengeth the iniquity of the
fathers upon the children of them who hate him, even to the
third and fourth generation.

OF THE LAW, OR TEN COMMANDMENTS. 59
M. Why does he make mention of his strength ?
8. He thereby intimates that he has power enough to
vindicate his glory.
M. What does he intiraate by the term jealousy ?
8. That he cannot bear an equal or associate. For as he
has given himself to us out of his infinite goodness, so he ¦¦
would have us to be wholly his. And the chastity of our
souls consists in being dedicated to him, and wholly cleaving
to him, as on the other hand they are said to be polluted
with idolatry, when they turn aside from him to superstition.
M. In what sense is it said that he avengeth the iniquity.
of fathers on children ? '
8. To strike the more terror into us, he not only threatens
to inflict punishment on those who offend him, but that their
offspring also will be cursed.
M. But is it consistent with the justice of God to punish
any one for another's fault ?
8. If we consider what the condition of mankind is, the
question is answered. For by nature we are all liable to the
curse, and we have nothing to complain of in God when he
leaves us in this condition Then as he demonstrates his
love for the righteous, by blessing their posterity, so he exe
cutes his vengeance against the wicked, by depriving their
children of this blessing.
M. Go on.
8. To allure us by attractive mildness, he promises that
he wiU take pity on all who love him and observe his com
mands, to a thousand generations.
M. Does he mean that the innocence of a pious man will
be the salvation of all his posterity, however wicked ?
8. Not at all, but that he will exercise his benignity to
believers to such a degree, that for their sakes he will show
himself benign also to their children, by not only giving
them prosperity in regard to the present life, but also sancti
fying their souls, so as to give them a place among his flock.
M. But this does not always appear.
8. I admit it. For as he reserves to himself liberty to
show mercy when he pleases to the children of the ungodly,
so he has not so astricted his favour to the children of be-

60 CATECHISM OF THE CHURCH OF GENEVA.
lievers as not to repudiate at pleasure those of them whom
he will. (Rom. ix.) This, however, he so tempers as to
show that his promise is not vain or fallacious.
M. But why does he here say a thousand generations,
whereas, in the case of punishraent, he raentions only three
or four ?
8. To intimate that he is more inclined to kindness and
beneficence than to severity. This he also declares, when
he says that he is ready to pardon, but slow to wrath.
(Ex. xxxiv. 6 ; Ps. ciii. 8 ; cxiv. 8.)
M. Now for the third commandraent.
8. Thou shalt not take the name of Jehovah thy God in
vain. M. What is the meaning ?
8. He forbids us to abuse the name of God, not only by
perjury, but by swearing without necessity.
M. Can the name of God be lawfully used in making oath ?
8. It may indeed, when used on a fit cause : first, in as
serting the truth ; and secondly, when the business is of
such importance as to make it meet to swear, in maintain
ing mutual love and concord among men.
M. But does it not go farther than to restrain oaths, by
which the name of God is profaned, or his honour impaired ?
8. The mention of one species adraonishes us in general,
never to utter the name of God unless with fear and rever
ence, and for the purpose of honouring it. For while it is
thrice holy, we ought to guard, by all means, against seeming
to hold it in contempt, or giving others occasion to contemn.
M. How is this to be done ?
8. By never speaking or thinking of God and his works
without honour.
M. What follows?
8. A sanction, by which he declares that he shall not be
guiltless who taketh his narae in vain.
M. As he, in another place, declares that he will punish
the transgressors of his law, what more is contained here ?
8. He hereby meant to intimate how much he values the
glory of his name, and to make us more careful of it, when
we see that vengeance is ready for any who may profane it.

OF THE LAW, OR TEN COMMANDMENTS. 61
M. Let us come to the fourth commandment.
8. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days
shalt thou labour, and do all thy work : But the seventh is
the Sabbath of the Lord thy God : in it thou shalt not do
any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man
servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger
that is within thy gates : For in six days the Lord made
heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested
the seventh day : wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath
day, and hallowed it.
M. Does he order us to labour on six days, that we may
rest on the seventh ?
8. Not absolutely ; but allowing man six days for labour,
he excepts the seventh, that it may be devoted to rest.
M. Does he interdict us from all kind of labour ?
8. This commandment has a separate and peculiar reason.
As the observance of rest is part of the old ceremonies, it
was abolished by the advent of Christ.
M. Do you mean that this commandraent properly refers
to the Jews, and was therefore raerely temporary ?
8. I do, in as far as it is ceremonial.
M. What then ? Is there any thing under it beyond cere
mony ?
8. It was given for three reasons.
M. State them to me.
8. To figure spiritual rest ; for the preservation of ecclesi
astical polity ; and for the relief of slaves.
M. What do you mean by spiritual rest ?
8. When we keep holiday from our own works, that God
may perform his own works in us.
M. What, moreover, is the method of thus keeping holi
day? 8. By crucifying our flesh, — that is, renouncing our own*
inclination, that we may be govemed by the Spirit of God.
M. Is it sufficient to do so on the seventh day ?
8. Nay, continually. After we have once begun, we must
continue during the whole course of life.
M. Why, then, is a certain day appointed to figure it ?
8. There is no necessity that the reality should agree with

62 CATECHISM OF THE CHURCH OF GENEVA.
the figure in ever}' respect, provided it be suitable in so far
as is required for the purpose of figuring.
M. But why is the seventh day prescribed rather than
any other day ?
8. In Scripture the number seven implies perfection. It
is, therefore, apt for denoting perpetuity. It, at the same
time, indicates that this spiritual rest is only begun in this
life, and will not be perfect until we depart from this world.
M. But what is meant when the Lord exhorts us to rest
by his own example ?
8. Having finished the creation of the world in six days,
he dedicated the seventh to the contemplation of his works.
The more strongly to stimulate us to this, he set before us
his own example. For nothing is more desirable than to be
formed after his image.
M. But ought meditation on the works of God to be con
tinual, or is it sufficient that one day out of seven be devoted
to it?
8. It becomes us to be daily exercised in it, but because
of our weakness, one day is specially appointed. And this
is the polity which I mentioned.
M. What order, then, is to be observed on that day ?
8. That the people meet to hear the doctrine of Christ, to
engage in public prayer, and make profession of their faith.
M. Now explain what you meant by saying that the Lord
intended by this comraandment to provide also for the relief
of slaves.
8. That some relaxation might be given to those under
the power of others. Nay, this, too, tends to maintain a
common polity. For when one day is devoted to rest, every
one accustoms himself to labour during the other days.
M. Let us now see how far this command has reference
to us.
8. In regard to the ceremony, I hold that it was abolished,
as the reality existed in Christ. (Col. ii. 17.)
M. How?
8. Because, by virtue of his death, our old man is crucified,
and we are raised up to newness of life. (Rom. vi. 6.)
M. What of the commandment then remains for us ?

OF THE LAW, OR TEN COMMAND.MENTS. 63
8. Not to neglect the holy ordinances which contribute to
the spiritual polity of the Church ; especially to frequent
sacred assemblies, to hear the word of God, to celebrate the
sacraments, and engage in the regular prayers, as enjoined.
M. But does the figure give us nothing raore ?
8. Yes, indeed. We must give heed to the thing meant
by it ; namely, that being engrafted into the body of Christ,
and made his members, we cease from our own works, and
so resign ourselves to the govemment of God.-
M. Let us pass to the second table.
8. It begins, " Honour thy father and thy mother."
M. What meaning do you give to the word "honour?"
8. That children be, with modesty and humility, respect
ful and obedient to parents, serving them reverentially, help
ing them in necessity, and exerting their labour for them.
For in these three branches is included the honour which is
due to parents.
M. Proceed.
S. To the commandment the promise is added, " That thy
days may be prolonged on the land which the Lord thy God
¦will give thee."
M. What is the meaning ?
8. That, by the blessing of God, long life will be given to
those who pay due honour to parents.
M. Seeing this life is so full of troubles, why does God
promise the long continuance of it as a blessing ?
8. How great soever the miseries to which it is liable, yet
there is a blessing from God upon believers, when he
nourishes and preserves them here, were it only for this one
reason, that it is a proof of his paternal favour.
M. Does it follow conversely, that he who is snatched
away from the world quickly, and before mature age, is
cursed of God ?
8. By no means. Nay, rather it sometimes happens that
the more a man is loved by God the more quickly is he re
moved out of this life.
M. But in so acting, how does he fulfil his promise ?
8. Whatever earthly good God promises we must receive
under this condition, viz., in so far as is expedient for the

64 CATECHISM OF THE CHURCH OF GENEVA.
good and salvation of our soul. For the arrangement would
be very absurd if the care of the soul did not always take
precedence. M. What of those who are contumacious to parents ?
8. They shall not only be punished at the last judgment,
but here also God will take vengeance on their bodies, either
by taking them hence in the middle of their days, or bring
ing them to an ignominious end, or in other manners.
M. But does not the promise speak expressly of the land
of Canaan ?
8. It does so in as far as regards the Israelites, but the
term ought to have a wider and more extensive meaning to
us. For seeing that the whole earth is the Lord's, whatever
be the region we inhabit he assigns it to us for a possession.
(Ps. xxiv. 1 ; Ixxxv. 5 ; cxv. 16.)
M. Is there nothing more of the commandment remain
ing? 8. Though father and mother only are expressed, we must
understand all who are over us, as the reason is the same.
M. What is the reason ?
-jSTlThat the Lord has raised them to a high degree of
iionour ; for there is no authority whether of parents, or
princes, or rulers of any description, no power, no honour,
but by the decree of God, because it so pleases him to order
^le world.
M. Repeat the sixth commandment.
8. Thou shalt not kill.
M. Does it forbid nothing but the perpetration of murder ?
8. Yes, indeed. For seeing it is God who speaks, he here
gives law not only to outward works, but also to the affec
tions of the mind, and indeed to them chiefly.
M. You seem to insinuate that there is some kind of
secret murder from which God here recalls us.
8. I do. For anger, and hatred, and any desire to hurt,
is murder in the sight of God.
M. Is it enough if we do not hate any one ?
8. By no means. Since the Lord, by condemning hatred
and restraining us from any harm by which our neighbour
may be injured, shows at the same time that he requires us

OF THE LAW, OR TEN COMMANDMENTS. 65
to love all raen frora the heart, and study faithfully to de
fend and preserve thera.
M. Now for the seventh coramandment.
8. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
M. Explain what the substance of it is.
8. That all kinds of fornication are cursed in the sight of
God, and therefore as we would not provoke the anger of
God against us we must carefully abstain from it.
M. Does it require nothing besides ?
8. Respect must always be had to the nature of the Law
giver, who, we have said,(not only regards the outward act,
but looks more tothe affections of the minjl.
M. What more then does it coraprehend ?
8. Inasmuch as both our bodies and our souls are temples
of the Holy Spirit, (1 Cor. iii. 16 ; vi. 19,) we must observe a
chaste purity with both, and accordingly be chaste not only
by abstaining from outward flagitiousness, but also in heart,
speech, bodily gesture, and action, (2 Cor. vi. 16 ;) in short,
our body must be free from all lasciviousness, our mind from
all lust, and no part of us be polluted by the defilements of
unchastity. M. Let us come to the eighth commandment.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
M. Does it only prohibit the thefts which are punished
by human laws, or does it go farther ?
8. Under the name of theft, it comprehends all kinds of
wicked acts of defrauding and circumventing by which we
hunt after other men's goods. Here, therefore, we are for
bidden either to seize upon our neighbour's goods by violence,
or lay hands upon them by trick and cunning, or get posses
sion of them by any other indirect means whatever.
M. Is it enough to withhold your hand from the evil act,
or is covetousness also here condemned ?
8. We must ever retum to this — that the law given, being
spiritual, intends to check not only outward thefts, but all
counsels and wishes which incommode others in any way ;
and especially covetousness itself, that we may not long to
enrich ourselves at the expense of our brethren.
M. What then must be done to obey this commandment ?
VOL. II. E

66 CATECHISM OF THE CHURCH OF GENEVA.
8. We must endeavour to let every raan have his own in
safety. M. What is the ninth commandment ?
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neigh
bour. M. Does it prohibit perjury in court only, or any kind of
lying against our neighbours ?
8. Under one species the general doctrine is compre
hended, that we are not to charge our neighbour falsely, nor
by our evil speaking and detraction hurt his good name, or
harm him in his goods.
M. But why does it expressly raention public perjury ?
8. That it may inspire us with a greater abhorrence
of this vice. For it insinuates that if a man accustom
hiraself to evil speaking and calurany, the descent to per
jury is rapid if an opportunity is given to defame his neigh
bour. 3L Does it mean to keep us frora evil speaking only, or
also from false suspicion and unjust and uncharitable judg
ment ?
*S^. It here condemns both, according to the view already
stated. For whatever it is wrong to do before men, it is
wrong to wish before God.
M. Explain then what it means in substance.
8. It enjoins us not to think ill of our neighbours, or be
prone to defame them, but in the spirit of kindness and
impartiality to think well of them as far as the truth will
permit, and study to preserve their reputation entire.
M. Repeat the last commandment.
8. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's liouse, thou shalt
not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his man-servant, nor his
maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is
thy neighbour's.
M. Seeing that the whole law is spiritual, as you have so
often said before, and the above commandments are set
down not only to curb outward acts, but also correct the
affections of the mind, what more is added here ?
- 8. The Lord meant to regulate and govern the will and
affections by the other coramandraents, but here he imposes

OF THE LAW, OR TEN COMMANDMENTS. 67
a law even on thoughts which carry some degree of cove
tousness along vvith them, and yet come not the length of a
fixed purpose. '
M. Do you say that the least degrees of covetousness
which creep in upon believers and enter their minds are sins,
even though they resist rather than assent ?
8. It is certainly clear that all vitious thoughts, even
though consent is not added, proceed frora the pravity of
our nature. But I only say this — that this coramandment
condemns -vicious desires which tickle and solicit the heart
of man, without however drawing him on to a firm and deli
berate act of will.
M. You understand then that the evil affections in which
men acquiesce, and by which they allow themselves to be
overcome, were prohibited before, but that the thing now
required of us is such strict integrity that our hearts are not
to admit any perverse desire by which they may be stimu
lated to sin ?
8. Exactly so.
M. Can we now frame a short compendium of the whole
law? 8. Very easily, since we can reduce it to two heads. The
former is to love God with all our heart, and soul, and
strength — the latter, to love our neighbours as ourselves.
M. Wliat is comprehended under the love of God ?
8. To love him as God should be loved — that is, recognis
ing him as at once our Lord, and Father, and Preserver. *
Accordingly, to the love of God is joined reverence for him,
a willingness to obey him, trust to be placed in him.
M. What do you understand by the whole heart, the whole
soul, and the whole strength ?
8. Such vehemence of zeal, that there be no place at all
in us for any thoughts, desires, or pursuits, adverse to this
love. M. What is the meaning of the second head ?
8. As we are by nature so prone to love ourselves, that
this feeling overcomes all others, so love to our neighbour
ought to have such ascendency in us as to govern us in every
respect, and be the rule of all our purposes and actions.

68 CATECHISM OF THE CHURCH OF GENEVA.
M. What do you understand by the term neighbour ?
*S^. Not only kindred and friends, or those connected with
us by any necessary tie, but also those who are unknown to
us, and even enemies.
M. But what connection have they with us ?
8. They are connected by that tie by which God bound
the whole human race together. This tie is sacred and in
violable, and no man's depravity can abolish it.
M. You say, then, that if any man hate us, the blame is
his own, and yet he is nevertheless our neighbour, and as
such is to be regarded by us, because the divine arrange
ment by which this connection between us was ratified stands
inviolable ?
*S^. It is so.
M. Seeing that the law of God points out the form of
duly worshipping him, must we not live according to its
direction ?
8. We must indeed. But we all labour under infirmity,
owing to which no man fulfils, in every respect, what he
ought. M. Why then does God require a perfection which is be
yond our ability ?
8. He requires nothing which we are not bound to per
form. But provided we strive after that form of living which
is here prescribed, although we be wide of the mark, that is,
of perfection, the Lord forgives us what is wanting.
M. Do you speak of all men in general, or of believers
only? SrHe who is not yet regenerated by the Spirit of God, is
not fit to begin the least iota of the law. Besides, even were
we to grant that any one is found to obey the law in any
respect, we do not think that he has perforraed his part be
fore God. For the law pronounces all cursed who have not
fulfilled all the things contained in it. (Deut. xxvii. 26 ;
Gal. iii. 10.)
M. Hence we raust conclude, that as there are two classes
of men, so the office of the law is twofold ?
8. Exactly. For among unbelievers it does nothing more
than shut them out from all excuse before God. And this

OF THE LAW, OR TEN COMMANDMENTS. 69
is what Paul means when he calls it the ministry of death
and condemnation. In regard to believers it has a very
different use. (Rom. i. 32 ; 2 Cor. iii. 6.)
M. What?
8. First, while they leam from it that they cannot obtain
righteousness by works,/they are trained to humility, which
is the true preparation for seeking salvation in Christ. /
Secondly, inasmuch as it requires of them much more than
they are able to perform, it urges them to seek strength from
the Lord, and at the same time reminds them of their per
petual guilt, that they may not presume to be projidJ Lastly,
it is a kind of curb, by which they are kept in the fear of
the Lord. (Rom. iii. 20 ; Gal. ii. 16 ; iii. 11 ; iv. 5.) ^^
M. Therefore, although in this earthly pilgrimage we never
satisfy the law, we cannot judge that it is supei-fluous to re
quire this strict perfection from us. For it shows the mark
at which we ought to aim, the goal towards which we ought
to press, that each of us, according to the measure of grace
bestowed upon him, may endeavour to frame his life accord
ing to the highest rectitude, and, by constant study, con
tinually advance more and more.
8. That is my view.
M. Have we not a perfect rule of righteousness in the law ?
8. So much so, that God wishes nothing else from us than
to follow it ; and, on the other hand, repudiates and holds
void whatever we undertake beyond its prescription. For
the only sacrifice which he accepts is obedience. (1 Sam.
XV. 22.)
M. To what end, then, the many admonitions, precepts,
exhortations, which both Prophets and Apostles are contin
ually employing? (Jer. vii. 12.)
8. They are nothing but mere expositions of the law,
which lead us by the hand to the obedience of the law, rather
than lead us away from it.
M. But he gives no command concerning the private case
of each individual ?
8. When he orders us to render to every one his due, it is
obvious to infer what the private part of each is in his own
order and condition of life, and expositions of particular pre-

70 CATECHISM OF THE CHURCH OF GENEVA.
cepts, as has been said, lie scattered throughout Scripture.
For what the Lord has summarily comprised here in a few
words, is given with more fulness and detail elsewhere.
OP PRAYER.
M. As the second part of Divine Worship, which consists
in service and obedience, has been sufficiently discussed, let
us now proceed to the third part.
8. We said it was invocation, by which we flee to God in
any necessity.
M. Do you think that he alone is to be invoked ?
8. Certainly ; for he requires this as the proper worship
of his Divinity.
M. If it is so, how can we beseech men to assist us ?
8. There is a great difference between the two thinofs.
For when we invoke God, we testify that we expect no good
from any other quarter, and that we place our whole defence
in no other, and yet we ask the assistance of men, as far as
he permits, and has bestowed on them the power of giving it.
M. You say, then, that in having recourse to the faith
and help of men, there is nothing that interferes with our
invocation of God, seeing that our reliance is not fixed on
them, and we beseech them on no other ground, than just
because God, by furnishing them with the means of well
doing, has in a raanner destined thera to be the ministers of
his beneficence, and is pleased by their hands to assist us,
and draw out, on our account, the resources which he has
^deposited with them?
/ S. Such is my view. And, accordingly, whatever benefits
we receive frora thera, we should regard as coraing from
God, as in truth it is he alone who bestows all these things
\ipon us by their instrumentality.
M. But are we not to feel grateful to men whenever they
have conferred any kindness upon us. This the mere equity
of nature and law of huraanity dictates ?
8. Certainly we are ; and were it onl}' for the reason that
God honours them by sending to us, through their hands,
as rivulets, the blessings which flow from the inexhaustible

OF PRAYER. 71
fountain of his liberality. In this way he lays us under ob-
ligation to them, and wishes us to acknowledge it. He,
therefore, who does not show himself grateful to them by so
doing, betrays his ingratitude to God.
M. Are we hence at liberty to infer, that it is wrong to
invoke angels and holy servants of the Lord who have de
parted this life ?
8. We are not at liberty ; for God does not assign to saints
the office of assisting us. And in regard to angels, though
he uses their labour for our salvation, he does not wish us to
ask them for it.
M. You say, then, that -whatever does not aptly and fitly
square with the order instituted by God, is repugnant to his\
will ?
S. I do. For it is a sure sign of unbelief not to be con
tented with the things which God gives to us. Then if we
throw ourselves on the protection of angels or saints, when
God calls us to himself alone, and transfer to them the con
fidence which ought wholly to be fixed upon God, we fall
into idolatry, seeing we share with them that which Gad
claimed entirely for himself
M. Let us now consider the manner of prayer. Is it suf- ^
ficient to pray with the tongue, or does prayer require also ]
the mind and heart ? >
8. The tongue, indeed, is not always necessary, but tru«
prayer can never be without understanding and affection.
M. By what arguraent will you prove this to rae ?
8. Since God is a Spirit, he requires men to give hira the
heart in all cases, and more especially in prayer, by which
they hold communion with him. Wherefore he promises
to be near to those only who call upon him in truth '. on th«
other hand, he abominates and curses all who pray to
him deceitfully, and not sincerely. (Psalm cxiv. 18 ; Isaiah
xxix. 1.3.)
M. All prayers, then, conceived only by the tongue, will
be vain and worthless ?
8. Not only so, but will be most displeasing to God.
M. What kind of feeling does God require in prayer ?
8. First, that we feel our want and misery, and that this

72 CATECHISM OF THE CHURCH OF GENEVA.
feeling beget sorrow and anxiety in our minds. Secondly,
that we be infiamed with an earnest and vehement desire to
obtain grace from God. These things will also kindle in us
an ardent longing to pray.
M. Does this feeling flow from the temper natural to man,
or does it proceed from the grace of God ?
8. Here God must come to our aid. For we are altogether
stupid in regard to both. (Rom. viii. 25.) It is the Spirit
of God who excites in us groanings which cannot be uttered,
and frames our minds to the desires which are requisite in
prayer, as Paul says. (Gal. iv. 6.)
M. Is it the meaning of this doctrine, that we are to sit
still, and, in a kind of vacillating state, wait for the motions
of the Spirit, and not that each one is to urge himself to
pray? 8. By no means. The meaning rather is, that when be
lievers feel themselves cold or sluggish, and somewhat indis
posed to pray, they should forthwith flee to God, and beseech
him to inflame them by the fiery darts of his Spirit, that
they raay be rendered fit to pray.
M. You do not, however, mean that there is to be no use
of the tongue in prayer ?
8. Not at all. For it often helps to sustain the mind, and
keep it from being so easily drawn off from God. Besides,
as it, raore than other raembers, was created to display the
glory of God, it is right that it be employed to this purpose,
to the whole extent of its capacity. Moreover, vehemence
of desire occasionally impels a man to break forth into utter
ance with the tongue without intending it.
M. If so, what profit have those who pray in a foreign
tongue not understood by them ?
8. It is nothing else than to sport with God. Christians,
therefore, should have nothing to do with this hypocrisy.
(1 Cor. xiv. 15.)
M. But when we pray do we do it fortuitously, uncertain
of success, or ought we to feel assured that the Lord will
hear us ?
8. The foundation of our prayer should always be, that
the Lord will hear us, and that we shall obtain whatever we

OF PRAYER. 73
ask, in so far as is for our good. For this reason Paul tells
us, that true prayer flows from faith. (Rom. x. 14.) For no
man will ever duly call upon him, without previously resting
with firm reliance on his goodness.
M. What then will become of those who pray in doubt,
and without fixing in their minds what profit they are to
gain by praying, nay, are uncertain whether or not their
prayers will be heard by God ?
8. Their prayers are vain and void, not being supported
by any promise. For we are ordered to ask with sure faith,
and the promise is added, that whatever we shall ask, be
lieving, we shall receive. (Matt. xxi. 22 ; Mark xi. 24 ;
James i. 6.)
M. It remains to be seen wherein we have such great con
fidence, that while unworthy, on so many accounts, of ap
pearing in the presence of God, we however dare to sist
ourselves before him.
8. First, we have promises by which we must simply
abide, without making any reference to our own worthiness.
Secondly, if we are sons, God animates and instigates us by
his Spirit, so that we doubt not to betake ourselves to him
in a familiar manner, as to a father. As we are like woi-ms,
and are oppressed by the consciousness of our sins, God, in
order that we may not tremble at his glorious majesty, sets
forth Christ as a Mediator, through whom we obtain access,
and have no doubt at all of obtaining favour. (Psalm iv. 15 •
xci. 15; cxiv. 18; Isaiah xxx. 19; Ixv. 1; Jer. xxix. 12;
Joel ii. 32 ; Rom. viii. 25 ; x. 13.)
M. Do you understand that we are to pray to God only in
the name of Christ ?
8. I so understand. For it is both so enjoined in distinct
terms, and the promise is added, that he will by his inter
cession obtain what we ask. (1 Tim. ii. 5 ; 1 John ii. 1.)
M. He is not then to be accused of rashness or presump
tion, who, tmsting to this Advocate, makes a familiar ap
proach to God, and holds forth to God and to himself Christ
as the only one through whom he is to be heard ? (Heb.
iv. 14.)
8. By no means : For he who thus prays conceives his

74 CATECHISM OF THE CHURCH OF GENEVA.
prayers as it were at tlie lips of Christ, seeing he knows, that
by the intercession of Christ, his prayer is assisted and re
commended. (Rom. viii. 15.)
M. het us now consider what the prayers of believers
ought to contain. Is it lawful to ask of God whatever comes
into our mind, or is a certain rule to be observed ?
8. It were a very preposterous method of prayer to in
dulge our own desires and the judgment of the flesh. We
are too ignorant to be able to judge what is expedient for
us, and we labour under an intemperance of desire, to which
it is necessary that a bridle be applied.
il/. What then requires to be done ?
8. The only thing remaining is for God himself to pre
scribe a proper form of prayer, that we may follow him
while he leads us by the hand, and as it were sets words
before us.
M. What rule has he prescribed ?
8. The doctrine on this subject is amply and copiously
delivered in the Scriptures. But to give us a surer aim, he
framed, and, as it were, dictated a form in which he has
briefly comprehended and digested under a few heads what
ever it is lawful, and for our interest to ask.
il/. Repeat it.
8. Our Lord Jesus Christ being asked by his disciples in
what way they ought to pray, answered, when ye would
pray, say ye, (Matt. vi. 9 ; Luke xi. 2,) " Our Father, which
art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this
day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we for
give our debtors. And lead us not into temptation ; but de
liver us from evil : For thine is the kingdom, and the power,
and the glory, for ever. Amen."
M. That we may the better understand what it contains,
let us divide it into heads.
8. It contains six parts, of which the three first respect the
glory of God alone as their proper end, without any reference
to us : the other three relate to us and our interest.
M. Are we then to ask God for any thing from which no
benefit redounds to us ?

OF PRAYER. 75
8. He indeed of iiis infinite goodness so arranges all
things that nothing tends to his glory without being also
salutary to us. Therefore when his name is sanctified, he
causes it to tum to our sanctification also ; nor does his
kingdom come without our being in a raanner sharers in it.
But in asking all these things, we ought to look only to his
glory without thinking of advantage to ourselves.
M. According to this view, three of these requests have a
connection with our own good, and yet their only aira ought
to be, that the name of God may be glorified.
8. It is so ; and thus the glory of God ought also to be
considered in the other three, though they are properly in
tended to express desire for thiugs which belong to our
good and salvation.
M. het us now proceed to an explanation of the words ;
and, first, Why is the name of Father, rather than any other,
here given to God ?
8. As security of conscience is one of the most essential
requisites for praying aright, God assumes this name, which
suggests only the idea of pure kindness, that having thus
banished all anxiety from our minds, he may invite us to
make a familiar approach to him.
M. Shall we then dare to go to him directly without hesi
tation as children to parents ?
8. Wholly so : nay, with much surer confidence of obtain
ing what we ask. For as our Master reminds us, (Matt. vii.
11,) If we being evil cannot however refuse good things to our
children, nor bear to send them empty away, nor give them
poison for bread, how much greater kindness is to be ex
pected from our heavenly Father, who is not only supremely
good, but goodness itself?
M. May we not from this name also draw the inference
which we mentioned at the outset, viz., that to be approved,
all our prayers should be founded on the intercession of
Christ ? (John xv. 7 ; Rom. viii. 1 5.)
8. And indeed a most valid inference. For God regards
us as sons, only in so far as we are members of Christ.
M. Why do you call God " our Father" in conimon, rather
than " my Father" in particular?

76 CATECHISM OF THE CHURCH OF GENEVA.
8. Each believer raay indeed call hira his own Father, but
the Lord used the comraon epithet that he might accustom
us to exercise charity in our prayers, and that we might
not neglect others, by each caring only for himself
M. What is meant by the additional clause, that God is
in heaven ?
8. It is just the same as if I were to call him exalted,
mighty, incomprehensible.
M. To what end this, and for what reason ?
8. In this way we are taught when we pray to him to
raise our rainds aloft, and not have any carnal or earthly
thoughts of hira, nor raeasure him by our own little standard,
lest thinking too meanly of him, we should wish to bring
him into subjection to our will, instead of learning to look
up with fear and reverence to his glorious Majesty. It tends
to excite and confirm our confidence in him, when he is pro
claimed to be the Lord and Governor of heaven, ruling all
things at his pleasure.
M. Repeat to me the substance of the first petition.
8. By the name of God, Scripture denotes the knowledge
and fame with which he is celebrated among men. We
pray then that his glory may be promoted everywhere, aud
in all.
M. But can any thing be added to his glory, or taken
from it ?
8. In itself it neither increases nor is diminished. But
we pray as is meet, that it may be illustrious among men —
that in whatever God does, all his works may appear, as
they are, glorious, that he himself may by all means be glo
rified. M. What understand you by the kingdom of God in the
second petition ?
j 8. It consists chiefly of two branches — that he would
; govern the elect by his Spirit — that he would prostrate and
I destroy the reprobate who refuse to give themselves up to
i his service, thus making it manifest that nothing is able to
resist his raight.
M. In what sense do you pray that this kingdom may
come?

OF PRAYER. 77
8. That the Lord would daily increase the numbers of the
faithful — that he would ever and anon load them with new
gifts of his Spirit, until he fill them completely : moreover,
that he would render his truth more clear and conspicuous
by dispelling the darkness of Satan, that he would abolish
all iniquity, by advancing his own righteousness.
M. Are not all these things done every day ?
8. They are done so far, that the kingdom of God may be
said to be coramenced. We pray, therefore, that it may con
stantly increase and be carried forward, until it attain its
greatest height, which we only hope to take place on the
last day on which God alone, after reducing all creatures to
order, will be exalted and pre-eminent, and so be all in all.
(1 Cor. XV. 28.)
jM. What mean you by asking that the will of God may
be done ? ~"
8. That all creatures may be subdued into obedience to
him, and so depend on his nod, that nothing raay be done
except at his pleasure.
M. Do you think then that any thing can be done against
his will ?
8. We not only pray that what he has decreed with hira
self may come to pass, but also that all contumacy being
tamed and subjugated, he would subject all wills to his own,
and frame them in obedience to it.
J/. Do we not by thus praying surrender our own wills ?
S. Entirely: nor do we only pray that he would make
void whatever desires of ours are at variance with his own
will, but also that he would form in us new minds and new
hearts, so that we may wish nothing of ourselves, but rather
that his Spirit may preside over our wishes, and bring them
into perfect unison with God
if. Why do you pray that this may be done on earth as
it is in heaven ?
8. As the holy angels, who are his celestial creatures, have
it as their only object to obey him in all things, to be always
obedient to his word, and prepared voluntarily to do him ser
vice, we pray for such prorapt obedience in men, that each
may give himself up entirely to him in voluntary subjection.

78 CATECHISM OF THE CHURCH OF GENEVA.
M. Let us now corae to the second part. What mean you
by the " daily ' bread you ask for ?
8. In general every thing that tends to the preservation
of the present life, not only food or clothing, but also all
other helps by which the wants of outward life are sustained;
that we may eat our bread in quiet, so far as the Lord knows
it to be expedient.
M. But why do you ask God to give what he orders us to
provide by our own labour ?
8. Though we are to labour, and even sweat in providing
food, we are not nourished either by our own labour, or our
own industry, or our own diligence, but by the blessing of
God by whicli the labour of our hands, that would otherwise
be in vain, prospers. Moreover we should understand, that
even when abundance of food is supplied to our hand, and
we eat it, we are not nourished by its substance, but by the
virtue of God alone. It has not any inherent efficacy in its
own nature, but God supplies it from heaven as the instru
ment of his own beneficence. (Deut. viii. 3; Matt. iv. 4.)
M. But by what right do you call it your bread when you
ask God to give it ?
8. Because by the kindness of God it becomes ours, though
it is by no means due to us. We are also reminded by this
term to refrain from coveting the bread of others, and to be
contented with that which has come to us in a legitimate
raanner as frora the hand of God.
M. Why do you add both " daily" and " this day ?"
8. By these two terms we are taught moderation and tem
perance, that our wishes may not exceed the measure of
necessity. M. As this prayer ought to be common to all, how can
the rich, who have abundance at home, and have provision
laid up for a long period, ask it to be given them for a
day? 8. The rich, equally with the poor, should remember that
none of the things which they have will do them good, un
less God grant them the use of them, and by his grace
make the use fruitful and efficacious. Wherefore while pos
sessing all things, we have nothing except in so far as we

OF PRAYER. 79
every hour receive from the hand of God what is necessary
and sufficient for us.
M. What does the fifth petition contain ?
8. That the Lord would pardon our sins.
M. Can no mortal be found so righteous as not to require
this pardon ?
8. Not one. When Christ gave this form of prayer, he
designed it for the whole Church. Wherefore he who would
exempt himself from this necessity, must leave the society
of the faithful. And we have the testimony of Scripture,
namely, that he who would contend before God to clear him
self in one thing, will be found guilty in a thousand. (Job
ix. 3.) The only refuge left for all is in his mercy.
M. How do you think that sins are forgiven us ?
8. As the words of Christ express, namely, that they are
debts which make us liable to eternal death, until God of
his mere liberality deliver us.
31. You say then that it is by the free mercy of God that
we obtain the pardon of sins ?
8. Entirely so. For were the punishment of only one sin,
and that the least, to be ransomed, we could not satisfy it.
AU then must be freely overlooked and forgiven.
M. What advantage accrues to us from this forgive
ness? 8. We are accepted, just as if we were righteous and in
nocent, and at the same time our consciences are confirmed
in a full reliance on his paternal favour, assuring us of sal
vation. 31. Does the appended condition, viz., that he would for
give us as we forgive our debtors, mean that we merit
pardon from God by pardoning men wlio have in any way
offended us ?
8. By no means. For in this way forgiveness would not be
free nor founded alone on the satisfaction which Christ made
for us on the cross. But as by forgetting the injuries done
to ourselves, we, while imitating his goodness and clemency,
demonstrate that we are in fact his children, God wishes us
to confirm it by this pledge ; and at the same time shows us,
on the other hand, that if we do not show ourselves easy

so CATECHISM OF TUE CHURCH OF GENEVA.
and ready to pardon, nothing else is to be expected of hira
than the highest inexorable rigour of severity.
31. Do you say then that all who cannot from the heart
forgive offences are discarded by God and expunged from
his list of children, so that they cannot hope for any place
of pardon in heaven ?
8. So I think, in accordance with the words, " With what
measure ye mete it shall be measured to you again."
M. What comes next ?
8. " Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from
evil." M. Do you include all this in one petition ?
8. It is only one petition ; for the latter clause is an
explanation of the former.
3L Wliat does it contain in substance ?
S. That the Lord would not permit us to rush or fall into
sin — that he would not leave us to be overcome by the
devil and the desires of our flesh, which wage constant war
with us — that he would rather furnish us with his strength
to resist, sustain us by his hand, cover and fortify us by his
protection, so that under his guardianship and tutelage we
may dwell safely.
31. How is this done ?
8. When governed by his Spirit we are imbued with such
a love and desire of righteousness, as to overcome the
flesh, sin, and Satan ; and, on the other hand, with such a
hatred of sin as raay keep us separated from the world in
pure holiness. For our victory consists in the power of the
Spirit. 3L Have we need of this assistance ?
8. Who can dispense with it ? The devil is perpetually
hovering over us, and going about as a roaring lion seeking
whom he may devour. (1 Pet. v. 8.) And let us consider
what our weakness is. Nay, all would be over with us every
single moraent did not God equip us for battle with his own
weapons, and strengthen us with his own hand.
M. What do you raean by the term Temptation ?
8. The tricks and fallacies of Satan, by which he is con
stantly attacking us, and would forthwith easily circumvent

OP THE WORD OF GOD. 81
US, were we not aided by the help of God. For both our
mind, from its native vanity, is liable to his wiles, and our
will, which is always prone to evil, would immediately yield
to him.
M. But why do you pray God not to lead you into temp
tation, which seems to be the proper act of Satan, not of
God? 8. As God defends believers by his protection, that they
may neither be oppressed by the wiles of Satan, nor overcome
by sin, so those whom he means to punish he not only leaves
destitute of his grace, but also delivers to the tyranny of
Satan, strikes with blindness, and gives over to a reprobate
mind, so that they are completely enslaved to sin and ex
posed to all the assaults of temptation.
31. What is meant by the clause which is added, " For
thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for
8. We are here again reminded that our prayers must
lean more on the power and goodness of God than on any
confidence in ourselves. Besides, we are taught to close all
our prayers with praise.
M. Is it not lawful to ask any thing of God that is not
comprehended in this form ?
8. Although we are free to pray in other words, and in
another manner, we ought, however, to hold that no prayer
can please God which is not referable to this as the only rule
of right Prayer. OF THE WORD OF GOD.
31. The order already adopted by us requires that we now
consider the fourth part of divine worship.
8. We said that this consists in acknowledging God as
the author of all good, and in extolling his goodness, justice,
wisdom, and power with praise and thanksgiving, that thus
the glory of all good may remain entirely with him.
31. Has he prescribed no rule as to this part ?
8. All the praises extant in Scripture ought to be our
rule. VOL. IL F

82 CATECHISM OF THE CHURCH OF GENEVA.
31. Has the Lord's Prayer nothing which applies here ?
8. Yes. When we pray that his name may be hallowed,
we pray that he raay be duly glorified in his works — that he
may be regarded, whether in pardoning sinners, as merciful ;
or in exercising vengeance, as just ; or in performing his pro
mises, as true : in short, that whatever of his works we see
may excite us to glorify him. This is indeed to ascribe to
him the praise of all that is good.
31. What shall we infer from these heads which have
hitherto been considered by us ?
8. What truth itself teaches, and was stated at the outset,
viz., that this is eternal life to know one true God the Father,
and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent, (John xvii. 3,) — to
know him, I say, in order that we may pay due honour and
worship to him, that he may be not only our Lord but also
our Father and Saviour, and we be in turn his children and
servants, and accordingly devote our lives to the illustration
of his glory.
il/. How can we attain to such blessedness ?
8. For this end God has left us his holy word ; for
spiritual doctrine is a kind of door by which we enter his
heavenly kingdom.
il/. Where are we to seek for this word ?
8. In the Holy Scriptures, in which it is contained.
, 3L How are you to use it in order to profit by it ?
(S'.^y embracing it with entire heartfelt persuasion, as
certain truth come down from heaven — by being docile,
and subjecting our minds and wills in obedience to it —
by loving it sincerely — by having it once for all engraven
lon our hearts, and there rooted so as to produce fruit in our
life— finally, by being formed after its rule. Then shall it
turn to our salvation, as it was intended.
31. Are all these things put in our own power ?
8. None of them at all ; but every thing which I have
mentioned it belongs to God only to effect in us by the gift
of his Spirit.
31. But are we not to use diligence, and zealously strive
to profit in it by reading, hearing, and meditating ?
8. Yea, verily: seeing that everyone ought to exercise

OF THE SACRAMENTS. 83
himself in the daily reading of it, and all should be espe
cially careful to attend the sermons when the doctrine of
salvation is expounded in the assembly of the faithful.
3L You affirm then that it is not enough for each to
read privately at home, and that all ought to meet in com
mon to hear the same doctrine ?
8. They must meet when they can — that is, when an
opportunity is given.
3L Are you able to prove this to me ?
8. The win of God alone ought to be amply sufficient for
proof; and the order which he hath recommended to his
church is not what two or three only might ohserve, but all
should obey in common. Moreover, he declares this to be
the only method of edifying as well as preserving. This,
then, should be a sacred and inviolable rule to us, and no one
should think himself entitled to be wise above his Masteiv-
31. Is it necessary, then, that pastors should preside over
churches ?
S. Nay ; it is necessary to hear them, and listen with fear
and reverence to the doctrine of Christ as propounded frora
their lips.
3L But is it enough for a Christian man to have been in
structed by his pastor once, or ought he to observe this
course during life ?
8. It is little to have begun, unless you persevere. We
must be the disciples of Christ to the end, or rather without
end. But he has committed to the ministers of the Church
the office of teaching in his name and stead.

OF THE SACRAMENTS.
31. Is there no other medium, as it is called, than the
Word by which God may communicate himself to us ?
8. To the preaching of the Word he has added the Sacra
ments. 31. What is a Sacrament ?
8. An outward attestation of the divine benevolence to
wards us, which, by a visible sign, figures spiritual grace, to

84 CATECHISM OF THE CHURCH OF GENEVA.
seal the promises of God on our hearts, and thereby better
confirm their truth to us.
31. Is there such virtue in a visible sign that it can estab
lish our consciences in a full assurance of salvation ?
*S^. This virtue it has not of itself, but by the will of God,
because it was instituted for this end.
3L Seeing it is the proper office of the Holy Spirit to seal
the promises of God on our minds, how do you attribute this
to the sacraments ?
8. There is a wide difference between hira and thera. To
move and affect the heart, to enlighten the mind, to render
the conscience sure and tranquil, truly belongs to the Spirit
alone ; so that it ouglit to be regarded as wholly his work,
and be ascribed to him alone, that no other may have the
praise ; but this does not at all prevent God from employing
the sacraments as secondary instruments, and applying them
to what use he deems proper, without derogating in any
respect from the agency ofthe Spirit.
31. You think, then, that the power and efficacy of a
sacrament is not contained in the outward element, but
flows entirely from the Spirit of God ?
8. I think so ; viz., that the Lord hath been pleased to
exert his energy by his instruments, this being the purpose
to which he destined them : this he does without detract
ing in any respect from the virtue of his Spirit.
M. Can you give me a reason why he so acts ?
8. In this way he consults our weakness. If we were
wholly spiritual, we might, like the angels, spiritually be
hold both him and his grace ; but as we are surrounded
with this body of clay, we need figures or mirrors to exhibit
a view of spiritual and heavenly things in a kind of earthly
manner ; for we could not otherwise attain to them. At the
same time, it is our interest to have all our senses exercised
in the promises of God, that they may be the better con
firmed to us.
M. If it is true that the sacraments were instituted by
God to be helps to our necessity, is it not arrogance for
any one to hold that he can dispense with them as unne
cessai-y ?

OF THE SACRAMENTS. 85
8. It certainly is ; and hence, if any one of his own accord
abstains from the use of them, as if he had no need of them,
he contemns Christ, spurns his grace, and quenches the
Spirit. M. But what confidence can there be in the sacraments
as a means of establishing the conscience, and what certain
security can be conceived from things which the good and
bad use indiscriminately ?
8. Although the wicked, so to speak, annihilate the gifts
of God offered in the sacraments in so far as regards them
selves, they do not thereby deprive the sacraments of their
nature and virtue.
M. How, then, and when does the effect follow the use of
the sacraments ?
8. When we receive them in faith, seeking Christ alone
and his grace in them.
31. Why do you say that Christ is to be sought in them f~-
8. I mean that we are not to cleave to the visible signs so
as to seek salvation from them, or imagine that the power of
conferring grace is either fixed or included in them, but
rather that the sign is to be used as a help, by which, when
seeking salvation and complete felicity, we are pointed
directly to Christ. ""
31. Seeing that faith is requisite for the use of them, how
do you say that they are given us to confirm our faith,
to make us more certain of the promises of God ?
*S^. It is by no means sufficient that faith is once begun in
us. It must be nourished continually, and increase more and
more every day. To nourish, strengthen, and advance it,
the Lord instituted the sacraments. This indeed Paul in
timates, when he says that they have the effect of sealing
the promises of God. (Rom. iv. 11.)
31. But is it not an indication of unbelief not to have en
tire faith in the promises of God until they are confirmed
to us from another source ?
8. It certainly argues a weakness of faith under which
the children of God labour. They do not, however, cease to be
believers, though the faith with which they are endued is still
small and imperfect ; for as long as we continue in this world

86 CATECHISM OF THE CHIRCH UF GENEVA.
remains of distrust cleave to our fiesh, and these there is
no other way of shaking off than by raaking continual pro
gress even unto the end. It is therefore always necessary
to be going forward.
3L How many are the sacraraents of the Christian
Church ?
8. There are only two, whose use is coramon among all
believers. 3L What are they ?
8. Baptism and the Holy Supper.
31. What likeness or difference is there between them ?
8. Bairtism is a kind of entrance into the Church ; for -we
have in it a testimony that we who are otherwise strangers
and aliens, are received into the family of God, so as to be
counted of his household ; on the other hand, the Supper
attests that God exhibits himself to us by nourishing our souls.
3L That the meaning of both maybe more clear to us, let
us treat of them separately. First, what is the meaning of
Baptism ?
S. It consists of two parts. For, first, Forgiveness of sins ;
and, secondly. Spiritual regeneration, is figured by it. (Eph.
V. 26 ; Rom. vi. 4.)
iV. What resemblance has water with these things, so as
to represent them ?
8. Forgiveness of sins is a kind of washing, by which our
souls are cleansed from their defilements, just as bodily stains
are washed away by water.
il/. What do you say of Regeneration ?
8. Since the mortification of our nature is its beginning,
and our becoming new creatures its end, a figure of death is
set before us when the water is poured upon the head, and
the figure of a new life when instead of remaining immersed
under water, we only enter it for a monient as a kind of
grave, out of which we instantly emerge.
M. Do you think that the water is a washing of the soul?
8. By no means ; for it were impious to snatch away this
honour from the blood of Christ, which was shed in order to
wipe away all our stains, and render us pure and unpolluted
in the sight of God. (1 Pet. i, 19; 1 John i. 7.) And we re-

OF THE SACRAMENTS. 87
ceive the fruit ofthis cleansing when the Holy Spirit sprinkles
our consciences with that sacred blood. Of this we have a
seal in the Sacrament.
31. But do you attribute nothing more to the water than
that it is a figure of ablution ?
8. I understand it to be a figure, but still so that the
reality is annexed to it ; for God does not disappoint us
when he promises us his gifts. Accordingly, it is certain
that both pardon of sins and newness of life are offered to
us in baptism, and received by us.
31. Is this grace bestowed on all indiscriminately ?
8. Many precluding its entrance by their depravity, make
it void to themselves. Hence the benefit extends to believers
only, and yet the Sacrament loses nothing of its nature.
31. Whence is Regeneration derived ?
8. From the Death and Resurrection of Christ taken to
gether. His death hath this efficacy, that by means of it
our old man is crucified, and the vitiosity of our nature in a
manner buried, so as no more to be in vigour in us. Our
reformation to a new life, so as to obey the righteousness of
God, is the result of the resurrection.
31. How are these blessings bestowed upon us by Baptism ?
8. If we do not render the promises there offered unfruit
ful by rejecting them, we are clothed with Christ, and pre
sented with his Spirit.
il/. What must we do in order to use Baptism duly ?
8. The right use of Baptism consists in faith and repent
ance ; that is, we must first hold with a firm heartfelt re
liance that, being purified from all stains by the blood of
Christ, we are pleasing to God : secondly, we must feel his
Spirit dwelling in us, and declare this to others by our ac
tions, and we must constantly exercise ourselves in aiming
at the mortification of our flesh, and obedience to the
righteousness of God.
3L If these things are requisite to the legitiraate use of
Baptisra, how comes it that we baptize Infants ?
8. It is not necessary that faith and repentance should
always precede baptism. They are only required from those
whose age makes them capable of both. It will be suffi-

88 CATECHISM OF THE CHURCH OF GENEVA.
cient, then, if, after infants have grown up, they exhibit the
power of their baptism.
il/. Can you demonstrate by reason that there is nothing
absurd in this ?
8. Yes ; if it be conceded to me that our Lord instituted
nothing at variance with reason. For while Moses and all the
Prophets teach that circumcision was a sign of repentance,
and was even as Paul declares the sacrament of faith, we
see that infants were not excluded from it. (Deut. xxx. 6 ;
Jer. iv. 4 ; Rom. iv. 11.)
M. But are they now admitted to Baptism for the same
reason that was valid in circumcision ?
8. The very same, seeing that the promises which God
anciently gave to the peo2)le of Israel are novv published
through the whole world.
3L But do you infer from thence that the sign also is to
be used ?
8. He who will duly ponder all things in both ordinances,
will perceive this to follo-w. Christ in making us partakers
of his grace, which had been formerly bestowed on Israel,
did not condition, that it should either be more obscure or
in some respect less abundant. Nay, rather he shed it upon
us both more clearly and more abundantly.
31. Do you think that if infants are denied baptism, some
thing is thereby deducted from the grace of God, and it
must be said to have been diminished by the coming of
Christ? 8. That indeed is evident ; for the sign being taken away,
which tends very much to testify the mercy of God and
confirm the promises, we should want an admirable consola
tion which those of ancient times enjoyed.
31. Your view then is, that since God, under the Old Tes
tament, in order to show himself the Father of infants, was
pleased that the promise of salvation should be engraven on
their bodies by a visible sign, it were unbecoming to suppose
that, since the advent of Christ, believers have less to con
firm them, God having intended to give us in the present day
the same promise which was anciently given to the Fathers,
and exhibited in Christ a clearer specimen of his goodness ?

OF THE SACRAMENTS. 89
8. That is my view. Besides, while it is sufficiently clear
that the force, and so to speak, the substance of Baptism are
common to children, to deny them the sign, which is inferior
to the substance, were manifest injustice.
31. On what terms then are children to be baptized ?
8. To attest that they are heirs of the blessing promised
to the seed of believers, and enable them to receive and pro
duce the fruit of their Baptism, on acknowledging its reality
after they have grown up.
3L Let us now pass to the Supper. And, first, I should
like to know from you what its meaning is.
8. It was instituted by Christ in order that by the com
munication of his body and blood, he might teach and assure
us that our souls are being trained in the hope of eternal
life. 31. But why is the body of our Lord figured by bread, and
his blood by wine ?
8. We are hence taught that such virtue as bread has
in nourishing our bodies to sustain the present life, the
same has the body of our Lord spiritually to nourish our
souls. As by wine the hearts of men are gladdened, their
strength recruited, and the whole man strengthened, so by
the blood of our Lord the same benefits are received by our
souls. 31. Do we therefore eat the body and blood of the Lord ?
8. I understand so. For as our whole reliance for salva
tion depends on him,*in order that the obedience which he
yielded to the Father may be imputed to us just as if It
were ours, it is necessary that he be possessed by us ; for the
only way in which he communicates his blessings to us is
by making himself ours.
31. But did he not give himself when he exposed himself
to death, that he might redeem us from the sentence of
death, and reconcile us to God ?
8. That is indeed true ; but it is not enough for us unless
we now receive him, that thus the efficacy and fruit of his
death may reach us.
if. Does not the manner of receiving consist in faith ?
8. I admit it does. But I at the same time add, that

90 CATECHISM OF THE CUURCH OF GENEVA.
this is done when we not only believe that he died in order
to free us frora death, and was raised up that he might
purchase life for us, but recognise that he dwells in us,
and that we are united to him by a union the same in kind
as that which unites the members to the head, that by
virtue of this union we may becorae partakers of all his
blessings. M. Do we obtain this communion by the Supper alone ?
8. No, indeed. For by the gospel also, as Paul declares,
Christ is comraunicated to us. And Paul justly declares this,
seeing we are there told that we are flesh of his flesh and
bones of his bones — that he is the living bread whicii came
down frora heaven to nourish our souls — that we are one
with him as he is ono with the Father, &c. (1 Cor. i. 6 ;
Eph. V. 30 ; John vi. 51; John xvii. 21.)
if. What more do we obtain from the sacrament, or what
other benefit does it confer upon us ?
8. The communion of which I spoke is thereby confirmed
and increased ; for although Christ is exhibited to us both in
baptism and in the gospel, we do not ho-wever receive him
entire, but in part only.
if. What then have we in the symbol of bread ?
8. As the body of Christ was once sacij^ficed for us to re
concile us to God, so now also is it given to us, that we may
certainly know that reconciliation belongs to us.
3L What in the symbol of wine ?
8. That as Christ once shed his blood for the satisfaction
of our sins, and as the price of our redemption, so he now
also gives it to us to drink, that we may feel the benefit
which should thence accrue to us.
3L According to these two answers, the holy Supper of
the Lord refers us to his death, that we may communicate
in its virtue ?
8. Wholly so ; for then the one perpetual sacrifice, suffi
cient for our salvation, was performed. Hence nothing more
remains for us but to enjoy it.
3L The Supper then was not instituted in order to offer
up to God the body of his Son ?
8. By no raeans. He himself alone, as priest for ever, has

OF THE SACRAMENTS. 91
this privilege ; and so his words express when he says,
" Take, eat." He there commands us not to offer his body,
but only to eat it. (Heb. v. 10 ; Matt. xxvi. 26.)
M. Why do we use two signs ?
8. Therein the Lord consulted our weakness, teaching us
in a more familiar manner that he is not only food to our
souls, but drink also, so that we are not to seek any part of
spiritual life anywhere else than in him alone.
31. Ought all without exception to use both alike ?
8. So the commandment of Christ bears : and to derogate
from it in any way, by attempting anything contrary to it,
is wicked. M. Have we in the Supper only a figure of the benefits
which you have mentioned, or are they there exhibited to
us in reality ?
8. Seeing that our Lord Jesus Christ is truth itself, there
cannot be a doubt that he at the same time fulfils the pro
mises which he there gives us, and adds the reality to the
figures. Wherefore I doubt not that as he testifies by words
and signs, so he also makes us partakers of his substance,
that thus we may have one life with him.
if. But how can this be, when the body of Christ is in
heaven, and we are still pilgrims on the earth ?
8. This he accomplishes by the secret and miraculous
agency of his Spirit, to whora it is not difficult to unite
things otherwise disjoined by a distant space.
M. You do not imagine then, either that the body is in
closed in the bread or the blood in the wine ?
8. Neither is inclosed. My understanding rather is, that
in order to obtain the reality of the signs, our minds must
be raised to heaven, where Christ is, and from whence we
expect him as Judge and Redeemer, and that it is improper
and' vain to seek him in these earthly elements.
M. To collect the substance of what you have said — You
maintain that there are two things in the Supper, viz., bread
and wine, which are seen by the eyes, handled by the hands,
and perceived by the taste, and Christ by whora our souls
are inwardly fed as with their own proper aliment ?
8. True ; and so much so that the resurrection of the body

92 CATECHISM OF THE CHURCH OF GENEVA.
also is there confirmed to us by a kind of pledge, since the
body also shares in the symbol of life.
3L What is the right and legitimate use of this Sacra
ment ?
8. That which Paul points out, "Let a man examine
himself," before he approach to it. (1 Cor. xi. 28.)
3L Into what is he to inquire in this examination ?
8. Whether he be a true member of Christ.
31. By what evidence may he come to know this ?
8. If he is endued with faith and repentance, if he enter
tains sincere love for his neighbour, if he has his mind pure
from all hatred and malice.
31. Do you require that a man's faith and charity should
both be perfect ?
8. Both should be entire and free frora all hypocrisy, but
it were vain to deraand an absolute perfection to which
nothing sliould be wanting, seeing that none such will ever
be found in man.
M. Then the imperfection under which we still labour
does not forbid our approach ?
8. On the contrary, were we perfect, the Supper would no
longer be of any use to us. It should be a help to aid our
weakness, and a support to our imperfection.
3L Is no other end besides proposed by these two Sacra
ments ?
8. They are also raarks and as it were badges of our pro
fession. For by the use of them we profess our faith before
raen, and testify our consent in the religion of Christ.
31. Were any one to despise the use of them, in what
light should it be regarded ?
8. As an indirect denial of Christ. Assuredly such a
person, inasmuch as he deigns not to confess himself a
Christian, deserves not to be classed among Christians.
if. Is it enough to receive both once in a lifetime ?
8. It is enough so to receive baptism, which may not be
repeated. It is different with the Supper.
M. What is the difference ?
8. By baptism the Lord adopts us and brings us into his '
Church, so as thereafter to regard us as part of his house-

OF THE SACRAMENTS. 93
hold. After he has admitted us among the number of his
people, he testifies by the Supper that he takes a continual
interest in nourishing us.
if. Does the administration both of baptisra and of the
Supper belong indiscriminately to all ?
8. By no means. It is confined to those to whom the
office of teaching has been committed. For the two things,
viz., to feed the Church with the doctrine of piety and ad
minister the sacrament, are united together by an indis
soluble tie.
31. Can you prove this to me by the testimony of Scrip
ture? 8. Christ gave special commandment to the Apostles to
baptize. In the celebration of the Supper he ordered us to
follow his example. And the Evangelists relate that he
himself in dispensing it, performed the office of a public
minister. (Matt, xxviii. 19 ; Luke xxii. 19.)
if. But ought pastors, to whom the dispensing of it has
been coraraitted, to admit all indiscriminately without
selection ?
8. In regard to baptism, as it is now bestowed only on
infants, there is no room for discrimination ; but in the Sup
per the rainister ought to take heed not to give it to any
one who is clearly unworthy of receiving it.
M. Why so ?
8. Because it cannot be done without insulting and pro
faning the Sacrament.
M. But did not Christ admit Judas, impious though he
was, to the Communion ?
8. 1 admit it ; as his impiety was still secret. For though
it was not unknown to Christ, it had not come to light or
the knowledge of men. (Matt. xxvi. 25.)
if. What then can be done with hypocrites ?
*S^. The pastor cannot keep them back as unworthy, but
must wait till such time as God shall reveal their iniquity,
and make it manifest to all.
if. But if he knows or has been warned that an indivi
dual is unworthy ?
8. Even that would not be sufficient to keep him back

94 CATECHISM OF THE CHURCH OF GENEVA.
from communicating, unless in addition to it there was a
legitimate investigation and decision of the Church.
M. It is of importance, then, that there should be a cer
tain order of government established in churches ?
8. It is : they cannot otherwise be well managed or duly
constituted. The method is for elders to be chosen to preside
as censors of manners, to guard watchfully against offences,
and exclude from communion all whom they recognise to be
unfit for it, and who could not be admitted without profan
ing the Sacrament.

SEYERAL GODLY PRAYERS.

PRAYER FOR THE MORNIJS'G.
My God, my Father and Preserver, who of thy goodness
hast -watched over me during the past night, and brought me
to this day, grant also that I may spend it wholly in the
worship and service of thy most holy deity. Let me not
think, or say, or do a single thing which tends not to thy
service and submission to thy will, that thus all my actions
may aim at thy glory and the salvation of my brethren,
while they are taught by my example to serve thee. Andv
as thou art giving light to this world for the purposes of ">
extemal life by the rays of the sun, so enlighten my mind
by the effulgence of thy Spirit, that he may guide me in the
way of thy righteousness. To whatever purpose I apply my
mind, may the end which I ever propose to myself be thy
honour and service. May I expect all happiness from thy
grace and goodness only. Let me not atterapt any thing
whatever that is not pleasing to thee.
Grant also, that while I labour for the maintenance of
this life, and care for the things which pertain to food and
raiment, I may raise my mind above them to the blessed
and heavenly life which thou hast promised to thy children.
Be pleased also, in manifesting thyself to me as the protector
of my soul as well as my body, to strengthen and fortify me
against all the assaults of the devil, and deliver me from all
the dangers which continuaUy beset us in this life. But
seeing it is a small thing to have begun, unless I also perse
vere, I therefore entreat of thee, 0 Lord, not only to be my
guide and director for this day, but to keep me under thy
protection to the very end of life, that thus my whole course
may be performed under thy superintendence. As I ought

96 GODLY PRAYERS.
to make progress, do thou add daily more and more to the
gifts of thy grace until I wholly adhere to thy Son Jesus
Christ, whom we justly regard as the true Sun, shining con
stantly in our minds. In order to my obtaining of thee
these great and manifold blessings, forget, and out of thy
infinite mercy, forgive my oflences, as thou hast promised
that thou wilt do to those who call upon thee in sincerity.
(Ps. cxliii. fci.) — Grant that I may hear thy voice in the
morning since I have hoped in thee. Show me the way in
which I should walk, since I have lifted up my soul unto
thee. Deliver me from ray enemies, 0 Lord, I have fied
unto thee. Teach me to do thy will, for thou art my God.
Let thy good Spirit conduct me to the land of uprightness.

PRAYER ON PREPARING TO GO TO SCHOOL.
Ps. cxix. 9. Wherein shall a young raan establish his way?
If he wisely conduct himself according to thy word. With
my heart have I sought thee, allow me not to err from thy
precepts.
0 Lord, who art the fountain of all wisdom and learning,
since thou of thy special goodness hast granted that my youth
is instructed in good arts which may assist me to honest and
holy living, grant also, by enlightening my mind, which
otherwise labours under blindness, that I may be fit to
acquire knowledge ; strengthen my memory faithfully to
retain what I may have learned : and govern my heart, that
I may be willing and even eager to profit, lest the oppor
tunity which thou now givest me be lost through my slug
gishness. Be pleased therefore to infuse thy Spirit into me,
the Spirit of understanding, of truth, judgment, and pru
dence, lest my study be without success, and the labour of
my teacher be in vain.
In whatever kind of study I engage, enable me to remem
ber to keep its proper end in view, namely, to know thee in
Christ Jesus thy Son ; and may every thing that I learn
assist me to observe the right rule of godliness. And seeing
thou promisest that thou wilt bestow wisdom on babes, and

GODLY PRAYERS.

97

such as are humble, and the knowledge of thyself on the
upright in heart, while thou declarest that thou wilt cast
down the wicked and the proud, so that they will fade away
in their ways, I entreat that thou wouldst be pleased to
tum me to true humility, that thus I may show myself
teachable and obedient first of all to thyself, and then to
those also who by thy authority are placed over me. Be
pleased at the same time to root out all vicious desires from
my heart, and inspire it with an earnest desire of seeking
thee. FinaUy, let the only end at which I aim be so to
qualify myself in early life, that when I grow up I may
serve thee in whatever station thou mayest assign me.
Amen.
The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him ; and he
will make known his covenant unto them. (Ps. xxv. 14.)

BLESSING AT TABLE.
All look unto thee, O Lord ; and thou givest them their meat
in due season ; that thou givest them they gather : thou
openest thine hand, and they are filled with all things in
abundance. (Ps. civ. 27.)
0 Lord, in whom is the source and inexhaustible foun
tain of all good things, pour out thy blessing upon us, and
sanctify to our use the meat and drink which are the gifts
of thy kindness towards us, that we, using them soberly and
frugally as thou enjoinest, may eat with a pure conscience.
Grant, also, that we may always both with true heartfelt
gratitude acknowledge, and with our lips proclaim thee our
Father and the giver of all good, and, while enjoying bodily
nourishment, aspire with special longing of heart after the
bread of thy doctrine, by which our souls may be nourished
in the hope of etemal life, through Christ Jesus our Lord.
Amen.
Man liveth not by bread alone, but by every word which pro
ceedeth from the mouth of God. (Deut. viii. 3.)
VOL. IL G

98 GODLY PRAYERS.

THANKSGIVING AFTER MEAT.
Let all nations praise the Lord : let all the people sing praises
to God. (Ps. cxvii. 1.)
We give thanks, 0 God and Father, for the many mercies
which thou of thy infinite goodness art constantly bestowing
upon us ; both in that by supplying all the helps which we
need to sustain the present life, thou showest that thou
hast a care even of our bodies, and more especially in that
thou hast deigned to beget us again to the hope of the
better life which thou hast revealed to us by thy holy
gospel. And we beseech thee not to allow our minds to
be chained down to earthly thoughts and cares, as if they
were buried in our bodies. Rather cause that we may
stand with eyes upraised in expectation of thy Son Jesus
Christ, till he appear from heaven for our redemption and
salvation. Amen.

PRAYER AT NIGHT ON GOING TO SLEEP.
0 Lord God, who hast given man the night for rest, as
thou hast created the day in which he may empiloy himself
in labour, grant, I pray, that my body may so rest during
this night that my mind cease not to be awake to thee, nor
my heart faint or be overcome with torpor, preventing it
from adhering steadfastly to the love of thee. While laying
aside my cares to relax and relieve my mind, may I not, in
the meanwhile, forget thee, nor may the remembrance of thy
goodness and grace, which ought always to be deej^ly en
graven on my mind, escape my memory. In like manner,
also, as the body rests may my conscience enjoy rest. Grant,
moreover, that in taking sleep I may not give indulgence to
the flesh, but only allow myself as much as the weakness of
this natural state requires, to my being enabled thereafter
to be more alert in thy service. Be pleased to keep me so
chaste and unpolluted, not less in mind than in body, and
safe from all dangers, that my sleep itself may tum to the

GODLY PRAYERS. 99
glory of thy name. But since this day has not passed away
without my having in many ways offended thee through
my proneness to evil, in like manner as all things are
now covered by the darkness of the night, so let every
thing that is sinful in me lie buried in thy mercy. Hear
me, 0 God, Father and Preserver, through Jesus Christ
thy Son. Amen.

FORMS OF PRAYER FOR THE CHURCH.

On ordinary 3Ieetings the Minister leads the devotions of
the people in whatever words seem to him suitable, adapt
ing his address to the time and the subject of the Dis
course which he is to deliver, but the following Form is
generally used on the 3Iorning ofthe Lord's Day.
Our help is in the name of the Lord, who made heaven
and earth. Amen.
Brethren, Let each one of us sist himself before the Lord,
and confess his sins, and follow me with his raind, while
I go before with these words :
^0 Lord God, eternal and almighty Father, we acknow
ledge and sincerely confess before thy Holy Majesty that we
are miserable sinners, ooncerred— and bom -4n-guilt and jbjj^^
prone to iniquitj, and incapable of any good work,1)aftd-thAt-
__in-OUtjiepravilyjsce^ make no end of transgressing thy com
mandments. We'thus "caHnlown destruction upmi -ourselves
from-4hyjnst jirdgment. Nevertheless, 0 Lord, we anxiously
lament that we have offended thee, and we condemn our
selves and our faults with true repentance, asking thee to
succour our wretchedness by thy grace.
Deign, then, 0 most gracious and most merciful God and
Father, to bestow thy mercy upon us in the name of Jesus
Christ thy Son our Lord. Effacing our faults, and washing
away all our pollutions, daily increase to us the gifts of thy
Holy Spirit, that we from our inmost hearts acknowledging
our iniquity, may be more and more displeasing to ourselves,
and so stimulated to true repentance, and that he mortify
ing us with all our sins, may produce in us the fruits of
righteousness and holiness pleasing to thee, through Jesus
Christ our Lord. ) Amen.

FORMS OF PRAYER FOR THE CHURCH. 101
After this a Psalm is sung by the whole Congregation;
then the Minister again engages in Prayer, in which he
begs God to grant the gift of the Holy Spirit, in order
that his Word may be faithfuUy ecopounded to ihe glory
of his name and the edification ofthe Church, and be re
ceived with becoming submission and obedience of mind.
The Form of Prayer suitable for this the Minister selects
for him,self at pleasure. Having finished the Sermon,
he exhorts the people to pray, and begins thus :
Almighty God, heavenly Father, thou hast promised us
that thou wilt listen to the prayers which we pour forth to
thee in the name of thy beloved Son, Jesus Christ our Lord ;
and we have been taught by him and by his apostles to as
semble ourselves together in one place in his name, with
the promise that he will be present with us to intercede for
us with thee, and obtain for us whatever we shall, with one
consent, ask of thee on the earth.
Thou enjoinest us to pray first for those whom thou hast
appointed to be our rulers and governors, and next to draw
near and supplicate thee for all things which are necessary
for thy people, and so for all men. Therefore trusting to thy
holy commands and promises, now that we come into thy
presence, having assembled in the name of thy Son our Lord
Jesus Christ, we humbly and earnestly beg of thee, 0 God,
our most gracious Father, in the name of him who is our
only Saviour and Mediator, that of thy boundless mercy thou
wouldst be pleased to pardon our sins, and so draw our
thoughts to thyself, that we may be able to invoke thee
from our inmost heart, framing our desires in accordance
with thy -will, which alone is agreeable to reason.
We therefore pour out our prayers before thee, 0 heavenly
Father, in behalf of all rulers and magistrates, whose service
thou employest in governing us, and especially for the magis
trates of this city, that thou wouldst be pleased to impart to
them more and more every day of thy Spirit, who alone is
good, and traly the chief good, so that feeling fully convinced
that Jesus Christ thy Son, our Lord, is King of kings and Lord
of lords, like as thou hast given him all power in heaven and

102 forms OF PRAYER FOR THE CHURCH.
on earth, so they too may in their office have an eye above all
to his worship and the extension of his kingdom, governing
those under them (who are the work of thy hands and the
sheep of thy pasture) according to thy will, so that we, en
joying stable peace both here and in every other part of the
world, may serve thee with all holiness and purity, and
freed from the fear of our enemies, have ground to celebrate
thy praise during the whole period of our lives.
Next, 0 faithful Father and Saviour, we commend to thee
in our prayers all whom thou hast appointed pastors over
thy faithful, and to whose guidance thou hast committed our
soiils ; whom, in fine, thou hast been pleased to make the dis
pensers of thy holy gospel ; that thou wouldst guide them by
thy Holy Spirit, and so make them honest and faithful
ministers of thy glory, making it all their study, and direct
ing all their endeavours to gather together all the wretched
sheep which are still wandering astray, and bring them back
to Jesus Christ the chief Shepherd and Prince of bishops ;
and that they may increase in righteousness and holiness
every day ; that in the meanwhile thou wouldst be pleased
to rescue all thy churches from the jaws of ravening wolves
and all hirelings, who are led only by a love of fame or
lucre, and plainly care not for the manifestation of thy glory,
and the salvation of thy flock.
Moreover, we offer up our prayers unto thee, 0 most gra
cious God and most raerciful Father, for all men in general,
that as thou art pleased to be acknowledged the Saviour of
the whole human race by the redemption accomplished by
Jesus Christ thy Son, so those who are still strangers to the
knowledge of him, and immersed in darkness, and held cap
tive by ignorance and error, may, by thy Holy Spirit shin
ing upon them, and by thy gospel sounding in their ears, be
brought back to the right way of salvation, which consists
in knowing thee the true God and Jesus Christ whom thou
hast sent. We beg that those on whom thou hast deigned
already to bestow the favour of thy grace, and whose minds
thou hast enlightened by the knowledge of thy word, may
daily profit more and more, being enriched with thy spiritual
blessings, so that we may all together, with one heart and

forms of prayer for THE CHURCH. 103
mouth, worship thee, and pay due honour, and yield just
service to thy Christ, our Lord, and King, and Lawgiver.
Furthermore, 0 Author of all consolation, we commend to
thee all of thy people whom thou chastisest in various ways :
those afflicted by pestilence, famine, or war ; individuals also
pressed by poverty, or imprisonment, or disease, or exile, or
any other suffering in body or mind, that wisely considering
that the end which thou hast in view is to bring them back
into the right path by thy rod, they may be imbued with
the sense of thy paternal love, and repent with sincere pur
pose of heart, so as to turn unto thee with their whole mind,
and being turned, receive full consolation, and be delivered
from all their evils.
In a particular manner, we commend unto thee our un
happy brethren who live dispersed under the tyranny of
Antichrist, and deprived of the liberty of openly calling upon
thy name, and who have either been cast into prison or are
oppressed by the enemies of the gospel in any other way,
that thou wouldst deign, 0 most indulgent Father, to sup
port them by the strength of thy Spirit, so that they may
never despond, but constantly persevere in thy holy calling :
that thou mayest be pleased to stretch out thy hand to them,
as thou knowest to be best for them, to console them in
their adversity, and taking them under thy protection,
defend them from the ravening of wolves ; in fine, load them
with all the gifts of thy Spirit, that their life and death
may alike tend to thy glory.
Lastly, 0 God and Father, allow thyself to be entreated
of us, who have here assembled in the name of thy Son
Jesus, for the sake of his word, (only when the Supper is dis
pensed add " and of His Holy Supper,") that we, truly con
scious of our lost original, may at the same time reflect how
greatly we deserve condemnation, and how much we add to
our guilt every day by impure and wicked lives ; that when
we recognise that we are devoid of all good, and that our
flesh and blood are plainly averse to discern the inheritance
of thy kingdom, we may with full purpose'of heart and firm
confidence devote ourselves to thy beloved Son, Jesus Christ,
our Lord and only Saviour and Redeemer ; that lie, dwelling

104 FORMS OF prayer FOR THE CHURCH.
in us, may extinguish our old Adam and renovate and invi
gorate us for a better life ; that thus (the remainder is a
paraphrase of the Lord's Prayer — Hallowed be thy name)
thy name, as it excels in holiness and dignity, may be ex
tolled in every region and in every place ; that at the same
time (thy kingdom come) thou mayest obtain right and
authority over us, and we learn more and raore every day
to submit to thy authority, so that thou mayest everywhere
reign supreme, governing thy people by the sceptre of thy
word and the power of thy Spirit, and by the strength of thy
truth and righteousness crushing all the attempts of thy
enemies. Thus may all power and every high thing that
opposes itself to thy glory be daily effaced and destroyed,
until thy kingdora is made complete in all its parts, and its
perfection thoroughly established, as it will be when thou
shalt appear as judge in the person of thy Son. May we
with all creatures (thy will be done) yield thee true and full
obedience, as thy heavenly angels feel wholly intent on
executing thy commands. May thy will thus prevail, none
opposing it ; and may all study to obey and serve thee, re
nouncing their own will and all the desires of the flesh.
And be pleased, ((/ive us this day our daily bread,) while we
retain the love and fear of thee in all the actions of our lives,
to nourish us of thy goodness, and supply us with all things
necessary for eating our bread in peace and quietness ; that
thus seeing the care which thou takest of us, we may the
better recognise thee as our Father, and expect all blessings
at thy hand, no longer placing hope and confidence in any
creature, but entirely in thy goodness. And since in this
mortal life we are miserable sinners, (forgive us our debts,)
labouring under such infirmity that we constantly give way
and deviate from the right path, be pleased to pardon all
the sins of which we are guilty in thy sight, and by this
pardon free us from the liability to eternal death which lies
upon us : let not our iniquity be imputed to us, just as
we ourselves, obeying thy coraraand, forget the injuries done
to us ; and so far from wishing to take vengeance on our
enemies, study to promote their good. In time to come
(lead us not into temptation) be pleased to support us by thy

FORMS OF PRAYER FOR THE CHURCH. 105
power, and not allow us to fall under the weakness of our
flesh ; and seeing that our strength is so feeble that we can
not stand for a single moment — while at the same time so
many enemies beset and attack us, while the devil, the world,
sin, and our flesh make no end of assailing us — do thou
strengthen us with thy Holy Spirit, and arm us with the
gifts of thy grace, that we may be able firmly to resist all
teraptations and sustain this spiritual contest, till, having
gained the complete victory, we may at length triuraph in
thy kingdom, with our Prince and Protector, Jesus Christ
our Lord. Amen.
[Thereafter the Apostle's Creed is repeated.]
When the Lord's Supper is dispensed, there is added to
the above :
And as our Lord Jesus Christ, not content with having
once offered his body and blood upon the cross for the for
giveness of our sins, has also destined them to us as nourish
ment for eternal life, so grant us of thy goodness, that we
may receive this great blessing with true sincerity of heart
and ardent desire, and endued with sure faith, enjoy to
gether his body and blood, or rather himself entire, just as
he himself, while he is true God and man, is truly the holy
bread of heaven that gives us life, that we may no longer
live in ourselves, and after our own will, which is altogether
depraved, but he may live in us, and conduct us to a holy,
• happy, and ever-during life, thus making us truly partakers
of the new and eternal covenant, even the covenant of grace ;
and in feeling fully persuaded that thou art pleased to be
for ever a propitious Father to us, by not imputing to us our
offences, and to furnish us, as dear children and heirs, with
all things necessary as well for the soul as the body, we may
pay thee endless praise and thanks, and render thy name
glorious both by words and deeds. Fit us, then, on this day
thus to celebrate the happy remembrance of thy Son : grant
also that we may exercise ourselves therein, and proclaim
the benefits of his death, that thus receiving new increase
and strength for faith and every other good work, we may

106 FORMS OF PRAYER FOR THE CHURCH.
with greater confidence profess ourselves thy children, and
glory in thee our Father.
After the dispensation of the Supper the following Thanks
giving, or one similar to it, is used :
We offer thee immortal praise and thanks, 0 heavenly
Father, for the great blessing which thou hast ^conferred
upon us miserable sinners, in bringing us to partake of thy
Son Jesus Christ, whom thou didst suffer to be delivered to
death for us, and now impartest to us as the food of ever
lasting life. And now in continuance of thy goodness to
wards us, never allow us to become forgetful of these things,
but grant rather, that carrying them about engraven on our
hearts, we may profit and increase in a faith which may be
effectual unto evcry good work. Hence, too, may we dedi
cate the remainder of our life to the advancement of thy
glory and the edification of our neighbours, through the
same Jesus Christ thy Son, who, in the unity of the Holy
Spirit, liveth with thee and reigneth for ever. Amen.

The BLESSING which the 3Iinister asks for the Peoptle, when
about to depart, according to the injunction ofthe Divine
Law :
The Lord bless you and keep you safe. The Lord cause
his countenance to shine upon you, and be gracious to you.
The Lord turn his face toward you, and bestow upon you all
prosperity. Amen.
As the Scriptures teach us that Pestilence, War, and other
calamities of this kind are chastisements of God, which
he inflicts on our sins, so when we see these take place
we ought to acknowledge the anger of God against us ;
and then if we are truly believers, it behoves us to call
our sins to remembrance, that we may be ashamed and
grieved at our conduct, and turning to the Lord with
unfeigned repentance and a better life, suppliantly and
submissively beg pardon of him. Therefore, if at any

FORMS OF PRAYER FOR THE CHURCH. 107
time we see God threatening us, that we may not tempt
his patience, but rather turn away his judgment,
(which we then see to be otherwise impending over us,) it
is proper that there should be a day every week on
which to admonish the people specially of these things,
and pray and supplicate God as the occasion may re
quire. The Form following is intended for that pur
pose. A t the beginning of the service the Minister uses
the General Confession used on The Lord's Day, as
given above. But at the end of the Service, after warn
ing the people that God is now exercising his vengeance
against men, becau,se of the iniquities which prevail over
the whole world, and because of the iniquity to which all
have everywhere abandoned themselves; after exhort
ing them to turn and amend their lives, and pray God
for pardon, he employs the following Form :
Almighty God, heavenly Father, we acknowledge and
humbly confess, as is indeed true, that we are unworthy to
lift up our eyes unto heaven and appear in thy presence, and
that we ought not to presume to hope that thou wilt listen
to our prayers if thou takest account of the things which we
lay before thee ; for we are accused by our own consciences,
and our sins bear witness against us, while we know thee to
be a just Judge, who justifiest not sinners and wicked men,
but inflictest punishment on those who have broken thy
commands. Hence it is, 0 Lord, that when we reflect on
the state of our whole life, we are ashamed of ourselves, and
can do nothing but despond, just as if we were plunged into
the abyss of death.
And yet, 0 Lord, since thou hast deigned, of thy bound
less mercy, to command us to call upon thee, and that from
the lowest hell, and the more devoid of strength we see our
selves to be to flee the more to thy supreme goodness ; since,
moreover, thou hast promised that thou wilt listen to our
prayers in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, (whom thou
hast appointed to be our advocate and intercessor,) and for
his merit, without looking to what we have deserved, we here,
renouncing all human confidence, and tmsting solely to thy

] 08 FORMS OF PRAYER FOR THE CHURCH.
goodness, hesitate not to come into thy sight, and call upon
thy holy name, in order to obtain mercy.
First, 0 Lord, besides the innumerable blessings -which
thou art constantly bestowing on all men whatever that live
upon the earth, thou hast specially imparted to us so many
gifts of thy grace that we cannot count them — nay, we can
not even embrace them in our thoughts. And there is this,
in particular, that thou hast deigned to call us to the know
ledge of thy holy gospel, shaking off the miserable yoke of
bondage by which the devil oppressed us, and, after deliver
ing us from the execrable idolatry and vain superstitions in
which we were immersed, hast brought us to the light of thy
truth. Nevertheless, (such is our ingratitude,) forgetting the
blessings whicii thy hand has bestowed upon us, we have
declined from the right way, and, forsaking thee, have fol
lowed the desires of our own flesh : nay, even thy holy word
have we defrauded of due reverence and obedience, and we
have not duly heralded thy praise. And though the faith
ful admonitions of thy word have constantly sounded in our
ears, we have, however, neglected them.
Thus, 0 Lord, have we sinned and offended thee, and
therefore wc are covered with shame, acknowledging that, in
the eye of thy justice, we are guilty of grievous iniquities, so
that wert thou to inflict condign punishment upon us, we could
expect nothing but death and daranation ; for if we would ex
cuse ourselves, our own consciences accuse us, and our iniquity
lies open before thy sight to our condemnation. And surely,
0 Lord, from the very chastisements which thou hast inflicted
upon us, we know that for the justest causes thy wrath is
kindled against us ; for, seeing thou art a just Judge, thou
afflictest not thy people when not offending. Therefore,
beaten with thy stripes, we acknowledge that we have pro
voked thy anger against us : and even now we see thy hand
stretched forth for our punishment. The swords which thou
art wont to use in inflicting vengeance are now drawn, and
those with which thou threatenest sinners and wicked men
we see ready to smite.
But though thou mightest take much severer punishment
upon us than before, and thus inflict blows an hundredfold

FORMS OF PRAYER FOR THE CHURCH. 1 09
more numerous, and though disasters only less dreadful than
those with which thou didst formerly chastise the sins of thy
people of Israel, should overtake us, we confess that we are
worthy of them, and have raerited thera by our crimes. But,
Lord, thou art our Father, and we nothing else than earth and
clay : thou art our Creator, we are the workmanship of thy
hands : thou art our Shepherd, we are thy fold : thou art our
Redeemer, we the people redeemed by thee : thou art our God,
we thy inheritance. Be not so angry with us, therefore, as
to chastise us in thy fury : remember not our iniquity to
punish it, but of thy mercy chasten us leniently. Thy wrath
is indeed kindled against us because of the sins which we
have committed, but remeraber that we are caUed by thy
narae, and that we bear thy banner. Rather preserve the
work which thy grace has begun in us, that the whole world
may acknowledge thee to be our God and Saviour. .Thou
certainly knowest that the dead in hell, and those whom thou
hast destroyed and driven away utterly, will never praise
thee ; but that the sad, and those devoid of all consolation,
contrite hearts, consciences oppressed by a sense of guilt,
and thirsting for the favour of thy grace, will pay thee
glory and honour.
Thy people of Israel often provoked thee to anger by their
iniquities, and thou iu thy just judgment didst afflict them ;
but as often as they turned unto thee, they had ever access
to thy mercy, and however grievous their sins were, yet on
account of the covenant which thou hadst made with thy
servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, thou didst turn away
thy rod and the disasters which impended over thera, so that
their prayers never suffered a repulse from thee. Us thou
; hast honoured with a more excellent covenant on w-hich we
can lean, that covenant which thou didst establish in the
right hand of Jesus Christ our Saviour, and which thou wast
pleased should be written in his blood and sealed with his
death. Wherefore, 0 Lord, renouncing ourselves and aban-
I doning all other hope, we flee to this precious covenant by
which our Lord Jesus Christ, offering his own body to thee
in sacrifice, has reconcUed us to thee. Look, therefore, 0
Lord, not on us but on the face of Christ, that by his inter-

110 FORMS OF PRAYER FOR THE CHURCH.
cession thy anger may be appeased, and thy face raay shine
forth upon us for our joy and salvation, and receive us to be
henceforth guided and govemed by thy Holy Spirit, who
may regenerate us to a better life, by which
Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will
be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our
daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our
debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us
from evil : For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and
the glory, for ever. Amen.
But though we are unworthy to 02:)en our raouths for our
selves and call upon thee in adversity, yet as thou hast cora
raanded us to pray one for another, we pour out our jirayers
for all our brethren, members of the same body, whom thou
now chastisest with thy scourge, and beseech thee to turn
away thine anger from them ; in particular, we pray for N.
and N". Remember, Lord, thatthey are thy children as well
as we ; and therefore though they have offended tliee, inter
rupt not the course of thy goodness and mercy toward them,
which thou hast promised will endure for ever towards all
thy children.
Deign then to look upon all thy churches with an eye of
pity, and on all the nations whom thou now smitest with
pestilence, or war, or any other kind of scourge, and on all
the individuals who are receiving thy stripes ; on all who are
bound in prison or afflicted with disease or poverty, and
bringing consolation to all, as thou knowest them to require
it, and rendering thy chastisements useful for the reforma
tion of their Uves ; deign to furnish them with patience, to
moderate thy severity, and by at length delivering them, to
give them full cause to exult in thy goodness, and bless thy
holy name.
In particular, be pleased to turn thine eyes upon those who
contend for thy truth both in public and in private, that
thou mayest strengthen them with invincible constancy ;
defend and everywhere assist them, rendering all the wiles
and engines of thine and their enemies of no avail, curbing
their fury, dooming all their attempts to ignominy. Permit
not Christendom to be altogether laid waste, lest thou allow

FORMS OF PRAYER FOR THE CHURCH. Ill
the remembrance of thy name to be utterly banished from
the earth, lest thou suffer those whora thou hast perraitted
to be caUed by thy name, to be overwhelmed by a laraent
able destruction, lest Turks, heathens, barbarians, and Papists,
and other infidels, insult thy name with blasphemy.
We therefore pour out our prayers before thee, 0 heavenly
Father, in behalf of all rulers and magistrates, whose ser
vice thou employest in governing us ; and especially for the
magistrates of this city, that thou wouldst be pleased to
impart to them more and more every day of thy Spirit, who
alone is good and truly the chief good, so that feeling fully
convinced that Jesus Christ thy Son, our Lord, is King of
kings and Lord of lords, like as thou hast given him all
power in heaven and on earth, so they too may in their office
have an eye above aU to his worship and the extension of
his kingdom, governing those under them (who are the work
of thy hands and the sheep of thy pasture) according to
thy will, so that we, enjoying stable peace both here and
in every other part of the world, may serve thee with all
holiness and purity, and freed from the fear of our enemies,
have ground to celebrate thy praise during the whole period
of our lives.
Next, 0 faithful Father and Saviour, we commend to thee
in our prayers all whom thou hast appointed pastors over
thy faithful, and to whose guidance thou hast committed
our souls ; whom, in fine, thou hast been pleased to make the
dispensers of thy holy gospel ; that thou wouldst guide them
by thy Holy Spirit, and so make them honest and faithful
ministers of thy glory, making it all their study, and direct
ing all their endeavours to gather together all the wretched
sheep which are still wandering astray, and bring them back
to Jesus Christ the chief Shepherd and Prince of bishops ;
and that they may increase in righteousness and holiness
every day ; that in the meanwhile thou wouldst be pleased
to rescue all thy churches from the jaws of ravening wolves
and all hirelings, who are led only by a love of fame or
lucre, and plainly care not for the manifestation of thy glory,
and the salvation of thy fiock.
Moreover, we offer up our prayers unto thee, 0 most

112 FORMS OF PRAYER FOR THE CHURCH.
gracious God and most merciful Father, for all men in gene
ral, that as thou art pleased to be acknowledged the Saviour
of the whole human race by the redemption accomplished
by Jesus Christ thy Son, so those who are still strangers to
the knowledge of him, and imraersed in darkness, and held
captive by ignorance and error, may by thy Holy Spirit
shining upon them, and by thy gospel sounding in their
ears, be brought back to the right way of salvation, whicii
consists in knowing thee the true God and Jesus Christ
whom thou hast sent. We beg that those on whom thou
hast deigned already to bestow the favour of thy grace, and
whose minds thou hast enlightened by the knowledge of thy
word, may daily profit more and more, being enriched with
thy spiritual blessings, so that we may all together, with one
heart and mouth, worship thee, and pay due honour and
yield just service to thy Christ, our Lord, and King, and
Lawgiver. Amen.

FORM OF ADMINISTERING THE SACRAMENTS.
COMPOSED FOR THE USE OF THE CHURCH OF GENEVA.
FORM OF ADMINISTERING BAPTISM.'
It is particularly necessary to know that infants are to be
brought for baptism either on the Lord's Hay, at the time
of catechising, or at public service on other days, that
as baptism is a kind of formal adoption into the Church,
so it may be performed in the presence and under the
eyes of the whole Congregation.
Our help is in the Lord who made heaven and earth.
Amen.
Do you offer this infant for baptism ?
Answer. We do indeed.
Minister. Our Lord demonstrates in what poverty and
wretchedness we are all bom, by telling us that we must be
bom again. For if our nature requires to be renewed in
order to gain admission to the kingdom of God, it is a sign
that it is altogether perverted and cursed. By this then he
admonishes us to humble ourselves and be displeasing to
ourselves, and in this way he disposes us to desire and seek
for his grace, by which all the perverseness and malediction
of jur first nature may be abolished. For we are not cap
able of receiving grace unless we be first divested of all
trust in our own virtue, wisdom, and righteousness, so as to
condemn everything we possess.
' The French being here the only original, the translation of the re
maining forms are made from it. The Amsterdam edition, however, con
tains the whole in Latin.
VOL. II. H

114 FORM OF ADMINISTERING THE SAi. KAMENTt;.
But when he has demonstrated our wretchedness, he in
like manner consoles us by his mercy, promising to regener
ate us by his Holy Spirit to a new life, which forms a kind
of entrance into his kingdom. This regeneration consists of
two parts. First, we renounce ourselves, not following our
own reason, our own pleasure, and our owu will, but bring
ing our understanding and our heart into captivity to the
wisdom and justice of God, we mortify every thing belong
ing to us and to our flesh ; and, secondly, we thereafter fol
low the light of God, seeking to be agreeable to him, and
obey his good pleasure as ho manifests it by his word, and
conducts us to it by his Holy Spirit. The accomplishment
of both of these is in our Lord Jesus Christ, whose death and
passion have such virtue, that in participating in it we are as
it were buried to sin, in order that our carnal lusts may be
mortified. In like manner, by virtue of his resurrection, wc
rise again to a new life which is of God, inasmuch as his
Spirit conducts and governs us, to produce in us works which
are agreeable to him. However, the first and principal point
of our salvation is, that by his mercy he forgives us all our
offences, not imputing them to us, but effacing thc remem
brance of them, that they may no longer come against us in
judgment. AU these graces are bestowed upon us when he is pleased
to incorporate us into his Church by baptism ; for in this
sacrament he attests the remission of our sins. And he has
ordained the symbol of water to figure to us, that as by this
element bodUy defilements are cleansed, so he is pleased to
wash and purify our souls. Moreover, he employs it to re
present our renovation, which consists, as has been said, in
the mortification of our flesh, and in the spiritual life which
it i^roduces in us.
Thus we receive a twofold grace and benefit from our God
in baptism, provided we do not annihilate the virtue of the
sacrament by our ingi-atitude. We havc in it sure evidence,
first, that God is wiUing to be propitious to us, not imputing
to us our faults and oflences ; and, secondly, that he will
assist us by his Holy Spirit, in order that we may be able to
war against the devU, sin, and the lusts of our flesh, and

BAPTISM.

115

gain the victory over them, so as to live in the liberty of his
kingdom, which is the kingdom of righteousness.
Seeing then that these two things are accomplished in us
by the grace of Jesus Christ, it foUows, that the virtue and
substance of baptism is included in him. And, in fact, we
have no other laver than his blood, and no other renovation
than his death and resurrection. But as he communicates
his riches and blessings to us by his word, so he distributes
them to us by his sacraments.
Now our gracious God, not contenting himself with having
adopted us for his children, and received us into the commu
nion of his Church, has been pleased to extend his goodness
still farther to us, by promising to be our God and the God
of our seed to a thousand generations. Hence though the
children of believers are of the corrupt race of Adam, he
nevertheless accepts them in virtue of this covenant, and
adopts them into his family. For this reason he was pleased
from the first, (Gen xvii 12,) that in his Church children
should receive the sign of circumcision, by which he then
represented aU that is now signified to us by baptism. And
as he gave commandment that they should be circumcised,
so he adopted them for his chUdren, and caUed himself their
God, as well as the God of their fathers.
Now then since the Lord Jesus Christ came down to earth,
not to diminish the grace of God his Father, but to extend
the covenant of salvation over aU the world, instead of con
fining it as formerly to the Jews, there is no doubt that our
chUdren are heirs of the life which he has promised to us.
And hence St. Paul says, (2 Cor. vii. 14,) that God sanctifies
them from their mothers' womb, to distinguish them from
the children of Pagans and unbelievers. For this reason our
Lord Jesus Christ received the chUdren that were brought to
him, as is -written in the nineteenth chapter of St. Matthew,
" Then were brought unto him little children, that he might
put his hands on them, and pray. But the disciples rebuked
them. And Jesus said unto them. Suffer the little children
to come unto me, and forbid them not ; for of such is the
kingdom of heaven."
By declaring that the kingdom of heaven belongs to them.

116 FORM OF ADMINISTERING THE SACRAMENTS.
laying hands on them, and recommending them to God his
Father, he clearly teaches that we must not exclude them
from his Church. Following this rule then, we will receive
this child into his Church, in order that it may become a
partaker of the blessings which God has promised to be
lievers. And, first, we will present it to him in prayer, all
saying with the heart humbly, —
0 Lord God, eternal and oranipotent Father, since it hath
pleased thee of thy infinite mercy to promise us that thou
wUt be our God, and the God of our children, we pray that
it may please thee to confirm this grace in the child before
thee, born of parents whom thou hast called into thy
Church ; and as it is offered and consecrated to thee by us,
do thou deign to receive it under thy holy protection, de
claring thyself to be its God and Saviour, by forgiving it the
original sin of which all the race of Adam are guilty, and
thereafter sanctifying it by thy Spirit, in order that when it
shall arrive at the years of discretion it may recognise and
adore thee as its only God, glorifying thee during its whole
life, so as always to obtain of thee the forgiveness of its sins.
And in order to its obtaining such graces, be pleased to in
corporate it into the communion of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that it may partake of all his blessings as one of the members
of his body. Hear us, 0 merciful Father, in order that the
baptism, which we communicate to it according- to thy ordi
nance, may produce its fruit and virtue, as declared to us by
the gospel.
Our Father, which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in
heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us
our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into
temptation ; but deliver us from evil : For thine is the king
dom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
As the object is to receive this child into the fellowship of
the Christian Church, you promise, when it shall come to
the years of discretion, to instruct it in the doctrine which is
received by the people of God, as it is summarily compre
hended in the Confession of Faith, which we all have, viz. :

BAPTISM. 117
and eartli ; and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who
was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried :
he descended into heU ; the third day he arose again from the
dead ; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right
hand of God the Father Almighty, frora thence he shall
corae to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the
Holy Ghost ; the holy Catholick Church ; the coraraunion
of saints ; the forgiveness of sins ; the resurrection of the
body ; and the life everlasting. Amen.
You promise tlien to be careful to instruct it in all this
doctrine, and generaUy in all that is contained in the Holy
Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, in order that it
may receive them as the sure word of God coming from
heaven. Likewise you will exhort it to live according to
the rule which our Lord has laid down in his law, which is
contained summarily in two points — to love God with all
our heart and mind and strength, and our neighbour as our
selves : in like manner, to live according to the admonitions
which God has given by his prophets and apostles, in order
that renouncing itself and its own lusts, it may dedicate and
consecrate itself to glorify the name of God and Jesus Christ,
and edify its neighbour.
After the promise made the name is given. to the child, and
the minister baptizes it, saying :
N., I Baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
The whole is said aloud, and in the conimon tongue, in
order that the people who are present may be witnesses
to what is done, (for which purpose it is necessary that
they understand it,) and in order that all may be edi
fied by recognising and calling to mind the fruit and
use of their own Baptism.
We know that elsewhere there are many other ceremonies
which we deny not to be very ancient, but because they have
been invented at pleasure, or at least on grounds which, be
these what they may, must be trivial, since they have been

118 FORM OF ADMINISTERING THE SACRAMENTS.
devised without authority from the word of God, and because,
on the other hand, so many superstitions have sprung from
them, we have felt no hesitation in abolishing them, in order
that there might be nothing to prevent the people from going
directly to Jesus Christ. First, whatever is not commanded,
we are not free to choose. Secondly, nothing which does not
tend to edification ought to be received into the Church. Lf
any thing of the kind has been introduced, it ought to be taken
away, and by much stronger reason, whatever serves only to
cause scandal, and is, as it were, an instrument of idolatry
and false opinion, ought on no account to be tolerated.
Now it is certain that chrism, tapers, and other pomposi
ties are not of the ordination of God, but have been added by
men, and have at length gone so far that people have dwelt
more on them, and held them in higher estimation, tham the
proper institution of Jesus Christ. At all events, we have a
form of baptism such as Jesus Christ instituted, the Apostles
kept and followed, and the Church put in practice ; and there
is nothing for which we can he blamed, unless it be for not
being wiser than God himself.

THE MANNER

CELEBRATING THE LORD'S SUPPER.
Lt is proper to observe, that the Sunday before the Supper
is dispensed it is intimated to the people : first, in
order that each may prepare and dispose himself to re
ceive it worthily and with becoming reverence ; secondly,
that young people may not be brought forward unless
they are well instructed, and have made a profession of
their faith in the Church; thirdly, in order that if there
are strangers who are still rude and ignorant, they may
come and present themselves for instruction in private.
On the day of communion the minister adverts to it at
the end of his sermon, or indeed, if he sees cause, makes
it the sole subject of sermon, in order to expound to the
people what our Lord means to teach and signify by this
ordinance, and in what way it behoves us to receive it.
After Prayer and The Confession of Faith, to testify in
the name of the people that all wish to live and die in the
doctrine of Christ, he says aloud :
Let us listen to the institution of the Holy Supper by
Jesus Christ, as narrated by St. Paul in the eleventh chapter
of the First Epistle to the Corinthians :
For I have received of the Lord that which also I de
livered unto you. That the Lord Jesus, the same night in
which he was betrayed, took bread : And, when he had
given thanks, he brake it, and said. Take, eat ; this is my
body, which is broken for you : this do in remerabrance of
me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when
he had supped, saying. This cup is the new testament in my
blood : this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of
me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup,
ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore,
whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the

120 FORM OF ADMINISTERING THE SACRAMENT.'^.
Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of
the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him
eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth
and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation
to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
We have heard, brethren, how our Lord makes his Supper
among his disciples, and thereby shows us that strangers —
in other words, those who are not of the corapany of the
faithful — ought not to be admitted. Wherefore, in accord
ance with this rule, in the name and by the authority of the
Lord Jesus Christ, I excommunicate all idolaters, blas
phemers, despisers of God, heretics, and all who form sects
apart to break the unity of the Church, all perjurers, all who
are rebellious to parents and to their superiors, all who are
seditious, mutinous, quarrelsome, injurious, all adulterers, for
nicators, thieves, misers, ravishers, drunkards, gluttons, and
all who lead a scandalous life ; declaring to thera that they
must abstain from this holy table, for fear of polluting and
contaminating the sacred viands which our Lord Jesus Christ
gives only to his household and believers.
Therefore, according to the exhortation of St. Paul, let
each prove and examine his conscience, to see whether he
has truly repented of his faults, and is dissatisfied with him
self, desiring to live henceforth holily and according to God ;
above aU, whether he puts his trust in the mercy of God, and
seeks his salvation entirely in Jesus Christ, and whether, re
nouncing all enmity and rancour, he truly intends and resolves
to live in concord and brotherly charity with his neighbours.
If we have this testimony in our hearts before God, let us
have no doubt at all that he adopts us for his children, and
that the Lord Jesus addresses his word to us to invite us to
his table, and present us with this holy sacrament which he
communicated to his disciples.
And although we feel within ourselves much frailty and
misery from not having perfect faith, but being inclined to
unbelief and distrust, as well as from not being devoted to
the service of God so entirely and with such zeal as we ought,
and frora having to war daily against the lusts of our flesh,
nevertheless, since our Lord has graciously deigned to have

THE lord's SUPPER. 121
his gospel imprinted on our hearts, in order to withstand all
unbelief, and has given us this desire and affection to re
nounce our own desires, to follow righteousness and his holy
commandments, let us all be assured that the vices and im
perfections which are in us will not prevent his receiving us,
and making^us worthy of taking part at this spiritual table ;
for we do not come to declare that we are perfect or righteous
in ourselves ; but, on the contrary, by seeking our life in
Christ, we confess that we are in death. Let us understand
that this sacrament is a medicine for the poor spiritual sick,
and that all the worthiness which our Saviour requires in us
is to know ourselves, so as to be dissatisfied with our vices,
and have all our pleasure, joy, and contentment in him alone.
First, then, let us believe in these promises which Jesus
Christ, who is infaUible truth, has pronounced with his own
lips, viz., that he is indeed willing to make us partakers of
his own body and blood, in order that we may possess him
entirely in such a manner that he may live in us, and we in
him. And although we see only bread and wine, yet let us
not doubt that he accomplishes spiritually in our souls all
that he shows us externally by these visible signs ; in other
words, that he is heavenly bread, to feed and nourish us unto
life etemal.
Next, let us not be ungrateful to the infinite goodness of
our Saviour, who displays all his riches and blessings at this
table, in order to dispense thera to us ; for, in giving himself
to us, he bears testimony to us that all which he has is ours.
Moreover, let us receive this sacrament as a pledge that the
virtue of his death and passion is imputed to us for righteous
ness, just as if we had suffered it in our own persons. Let
us not be so perverse as to keep back when Jesus Christ in
vites us so gently by his word ; but while reflecting on the
dignity of the precious gift which he gives us, let us present
ourselves to him with ardent zeal, in order that he may
make us capable of receiving him.
With this view, let us raise our hearts and minds on high,
where Jesus Christ is, in the glory of his Father, and from
whence we look for him at our redemption. And let us not
amuse ourselves with these earthly and corruptible elements

122 FORM OF ADMINISTERING THE SACRAMENTS.
which we see with the eye, and touch with the hand, in
order to seek him there, as if he were enclosed in the bread
or wine. Then only will our souls be disposed to be nourished
and vivified with his substance, when they are thus raised
above all terrestrial objects, and carried as high as heaven,
to enter the kingdom of God where he dwells. Let us be
contented, then, to have the bread and wine as signs and
evidences, spiritually seeking the reality where the word of
God promises that we shall find it.
This done, the 3Linisters distribute the bread and cup to
the people, having warned them to come forward with
reverence and in order. Meanwhile some Psalms are
sung, or some passage of Scripture read, suitable to
what is signified by the Sacrament.
A t the end thanks are given, as has been said.
We are well aware what occasion of scandal some have taken
from the change made in this matter. Because the m,ass has
been long in such esteem, that the poor people seemed dis
posed to think that it was the principal part of Christianity,
it has been thought very strange in us to have abolished it.
And for this cause those who are not duly informed think
that we have destroyed the Sacrament. But when they have
well considered our practice, they will find that we have
restored it to its integrity. Let them consider what con
formity there is between the mass and the institution of
Jesus Christ. Lt is clear that there is just asmuch as there is
between day and night. Although it isnot our intention here
to treat this subject at length, yet to satisfy those who through
simplicity might be scandalized at us, it seemed advisable to
touch upon it in passing. Seeing then that the Sacrament of
our Lord has been corrupted by the many adulterations and
horrible abuses which have been introduced, we have been con
strained to apply a remedy, and change many things which had
been improperly introduced, or at least turned to a bad use.
Now, in order to. do so, we have found no means better or
more proper than to return to the pure institution of Jesus
Christ, which we follow simply, as is apparent. Such is the
reformation which St. Paul points out.

FORM AND MANNER

CELEBRATING MARRIAGE.
Lt is necessary to observe that in celebrating marriage it
is published in ihe Church on three Sundays, that any one
knowing of any hinderance may timeously announce it, or
any one having interest may oppose it.
This done the parties come forward at the commencement
of the Sermon, when the Minister says :
Our help be in the Lord who made heaven and earth.
Amen. God, our Father, after creating heaven and earth, and
aU that therein is, created and formed man after his own
image and likeness, to have dominion and lordship over the
beasts of the earth, the fish of the sea, and the birds of the
air, saying, after he had created man, It is not good that the
man be alone, let us make him a help raeet for hira. (Gen.
i. 26 ; ii. 18, 21, 22.) And our Lord caused a deep sleep to
fall upon Adam, and while Adam slept God took one of his
ribs, and of it formed Eve, giving us to understand that the
man and the woman are only one body, one flesh, and one
blood. (Matt. xix. 6.) Wherefore the man leaves father and
mother and cleaves to his wife, whom he ought to love just
as Jesus loves the Church, or, in other words, the true be
lievers and Christians for whom he died. (Eph. v. 25.) And
likewise the woman ought to serve and obey her liusband in
all holiness and honesty, (1 Tim. ii. 11 ;) for she is subject to
and in the power of the husband so long as she lives with
him. (1 Pet. iii. 5.)
And this holy marriage, ordained of God, is of such force,
that in virtue of it the husband has not power over his body,
but the woman : nor the woman power over her body, but the

124 THE MANNER OF CELEBRATING MARRIAGE.
husband. (1 Cor. vii. 4.) Wherefore being joined together
of God they can no more be separated, except for a time by
mutual consent to have leisure for fasting and prayer, taking
good heed not to be tempted of Satan through incontinence.
(Matt. xix. 6 ; 1 Cor. vii. 5.)
And they ought to return to each other. For in order
to avoid fornication each one ought to have his wife, (1 Cor.
vii. 2,) and each woman her husband, so that all who have
not the gift of continence are obliged by the command
of God to marry, in order that the holy temple of God, in
other words, our bodies, be not violated and corrupted. (1 Cor.
iii. 9 ; vi. 15, 16.) For seeing that our bodies are members
of Jesus Christ, it would be a gross outrage to make them
the members of a harlot. (I Cor. vi. 16.) Wherefore we ought
to preserve them in all holiness. For whoso pollutes the
temple of God, him will God destroy.
You then, N. and N, (naming the bridegroom and bride,)
knowing that God has so ordained it, do you wish to live
in this holy state of marriage which God has so highly ho
noured ; have you such a purpose as you manifest here before
his holy assembly, asking that it be approved ?
They answer.
Yes.
The Minister.
I take you all who are here present as witnesses, praying
you to keep it in remembrance : however, if there is any one
who knows of any impediment, or that either of them is
connected by marriage with another, let him say so.
Lf nobody opposes, the Minister says :
Since there is nobody who opposes, and there is no im
pediment, our Lord God confirms your holy purpose which
he has given you, and let your commencement be in the
name of God, who has made heaven and earth. Amen.
The 3Iinister, addressing the Bridegroom, says :
Do you, N., confess here, before God and his holy congre
gation, that you have taken, and take N., here present, for
your wife and spouse, whom you promise to keep, loving and
maintaining her faithfully, as is the duty of a true and faith
ful husband to his wife, living holily with her, observing

THE MANNER OF CELEBRATING MARRIAGE. I'IS
faith and lealty to her in all things, according to the word
of God and his holy gospel ?
Answer, Yes.
Then addressing the Bride, he says :
You, N., confess here, before God and his holy assembly,
that you have taken, and take, N. for your lawful husband,
whom you promise to obey, serving and being subject to him,
living holily, observing faith and lealty to him in all things
as a faithful and loyal spouse owes tober husband, according
to the word of God and his holy gospel ?
Answer, Yes.
Then the 3Iinister says :
The Father of all mercy, who of his grace has called you to
this holy state for the love of Jesus Christ his Son, who, by
his holy presence, sanctified marriage, there performing his
first miracle before the Apostles, anoint you with his Holy
Spirit to serve and honour him together with one common
accord. Amen.
Listen to the Gospel how our Lord intends that holy mar
riage should be kept, and how firm and indissoluble it is,
according as it is written in St. Matthew, at the nineteenth
chapter: The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and
saying unto him. Is it lawful for a man to put away his
wife for every cause ? And he answered and said unto
them. Have ye not read, that he which made them at the
beginning, made them male and female ; And said. For this
cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave
to his wife : and they twain shall be one flesh ? Wherefore
they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God
hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Believe in these holy words which our Lord uttered, as
the gospel narrates them, and be assured that our Lord God
has joined you in holy marriage : wherefore live holily toge
ther in good love, peace, and union, keeping true charity,
faith, and loyalty to each other, according to the word of
God.

1 'J,(i THE MANNER OF CELEBRATING MARRIAGE.
Let US all with one heart pray to our Father.
God, all mighty, all good, and all wise, who from the be
ginning didst foresee that it was not good for man to be
alone, and therefore didst create him a help meet for him,
and hast ordained that two should be one, we beg of thee, and
humbly request, that since it has pleased thee to call these
persons to the holy state of marriage, thou wouldst deign, of
thy grace and goodness to give and send thera thy Holy
Spirit, in order that they may live holily in true and firm
faith, according to thy good will, surmounting all bad affec
tions, edifying each other in all honesty and chastity, giving
thy blessing to them as thou didst to thy faithful servants
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that having holy lineage they
may praise and serve thee, teaching them, and bringing them
up to thy praise and glory, and the good of their neighbour,
through the advancement and exaltation of thy holy gospel.
Hear us. Father of Mercy, through our Lord Jesus Christ,
thy vcry dear Son. Amen.
Our Lord fill you with all graces, and anoint you with
all good, to live together long and holily.

VISITATION OF THE SICK.

The office of a true and faithful minister is not only pub
licly to teach the people over whom he is ordained pastor,
but, so far as may be, to admonish, exhort, rebuke, and
console each one in particular. Now, the greatest need
which a man ever has of the spiritual doctrine of our Lord
is when His hand visits him with afflictions, whether of
disease or other evils, and specially at the hour of death, for
then he feels more strongly than ever in his life before
pressed in conscience, both by the judgment of God, to
which he sees himself about to be called, and the assaults of
the devil, who then uses all his efforts to beat down the poor
person, and plunge and overwhelm him in confusion. And
therefore the duty of a minister is to visit the sick, and con
sole them by the word of the Lord, showing them that all
which they suffer and endure comes from the hand of God,
and from his good providence, who sends nothing to believers
except for their good and salvation. He will quote passages
of Scrifiture suitable to this view.
Moreover, if he sees the sickness to be dangerous, he will
give them consolation, which reaches farther, according as
he sees them touched by their affliction ; that is to say, if
he sees them overwhelmed with the fear of death, he will
show them that it is no cause of disraay to believers, who
having Jesus Christ for their guide and protector, will, by
their affliction, be conducted to the life on which he has
entered. By similar considerations he will remove the fear
and terror which they may have of the judgment of God.
If he does not see them sufficiently oppressed and agonized
by a conviction of their sins, he will declare to them the

1 28 VISITATION OF TUE SICK.
justice of God, before which they cannot stand, save through
his mercy embracing Jesus Christ for their salvation. On
the contrary, seeing them afflicted in their consciences, and
troubled for their offences, he will exhibit Jesus Christ to the
life, and show how in him all poor sinners who, distrusting
theraselves, repose in his goodness, find solace and refuge.
Moreover, a good and faithful minister wiU duly consider all
means which it may be proper to take to console the dis
tressed, according as he sees them affected : being guided
in the whole by the word of the Lord. Furthermore, if the
minister has anything whereby he can console and give
bodily relief to the afflicted poor, let him not spare, but show
to all a tme example of charity.

BKIEF FORM

CONFESSION OF FAITH,

FOR THE USE OF THOSE WHO DESIRE TO HAVE A COMPENDIUM
OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION ALWAYS AT HAND.

VOL. II.

BRIEF CONFESSION OF FAITH.

I CONFESS that there is one God, in whora we ought to
rest, worshipping and serving him, and placing all our hope
in him alone. And although he is of one essence, he is
nevertheless distinguished into three persons. Wlierefore, I
detest all heresies condemned by the first Council of Nice,
and likewise those of Ephesus and Chalcedon, along with
all the errors revived by Servetus and his followers. For I
acquiesce in the simple view, that in the one essence of God
is the Father, who from eternity begat his own Word, and
ever had in himself his own Spirit, and that each of these
persons has his own peculiar properties, yet so that the God
head always remains entire.
I likewise confess, that God created not only this visible
world, (that is, heaven and earth, and whatever is contained
in them,) but also invisible spirits, some of whom have con
tinued obedient to God, while others, by their own wicked
ness, have been precipitated into destruction. That the
former have persevered, I acknowledge, to be due to the free
election of God, who hastened to love them, and embrace
them with his goodness, by bestowing upon them the power
of remaining firm and steadfast. And I accordingly abomin
ate the heresy of the Manichees, who imagined that the devil
is wicked by nature, and derives origin and beginning from
hiraself I confess that God once created the world to be its per
petual Governor, but in such raanner that nothing can be
done or happen without his counsel and providence. And
though Satan and the reprobate plot the confusion of all
things, and even believers themselves pervert right order by

BRIEF CONFESSION OF FAITH. 131
their sins, yet I acknowledge that the Lord, as the Sovereign
Prince and ruler of all, brings good out of evil ; in short,
directs all things as by a kind of secret reins, and overrules
them by a certain admirable method, whicii it becomes us
to adore with aU submissiveness of mind, since we cannot
embrace it in thought.
I confess that man was created in the image of God, i.e.,
endued with full integrity of spirit, will, and all parts of the
soul, faculties and senses ; and that all our corruption, and
the vices under which we labour, proceeded from this, viz.,
that Adam, the common father of all men, by his rebellion,
alienated himself from God, and forsaking the fountain of
life and of every blessing, made himself liable to all miseries.
Hence it is that each of us is born infected with original sin,
and cursed and condemned by God from his mother's womb,
not on account of another's fault merely, but on account of
the depravity which is within us, even when it does not
appear. I confess that in original sin are included blindness of
mind and perverseness of heart, so that we are utterly spoiled
and destitute of those things which relate to eternal life,
and even all natural gifts in us are tainted and depraved.
Hence it is that we are not at all moved by any considera
tion to act aright. I therefore protest against those who
attribute to us some degree of free-will, by which we can
prepare ourselves for receiving the grace of God, or as it
were of ourselves co-operate with the power which is given
-US by the Holy Spirit.
I confess that by the infinite goodness of God, Jesus Christ
has been given to us, that by this means we may be recalled
from death to life, and recover whatever was lost to us in
Adam ; and that accordingly he who is the Eternal Wisdom
of God the Father, and of one essence with him, assumed
our fiesh, so as to be God and man in one person. There
fore I detest all heresies contrary to this principle, as those
of Marcion, Manes, Nestorius, Eutyches, and the like, to
gether with the deliriums which Servetus and Schuencfeldius
wished to revive.
In regard to the method of obtaining salvation, I confess

132 BRIEF CONFESSION OF FAITH.
that Jesus Christ by his deatli and resurrection, most com
pletely performed whatever was required to wipe off our
offences, that lie might reconcile us to God the Father, and
overcame death and Satan, that we might obtain the fruit
of the victory; in fine, received the Holy Spirit without
measure, that out of it such measure as he pleases may be
bestowed on each of his followers.
I therefore confess that all our righteousness, by which we
are acceptable to God, and in whicii alone we ought wholly
to rest, consists in the remission of sins which he purchased
for us, by washing us in his own blood, and through that one
sacrifice by which he appeased the wrath of God that had
been provoked against us. And I hold the pride of those
intolerable who attribute to themselves one particle of raerit,
in which one particle of the hope of salvation can reside.
Meanwhile, however, I acknowledge that Jesus Christ not
only justifies us by covering all our faults and sins, but also
sanctifies us by his Spirit, so that the two things (the free
forgiveness of sins and reformation to a holy life) cannot be
dissevered and separated from each other. Yet since until
such time as we quit the world, much irapurity, and very
many vices remain in us, (to which it is owing that whatever
good works we perform by the agency of the Holy Spirit,
have some taint adhering to them,) we must always betake
ourselves to that free righteousness, flowing from the obe
dience which Jesus Christ performed in our name, seeing
that it is in his name we are accepted, and God does not
impute our sins to us.
I confess that we are made partakers of Jesus Christ,
and of all his blessings, by the faith which we have in the
gospel, that is, when we are truly and surely persuaded that
the promises comprehended in it belong to us. But since
this altogether surpasses our capacity, I acknowledge that
faith is obtained by us, only through the Spirit of God, and
so is a peculiar gift which is given to the elect alone, whom
God, before the foundation of the world, without regard to
any worthiness or virtue in them, freely predestinated to the
inheritance of salvation.
I confess that we are justified by faith, inasmuch as by it

BRIEF CONFESSION OF FAITH. 133
we apprehend Jesus Christ the Mediator given us by the
Father, and lean on the promises of the gospel, by which
God declares that we are regarded as righteous, and free
from every stain, because our sins have been washed away
by the blood of his Son. Wherefore I detest the ravings
of those who endeavour to persuade us that the essential
righteousness of God exists in us, and are not satisfied with
the free imputation in which alone Scripture orders us to
acquiesce. T confess that faith gives us access to God in prayer, (we
ought to pray with firm reliance that he will hear us as he
has promised,) and that to it alone belongs the honour of
being the primary sacrifice, by whieh we declare that we as
cribe all we receive to him. And though we are obviously
unworthy to sist ourselves before his Majesty, yet if we have
Jesus Christ as our Mediator and Advocate, nothing more is
required of us. Hence I abominate the superstition which
some have devised of applying to saints, male and female,
as a kind of advocates for us with God.

I confess that both the whole rule of right living, and also
instruction in faith, are most fully delivered in the sacred /
Scriptures, to which nothing can, without criminality, hey
added, from which nothing can be taken away. I therefore
detest all of men's imagining which they would obtrude upon
us as articles of faith, and bind upon our consciences by laws
and statutes. And thus I repudiate in general whatever
has been introduced into the worship of God without author
ity from the word of God. Of this kind are all the Popish
ceremonies. In short, I detest the tyrannical yoke by which
miserable consciences have been oppressed — as the law of
auricular confession, celibacy, and others of the same de
scription. I confess that the Church should be governed by pastors,
to whom has been committed the office of preaching the
word of God and administering the sacraments ; and that,
in order to avoid confusion, it is not lawful for any one to
usurp this office at pleasure without lawful election. And
if any called to this office do not show due fidelity in dis
charging it, they ought to be deposed. AU their power con-

134 BRIEF CONFESSION OF FAITH.
sists in ruling the people committed to them according to
the word of God, so that Jesus Christ may ever remain su
preme Pastor and sole Lord of his Church, and alone be
listened to. Wherefore, what is called the Popish hierarchy
I execrate as diabolical confusion, established for the very
purpose of making God himself to be despised, and of exjios-
ing the Christian religion to mockery and scorn.
I confess that our weakness requires that sacraments be
added to the preaching of the word, as seals by which the
promises of God are sealed on our hearts, and that two such
sacraments were ordained by Christ, viz.. Baptism and the
Lord's Supper — the former to give us an entrance into the
Church of God — the latter to keep us in it. The five sacra
ments imagined by the Papists, and first coined in their own
brain, I repudiate.
But although the sacraments are an earnest by whicii
we may be rendered secure of the promises of God, I how
ever acknowledge that they would bc useless to us did not
the Holy Spirit render them efficacious as instruments, lest
our confidence, being fixed on the creature, should be with
dra-wn from God. Nay, I even confess that the sacraments
are -\dtiated and perverted when it is not regarded as their
only aim to make us look to Christ for every thing requisite
to our salvation, and whenever they are employed for any
other purpose than tliat of fixing our faith wholly in him.
Moreover, since the promise of adoption reaches even to the
posterity of believers, I acknowledge that the infants of be
lievers ought to be received into the Church by baptism ;
and in this matter I detest the ravings of the Anabaptists.
In regard to the Lord's Supper, I confess that it is an
evidence of our union with Christ, since he not only died
once and rose again for us, but also truly feeds and nourishes
us by his own flesh and blood, so that we are one with him,
and his life is common to us. For though he is in heaven
for a short while till he come to judge the world, I believe
that he, through the secret and incomprehensible agency of
his Spirit, gives life to our souls by the substance of his body
and blood.
In general, I confess that, as well in the supper as in

BRIEF CONFESSION OF FAITH. 135
baptism, God gives in reality and effectually whatever he
figures in them, but that to the receiving of this great
boon we require to join the word with the signs. In which
matter I detest the abuse and perversion of thc Papists, who
have deprived the sacraments of their principal part, viz.,
the doctrine which teaches the true use and benefit flowing
therefrom, and have changed them into magical impostures.
I likewise confess that water, though it is a fading ele
ment, truly testifies to us in baptism the true presence of
the blood of Jesus Christ, and of his Spirit ; and that in the
Lord's Supper the bread and wine are to us true and by no
means fallacious pledges that we are spiritually nourished
by the body and blood of Christ. And thus I join with the
signs the very possession and fruition of that which is therein
offered to us.
Likewise, seeing that the sacred supper as instituted by
Jesus Christ is to us a sacred treasure of infinite value, I de
test as intolerable sacrilege the execrable abomination of the
Mass, useful for no one purpose but to overturn whatever
Christ has left us, both in that it is said to be a sacrifice for
the living and the dead, and also in all the other things
which are diametrically opposed to the purity of the sacra
ment of the Lord's Supper.
I confess that God would have the world to be governed
by laws and polity, so that reins should not be wanting to
curb the unbridled movements of men, and that for that
purpose he has established kingdoms, princedoms, and domi
nations, and whatever relates to civil jurisdiction ; of which
things he wills to be regarded as the Author ; that not only
should their authority be submitted to for his sake, but we
should also revere and honour rulers as the vicegerents of God
and ministers appointed by him to discharge a legitimate
and sacred function. And therefore I also acknowledge that
it is right to obey their laws and statutes, pay tribute and
taxes, and other things of the same nature ; in short, bear
the yoke of subjection ultroneously and willingly ; with the
exception, however, that the authority of God, the Sovereign
Prince, must always remain entire and unimpaired.

COJ^FESSION OF FAITH

IN NAME OP

THE REFORMED CHURCHES OF FRANCE:
DRAWN UP DURING THE WAR,
FOR PRESENTATION TO
THE EMPEROR, PRINCES, AND STATES OF GERMANY,
AT THE DIET OF FRANKFORT;
BUT WHICH COULD NOT REACH THEM, THE PASSES BEING CLOSED.
NOW PUBLISHED
FOR THE ADVANTAGES WHICH MAY ACCRUE FROM IT, AND EVEN
BECAUSE NECESSITY REQUIRES IT.
ANNO M.D.LXII.

TO THE READER.
Because during the troubles of war which have happened in
France, to the great regret of the Princes and Lords who were even
constrained to take up arms, many false charges were disseminated
against them to render the truth odious in their persons, they were
constrained at the time to publish certain declarations in defence
of their integrity. Now that it has pleased God to regard France
in pity and give her peace, and that the conduct of those who had
been defamed has been approved by his Majesty and his Council,
so that there is no need to make any apology for them, the evil,
which lasted only too long, may well be allowed to remain as it were
buried, and wo to those who would in any waj disturb the public
tranquillity. However, as several ignorant persons, from being ill
informed on the doctrine against -which they have fought, have
always persisted in holding it in horror and detestation, it has
seemed more than useful to bring forward this Confession of Faith,
which -was sent on the occasion above mentioned to be presented
to the Emperor and States of the Empire met at the diet of Frank
fort, but could not reach them, as all the pas.ses were closed. True,
indeed, it may seem as if the time were past ; but when every
thing is well considered, it i.s still in the present day as seasonable
as ever, as by the grace of God the result will show. Be this as
it may, it were a pity that any thing so valuable should remain as it
were effaced, seeing that it may be serviceable in many ways.

CONFESSION OF FAITH,
IN MME OF THE REFORMED CHURCHES OF FRMCE.'*
1. JUST DEFENCE OF THE CHURCHES OF FRANCE.
Sire, we doubt not that since those troubles which have
been stirred up in the kingdom of France to our great regret,
some have endeavoured by all means to render our cause
odious to your Majesty, and that you also, illustrious Princes,
have heard many sinister reports to animate you against us.
But we have always hoped, and hope more than ever, that
having obtained audience to make our apology, it will be
received so soon as you shall have ascertained the facts of
the case.
2. DIFFERENT DECLARATIONS OF THE CHURCHES.
Now the truth is, that we have already, on former occa
sions, published many declarations, by which all Christendom
must be sufficiently advertised of our innocence and integ
rity, and that so far are we from having wished to excite
any sedition against the King, our sole Sovereign Prince and
Lord under God, that on the contrary we expose our lives
and our goods in this war to maintain the superiority which
is due to him, and the authority of his edicts, as in fact his
Majesty has no more loyal, obedient, and peaceful subjects
than we are and wish to be to the end. Wherefore without
stopping at those things which have been amply enough
explained heretofore, it will be sufficient to show at present
what the religion is, for the exercise of which, as authorized
* Translated from the Freneh.

140 CONFESSION OF FAITH, IN NAME OF
by the edicts of the King our Sovereign Lord, we have been
constrained to defend ourselves by arms. For we understand
that the malevolent, who have nothing else to gainsay in us,
falsely and tortiously throw blarae before your Majesty, and
before you, illustrious Princes, on the religion which we fol
low, and make you believe several things in order to disgust
you with it, so that if we were not allowed our defence our
cause would be altogether oppressed by such calumnies.
3. THEIR CONFESSION OF FAITH.
True it is that the Confession of Faith of the Churches of
France, to which we adhere, might so far remedy the evil,
for since it has been twice solemnly presented to the King
our Sovereign Lord, it may be clearly seen from it what is
the sumraary of our faith. And but for this we would not
have waited so long to clear ourselves from the false detrac
tions which have been uttered against us. Not that the
mouth of evil speakers ever can be closed, but inasmuch as it
is our duty to use all pains and diligence in order that our in
tegrity may be known, and our persons not lie under scandal,
so by much stronger reason should the pure simplicity of
our faith be known, in order that the malignant may not
with open mouth blaspheme the truth of the gospel Where
fore we have thought it advisable, to address this brief
summary to your Majesty, and to your Excellencies, most
illustrious Princes, in order that the faith which we hold
may be attested by our own subscriptions. And as we de
sire to be in good reputation with you. Sire, for the reverence
which we bear your Majesty, and also you, most illustrious
Princes, we humbly supplicate and pray that this Confession
may have access to be heard and graciously listened to.
4. OF GOD AND THE THREE PERSONS.
In the first place, we protest that on all the articles which
have been decided by ancient Councils, touching the infinite
spiritual essence of God, and the distinction of the three

THE REFORMED CHURCHES OF FRANCE. 141
persons, and the union of the two natures in our Lord Jesus
Christ, we receive and agree in all that was therein resolved,
as being drawn frora the Holy Scriptures, on which alone
our faith should be founded, as there is no other witness
proper and competent to decide what the majesty of God is
but God himself

5. OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES AND THE TWO NATURES
IN CHRIST.
But as we hold the Old and New Testaments as the only
rule of our faith, so we receive all that is conformable to
them : such as believing that there are three distinct per
sons in the one essence of God, and that our Lord Jesus
Christ, being very God and very man, has so united the two
natures in himself that they are not confounded. Where
fore we detest all the heresies which were of old conderaned,
such as those of the Arians, Sabellians, Eunoraians, and the
like, as well as the Nestorians and Eutychians. God forbid
that we should be infected -with those reveries which troubled
the Catholic Church at the time when it was in its purity.

6. SUMMARY OF THE DIFFERENCES.
Wherefore all our differences relate to the following points :
on what our confidence of salvation should rest, how we ought
to invoke God, and what is the method of well and duly
serving him. And there are points depending on these, viz.,
what is the true polity of the Church, the office of prelates
and pastors, the nature, virtue, and use of the Sacraments.
7. OF ADAM'S FALL.
To know well wherein consists the true salvation of men,
it is necessary to know what is their state and condition.
Now we hold what Scripture teaches, that the whole human
race was so cormpted by the fall of Adam, that by nature

142 CONFESSION OF FAITH, IN NAME OF
we are all condemned and lost, not only by another's guilt,
but because we are sinners from the worab, and God can
justly condemn us, although there be no outward act by
which we have deserved condemnation.

8. OF ORIGINAL SIN.
Moreover, we hold that original sin is a corruption spread
over our senses and affections, so that right understanding
and reason is perverted in us, and we are like poor blind
persons in darkness, and the will is subject to all wicked
desires, full of rebellion, and given up to evil ; in short,
that we are poor captives held under the tyranny of sin ;
not that in doing evil we are not pushed by our own will in
such a way that we cannot throw our sins upon another, but
because sprung of the cursed race of Adam, we have not one
particle of strength to do well, and all our faculties are
vicious.

9. OF THE SOURCE OF OUR SALVATION.
Hence we conclude, that the source and origin of our sal
vation is the pure mercy of God ; for he cannot find in us
any worthiness to induce him to love us. We also being
bad trees cannot bear any good fruit, and therefore cannot
prevent God, so as to acquire or merit grace from him ; but
he looks upon us in pity, to show mercy to us, and has no
other cause for displaying his mercy in us but our misery.
We likewise hold that the goodness which he displays to
wards us proceeds from his having elected us before the
creation of the world, not seeking the cause of so doing
out of himself and his good pleasure. And here is our first
fundamental principle, viz., that we are pleasing to God, in
asmuch as he has been pleased to adopt us as his children
before we were born, and has by this means delivered us by
special privilege from the general curse under which aU men
have fallen.

THE REFORMED CHURCHES OF FRANCE. 143
10. OF FAITH EN JESUS CHRIST.
But because the counsel of God is incomprehensible, we
confess that in order to obtain salvation it is necessary to
have recourse to the means which God has ordained ; for
we are not of the number of fanatics who, under colour of
the eternal predestination of God, have no regard to arrive
by the right path at the life which is promised to us ; but
rather we hold, that in order to be adopted children of God,
and to have a proper certainty of it, we must believe in Jesus
Christ, inasmuch as it is in him alone that we must seek the
M'hole grounds of our salvation.
11. OF OUR RECONCILIATION WITH GOD.
And first we believe that his death was the one perpetual
sacrifice to reconcile us to God, and that in it we have full satis
faction for all our offences ; by his blood we are washed from
all our pollutions, and we therefore place all our confidence
in the forgiveness of sins which he has purchased for us, and
that not only for once, but for the whole period of our life :
for which reason also he is called our righteousness. (1 Cor.
i. 30.) And so far are we from presuming on our merit,
that we confess in all humility that if God look to what is
in us he will find only ground to condemn us. Thus to be
assured of his grace we have no other resource thaai his pure
mercy, inasmuch as he receives us in the name of his well-
beloved Son. 12. OF GOOD WORKS.
But as our sins are not pardoned to give us license to do
wickedly, but rather as it is said in the psalm, (Ps. cxxx. 4,)
God is propitious to us, in order that we may be induced to
fear and reverence him, we also hold that the grace which
has appeared to us in Jesus Christ ought to have reference
to the end which St. Paul mentions, (Tit. ii. 12,) that re
nouncing aU ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should walk
in holiness of life, aspiring to the hope of the kingdom of

144 CONFESSION OF FAITH, IN NAME OF
heaven. Wherefore the blood of Jesus Christ is not our
laver, in order to make us wallow in pollution, but rather to
draw us to tme purity. In one word, being the children of
God we must be regenerated by his Spirit. And this is the
reason why it is said, (1 John iii. 8,) that our Lord Jesus
Christ came to destroy the kingdom of the devil, whicii is
the kingdom of iniquity, inasmuch as he has been given us
as Mediator, not only in order to obtain pardon of our sins,
but also to sanctify us, which is equivalent to saying that it
was, as it were, to dedicate us to the service of God, by with
drawing us from the pollutions of this world. Hence we
cannot be Christians without being new creatures, (Eph. ii. 2,)
formed unto good works, which God has prepared, in order that
we should walk in them, seeing that of ourselves we would
not be so disposed. But the will and execution are given us
by God, and all our sufficiency is of him, (PhU. ii. 13 ;) and
for this purpose our Lord Jesus Christ has received all ful
ness of grace, that we may draw from him, (2 Cor. iii. 5.)
Thus we presume not on our free-will or virtue and ability,
but rather confess that our good works are pure gifts of God.

13. HOW WE PARTAKE OF JESUS CHRIST AND HIS
BENEFITS.— OF FAITH.
Now we understand that we are made partakers of all his
blessings by means of faith ; for this it is which brings us
into communication with Christ, in order that he raay dwell
in us, that we may be ingrafted into him as our root, that we
may be members of his body, that we may live in him, and
he in us, and possess him, with all his benefits. And that it
may not be thought strange that we attribute such virtue to
faith, we do not take it for a fleeting opinion, but for a cer
tainty which we have of the promises of God, in whicii all
these blessings are contained, and by which we embrace
our Lord Jesus Christ as the surety of all our salvation,
and apply to our own use what he has received of God his
Father to impart unto us. This faith we likewise know
that we cannot have if it be not given us from above, and

THE REFORMED CHURCHES OF FRANCE. 145
as Scripture declares, (Eph. ii. 9 ; i. 18,) till the Holy Spirit
enlightens us to comprehend what is beyond all human sense,
and seals in our hearts what we ought to believe.
14. OF THE IMPERFECTION AND PERFECTION OF
BELIEVERS.
Now, although being called to do good works, we produce
the fruits of our calling, as it is said, (Luke i. 75,) that we
have been redeemed in order to serve God in holiness and
righteousness, we are however always encompassed with
many infirmities while we live in this world. What is more,
aU our thoughts and affections are so stained with impurity
that no work can proceed from us v/hich is worthy of the
acceptance of God. Thus so far are we, in striving to do
weU, from being able to merit anything, that we always con
tinue debtors. For God wiU always have just cause to blame
us in whatever we do, and reward is promised to none but
those who fulfil the law ; which we are very far from doing.
(Deut. xviii. 5 ; Ezek. xx. 11 ; Rom. x. 5 ; Gal. iii. 12.) See
then how we hold that aU our merits are suppressed. It is
not only that we faU in the perfect fulfilment of the law, but
that also in every act there is some evil vicious taint. We are
weU aware that the instruction commonly given is to repair
the faults we commit by satisfactions ; but as the Scripture
teaches us that our Lord Jesus Christ has satisfied for us,
we cannot repose in any thing else than the sacrifice of his
death, by which the wrath of God is appeased, wrath which
no creatures could sustain. (Gal. iii. 13 ; iv. 5 ; Tit. ii. 14 ;
1 Pet. i. 18, 19.) And the reason why we hold that we are
justified by faith alone is because it is necessary for us
to borrow elsewhere, namely, from our Lord Jesus Christ,
that righteousness which is wanting to us, not in part but
wholly. 15. OF INVOCATION.
It is this which gives us boldness to call upon God, for
without this we should have no access, Scripture teaching
VOL. n. K

146

CONFESSION OF FAITH, IN NAME OF

that we never shall be heard while in doubt and disquietude.
(Heb. xi. 6 ; James i. 6, 7.) Therefore we hold that our
sovereign good and repose consists in being assured of the
forgiveness of sins, by the faith which we have in Jesus
Christ, seeing that this is the key which opens the gate that
leads us to God. (Rora. iv. 6 ; James i. 32.) Now it is said
that whosoever will call on the name of the Lord will be
saved. Still, according as Scripture teaches us, we address
our prayers to God in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
who has becorae our Advocate, because without him we
should not be worthy of obtaining access. (Eph. iii. 12 ;
Heb. iv. 16.) That we do not pray to holy men and women
in common fashion, should not be imputed to us as a fault :
for since in all our actions we are required to have our con
science decided, we cannot observe too great sobriety in
prayer. We accordingly follow the rule which has been
given us, viz., that without having known him, and that his
word has been preached to us in testimony of his wiU, we
cannot call upon him. Now in regard to prayer, the whole
of Scripture refers us to him only. What is more, he regards
our prayers as the chief and supreme sacrifice by which we
do homage to his Majesty, as he declares in the fiftieth
Psalm, and hence to address our prayers to creatures, and
go gadding about to this quarter and to that, is a thing
which we may not do, if we would not be guilty of sacrilege.
To seek other patrons or advocates than our Lord Jesus
Christ, we hold not to be in our choice or liberty. True it is
that we ought to pray one for another, while we are convers
ant here below, but as to having recourse to the dead, since
Scripture does not tell us to do so, we will not attempt it,
for fear of being guilty of presumption. Even the enormous
abuses which have been and stiU are in vogue, warn us to
confine ourselves within such simplicity, as a limit which
God has set to check all curiosity and boldness. For many
prayers have been forged full of horrible blasphemies, such
as those which request the Virgin Mary to command her
Son, and exert her authority over him — and which style her
the haven of salvation, the life and hope of those who tmst
in her.

THE REFORMED CHURCHES OF FRANCE. 147

16. OF PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD.
We refuse to pray for the dead, not only for this reason,
but also because the practice implies a great deal more, viz.,
presupposes that there is a purgatory in which souls are
punished for the faults which they have committed. Now,
on this view, the redemption made by Jesus Christ cannot be
complete, and we must detract from the death which he
suffered, as if it had only procured a partial acquittal — a
thing which cannot be said without blasphemy. Thus be
lieving that the poor people have been imposed upon in this
respect, we are unwilling to devise any thing against the
principles of our Christian faith. We deem it sufficient to
hold by the pure doctrine of Holy Scripture, which makes
no mention of all this. Be this as it may, we hold that it
is a superstition devised by the fancy of men, and besides,
as we are not permitted to pray to God at hap-hazard, we
would not be so presumptuous as to usurp the office of our
Lord Jesus Christ, who has fully acquitted us of all our
offences. 17. OF THE SERVICE OF GOD.
The second principal point in which we differ from the
custom and opinion received in the world, is the manner of
serving God. Now on our part, in accordance with his de
claration, that obedience is better than sacrifice, (1 Sam. xv.
22,) and with his uniform injunction to listen to what he
commands, if we would render a well regulated and accept
able sacrifice, we hold that it is not for us to invent what to
us seems good, or to follow what may have been devised in
the brain of other men, but to confine ourselves simply to the
purity of Scripture. Wherefore we believe that anything which
is not derived from it, but has only been commanded by the
authority of men, ought not to be regarded as the service of
God. And in this we have two articles as a kind of axioms.
The one is, that men cannot bind the conscience under pain
of mortal sin : for not in vain does God insist on being re-

148 CONFESSION OF FAITH, IN NAME OF
garded as the only lawgiver, saying, (James iv. 12,) that it
is for him to conderan and acquit, nor in vain does he so
often reiterate, that we are not to add to his ordinances.
This indeed cannot be done without taxing him with not
having known all that was useful, (Deut. iv. 2 ; xii. 32,) or
with having forgotten this thing or that through inadvertence.
The second axiora is, that when we presume to serve God at
our own hand, he repudiates it as corruption. And this is
the reason why he exclaims by his prophet Isaiah, (Is. xxix.
13,) that all tme religion has been perverted by keeping the
commandments of men. And our Lord Jesus Christ con
firms the same by saying, (Matt. xv. 9,) that in vain would
we know God by human tradition. It is with good reason,
therefore, that his spiritual supremacy over our souls remains
inviolable, and that at the very least his will as a bridle
should regulate our devotions.
18. OF HUMAN TRADITION.
We have in this matter such notable warnings from com
mon experience, that we are the more confirmed in not pass
ing the limits of Scripture. For since men began to make
laws to regulate the service of God, and subject the con
science, there has been neither end nor measure, while, on
the other hand, God has punished such temerity, blinding
men with delusions which may make one shudder. Wlien
we look nearer to see what human traditions are, we find
that they are an abyss, and that their number is endless.
And yet there are abuses so absurd and enormous, that it is
wonderful how men could have been so stupid, were it not
that God has executed the vengeance which he announced
by his prophet Isaiah, (Is. xxix. 1 4,) blinding and infatuat
ing the wise who would honour him by observing the com
mandments of men.
19. OP IDOLATROUS INTENTIONS.
Since men have turned aside from pure and holy obedience
to God, they have discovered that good intention was suffi
cient to approve everything. This was to open a door to

THE REFORMED CHURCHES OF FRANCE. 1 49
all superstitions. It has been the origin of the worship of
images, the purchase of masses, the filling of churches with
pomp and parade, the running about on pilgrimages, the
making of vows by each at his own hand. But the abyss
here is so profound that it is enough for us to have touched
on some examples. So far is it from being permitted to
honour God by human inventions, that there would be no
firmness nor certainty, neither bottom nor shore in religion :
every thing would go to wreck, and Christianity differ in
nothing from the idolatries of the heathen.

20. OF THE TYRANNICAL ORDINANCES OF THE POPE.
There is another evil which we have alleged in the tyranny
by which poor souls are oppressed. When men are com
manded to confess their sins once a year to a priest, it is just
to throw the whole world into despair. For if a man can
not keep count of the faults of a single day, who can be able
to collect them at the end of a year ? And yet the decree
declares that pardon cannot otherwise be obtained. This is
to close the gate of paradise against all mankind. More
over, though the observance of human laws were not im
possible, there is always sacrilege in encroaching on the
jurisdiction of God, as when it is said that sins will not be
pardoned unless they are confessed in the ear of a priest.
This is to append a condition to the promise of God, so as
to render it false or vain. The same may be said of the
prohibition to eat flesh on certain days under pain of mortal
sin. We confess, indeed, that fasting and abstinence is a
laudable virtue, but such a prohibition trenches on the
authority of God. The prohibition of marriage to priests,
as well as monks and nuns, contains in itself two vices.
First, it belonged not to mortal men to prohibit what God
has permitted, and secondly, to constrain those who have
not the gift of continence to refrain from the remedy, is as
it were to plunge them into an abyss. And, in fact, we
see the fmits which have been produced by it, and have no
need to say what we are even shamed to think.

1 50 CONFESSION OF FAITH, IN NAME OF
21. OF THE AUTHORITY AND GOVERNMENT OF THE
CHURCH.
We intend not, however, to annihilate the authority of the
Church, or of prelates and pastors, to whom the superintend
ence of its government has been given. We admit that bishops
and pastors ought to be listened to with reverence, in so far
as they discharge the office of preaching the word of God,
and moreover, that all churches, and each one in particular,
have powers to make laws and statutes for the common
guidance, (1 Cor. xiv. 40,) as it is necessary that every
thing be done decently and in order. Such statutes ought
to be obeyed, provided they do not restrict consciences nor
establish superstition, and we hold those to be fanatical and
contumacious who will not conform to them. But we de-
semble not that it is necessary to distinguish true and
legitimate jiastors from those who have only a frivolous title.
For in fact it is but too notorious that those who call them
selves prelates and would be acknowledged as such, do not
even make a semblance of discharging their duty. But the
worst is, that, under colour of their state and dignity, they
lead poor souls to perdition, tuming them aside from the
truth of God to their lies. And hence, though they were to
be tolerated in other respects, yet when they would feed us
on false doctrines and errors, we must put in practice St.
Peter's answer, " We must obey God rather than man."
(Acts V. 29.) 22. OF THE PRIMACY OF THE POPE.
Moreover, we hold that the primacy which the Pope at
tributes to himself is an enormous usurpation. For were we
to admit the expediency of having some head inthe Church,
(this, however, is completely repugnant to the word of God,
Eph. i. 22; iv. 15; v. 23 ; Col. i. 18,) still itis extravagantly
absurd that he who is to be head over bishops should not
be a bishop himself And when we examine all that they
say of their hierarchy, we find that it bears no resemblance
to what our Lord Jesus and his apostles taught us, or

THE REFORMED CHURCHES OF FRANCE. 151
rather that it is a corruption fitted to overturn the govern
ment of the Church. We touch not on all the dissoluteness
and scandals which are only too notorious, but we say that
all Christians, in order not to be rebels against God, ought
to reject what they know to be contrary to the purity of his
service. For when there is a question as to the spiritual
jurisdiction which God reserves to himself, all human suprem
acy must give way. The laws of earthly princes, however
grievous and harsh they should be, nay, even should they be
felt to be unjust, are nevertheless valid, and it is not law
ful to despise them : for the goods and bodies of this world
are not so precious as that the authority which God has
given to all kings, princes, and rulers, should not take pre
cedence of them. But it is a very different case to subject
our souls to tyrannical or strange and bastard laws, which
are to turn us aside from subjection to God. Meanwhile we
confess, that it is not for private persons to correct such
abuses, in order to remove them entirely ; it is enough that
all Christians abstain from them, keeping themselves pure
and entire for the service of God.

23. OF THE DUTY OF PASTORS AND FLOCK IN THE
CHURCH.
As to all pastors wlio acquit themselves faithfully of their
charge, we hold that they ought to be received as represent
ing the person of him who has ordained them ; and that all
Christians ought to array themselves under the common
order of the faithful to hear the doctrine of salvation, to
make confession of their faith, to keep themselves in union
with the Church, to submit peacefully to censure and correc
tion, and assist in preventing any schism or disturbance from
taking place. Hence we hold as schismatics all who stir up
trouble and confusion, tending to rend the Church, which
cannot retain its proper state without being govemed by its
pastors, since it has so pleased God, and he has commanded
all, from the greatest to the least, to conform in subjection
to it ; so that all who separate and voluntarily cut them-

1 52 CONFESSION or FAITH, IN NAME OF
selves off from the company of the faithful also banish them
selves from the kingdom of heaven. At the same time,
those who would be listened to in the name of Christ must
take heed to deliver the doctrine which has been committed
to them. 24. OF THE SACRAMENTS.
It remains to declare what is our faith touching the Sacra
ments. We hold them to be at once an attestation to the
grace of God to ratify it in us, and external signs, by which
we declare our Christianity before men. True it is that the
word of God should suffice to assure us of our salvation ; but
seeing that God has been pleased, because of our ignorance
and frailty, to add such helps, it is very reasonable that we
accept of them, and apply them to our profit. Thus the sac
raments are, as it were, seals to seal the grace of God in our
hearts, and render it more authentic, for which reason they
may be termed visible doctrine. Now we believe that all
which is there figured and demonstrated is accomplished in
us. For they are not vain or elusory figures, since God, who
is infallible truth, gives them to us for confirraation of our
faith. Moreover, we believe that whatever unworthiness
there may be in the minister, the sacrament fails not to be
good and available. For the tmth of God does not change
or vary according to the wickedness of men, as it is not their
office to give virtue or effect to what God has appointed.
Hence we believe, that though the sacraments should be
administered by wicked and unworthy persons, they always
retain their nature, so as to bring and communicate truly to
the receivers the thing signified by them. We hold, however,
that they are useful only when God gives effect to them, and
displays the power of his Spirit, using them as instruments.
Hence the Spirit of God must act to make us feel their effi
cacy for our salvation. We also confess that the use of them
is necessary, and that all those who make no account of
them declare themselves despisers of the grace of God, and
are blinded by devUish pride, not knowing their infirmity
which God has been pleased to sustain by such means and

THE REFORMED CHURCHES OF FRANCE. 153
remedy. Moreover, since God has placed the sacraments as
a sacred deposit in his Church, we believe that individuals
are not to use them apart, but that the use of them ought
to be common to the assembly ofthe faithful, and that they
ought to be administered by the pastors to whom the charge
and dispensation of them has been committed.
25. TO WHOM IT APPERTAINS TO INSTITUTE
SACRAMENTS.— THE NUMBER OP THEM.
From this we infer that it belongs to God only to ordain
sacraments, seeing that he alone can bear witness to his will,
seal the promises, represent his spiritual gifts, and make
earthly elements to be, as it were, eamests of our salvation.
Hence the ceremonies which have been introduced by men
cannot, and ought not to be, held as sacraments. To attri
bute to them this title and quality is only to deceive.
Wherefore we confess that the number of seven sacraments,
which they are commonly held to be, is not received by us,
seeing they are not sanctioned by the word of God. Still,
though we do not avow marriage to be a sacrament, it is
not because we despise it. Neither do we raean to lessen the
dignity of the temporary sacraments which were used in the
days of miracles, although we say that they are not now in
use, e.g., the anointing of the sick. At all events, it is very
reasonable that the ordinances which have proceeded from
God should be distinguished from those which have been
introduced by men. 26. OF BAPTISM.
As there are two sacraments for the common use of the
whole Church, viz., Baptism and the Holy Supper, we will
make a brief confession of our faith in regard to both. We
hold, then, that baptism being a spiritual washing and sign
of our regeneration, serves as an evidence that God intro
duces us into his Church to make us, as it were, his children
and heirs ; and thus ought we to apply it during the whole
period of our life, in order to confirm us in the promises

1 54 CONFESSION OF FAITH, IN NAME OF
which have been given us, as well of the forgiveness of our
sins as of the guidance and assistance of the Holy Spirit.
And because the two graces which are there signified to
us are given us in Jesus Christ, and cannot be found else
where, we believe, that in order to enjoy the fruit of our
baptism it is necessary to refer it to its proper end, that is,
to hold that we are washed by the shedding of the blood of
Jesus Christ, and in virtue of his death and resurrection, die
in ourselves and rise again to newness of life ; and because
Jesus Christ is the substance, the Scripture says that we
are properly baptized in his narae. (Acts ii. 38 ; x. 48 ; xix.
5.) Moreover, we believe, that since baptisra is a treasure
which God has placed in his Church, all the members
ought to partake of it. Now we doubt not that little chil
dren born of Christians are of this number, since God has
adopted them, as he declares. Indeed we should defraud
them of their right were we to exclude them frora the sign
which only ratifies the thing contained in the promise :
considering, moreover, that children ought no more in the
present day to be deprived of the sacraraent of their salva
tion than the children of the Jews were in ancient times,
seeing that now the manifestation must be larger and clearer
than it was under the law. Wherefore we reprobate all fana
tics who will not allow little children to be baptized.
27. OF THE SUPPER— OF THE MASS.
To make clear our belief in the Supper, we are constrained
to show how it differs from the Mass. For we cannot con
ceal that there is nothing common or conformable between
them, or even approaching to resemblance. We are not igno
rant that this acknowledgment is odious to many persons,
in respect that the Mass is in high reverence and esteem,
and, in fact, we were no less devoted to it than others until
we were shown its abuses : but we hope, that when our
reasons have been patiently heard and understood, nothing
strange will be found in what we hold respecting it.
It is true, the term Sacrifice was long ago applied to the
Supper, but the ancient doctors were very far from using it in

THE REFORMED CHURCHES OF FRANCE. 155
the sense which has been given to it since, viz., as being a
meritorious oblation to obtain pardon and grace as well to
the dead as the living. Now, though there are in the present
day a kind of middle-men, who, to colour the general error
which has prevailed in the world, make a pretence of re
ceiving the doctrine of the ancient fathers, use and practice,
however, demonstrate that the things are quite contrary, and
at least as distant as heaven is from earth. It is notorious,
that in the ancient Church there were no private masses, no
foundations, and that the Sacrament was used for communi
cating, whereas in the present day masses are purchased as
satisfactions, to obtain acquittal with God, and each indi
vidual has them apart at will. Such merchandise cannot
cloak itself under the ancient practice of the Church.
Another profanation is, that whereas the Holy Supper ought
only to bear the name of Jesus Christ, they forge masses at
will, of Christopher, or Barbara, or any other saint of the
calendar, as it is called — fashions which agree no more with
the nature of the Sacrament than fire agrees with water.
28. OF THE AUTHOR OF THE SUPPER.
Moreover, though we honour antiquity, and do not will
ingly reject what was approved by holy fathers, yet it
seems to us very reasonable, that the institutions of our
Lord Jesus Christ should be preferred to all that men have
devised. All human authority must cease when it is a
question of obeying him to whom all power has been given.
Our Lord Jesus Christ, none but he, is the author of the Sup
per. Therefore what he has ordained is the inviolable rule
which ought to be observed without contradiction. Now he
distributed the bread and wine, saying. Take, eat, drink : this
is my body and my blood. (Matt. xxvi. 26 ; Matt. xiv. 22 ;
1 Cor. ii. 24.) Hence to offer instead of receiving is to con
travene the ordinance of the Son of God. Whatever excuses
men may pretend, in introducing a kind of sacrifice, they
have metamorphosed the sacrament, and converted it into an
entirely different form. This is the reason why we cannot
consent to the use of any mode of sacrificing in the Supper :

156

CONFESSION OF FAITH, IN NAME OF

for it is not lawful for us to deviate from what our Lord
Jesus Christ has coraraanded, seeing the heavenly Father
has published his decree, " Hear ye him." (Matt. xvii. 5.)
And in fact, St. Paul, when wishing to reform some abuse
which had already sprung up in the Church of Corinth, leads
back the faithful to the observance of what they had re
ceived from our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Cor. xi. 23.) Hence
we see that there is no firm footing anywhere else.
29. OF THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS.
We hold, then, that since Scripture teaches that our Lord
Jesus Christ, by one only sacrifice, purchased perpetual re
demption for us, and that it was only once for all he offered
his body as the price and satisfaction of our sins, it is un-
lawfiil to reiterate such a sacrifice ; and since the Father, by
ordaining him sole and perpetual Priest after the order of
Melchisedec, has confirmed this by solemn oath, we hold also
that for others to offer is blasphemously to derogate from his
dignity. We believe, moreover, that it is an abuse and in
tolerable corruption to have masses in which none commu
nicate, seeing that the Supper is nothing else than a sacra
ment in which all Christians partake together of the body
and blood of Jesus Christ.
30. OTHER CORRUPTIONS OF THE MASS.
We also reprobate another abuse which is common through
out the world. It is that the people communicate only in
the half of the Supper, while one solitary priest receives the
whole sacrament. It is distinctly said — Drink all of this
cup. (Matth. xxvi. 27.) What God has joined men may
not put asunder. Even the usage of the primitive Church
was conformable to the institution of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and this separation, which takes away the cup from the
people, was recently introduced. Nor can we consent to
another abuse, viz., that of celebrating the ordinance in an
unknown tongue. For our Lord wished to be understood by
his disciples when he said — Take, eat, this is my body, &c. ;

THE REFORMED CHURCHES OF FRANCE. 157
and these words are addressed to the Church. It is there
fore a mockery of the sacrament when the priest mutters
over the bread and over the cup, and no one understands
what he is about.
31. WHY THE HOLY SUPPER WAS INSTITUTED.
In regard to the Supper of our Lord we have to say, in the
first place, for what end it was instituted : for from this it
will be seen what its use is, and what benefit accrues to us
from it. The end, then, to which it ought to be referred is to
continue in us the grace which we received in baptism. For
as by baptisra God regenerates us to be his children, and by
such spiritual birth introduces us into his Church, to raake
us, as it were, of his household ; so in the Supper he declares
to us that he wishes not to leave us unprovided, but rather
to maintain us in the heavenly life till such time as we shall
have attained to the perfection of it. Now, inasmuch as there
is no other food for our souls than Jesus Christ, it is in him
alone that we must seek life. But because of our weakness
and ignorance, the Supper is to us a visible and external
sign to testify to us, that in partaking of the body and blood
of Jesus Christ we live spiritually in him. For as he does
not present himself to us empty, so we receive him with all
his benefits and gifts in such manner, that while possessing
him we have in him aU that appertains to our salvation.
In saying that the Supper is a sign, we mean not that it is
a simple figure or remembrance, but confess that the thing
signified by it is verily accomplished in us in fact. For see
ing that God is infallible truth, it is certain that he means not
to amuse us with some vain appearance, but that the sub
stance of what the sacraments signify is conjoined with them.
32. OP THE REAL RECEIVING OF THE BODY AND BLOOD
OF THE LORD.
Wherefore we hold that this doctrine of our Lord Jesus
Christ, viz., that his body is tmly meat, and his blood truly
drink, (John vi.) is not only represented and ratified in the

158 CONFESSION OF FAITH, IN NAME OF
Supper, but also accomplished in fact. For there under the
symbols of bread and wine our Lord presents us with his body
and blood, and we are spiritually fed upon them, provided we
do not preclude entrance to his grace by our unbelief For as
a vessel, though it be empty, cannot receive any liquor while
it is closed and corked, so also must faith give an opening to
make us capable of receiving the blessings which God offers
us, as it is said in the Psalm, (Ps. Ixxxi. II,) Open thy
mouth and I will fill it. Not that our unbelief can destroy
the truth of God, or that our depravity can hinder the sacra
ments from retaining their virtue ; for let us be what wo
may, God is ever like himself, and the virtue of the sacra
ments depends not on our faith, as if by our ingratitude we
could derogate from their nature or quality.
33. THE UNWORTHY COMMUNICATE ONLY IN THE SIGNS.
Wherefore the supper is a certain attestation, which is
addressed to the bad as well as the good, in order to offer
Christ to all indiscriminately ; but this is not to say that aU
receive him when he is offered to them. And in fact it
were grossly absurd to hold that Jesus Christ is received by
those who are entire strangers to him, and that the wicked
eat his body and drink his blood while destitute of his Spirit.
For in this way he would be dead, being despoiled of his
virtue and yielding nothing.
34. REASON OF THIS.
Though it is said that the wicked are guilty of the body and
blood of Christ when they partake unworthily of the Supper,
this does not prove that they receive any raore than the sign.
For it is not said by St. Paul that they are condemned for
having received the body and the blood, but for not having
discerned between them and profane things. Their offence
then is that they rejected Christ when he was presented to
them. For such contempt carries with it detestable sacri
lege. We confess indeed that speaking sacramentaUy, as it

THE REFORMED CHURCHES OF FRANCE. ] 59
is called, the wicked receive the body and blood of Jesus
Christ, and the ancient fathers sometimes used this language,
but they explained themselves by adding that it was not
reaUy and in fact, but in so far as the sacrament implies it.
Indeed we can have no part in Jesus Christ except by faith,
and he has no connection with us if we are not his members.

35. OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
It remains to see the way and manner in which our Lord
Jesus communicates himself to us in the Supper. In re
gard to this, several questions and disputes have been raised
in our time. Now, in the first place, we reject not only the
common reverie in regard to what is called transubstantia
tion, but also what was decided at the Council of Tours, viz.,
that we chew with our teeth and swallow the body of Christ.
For to say that the bread is changed and becomes no more
than a form without substance, is repugnant to the nature of
the sacrament, in which it is shown that as we are supported
on bread and -wine, so our souls are nourished with the flesh
and blood of Jesus Christ. Now it is necessary that there
be a correspondence between the spiritual reality and the
external symbol. If then there was only the figure of bread,
there would also be a figure only in regard to the body and
blood of Christ. We conclude, then, without doubt, that the
bread and the wine remain as the sign and the pledge to
testify to us that the flesh of Jesus Christ is our heavenly
bread and his blood our true drink. In the second place, to
imagine that we swallow the body of Jesus Christ, and that
it passes into us as material bread, is a thing which cannot
be received by Christians, and is altogether at variance with
the reverence with which we ought to regard the sacred union
which we have with the Son of God.

36. OF CONSUBSTANTIATION.
Still we confess that we are truly united with our Lord
Jesus, so that he invigorates us by the proper substance of

160 CONFESSION OF FAITH, IN NAME OF
his body. Our meaning is not that he descends here below
or has an infinite body to fill heaven and earth, but that this
grace of uniting us with him and living on his substance is
everywhere diffused by the virtue of his Spirit. We are aware
indeed that some say that in so high and deep a mystery it
is not lawful to inquire into the mode ; but after they have
thus spoken, they determine that the body of Jesus Christ
is under the bread, just as wine may be contained in a pot.
Thus under colour of sobriety they take license to say what
they please. On our part we confess that the mode of com
municating with Jesus Christ is miraculous and transcends
our conceptions, and we are not ashamed to exclaim with
St. Paul, (Eph. V. 32,) that it is a great mystery, which ought
to fill us with amazement, but this hinders us not from re
jecting all absurdities contrary to Holy Scripture, and to the
articles of our faith. 37. OF UBIQUITY.
Now we hold for certain and infallible, that though the
human nature of our Lord Jesus is conjoined with his di
vinity, so as to establish in him a true unity of person, still
his human nature retains its quality and condition, and every
thing which is proper to it. In like manner then as our Lord
Jesus took a body capable of suffering, this body had its
magnitude and measure and was not infinite. We confess
indeed that when it was glorified it changed its condition, so
as to be no longer subject to any infirmity. It however re
tained its substance ; otherwise the promise given us by the
raouth of St. Paul (Phil. iii. 21) would fail, that the cor
ruptible and fading bodies which we now have will be ren
dered conformable to the body of Jesus Christ. At all
events, we cannot be blamed for seeking Jesus Christ on
high as we are admonished to do, even in terms of the pre
amble which has at all times been used in celebrating this
ordinance — Raise your hearts on high.

OF THE REFORMED CHURCHES OF FRANCE. 161
38. OF THE POWER OP GOD.
Those who accuse us of wishing to derogate from the
power of God, do us great wrong. For the question is not
what God can do? but, what his word bears? beyond which we
ought not to speculate in order to guess at this thing or that.
And in fact, we enter not into the dispute whether or not
God can make the body of Jesus Christ to be everywhere,
but with all modesty we remain within the doctrine of Scrip
ture (Phil. i. 5) as our proper limit. It bears that our Lord
Jesus assumed a body like ours in every respect, that he so
journed here below in the world, and ascended to heaven in
order to descend and appear from thence on the last day, as
it is distinctly stated that the heavens must receive him until
he appears. (Acts i. 11.) And what the angel said to the
disciples ought to be well considered — Jesus, who has been
taken from you into heaven, will come in like manner as you
have seen him ascend. Still we magnify the power of God
more than those do who would defame us by such reproaches ;
for we confess that however great the distance of space be
tween Jesus Christ and us, he fails not to give us life in him
self, to dwell in us, to provide for us and make us partakers
of the substance of his body and his blood, by the incompre
hensible virtue of his Spirit. From this it appears that the
blame which some cast upon us is only calumny. They
charge us with measuring the power of God by our own capa
city, after the fashion of philosophers, whereas our philosophy
is to receive in simplicity what the Scripture shows us.
39 OF THE TRUTH OF GOD.
Those also who represent that we give no credit to the
words of our Lord Jesus Christ — This is my body, this is my
blood — ought to be ashamed of injuring us so falsely. God
forbid it should ever come into our thought to reply against
him who is immutable truth. So far are we from being so
abandoned as to wish to vent such blasphemy, that we impli
citly receive what our Lord Jesus Christ pronounced ; only we
require that the natural sense of the words be well understood.
VOL. IL L

162 CONFESSION OF FAITH.
Now we do not seek the exposition of thera in our own brains,
but derive it from the constant usage of Scripture,' and the
common style of the Holy Spirit. Did we bring forward any
novelty, it might be odious or suspicious ; but when we wish
to abide by the property common to all sacraments, it seems
to us well entitled to be received. To be brief, we protest
that we neither think nor speak otherwise than St. Augus
tine has expressed word for word, (Ep. 23, ad Bonif ,) viz.,
that if the sacraments had not some resemblance to the
things which they signify, they would not be sacraments at
all, and that hence they take the names of the things them
selves ; and thus, properly speaking, the sacrament of the
body of Jesus Christ is the body of Jesus Christ, and the
sacraraent of his blood is his blood. Still we always conjoin
the reality with the figure in such manner that this sacra
ment is not illusory.
Now, Sire, your Majesty, and your Excellences, most illus
trious Princes, have a declaration of our faith, in whicii there
is nothing either coloured or disguised, and by which we
desire that our cause be judged and decided. Meanwhile,
we most humbly supplicate your Majesty and your Excel
lences, most illustrious Princes, that as we have with all re
verence proceeded to declare what we believe, so it would
please you attentively to consider the contents of this state
ment with such benignity that reason and equity alone may
rule, laying aside all human opinions, so as not to prejudge
the truth.

SHORT TREATISE

THE SUPPER OF OUR LORD,

IN WHICH IS SHOWN

ITS TRUE INSTITUTION, BENEFIT, AND UTILITY.

AN. M.D.XL.

SHORT TREATISE

THE HOLY SUPPER OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.'
1. REASON WHY MANY WEAK CONSCIENCES REMAIN
IN SUSPENSE AS TO THE TRUE DOCTRINE
OF THE SUPPER.
As the holy sacraraent of the Supper of our Lord Jesus
Christ has long been the subject of several important errors,
and in these past years been anew enveloped in diverse
opinions and contentious disputes, it is no wonder if many
weak consciences cannot fairly resolve what view they ought
to take of it, but reraain in doubt and perplexity, waiting
till all contention being laid aside, the servants of God come
to some agreement upon it. However, as it is a very peril
ous thing to have no certainty on an ordinance, the under
standing of which is so requisite for our salvation, I have
thought it might be a very useful labour to treat briefiy and,
nevertheless, clearly deduce a summary of what is necessary
to be known of it. I may add that I have been requested
to do so by some worthy persons, whom I could not refuse
without neglecting my duty. In order to rid ourselves of
all difficulty, it is expedient to attend to the order which I
have determined to follow.
2. THE ORDER TO BE OBSERVED IN THIS TREATISE.
First, then, we will explain to what end and for what
reason our Lord instituted this holy sacrament.
Secondly, What fruit and utility we receive from it, when
it will likewise be shown how the body of Jesus Christ is
given to us. ' From the French.

SHORT TREATISE ON THE LORD's SUPPER. 1 65
Thirdly, Wliat is the legitimate use of it.
Fourthly, We will detail the errors and superstitions with
which it has been contaminated, when it will be shown how
the servants of God ought to differ from the Papists.
Lastly, We will mention what has been the source of the
discussion which has been so keenly carried on, even among
those who have, in our time, brought back the light of the
gospel, and employed themselves in rightly edifying the
Church in sound doctrine.
3. AT BAPTISM GOD RECEIVES US INTO HIS CHURCH AS
MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY.
In regard to the first article — Since it has pleased our
good God to receive us by baptism into his Church, which
is his house, whicii he desires to maintain and govern, and
since he has received us to keep us not raerely as domestics,
but as his own children, it remains that, in order to do the
office of a good father, he nourish and provide us with every
thing necessary for our life. In regard to corporal nour
ishment, as it is common to all, and the bad share in it as
weU as the good, it is not peculiar to his family. It is very
ti-ue that we have an evidence of his paternal goodness in
maintaining our bodies, seeing that we partake in all the
good things which he gives us with his blessing. But as the
life into which he has begotten us again is spiritual, so must
the food, in order to preserve and strengthen us, be spiritual
also. For we should understand, that not only has he called
us one day to possess his heavenly inheritance, but that by
hope he has already in some measure installed us in posses
sion; that not only has he promised us life, but already
transported us into it, delivering us from death, when by
adopting us as his children, he begot us again by immortal
seed, namely, his word imprinted on our hearts by the Holy
Spirit. 4. THE VIRTUE AND OFFICE OF THE WORD OF GOD LN
REGARD TO OUR SOULS.
To maintain us in this spiritual life, the thing requisite is

166 SHORT TREATISE ON THE LORD's SUPPER.
not to feed our bodies with fading and corruptible food, but
to nourish our souls on the best and most precious diet. Now
all Scripture tells us, that the spiritual food by which our
souls are maintained is that same word by whicii the Lord
has regenerated us ; but it frequently adds the reason, viz.,
that in it Jesus Christ, our only life, is given and adminis
tered to us. For we must not imagine that there is life any
where than in God. But just as God has placed all fulness of
life in Jesus, in order to communicate it to us by his raeans,
so he ordained his word as the instrument by which Jesus
Christ, with all his graces, is dispensed to us. Still it always
remains true, that our souls have no other pasture than Jesus
Christ. Our heavenly Father, therefore, in his care to nour
ish us, gives us no other, but rather recoraraends us to take
our fill there, as a refreshment amply sufficient, with whicii
we cannot dispense, and beyond which no other can be found.

6. JESUS CHRIST THE ONLY SPIRITUAL NOURISHMENT
OF OUR SOULS.
We have already seen that Jesus Christ is the only food by
which our souls are nourished ; but as it is distributed to us
by the word of the Lord, which he has appointed an instru
ment for that pupose, that word is also called bread and
water. Now what is said of the word applies as well to the
sacrament of the Supper, by means of which the Lord leads
us to communion with Jesus Christ. For seeing we are so
weak that we cannot receive him with true heartfelt trust,
when he is presented to us by simple doctrine and preach
ing, the Father of mercy, disdaining not to condescend in
this matter to our infirmity, has been pleased to add to his
word a visible sign, by which he might represent the sub
stance of his promises, to confirm and fortify us by delivering
us from all doubt and uncertainty. Since, then, there is
something so mysterious and incomprehensible in saying
that we have communion with the body and the blood of
Jesus Christ, and we on our part are so rude and gross that
we cannot understand the least things of God, it was of im-

SHORT TREATISE ON THE LORD's SUPPER. 1 67
portance that we should be given to understand it as far as
our capacity could admit.
6. THE CAUSE WHY OUR LORD INSTITUTED THE SUPPER.
Our Lord, therefore, instituted the Supper, first, in order
to sign and seal in our consciences the promises contained in
his gospel conceming our being made partakers of his body
and blood, and to give us certainty and assurance that therein
lies our tme spiritual nourishment, and that having such an
earnest, we may entertain a right reliance on salvation.
Secondly, in order to exercise us in recognising his great
goodness toward us, and thus lead us to laud and magnify
him more fully. Thirdly, in order to exhort us to all holi
ness and innocence, inasmuch as we are members of Jesus
Christ ; and specially to exhort us to union and brotherly
charity, as we are expressly commanded. When we shall
have well considered these three reasons, to which the Lord
had respect in ordaining his Supper, we shall be able to un
derstand, both what benefit accrues to us from it, and what
is our duty in order to use it properly.
7. THE MEANS OF KNOWING THE GREAT BENEFIT OF
THE SUPPER.
It is now time to come to the second point, viz., to show
how the Lord's Supper is profitable to us, provided we use it
profitably. Now we shall know its utility by refiecting on
the indigence which it is meant to succour. We must ne
cessarily be under great trouble and torment of conscience,
when we consider who we are, and examine what is in us.
For not one of us can find one particle of righteousness in
himself, but on the contrary we are all full of sins and ini
quities, so much so that no other party is required to accuse
us than our own conscience, no other judge to condemn us.
It follows that the wrath of God is kindled against us, and
that none can escape eternal death. If we are not asleep
and stupified, this horrible thought must be a kind of per
petual hell to vex and torment us. For the judgment of

168 SHORT TREATISE ON THE LORD's SUPPER.
God cannot come into our remembrance without letting us
see that our condemnation follows as a consequence.
8. THE MISERY OF MAN.
We are then already in the gulf, if God does not in mercy
draw us out of it. Moreover, what hope of resurrection can
we have while considering our flesh, which is only rottenness
and corruption ? Thus in regard to the soul, as well as the
body, we are more than miserable if we remain within our
selves, and this misery cannot but produce great sadness and
anguish of soul. Now our heavenly Father, to succour us in
this, gives us the Supper as a mirror, in which we may con
template our Lord Jesus Christ, crucified to take away our
faults and offences, and raised again to deliver us from cor
ruption and death, restoring us to a celestial immortality.
9. THE SUPPER INVITES US TO THE PROMISES OF
SALVATION.
Here, then, is the singular consolation which we derive
from the Supper. It directs and leads us to the cross of
Jesus Christ and to his resurrection, to certify us that
whatever iniquity there may be in us, the Lord neverthe
less recognises and accepts us as righteous — whatever ma
terials of death may be in us, he nevertheless gives us life —
whatever misery may be in us, he nevertheless fills us witn
all felicity. Or to explain the raatter raore siraply — as in our
selves we are devoid of all good, and have not one particle
of what might help to procure salvation, the Supper is an
attestation that, having been made partakers of the deatli
and passion of Jesus Christ, we have every thing that is use
ful and salutary to us.

10. ALL THE TREASURES OF SPIRITUAL GRACE PRE
SENTED IN THE SUPPER.
We can therefore say, that in it the Lord displays to us all
the treasures of his spiritual grace, inasmuch as he associates

SHORT TREATISE ON THE LORD's SUPPER. 1 69
US in all the blessings and riches of our Lord Jesus. Let us
recoUect, then, that the Supper is given us as a mirror in
which we may contemplate Jesus Christ crucified in order
to deliver us from condemnation, and raised again in order
to procure for us righteousness and eternal life. It is indeed
true that this same grace is offered us by the gospel, yet as
in the Supper we have more ample certainty, and fuller en
joyment of it, with good cause do we recognise this fruit as
coming from it.

11. JESUS CHRIST IS THE SUBSTANCE OF THE
SACRAMENTS.
But as the blessings of Jesus Christ do not belong to us
at all, unless he be previously ours, it is necessary, first of
all, that he be given us in the Supper, in order that the
things which we have mentioned may be truly accomplished
in us. For this reason I am wont to say, that the substance
of the sacraments is the Lord Jesus, and the efficacy of them
the graces and blessings which we have by his means. Now
the efficacy of the Supper is to confirm to us the reconcilia
tion which we have with God through our Saviour's death
and passion ; the washing of our souls which we have in the
shedding of his blood ; the righteousness which we have in
his obedience ; in short, the hope of salvation which we have
in all that he has done for us. It is necessary, then, that
the substance should be conjoined with these, otherwise no
thing would be firm or certain. Hence we conclude that
two things are presented to us in the Supper, viz., Jesus
Christ as the source and substance of all good ; and, secondly,
the fmit and efficacy of his death and passion. This is im
plied in the words which were used. For after command
ing us to eat his body and drink his blood, he adds that his
body was delivered for us, and his blood shed for the remis
sion of our sins. Hereby he intimates, first, that we ought
not simply to communicate in his body and blood, without
any other consideration, but in order to receive the fruit
derived to us from his death and passion ; secondly, that we

170 SHORT TREATISE ON THE LORD's SUPPER.
can attain the enjoyment of such fruit only by participating
in his body and blood, from which it is derived.
12. HOW THE BREAD IS CALLED THE BODY, AND THE
WLNE THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.
We begin now to enter on the question so much debated,
both anciently and at the present time — how we are to un
derstand the words in whicii the bread is called the body of
Christ, and the wine his blood. This may be disposed of
without much difficulty, if we carefully observe the principle
which I lately laid down, viz., that all the benefit which we
should seek in the Supper is annihilated if Jesus Christ be
not there given to us as the substance and foundation of all.
That being fixed, we will confess, without doubt, that to
deny that a true communication of Jesus Christ is presented
to us in the Supper, is to render this holy sacrament frivo
lous and useless — an execrable blasphemy unfit to be lis
tened to.
13. WHAT IS REQUISITE IN ORDER TO LIVE IN JESUS
CHRIST.
Moreover, if the reason for communicating with Jesus
Christ is to have part and portion in all the graces which
he purchased for us by his death, the thing requisite must
be not only to be partakers of his Spirit, but also to partici
pate in his humanity, in which he rendered all obedience to
God his Father, in order to satisfy our debts, although, pro
perly speaking, the one cannot be without the other ; for
when he gives himself to us, it is in order that we may pos
sess him entirely. Hence, as it is said that his Spirit is our
life, so he himself, with his own lips, declares that his flesh
is meat indeed, and his blood drink indeed. (John vi. 55.)
If these words are not to go for nothing, it follows that in
order to have our life in Christ our souls must feed on his
body and blood as their proper food. This, then, is expressly
attested in the Supper, when of the bread it is said to us
that we are to take it and eat it, and that it is his body, and

SHORT TREATISE ON THE LORD's SUPPER. 171
of the cup that we are to drink it, and that it is his blood.
This is expressly spoken of the body and blood, in order that
we may learn to seek there the substance of our spiritual life.
14. HOW THE BREAD AND WINE ARE THE BODY OF
JESUS CHRIST.
Now, if it be asked whether the bread is the body of Christ
and the wine his blood, we answer, that the bread and the
wine are visible signs, which represent to us the body and
blood, but that this name and title of body and blood is given
to them because they are as it were instruments by which
the Lord distributes them to us. This form and manner of
speaking is very appropriate. For as the communion which
we have with the body of Christ is a thing incomprehen
sible, not only to the eye but to our natural sense, it is
there visibly demonstrated to us. Of this we have a strik
ing example in an analogous case. Our Lord, wishing to
give a visible appearance to his Spirit at the baptism of
Christ, presented him under the form of a dove. St. John
the Baptist, narrating the fact, says, that he saw the Spirit
of God descending. If we look more closely, we shall find
that he saw nothing but the dove, in respect that the Holy
Spirit is in his essence invisible. Still, knowing that this
vision was not an empty phantom, but a sure sign of the
presence of the Holy Spirit, he doubts not to say that he saw
it, (John i. 32,) because it was represented to him according
to his capacity.
15. THE SACRAMENT IS REPRESENTED BY VISIBLE
SIGNS.
Thus it is with the communion which we have in the
body and blood of the Lord Jesus. It is a spiritual mystery
which can neither be seen by the eye nor comprehended by
the human understanding. It is therefore figured to us by
visible signs, according as our weakness requires, in such
manner, nevertheless, that it is not a bare figure but is com
bined with the reality and substance. It is with good reason

172 SHORT TREATISE ON THE LORD's SUPPER.
then that the bread is called the body, since it not only
represents but also presents it to us. Hence we indeed infer
that the name of the body of Jesus Christ is transferred to
the bread, inasmuch as it is the sacrament and figure of it.
But we likewise add, that the sacraments of the Lord should
not and cannot be at all separated from their reality and
substance. To distinguish, in order to guard against con
founding them, is not only good and reasonable, but alto
gether necessary ; but to divide them, so as to make the one
exist without the other, is absurd.
16. THE PROPER BODY AND BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST
RECEIVED ONLY BY FAITH.
Hence when we see the visible sign we raust consider
what it represents, and by whora it has been given us. The
bread is given us to figure the body of Jesus Christ, with
command to eat it, and it is given us of God, who is certain
and immutable truth. If God cannot deceive or lie, it follows
that it accomplishes all which it signifies. We must then
truly receive in the Supper the body and blood of Jesus
Christ, since the Lord there represents to us the communion
of both. Were it otherwise, what could be meant by saying,
that we eat the bread and drink the wine as a sign that his
body is our meat and his blood our drink ? If he gave us
only bread and wine, leaving the spiritual reality behind,
would it not be under false colours that this ordinance had
been instituted ?
17. THE INTERNAL SUBSTANCE IS CONJOINED WITH
THE VISIBLE SIGNS.
We raust confess, then, that if the representation which
God gives us in the Supper is true, the intemal substance of
the sacrament is conjoined with the visible signs ; and as the
bread is distributed to us by the hand, so the body of Christ
is communicated to us in order that we may be made par
takers of it. Though there should be nothing more, we have
good cause to be satisfied, when we understand that Jesus
Christ gives us in the Supper the proper substance of his

SHORT TREATISE ON THE LORD's SUPPER. 173
body and blood, in order that we raay possess it fully, and
possessing it have part in all his blessings. For seeing we
have him, aU the riches of God whicii are comprehended in
him are exhibited to us, in order that they may be ours.
Thus, as a brief definition of this utUity of the Supper, we
may say, that Jesus Christ is there offered to us in order that
we may possess him, and in him all the fulness of grace
which we can desire, and that herein we have a good aid to
confirm our consciences in the faith which we ought to have
in him.
18. EST THE SUPPER WE ARE REMINDED OF OUR DUTY
TOWARDS GOD.
The second benefit of the Supper is, that it admonishes
and incites us more strongly to recognise the blessings which
we have received, and receive daily from the Lord Jesus, in
order that we may ascribe to him the praise which is due.
For in ourselves we are so negligent that we rarely think of
the goodness of God, if he do not arouse us from our indo
lence, and urge us to our duty. Now there cannot be a
spur which can pierce us more to the quick than, when he
makes us, so to speak, see with the eye, touch with the
hand, and distinctly perceive this inestimable blessing of
feeding on his own substance. This he means to intimate
when he commands us to show forth his death till he come.
(1 Cor. xi. 26.) If it is then so essential to salvation not to
overlook the gifts which God has given us, but diligently to
keep them in mind, and extol them to others for mutual
edification ; we see another singular advantage of the Supper
in this, that it draws us off from ingratitude, and allows us
not to forget the benefit which our Lord Jesus bestowed
upon us in dying for us, but induces us to render him thanks,
and, as it were, publicly protest how much we are indebted
to him.
19. THE SACRAMENT A STRONG INDUCEMENT TO HOLY
LIVING AND BROTHERLY LOVE.
The third advantage of the Sacrament consists in ftimish-
ing a most powerful incitement to live holily, and especially

1 74 SHORT TREATISE ON THE LOHD's SUPPER.
observe charity and brotherly love toward all. For seeing
we have been made members of Jesus Christ, being incor
porated into him, and united with him as our head, it is
most reasonable that we should become conformable to him
in purity and innocence, and especially that we should cul
tivate charity and concord together as becomes raembers of
the same body. But to understand this advantage properly,
we must not suppose that our Lord warns, incites, and
infiames our hearts by the external sign raerely ; for the
principal point is, that he operates in us inwardly by his
Holy Spirit, in order to give efficacy to his ordinance, whicii
he has destined for that purpose, as an instrument by whicii
he wishes to do his work in us. Wherefore, inasmuch as the
virtue of the Holy Spirit is conjoined with the sacraments
when we duly receive them, we have reason to hope they
will prove a good mean and aid to make us grow and ad
vance in holiness of life, and specially in charity.

20. WHAT IT IS TO POLLUTE THE HOLY SUPPER.— THE
GREAT GUILT OF SO DOING.
Let us come to the third point which we proposed at the
commencement of this treatise, viz., the legitimate use,
which consists in reverently observing our Lord's institution.
Whoever approaches the sacrament with contempt or indif
ference, not caring much about following when the Lord
calls him, perversely abuses, and in abusing pollutes it.
Now to pollute and contaminate what God has so highly
sanctified, is intolerable blasphemy. Not without cause then
does St. Paul denounce such heavy condemnation on all who
take it unworthily. (1 Cor. xi. 29.) For if there is nothing
in heaven nor on earth of greater price and dignity than the
body and blood of the Lord, it is no slight fault to take it
inconsiderately and without being well prepared. Hence he
exhorts us to examine ourselves carefully, in order to make
the proper use of it. When we understand what this exa
mination should be, we shall know the use after which we are
inquiring.

SHORT TREATISE ON THE LORD's SUPPER. 175
21. THE MANNER OP EXAMINING OURSELVES.
Here it is necessary to be well on our guard. For as we
cannot be too diligent in examining ourselves as the Lord en
joins, so, on the other hand, sophistical doctors have brought
poor consciences into perilous perplexity, or rather into a
horrible Gehenna, requiring I know not what examination,
which it is not possible for any man to make. To rid our
selves of aU these perplexities, we must reduce the whole, as
I have already said, to the ordinance of the Lord, as the rule
which, if we follow it, will not allow us to err. In following
it, we have to examine whether we have true repentance in
ourselves, and true faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. These
two things are so conjoined, that the one cannot sxibsist
without the other.
22. TO PARTICIPATE IN THE BLESSINGS OF CHRIST, WE
MUST RENOUNCE ALL THAT IS OUR OWN.
If we consider our life to be placed in Christ, we must
acknowledge that we are dead in ourselves. If we seek our
strength in him, we raust understand that in ourselves we
are weak. If we think that all our felicity is in his grace,
we must understand how miserable we are without it. If we
have our rest in him, we must feel within ourselves only dis
quietude and torment. Now such feelings cannot exist
without producing, first, dissatisfaction with our whole life ;
secondly, anxiety and fear ; lastly, a desire and love of right
eousness. For he who knows the turpitude of his sin and
the wretchedness of his state and condition while alienated
from God, is so ashamed that he is constrained to be dis
satisfied with himself, to condemn himself, to sigh and groan
in great sadness. Moreover, the justice of God immediately
presents itself and oppresses the wretched conscience with
keen anguish, from not seeing any means of escape, or having
any thing to answer in defence. When under such a convic
tion of our misery we get a taste of the goodness of God, it
is then we would wish to regulate our conduct by his will,
and renounce all our bygone life, in order to be made new
creatures in him.

176 SHORT TREATISE ON THE LORd's SUPPER.
23. THE REQUISITES OF WORTHY COMMUNION.
Hence if we would worthily communicate in the Lord's
Supper, we must with firm heart-felt reliance regard the
Lord Jesus as our only righteousness, life, and salvation, re
ceiving and accepting the promises which are given us by
him as sure and certain, and renouncing all other confidence,
so that distrusting ourselves and all creatures, we may rest
fully in him, and be contented with his grace alone. Now
as that cannot be until we know how necessary it is that he
come to our aid, it is of importance to have a deep-seated
conviction of our own misery, which will raake us hunger
and thirst after him. And, in fact, what mockery would it
be to go in search of food when we have no appetite ? Now
to have a good appetite it is not enough that the stomach
be empty, it must also be in good order and capable of re
ceiving its food. Hence it follows that our souls must be
pressed with famine and have a desire and ardent longing
to be fed, in order to find their proper nourishment in the
Lord's Supper. 24. SELF-DENIAL NECESSARY.
Moreover, it is to be observed that we cannot desire Jesus
Christ without aspiring to the righteousness of God, which
consists in renouncing ourselves and obeying his will. For
it is preposterous to pretend that we are of the body of Christ,
while abandoning ourselves to all licentiousness, and leading
a dissolute life. Since in Christ is nought but chastity, be
nignity, sobriety, truth, humility, and such like virtues, if
we would be his members, all uncleanness, intemperance,
falsehood, pride, and similar vices must be put from us. For
we cannot interraingle these things with him without offer
ing him great dishonour and insult. We ought always to
remember that there is no more agreement between him and
iniquity than between light and darkness. If we would
come then to true repentance, we must endeavour to make
our whole life conformable to the example of Jesus Christ.

SHORT TREATISE ON THE LORD's SUPPER. 177

25. CHARITY ESPECIALLY NECESSARY.
And while this must be general in every part of our life,
it must be specially so in respect of charity, which is, above
all other virtues, recommended to us in this sacrament : for
which reason it is caUed the bond of charity. For as the
bread which is there sanctified for the coramon use of all is
composed of several grains so mixed together that they can
not be distinguished from each other, so ought we to be
united together in indissoluble friendship. Moreover, we all
receive there one body of Christ. If then we have strife and
discord among ourselves, it is not owing to ns that Christ
Jesus is not rent in pieces, and we are therefore guilty of
sacrilege, as if we had done it. We must not, then, on any
account, presume to approach if we bear hatred or rancour
against any man living, and especially -any Christian who is
in the unity of the Church. In order fully to comply with
our Lord's injunction, there is another disposition which we
must bring. It is to confess with the mouth and testify
how much we are indebted to our Saviour, and return him
thanks, not only that his name may be glorified in us, but
also to edify others, and instruct them, by our example,
what they ought to do.
26. ALL MEN IMPERFECT AND BLAMEWORTHY.
But as not a man will be found upon the earth who has
made such progress in faith and holiness, as not to be still
veiy defective in both, there might be a danger that several
good consciences might be troubled by what has been said,
did we not obviate it by tempering the injunctions which ^we
have given in regard both to faith and repentance. It is a
perUous mode of teaching which some adopt, when they
require perfect reliance of heart and perfect penitence, and
exclude all who have them not. For in so doing they ex
clude all without excepting one. Where is the man who
can boast that he is not stained by some spot of distrust ?
that he is not subject to some vice or infirmity ? Assuredly
the faith which the children of God have is such that they have
VOL. II. M

1 78 SHORT TREATISE ON THE LORD's SUPPER.
ever occasion to pray, — Lord, help our unbelief For it is a
malady so rooted in our nature, that we are never completely
cured until we are delivered from the prison of the body.
Moreover, tho purity of life in which they walk is only such
that they have occasion daily to pray, as well for remission
of sins as for grace to make greater progress. Although
some are more and others less imperfect, still there is none
who does not fail in many respects. Hence the Supper
would be not only useless, but pernicious to all, if it were
necessary to bring a faith or integrity, as to which there
would be nothing to gainsay. This would be contrary to
the intention of our Lord, as there is nothing which he has
given to his Church that is more salutary.
27. IMPERFECTION MUST NOT MAKE US CEASE TO HOPE
FOR SALVATION.
Therefore, although we feel our faith to be imperfect, and
our conscience not so pure that it does not accuse us of
many vices, that ought not to hinder us from presenting
ourselves at the Lord's holy table, provided that amid this
infirmity we feel in our heart that without hypocrisy and
dissimulation we hope for salvation in Christ, and desire to
live according to the rule of the gospeL I say expressly,
provided there be no hypocrisy. For there are many who
deceive themselves by vain flattery, making themselves be
lieve that it is enough if they condemn their vices, though
they continue to persist in them, or rather, if they give them
up for a time, to return to them iraraediately after. True
repentance is firm and constant, and makes us war with the
evil that is in us, not for a day or a week, but without end
and without intermission.

28. THE IMPERFECTIONS OF BELIEVERS SHOULD RATHER
INCLINE THEM TO USE THE SUPPER.
When we feel within ourselves a strong dislike and hatred
of aU sin, proceeding from the fear of God, and a desire to
live well in order to please our Lord, we are fit to partake

SHORT TREATISE ON THE LORD's SUPPER. 1 79
of the Supper, notwithstanding of the remains of infirmity
which we carry in our flesh. Nay, if we were not weak,
subject to distrust and an imperfect life, the sacrament
would be of no use to us, and it would have been superfluous
to institute it. Seeing, then, it is a reraedy which God has
given us to help our weakness, to strengthen our faith, in
crease our charity, and advance us in all holiness of life, the
use becomes the more necessary the raore we feel pressed by
the disease ; so far ought that to be from making us abstain.
For if we allege as an excuse for not coming to the Supper,
that we are stiU weak in faith or integrity of life, it is as if
a man were to excuse himself from taking medicine because
he was sick. See then how the weakness of faith which we
feel in our heart, and the imperfections which are in our
life, should admonish us to come to the Supper, as a special
remedy to correct them. Only let us not come devoid of
faith and repentance. The former is hidden in the heart,
and therefore conscience must be its witness before God.
The latter is manifested by works, and must therefore be
apparent in our life.
29. TIMES OF USING THE SUPPER.— PROPRIETY OF
FREQUENT COMMUNION.
As to the time of using it, no certain rule can be pre
scribed for all. For there are sometimes special circum
stances which excuse a man for abstaining ; and, moreover,
we have no express command to constrain all Christians to
use a specified day. However, if we duly consider the end
which our Lord has in view, we shall perceive that the use
should be more frequent than many make it : for the more
infirmity presses, the more necessary is it frequently to have
recourse to what may and will serve to confirm our faith,
and advance us in purity of life ; and, therefore, the prac
tice of all well ordered churches should be to celebrate the
Supper frequently, so far as the capacity of the people will
admit. And each individual in his own place should pre
pare himself to receive whenever it is administered in the
holy assembly, provided there is not some great impediment

180 SHORT TREATISE ON THE LORD S SUPPER.
which constrains him to abstain. Although we have no ex
press commandment specifying the time and the day, it
should suffice us to know the intention of our Lord to be,
that we should use it often, if we would fully experience the
benefit which accrues from it.

30. IMPROPRIETY OF ABSTAINING ON FRIVOLOUS
GROUNDS.— PRETENDED UNWORTHINESS
EST OURSELVES.
The excuses alleged are very frivolous. Some say that
they do not feel themselves to be worthy, and under this
pretext, abstain for a whole year. Others, not contented
with looking to their own unworthiness, pretend that they
cannot communicate with persons whom they see coming
without being duly prepared. Some also think that it is
superfluous to use it frequently, because if we have once re
ceived Jesus Christ, there is no occasion to return so often
after to receive him. I ask the first who make a cloak of
their unworthiness, how their conscience can allow them to
remain more than a year in so poor a state, that they dare
not invoke God directly ? They will acknowledge that it is
presumption to invoke God as our Father, if we are not
members of Jesus Christ. This we cannot be, without having
the reality and substance of the Supper accomplished in us.
Now, if we have the reality, we are by stronger reason
capable of receiving the sign. We see then that he who
would exempt himself from receiving the Supper on account
of unworthiness, must hold hiraself unfit to pray to God.
I mean not to force consciences which are tormented with
certain scruples which suggest themselves, they scarcely
know how, but counsel them to wait tUl the Lord deliver
them. Likewise, if there is a legitimate cause of hindrance,
I deny not that it is lawful to delay. Only I wish to show
that no one ought long to rest satisfied with abstaining on
the ground of unworthiness, seeing that in so doing he de
prives himself of the communion of the Church, in which all
our weUbeing consists. Let him rather contend against all
the impediments which the devil throws in his way, and not

SHORT TREATISE ON THE LORD S SUPPER. 181
be excluded from so great a benefit, and from all the graces
consequent thereupon.
31. ABSTAINING BECAUSE OF PRETENDED
UNWORTHINESS IN OTHERS.
The second class have some plausibility. The argument
they use is, that it is not lawful to eat common bread with
those who call themselves brethren, and lead a dissolute life —
a fortiori, we must abstain from communicating with them
in the Lord's bread, which is sanctified in order to represent
and dispense to us the body of Christ. But the answer is
not very difficult. It is not the office of each individual to
judge and discern, to admit or debar whom he pleases ; see
ing that this prerogative belongs to all the Church in gene
ral, or rather to the pastor, with the elders, whom he ought
to have to assist him in the govemment of the Church. St.
Paul does not command us to examine others, but each to
examine himself It is very true that it is our duty to ad
monish those whom we see walking disorderly, and if they
will not listen to us, to give notice to the pastor, in order
that he may proceed by ecclesiastical authority. But the
proper method of withdrawing from the company of the
wicked, is not to quit the communion of the Church. More
over, it will most frequently happen, that sins are not so
notorious as to justify proceeding to excommunication ; for
though the pastor may in his heart judge some man to be
unworthy, he has not the power of pronouncing him such,
and interdicting him from the Supper, if he cannot prove the
unworthiness by an ecclesiastical judgment. In such case
we have no other remedy than to pray God that he would
more and more deliver his Church from all scandals, and
wait for the last day, when the chaff vnll be completely
separated from the good grain.
32. EXCUSE, THAT HAVING ALREADY RECEIVED CHRIST,
IT IS UNNECESSARY TO RETURN OFTEN
TO RECEIVE HIM.
The third class have no semblance of plausibility. The
spiritual bread is not given us to eat our fill of it all at once.

182 SHORT TREATISE ON THE LORD's SUPPER.
but rather, that having had some taste of its sweetness, we
may long for it the more, and use it when it is offered to us.
This we explained above. So long as we remain in this
raortal life, Jesus Christ is never coraraunicated in such a
way as to satiate our souls, but wiUs to be our constant
nourishraent. 33. FOURTH GENERAL DIV^ISION.— ERRORS ON THE
SUPPER.
We come to the fourth principal point. The devil know
ing that our Lord has left nothing to his Church more useful
than the holy sacrament, has after his usual manner laboured
from the beginning to contaminate it by errors and super
stitions, in order to corrupt and destroy the benefit of it, and
has never ceased to pursue this course, until he has as it were
corapletely reversed the ordinance of the Lord, and converted
it into falsehood and vanity. My intention is not to point
out at what time each abuse took its rise and at what time
it was augmented ; it will be sufficient to notice articulately
the errors which the devil has introduced, and against which
we must guard if we would have the Lord's Supper in its
integrity. 34. FIRST ERROR.
The first error is this — While the Lord gave us the Supper
that it might be distributed araongst us to testify to us that
in coraraunicating in his body we have part in the sacrifice
which he offered on the cross to God his Father, for the ex
piation and satisfaction of our sins — raen have out of their
own head invented, on the contrary, that it is a sacrifice by
which we obtain the forgiveness of our sins before God. This
is a blaspheray which it is impossible to bear. For if we
do not recognise the death of the Lord Jesus, and regard it
as our only sacrifice by which he has reconciled us to the
Father, effacing aU the faults for which we were accountable
to his justice, we destroy its virtue. If we do not acknow
ledge Jesus Christ to be the only sacrifice, or, as we com
monly call it, priest, by whose intercession we are restored to

SHORT TREATISE ON THE LORD's SUPPER. 183
the Father's favour, we rob him of his honour and do him
high injustice. 35. THE SACRAMENT NOT A SACRIFICE.
The opinion that the Supper is a sacrifice derogates frora
that of Christ, and must therefore be condemned as devilish.
That it does so derogate is notorious. For how can we re
concile the two things, that Jesus Christ in dying offered a
sacrifice to his Father by which he has once for all purchased
forgiveness and pardon for all our faults, and that it is every
day necessary to sacrifice in order to obtain that which we
ought to seek in his death only ? This error was not at first
so extreme, but increased by little and little, until it came
to what it now is. It appears that the ancient fathers called
the Supper a sacrifice ; but the reason they give is, because
the death of Christ is represented in it. Hence their view
comes to this — that this name is given it merely because it
is a memorial of the one sacrifice, at which we ought en
tirely to stop. And yet I cannot altogether excuse the
custom of the early Church. By gestures and modes of act
ing they figured a species of sacrifice, with a ceremony re
sembling that which existed under the Old Testament, ex
cepting that instead of a beast they used bread as the host.
As that approaches too near to Judaism, and does not cor
respond to our Lord's institution, I approve it not. For
under the Old Testament, during the time of figures, the
Lord ordained such ceremonies, until the sacrifice should be
made in the person of his well-beloved Son, which was the
fulfilment of them. Since it was finished, it now only remains
for us to receive the communication of it. It is superfiuous,
therefore, to exhibit it any longer under figure.
36. THE BREAD EST THE SUPPER ORDAINED TO BE EATEN,
NOT SACRIFICED.— ERRORS OF THE MASS.
And such is the import of the injunction which Jesus
Christ has left. It is not that we are to offer or immolate,
but to take and eat what has been offered and immolated.
However, though there was some weakness in such observance.

184 SHORT TREATISE ON THE LORD's SUPPER.
there was not such impiety as afterwards supervened. For
to the Mass has been wholly transferred what was proper to
the death of Christ, viz., to satisfy God for our sins, and so
reconcile us to him. Moreover, the office of Christ has been
transferred to those whom they narae priests, viz., persons to
sacrifice to God, and in sacrificing, intercede to obtain for
us grace, and the pardon of our offences.
37. ATTEMPTED DEFENCE OF THE SACRIFICE OP THE MASS.
I wish not to keep back the explanations which the ene
mies of the truth here offer. They say that the Mass is not
a new sacrifice, but only an application of the sacrifice
of which we have spoken. Althougli they colour their
abomination soraewhat by so saying, stiU it is a raere
quibble. For it is not merely said that the sacrifice of
Christ is one, but that it is not to be repeated, because its
efficacy endures for ever. It is not said that Christ once
offered himself to the Father, in order that others miffht
afterwards raake the sarae oblation, and so apply to us the
virtue of his intercession. As to applying to us the merit of
his death, that we may perceive the benefit of it, that is done
not in the way in which the Popish Church has supposed,
but when we receive the message of the gospel, according as
it is testified to us by the ministers whom God has appointed
as his ambassadors, and is sealed by the sacraments.
38. ERRORS CONNECTED WITH THE ABOMINATION OF
THE MASS.
The comraon opinion approved by all their doctors and
prelates is, that by hearing Mass, and causing it to be said,
they perform a service meriting grace and righteousness be
fore God. We say, that to derive benefit from the Supper,
it is not necessary to bring any thing of our own in order
to raerit what we ask. We have only to receive in faith the
grace which is there presented to us, and which resides not
in the sacrament, but refers us to the cross of Jesus Christ
as proceeding therefrom. Hence there is nothing more con-

SHORT TREATISE ON THE LORD's SUPPER. J 85
trary to the true meaning of the Supper, than to raake a
sacrifice of it. The effect of so doing is to lead us off from
recognising the death of Christ as the only sacrifice, whose
virtue endures for ever. This being well understood, it will
be apparent that all raasses in which there is no such cora-
munion as the Lord enjoined, are only an abomination. The
Lord did not order that a single priest, after making his
sacrifice, should keep himself apart, but that the sacrament
should be distributed in the assembly after the manner of
the first Supper, which he made with his apostles. But after
this cursed opinion was forged, out of it, as an abyss, came
forth the unhappy custom by which the people, contenting
themselves with being present to partake in the merit of
what is done, abstain from communicating, because the
priest gives out that he offers his host for all, and specially
for those present. I speak not of abuses, which are so ab
surd, that they deserve not to be noticed, such as giving
each saint his mass, and transferring what is said of the
Lord's Supper to St. William and St. Walter, and making an
ordinary fair of raasses, buying and selling them with the
other abominations which the word sacrifice has engendered.
39. TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
The second error which the devil has sown to corrupt this
holy ordinance, is in forging and inventing that after the words
are pronounced with an intention to consecrate, the bread
is transubstantiated into the body of Christ, and the wine
into his blood. First of all, this falsehood has no foundation
in Scripture, and no countenance frora the Priraitive Church,
and what is raore, cannot be reconciled or consist with the
word of God. When Jesus Christ, pointing to the bread,
calls it his body, is it not a very forced construction to say,
that the substance of the bread is annihilated, and the body
of Christ substituted in its stead ? But there is no cause to
discuss the thing as a doubtful matter, seeing the truth is
sufficiently clear to refute the absurdity. I leave out in
numerable passages of Scripture and quotations from the
Fathers, in which ihe sacrament is called bread. I only say

186 SHORT TREATISE ON THE LORD'S SUPPER.
that the nature of the sacrament requires, that the raaterial
bread remain as a visible sign of the body.
40. FROM THE NATURE OF A SACRAMENT THE SUBSTANCE
OP THE VISIBLE SIGN MU.ST REMAIN.
It is a general rule in all sacraments that the signs which
we see must have some correspondence with the spiritual
thing which is figured. Thus, as in baptism, we are assured
of the intemal washing of our souls when water is given us
as an attestation, its property being to cleanse corporal pol
lution ; so in the Supper, there must be material bread to
testify to us that the body of Christ is our food. For other
wise how could the mere colour of white give us such a
figure ? We thus clearly see how the whole representation,
which the Lord was pleased to give us in condescension to
our weakness, would be lost if the bread did not truly re
main. The words which our Lord uses imply as much as if
he had said : Just as man is supported and raaintained in
his body by eating bread, so ray flesh is the spiritual nourish
ment by which souls are vivified. Moreover, what would
become of the other similitude which St. Paul employs ?
As several grains of corn are mixed together to form one
bread, so must we together be one, because we partake of
one bread. If there were whiteness only without the sub
stance, would it not be mockery to speak thus ? Therefore
we conclude, without doubt, that this transubstantiation is
an invention forged by the devil to corrupt the true nature
of the Supper.
41. FALSE OPINION OF THE BODILY PRESENCE OF CHRIST
IN THE SUPPER.
Out of this fantasy several other follies have sprung.
Would to God they were only follies, and not gross abomina
tions. They have iraagined I know not what local presence
and thought, that Jesus Christ in his divinity and humanity
was attached to this whiteness, without paying regard to all
the absurdities which follow from it. Although the old
doctors of Sorbonne dispute more subtilely how the body and

SHORT TREATISE ON THE LORd'S SUPPER. 187
blood are conjoined with the signs, still it cannot be denied
that this opinion has been received by great and sraall in
the Popish Church, and that it is cruelly raaintained in the
present day by fire and sword, that Jesus Christ is contained
under these signs, and that there we must seek him. Now
to maintain that, it must be confessed either that the body
of Christ is without limit, or that it may be in different
places. In saying this we are brought at last to the point,
that it is a mere phantom. To wish then to establish such
a presence as is to enclose the body within the sign, or to be
joined to it locally, is not only a reverie, but a damnable
error, derogatory to the glory of Christ, and destructive of
what we ought to hold in regard to his human nature. For
Scripture everywhere teaches us, that as the Lord on earth
took our humanity, so he has exalted it to heaven, withdraw
ing it from mortal condition, but not changing its nature.
42. THE BODY OF OUR SAVIOUR IN HEAVEN THE SAME
AS THAT WHICH HE HAD ON EARTH.
We have two things to consider when we speak of our
Lord's humanity. We must neither destroy the reality of
the nature, nor derogate in any respect from his state of
glory. To do so we must always raise our thoughts on high,
and there seek our Redeemer. For if we would place him
under the corruptible elements of this world, besides sub
verting what Scripture tells us in regard to his human
nature, we annihilate the glory of his ascension. As several
others have treated this subject at large, I refrain from go
ing farther. I only wished to observe, in passing, that to
fancy Jesus Christ enclosed under the bread and wine, or so
to conjoin hira with it as to amuse our understanding there
without looking up to heaven, is a diabolical reverie. We
will touch on this in another place.
43. OTHER ABUSES ARISING OUT OF AN IMAGINARY
BODILY PRESENCE.
This perverse opinion, after it was once received, engen
dered numerous other superstitions. First of all comes that

1 88 SHORT TREATISE ON THE LORD's SUPPER.
carnal adoration which is raere idolatry. For to prostrate
ourselves before the bread of the Supper, and worship Jesus
Christ as if he were contained in it, is to raake an idol of it
rather than a sacrament. The command given us is not to
adore, but to take and eat. That, therefore, ought not to
have been presumptuously attempted. Moreover, the prac
tice always observed by the early Church, when about to
celebrate the Supper, was solemnly to exhort the people to
raise their hearts on high, to intiraate, that if we would
adore Christ aright, we raust not stop at the visible sign.
But there is no need to contend long on this point when the
presence and conjunction of the reality with the sign (of
which we have spoken, and will again speak) is well under
stood. Frora the sarae source have proceeded other super
stitious practices, as carrying the sacraraent in procession
through the streets once a-year ; at another time making a
tabernacle for it, and keeping it to the year's end in a cup
board to amuse the people with it, as if it were a god. As
all that has not only been invented without authority from
the word of God, but is also directly opposed to the institu
tion of the Supper, it ought to be rejected by Christians.
44. REASON WHY THE PAPISTS COMMUNICATE ONLY
ONCE A-YEAR.
We have shown the origin of the calaraity which befell
the Popish Church — I mean that of abstaining from com
municating in the Supper for the whole period of a year.
It is because they regard the Supper as a sacrifice which is
offered by one in the name of all. But even while thus used
only once a year, it is sadly wasted and as it were torn to
pieces. For instead of distributing the sacrament of blood
to the people, as our Lord's command bears, they are made
to believe that they ought to be contented with the other half
Thus poor believers are defrauded of the gift which the
Lord Jesus had given them. For if it is no small benefit to
have communion in the blood of the Lord as our nourish
ment, it is great craelty to rob those of it to whom it belongs.
In this we may see with what boldness and audacity the

SHORT TREATISE ON THE LORd's SUPPER. 189
Pope has tyrannized over the Church after he had once
usurped domination.
45. THE POPE HAS MADE EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL
RULES LAID DOWN BY OUR LORD.
Our Lord having commanded his disciples to eat the bread
sanctified in his body, when he comes to the cup, does not
say simply, " drink," but he adds expressly, that all are to
drink. Would we have any thing clearer than this ? He
says that we are to eat the bread without using an universal
term. He says that we are all to drink of the cup. Whence
this difference, but just that he was pleased by anticipation
to meet this wickedness of the devil ? And yet such is the
pride of the Pope that he dares to say. Let not all drink.
And to show that he is wiser than God, he alleges it to be
very reasonable that the priest should have some privilege
beyond the people, in honour of the sacerdotal dignity ; as
if our Lord had not duly considered what distinction should
be made between them. Moreover, he objects dangers which
might happen if the cup were given in coraraon to all. Some
drop of it might occasionally be spilt ; as if our Lord had not
foreseen that. Is not this to accuse God quite openly of
having confounded the order which he ought to have ob
served, and exposed his people to danger without cause ?
46. FRIVOLOUS REASONS FOR WITHHOLDING THE CUP.
To show that there is no great inconvenience in this change,
they argue, that under one species the whole is comprised,
inasmuch as the body cannot be separated from the blood :
as if our Lord had without reason distinguished the one
from the other. For if we can leave one of the parts be
hind as superfluous, what folly must it have been to recom-
m.end them separately. Some of his supporters, seeing that
it was impudence to maintain this abomination, have wished
to give it a different colour, viz., that Jesus Christ, in insti
tuting, spoke only to his apostles whom he had raised to the
sacerdotal order. But how will they answer what St. Paul

190 SHORT TREATISE ON THE LORD S SUPPER.
said, when he delivered to aU the people what he had re
ceived of the Lord — that each should eat of this bread and
drink of this cup ? Besides, who told them that our Lord
gave the Supper to his apostles as priests ? The words import
the opposite, when he commands them to do after his ex
ample. (Luke xxii. 19.) Therefore he delivers the rule
which he wishes to be always observed in his Church ; and
so it was anciently observed until Antichrist, having gained
the upper hand, openly raised his horns against God and
his truth to destroy it totally. We see then that it is an
intolerable perversion thus to divide and rend the sacrament,
separating the parts which God has joined.
47. THE BUFFOONERY OF THE POPE IN REGARD TO
THE SUPPER.
To get to an end, we shall embrace under one head what
might otherwise have been considered separately. This
head is, that the devil has introduced the fashion of cele
brating the Supper without any doctrine, and for doctrine
has substituted ceremonies partly inept and of no utility,
and partly dangerous, having proved the cause of much mis
chief To such an extent has this been done, that the Mass,
which in the Popish Church is held to be the Supper, is, when
well explained, nothing but pure apishness and buffoonery.
I call it apishness, because they there counterfeit the Lord's
Supper without reason, just as an ape at random and without
discernment imitates what he sees done.

48. THE WORD OUGHT ALWAYS TO ACCOMPANY THE
SACRAMENTS.
The principal thing recommended by our Lord is to cele
brate the ordinance with true understanding. From this it
follows that the essential part lies in the doctrine. This being
taken away, it is only a frigid unavailing ceremony. This is
not only shown by Scripture, but attested by the canons of
the Pope, (Can. Detrahe. i. 4, 1,) in a passage quoted from St.
Augustine, (Tract SO, in Joan.) in which he asks — " What is

SHORT TREATISE ON THE LORD's SUPPER. 191
the water of baptism without the word but just a corruptible
element? The word (he immediately adds) not as pro
nounced, but as understood." By this he means, that the
sacraments derive their virtue frora the word when it is
preached intelligibly. Without this they deserve not the
name of sacraments. Now so far is there from being any
intelligible doctrine in the Mass, that, on the contrary, the
whole mystery is considered spoiled if every thing be not
said and done in whispers, so that nothing is understood.
Hence their consecration is only a species of sorcery, seeing
that by muttering and gesticulating like sorcerers, they think
to constrain Jesus to come down into their hands. We
thus see how the Mass, being thus arranged, is an evident
profanation of the Supper of Christ, rather than an observ
ance of it, as the proper and principal substance of the
Supper is wanting, viz., full explanation of the ordinance
and clear statement of the promises, instead of the priest
standing apart and muttering to himself without sense or
reason. I call it buffoonery, also, because of mimicry and
gestures, better adapted to a farce than to such an ordinance
as the sacred Supper of our Lord.
49. THE CEREMONIES OF THE ANCIENT LAW, WHY
APPOINTED.— THOSE OP THE PAPISTS CENSURABLE.
It is tme, indeed, that the sacrifices under the Old Testa
ment were performed with many ornaments and ceremonies,
but because there was a good meaning under them, and the
whole was proper to instruct and exercise the people in
piety, they are very far from being like those which are now
used, and serve no purpose but to amuse the people without
doing them any good. As these gentry allege the example
of the Old Testament in defence of their ceremonies, we
have to observe what difference there is between what they
do, and what God commanded the people of Israel. Were
there only this single point, that what was then observed
was founded on the commandment of the Lord, whereas all
those frivolities have no foundation, even then the difference
would be large. But we have much more to censure in them.

192 SHORT TREATISE ON THE LORD's SUPPER.
50. THE JEWISH CEREMONIES HAVING SERVED THEIR
PURPOSE, THE IMITATION OF THEM ABSURD.
With good cause our Lord ordained the Jewish form for a
time, intending that it should one day come to an end and
be abrogated. Not having then given such clearness of
doctrine, he was pleased that the people should be more ex
ercised in figures to compensate for the defect. But since
Jesus Christ has been manifested in the flesh, doctrine hav
ing been much more clearly delivered, ceremonies have di
minished. As we have now the body, we should leave off
shadows. To retum to the ceremonies which are abolished,
is to repair the vail of the temple which Jesus Christ rent
by his death, and so far obscure the brightness of his gospel.
Hence we see, that such a multitude of ceremonies in the
Mass is a form of Judaism quite contrary to Christianity. I
mean not to condemn the ceremonies which are subservient
to decency and public order, and increase the reverence for
the sacrament, provided they are sober and suitable. But
such an abyss without end or limit is not at all tolerable,
seeing that it has engendered a thousand superstitions, and
has in a raanner stupified the people without yielding any
edification.

51. THE DEATH AND PASSION OF OUR LORD THE
PERFECT AND ONLY SACRIFICE.
Hence also we see how those to whom God has given the
knowledge of his truth should differ from the Papists. First,
they cannot doubt thatit is aborainable blasphemy to regard
the Mass as a sacrifice by which the forgiveness of sins is
purchased for us ; or rather, that the priest is a kind of
mediator to apply the merit of Christ's passion and death to
those who purchase his mass, or are present at it, or feel
devotion for it. On the contrary, they raust hold decidedly
that the death and suffering of the Lord is the only sacrifice
by which the anger of God has been satisfied, and eternal
righteousness procured for us ; and, likewise, that the Lord
Jesus has entered into the heavenly sanctuary in order to

SHORT TREATISE ON THE LORD's SUPPER. 193
appear there for us, and intercede in virtue of his sacrifice.
Moreover, they will readily grant, that the benefit of his
death is communicated to us in the Supper, not by the merit
of the act, but because of the promises which are given us,
provided we receive them in faith. Secondly, they should
on no account grant that the bread is transubstantiated into
the body of Jesus Christ, nor the wine into his blood, but
should persist in holding that the visible signs retain their
true substance, in order to represent the spiritual reality of
which we have spoken. Thirdly, they ought also to hold for
certain, that the Lord gives us in the Supper that which he
signifies by it, and, consequently, that we truly receive the
body and blood of Jesus Christ. Nevertheless they will not
seek him as if he were enclosed under the bread, or attached
locaUy to the visible sign. So far from adoring the sacra
ment, they wUl rather raise their understandings and their
hearts on high, as well to receive Jesus Christ, as to adore
him.

52. VIEW OF ENT.IGHTENED CHRISTIANS IN REGARD
TO THE SUPPER.
Hence they will despise and condemn as idolatrous all
those superstitious practices of carrying about the sacrament
in pomp and procession, and building tabernacles in which
to adore it. For the promises of our Lord extend only to
the uses which he has authorized. Next, they will hold that
to deprive the people of one of the parts of the sacrament,
viz., the cup, is to violate and corrupt the ordinance of the
Lord, and that to observe it properly it must be adminis
tered in aU its integrity. Lastly, they will regard it as a
superfluity, not only useless but dangerous, and not at all
suitable to Christianity, to use so many ceremonies taken
from the Jews contrary to the simplicity which the Apostles
left us, and that it is still more perverse to celebrate the
Supper with mimicry and buffoonery, while no doctrine is
stated, or rather all doctrine is buried, as if the Supper were
a kind of magical trick.
VOL. II. N

194 SHORT TREATISE ON THE LORD's SUPPER.
53. LAST DIVISION.— RECENT DISPUTES ON THE SUPPER.
To have done, it is necessary to come to the last principal
point, viz., the contention which has arisen in our time in
regard to this matter. Now, as it is an unhappy business —
the devil, no doubt, having stirred it up to impede, nay
altogether to interrupt the course of the gospel — so far am I
frora taking pleasure in referring to it, that I could wish
the remembrance of it were altogether abolished. Never
theless, as I see many good consciences troubled, because
they do not know to what side to tum, I shall only say as
much as may seem necessary to show thera how they ought
to decide. 54. GOD SOMETIMES ALLOWS HIS OWN PEOPLE
TO FALL INTO ERROR.
First, I beseech all believers, in the name of God, not to
be too much scandalized at the great difference which has
arisen among those who ought to be a kind of leaders in
bringing back the light of truth. For it is no new thing for
the Lord to leave his servants in some degree of ignorance,
and suffer them to have debate araong theraselves — not to
leave them for ever, but only for a time to humble them.
And indeed had every thing till now turned out to a wish
without any disturbance, men might possibly have forgotten
themselves, or the grace of God might have been less known
than it ought. Thus the Lord has been pleased to take
away all ground of glorying from men, in order that he
might alone be glorified. Moreover, if we consider in what
an abyss of darkness the world was when those who have
shared this controversy began to bring back the truth, we
shall not wonder that they did not know every thing at the
beginning. The wonder rather is, that our Lord in so short
a time enlightened them that they were themselves able to
escape and draw others out of that sink of error in which
they had been so long immersed. But no better course can
be taken than to show how matters have proceeded, because
this will make it appear that people have not so much cause
to be scandalized at it as is commonly supposed.

SHORT TREATISE ON THE LORd's SUPPER. 195
55. HISTORY OF THE CONTROVERSY ON THIS SUBJECT
AMONG THE REFORMERS.— LUTHER.
When Luther began to teach, he took a view of the sub
ject which seemed to imply, that in regard to the corporal
presence in the Supper he was willing to leave the generally
received opinion untouched ; for while condemning transub
stantiation, he said that the bread was the body of Christ,
inasmuch as it was united with him. Besides, he added
similitudes which were somewhat harsh and rude ; but he
was in a manner compelled to do so, as he could not other
wise explain his meaning. For it is difficult to give an
explanation of so high a matter without using some impro
priety of speech.
56. VIEWS -OF ZUINGLIUS AND OECOLOMPADIUS.
On the other hand arose Zuinglius and (Ecolompadius,
who, considering the abuse and deceit which the devil had
employed in establishing such a carnal presence of Christ as
had been taught and held for more than six hundred years,
thought it unlawful to disguise their sentiments, since that
view implied an execrable idolatry, in that Jesus Christ was
worshipped as enclosed in the bread. Now, as it was very
difficult to remove this opinion, which had been so long
rooted in the hearts of men, they applied all their talents
to bring it into discredit, showing how gross an error it was
not to recognise what is so clearly declared in Scripture
touching the ascension of Jesus Christ, that he has been
received in his humanity into heaven, and will remain there
until he descend to judge the world. Meantime, while en
grossed with this point, they forgot to show what presence of
Jesus Christ ought to be believed in the Supper, and what
coraraunion of his body and blood is there received.
57. LUTHER IMPUGNS THEIR VIEWS.
Luther thought that they raeant to leave nothing but the
bare signs without their spiritual substance. Accordingly he
began to resist them to the face, and call them heretics.

196 SHORT TREATISE ON THE LORD's SUPPER.
After the contention was once begun it got more inflamed
by time, and has thus continued too bitterly for the space of
fifteen years or so without the parties ever listening to each
other in a peaceful temper. For though they once had a
conference, there was such alienation that they parted
without any agreement. Instead of meeting on some good
ground, they have always receded more and more, looking
to nothing else than to defend their own view and refute the
opposite.68. ATTEMPTED RECONCILIATION.— CAUSE OF FAILURE.
We thus see wherein Luther failed on his side, and Zuing
lius and (Ecolompadius on theirs. It was Luther's duty
first to have given notice that it was not his intention to
establish such a local presence as the Papist's dream ;
secondly, to protest that he did not mean to have the
sacrament adored instead of God ; and lastly, to abstain
from those similitudes so harsh and difficult to be conceived,
or have used them with moderation, interpreting them so
that they could not give rise to any scandal. After the de
bate was moved, he exceeded bounds as well in declaring his
opinion, as in blaming others with too much sharpness of
speech. For instead of explaining himself in such a way
as to make it possible to receive his view, he, with his accus
toraed veheraence in assailing those who contradicted him,
used hyperbolical forms of speech very difficult to be bome
by those who otherwise were not much disposed to believe
at his nod. The other party also offended, in being so bent
on declaiming against the superstitious and fanatical opinion
of the Papists, touching the local presence of Jesus Christ
within the sacrament, and the perverse adoration consequent
upon it, that they laboured more to pull down what was evil
than to build up what was good ; for though they did not
deny the truth, they did not teach it so clearly as they ought
to have done. I mean that in their too great anxiety to
maintain that the bread and wine are called the body of
Christ, because they are signs of them, they did not attend
to add, that though they are signs, the reality is conjoined

SHORT TREATISE ON THE LORD's SUPPER. 197
with them, and thus protest, that they had no intention
whatever to obscure the true communion which the Lord
gives us in his body and blood by this sacrament.
59. DUTY OP THE SERVANTS OP GOD EST REGARD TO THE
ADVANCEMENT OF TRUTH.
Both parties failed in not having the patience to listen to
each other in order to follow the truth without passion,
when it would have been found. Nevertheless, let us not
lose sight of our duty, which is not to forget the gifts which
the Lord bestowed upon them, and the blessings which he
has distributed to us by their hands and means. For if we
are not ungrateful and forgetful of what we owe them, we
shall be well able to pardon that and much more, without
blaming or defaming them. In short, since we see that they
were, and stUl are, distinguished for holiness of life, excellent
knowledge, and ardent zeal to edify the Church, we ought
always to judge and speak of them with modesty, and even
with reverence ; since at last God, after having thus humbled
them, has in mercy been pleased to put an end to this un
happy disputation, or at least to calm it preparatory to its
final settlement. I speak thus, because no formulary has
yet been published in which concord is fixed, as is most ex
pedient. But this wiU be when God will be pleased to as
semble those who are to frame it in one place.
60. FRATERNAL CONCORD AMONG THE CHURCHES.
Meanwhile it should satisfy us, that there is fraternity and
communion among the churches, and that all agree in so
far as is necessary for meeting together, according to the
commandment of God. We all then confess with one mouth,
that on receiving the sacrament in faith, according to the
ordinance of the Lord, we are truly made partakers of the
proper substance of the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
How that is done some may deduce better, and explain more
clearly than others. Be this as it may, on the one hand, in
order to exclude all carnal fancies, we must raise our hearts
upwards to heaven, not thinking that our Lord Jesus is so

198 SHORT TREATISE ON THE LORD's SUPPER.
debased as to be enclosed under some corruptible elements ;
and, on the other hand, not to impair the efficacy of this
holy ordinance, we must hold that it is made effectual by
the secret and miraculous power of God, and that the Spirit
of God is the bond of participation, this being the reason
why it is called spiritual.

MUTUAL COIfSEKT

IN KEOABD TO

THE SACRAME:f^TS;

THE MINISTERS OF THE CHURCH OF ZURICH

JOHN CALVIN, MINISTER OF THE CHURCH OF GENEVA.
NOW PUBLISHED
BY THOSE WHO FRAMED IT.
M.D.LIV.

JOHN CALVIN
TO THE MOST EXCELLENT ME.N AND FAITHFUL SKKVAXTS OF CURlST,
THE PASTORS AND DOCTORS OF THE CHURCH OF ZURICH,
HIS VERT DEAR COLLEAOITES AND RESPECTED BRETHREN.
Although I speak with you repeatedly on the same sub
ject, I do not think there is any reason to fear that you will
think me irksome. As we agree in judgment, you cannot
but approve what I do. In regard to the keenness with
which I urge the matter, I am stimulated by the constant
entreaties of worthy individuals. I have already sometimes
mentioned that, for a slight cause, and yet not without some
apparent ground, very many are offended because my doc
trine seems in some respect, I scarcely know what, to differ
from yours. They highly revere your Church, which is
adorned by many noble gifts : they also defer somewhat to
our Church, and perhaps to rayself as an individual. They
are desirous in learning the doctrine of piety to be assisted
by my writings, but would not have any appearance of dis
agreement to retard their progress. Thinking no means
better fitted to remove this offence than a friendly confer
ence, in which we might together adopt means to testify our
agreement, I for this purpose paid you a visit, my venerable
colleague William Farel, (indefatigable soldier of Christ as
he is,) who had suggested and advised the visit, not declin
ing to accompany me. That we are agreed, we can indeed
on both sides truly and faithfully declare ; but as I cannot
persuade all of the fact as it really stands, it very much
grieves me that some remain in anxiety and suspense, for
whose peace of mind I ara desirous to consult. Hence, as I
observed before, I think that I am not acting out of season
in urging that there should be some public testimony of the
agreement existing between us.

mutual consent AS TO THE SACRAMENTS. 201
The leading articles on which we conferred I have deemed
it of consequence briefly to coUect and digest, in order that,
if my purpose shall be approved by you, it may be in the
power of any one to have, as it were, a tabular view of what
was done and transacted between us. That in every thing
I set down I give a faithful record of the conference, I am
confident that you wiU bear me witness. That we (I mean
Farel and myself) have, with like zeal as your own, studied
sincere perspicuity, free from all gloss and cunning, pious
readers will, I hope, perceive. I wish it however to be un
derstood that nothing is here contained which our colleagues
also, as many as serve Christ under the jurisdiction of the
city of Geneva or in the Canton of Neufchatel, have not ap
proved by their subscription. Farewell, most excellent men
and brethren, whom I truly love in my heart. May the
Lord always guide you by His Spirit, and bless your labours
for the edification of His Church.
Geneva, 1st August 1549.

LETTER FROM THE PASTORS OF ZURICH TO CALVIN.
The Pastors, Doctors, and Ministers or the Chuech of
Zurich to their vert dear Brother, John Calvin,
FAITHFUL Pastor of the Church of Geneva.
Calvin, most respected brother in the Lord, your ardent
zeal and sedulous labours in endeavouring, from day to day,
to illustrate the doctrine of the Sacraments, and remove
from amid the Church offences which seem to have arisen
from some rather obscure exposition of these ordinances, are
so far from being irksome to us, that we think them not
only worthy of being proclaimed with applause, but also
assisted and imitated by us to the best of our ability. For
while the sacred laws of our Prince, Jesus Christ, refer all
actions to the cultivation of charity, and zeal to assist each
other, there is nothing they more strictly prohibit than for
any one to throw an obstacle in another's way so as to pre
vent him from judging rightly and traly conceming things.

202 MUTUAL CONSENT OF THE CHURCHES OF ZURICH
the knowledge of which is necessary, or at least useful and
salutary to men, or from properly perforraing the duty which
he owes both to God and his neighbour. With the same
strictness they enjoin us to remove, as far as may be, the
offences at which men are wont to stumble.
Wherefore the cause of the visit which you and our vener
able brother, the Rev. William Farel, paid us seemed to us
most honourable and specially worthy of men holding office
in the Church. The object was, first, that we should, by
friendly conference, mutually and in the simplest terms pos
sible, explain our views on the Sacraments, especially on
those articles on which some controversy had hitherto ex
isted among those who in regard to other articles delivered
the purer doctrine of the gospel with great uniforraity ; and,
secondly, that we should testify our consent by a published
document. We see no more convenient way and method of
ending religious controversy or suppressing vague suspicions
where no discrepancy exists, or, in fine, of removing offences
which sometimes arise in the Church of God from contrariety
of opinion in the teachers, than by mutually explaining their
mind with the greatest openness both by speech and writing.
But it were little that the truth thus investigated and
discovered should be retained by them if it is not made
patent to other men also, by expounding to them more fully
what had been more sparingly indicated, and enunciating
what was more obscurely expressed in more familiar terms,
and making any thing formerly ambiguous clear by words
certain, appropriate, and significant. This method was ever
approved by the Fathers of the Church, and was very often
employed, never without advantage to the Church, in settling
religious controversies. In short, it was approved by the
sovereign example of the apostles of Jesus Christ our Lord
and our God. For just in this manner and way, as we read
in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts, was a very great dissen
sion quelled, when the Apostles and their genuine disciples
taught that hearts were purified by faith in the name of
Christ, and men saved wholly by his grace ; while some per
sons contended that they behoved to be circumcised, and
keep the law of Moses.

AND GENEVA AS TO THE SACRAMENTS. 203
Wherefore, dear brother Calvin, we cannot but entirely
approve of your holy efforts, and those of all pious men, who
study by fit means to remove offences, and renew the totter
ing peace and tranquillity of the Church, endeavouring, by
simple and accurate explanation, to render Christian doc
trine more and more plain and clear to men, and rid their
minds of vague causes of discord, and endeavouring, raore
over, to bring back those who have somewhat differed in
word and opinion to true, entire, and holy concord. That
the public document in which we wished clearly to testify
our agreement, alike to the pious and to the enemies of the
ti-uth, wiU have the beneficial effect which you augur in
your letter, we are induced to hope, after having made the
trial. We transmitted the formula of our mutual consent to
some brethren, and have exhibited it to some persons here
who love Christ and truth, and are not unskilled in sacred
things. They have not only recognised that we agree even
in those articles in which it was hitherto supposed by many
that we differed, but have also given thanks to Christ our
Saviour on perceiving that we agree in God and in truth,
and entertain great hopes of larger fmit in the Church.
Some, however, have desired a more copious treatment of
this subject, because of certain minds, who, on hearing of
our purpose, are not easily satisfied. But of what use was it
to explain more fully that God is the author of the sacra
ments, and instituted them for the legitimate sons of the
Church, or to teU how many sacraments were delivered by
Christ to the Church, or what have been devised by men —
what the parts of sacraments, at what place, at what time,
by what sacred instruraentality the ordinances are to be per
formed ? That in these, and some other articles of the same
class, there was no semblance or shade of difference be
tween us, is sufficiently proved by published treatises, which
either our preceptors, of pious and blessed memory, or we
ourselves, have written on the sacraments. Of the bodily
presence of Christ our Lord, of the genuine meaning of the
formal words, of the eating of the body of Christ, of the end,
use, and effect of the sacraments, (articles on which many
hitherto suppose that our opinions, or at least our words.

20-1 mutual CONSENT OF THB CHURCHES OF ZURICH
were conflicting,) we have spoken so copiously, so plainly
and simply, as to hope that men studious both of brotherly
concord and clear truth, will not feel in our document any
want of either copiousness or clearness. Nor are we diffi
dent that the ministers of other churches in Switzerland will
readily acknowledge that the doctrine we have expressed
on the sacraments is the veiy same that has for many years
been commonly received among the Christian people, and
that they are the very last to differ from us. This, too, we
proraise ourselves, not without strong reasons, from all the
pious in other nations.
Should any one, however, produce a clearer explanation
of the sacraments, we would rather use it with all the pious,
than urge one individual to subscribe an Agreement in
which we have used the words of Holy Scripture, and aptly
expressed in what sense we understand them, and hold it
perfectly clear that we agree with the Catholic Church.
Even though this document should not have removed the
offences of all whom any serablance of disagreement among
us has impeded in the ways of the Lord, we still think,
however, that it has admirably fulfilled its office in having
attested to all clearly, and without equivocation, that we,
whom God has enabled to think and speak the same thing
on the doctrines of religion, do not at all differ in the exposi
tion of its ordinances. Farewell, dearest Brother.
Zurich, SOth August 1549.

JOHN CALYIN
To THE Pastors of the Town and Territory of Zurich, of
Berne, Basi.e, Schaffhonsen, Coire, and all the Country
of THE Grisons, of St. Gall, Bienne, Milhausen, and Neuf
chatel, HIS -well-beloved Brethren and Servants of Jesus
Christ.i
Mt Dear and Honoured Brethren,
Four years ago we caused to be printed a brief statement
of our agreement in doctrine touching the sacraments, which
' From the French.

AND geneva as TO THE SACRAMENTS. 205
we thought well fitted to stifle the troublesome disputes
which had too long been carried on between leamed and
God-fearing people. And certainly we had inserted enough
in that little summary to appease and satisfy all well dis
posed minds, as in fact many learned and honourable per
sons have not only approved our measure, but also declared
that our doctrine therein pleased them exceedingly. It
some from being somewhat obstinate in their fancy, or
rather, as happens after great disturbances, from having
some remains of suspicion rooted in their heart, have not
been able to come so soon to a full agreement with us, still
by keeping silence, they have shown that they considered
nothing better than to cherish peace and friendship. Still,
however, some ignorant and wrong-headed persons give
themselves such license in disturbing the matters set at
rest, that if we do not come forward to repress them, there
is reason to fear that they will kindle a new war.
It is true, indeed, that as they are few in number, and
are possessed of no quality which can give them authority
or credit, while moreover they by their foolish babble expose
themselves to universal hatred and derision, we might with
good reason despise them, were it not that by making a show
of advocating the public cause, they under such pretext,
vain though it be, abuse the weak who are not sufficiently
on their guard. Wherefore seeing that their audacity does
great harm, and that the more patient we are the more it
increases and breaks bounds, we cannot do better than resist
it, necessity constraining us thereto.
I can indeed declare, that although their books fly up and
down, vexing the good, disturbing the weak, and arming the
wicked with slander, it is with great regret, and as it were
in spite of myself, that I have engaged in putting a stop to
their foolishness. But because I would have thought it
cruel if, on discovering their fallacies, I had not delivered
many worthy simple persons from error, I have not hesitated
to oppose myself frankly to these rioters who only seek to
throw every thing into confusion.
I have had in view also to remind persons of weight and
leaming, whose names these brainless fellows pretend to

206 MUTUAL CONSENT OF THE CHURCHES OF ZURICH
use, that it is a shame in them to give loose reins to evil by
their silence. For while all Christians ought to endeavour
to extinguisli the fire which Satan is endeavouring to kindle
up by such bellows, the persons referred to, whom these
disturbers bring into their quarrel, have raore interest in
this than we have, and therefore ought to strive doubly to
repress their unseasonable interraeddling, which redounds to
the coramon dishonour of many churches.
For the hot-headed men to whom I refer, stirring up the
contention which formerly existed in regard to the Sacra
ments, pretend to maintain the doctrine which is preached
in Saxony and Lower Germany. Now when that is heard
and believed, some are troubled because of the respect
wliich they bear to those churches, others make a mock
of all the teachers in that quarter, seeing they make use
of such creatures to plead their cause, while several know
ing well that the sounder part give them no countenance,
inveigh against their excessive patience. Meanwhile the
declared enemies of Jesus Christ are delighted at seeing us
fighting together as if it were a kind of cock-fight. Now
since it is perverse and unworthy dissimulation to give loose
reins to evil, persons of letters and renown in those countries
should consider well, in discharging their duty, whether it be
possible to repress the impetuous rage of those who trouble
the Church without cause.
As I am desirous to bring back to the good way all who are
in any degree fit to be dealt with and have not yet exceeded
all bounds, that they may have it in their power to return
peacefully, I shall here refer to only one individual, and that
without naming him.
This foolish man, after boasting loudly of his great zeal
for the Catholic faith, prays on the learned and renowned
(persons whom I love and honour, he calls his masters) to
join in assisting him. The high honour which he pays
them, is to arm them against us. These excellent doctors
are to follow the rash course of their scholar as archers do a
man-at-arms. But on whom does he wish war to be made ?
He answers in a single word, on the " Sacramentarians."
But when he is pleased to explain, he declares that all

AND GENEVA AS TO THE SACRAMENTS. 207
his talk is against those who leave nothing to the sacraraent
of the Supper but bare and erapty signs. If so, he had as
well rest himself, and leave the office to more competent
persons. There are famous churches in the country of
Switzerland and the Grisons, among- which our own may
well be classed. Surely far better captains will be found
among us to maintain the dignity and virtue of the sacra
ments than such a gendarme as he. Moreover, there are
an infinite number of persons who will make a better de
fence of this cause, and be faithfully enough disposed to it.
For who is there amongst us who labours not to show that
the Sacraments are conjoined with their reality and effect ?
But when this venerable doctor, after so fine a preface,
puts into his list several worthy persons who are as distant
from this crime as heaven is frora earth, and not only so, but
expressly refers to our Agreement, as if we had therein con
sented to the error of which he speaks, instead of having ex
pressly condemned it, is not the assertion too impudent and
the absurdity too gross ? It is not necessary to go far for
arguments in our defence, seeing that this foolish man
shortly afterwards quotes our own words, in which we openly
acknowledge that the body of Jesus Christ is truly commu
nicated to believers in the Supper. I pray you, do we
leave nothing but empty signs when we affirm that what is
figured is at the same time given, and that the effect takes
place ? To cover himself, he has recourse to a subterfuge
the most meagre and frivolous imaginable. He says, that
we speak of a spiritual manner of eating. How then ?
Would he have the flesh of the Christ to be eaten like the
beeves of his country ? But he adds, he does not think that
we speak of the true body : as if we imagined the body of
Christ to be a phantom. We leave this reverie to him and
his fellows.
Holding it as a settled point, that Jesus Christ has only
a tme and natural body, we say that as he was once offered
on the cross to reconcile us to God, he is also daily offered
in the Supper. For the Lord Jesus, to communicate the gift
of salvation which he has purchased for us, must first bo
made ours, and his flesh be our meat and nourishment, see-

208 mutual consent of the churches of ZURICH
ing that it is from it that we derive life. Such are the words
which we clearly use in our Agreement.
But this worthy corrector, bringing forward what suits his
purpose, like a traitor and falsifier, keeps out this article,
though it is the chief As he had professed to quote our
sentences word for word, by what right or title does he
separate, not to say dissever, members which are joined to
gether, so that our meaning is not given ? Is not this to act
like a mad dog who bites straightforward at aU the stones
in his way ? And yet, shortly after, he cannot refrain
from producing our testimonies to the reality of the Sacra
ments, which he would falsely make it to be believed that
we deny. But here this disturber charges us with finesse
and cunning, because he says, that by talking at large of
receiving Christ in a spiritual manner we impose on the
simple. As if we could spiritually communicate with Jesus
Christ without having him dwelling in us by means of faith,
and being united to his body so as to live in him. This cannot
be, unless Jesus Christ, inasmuch as he was once offered in
sacrifice for us, give himself to us in order that we may enjoy
him. Hence it follows, that his fiesh gives us life.
After this fine preface, this great defender of the faith, in
order to specify the error against which he is combating,
strives to show that there is great diversity of opinion
amongst us, that he may by this means throw obloquy upon
us. He takes it for an axiom, that the characteristic of
heretics is to disagree. Though I should grant what he
asks, I maintain that it does not touch us. He says, that
we differ, inasmuch as, according to sorae, the bread signifies
the body ; according to others, is a mark or model of the
body ; to others, its sign ; to others, its figure ; to others, a
memorial ; to others, a representation ; to others, an evidence
or seal of the communion which we have with Christ ; to
others, a remembrance of the body which was delivered for
us ; to others, an assurance to testify to us his spiritual grace ;
to others, the communion which we have in the body of
Christ. Who, pray, would not think on hearing him speak
thus, that he is a mere dissembler who has an understanding
with us ? For it is impossible better to commend and prove

AND GENEVA AS TO THE SACRAMENTS. 209
a good agreement and full conformity than by collecting aU
these forms of speech which he opposes to each other as quite
contrary, while every one sees that they all come to the same
thing. Moreover, to play his part with more finesse, he is
not contented with giving a simple narrative, but has framed
a table so as it were to exhibit the thing to the eye. Mean
whUe, seeing that, as far as the words go, St. Matthew is less
conformable to St. Paul, and St. Mark to St. Luke, than a
dozen of expositors whom he produces as discordant with
each other, to get quit of this difficulty he says that we not
only differ in words but disagree in meaning. Let us then
make a comparison of the whole, to judge if it is so.
Wliat St. Matthew and St. Mark call blood, Luke and St.
Paul call covenant iu thc blood. Here is great diversity.
On our part what does he find? Surely the words sign,
signification, figure, earnest, memorial, representation, do
not give a contrary meaning, seeing they are so closely con
nected together that any one draws the others after it. You
see what the reasons are which have moved this wrong-
headed man to forge in his closet fiery darts to set all Europe
in flames if he could.
But what does he say for himself and his companions ?
In one place he affirms that the words of Christ, when he
says that the bread is his body, are sufficiently clear of
themselves and need no explanation. Soon after he denies
not that there is some figure. It is unnecessary for us to
inquire farther against whom he means to strike, since we
see that in his frenzy he breaks down of himself StiU, at
all events, let him name this figure which, he says, does not
prevent the bread from being properly the body of Christ.
For whatever the figure be, the effect of it is to make the
sense to be neither simple nor literal. Thus he is caught
as in a trap. For when in bringing forward his opinion, he
agrees not with those whom he caUs heretics, it follows from
his argument, that he himself is of the number, unless he
can show that his figure, which he conceals, is by universal
consent so holy and sacred, that it is not lawful to think any
ill of it. In concealing it he uses finesse to prevent judg
ment being passed upon it.
VOL. II. ^

210 MUTUAL CONSENT OF THE CHURCHES OF ZURICH
But more than this, he confesses that some of us use the
very words which he holds to be good and Catholic, though
he says that their meaning is not so. In that case what will
becomo of the great contrariety of expressions which alone,
according to him, make heretics even of those who are con
strained to be different frora others, in order not to give
consent to error. It is certainly very distressing to see an
irapetuosity so blind that it would be unpardonable in a
youth, thus transporting a poor old raan and exposing him
to the derision of children.
I mean not to disguise that he rakes together some pas
sages frora certain expositors, which apparently do not accord
with each other, although in truth they may be reconciled.
But the evil is that, in the first place, he maliciously lays
hold of what is touched upon as it were by the by, and turns
in this way and in that, as if it were to give a full deterrai
nation of the whole raatter ; and secondly, it is rather too
tyrannical and barbarous in him to lay down a law corapel
ling all to speak in the same style and language, without
one syllable of difference, seeing that each has his own pe
culiar mode of expressing himself, and ought to have liberty
to do so. One has said that the mystical body of Christ is
here figured. What then ? Has not Augustine said the
like ? not to mention St. Paul, when he says that we are all
one bread. Another has said that the Supper is a solemn
meraorial of the rederaption which has been purchased for
us. What ? Does not this correspond vei-y well with that
which is taught us not only by St. Paul but our Sovereign
Master, viz., that this sacraraent has been ordained in order
that his deatli may be shown forth ? There was no occasion
to make so much noise or excite any disturbance, far less is
there any excuse for a raan who calls himself a minister of
peace, and in fact bears the message of reconciliation between
God and men, when he raises such unseasonable alarm.
But assume that there was formerly some discordance, be
cause the thing could not be fully cleared up at the first
glance and disposed of, what humanity is there in reopening
a sore which was closed up and cured ? In order that the
faithful might not be distracted by disputes whicii have only

AND GENEVA AS TO THE SACRAMENTS. 211
too much prevailed, we proposed to them our Agreement by
which they could hold. This good zealot saw clearly that
aU whom he styles Sacramentarians have one sarae faith and
confess it as with one sarae raouth, and even if the two ex
cellent doctors, Zuinglius and CEcolompad ius, whowere known
to be faithftil servants of Jesus Christ, were still alive, they
would not change one word in our doctrine. For our good
brother of blessed memory, Martin Bucer, after seeing our
Agreement, wrote me that it was an inestimable blessing for
the whole Church. Wherefore there is the more malice in
this new corrector thus stirring up odium on account of it.
On my part, not to pay him back in kind, but to repel the
foolish calumny with which he has been pleased to assail us,
I wUl reply in three sentences — first, it is characteristic of
the devil to be a calumniator, as it is his narae ; secondly,
it is also his characteristic to obscure what is clear, to stir
up noise and discord by disturbing the peace ; and, finally,
it is his characteristic to break and destroy the unity of the
faith. Since all these three meet in this man, I have no
need to pronounce him a son of the devil, since the thing-
shows to great and sraall what he is.
On the whole, ray dear and honoured brethren, as we
ought to take at least as much pains in maintaining the
truth and cherishing concord as Satan in striving to ruin
both, I have wished to do what was in my power, and also
try if, peradventure, those who have hitherto been of too
obstinate a temper might be tamed ; if not, that those who
are of sound judgment should be furnished with the defence
of our cause, so as to be the better able to stop their mouths.
Now the raethod which I have here adopted, of giving a
fuller explanation of our meaning, has seemed to me the
most proper. For the too great brevity of our first writing
lays it open to much cavilling, and does not remove scruples
which are deeply rooted. I have therefore dUated the sum
mary which was formerly printed, and made the sarae con
fession at greater length, to render it more clear.
This blockhead, of whom I am sorry to speak so often,
reproaches us with having such an abyss of opinions that no
one understands what his companion would say. Now, me-

212 MUTUAL CONSENT OF THE CHURCHES OF ZURICH
thinks, I know so well what you believe and hold, that I am
confident of having here written down what each of you
would write in the same place. For I have not usurped the
office of dictating what you are to confess after me, but
rather refer the whole to your discretion. I have, however,
proceeded boldly to compose this short treatise, because by
former experience I had leamed how agreeable my labour
had been to you, and that you had also sufficiently declared
it to be so. Brethren, I commend you to God, praying him
to gnide you by his Spirit, and bless the pains which you
take to edify his Church. My colleagues, ministers of the
word, salute you.
Geneva, 28th November 1554.

HEADS OF AGREEMENT.
1. THE WHOLE SPIRITUAL GOVERNMENT OF THE
CHURCH LEADS US TO CHRIST.
Seeing that Christ is the end of the law, and the know
ledge of him comprehends in itself the whole sum of the
gospel, there is no doubt that the object of the whole spiri
tual government of the Church is to lead us to Christ, as it
is by him alone we come to God, who is the final end of a
happy life. Whosoever deviates from this in the slightest
degree, can never speak duly or appositely of auy ordinances
of God.

2. A TRUE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SACRAMENTS FROM
THE KNOWLEDGE OF CHRIST.
As the sacraraents are appendages of the gospel, he only
can discourse aptly and usefully of their nature, virtue, office,
and benefit, who begins with Christ : and that not by ad
verting cursorily to the name of Christ, but by truly hold-

AND GENEVA AS TO THE SACRAMENTS. 213
ing for what end he was given us by the Father, and what
blessings he has conferred upon us.
3. NATURE OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF CHRIST.
We raust hold therefore that Christ, being the eternal
Son of God, and of the same essence and glory with the
Father, assumed our flesh, to coramunicate to us by right of
adoption that which he possessed by nature, namely, to
make us sons of God. This is done when ingrafted by faith
into the body of Christ, and that by the agency of the Holy
Spirit we are first counted righteous by a free iraputation of
righteousness, and then regenerated to a new life : whereby
being formed again in the iraage of our heavenly Father,
we renounce the old man.
4. CHRIST A PRIEST AND KING.
Thus Christ, in his human nature, is to be considered as
our priest, who expiated our sins by the one sacrifice of his
death, put away all our transgressions by his obedience, pro
vided a perfect righteousness for us, and now intercedes for
us, that we raay have access to God. He is to be considered
as a repairer, who, by the agency of his Spirit, reforras
whatever is vicious in us, that we may cease to live to the
world and the flesh, and God himself may live in us. He is
to be considered as a king, who enriches us with all kinds
of blessings, governs and defends us by his power, provides
us with spiritual weapons, delivers us from all harm, and
rules and guides us by the sceptre of his mouth. And he
is to be so considered, that he may raise us to himself, the
true God, and to the Father, until the fulfilment of what is
finally to take place, viz., God be all in all.
5. HOW CHRIST COMMUNICATES HIMSELF TO US.
Moreover, that Christ may thus exhibit himself to us and
produce these effects in us, he must be made one with us,
and we must be ingrafted into his body. He does not infuse

214 MUTUAL CONSENT OF THE CHURCHES OF ZURICH
his life into us unless he is our head, and from him the
whole body, fitly joined together through every joint of
supply, according to his working, maketh increase of the
body in the proportion of each raember.
C. SPIRITUAL COMMUNION.— INSTITUTION OF THE
SACRAMENTS.
The spiritual communion which we have with the Son of
God takes place when he, dwelling in us by his Spirit,
makes all who believe capable of all the blessings which
reside in him. In order to testify this, both the preaching
of the gospel was appointed, and the use of the sacraments
committed to us, namely, the sacraments of holy Baptism
and thc holy Supper.
7. THE ENDS OP THE SACRAMENTS.
The ends of the sacraments are to be marks and badges
of Christian profession and fellowship or fraternity, to be
incitements to gratitude and exercises of faith and a godly
life ; in short, to be contracts binding us to this. But
among other ends the principal one is, that God may, by
means of them, testify, represent, and seal his grace to us.
For although they signify nothing else than is announced to
us by the word itself, yet it is a great matter, first, that
there is submitted to our eye a kind of living images which
make a deeper impression on the senses, by bringing the
object in a manner directly before them, while they bring
the death of Christ and all his benefits to our remembrance,
that faith may be the better exercised ; and, secondly, that
what the mouth of God had announced is, as it were, con
firmed and ratified by seals.
8. GRATITUDE.
Now, seeing that these things which the Lord has given
as testimonies and seals of his grace are true, he undoubtedly
traly performs inwardly by his Spirit that which the sacra-

AND GENEVA AS TO THE SACRAMENTS. 215
ments figure to our eyes and other senses ; in other words,
we obtain possession of Christ as the fountain of all bless
ings, both in order that we may bc reconciled to God by
means of his death, be renewed by his Spirit to holiness of
life, in short, obtain righteousness and salvation ; and also in
order that we may give thanks for the blessings which were
once exhibited on the cross, and which we daily receive by
faith. 9. THE SIGNS AND THE THINGS SIGNIFIED NOT
DISJOINED BUT DISTINCT.
Wherefore, though we distinguish, as we ought, between
the signs and the things signified, yet we do not disjoin the
reality from the signs, but acknowledge that all who in faith
embrace the promises there offered receive Christ spiritually,
with his spiritual gifts, while those who had long been made
partakers of Christ continue and renew that communion.
10. THE PROMISE PRINCIPALLY TO BE LOOKED TO IN
THE SACRAMENTS.
And it is proper to look not to the bare signs, but rather
to the proraise thereto annexed. As far, therefore, as our
faith in the promise there offered prevails, so far will that
virtue and efficacy of which we speak display itself Thus
the substance of water, bread, and wine, by no raeans offers
Christ to us, nor makes us capable of his spiritual gifts.
The promise rather is to be looked to, whose office it is to
lead us to Christ by the direct way of faith — faith which
makes us partakers of Christ.
11. WE ARE NOT TO STAND GAZING ON THE ELEMENTS.
This refutes the error of those who stand gazing on the
elements, and attach their confidence of salvation to them ;
seeing that the sacraments separated from Christ are but
empty shows, and a voice is distinctly heard throughout pro
claiming that we must adhere to none but Christ alone, and
seek the gift of salvation from none but him.

216 MUTUAL CONSENT OF THE CHURCHES OF ZURICH
12. THE SACRAMENTS EFFECT NOTHING BY THEMSELVES.
Besides, if any good is conferred upon us by the sacra
ments, it is not owing to any proper virtue in them, even
though in this you should include the promise by which
they are distinguished. For it is God alone who acts by his
Spirit. When he uses the instrumentality of the sacraments,
he neither infuses his own virtue into them nor derogates in
any respect from the effectual working of his Spirit, but, in
adaptation to our weakness, uses them as helps ; in such
manner, however, that the whole power of acting remains
with him alone.
13. GOD USES THE INSTRUMENT, BUT ALL THE VIRTUE
IS HIS.
Wlierefore, as Paul reminds us, that neither he that plant
eth nor he that watereth is any thing, but God alone that
giveth the increase ; so also it is to be said of the sacraments
that they are nothing, because they will profit nothing, unless
God in all things make them effectual. They are indeed
instruments by which God acts efficaciously when he pleases,
yet so that the whole work of our salvation must be as
cribed to him alone.
14. THE WHOLE ACCOMPLISHED BY CHRIST.
We conclude, then, that it is Christ alone who in truth
baptizes inwardly, who in the Supper makes us partakers of
himself, who, in short, fulfils what the sacraments figure,
and uses their aid in such manner that the whole effect re
sides in his Spirit.
16. HOW THE SACRAMENTS CONFIRM.
Thus the sacraments are sometimes called seals, and are
said to nourish, confirm, and advance faith, and yet the
Spirit alone is properly the seal, and also the beginner and
finisher of faith. For aU these attributes of the sacraments

AND GENEVA AS TO THE SACRAMENTS. 2l7
sink down to a lower place, so that not even the smallest
portion of our salvation is transferred to creatures or ele
ments.

16. ALL WHO PARTAKE OF THE SACRAMENTS DO NOT
PARTAKE OF THE REALITY.
Besides, we carefully teach that God does not exert his
power indiscriminately in all who receive the sacraments,
but only in the elect. For as he enlightens unto faith none
but those whom he hath foreordained to life, so by the secret
agency of his Spirit he makes the elect receive what the
sacraments offer.

17. THE SACRAMENTS DO NOT CONFER GRACE.
By this doctrine is overthrown that fiction of the sophists
which teaches that the sacraments confer grace on all who
do not interpose the obstacle of mortal sin. For besides that
in the sacraments nothing is received except by faith, we
must also hold that the grace of God is by no means so an
nexed to them that whoso receives the sign also gains pos
session of the thing. For the signs are administered alike
to reprobate and elect, but the reality reaches the latter
only.

18. THE GIFTS OFFERED TO ALL, BUT RECEIVED BY
BELIEVERS ONLY.
It is true indeed that Christ with his gifts is offered to all
in common, and that the unbelief of man not overthrowing
the truth of God, the sacraments always retain their efficacy ;
but all are not capable of receiving Christ and his gifts.
Wherefore nothing is changed on the part of God, but in re
gard to man each receives according to the measure of his
faith.

21 8 MUTUAL CONSENT OF THE CHURCHES OF ZURICH
19. BELIEVERS BEFORE, AND WITHOUT THE USE OF
THE SACRAMENTS, COilMUNICATB WITH CHRIST.
As the use of the sacraments will confer nothing raore on
unbelievers than if they had abstained^^ from it, nay, is only
destmctive to them, so without their use believers receive
the reality which is there figured. Thus the sins of Paul were
washed away by baptism, though they had been previously
washed away. So likewise baptism was the laver of rege
neration to Cornelius, though he had already received the
Holy Spirit. So in the Supper Christ communicates himself
to us, though he had previously imparted himself, and per
petually remains in us. For seeing that each is enjoined to
examine himself, it follows that faith is required of each
before coming to the sacrament. Faith is not without
Christ ; but inasmuch as faith is confirmed and increased by
the sacraments, thc gifts of God are confirraed in us, and
thus Christ in a raanner grows in us and we in him.
20. THE BENEFIT NOT ALWAYS RECEIVED IN THE ACT
OF COMMUNICATING.
The advantage which we receive from the sacraments
ought by no means to be restricted to the time at which
they are administered to us, just as if the visible sign, at
the raoraent when it is brought forward, brought the grace
of God along with it. For those who were baptized when
mere infants, God regenerates in childhood or adolescence,
occasionally even in old age. Thus the utility of baptism
is open to the whole period of life, because the promise con
tained in it is perpetually in force. And it may soraetimes
happen that the use of the holy Supper, which, from thought
lessness or slowness of heart does little good at thc time,
afterwards bears its fruit.
21. NO LOCAL PRESENCE MUST BE IMAGINED.
We must guard particularly against the idea of any local
presence. For while the signs are present in this world, are

AND GENEVA AS TO THE SACRAMENTS. 219
seen by the eyes and handled by the hands, Christ, regarded
as man, must be sought nowhere else than in heaven, and not
otherwise than with the mind and eye of faith. Wherefore
it is a peiTcrse and impious superstition to inclose him under
the elements of this world.

22. EXPLANATION OF THE WORDS—" THIS IS MY BODY."
Those who insist that the formal words of the Supper —
" This is my body ; this is my blood," are to be taken in what
they call the precisely literal sense, we repudiate as prepos
terous interpreters. For we hold it out of controversy that
they are to be taken figuratively — the bread and wine re
cei-ving the name of that which they signify. Nor should it
be thought a new or unwonted thing to transfer the name
of things figured by metonomy to the sign, as similar modes
of expression occur throughout the Scriptures, and we by so
saying assert nothing but what is found in the most ancient
and raost approved writers of the Church.

23. OF THE EATING OF THE BODY.
When it is said that Christ, by our eating of his flesh and
drinking of his blood, which are here figured, feeds our souls
through faith by the agency of the Holy Spirit, we are not
to understand it as if any raingling or transfusion of substance
took place, but that we draw life frora the fiesh once offered
in sacrifice and the blood shed in expiation.
24. TRANSUBSTANTIATION AND OTHER FOLLIES.
In this way are refuted not only the fiction of the Papists
concerning transubstantiation, but all the gross figments and
futile quibbles which either derogate from his celestial glory
or are in some degree repugnant to the reality of his human
nature. For we deem it no less absurd to place Christ under
the bread or couple him with the bread, than to transubstan
tiate the bread into his body.

220 MUTUAL CONSENT AS TO THE SACRAMENTS.
25. THE BODY OF CHRIST LOCALLY IN HEAVEN.
And that no ambiguity may remain when we say that
Christ is to be sought in heaven, the expression implies and
is understood by us to intimate distance of place. For
though philosophically speaking there is no place above the
skies, yet as the body of Christ, bearing the nature and
mode of a human body, is finite and is contained in heaven
as its place, it is necessarily as distant from us in point of
space as heaven is frora earth.
26. CHRIST NOT TO BE ADORED IN THE BREAD.
If it is not lawful to affix Christ in our imagination to
the bread and the wine, much less is it lawful to worship
him in the bread. For although the bread is held fortii to
us as a symbol and pledge of the communion whicii we have
with Christ, yet as it is a sign and not the thing itself, and
has not the thing either included in it or fixed to it, those
who turn their minds towards it, with the view of worshipping
Christ, make an idol of it

EXPOSITION OF THE HEADS OF AGREEMENT.

All pious men, and men of sense and sound judgment,
feeling disgust and annoyance at the contention which had
arisen in our age conceming the Sacraments, and by which
they saw that the prosperous course of the gospel was un
happily retarded, not only always wished for some convenient
method of burying or settling it, but some of them made no
small exertion for this very purpose. If the success was
not immediately Avhat might have been wished, a sad proof
was given how difficult it is to put out fire once kindled by
the artifice of Satan. This much indeed was gained, that
both parties, calming their fervour somewhat, became more
intent on teaching than fighting. But as sparks were ever
and anon starting fortii from the smouldering coals, and
gave some cause to fear a new confiagration, we, the Pastors
of the Churches of Zurich and Geneva, with the assistance
of our most excellent brother Farel, attempted what we
thought the best remedy, so that no material might remain
for future discord. We published a brief corapendiura, which
attests our doctrine on the sacraments, and contains the
comraon consent of the other pastors who preach a pure
gospel in Switzerland and the Grisons. We felt persuaded
that by the publication of this testimony satisfaction was
given to moderate men, and we certainly thought that no
person would be so rigidly scrupulous as not to rest appeased ;
for, as we shall afterwards see, it contains a lucid definition
of all the points which were formerly debated, and leaves no
room for any uncharitable suspicion. And by the special
goodness of God, it has in a great measure succeeded to a wish.

222 MUTUAL CONSENT OF THE CHURCHES OF ZURICH
But, lo ! while all was quiet, sorae wrong-headed men have
started up, and as if their food were discord, caU again to
arms. They cannot excuse their intemperance by pretend
ing holy zeal. We are all agreed that peace is not to be
purchased by the sacrifice of truth : and hence I acknow
ledge that better were heaven confounded with earth, than
that the defence of sound doctrine should be abandoned.
Whosoever heartily and strenuously opposes sophistical
quibbles, which conciliate by giving a gloss to erroneous
doctrine, I blame not : nay, ratlier, I claim for myself this
praise, that there is scarcely an individual who can take
more pleasure than I do in a candid confession of the truth.
Wherefore let them have done with the empty pretence,
that oftentimes disturbance raust be raised, if the truth is
not to lie undefended. For I will show, first, that in this
matter nothing has been stated by us obscurely or enigma
tically, nothing craftily concealed, in short, nothing essen
tial omitted ; and, secondly, that the last thing proposed by
us was to interrupt the free course of truth. Nay, rather,
our greatest care was how that which is useful to be known
in this raatter might be both delivered and read calmly,
and without offence. But not to bandy words upon this, all
I ask of my readers is, to receive what I shall place before
their eyes, and prove by solid and clear arguments.
In the first place, then, in treating of the sacraments, it
cannot be denied that the chief thing to be considered is,
the ordinance of our Lord and its object. In this way both
the virtue and use of the sacraments is best ascertained, so
that whosoever turns his mind in this direction, to which
our Lord himself invites us, cannot err. That the end for
which the sacraments were instituted has been rightly
taught by us, even those who have the least fairness wUl be
forced to confess. The end, we say, is to bring- us to com
munion with Christ. I will speak more confidently, and say,
that none of our detractors ever brought forward any thing
which raore distinctly expressed what is intended. If it
is on the dignity of the sacraments that their heart is set,
what better fitted to display it than to call them helps and
raeans by whieh we are either ingrafted into the body of

AND GENEVA AS TO THE SACRAMENTS. 223
Christ, or being ingrafted, are drawn closer and closer, until
he makes us altogether one with himself in the heavenly life ?
If their desire is, that our salvation may be assisted by the sa
craments, what more apt can be imagined, than that being
condu'cted to the very fountain of life, we draw life from thc
Son of God ? Therefore, whether our own advantage is looked
to, or the dignity and reverence which ought to be attributed
to the sacraments, we have clearly explained the end aud
cause of their institution. Certainly the objection whicii
Paul makes to vain teachers, who puff men up with idle
speculations instead of edifying, that they do not hold the
head, is by no means applicable to us, who refer all things
to Christ, gather all together in him, and arrange all under
him, and maintain that the whole virtue of the sacraments
flows from hira. Now let these rigid censors prescribe a
better method of teaching than was delivered by Paul, if
they are dissatisfied with the adaptation of thc sacraments
to that symmetry between the head and the members, which
St. Paul applauds so highly, and by which he estimates the
entire perfection of doctrine.
It is well, then, that when about to speak of the sacra
ments, we used the best and most apposite exordium, and
assigned them an end which all fair and moderate readers
will, without controversy, approve. Then in regard to the
legitimate use, two faults are to be avoided. For if their
dignity is too highly extolled, superstition easily creeps in ;
and, on the other hand, if we discourse frigidly, or in less
elevated terms of their virtue and fruit, profane conterapt
immediately breaks forth. If a raiddle course has been ob
served by us, who will not call those obstinate eneraies of
the truth, who choose rather to carp maliciously at a holy
consent, than either civilly erabrace, or at least silently ap
prove it ?
We do not ask thera to swear to our words, but only to be
quiet, and not stone those who are speaking correctly. They
pretend indeed to raake it their ground of quarrel, that we
do not give the sacraments their due virtue. But when we
corae to the point, sorae produce nothing but bad names and
blind tumult, while others, with a toss of disdain, condemn.

22-1 MUTUAL CONSENT OF THE CHURCHES OF ZURICH
in a word, what they never read. That they quarrel with
out consideration, the case itself shows.
With what vehemence this cause was pleaded by Luther,
whose imitators they Avould fain be thought, is too well
known to all. I am aware how many hyperbolical 'things
fell from him in debate ; but whenever he wished to raake
his cause appear most plausible to pious and upright judges,
what did he profess to be the ground of controversy ? First,
that he could not bear that the sacraments should be re
garded merely as external raarks of profession, and not also
as badges and symbols of divine grace ; and, secondly, that
he held it an indignity to compare them to void and empty
figures, while God truly testifies in them what he figures,
and, at the same time, by his secret agency, performs and
fulfils what he testifies. Whether he was right or wrong in
flaming out so much, I do not at present discuss. It is
enough for me, that though he was by no means remiss in
pleading this cause, yet when it was necessary to act seri
ously, he found no resting-place for his foot but the pretext
that the whole controversy lay here.
Without making further mention of a man whose memory
I revere, and whose honour I am desirous to consult, let me
declare my opinion simply. Taking this pretext out of the
way, those who would raise a quarrel with us cannot but
excite the disgust of all honest and sound-headed men by
their rigidity. The pretext I mentioned is ever and anon
on their lips. If they use it candidly, and not merely to
tickle the ears of the simple, surely when they hear us con
fess on the one hand, that the sacraments are neither empty
figures nor mere external badges of piety, but seals of the
divine promises, testimonies of spiritual grace to cherish and
confirm faitli, and, on the other, that they are instruments
by which God acts effectually in his elect ; that, therefore,
although they are signs distinct from the things signified,
they are neither disjoined nor separated from them ; that
they are given to ratify and confirra what God has proraised
by his word, and especially to seal the secret communion
which we have with Christ ; — there certainly remains no
reason why they should rank us in their list of enemies.

AND GENEVA AS TO THE SACRAMENTS. 225
While, as I lately mentioned, they are constantly exclaim
ing that they have no other purpose than to maintain the
doctrine that God uses the sacraments as helps to foster and
increase faith, that the promises of eternal salvation are en
graven on thera to offer them to our consciences, and that
the signs are not devoid of the things, as God conjoins the
effectual working of his Spirit with them ; then all this being
granted, what, I ask, prevents them from freely giving us
their hand ? And to make it unnecessary to turn up and
examine the private writings of each, readers will find in our
Agreement every thing contained in the Confession published
at Ratisbon, and called the Confession of Augsburg, provided
only that it be not interpreted as having been composed
under fear of torture, to gain favour with the Papists. The
words are — " In the holy Supper, the body and blood of
Christ are truly given with the bread and wine.'' Far be it
from us either to take away the reality from the sacred
symbol of the Supper, or to deprive pious souls of so great a
benefit. We say, that lest the bread and wine should de
ceive our senses, the tme effect is conjoined with the exter
nal figure, so that believers receive the body and blood of
Christ. Nay, as it was our design to leave pious readers in
no doubt, we have attempted to explain more clearly and
fuUy what that Confession only glanced at.
It is asked, what is the efficacy of the sacraments ? what
their use ? what their office ? Our document answers, that
as the whole safety of believers depends on the communion
which they have with the Son of God, in order to attest it
the use as well of the gospel as of the sacraments was cora
raanded. Let the reader observe that the sacraments are
conjoined with the gospel, as conferring the same advantage
upon us in the matter of salvation. Hence it follows, that
what Paul says of the gospel (Rom. i. ; 2 Cor. vii.) we are at
liberty to apply to them. Wherefore we deny not that
they are part of that power which God exerts for our salva
tion, and that the ministry of our reconciliation with God is
also contained in them. For seeing we always willingly pro
fessed to assent to the words of Augustine, that " a sacra
ment is a kind of visible word," we undoubtedly acknow-
VOL. IL p

226 MUTUAL CONSENT OF THE CHURCHES OF ZURICH
ledge that our salvation is promoted in like manner by both
means. Now if it is asked what the nature of that communion is,
by the description of it given by us a little before, it cannot be
said to be fictitious and shadowy, viz., (and this, too, is the
proper and perpetual office offaith,) that we must coalesce with
the body of Christ, in order to his fulfilling in us the effects
of his grace. There is no other way of infusing his life into us
than by being our head, from which the whole body, joined
together and connected by every joint of supply, according
to his operation in the raeasure of every part, maketh in
crease of the body.
Next follows the clearer explanation to which I lately
adverted, that although the sacraments are marks and
badges of Christian profession or fellowship, and likewise
incitements to gratitude, in short, exercises of piety, and
mutual contracts obliging us to the worship of God, they
have, however, this principal end amongst others, viz., to
testify, represent, and seal the grace which the Lord bestows
upon us : moreover, that they are not mere shows jiresented
to our eyes, but that therein are represented the spiritual
graces, the effect of which believing souls receive. The
words are — " Seeing they are true testimonies and seals
which God has given us of his grace, he undoubtedly per
forms inwardly by his Spirit whatever the sacraments
figure ; in other words, we obtain possession of Christ, the
fountain of all blessings, are reconciled to God by means
of his death, are renewed by his Spirit to holiness of life,
in short, obtain righteousness and salvation." To this we
immediately after add, that by distinguishing between the
signs and the things signified, we disjoin not the reality
from the signs, but confess that all who by faith embrace
the promises there offered receive Christ spirituaUy, with all
his gifts.
Were I dealing with Papists I would collect passages of
Scripture and ancient writers, and show more accurately
that nothing has either proceeded from God, or ever been
believed by the Church concerning the sacraraents, that we
have not briefly included. But it is strange that men, whose

AND GENEVA AS TO THE SACRAMENTS. 227
formal practice it is daily to cry, " the word of the Lord, the
word of the Lord," are not ashamed any longer to stir up
strife about this matter. For while nothing is more absurd
than to extol the sacraments above the word, whose appen
dages and seals they are, they will find nothing applicable to
the word that we do not also give to the sacraments. In
short, if they acknowledge God as the only author of our
salvation, how do they ask more to be given to the sacra
ments than to be means and instruments of his secret grace,
adapted to our weakness ? To vindicate them completely
from contempt this one fact should suffice — that they are
not only badges of aU the blessings which God once ex
hibited to us in Christ, and which we receive every day, but
that the efficacy of the Spirit is conjoined with their outward
representation, lest they should be empty pictures.
On the other hand, how carefully we ought to guard
against superstition, not only does the experience of all ages
teach, but every individual may be convinced by his own
weakness. For as our mind is prone to earth, external ele
ments have too much influence in drawing us to themselves
without being extravagantly adorned. When immoderate
commendation is added, scarcely one in a hundred refrains
from carrying his reverence to a depraved and vicious excess.
In this matter the pertinacity of our detractors is more than
blind. For being forced to vociferate against the Papists,
they dare not explain the matter clearly, lest they may be
thought to subscribe to our view ; nay, lest they should de
scend to true moderation, they purposely entangle them
selves, and leave their readers in suspense.
That I may not seem to complain without cause, I wUl
now make it plain by a brief explanation that there is no
thing in our Agreement deserving of censure. To guard
against superstition, we said, in the first place, that those
act foolishly who look only to the bare signs, and not rather
to the promises annexed to them. By these words we raeant
nothing more than what, with universal consent, Augustine
traly and wisely teaches, (Homil. in Joan. 80,) that the ele
ments become sacraments only when the word is added, not
because it is pronounced, but because it is believed. And the

228 MUTUAL CONSENT OF THE CHURCHE.S OF ZURICH
reason why our Saviour pronounces the apostles clean is be
cause ofthe word which they had heard from him, not because
of the baptisra with which they had been washed. For if the
visible figures which are introduced as sacraments without
the word are not only jejune and lifeless elements but noxious
impostures, what else is gazing upon a sacrament without
waiting for the promise but mere Ulusion? Certainly if a man
only brings his eyes and shuts his ears, they wUl differ in
no respect frora the profane rites of the heathen. For though
we confess that of the ancient rites of the heathen very
many had their origin from the holy patriarchs, yet, as being
devoid of doctrine, they retained nothing of pure faith, we
justly say that they were degenerate and corrupt.
The matter stands truly thus. If the sign be not seasoned
with the promise, being insipid in itself, it will be of no
avail. For what can a man of mortality and earth do by
pouring water on the heads of those whom he baptizes, if
Christ does not pronounce from above that he washes their
souls by his blood, and renews them by his Spirit 1 What
will the whole company of tlie faithful gain by tasting a
little bread and wine, if the voice does not echo from heaven
that the flesh of Christ is spiritual food and his blood is truly
drink ? We therefore truly conclude, that it is not at all by
the material of water, and bread and wine that we obtain
possession of Christ and his spiritual gifts, but that we are
conducted to him by the promise, so that he raakes himself
ours, and, dwelling- in us by faith, fulfils whatever is pro
mised and offered by the signs. What any raan should dis
approve in this, I see not, unless perhaps he thinks it an
honour to the sacred signs, to be regarded as illusory forms
without faith.
On this occasion we again properly lead back pious minds
to Christ, not allowing them to seek or hope elsewhere for
the blessings of which a badge and pledge is held forth to
thera in the signs. And in this way we follow the rule
which the Lord prescribed to Moses, namely, to make all
things after the model which he had shown hira in the
raount. For this passage is not without reason referred to
by Stephen in the Acts, and the Apostle in the Epistle to

AND GENEVA AS TO THE SACRAMENTS. 229
the Hebrews. But as anciently the best method of correct
ing gross error among the Jews was not to let them stop
at the visible tabernacle and the sacrifices of beasts, but to
set Christ before their eyes and make them look up to him,
so in the present day we should be intent on that spiritual
archetype, and not delude ourselves with empty shows. And,
certainly, our Lord in instituting the sacraments by no raeans
surrounded us with impediments to confine us to the world.
He rather set up ladders by which we might scale upwards
to the heavens ; for nowhere else is Christ to be sought, and
nowhere are we to rest than in him alone. What ? did
Christ, I would ask, die and rise again that he might cease
to be the cause and groundwork of our salvation ? Nay, he
has fumished us with aids to seek him, while he reraains in
his own place.
We next proceed to correct a more common but not less
ruinous superstition, when we teach that if any thing is be
stowed on us through the sacraments, it is not owing to any
proper virtue in them, but inasmuch as the Lord is pleased
in them to exert the agency of his Spirit. For the human
mind is unable to refrain from either enclosing the power
of God in signs, or substituting signs in the place of God :
hence it is that God himself is robbed of the praise of his
virtue, men attributing to lifeless creatures that which is
peculiarly his. The sura of our doctrine, which we declare
in lucid and by no means ambiguous terms, is, that God
alone performs whatever we obtain by the sacraments, and
that by his secret and, as it is called, intrinsic virtue. But
lest any one should object, that the signs too have their
office, and were not given in vain, we hasten to meet the
objection by saying, that God uses their instrumentality, and
yet in such manner that he neither infuses his virtue into
them, nor derogates in any respect from the efficacy of his
Spirit. What would these worthy men here have ? Would they
have God to act by the sacraments ? We teach so. Would
they have our faith to be exercised, cherished, aided, con
firraed by them ? This, too, we assert. Would they have
the power of the Holy Spirit to be exerted in them, and

230 MUTUAL CONSENT OF THE CHURCHES OF ZURICH
make them available for the salvation of God's elect ? We
concede this also. The question turns upon this — should we
ascribe all the parts of our salvation entirely to God alone,
or does he himself by using the sacraraents transfer part of
his praise to them? Who but one devoid of all modesty
dares maintain so ? And as a witness to our doctrine we
cite Paul, who declares that rainisters are nothing, and in
planting and watering do nothing at all apart frora God, who
alone giveth the increase. Hence it is easy for any one to see,
that, provided God is not to be robbed of his own, we detract
nothing from the sacraments. It is well known how highly
Paul, in another passage, extols the preaching of the word.
How comes it then that he here reduces it to almost nothing,
unless it be that when it comes into contrast with God he
alone must be acknowledged as the author of all blessings,
while he uses the creatures thus freely, and at his own will
acts by means of them so far as he pleases ? No injury is
done to earthly elements in not decking them with the spoils
of God.
What we subjoin from Augustine, viz., that it is Christ
alone who baptizes inwardly, and that it is he alone who
makes us partakers of himself in the Supper, strongly dis
plays the exceUence of both ordinances. For we hence
infer, that acts of whicii the Son of God is the author, over
which he presides, in which, as with outstretched hand from
heaven, he displays his virtue, are no acts of raan. Then
nothing is raore useful than to withdraw our sense from
gazing on mortal man and an earthly element, that our faith
may behold Christ as if actually present : though this indeed
is intended to claim for Christ his own right, and not allow
it to be supposed that in committing the extemal rainistry to
men, he resigns to them the merit of the spiritual effect. In
this sense Augustine at great length maintains, (Hora. 5, 6,
in Joann.,) that the power and efficacy of baptism are com
petent to none but Christ. And what need is there of
human testiraony while the words which fell clear from the
lips of the Baptist ought to be continually sounding in our
ears, " He it is who baptizeth with the Spirit," (John i.) It
is clear that this title distinguished him from all ministers.

AND GENEVA AS TO THE SACRAMENTS. 231
and acquaints us that he alone does inwardly what men
attest by visible sign.
This Augustine well explains in these words, (Quaest. Vet.
Test., lib. iii. c. 84,) " How then does Moses and how does our
Lord sanctify ? Moses does not sanctify in place of the
Lord, but by visible sacraments through his ministry ; where
as the Lord sanctifies by invisible grace through the Holy
Spirit, wherein lies the whole fruit even of visible sacra
ments." For without that sanctification of invisible grace,
what can visible sacraments avail ? Nor in any other way
can we reconcile passages of Scripture in which there is an
apparent discrepancy. Of this class are those which we
have there referred to, viz., that the Holy Spirit is a seal by
which faith in the future inheritance is ratified to us, and
that the sacraments are also seals. For there is no more
consistency in placing these in the same rank than in trans-
feiTing to signs what is competent to none but the Spirit.
The only solution, therefore, is in the coramon axiom, that
there is no repugnance between superior and subaltern. For
were any one to contend that our salvation is not sealed by
lifeless signs, this being the proper office of the Holy Spirit,
I ask what answer these censors whom our argument does
not please would give ? Just what we maintain — that though
God uses inferior means, it does not at all imply that he
does not begin and perfect our faith solely by the agency of
his Spirit.
When we say, that the signs are not available to all indis
criminately, but to the elect only, to whom the inward and
effectual working of the Spirit is applied, the thing is too
clear to require any lengthened statement. If any one would
make the effect comraon to all, he is not only refuted by the
testimony of Scripture but by experience. As the outward
voice of man by itself cannot at all penetrate the heart, but
out of many hearers those alone come to Christ who are in
wardly drawn by the Father, (according to the words of
Isaiah, that none believed his preaching save those to whom
the word of the Lord was revealed,) so it is in the free and
sovereign determination of God to give the profitable use of
signs to whom he pleases.

232 MUTUAL CONSENT OF THE CHURCHES OF ZURICH
When we thus speak, we do not understand that any thing
is changed in the nature of the sacraments, so as to make
them less entire. Nor does Augustine, (Tract in Joann. 26,)
when he confines the effect of the holy Supper to the body
of the Church, consisting in the predestinate, who have
already been justified in part, and are still justified, and will
one day be glorified, make void or impair its force considered
in itself in regard to the reprobate. He only affirms that
the benefit is not alike coraraon to all. But seeing that in
the reprobate the only obstacle to their possession of Christ
is their own unbelief, the whole blarae resides in theraselves.
In short, the exhibition of the sign disappoints no man but
him who malignantly and spontaneously defrauds himself
For it is most true, that every one receives from the sign
'just as much benefit as his vessel of faith can contain.
And we justly repudiate the fiction of Sorbonne, that the
sacraments of the new law are available to all who do not
interpose the obstacle of mortal sin. For to ascribe to them
a virtue whicii the external use raerely, as a kind of channel,
infuses into souls, is plainly a senseless superstition. But if
faith raust intervene, no raan of sense wUl deny that the
sarae God who helps our infirmity by these aids, also gives
faith, which, elevated by proper ladders, may climb to Christ
and obtain his grace. And it ought to be beyond contro
versy, that as it would not be enough for the sun to shine,
and send down its rays from the sky, were not eyes pre
viously given us to enjoy its light, so it were in vain for the
Lord to give us the light of external signs, if he did not
make us capable of discerning them. Nay, just as the light
of the sun, while it invigorates a living and animated body,
produces effluvia in a carcase ; so it is certain that the sacra
ments where the Spirit of faith is not present, breathes
mortiferous rather than vital odour.
But lest any should suppose from this that any thing is
lost to the virtue of the sacraments, or that by the unbelief
and wickedness of man the truth of God is impaired, I think
we carefully put them on their guard when we say, that the
signs nevertheless remain entire, and offer divine grace to
the unworthy, and that the effect of the promises does not

AND GENEVA AS TO THE SACRAMENTS. 233
fail, though unbelievers receive not what is offered. We are
not here speaking of the ministers as to whom it was at one
time foolishly doubted, whether their perfidy, or any other
unworthiness, vitiated the sacraments. We hold the ordi
nance of God to be too sacred to depend for its efficacy on
man. Be it then that Judas, or any other epicurean con
temner of every thing sacred, is the administrator of baptism
or the Lord's Supper, we hold that both the washing of re
generation, and the spiritual nourishment of the body and
blood of Christ, are conferred through his hand, just as if he
were an angel come down from heaven.
Not that it becomes the Church at large, by carelessness or
connivance, to foster vicious ministers, or those who pollute
the holy place by impure lives. She ought rather to exert
herself both in public and in private, to cleanse the sanc
tuary of God as far as may be of such defilements. But if
it happens that men altogether ungodly surreptitiously ob
tain the honour, or the ambitious favour of certain persons
prevents the dissolute from being brought to order, or as
was most desirable, forthwith discarded, how detestable
soever their unworthiness may be, it detracts nothing from
the sacraments, since that which Christ then bestows he
takes from himself, and does not draw or derive from minis
ters. We have no doubt, therefore, that the Popish requi
site of intention in the officiating minister, is a perverse and
pernicious figment. But as the Lord is always ready to per
form what he figures, as well by ungodly as by faithful
ministers, we acknowledge that what is offered is received
only by faith, while we hold that unbelievers are sent empty
away. We deny, therefore, that the Lord withholds his hand.
On the contrary, we maintain, that in order to be perpetually
consistent with himself, and in infinite goodness strive with
the wickedness of men, he truly offers what they reject.
But there is a wide difference between the two things — that
the Lord is faithful in performing what he shows by a sign,
and that man, in order to enjoy the proffered grace, makes
way for the promise. Before any one can receive what is
given, he must have the capacity, as it is written, " Open

234 MUTUAL CONSENT OF THE CHURCHES OF ZURICH
thy raouth wide and I will fill it." It is mere ignorance,
therefore, that makes some cry out, that the figure of the
holy Supper is made erapty and void, if the ungodly do not
receive as rauch in it as believers. If they hold that the
same thing is given to both indiscriminately, I could easily
subscribe to their inference, but that Christ is received with
out faith is no less monstrous than that a seed should ger-
rainate in the fire. By what right do they allow themselves
to dissever Christ from his Spirit ? This we account nefa
rious sacrilege. They insist that Christ is received by the
wicked, to whom they do not concede one particle of the
Spirit of Christ. What else is this than to shut hira up in a
tomb as if he were dead ?
But it will be said, that Paul would not charge those who
eat unworthily with being guilty of the body and blood of
the Lord, were they not also made partakers of Christ. Nay,
I should rather say, that if access was given them to Christ,
it would exemj)t them from all guilt. But now as they
foully trample upon the pledge of sacred communion, which
they ought to receive with reverence, it is not strange that
they are counted guilty of his body and blood.
Ignorant men absurdly imagine that they would not be
guilty, did they not handle with their hands, and chew with
their teeth, and swallow the body of Christ. Then, accord
ing- to them, what kind of receiving will this be ? Paul de
clares faith to be the mode by which Christ dwells in us.
Wherefore, if faith is wanting, he can only be received for a
moment, and then vanish. How much more rightly does
Augustine, as became a man well versed in the Scriptures,
say, (Hora. in Joan. 62,) that the bread of the Lord was
given to Jesus to make him a slave of the devil, just as a
messenger of Satan was given to Paul to perfect him in
Christ. He had previously said, (Hom. 59,) that the other
disciples ate the Lord the bread, whereas Judas ate the bread
of the Lord against the Lord. In another place also, (Hom.
26,) he wisely expounds the celebrated saying of Christ, that
those who eat him shall never die, meaning, he says, that
the virtue of the sacrament is not only the visible sacrament,
that it is within, not without, in those who eat with the heart.

AND GENEVA AS TO THE SACRAMENTS. 235
not press with the teeth. Whence he at length concludes,
that a sacrament of the thing is held forth at the Lord's
table, and is taken by some unto destruction, by others unto
life, but that the thing itself, of whicii the Supper is a sign,
yields life to all, destruction to none who partake of it.
That there may be no doubt as to the mind of this writer,
it wiU not be disagreeable to go a little deeper into his
views. After saying that the hunger of the inner man seeks
for this bread, he subjoins, Moses and Aaron and Phinehas,
and many others, who pleased the Lord and did not die,
ate of the manna. Why ? Because they understood the visi
ble food spiritually ; they hungered spiritually ; they tasted
spiritually ; they were filled spiritually. For we, too, of 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 by this he who abides not in Christ,
and in whom Christ abides not, doubtless neither spiritu
ally eats his flesh nor drinks his blood, though he carnaUy
and visibly press the sign of the body and blood with his
teeth, but he rather eats and drinks the sacrament of this
great thing to his condemnation, because, though unclean,
he has presumed to approach the sacraments of Christ."
You see how he concedes to the profane and impure
nothing but a visible taking of the sign. I admit, he says
elsewhere, (Lib. 5, de Bapt. contra Donatist.,) that the bread of
the Supper was the body of Christ to those to whom Paul said,
"Whoso eateth unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to
himself, not discerning the Lord's body," and that they re
ceived nothing, just because they received badly. But in
what sense he wished this to be understood, he explains more
fully in another place, (Lib. de Civ. Dei. 21, c. 25.) For un
dertaking professedly to explain how the wicked and aban
doned, who profess the Catholic faith with their lips, eat the
body of Christ, and this in opposition to the opinion of some
who pretended that they ate not only of the sacrament but
of the reality, he goes on, " Neither can those be said to eat
the body of Christ, since they are not to be accounted among
the members of Christ. For not to raention other grounds,
they cannot be the members of Christ and the members of a

236 MUTUAL CONSENT OF THE CHURCHES OF ZURICH
harlot." In short, our Saviour himself, when he says, " Whoso
eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood remaineth in rae and
I in him," shows what it is not to eat of the sacrament
merely, but really of the body of Christ. For one to abide
in Christ, means that Christ abides in him. It was just as
if he had said — Let not him who does not abide in me,
and in whora I do not abide, say or think that he eats ray
body or drinks ray blood. Let ignorant men cease to con
tend for Judas, if they would not seem to desire a Christ
without Christ.
We next proceed to say, that the effect of the spiritual
blessings which the sacraments figure, is given to believers
without the use of the sacraments. As this is daily expe
rienced to be true, and is proved by passages of Scripture, it
is strange if any are displeased with it. When martyrs shut
up in prison cannot take the external sign, shall we say that
those in whom Christ is triumphantly magnified are without
Christ ? Nor can any one altogether devoid of Christ make
a due approach to the Supper. The reality of baptism was
not wanting to Cornelius, who, previous to the washing of
water, had been sprinkled with the Holy Spirit, just as Moses
was not devoid of the divine unction, of which he comrauni
cated the sign to others, though he himself never received it.
By thus teaching, we by no raeans intend that we are to
lay aside the use of signs, and be contented with secret in
spirations. Although the Lord occasionally, to prove that
his virtue is not tied to any means, performs without sign
what he represents by sign, it does not follow that we are
to cast away any thing which he ordained for our salvation,
as if it were superfiuous. Far less will this be lawful for us,
whose faith ought to be intent on his word and seals. For
it has been truly said by Augustine, (Lib. Quaest. Vet. Test. 3,)
that although God sanctifies whom he pleases wdthout the
visible sign, yet whoso contemns the sign is justly deprived
of invisible sanctification.
Akin to this article is that whicii we next add, viz., that
the advantage received from the sacraments ought not to be
restricted to the time of external taking, as if they carried
the grace of God along with them at the very moment.

AND GENEVA AS TO THE SACRAMENTS. 237
Herein if any one dissents from us he must of necessity
both accelerate the gift of regeneration in many, and fabri
cate innuraerable baptisms for the remainder of life. We
see the effect of baptism, which for a time was null, appear
at last. Many are dipt with water from their mother's
womb, who, as they advance in life, are so far from showing
that they were inwardly baptized that they rather make
void their baptism by doing what in them lies to quench the
Spirit of God. Part of these God calls back to himself He,
therefore, who would include newness of life in the sign as a
capsule, so far from doing honour to the sign, dishonours
God. Then, seeing that repentance and advancement in it ought
to be our constant study even until death, who sees not that
baptism is impiously mutilated if its virtue and fruit, which
embraces the whole course of life, is not extended beyond
the outward administration ? Nay, no greater affront to the
sacred symbols can be imagined than to hold that their
reality is in force only at the time of actual exhibition. My
meaning is, that though the visible figure iraraediately passes
away, the grace which it testifies still remains, and does not
vanish in a moment with the spectacle exhibited to the eye.
I have no intention to countenance the superstition of those
who absurdly preserve the elements of bread and water in
their churches, as if after the present use to which they
were destined the effect of consecration still adhered to
them. This it was necessary distinctly to declare, lest any
one should affix the hope of salvation, which is liable to no
change of tiraes, to temporary signs, and faith apprehend no
more than the eye perceives.
I come now to the question out of which such violent and
bitter conflicts have arisen, — of what nature is the com
munion of our Lord's body and blood in the holy Supper ?
We have not given a definition of it before refuting the fig
ment of a local presence, and explaining the meaning of the
words of Christ, as to which there has heretofore been too
much contention. But as our purj)ose is to meet the objec
tions of captious and unlearned men, who are borne head
long by a blind impulse to slander, or to pacify the honest

2-38 MUTUAL CONSENT OF THE CHURCHES OF ZURICH
and simple whom they have imbued with their deleterious
speeches, I will now begin with that third article.
First, then, we acknowledge that Christ truly performs
what he figures by the symbols of bread and wine, nourishing
our souls with the eating of his flesh and the drinking of his
blood. Away, theu, with the vUe calumny, that it would be
theatrical show if the Lord did not perform in truth what
he shows by the sign ; as if we said that any thing is
shown which is not truly given. The Lord bids us take
bread and wine. At the same time he declares that he
gives the spiritual nourishraent of his flesh and blood. We
say that no fallacious figure of this is set before our eyes,
but that a pledge is given us, with which the substance and
reality are conjoined ; in other words, that our souls are fed
with the flesh and blood of Christ. The term faith is thus
used by us not to denote some imaginary thing, as if be
lievers received what is promised only in thought or memoi-y,
but only to prevent any one from thinking that Christ is so
far prostituted that unbelievers enjoy him.
When Paul teaches that Christ dwells in our hearts by
faith, he does not substitute an imaginary for true habi
tation, but reminds us in what way we may ascertain the
possession of so great a blessing. We acknowledge, then,
without any equivocation, that the flesh of Christ gives life,
not only because we once obtained salvation by it, but be
cause now, while we are made one with Christ by a sacred
union, the same flesh breathes life into us, or, to exj)ress it
more briefly, because ingrafted into the body of Christ by
the secret agency of the Spirit, we have life in common with
him. For from the hidden fountain of the Godhead life was
miraculously infused into the body of Christ, that it might
flow from thence to us.
But here again, as the minds of men always conceive
grossly of the heavenly mysteries of God, it was neces
sary to obviate delirious dreams. With this view we laid
down the definition, that what we say of the partaking of
Christ's flesh raust not be understood as if any coramingling
or transfusion of substance took place, but that we draw life
from the flesh once offered in sacrifice. If any one is dis-

AND GENEVA AS TO THE SACRAMENTS. 239
pleased with this explanation, I say, first, that he has some
fiction of his own brain which is nowhere taught in Scrip
ture, and by no means accords with the analogy of faith ;
and I say, secondly, that it is too presumptuous, after taking
up a meaning at random, to lay down the law to others.
If they insist that the substance of the fiesh of Christ is
commingled with the soul of man, in how many absurdities
wiU they involve themselves ?
They say it is not lawful to bring down this sublime
mystery to secular reasoning, or to gauge its iramense mag
nitude by the little measure of our capacity. To this I
readily assent. But is the modesty of faith to be raade to
consist in disfiguring religion all over with horrid monsters ?
In this way every thing that is most absurd would be most
accordant with Christ and his doctrine. We acknowledge
that the sacred union which we have with Christ is incom
prehensible to camal sense. His joining us with him so as
not only to instil his life into us, but to make us one with
himself, we grant to be a mystery too sublime for our com
prehension, except in so far as his words reveal it. But are
we therefore to dreara that his substance is transferred into
us so that he is defiled by our impurities ? Their boast, that
they shut their eyes and inquire not too curiously into what
the Lord has concealed, is proved to be most vain from this,
that they do not allow themselves to be taught by the word
of God. Sobriety of faith is not only to acquiesce in the
decision of God, and apprehend no more than his sacred lips
have revealed, but also to attend diligently to the spirit of
prophecy, and embrace a sound interpretation with meek
docility. It is presumptuous petulance either not to confine
yourself within due limits, or to fastidiously reject the light
of sound understanding.
None of us denies that the body and blood of Christ are
communicated to us. But the question is, what is the nature
of this communication of our Lord's body and blood ? I
wonder how these men dare to assert simply and openly that
it is camal. When we say that it is spiritual, they roar out
as if by this term we were making it not to be what they
commonly call real. If they will use real for true, and op-

240 MUTUAL CONSENT OF THE CHURCHES OF ZURICH
pose it to fallacious or imaginary, we will rather speak bar
barously than afford material for strife. We are aware how
little strivings about words becorae the servants of Christ,
but as nothing is gained by making concessions to men who
are in all ways implacable, I wish to declare to peaceful and
moderate men, that according to us the spiritual mode of
communion is such that we enjoy Christ in reality. Let us
be contented with this reason, against which no man, unless
he is very quarrelsome, will rebel, that the flesh of Christ
gives us life, inasmuch as Christ by it instils spiritual life
into our souls, and that it is also eaten by us when by faith
we grow up into one body with Christ, that he being ours
imparts to us all that is his.
In regard to local presence, I wonder that our censors are
not ashamed to raise a quarrel. As they deny that the body
of Christ is circumscribed by local space, they hold it to be
immense. What do we hold ? That we are to seek it in
heaven, which, as Scripture declares, has received hira till he
appear to judgment. Tliere is no ground, however, for any
individual to charge us with holding that he is absent from
us, and thus separating the head from the members. Cer
tainly if Paul could say, that so long as we are in the world
we are absent as pilgrims from the Lord, we may say, on
the same ground, that we are separated from him by a cer
tain species of absence, inasmuch as we are now distant from
his heavenly dweUing. Christ then is absent from us in
respect of his body, but dweUing in us by his Spirit he raises
us to heaven to himself, transfusing into us the vivifying
vigour of his flesh, just as the rays of the sun invigorate us
by his vital warmth. Their common saying, that he is with
us invisible, is equivalent to saying, that though his forra is
treasured up in heaven, the substance of his flesh is on the
earth. But a sense of piety clearly dictates that he infuses
life into us frora his flesh, in no other way than by descend
ing into us by his energy, while, in respect of his body, he
still continues in heaven.
The same view must be taken of what we immediately
add, viz., that in this way we not only refute the Popish
fiction of transubstantiation, but all the gross figments, as

AND GENEVA AS TO THE SACRAMENTS. 241
well as futile sophistry, \vhich derogate cither from the
heavenly glory of Christ, or are repugnant to the reality of
his human nature. It is unnecessary to dwell more on this
explanation, which was not added without consideration.
Some who would raake the body of Christ iramense de
prive it of the nature of a body, others enclose his Deity
under a lifeless eleraent. If the one party has erred through
ignorance, and the other, carried away in the heat of con
tention, has rashly uttered an absurdity, let it reraain
buried. I do not attack or inveigh against the persons of
men. We have not attacked any one in our writing, but
have held it sufficient to cut off all handle for error. Who
can be offended when we wish Christ to remain complete
and entire in regard to both natures, and the Mediator who
joins us to God not to be torn to pieces ? The immensity
which they imagine the fiesh of Christ to possess, is a mon
strous phantom, which overturns the hope of a resurrection.
To all the absurdities they advance concerning the heavenly
life, I will always oppose the words of St. Paul, that we wait
for Christ from heaven, who will transform our poor body
and make it conformable to his own glorious body. Need
we say how absurd it were to fill the whole world with the
single body of each believer ?
Let those men, then, allow us modestly to profess what is
sound and right, and not force us by their intemperance to
uncover their disgrace, which is better hid. Let them not
fiercely assail us, because sparing names, as I have said, we
have been contented with a bare refutation of errors. They
think it intolerable in us to deny that Christ is placed
under the bread, or coupled with the bread. What then?
Will they pull him down from his throne, that he may lie
enclosed in a little bit of bread ? Should any one say that
the body of Christ is offered to us under the bread, as an
earnest, we will not quarrel with him on that account, any
more than when in disposing of the camal or local coupling
we endeavoured to make a divorce between the sign and its
reality. Let believers then receive the body of Christ under
the symbol of bread ; for he is true who speaks, and it is not
at all in accordance with his character to deceive us by
VOL. IL Q

242 MUTUAL CONSENT OF THE CHURCHES OF ZURICH
holding forth an erapty badge ; only let there be no local
enclosing or camal infusing.
All that now remains is the exposition of our Lord's
words. If in it there is any offence, let them impute it to
their own perverseness in being determined to involve what
is clear in itself in darkness by claraour and tumult. Christ
having called the bread his body, they insist on the precise
words, and refuse to adrait any figure. But if the bread is
properly the body of Christ, it will follow that Christ himself
is just as rauch bread as he is raan. We raay add, that if the
expression is not figurative, they themselves act perversely
in saying that the same body is under the bread, with the
bread, and in the bread. If they assume such gross liberty
of interpretation, why will they not allow us to open our
mouth ? When in searching for the meaning of the words
we consider in what manner Scripture usually speaks of the
sacraments, they refuse to listen because it was once said.
This is my body. What ? was it not also said that Christ
was a Rock ? And in what sense, but just that he was the
same .spiritual drink with him whom we now drink in the
cup ? That they might not be forced to yield to plain reason,
they madly dissever things sacredly joined.
To be silent as to this, and let it pass, I would ask, by
what right they allow themselves to resolve this sentence of
theirs, ou which they insist so much, into different forms of
speech ? After insisting that the bread is Clirist, why do
they afterwards fly off to their own fictions, and say, that
he is with the bread, in the bread, and under the bread ?
Who gave them this authority to sport futUe fictions, not less
remote from usage than self-contradictory, and debar others
from sound understanding ? If the bread must be regarded
as the body, because it is so called, just as much must it
on the authority of Paul be regarded as the communion of
the body. Nay, if I should say that Paul in this passage
expounds more clearly what was rather obscurely expressed
by Christ, what sober man will gainsay me ? The Lord de
clares that the bread is his body. The disciple foUows, cer
tainly not intending to thro\v darkness on the light, and
explains that the bread is the communion of the body.

AND GENEVA AS TO THE SACRAMENTS. 243
Here, if they give us their consent, the dispute is at an end,
for we also declare that in the breaking- of bread the body
of Christ is communicated to believers.
They insist on retaining the word. Very well. Since
Christ, according to Luke and Paul, calls the cup the cove
nant in his blood, whenever they cry that the bread is the
body and the wine the blood, I, in my turn, will on the best
authority rejoin, that they are covenants in the body and
blood. Let unlearned men then cease frora that pertinacity
by which, not to use harsher terms, they must ever and anon
find themselves perplexed and ensnared.
It is not worth while to enter into a full discussion at
present, but this rauch I take for granted. After saying
that the bread is the body, they are forced at the same time
to confess that it is a sign of the body. How can they
know this but just from the words of Christ ? Therefore the
very term sign, for the use of whicii they so invidiously
quarrel with us, they stealthily extract from the very pas
sage whicii they insist on being only literaUy interpreted.
We, again, while in deference both to common sense and
piety, we candidly acknowledge that the mode of expression is
figurative, have no recourse either to allegories or parables ;
but we assume an axiom received by all pious men without
controversy, that whenever the sacraments are treated of, it
is usual to transfer the name of the thing signified by meto
nymy to the sign. Examples occur too frequently in Scrip
ture for any opponents, however keen, to venture to deny
that this mode of speech must be regarded as the general
rule. Hence as the manna of old was spiritual food, as the
water was Christ, as the Holy Spirit was a dove, as baptism
was the laver of regeneration, so the bread is called the
body and the wine the blood of Christ. If they choose to
call it synecdoche rather than metonymy, and thus reduce
it to a quan-el about a word, we shall leave grammarians to
settle it. What, however, will they gain but just to expose
themselves to derision for their ignorance, even boys being
judges ?
To pass over this, whosoever is disposed to strive about
words proves that he is by no means a servant of Christ.-

244 MUTUAL CONSENT AS TO THE SACRAMENTS.
While we are entirely agreed as to things, what can be
more preposterous than to rend Churches and stir up fierce
tumults because some hold that the bread is called body, inas
much as the body is exhibited under it and with it, whereas
others hold that it is a syrabol — not an empty illusory sym
bol, but one to which its own reality is annexed, so that all
who receive the sign with their mouth and the promise by
faith becorae truly partakers of Christ. But if they have
determined to make no end of tlieir evil speaking, I am
confident that no man not engaged in the contention will be
so unjust as not to acknowledge that we teach correctly,
and practise sincerity, and are lovers of peace. I do not
think there is any reason to fear that any person, if he be
not smitten with tlie mad fury of those men, will countenance
their importunate clamour.

SECOND DEFENCE

PIOUS AND ORTHODOX FAITH CONCERNING THE SACRAMENTS,

IN ANS-WER TO

TIIE CALUMNIES OF JOACHIM WESTPHAL.

M.D.LVI.

TO ALL HONEST MINISTERS OF CHRIST,
AND SI.VCEBE -WORSHIPPERS OF GOD, WHO OBSERVE AND FOLLOW THE PUIiE
DOCTRINE OF THE GOSPEL IN
THE CHURCHES OF SAXONY AND LOWER GER3IANY,
JOHN CALVIN,
WITH BROTHERLY AFFECTION, -WISHES INCREASE OP GRACE PROM fiOD THE
PATHER AND ODR LORD JESUS CUIIIST.
Although I am perfectly conscious to myself that the cause
which I have undertaken to defend in this book is right and just,
and that I have acted faithfully in pleading it, yet, as the full con
viction of my own mind does not satisfy me unless I study to
approve my conduct to all the children of God, I have thought it
of importance, venerable and beloved brethren, to protest to you
at the outset that this book has been extorted from me if I were
not by my silence to betray the truth of Christ, in oppressing
which certain ferocious men exceed the barbarism of the Papacy.
A dispute unhappily carried on among the learned for more than
twenty years on the subject of the sacraments h;u ing been some
what calmed, and men's minds disposed to moderation, nothing
seemed so likely to lead to a full settlement as to give an attested
statement in few and simple terms of the doctrine -which the
Churches of Switzerland follow. For as long as the contest
raged, and the minds of both parties were exasperated, it is pro
bable that the subject was not expounded with sufficient clearness
nor the words employed duly weighed. Most of you are well
aware of the short description which we published five years aeo
under the name of Agreement, and in which, without attacking
any one, and without any asperity of language, we not only
arranged the substance of the whole controversy under distinct
heads, but also endeavoured, in so far as a candid confession of
the truth allowed, entirely to remove all offences. It ought also
to have had the effect of appeasing the minds of any who were less
disposed to take an equitable view that we offered, in case any

SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 24?
were not satisfled, to exert ourselves in adding an explanation.
We also promised that we would be open to instruction and obe
dient to better counsels should any one show that the matter had
not been properly handled.
About two years after arose one Joachim Westphal, who, so far
from being softened to concord by that temperate simplicity of
doctrine, seized upon the name of Agreement as a kind of Furies'
torch to rekindle the flame. For he avowedly collected from all
quarters opinions which he would have to be thought adverse to
each other, that he might thus destroy our Agreement ; and showed
himself to be inflamed with such a hatred of peace, that he vent
ed his peculiar venom against us, for no other reason but because
he was annoyed by our thinking and speaking the same thing.
He writes that my books were highly esteemed and relished by
the men of his sect, at the time when they thought that I differed
from the teachers of the Church of Zurich. Whence the sudden
alienation now ? Is it because I have abandoned my opinion ?
Even he himself does not disguise, nay, he has written on the mar
gin of his book, that every thing which our Agreement contains
occurs throughout my writings. Who now sees not that the hatred
which this man bears to those against whom he has once declared
war is so implacable, that he assails the very doctrine which he
formerly favoured, in order that he may have nothing in common
with them?
His apology is, that he is the enemy of nothing but a dissembled
concord. But how comes it that the doctrine which formerly
pleased him in my writings, excites his deep aversion now that it
has come from the Zurichers ? However he may hide , the sore,
assuredly nothing has impelled him but a wish to furnish a new
defence to the inflexible pertinacity of some persons in not yielding
to the plain truth.
The perverse attack of this man I was forced to repel in a short
treatise. He, as if an inexpiable crime hadbeen committed, has
flamed forth with much greater impetuosity. It has now become
necessary for me to repress his insolence. Should I inveigh rather
vehemently against him, be pleased of your prudence and equity
to consider what provocation I have had. Heresies and heretics,
diabolical blasphemies, impious denial of Scripture, subversion of
all that is sacred, and sirailar opprobrious epithets, are the words
ever in his mouth. In .short, his book has no other apparent ob
ject than to precipitate us by the thunderbolts of anathemas fo the

2-4.8 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
lower regions. What was left for rae but to apply a hard wedge
to a bad knot, and not allow him to have too much complacency
in his savage temper? Were there any hope of molUfying those
men, I would not refuse to humble myself, and by supplicating
them, purchase the peace of the Church. But to what lengths
they are borne by their violence is notorious to all. Therefore my
austerity in rebuking their hard-heartedness has the sanction of
God himself, who not only declares (Ps. xviii.) that to the froward
he will show himself without mercy, but will treat them frowardly.
But though it was my most earnest wish to proceed directly to the
point, and digress as little as possible from the discussion of it,
yet as my opponent, leaping from this topic to that, according to
his humour, has not allowed me to proceed in regular order, it
will be proper briefly to glance at the substance of the whole mat
ter in dispute.
That I have written reverently of the legitimate use, dignity, and
eflScacy of the sacraments, even he himself does not deny. How
skilfully or learnedly in his judgment I care not, since it is enough
to be commended for piety by an enemy. The contest remaining
with him embraces three articles : First, he insists that the bread
of the Supper is substantially the body of Christ. Secondly, in
order that Christ may exhibit himself present to believers, he in
sists that his body is immense, and exists everywhere without
place. Thirdly, he insists that no figure is to be admitted in the
words of Christ, whatever agreement there may be as to the thing.
Of such importance does he deem it to stick doggedly to the words,
that he would sooner see the whole globe convulsed than admit
any exposition. We maintaiu that the body and blood of Christ
are truly offered to us in the Supper in order to give life to our
souls, and we explain, without ambiguity, that our souls are invi
gorated by this spiritual aliment which is offered us in the Supper,
just as our bodies are nourished by earthly bread. Therefore we
hold, that in the Supper there is a true partaking of the flesh and
blood of Christ. Should any one raise a dispute as to the word
substance, we assert that Christ, from the substance of his flesh,
breathes life into our souls ; nay, infuses his own Ufe into us, pro
vided always that no transfusion of substance be imagined.
The cause of the implacable wrath of Westphal is this. While
we confess that the flesh of Christ gives life, and that we are truly
made partakers of it in the Supper, he, not contented with this
simplicity, urges and contends that the bread is substantially the

IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 249
body. From this springs the other dograa, that the body and
blood of Jesus Christ are taken into the mouth ofa wicked man in
the very same way as bread and wine. For how comes he to
afiirm so pertinaciously that the body of Christ was taken by Judas
no less than by Peter, unless it be because the substance of the
sign is not changed by man's unbelief ? He, moreover, imagines
a substance which is by no means agreeable to the word of God,
viz., that Christ affi.xes his own flesh substantially to the bread.
The pretext, that it is absurd to make the truth of the divine
promise depend on man's faith, is easily disposed of. We distinctly
declare that no unbelief prevents the sacred ordinance of Christ
from retaining its force and nature ; prevents his flesh from being
offered and given to aU as spiritual food, and his blood as spiritual
drink; prevents the bread frora being a true symbol of flesh, and
the wine of blood; prevents that which Christ pronounces from
heaven to be firm and sure, viz., that the body which he once
offered to the Father in sacrifice he now offers as food to men. If
the wicked defraud themselves of this benefit, and their unbelief
causes that the fruition does uot reach them, we deny that any
thing is lost to the sacrament on this account, inasmuch as it re
mains entire.
The second question has no other source than the mode of com
munion, which Westphal supposes to be necessarily conjoined with
the immensity of Christ's body. He holds that if the body of
Christ be not actually placed before us, there is no real com
munion. We, on the contrary, maintain that no extent of space
interferes with the boundless energy of the Spirit, which transfuses
life into us from the flesh of Christ. And here we detest the dis
honesty of those who invidiously disseminate among the people
that we take away the presence of Christ from the Supper, and
measure the power of God by our own sense. As if the sublimity
of this mystery, viz., that Christ, though remaining in heaven as
to the locality of his body, yet descends to us by the secret agency
of his Spirit, so as to unite us with him and make us partakers of
his life — did not transcend the reach of human intellect, or as if the
power of God were less magnificently extolled by him who teaches
that life flows into us from the flesh of Christ, than by him who
brings his flessh out of heaven to enable it to give us life. These
points I now merely allude to, as you will find them more fully
and copiously expounded in their proper place.
Not to detain you longer from the perusal of the work, I will now

250 second DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
advert to the third article. He thinks it unlawful to inquire into
what Jesus Christ meant when he said, that the bread is his body,
the clearness ofthe terms precluding all exposition. Weagainappeal
to the familiar and well known usage of Scripture, which, whenever
the sacraraents are treated of, transfers the name of the thing signi
fied to the sign. Exaraples of this occur not once or twice, but
araong those skilled in Scripture its frequency raakes it to be re
garded as the coramon rule. Still, we do not feed the eyes of be
lievers with an erapty figure, since we distinctly declare that what
the Lord testifies he really performs. We only insist on the dis
tinction, that an analogy is drawn between the sign and the visible
action and the spiritual reality. For to what end does Christ hold
forth a pledge of his flesh and blood under earthly elements unless
it be to raise us upwards ? If they are helps to our weakness, no
man will ever attain to the reality, but he who thus assisted .shall
climb, as it were, step by step from earth to heaven. Those, there
fore, who deny that the body of Christ is represented to us under
the symbol of bread, not only pervert the whole order of Christ,
but deprive the Spirit of God of his wonted mode of speech. West
phal attributes the name of body to the bread. But where is the
modesty of being so extravagant in doing this, as to keep crying
that interpretation must be regarded as the height of sacrilege ?
We thought it right thus to point, as with the finger, to the
sources of the whole controversy, to make it plain that a dissen
sion which ought to have been extinct is again kindled, more frora
proud disdain in the opposite party than frora any just cause. If
you fear a laraentable and fatal result, (and there is cert.ai niy ground
to fear it,) I beseech you by the sacred name of Christ and the
bond of our unity in hira, that you earnestly endeavour to find a
reraedy. Whatever be the method of conciliation offered, I declare
that I will not only be disposed but eager to embrace it.
On your part, also, it may be expected from your piety and
humanity that you will rather assist one whom you know to bestow
all his studies and labours for the edification of the Church in the
best faith, and with results not to be repented of, than allow him fo
be trampled upon by the insolent caprice of an intractable indivi
dual. But why do I speak of myself personally ? Tou raust
rather take into account the holy union of so many Churches which
that man is labouring to destroy. Whatever he may babble to
the contrary, it is certain that this concert in faith, after the miser
able scattering of the Papacy, was not of man's dcvisino-.

IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 251
In regard to the one God and his true and legitimate worship,
the corruption of human nature, free salvation, the mode of obtain
ing justification, the office and power of Christ, repentance and its
exercises, faith which, relying on the promises of the gospel, gives
us assurance of salvation, prayer to God, and other leading articles,
the same doctrine is preached by both. We call on one God the
Father, trusting to the sarae Mediator ; the same Spirit of adoption
is the earnest of our future inheritance. Christ has reconciled us
all by the same sacrifice. In that righteousness which he has pur
chased for us, our minds are at peace, and we glory in the sarae
head. It is strange if Christ, whora we preach as our peace, and
who, removing the ground of disagreement, appeased to us our
Father in heaven, do not also cause us mutually to cultivate bro
therly peace on earth. What shall I say of our having to fight
daily under the same banner against Antichrist and his tyranny,
against the foul corruptions of the Christian religion, against im
pious superstitions, and the profanation of all that is sacred. To
disregard these many pledges of sacred unity, and this concert
which has visibly been sanctioned by heaven, and plot disunion
among those who are fighting in the same service, is a not less cruel
than impious laceration of the members of Christ. This it were
most unjust in you to favour or countenance in any way. Farewell,
respected brethren. May the Lord defend you and govern you by
his Spirit, and bless you more and more.
Geneva, 5th January 1556.

252 SECOND DEFENCE OF TIIE SACRAMENTS,

SECOND DEFENCE

PIOUS AND ORTHODOX FAITH CONCERNING TIIE SACRAMENTS,

IN A\swi:ii TO

THE CALUMNIES OF .JOACHIM WESTPHAL.

How un-\villingly I am again dragged into this contest,
which from the first till now I endeavoured to shun, I deem
it unnecessary to declare in many words. For all who
have read my writings must be aware of my moderation in
handling a subject which in our day had excited bitter
contests among pious and learned men. In this respect at
least I cannot have given serious offence. For though I have
not framed my method of teaching with a view to the favour
of men, yet as I have always candidly and sincerely made
profession according to the genuine convictions of my mind,
it was of a kind which ought to have had the eifect rather
of appeasing men's minds than of increasing strife. The
fervour of contention to whicii I have alluded had in some
measure calmed down, and writings composed in a placid
spirit were beginning to give a purer exposition of the sub
ject. I feel proud to think that while the disputants were
thus drawing nearer to each other, their consent, though
not yet full and complete, was considerably helped forward
by me.
For when on beginning to emerge from the darkness of Pa
pacy, and after receiving a slight taste of sound doctrine, I read
in Luther that Zuinglius and QEcolompadius left nothing in the
sacraments but bare and empty figures, I confess I took such
a dislike for their writings that I long refrained from reading

IN ANSWER TO TUE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 253
them. Moreover, before I engaged in writing, the ministers
of Marpurg having held a conference together, had laid
aside somewhat of their former vehemence, so that if the
atmosphere was not altogether clear, the denser mists had
to a considerable extent disappeared. What I justly claim
for myself is, that I never by employing an ambiguous
mode of expression captiously brought forward any thing
different from my real sentiment. After I thus made my
appearance without disguise, none of thc dissentients then
in highest fame and authority gave any sign of offence.
For I was afterwards brought into familiar intercourse with
the leading advocates and keenest defenders of Luther's
opinions, and they all vied in showing me friendship. Nay,
what opinion Luther himself formed of me, after he had in
spected my writings, can be proved by competent witnesses.
One will serve me for many — Philip Melancthon.
It happened afterwards unfortunately that Luther, kindled
by the very bellows by which the quiet of the Church is now
disturbed, was in private again flaming against the Zurichers.
For although the vehemence of his nature sometimes carried
him farther than was meet, he never would have hurried
spontaneously into the old strife had not excessive ardour
been supplied by pestiferous torches. To myself, as to very
many other worshippers of God and ministers of Christ, it
gave no little grief that the wounds were thus opened afresh.
I did, however, the only thing that was left for me, I lamented
in my o-wn breast in silence. Meanwhile, lest any semblance
of dissension might rend the churches in these quarters, or
a suspicion might arise that diverse opinions were here and
there entertained, and as some were muttering that there
was not a proper agreement between myself and the excel
lent men and faithful ministers of Christ, the teachers of
the Church of Zurich, it was thought well on both sides that
a testimony of our mutual agreement should be published.
We accordingly drew up a brief summary of the doctrine in
controversy, to remain as a simple and perspicuous confession
of our faith.
Who can call this fuel for a new conflagration ? One Joa
chim Westphal started up, and as if it were an intolerable

25-1 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
crime to eflace all remembrance of offences, in order that
there might be no hidden rancour among brethren, shouting
to arms, threw every thing into confusion. Let his farrago
be read, and the reader will find that the thing purposed by
him was not so much to impugn the doctrine comprehended in
our formula of Agreement as agreement itself Is the name
of peace so odious to a preacher of the gospel that he can
not bear to see a remedy for abolishing discord attempted?
While he touches slightly on doctrine, the main thing urged
by him is, that agreement shall not be entertained. Accord
ingly where any repugnance in doctrine had formerly, ap
peared, he drags it out of darkness and turbulently holds it
up to view. If from error or oversight contradictory opinions
(as occasionally happens) had escaped from different writers,
why should they not be permitted on better consideration to
express their meaning more appropriately ? How malicious
is it not to be quiet ou any other condition than that innu
merable dissensions shall eveiywhere prevail ? And what
insane fury is it to force into unwilling conflict those who
not only agree among themselves but speak the same thing ?
Granting that in the heat of discussion a temperate mode
of expression was not always observed, it is now desired
that those in whom there was some diversity, should adopt
the same method of teaching. If the reason is asked, it is
because we wish to guard against troubling the ignorant and
¦weak, by presenting them with any semblance of contradic
tion. Will you, Westphal, as your passion leads you in a
different direction, force us to fight against our will to the
jjublic ruin ? But in the books formerly published, some
thing discordant is detected. This will afterwards be con
sidered in its own place ; but now what envy or malice in
stigates you to call for thunder from all quarters to rend
agreement? You say you must fight strenuously against
any conspiracy to establish an impious dogma. I admit,
that if any cover were used to cloak imposture, there would
be good cause for reclaiming. I would also readily admit,
that all means ought to be employed, to prevent any congeries
of errors from shrouding themselves under the pretext of con
cord. But when our simple and perspicuous Confession is

IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 255
brought forward, if it contains any thing false, it can be im
pugned with less trouble.
In every debate, nothing is more desired by honest and in
genuous raen, than to be able to confine themselves within
certain limits, to keep without ambiguity to one subject, and
be able in treating that one, to know, as it w^ere, where to
fix their foot. Why such a state of matters is displeasing
to Westphal, I see not, unless, that distrustful of his cause,
he has sought for plausibility in equivocation.
If the doctrine which we profess is false, let him, after
furnishing himself with the oracles of Scripture, strong argu
ment, and the consent of the Church, come forward as its
enemy and overthrow it. But now, declining fair fight, he
rides up and down in a tortuous course, crying that the here
tics are at variance among themselves. Were he persuaded
that he has a sufficient defence in the truth itself, how much
better would it be to come to close quarters at once, than to
continue his winding circuits ? I again repeat, that our
Confession, if it contains any error, is naked and open : why
does not Westphal make a direct attack upon it, but just in
order to obscure the clear light by smoke ?
I wished to call the reader^s attention to this, to let every
one see how strong a necessity has compelled me to the de
fence of our Agreement, which this hot-headed zealot, with
out any just cause to induce him, has attempted to overthrow.
And yet the excuse he now makes is, that he is undertak
ing the defence of himself and a good cause against my ac
cusation. Nay, to give his tract currency among the ill-in
formed, he has inserted this in the title. What if I rejoin,
(it is easy for me to do so, and the fact shows without my
saying it,) that my tract (which he absurdly slanders under
the name of an accusation) had no other aim than to dissi
pate his calumnies. He indeed complains vehemently, and
not without great obloquy to me, if there were any colour
for it, of my evil speaking ; but the only thing necessary to
refute this, is for the reader to judge from his intemperance
how mercifully I spared him.
Into my tract I confess that I put a sprinkling of salt. I
did so, because it grieved me that one who calls himself a

256 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
preacher of the gospel was so savourless. I now see that I
lost my labour in attempting to cure an incurable disease.
But where does he find my bitter and wanton invective ?
He is not ashamed falsely to assert, that all imaginable vitu
peration has been heaped by me into a few pages, when the
fact is, that I have there inserted without any contention
much more pure doctrine than he and those like him give
in large volumes. His reply is, at least, thrice as long as
my tract. How skilfully or learnedly he discourses in it, I
do not now say ; only let the reader collect all the calm doc
trine he can find, and it will scarcely amount to a tenth of
what is contained in my very brief compendium. With the
same modesty, one of his companions lately sporting in the
character of a dreamer, ventured to give out, among other fol
lies, that my Commentary on Genesis is filled with fierce in
vectives against Lutiier, though there, from respect to him, I
refrained more than a hundred times from mentioning his
name ; and if anywhere I do allude to him, there is so far
from any thing like contumely in my censure, that I am
confident all sound and pious readers will give me credit for
having treated him with no less honour than was due to an
illustrious servant of Christ.
The first charge by which Westphal endeavours to bring
me into odium is, that I have vented my rage against him
in all kinds of invective. I only ask my readers, first, to
consider what he deserved, and how much more severely it
was easy to have handled him, and then conclude how very
moderate I have been. But because he was, perhaps, afraid
lest if he himself only was hurt, he should find few to con
dole with a private grievance, he incites all his countrymen
to a common fight, as if I had brought a general charge of
drunkenness against all Germans. Were it so, I would not
even pardon myself But attend to the proof which he im
mediately after gives. He says, I bring this charge against
him once and again, as if he were given to drink, and could
not get drunk without boon companions. That he may not
here annoy himself for nothing, let him know that I made
no war on his cups ; let him know that I spoke of another
kind of drunkenness, namely, that which the prophet Isaiah

IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 257
says is not from wine. I wish, however, that he would not
plunge himself so deep into the mire, or rush headlong with
such violent impetus, as to make his jejune ebriety too no
torious to all.
With no less absurdity does he digress into the common
place, that he has the same lot with Christ and his apostles,
in being loaded, without cause, with falsehoods and re
proaches. His writings testify that his lungs are as large
and strong in venting these, as his complaints declare that
his stomach is delicate in bearing and digesting them.
What has most grievously wounded him, it is not difiScult to
perceive. I had reminded him, that if he were conscious of
his own ignorance, he would not behave so confidently. No
thing, certainly, was farther from my intention than to inflict
so sharp a wound. Now, by ever and anon repeating in a rage
that he is held to be unlearned, he betrays where the sore lies.
To let you understand, Westphal, that I did not previously
make it my endeavour to find out something that might sting
you, and that even now I have no pleasure in your pain, I
shall cease henceforth to call you unlearned ; only do you
in your turn show yourself to be a candid and upright man.
But though you should, after your fashion, give full vent to
your unbridled license of evil speaking, I will not contend with
you in reproaches. Were it true, however, that I chid you
harshly, in order to repress your audacity, you are wrong in
thinking or pretending that I employed the cunning artifice
of trying to overwhelm you by my invectives, and compel
you to be quiet : as if I did not know what a fine rhetorician
you are, as far as evil speaking goes, and what copiousness
of such material flows in upon you.
But while by your mode of dealing, if I glance at you
in a single word, I am a scold, and you lay yourself under
no restraint as to lacerating me, how shall I be able to
manage my pen ? The best and shortest course to follow
will be to speak simply of the subject. The prudent reader
will observe, that whenever I was compelled to address you
in strong language, I never went beyond grave and serious
admonition. You, inflated by what spirit I know not, seem,
until you have sent forth your foam from full cheeks, to
VOL. IL R

258 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
have your stomach charged with some kind of oppressive
load. The more strange it is, that you, with the greatest
confidence, repudiate a vice whieh notoriously exists in you,
in its ugliest form, as if you -were perfectly free from it.
But that there may be no suspicion of my making a fic
titious charge, I must again briefly remind the reader, how
ingenuous you are in accusing me of petulance. You pro
duce, as a memorable specimen of it, that I employed the
sharpness of my tongue against the name of Luther. In
what does this sharpness consist? You answer, that I charged
him with being fickle, vehement, and contentious. Why in
two of these epithets you choose to lie, I know not ; I never
called him fickle and contentious. If you take it ill that
his vehemence in this cause was remarked, contend that at
mid-day the sun does not shine.
How eagerly Westphal runs away from his subject into
commonplaces, and as musty rhetoricians do wander away
into declamation, is sufficiently clear from this, that in order
not to seem to trust in numbers, he invents the empty fic
tion, that I boast of immense hosts whicii I threaten to lead
forth from all corners. He accordingly adds, that I, trust
ing to this great force, despise his unwarlike crowd. Were
Eck or Cochlseus to vent such silliness, I would with less
regret hold it up to the derision of boys ; but now when a
professor of the gospel prostitutes himself so flagitiously, my
readers must pardon me, if I am moderate in my refutation,
because the disgraceful spectacle both shames and pains me.
I see, however, what it is. Having nothing like Athanasius
but the fewness of his adherents, he has seized on this mark
of resemblance to make himself orthodox.
I had said that while the learned and right-hearted were
quiet, a few unlearned individuals were disturbing the
Church by their clamour. I hoped that thus admonished,
they would cease from their turbulence ; their fewness being
an indication of their folly. Here, indeed, we do not simply
contend about number. But while I show that raany whom
he boasts to be of his opinion, though in every way rauch
more competent and better instructed, yet remain silent and
cultivate peace with us, if there was a grain of modesty in

IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 269
Westphal, he would throw away the spear, leave off conflict,
and return to his post.
Again, I had added, that if he was so desirous to raaintain
the proper nature of the sacraments, that was no reason
why he should raake a rush at us, because the sacraments
are not only mentioned by us in the most honourable terms,
but should any one say that they are empty figures, many
of us are prepared strenuously to refute his error. Let the
reader look at my words, and it will appear how sillily the
declaimer here seeks for adventitious colouring. That he
may not be thought inferior in numbers, he hesitates not to
drag into his faction those persons in France and Italy who
have embraced the pure doctrine of the gospel, but are
withheld by fear alone from freely professing it.
Here, though I fain would, I cannot be silent, lest by per
fidious dissiraulation I should seera, knowingly and willingly,
to suppress the confession made by Christ's holy martyrs.
Since you are so stupid, Westphal, as to count for nothing
that sacred blood by which the truth of our profession has
been sealed, know that when about fifteen years ago one
hundred or even more in France offered themselves to the
most terrific death with no less alacrity than you sit spout
ing at your ease, there was not one who did not subscribe with
us. Go now and set a higher price on your ink than on
their hlood.
More than two years ago, five persons were burnt at
Lyons on one day, and that nothing might be wanting to
the cruelty of the torture, they were consuraed bya slow fire.
Shortly after these, others followed in the sarae city, and two
in neighbouring towns. Four months have not yet elapsed
since at Chambery (a city not one day's journey from this)
five were burnt together on one day. How skilfully they
acquitted theraselves in discussion is attested by documents
written by their own hand, and I doubt not of equal authen
ticity with public records. Undoubtedly any one who reads
them will not only acknowledge that they talked moderately
and wisely of the leading articles of the faith, but also ad
mire their erudition, that none may say they were misled
by ignorance or the fervour of rash zeal : and so intrepid

260 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
was the constancy which shone forth in their serene looks
till their last breath, that even the wretched Papists were
amazed. Their confession declared what all the godly under
the tyranny of Antichrist everywhere believe. Henceforth,
therefore, never pretend that they are your supporters.
They all with one consent repudiate your doctrine, and with
silent wishes abominate the intemperance of yourself and
your companions. This hot-headed man forces me to go
farther than I would. I take heaven and earth to witness
that I speak of a fact well ascertained. Where cruelty has
hitherto raged against numerous martyrs of Christ, the fire
in which they were consumed was heated as it were by blasts
from the mouths of those men whose greatest piety consists
in vociferating against the Sacramentarians.
As Westphal was debating with a Frenchman, he has
produced one of my countrymen to cover me with odium.
He says that we have revived the heresy of Berengarius.
If you hold him to be a heretic, why do you not take up your
banner and go over to the camp of the Pope ? It is not in
deed of much consequence where you settle, as you insinuate
yourself among the band of Antichrist. An hundred and
fourteen horned bishops, with Pope Nicolas for president, force
Berengarius to recant. You, without hesitation, give your
assent to their tyranny, as if they had justly condemned a
heresy. And what was the confession extorted frora the
unhappy man ? (De Conse. Distinct. 2 cap. Ego Berengarius.)
That after consecration, the true body and blood of Christ
is sensibly and in truth handled and broken by the hands
of the priests, and chewed by the teeth of the faithful. Such,
verbatim, are the terms of the forra of recantation dictated
by the Council.
If Westphal cannot be appeased unless we confess that
Christ is sensibly chewed by the teeth, were not an hundred
deaths to be chosen sooner than implicate ourselves in such
monstrous sacrilege? The Canonists themselves were so
rauch ashamed of it, that they confessed there was a greater
heresy in the words, unless they referred to the species of
bread and wine, than in saying that the bread and wine are
bare signs. See why our Westphal behoved to borrow the

IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 261
name of Berengarius to fill us with disraay. It is not
strange that the new satellites of the Pope, who are ever and
anon venting mere anathemas at us, lay hold at hazard of
weapons from his tyrannical forge. This, no doubt, is the
humanity with which these good fellow-soldiers hold me up to
view, while I daily stand in the line of battle exposed to the
first strokes of the enemy. It is not enough for Joachim to
whet their rage against me by virulent calumnies. Tramp
ling me under foot, because I presume freely to rebuke him,
he brings a charge against me of extreme petulance, while
regardless of the bad words which he sends forth, he acquits
himself of the same charge — no doubt because any thing is
lawful against a heretic. But as the only ground of his rage
is, that the truth of my doctrine and faith is proof against
his teeth, what weight does he hope to give to such a
futile calumny?
If under this pretext he is so eager to obtain full license
for his talk, let him openly symbolize with the Papists, with
whom heretic is only another narae for enemy of the Roman
See. As to his declaring so disdainfully that we have been
condemned by the Churches, when looked to more closely it
comes, like his other sayings, to nothing ; unless indeed he is
to arm himself with the Council of Trent as a shield of Ajax,
or confine the Churches of Christ to his corapanions who boil
with the same impetuosity. For I always except grave and
right-hearted teachers who, mingled with them, not only keep
themselves calm, but though differing somewhat with us,
decline not brotherly fellowship ; because agreeing with us
in the main, they willingly cherish and cultivate peace with
us, and are most anxious for reconcilement among the
Churches. Of their wish in this respect, should an occasion
offer, I think they will give no obscure proof Westphal,
with all his iraportunity, will not prevail so far as to gain
either their suffrage or assent to the accursed schisra at
which he aims, so far are they frora giving their sanction to
his wicked league to vex us by hostility. Nay, while he
opposes to us all who subscribe the Confession of Augsburg,
readers cannot soon fail to discover that this is mere pretence.
Put the question to whoever may be the ablest defender of
that Confession, and I doubt not he will answer that the peace

262 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
is disturbed under evil auspices. This desire to maintain
peace is not disguised by persons who deserve to have some
what more authority in Saxony than an hundred Westphals.
When he enumerates the reasons which induced him to
write, he says he was very anxious to defend his good name,
lest the ministry he discharges should fall into contempt,
and the credit of his writings be diminished. If a good
name is dear to you, what evil genius impelled you to pro
stitute it, when by your silence you raight have kept it safe
and entire ? You have brought infaray upon yourself, which
will not be so easily effaced, and you will increase it until you
desist from your hateful love of quarrelling. I repeat, you
could not have consulted better for yourself at first, and can
not even now, than by holding your peace. As to your
anxiety lest the credit of your writing be lost, estimate from
your feeling with regard to one, how rauch raore grievously
all the pious must be tortured when they see you making
violent efforts to impair the credit of the valuable writings
of so many great and excellent men.
Hold that I am not one of those whose credit you have
attempted to impair. But while all see it to be your pur
pose completely to destroy the reputation of (Ecolompadius,
Zuinglius, Bucer, Peter Martyr, Bullinger, John a Lascus, do
you think there is any pious and impartial man in the world
who does not feel indignant at your malicious detraction ?
What flattering applause your books receive from your own
herd, I know not ; what do you yourself think of them ?
You will not say that injustice is done you if I give the pre
ference over you to every one of those whom I have men
tioned. And yet if your foolish self-love so blinds you, that
you are desirous to be higher in honour than those whom
you follow far behind in learning, we who are not bound to
you by any law, must pay greater regard to the public good.
The raention of books which you repeatedly introduce,
implies that you scribble sometiraes. Whatever it be, were
it to perish the loss of the Church would be less than that
of any one of the raany books, all of which it was in your
mind to destroy. Hence, even on your own showing, I have
a good defence for interposing my credit and labour to pre
vent you from robbing the Church of her noble riches.

IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 263
He divides his book into four chapters. First, he under
takes to refute my assertion, that we were wickedly and
ignorantly traduced by him as contradicting each other in
our writings ; secondly, he undertakes to refute my assertion,
that we were unjustly censured by him, as leaving nothing
but empty symbols in the Lord's Supper ; thirdly, he as
sumes that he is not exciting discord while opposing the
authors of disturbance ; fourthly, he promises to reply to the
charges made against hira.
In the outset of the first part he charges me with proving
our agreement from certain synonymous terms, as figure,
sign, symbol : and he wonders that I do not gather as much
out of the syllables. But what if here children can detect
him iu manifest falsehood. It never came into ray raind to
bring forward this affinity of words in proof of our agree
ment. But as he himself had calumniously attacked those
words, nay, had said that we had proved ourselves to be
heretics by this mark of contradiction, I simply laughed at
the man's folly as it deserved. Now, however, as if he had
escaped, he boasts that he makes a much more liberal con
cession, viz., that we agree not only in a few vocables, but
in things and sentences. And to appear facetious, he says,
that as they agree among themselves, he dignifies them all
with the commoii name of Sacramentarians. His quibble is
too gross to escape under this frivolous jactation.
He, with great asperity of language, traduced us as heretics
for differing among ourselves. The demonstration seemed to
him the very best. One calling the bread a symbol of the
Supper, another calling it a figure, another a sign, made our
disagreement most palpable ; and to give his sophistry a more
sho-wy appearance, he exhibited it in a table. What could
I do ? Was I to omit what is obvious to all before a word
is said, viz., that our agreement could not have been bettei-
proved ? I will go farther, and say, that when at any time
I would throw light on ray doctrine, I will seek an explana
tion in these words. Will he pretend that I speak contra
dictions, or am contrary to myself, because I study to inter
pret one thing more conveniently by several methods ?
Coming to close quarters, I will press him harder. All

264 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
who expound the words of Christ otherwise than according
to the letter, as it is called, he hesitates not to style Sacra
mentarians. I am pleased with the terms : for in this way
Augustine is brought into our ranks. He wrote, in answer
to Faustus, that our Lord said, " This is my body," when
he was giving a sign of his body. Seeing he expounds the
words of Christ figuratively, he will no doubt be regarded as
a Sacramentarian. He elsewhere says, that on account of
their resemblance to the thing signified, the sacrament of
the body and blood are called the body and blood. Is not
this, according to Westphal, an abominable rending of the
words of Christ? He elsewhere writes, that our Lord, in
the Supper, committed and delivered the figure of his body
and blood to the disciples. Will he find two of us who differ
more from each other than Augustine does from himself?
It is vain, therefore, for Westphal to deny that he played
the fool when he held up an example of dreadful dissension
in the use of terms almost synonymous.
He denies the soundness of an argument drawn a par-
ticulari, as if we were agreed in every thing, because we
think and speak alike in some things. I deny that I ever
so argued : as it was sufiicient to have simply refuted his
absurd delirium, that we were proved manifest heretics by a
single mark of disagreement, viz., one using the term figure,
another sign, another symbol. If he produce nothing more,
I conclude that there is no disagreement. As if he were
afraid that his impudence might not be visible enough, he
pursues the same idea at greater length, introducing me
as speaking thus : " I write rautual agreeraents with the
Zurichers ; our opinion is one ; we give our rautual labour :
at no time, therefore, was there ever any discrepancy araong
the Sacramentarians." The whole of this, while it is a
naughty fiction, iramediately involves hira in another false
hood, viz., that he neither indicates persons nor time, but
speaks indefinitely of our differences. Trifler, where, then,
is that farrago extracted frora our books, with the narae of
each writer designated ?
He utters a fouler falsehood against us, which it is right
should fall back on its author's pate. Mixing us up with the

IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 265
Anabaptists, Davidians, and almost all other fanatics,he forms
them into one sect, like a hydra, because they all profess the
dograa of Zuinglius. I will not say, what is amply attested by
public documents, that none have been more strenuous than
we in opposing sects, whether those he names, or any others
that have sprung up in our age. But by what bands does
he bind us all up into one bundle ? Is it enough to say,
in one word, that all are involved in one and the same error ?
Need I call angels to witness, when the very devils expose the
dishonesty of Westphal ? If sectaries be inquired after, it
will be found that they approach nearer to himself Ser
vetus, who was both an Anabaptist and the worst of heretics,
agreed entirely with Westphal ; and on this article of doc
trine annoyed (Ecolompadius and Zuinglius with his writ
ings, just as if he had hired himself out to Westphal.
The former method not having succeeded, he attempts to
show our contradictions by another : and he preraises, that
as the sarae thing was attempted by Luther, it is lawful also
for him. But whatever be the example under which he
cloaks hiraself, we raust look at the thing. The atterapt to
throw darkness on the subject by an imagination of Carlo-
stadt, as it is evidently far-fetched, I labour not to refute.
Although I know not whence he took his other interpreta
tions, nothing can be more vile than such calumnies as these,
that the context and the order of our Saviour's words are
unbecomingly and -violently wrested, because some one under
stands that the body of Christ is spiritual food, and another
transposes it thus — This, which is delivered for you, is ray
body. What absurdity is there, pray, in a spiritual feast
preceding, in order, a sacrifice of death ?
But as these frivolous reasons also fail hira, he has re
course, after his fashion, to fables, and relates that a preacher
of approved faith wrote to hira, that in Friesland the words
of Christ are mutilated ; for when the bread is held forth,
the minister supplies these words : " Eat, believe, and call to
mind that the body of our Lord, offered on the cross, is a
true sacrifice for your sins." A great crime, no doubt, to
celebrate the raemory of Christ's death in the holy Supper.
If the minister, in the very act of distribution, calls upon

266 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
the people to meditate on the benefit of Christ's death, is
the ordinance of Christ therefore passed by ? Nay, since
Westphal elsewhere contends that two things are distinctly
enjoined us — to eat the body, and cultivate the memory of
the death of Christ— why does he lash our brethren of Fries
land merely for obeying the divine command ?
He next proceeds to say that this scheme originated with
Suenckfeldius, who ordered the words, " This is my body," to
be kept out of sight : as if we had any thing in common with
Suenckfeldius, or had to pay the penalty of his raving. Nay,
where is the fairness, that after we, while these little fathers
were asleep, diligently exerted ourselves in opposing the
errors of Suenckfeldius, they, who bore no part in the labour,
should suddenly awake and hurl at us every thing odious
which they find in our adversary ? Of the same nature is
his subsequent remark — that feeling offended because our
deceptions are put to shame by the clear words of Christ,
we throw them aside with contempt, and murmur that we
are objected to for only three words once spoken. Should
I here complain that odium is wickedly thrown upon me
by an invented slander, he will forthwith rejoin that he
speaks indefinitely. But where is the candour of bringing a
charge of blasphemy against an indefinite number of persons
without mentioning one of them as its author ? We do not
pay so little reverence to the words of our heavenly Master
as not to regard it as sufficient authority that any thing has
been once spoken by him. And to make it more apparent
that we have no need of such quibbles, I retort, that the
Ark of the Covenant is more than forty times called the pre
sence of God, and yet in no other sense than that in which the
bread is called the body. You see, that so far from shunning
the light, we hesitate not to throw ourselves right in your way,
with this for our shield— that in Scripture the name of God
is everywhere transferred to the visible symbol of the pre
sence of God. On this subject we have to treat raore fully.
The contradictions againstwhich he thundered being not yet
apparent, he begins to weave his web anew, saying, that the
words are violently wrested to different meanings, which are
not at all consistent with each other. And he again invidiously

IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 267
brings forward the gloss of Carlostadt, which all of us long
ago distinctly repudiated. Afterwards, to deceive the eyes
of the siraple by a semblance of repugnance, he says that
this absurd fiction is rejected by me : as if it were a tragi
cal crime to throw off obloquy falsely cast upon us. What
would you have, you quarrelsome man ? I have said that
Carlostadt improperly interpreted the words of Christ. In
this you agree with me. How, then, can you concoct a
charge out of a repugnance which is common to me with
yourself ?
He next attacks our venerable brother, John a Lascus, for
saying that the whole action is denoted by the demonstrative
pronoun : as if it were not easy to defend this by the suf
frage of Luther. According to Luther, the bread, exclusive
of its use in the Supper, is nothing but bread, and, therefore,
the pointing out of the material is included within the limits
of the action. Shall the same doctrine, then, be regarded as
an oracle in the raouth of Luther, and be stigmatized as
heresy if it corae from any other quarter ?
In the fourth place, he inveighs against (Ecolompadius,
who understands the pronoun which, in the words of Christ,
not relatively but causally: as if it were unlawful for an
interpreter to explain in a simpler manner what otherwise
gives unnecessary trouble. (Ecolompadius said that the
body of Christ is not offered to believers to be eaten, inas
much as it was once offered to expiate sins ; in other words,
to acquaint us that the previous parts are attributed to the
sacrifice. Westphal now asks what will becorae of Matthew
and Mark, by whom the relative pronoun is not added, as if
that brevity was to take away the principal thing in the
use of the Supper.
Paul, before exhorting us to feast, tells us that Christ our
passover is sacrificed. I confess, indeed, that in that pas
sage he is not treating of the Supper ; but as the reason is
the same, why should Westphal fall foul of a holy raan for
having wisely remarked this quality, without which the
utility of the Supper is lost to us ? This, forsooth, is the
reason why, with inflated lungs, he exclaims — " In what
colour will the Sacramentarians paint, with what gloss will

268 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
they cover the manifest repugnance ?" I answer, that no
man is so blind as not to see through your dreams. ^
As he sees that he has not yet gained what he wished, or
at least not performed what he had professed, he heaps
together certain mutilated expressions, and says — that the
bread of the Supper is at one time called by us flesh ; at
another time, the figure of the body ; at another, the pas
sion ; at another, the death ; at another, the memorial of
the passion ; at another, faith ; at another, the vigour ; at
another, the virtue of Christ ; at another, the merits ; at
another, the quality of the body ; at another, the action and
form of the Supper : that it is likewise called the fellowship
of the Church ; the right of partaking the body of Clirist ;
the festival ; and many other things besides. What can you
make of this man, who, given over to a reprobate mind, sees
not that he is venting things which render his malice uni
versally detestable ? The brief and simple answer to all
this is, that by different modes of speech, without any repug
nance, a description is given of the end for which the bread
is called body.
I agree with him, that the question chiefly relates to the
raeaning of the words of Christ — this is my body. I also
agree with him, that in this controversy the thing asked is
not what this or that man dreams, and that consciences are
not satisfied by the fictions of men, but by showing them
the clear and indubitable truth. When he requires some
certain definition explaining wherein faith consists, I object
not. Let this then be shown to us by these strict or rather
morose censors, who disdain all interpretation.
They urge the literal sense, that the bread is truly and
naturally the body of Christ. But when they in their turn
are urged to say whether the body is properly bread, they
temper their previous inflexible rigidity, and say that the
body is given under the bread or with the bread. And
certainly did they not concede this, the cup, of whatever
material fabricated, would be the blood of Christ. There
fore, while they allow themselves to say that the body of
Christ is contained by the bread as wine by a goblet, how
comes it that a desire to discover a convenient interpreta-

IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 269
tion SO stirs up their bile ? When he says that in the words
a uniform style is observed by Paul, what can he gain by
the puerile falsehood? It is superfluous to observe how
much wider the difference is between blood and covenant in
blood, than between sign and symbol. But Westphal, who
is delighted with uniformity in blood and covenant in blood,
shows what a peculiar taste he has, by nauseating the dis
agreement between sign and symbol. Now, however, he be
gins to speak raore cautiously, affirraing that he blaraes differ
ence not in words, but things and opinions. I, however,
feeling confident that readers of sense see clearly how he
distorts, mutilates, and obscures various raodes of expres
sion, which tend to demonstrate the use and end of the
Supper, no longer dwell upon it.
He adds, that overcome by the clear truth, I acknowledge
a contrariety in the things. But in what terms ? Just be
cause I said, that one party, while they discuss an obscure
and intricate question, although they do not differ in fact,
present an appearance of difference. Here is candour
worthy of a divine — candour which among profane rhetori
cians would not escape being stigmatized as vile and frigid
quibbling. When he afterwards says, jestingly, that each of
them was inspired by a prophetical spirit when they first
entered on this subject, I. leave him to enjoy his pertness
sooner than take up my tirae in refuting it. When he next
asserts, that I look about for another evasion when I bring
forward what was only observed in passing, and seize upon
it as if it were a fuU explanation, it is obvious that he does
not quote, simply because he is aware that he would make
himself doubly ridiculous. Is there any evasion, when, if
you believe him, I have imprudently submitted the thing to
the view of all ? Who does not see his raalignity in mutilat
ing sentences ? To omit the examples to which I lately re
ferred, whom can he persuade that what was said of the
fellowship of the Church was intended for a full definition,
as if there were no other fellowship (tcoivavia) of the body
of Christ ? And yet in the tangled forest of our discord he
finds nothing more plausible than that Koiveovia is inter
preted by some, the right of fellowship which has been given

270 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
US in the body of Christ, and by others, the mystical fellow
ship of the Church. Were I to carp in this way at the ex
pressions of ancient writers, a far more serious difference
would be found among them. But my mind has no love for
it, and my will abhors to raake ill-natured and illiberal at
tacks on every one whora he drags into his party.
Meanwhile, how dexterously and honestly he araplifies
the charge, thinking it would be productive of odium,
the reader must be briefiy inforraed. His words are : As
often as they take up the passage in Paul, the Sacraraenta-
rians make the utmost efforts to corrupt his words. And he
inserts on the margin to draw attention. What, according
to Sacramentarians, is the Koivccvia of the body of Christ.
What ? Ought he not at least to have excepted those who
speak differently? Let him turn over ray Commentaries, where
he will find not an intricate but a genuine interpretation,
which, let him do his utmost to the contrary, he will be forced
to receive. Nor do I affirm this of myself alone, for well-
informed readers are not ignorant that this passage has
been lucidly and fully handled by others whom he defames,
raaking it plain, that under an insatiable lust for quarrelling,
he is too eager in his hunt after endless materials for strife.
Certainly, when calling upon me by name, he ought not to
have forgotten what I have written on that passage.
My words are : It is true that believers are associated by
the blood of Christ so as to become one body ; it is true,
also, that this kind of unity is properly called Koivavta. I
say the same thing of the bread. I hear also what Paul
adds, as if by way of explanation, that we who coraraunicate
in the same bread are all made one body. And whence, I
ask, is that Koivwvta between us, but just that we are toge
ther raade one -«'ith Christ, under the condition that we are
flesh of his flesh and bones of his bones ? For to be incor
porated, so to speak, in Christ, we must first be made one
amongst ourselves. Add that Paul is now discoursing not
only of mutual communion among men, but of the spiritual
union of Christ and believers, in order thence to infer that
it is intolerable sacrilege for them to be mingled with idols.
From the whole connection of the passage, therefore, we raay

IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 271
infer that Koi,vcovi,a of the blood is the fellowship which we
have with the blood of Christ when he ingrafts us altogether
into his body, that he may live in us and we in him. I
admit that the mode of expression is figurative, provided
only that the reality of the figure be not taken away ; in
other words, provided the thing itself also be present, and
the soul receive the communion of the blood not less than
the mouth receives the wine.
After raging at will, he at length, in a short clause, admits
that the definition given by our people is not bad, when they
call it a disting-uished memorial of purchased rederaption,
but says that it explains only the half of it, not the whole :
as if heaven and earth were to be confounded whenever a
complete definition is not given. He allows us to use the
expression, that the unity of the Church is represented by
symbols ; but if ever he observes that any of our people has
so spoken, he gets into a passion, as if the body of Christ
were according to us nothing but the fellowship of the
Church, although they all with one consent declare that the
whole body is joined together by the head ; in other words,
that believers are formed into one body in no other way
than by being united with Christ. When he denies abso
lutely that the name body can be applied to the raystical
body of the Church, let hira settle the matter with Paul, who
has ventured so to apply it.
From my having charged Westphal with senselessness for
having first condemned all tropes, and then found it impos
sible to disentangle hiraself without a trope, he beseeches
all his readers to attend and see what a grievous fault I have
committed. And not contented with simple objurgation, he
asks at himself. What fury drives rae on to presume to launch
such a calumny at him ? Let the reader then attend and
see with what dexterity he wards off my javeline. I said,
I admit that there was as much consistency in the deliriums
of a frantic person, as in the two things, viz., saying that
the words of Christ are clear and need no interpretation,
and then admitting a trope, which, however, does not pre
vent the bread from being properly the body of Christ. He
answers, that he has indefinitely opposed a true trope, which

272 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
the nature of the passage rendered necessary to a false trope.
As if I had lain in wait to catch him at fault in a single
word, and had not rather made his gross error palpable.
He keeps ever crying that all are heretics who, in attempt
ing to explain the words of Clirist, differ from each other.
He cannot get off without giving his own exposition, and
yet he differs from us. What then follows, but just that he
must be classed among heretics ? If the body of Christ is
given in the bread, and through the bread, and is received
with the bread, it is clear that the bread is figuratively
called the body, as containing the body in it, but is not
naturally and properly that which it is said to be. I am
aware how doggedly he sometimes insists on the words,
maintaining that a clearer sentence is not to be found in
Scripture. But when he comes to the point, he, along with
his masters, admits of this exposition — that the body of
Christ is contained under the bread, is held forth in the
bread, and is received with the bread. For what could be
more monstrous than to deny that the bread is a symbol
of the body, and not distinguish the earthly sign from its
heavenly mystery ? The words cannot be taken in an ab
solutely literal sense without holding that the bread is con
verted into the body, so that the visible bread is the invisible
body ; without holding, in short, that the two propositions
are equally literal — Christ is the beloved Son of God, and
the bread is the body of Christ.
But there is no need to discuss the raatter as if there were
any doubt about it, when nothing is raore comraon or raore
generally received among thera than that the body of Christ
is given under the bread. The Papists could better evade
the necessity of a trope by their transubstantiation. How
can he, who acknowledges that the bread and the body are
different things, get rid of a figure in the words. This is my
body ? What ? When the cup is called blood, are they not
forward to explain that the thing containing is taken from
the thing contained ? I am not therefore playing the heroics
in trifles when I say, I care not with whora it is that
this frantic man, who so beautifully mauls himself, con
tends. This it was absolutely necessary to say, if I would

IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 273
not knowingly betray the cause. Let him learn henceforth
not to trifle so in a serious matter.
I again freely repeat, that unless he can show that his trope
is sanctioned by public consent, he, out of his own raouth,
stands conderaned of heresy, having boldly pronounced all
without exception to be heretics who, in explaining the words
of Christ, adrait a figure. He artfully gets off by upbraid
ing me with wishing to appear facetious. See, Joachim,
which of the two is fonder of facetiousness — I who, without
any affectation, used that expression which was naturally
suggested by the circurastances, or you who, without any
wit, go far to seek your frigid buffoonery ? But your triuraph,
that your trope was sanctioned by Christ and his Apostles,
is not chanted by you before victory ; for you cease not to ap
plaud yourself for having already vanquished rae and laid rae
prostrate. Y'our boast is, that you agree with Christ — a sure
and invincible argument, if the fact is conceded to you. But
on what principle do you assurae it to be more in accordance
with the words of Christ, to hold that the bread is called the
body, because the body is given with it, than because it is a
visible syrabol of the body, and a syrabol conjoined with its
reality ?
As you allege that Scripture is not tied down to the laws
of logicians or grammarians, whieh we willingly grant you,
I will ask, with what conscience, or even with what face, you,
in the same page, charge us with contradiction, because in
the words of Christ some of us say there is a synecdoche,
others a metaphor, others a metonymy ; for if all these
figures are alike respectful, every man should be left to his
freedom. But as Joachim concludes, that though our people
agree in defending their doctrine, and there is some con
sonance in their words, they yet write contradictorily, I, in
my tum, am at liberty to conclude from clear demonstration,
that he acts neither honestly nor ingenuously, when, from an
insatiable love of contention, he, for the purpose of making
out a difference, fastens upon things which could very easily
be reconciled, wrests much in a calumnious spirit from its
true meaning, and converts every slight variation into a se
rious disagreement : that in endeavouring as far as he can
VOL. II. s

274 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
to darken and mystify our Agreement, in which all differ
ences are buried, he is the enemy of peace and concord :
and that it is mere impudence which makes hira bring into
the arena of conflict men who have explained this article of
doctrine in the sarae words with greater consent than has
hitherto been done by any out of the herd of those whom
he opposes to us as enemies.
I come now to the second part, in which he endeavours
to clear himself from the charge of having uttered a ca
lumny, in saying that we leave nothing in the sacraments
but empty signs. Here there is an opportunity of seeing
how stupidly obstinate he is. We uniformly testify in our
writings, that the sacraments which the Lord has left us as
seals and testimonies of his grace, differ widely from empty
figures. Our Agreement distinctly declares, that the Lord,
who is true, performs inwardly by his Spirit that which the
sacraments figure to the eye, and that when we distinguish
between tlie signs and the thing signified, we do not disjoin
the reality from the signs. This view is followed out more
clearly and fully in ray Defence.
The substance, however, is, that Christ is truly offered to
us by the sacraraents, in order that being raade partakers of
him, we may obtain possession of all his blessings ; in short,
in order that he may live in us and we in him. Does not
he who, on the other hand, keeps crying out that we con
vert thera into empty signs, plainly reduce Christ and all
his virtue to nothing ? For if Christ is any thing, and any
value is set on his spiritual riches, the pledge by which he
communicates himself to us must not be called empty and
void. Should I now rejoin, as I am perfectly entitled to
do, that Christ is nothing at all to Westphal, he would com
plain of grievous injustice being done him. And not to
waste more words in debate, let him simply tell rae, if he
contends that signs which carry with them the true fruition
of Christ are empty, what value he puts upon Christ ? If a
complete fulness of spiritual blessings does not make the
signs to contain something real and solid, is not the virtue
of the Holy Spirit, according to him, evanescent ? What
impostures can he employ so as to prevent this execrable

IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 275
blasphemy frora becoming instantly apparent ? His attempt
to obscure the light, by covering it over, is mere childishness.
He says that tropes have been discovered even in the word
is and the term body, in order to prove the absence of Christ.
But according to us, the bread means body in such a sense,
that it effectually and in reality invites us to communion
with Christ. For we say that the reality which the promise
contains is there exhibited, and that the effect is annexed
to the external symbol. The trope, therefore, by no means
makes void the sign, but rather shows how it is not void.
No more does the absence of a local body make void the
sign, because Christ ceases not to offer himself to be en
joyed by his faithful followers, though he descend not to the
earth. In vain does he endeavour to find a subterfuge in ray ac
knowledgment, that (Ecolompadius and Zuinglius, at the
commencement of the dispute, from being too intent on re
futing superstition, did not speak of the sacraments in suffi
ciently honourable terms, and discourse of their effect, and
that the churches were now to be distinctly informed how
far, and in what things agreement has been made. We
stated the matter articulately, in order that no part of the
controversy might be omitted. A clearer and fuller expo
sition was added afterwards. What else then is this but to
reraain blind in light, which even the blind may see ? Will
he here again tell me that I have a two-edged sword ;
that if he produces clear passages, I accuse hira of uttering
contradictions ; and if he omits them, charge him with
perfidy ? I was perfectly entitled to charge him with per
fidy, for having laid hold of mutilated passages, to make
them the ground of a calumnious charge ; and I showed at
the same time, that his absurdity could not be better estab
lished than by the passages which he had quoted, and
which would remove every ground of suspicion.
In one place he takes away the half of a sentence, and
picks a quarrel with us as to the other half I refer my
readers to the book ; an inspection of it detects and proves
the malice of Joachim. While the passages produced by
him clear us from his calumnies, why should I disguise that

276 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
in other jiassages he is at war with himself? There is
no reason, therefore, why he should upbraid me with having
a two-edged sword, seeing he cuts his wretched self in two,
and furnishes rae with two swords whose edge he would fain
have taken off by his blunt dilemma. Assuredly though no
blow should be struck by me, he is proved to have been every
way a calumniator, when seeking to bring groundless obloquy
upon us, he alleged that we left nothing in the sacraments
but bare and empty signs.
If he has any thing in common with Luther, he thinks he
has in his authority a complete exculpation from the charge.
He says then, that Luther wrote that all who refuse to be
lieve that the true and natural body of Christ is in the
sacred Supper, are ranked by him in the same place. Luther
was too imperious in this, not deigning to distinguish be
tween opinions most remote from each other, and confound
ing them contrary to their nature. This passage amply
proves that I did not speak rashly in saying that Luther,
inflamed by false informers, pleaded this matter too vehe
mently. Who does not see that he would have laid raore
restraint upon himself had he not been urged to this extra
vagance by a foreign impulse ? Westphal certainly pays little
honour to Luther, and would have others pay little, by deny
ing him the slight degree of judgment necessary to distin
guish between an empty and imaginary phantom, and a
spiritual partaking of Christ. We assert that in the sacred
Supper we are truly made partakers of Christ, so that bythe
sacred agency of the Spirit, he instils life into our souls from
his flesh. Thus the bread is not the empty picture of an absent
thing, but a true and faithful pledge of our union with Christ.
Some one will say, that the symbol of bread does not
shadow forth the body of Christ any otherwise than a life
less statue represents Hercules or Mercury. This fiction is
certainly not less remote from our doctrine than profane is
from sacred. Does not he, then, who, pulling us frora our
place, precipitates us into the same conderanation, destroy
the distinctions of things, as if by shutting his eyes he could
pluck the sun from the sky ?
Though I said that we comprehended in our Agreement

IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 277
what the Confession of Augsburg contains, there is no
ground for charging me with deceit ; for I subscribe to the
words which I there quoted. As to their meaning, since
Westphal is no competent judge, to whom can I better
appeal than to the author himself? If he declares that I
deviate in the smallest frora his idea, I will immediately
submit. The case is different with Luther. I have always
candidly declared what I felt wanting in his words, so far am
I from having bound myself to them. I care not for the great
delicacy of Westphal, who seems to think it an intolerable
affront to Luther to say, that in the dispute he was carried
beyond just bounds. He asks. Do you call the servant of
God contentious ? I do not ; but as it happens even to the
raost moderate men to exceed the proper limit in debate, if
I deplore this in Luther, whose vehemence is known to all,
there is nothing strange in it. Westphal is sorry without
cause, that I attempted a fallacious reconciliation between
Luther and Zuinglius, when I wished to bury their un
happy conflicts. Granting that their views were repugnant,
what forbids us, warned by their example, both to weigh the
matter in calm temper and deliver the sound doctrine in a
more temperate style ? Westphal, who will not hear of this,
only gives readers of sense a proof of his sour rigidity.
He infers that if I still continue in the belief which I
professed about twenty years ago, there is nothing I less
believe than that the body of Christ is given substantially
in the Supper. Though I confess that our souls are truly
fed by the substance of Christ's flesh, I certainly do this
day, not less than formerly, repudiate the substantial pre
sence which Westphal imagines : for though the flesh of
Christ gives us life, it does not follow that his substance raust
be transferred into us. This fiction of transfusion being
taken out of the way, it never carae into my raind to raise a
debate about the term substance. Nor will I ever hesitate
to acknowledge that, by the secret virtue of the Holy Spirit,
life is infused into us from the substance of his flesh, which
not without reason is called heavenly food.
In constantly affirming this, my simplicity was always too
great for your calumnies to have the least effect in obscur-

27s SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
ing its light or destroying its credit. I said that the body
of Christ is exhibited in the Supper effectually, not naturally,
— in respect of virtue, not in respect of substance. In this
last term I referred to a local infusion of substance. At the
same time, however, I said that Christ does not coramunicate
his blessings to us except in so far as he is himself ours.
In this doctrine I still persist, and therefore Westphal is no
less ignorant than unjust in coraparing me to an eel. What
does he find dubious or equivocating in the doctrine, that the
body of Christ is truly spiritual food, by whose substance
our souls are fed and live, and that this is fulfilled to us in
the Supper not less really than it is figured by the external
symbols ? Only let no one falsely imagine that the body is
as it were brought down from heaven and inclosed in the
bread. This exception offends Westphal, and he exclaims
that I am an eel which cannot be held by the tail.
He says that I was more guarded in my Commentaries,
and tempered my colours so that some, though not stupid
or obtuse, could scarcely divine what I meant. As to ray
desire, this much I sacredly declare, that while I most re
ligiously endeavoured to deliver divine truth purely and
sincerely, it was no less my care to express myself in a man
ner distinguished by its simplicity and perspicuity. What
I gained by my diligence is declared by the books them
selves, which he pretends to have been more acceptable from
my seeming to be of the same sentiraents with his party ;
whereas now since the Agreement has brought me forth
from my lurking-places into the light, they have fallen into
disrepute. What favour my Commentaries acquired with
Westphal and his fellows, and what the Agreement has cost
them, I know not. But what if it can be properly shown
that every article which he censures in the Agreement was
taken from my Commentaries, or stands there in almost as
many words ? Whence this new alienation ? What he aims
at no man is so dull as not to scent. Indeed, in another
place he does not disguise that he is airaing with his fellows
to exterminate my books in all quarters. With what fair
ness, let themselves see ; since it is not probable that they
were acceptable to pious readers without being fit and useful

IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 279
for the edification of the Church. I believe that honest
raen, and men of sound judgment who have experienced this,
will not be so fastidious, as for one article to deprive them
selves of the benefit of manifold instruction.
How beautifully consistent he is, let the reader judge
from two of his sentences. He says, that in writing my
Defence I had again recourse to subterfuges, that I might
walk about incognito, co'^ered by a cloud ; while, in the next
page, he declares it unnecessary to furnish proofs to convict
me of holding different sentiments, because the Defence
alone supplies them in abundance. Where, then, is the
cloud in which I wished to be shrouded ? He says, that I
am not so concealed by my disguises as not to betray rayself
Had I been atterapting any thing fraudulent, a slight de
gree of caution might have enabled me to be on ray guard.
But the reader will find that nothing has been ray greater
care than, in absence of all ambiguity, to deliver distinctly
what I daily profess and teach in the Church, and what God
is my best witness and judge that I sincerely believe. West
phal having divided whatever he deemed deserving of cen
sure, or at least wished to carp at, into nine heads, I will
follow the same order.
First, Because I say, that Christ dwelling in us raises us
to himself, and transfuses the life-giving vigour of his flesh
into us, just as we are invigorated by the vital warmth of
the rays of the sun ; and again, that Christ, while remaining
in heaven, descends to us by his virtue, he charges me with
overturning the faith of the (Uhurch, as if I were denying
that Christ gives us his body. But when I say that Christ
descends to us by his virtue, I deny that I am substituting
soraething different, which is to have the effect of abolishing
the gift of the body, for I am simply explaining the raode
in which it is given. He rejoins, that I am deceiving by
using the term body in an arabiguous sense. But I thought
I had sufficiently obviated such cavils by so often repeating,
that it was the true and natural body which was offered on
the cross. From what forge the fiction of a twofold body
proceeded, I know not : this I know, that I hold it detest
able impiety to imagine Christ with two bodies. I know,

280 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
indeed, that the mortal body which Christ once assumed is
now endued with new qualities of celestial glory, which,
however, do not prevent it from being in substance the same
body. I say, then, that by that body which hung on the
cross our souls are invigorated with spiritual life, just as our
bodies are nourished by earthly bread. But as distance of
place seems to be an obstacle, preventing the virtue of Christ's
flesh from reaching us, I explain the difficulty by saying, that
Christ, without changing place, descends to us by his virtue.
Is it to use subterfuge, when I simply define the mode of
that eating which others mystify by a perplexed mode of
teaching it ?
Westphal insists that thc body of Christ is given in the
Supper to be eaten, and thinks it impious to inquire into
the mode. Should any one object that, according to Peter,
Christ is contained in heaven until he appear to judge the
world, he does not admit the clear evidence of Scripture. I
again, leaving Christ in his heavenly seat, am contented
to be fed with his flesh by the secret influence of his
Spirit. Which of the two is it that sports in tortuous
courses ? But when I inculcate that the reality is conjoined
with the signs, I mean the virtue of the sacraraent, not the
substance of the flesh. Granting it to be so, still it will
not be a bare sign if it is not devoid of virtue and effect.
But from what does he infer, that I take away the substance
of the flesh ? Just because I say, that so far as spiritual
effect goes, we become partakers of the body of Christ not
less truly than we eat bread. For he infers that I manifestly
deny the presence of the substance of the body, if the body
is only exhibited, inasmuch as its spiritual virtue is exerted
on believers.
If he is contending for a local presence, I assuredly confess
that I abhor that gross fiction. For I hold that Christ is
not present in the Supper in any other way than this — be
cause the minds of believers (this being an heavenly act) are
raised by faith above the world, and Christ, by the agency of
his Spirit, removing the obstacle which distance of space
might occasion, conjoins us with his members. Westphal
objects that the merits or benefits of Christ are not his body.

IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 281
But why does he maliciously extenuate the force of an
expression by -n'hich I highly extol our coraraunion with
Christ ? For I not only say that his raerits are applied, but
that our souls receive nourishraent from the very body of
Christ in the same way as the body eats earthly bread. In
adding the proviso, " as far as spiritual effect goes," my
object is to prevent any one from dreaming that Christ can
not be offered to us in the Supper without being locally en
closed. He is offended at my opposing a real to an imagin
ary communion. What more, then, does he ask ? That I
should oppose it to one in figure. This I might easily grant,
provided he would not deny what ought to be known to all
pious men as one of the first elements of the faith — that the
bread is a sign or figure of the body. Provided there is agree
ment as to this, I now again confirm what I have hitherto
professed, that as the thing itself is present, a bare figure is
not to be imagined. That Bucer, of blessed memory, took
the same view, I can easily prove by clear evidence.
Though I have classed among opinions to be rejected the
idea that the body of Christ is really and substantially pre
sent in the Supper, this is not at all repugnant to a true and
real communion, which consists in our ascent to heaven, and
requires no other descent in Christ than that of spiritual
grace. It is not necessary for him to move his body from
its place in order to infuse his vivifying virtue into us.
Wishing to point out the difference between the two modes
of presence, he calls the former physical, and stammers as to
the other, merely saying that the presence of the body is
asserted by his party. But a division is vicious when the
members coincide with each other. Westphal insists on the
presence of the flesh of Christ in the Supper : we do not
deny it, provided he will rise upwards with us by faith.
But if he means, that Christ is placed there in a corporeal
manner, let him seek other supporters.
We do not shelter ourselves under the ambiguity of the
term physical, for we object no less decidedly to a fictitious
ubiquity than to a mathematical circumscription under the
bread. Westphal will deny that he imagines a physical
presence of Christ, because he does not include the body

282 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
lineally under the bread. I rejoin, that he does no less erro
neously when assigning an iraraense body to Christ, he con
tends that it is present wherever the Supper is celebrated.
For to say that the body which the Son of God once as
suraed, and which, after being once crucified, he raised to
heavenly glory, is aroiro^, (without place,) is indeed very
aroTTo?, (absurd.) What he afterwards triflingly says about
a spiritual body, he falsely and without colour applies to
us. Let him with his band dream as they will of a spiritual
body, whicii has no affinity with a real body, I deem it un
lawful to think or speak of any other body than that which
was offered on the cross to expiate the sins of the world, and
has been received into heaven. If Westphal cannot, without
indignation, hear of that body as spiritual nourishment, who
can labour to appease him ? He says, that it is fallaciously
opposed to the presence and reception of a true body. I
rejoin, that if he is not craftily glossing the matter, he is
under a gross delusion, as the controversy with us is not as
to reception, but only the mode of reception.
He conceives that there is no bodily presence if the body
lurk not everywhere diffused under the bread ; and if be
lievers do not swallow the body, he thinks that they are de
nied the eating of it. We teach that Christ is to be sought
by faith, that he may raanifest his presence ; and the mode
of eating which we hold is, that by the gift of his Spirit he
transfuses into us the vivifying influence of his flesh. This
is not to bring down the mysteries of faith to carnal sense, or
measure them by natural reason, as Westphal falsely pretends,
but is to make the sacred ordinance of the Supper conform
able to the rule of faith. Westphal objects, that whatever is
done according to the word of God and faith is done spiritually,
without considering that the word of God itself prescribes to
us how we are to behave in regard to spiritual ordinances.
Of old thc fathers were commanded to prostrate them
selves before the ark of the covenant, and there worship God.
I ask, if it would have been sufficient to fasten upon the
mere word, and pay no regard to the kind of worship. Gross
and brutish men, as a pretext for superstition, might easily
have alleged, that as they were obeying the precept of the

IN ANSWER TO THB CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 283
law, they were worshipping God spiritually. But the ser
vants of God were prepared with the answer, that they, by
blindly and absurdly wresting the word of God, were feeling
and acting carnally. Wherefore if Westphal would prove him
self spiritual, let him cease to insist on his own sense, with
which, when a man is fascinated, he will never come to the
proper end. Whom can he persuade that we treat the holy
Supper carnally, by wresting the Scriptures contrary to the
word and to faith ? I confess, if it were conceded to him
that the bread is the body of Christ, but not a symbol, all err
from the faith who say that the body is represented under
the symbol of bread. But in order to wrest the word from
us, he wildly tears up the first elements of piety. He says,
that all we preach about spiritual eating, goes to aggravate
our crime, because, according to him, it shamefully sports
with Christ's little ones. Our exposition is, that the flesh of
Christ is spiritually eaten by us, because he vivifies our souls
in the very manner in -which our bodies are invigorated by
food : only we exclude a transfusion of substance. Accord
ing to Westphal, the flesh of Christ is not vivifying unless
its substance is devoured. Our crime then is, that we do
not open our arms to the embrace of such a monster.
His SECOND HEAD is. That the presence and taking of the
body and blood, is made by me to consist in the spiritual
fruition of Christ, so that eating the flesh and drinking the
blood is nothing else than believing in Christ. And yet
my writings everywhere proclaim, that eating differs from
faith, inasrauch as it is an effect of faith. I did not begin
only three days ago, to say that we eat Christ by believing,
because being raade truly partakers of hira, we grow up into
one body, and have a common life with him. Years have now
elapsed since I began, and have never ceased to repeat this.
How base then was it in Westphal, while ray words distinctly
declare that eating is something else than believing, irapu-
dently to obtrude, what I strenuously deny, upon his readers,
as if it had been actually uttered by me ? The reason, no
doubt, is, that in his eagerness to misrepresent me, he would
rather be detected in falsehood than not do something to
excite prejudice against me. This vile fiction he cloaks by

284 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
saying, that according to me the body of Christ is eaten by
us in the present day in no other raanner than it anciently
was by the Fathers, as all communicate with Christ and en
joy him. Therefore, according to me, to eat the flesh of
Christ is nothing else than to believe. Perhaps he thinks
that fruition and communion are to go for nothing.
Desiring to throw obloquy upon me, he now, with the
sarae sincerity, substitutes looking in the room of fruition,
as if I taught that Christ is eaten in no other way than when
faith looks to him as having died for us. Why should I now
atterapt to refute this calumny, from which an hundred pas
sages in my books are my vindicators ? But since Westphal
more than acquits me in the same page, I will not go farther
for my defence : for he quotes my words, that the spiritual
mode of communion consists in our really enjoying Christ ;
that the bread is a symbol of Christ's body ; so that those
who receive the sign by the mouth, and the promise by faith,
are truly raade partakers of Christ. Does he, by these
words, prove it to be my doctrine, that the fruition of Christ
is nothing else than the look of faith ? Here, then, the reader
perceives by what glosses he obscures my doctrine, or rather,
how he raanifests his own impurity, and employs it in foully
bespattering the clearest truth.
Of the same nature is his next assertion, that if my words
are taken, to eat the body of Christ is equivalent to receiving
the promise by faith. But how dare he so prostitute him
self? Taking himself as witness, I distinctly affirm, that
those who receive the promise by faith, become truly par
takers of Christ, and are fed by his flesh. Therefore, the
eating of Christ is something else than the receiving of the
promise, if indeed he admits that the cause differs from its
effect. For who will not infer from my words, that it is the
incomparable fruit of faith to make the flesh of Christ spi
ritual aliment to us ? Lest any one should think that the pro
mise by which the body of Christ is offered to us is without
efficacy, I deny that any -vvho receive the promise by faith
go away from the Supper empty and void, for they truly
enjoy Christ who was once offered. How will he invert the
thing, so as to make readers who have eyes believe that I

IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 285
deny what I distinctly affirm ? When he imputes it to me
as a crirae, that I teach that nothing is received by the
mouth but the sign, I ara so far from refusing to take it so,
that I am willing that the whole controversy shall be de
cided on these terms. The ground of Westphal's quarrel
with me is revealed and laid open by this one word ; for he
acknowledges none as brethren but those w^ho come with
raouth and stomach to devour Christ. I deny not, indeed,
that those who exclude the substance of vivifying flesh and
blood from the communion, defraud themselves of the use of
the Supper. I only object, that things devised by Westphal's
own brain are made a ground of charge against us. For al
though we bring not down the substance of Christ's body
from heaven to give us life, yet we are far from excluding
it from the Supper, as we testify that from it life flows
into us.
His THIRD HEAD is. That I deny the true presence of the
body and blood when I infer the absence of Christ in respect
of body. My readers will pardon rae for being forced to go over
the same ground so often in refuting the prattle of this man.
How distance of place does not prevent Christ from being
present with his people in the Supper, I formerly considered.
The principle I always hold is, that in order to gain possession
of Christ, he raust be sought in heaven, not only that we
may not have any earthly imagination concerning him, but
because the body in which the Redeemer appeared to the
world, and which he once offered in sacrifice, must now be
contained in heaven, as Peter declares. I acknowledge,
however, that by the virtue of his Spirit and his own divine
essence, he not only fills heaven and earth, but also rairacu
lously unites us with himself in one body, so that that flesh,
although it remain in heaven, is our food. Thus I teach
that Christ, though absent in body, is nevertheless not only
present with us by his divine energy, which is everywhere
diffused, but also makes his flesh give life to us. For see
ing he penetrates to us by the secret influence of his Spirit,
it is not necessary, as we have elsewhere said, that he should
descend bodily.
Westphal here exclaims that I am opposing the presence

286 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
of the Spirit to the presence of the flesh ; but any one not
blinded by malevolence sees that the sarae passage makes it
clearly evident how far I do so. For I do not simply teach
that Christ dwells in us by his Spirit, but that he so raises
us to himself as to transfuse the vivifying vigour of his flesh
into us. Does not this asssert a species of presence, viz., that
our souls draw life from the flesh of Christ, although, in
regard to space, it is far distant from us ? Westphal cannot
bear to hear it said that Christ, while wholly remaining in
heaven, descends to us by his virtue. His reason is, that
the Church believes that wherever the Supper is celebrated
his body is present. Provided he hold the mode of presence
which I explained, I object not to this view. But if he in
sists on bringing Christ down from heaven, as Numa Pom-
pilius did his Jupiter, he is the Church to himself When
he admits that Christ is not now conversant on the earth as
he was in the time of his public ministry, what does it imply
but just that he supposes him still to dwell on earth, though
invisibly ? Wlien Scripture speaks of the ascension of Christ,
it declares, at the same time, that he will corae again. If
he now occupies the whole world in respect of his body, what
else was his ascension, and what will his descent be, but a
fallacious and empty show ? If he is so near us in respect
of body, was it not absurd that the heavens should be opened
to let Stephen see him sitting in his glory ?
I know how they are wont to quibble, that by the term
heaven nothing raore is meant than his boundless glory.
But if he was expressly taken up from the earth, and a cloud
was interposed, in order that pious minds might rise up
wards, it is absurd to introduce an invisible habitation,
which, preventing the ascent of faith, causes us to rest on
the earth. Westphal must therefore have done with his pre
tended judgment of the Church, making it a deviation from
sound faith not to admit that Christ is bodily present in the
Supper. No man will place such an one as he on the throne
of judgment, and thereby eject Augustine from the Church.
For Augustine clearly affirms with us, (in Joann. Tract. 60,)
that " Christ, in respect of the presence of his majesty, is
always present with believers, but that in respect of the

IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL, 287
presence of his flesh, it was rightly said to the disciples, ' Me
ye have not always.' " And lest the term flesh should be
captiously laid hold of as a subterfuge, he more fully ex
plains it to be his meaning that Christ has taken his cruci
fied body to heaven, and therefore it does not continue with
us. Westphal, on the otlier hand, objects that we separate
the Church, the Word, and the Sacraments, from the Spirit
of Christ dweUing in us. Let him then quit the Church,
whose faith he professes in my words. He has said, more
than an hundred times, that the Supper is the sacred bond
of our union with Christ. In defending our Agreement, I
openly maintain that Christ effectually uses this instrument,
in order to dwell in us. While Westphal borrows my words
to expound the faith of the Church, he at least gives me
some place in the Church. What new asylum, then, will he
seek for himself ? For who will consent to his fiction in
regard to a gross partaking of the body ? We, too, admit
as well as he, that Christ denies his Spirit to all who reject
the participation of his flesh. The only question between
us here is, whether or not the partaking of the Spirit is
carnal ?
In the FOURTH head, Westphal plainly lets out that he
acknowledges none but a camal presence of the flesh. Let
him have done, then, with those bad names which he em
ploys to darken the cause. At the outset I ara called a
Sacramentarian. I am said to defame those who hold that
the true flesh of Christ is distributed in the Supper : as if I
did not uniformly declare, in distinct terms, that nourish
ment from the true flesh of Christ is set before us in the
Supper. What, then, does he gain by employing the mists
of lies to darken the light which clearly removes all diffi
culty frora the case ? If any sincerely and distinctly teach
that the flesh of Christ is set before us to be eaten by us, I,
too, ara of the nuraber : I only explain the manner, viz.,
that Christ overcomes the distance of space by employing
the agency of his Spirit to inspire life into us from his flesh.
Which of the two speaks and thinks more honourably of
Christ — I, who surmount all irapediraents by faith, or West
phal, to whom the flesh of Christ gives no life, if it he not

288 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
introduced into his mouth and stomach ? There is nothing
to perplex in my statement. If he insists that the flesh
of Christ is distributed, I assent ; and when the question
relates to the raode, I set it before the eye, while he involves
it in ambiguity. If my readers bear this in mind, Westphal
will henceforth gain nothing by falsely pretending that our
quarrel is about the partaking of the flesh of Christ. He
could not say this through ignorance, after being so carefully
warned by me. Merely to make the ignorant think he was
gaining a victorj', he, without any reverence or modesty, has
tried to darken what is clear as day.
Equally paltry is the figment he subjoins, that we do not
think the real body can be given to us unless we see and handle
the flesh and the bones. Nay, rather, instead of dragging
the body down from heaven, we believe that it is given to
us so as to nourish and invigorate our souls unto spiritual
life. Thus, when he introduces his objection, that we, in
explaining the mode, measure the mystery of the Supper by
geometrical reasons, it is obvious and easy to answer, that it
is clear, on his own showing, that we rather hang on the lips
of Christ, since he is perpetually crying that we wrest our
Saviour's words. Handle and see : a Spirit has not flesh
and bones. What are we to think of the body of Christ, but
just -what he himself says of it ? We do not call in the aid of
Euclid to assist us, but acquiesce in the declaration of the
Son of God, from whom we can best learn what the nature
of his body is. Westphal, feeling it impossible to twist this
in any way, has recourse to a most perverse fiction, viz., that
Christ spoke thus to prove the truth of his resurrection, hut
that the object of the Supper is different. My answer is,
that though the Lord instituted the Supper for a different
purpose, yet his declaration concerning the nature of his
body always remains true.
To take off the apparent absurdity of teaching that the
body is everywhere invisibly present — the very body which
we know to have been enclosed in the Virgin's womb, sus
pended on the cross, and laid in the sepulchre — they tell us,
that the immensity of which they speak is competent to a
heavenly and glorious body. Our answer is obvious, that

IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 289
the body was glorious at the time when our Saviour gave it
to the disciples to be felt and seen. This answer is certainly
relevant, and there is therefore no ground for what Westphal
trumpets forth with regard to a conflict between theology
and philosophy. For it" is not philosophy that dictates to us
either that human flesh is endued with spiritual virtue, so
as to give life to our souls, or that this life breathes from
heaven, or that we gain effectual possession of the sarae life
under the external syrabol of bread. Nothing of this kind
lies within the reach of common sense, or can come forth
frora schools of philosophy. Hence it appears how careful
we are to extol the mystery of the Supper, as transcending
the reach of human intellect.
But Westphal introduces the Author of nature as speak
ing on the opposite side. And what does he saj' ? That he
gives his body. Let our antagonist himself then come forth
and overturn the belief of this promise which we reverently
embrace. For although our eyes see nothing but bread and
wine, yet by faith we apprehend the life which, emanating
from the flesh and blood of Christ, penetrates even to our
souls. He orders us by the mouth of Christ to answer,
whether credit is to be given to carnal reason or to the Son
of God ? I would rather perish an hundred times than put
one little word of Christ into the balance, and counterweigh
it by the whole body of philosophy, as Westphal demands.
We hold the authority of Christ not only sacred and com
plete in itself, (avroTna-Toi;,) but amply sufficient to subdue
all the wisdom of the world. The question to be decided is
very different. It is, whether credit is to be given to the
heavenly oracles which declare that we are to hope for a
resurrection which shall raake our raean and corruptible body
like unto the glorious body of Christ — that the Son of man
shall come on the clouds of heaven to judge the world — that
Je.sus of Nazareth, after ascending to heaven, will come in
like raanner as he was seen to ascend ?
Let Westphal say whether he thinks that anybody will be
immense at the last day. For when Paul asks us to form an
estimate of the power of Christ from the fact of his trans
forming our bodies into the same glory, either that power is
VOL. II. T

290 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
reduced to nothing, or we must believe that the body of
Christ is not raore immense now than ours will then be.
Our inference drawn from what Scripture says concerning
the ascent of Christ to heaven and his second advent, West
phal confidently derides, as if the body of Christ, wliich was
taken up to heaven in visible shape, for the sake of proving
the resurrection, had afterwards laid aside its form and di
mension. But the angels speak of its remaining in the
same state frora its ascension until the last day.
He ultimately tries to evade us by a silly quibble. He
says that our jihysical notion is at variance with Paul's,
when he declares that Christ ascended above all heavens.
What ? Do wc place Christ midway among the spheres ?
or do we build a cottage for him among the planets?
Heaven we regard as the magnificent palace of God, far
outstripping all this world's fabric. Westphal makes a great
talk about our making Christ dwell without having any lo
cality : as if we had not taken care to obviate this quibble.
Our reason for denying that Christ is concealed under the
bread is, not because he is not properly inclosed by place,
but because superior to all elements he dwells beyond the
•world. He rejoins, that it is not more contradictory of
physical ideas to hold that the body is iu several places, than
that it is contained by no place. I again repeat that we
have no dispute about physical ideas, but only contend for
tlie reality of the body as asserted by Scripture. Though
the body carried above the heavens is exempt from the
common order of nature, it does not however cease to be a
true body : though deprived of earthly qualities, it still
retains its proper substance. Unjustly, therefore, does West-
plial charge us with leaning more on the dictates of philo
sophy than on the word of God. I in my turn admonish him
to lay aside his petulance, and allow himself to be instructed
in the genuine meaning of the word of God. If he will not,
I must leave him and the phantom which he absurdly dis
covers in the words of Christ.
The FIFTH HEAD relates to the transfusion of substance,
where, after his manner, he begins with stating that I regard
the faith of the Church as a dream. I wonder why he had

IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 291
not at least learned from Luther, whom he always pretends
to be his master, to use the name of the Church more spar
ingly and modestly ; for I have never yet seen any Papist
use it raore wantonly and with more unbridled audacity.
I ask, not indignantly but on the strongest reason, whether
we ought to dream that the substance of Christ is transfused
into us and thereby defiled by our impurities ? This rare
orator, who without any colour talks of my rage, flames out
as if I were imputing my own dreams to him. I have no
wish to throw such grave suspicion either on him individually
or on his party ; ray purpose being rather to dispose of the
suspicion implied in his vague words. And I will now show
by my exaraple how rauch better it is civilly to embrace
what is rightly said, than, as he is .wont, to reject it disdain
fully and in the slump.
Laying aside contention, then, I willingly take what he
grants me, viz., that the flesh of Christ is neither transfused
into us, nor placed in the bread, nor conjoined with the
bread. As far as I am concemed, he shall hear no more of
those forms of expression, which he complains to have been
falsely devised by us to distort the contrary dogma. I wish
that the modesty and sobriety which he pretends were ajJiJa-
rent in their books, in which nothipg else is thought of than
the urging of their fiction, that the body of Christ is in the
bread. However, I make it perfectly free for Westi^hal to
give utterance to his convictions in whatever terms he
l^leases. He says, it is enough for him that the wisdom of
the Eternal Father declares, that the body is given, that the
body is actually present in the Supper ; but as to the mode
of presence, seeing it is incomprehensible, he does not in
quire. My sure and simple defence is, that to the giving of
the body, its presence is not at all requisite : for as I have
already explained, the obstacle arising from distance of space
is surmounted by the boundless energy of the Spirit. We
both acknowledge that the body is given ; but I hold that a
bodily presence is thence erroneously inferred. Still I deny
not that there is a mystery, surpassing human comprehen
sion, in the fact, that Christ in heaven feeds us on earth
with his flesh, provided he refuse not to obviate the absur-

292 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE S.\CRAMENTS,
dities which he carelessly passes by with his eyes shut
What can be more tyrannical than to urge the presence in
a single word, and then make it unlawful to inquire into it
farther ; to send forth monosyllables as edicts, and then en
slave every raind, as well as stop every mouth ?
Westphal says, that our talk about the mixture of Christ's
substance with our own is supposititious. Let him, therefore,
explain how the bread which is eaten by the mouth is the
body of Christ. Ho refuses, nay, pronounces wo on those
who presume to inquire. Such is his magisterial theology.
With the same imperiousness, he declares it to be my cus
tom to hold all as dreamers who believe that the true body
of Christ is given. If he allow us to discuss the matter ra
tionally with him, how will he prove the existence of a cus
tom which is nowhere to be found in my writings ? In an
other place, though he mentions my assertion, that the bread
of the Supper is not a bare figure, but is conjoined with its
reality and substance, he still contends that I deny all sub
stance in the Supper. In what sense he here uses the
term substance, I know not, and do not much care. Let
it suffice to remind my readers, that Christ is uniformly
called by me the substance of baptism and of the Supper.
And that there may be no room for misconception, I say
that two things are offered to us, viz., Christ and the gifts
which we receive from him. Thus, as the sacred Supper
consists of the earthly symbols of bread and wine, so Christ I
hold to be, as it were, the spiritual material whicii corresponds
to the symbols. But when we have grown into sacred union
with Christ, the fruit and utility of spiritual gifts flows from
this, that his blood washes us, the sacrifice of his death re
conciles us to God, his obedience produces righteousness and
all the benefits which the heavenly Father bestows by his
hands. While this distinction is clearly expressed in the Agree
raent, Westphal pretends that I transfer the name of sub
stance to the use and virtue of the flesh of Christ, abstract
ing the substance itself There is little modesty in this, un
less he can persuade others that that to Avhich I assign the
first place is reduced to nothing. Still I disguise not that

IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 293
my doctrine differs widely from his fiction of the present
substance of the body. It is one thing to say tliat the sub
stance of Christ is present in the bread to give life to us,
and another to say, that the flesh of Christ gives us life, be
cause life flows from its substance into our souls.
Under the sixth head he assails me for making the bread
and wine to be the body and blood of Christ in the same
sense that to the fathers of old the manna was spiritual food,
and the rock was Christ. But why is he angry at me rather
than at the Apostle ? Surely I was entitled to quote his
words. But he says the manna and the water -were only
figures. Let him settle the matter with St. Paul as he will :
it is enough for me to be wise according to the rule of the
Holy Spirit. Here, at least, he will not object a physical
meaning. In regard to the ordinance of the Supper, I dare
not form any conception that is not dictated from heaven.
Paul, com.paring the Jews with us, says, that they ate of the
same spiritual meat, and drank of the same spiritual drink.
Let Westphal now cry out that there is no obscurity in tho
words. This is my body. The interpretation of the Apostle
is far clearer in my support : for it does not tell us simply
that the manna was spiritual food to the fathers, but the
same as that which is given us in the Supper.
It cannot be denied that St. Paul there compares the two
sacraments. Unless Westphal holds Paul not to be a com
petent interpreter, he must admit that the comparison I have
raade is fairly drawn from it. But then the Son of God had
not yet become incarnate. Had he any candour he would
not conceal that this difficulty has been solved by me in my
Commentary, where I say that the mode in which the fathers
ate differed from ours in this, that the eating is now substan
tial, and could not be so then : Christ now feeding us with
the flesh sacrificed for us, that we may draw life from its sub
stance. As the Lamb is said to have been slain from the
foundation of the world, so raust the fathers under the law
have sought spiritual food firora the flesh and blood which,
in the present day, we enjoy raore abundantly not only from
the larger measure of revelation, but also because the flesh
once offered in sacrifice is daily set before us to be enjoyed.

294 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
Therefore, when Westphal concludes that we make the
figure equal to the reality, he only exposes the extent of his
malice, as he is perfectly aware of the different degrees hav
ing been observed by me.
How it came into his mind, that I leave nothing to the
ancient fathers but a shadow, I cannot conjecture. For
although we acknowledge that the whole of the adrainistra
tion of the law was shadowy, yet it is neither lawful nor
right to deny the fathers the reality of the signs which
they used. How much better does Augustine, who, distin
guishing the species of one symbol from the species of an
other, places Christ in the middle, as common to both. But
if the comparison of things dissimilar shows that we, neglect
ing the nature of Christ's ordinance and words, as Westphal
alleges, imagine a Supper that is devoid of his flesh and
blood, the same charge will fall upon the head of Paul, from
whom vfe derived tho view. Westphal tells us it was not
said of the manna. This is the body of Christ that is to corae,
nor of the water, Tliis is the blood of the new covenant. But
the answer is easy ; for he must either deny that there was
the same spiritual food under both signs, or admit that what
is said of the bread and cup is applicable in its own raeasure
to that legal sacraraent. For although Christ, by the sub
stance of the flesh in which he has been manifested, vivifies
us more fully than he did the fathers under the law, yet this
disparity does not prevent their being partakers in common
with us.
Let us see then what cause he has for here exulting so
proudly. As these inexorable raasters fix us down so closely
to words, I said that the bread is called the body and the wine
the blood, just as the manna is called Christ and a dove is
called the Spirit. We have a dispute as to the expression, our
adversaries seizing upon the letter and holding it fast. I pro
duce similar expressions which are the same in effect. If
Westphal now objects, that it was said of the bread. This is
my body, Why may not I in my turn object, that it was said
of the old sacrament, (the rock,) This is Christ, and of the
dove. This is the Holy Spirit ? Until he proves that the rule
of grammar is applicable to one passage only, and not to all

IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 295
others, he will not convince sound judges of raore than this,
that the bread is the body, just as the dove is stiled the
Holy Spirit.
Under the seventh head he resumes the web which he
began to weave under the fourth. The repetition will not
be disagreeable to rae, as it will raake more manifest to
the reader what the point is for which he is contending.
He alleges that I exhibit a Supper devoid of Christ, because
I shut up Christ in heaven, just as Zuinglius did, who insisted
that he was to be sought in heaven, and taught that he is
received into heaven until he shall appear in judgment. Our
good censor perceives not that the words he is lashing, as
if they had proceeded frora Zuinglius, were uttered by the
Apostle Peter. I omit, that because Zuinglius in explaining
his sentiment wrote, Nos volumus, the expression is taken up
and criticised, as if that faithful and strenuous teacher of
the Church were thereby subjecting Christ to his authority.
Trifler, if you know not that the word which Latin writers
use, simply to express their meaning, and that without any
feeling akin to haughtiness, is volo, where is your erudition
which you are so tortured with anxiety to maintain, as is-
visible from your book ? If you know, where is your integ
rity and candour ?
But to come to the point. If Westphal insists that Christ
is not to be sought in heaven, let him explain how, accord
ing to Peter, it is necessary that the heavens should receive
him. Shutting his eyes to the testimony of Peter, he di
verges into a coraraonplace, that he is not to be sought where
raen wish, but where he has promised that he will be present :
as if we were fighting him with our own or any huraan de
cisions, and not with the oracles of heaven. But Christ ex
hibits himself in the word and sacraments. This we deny
not : only let the nature of the exhibition be explained.
As Westphal here points to the promises, he must necessarily
admit that the presence of Christ is raanifested without the
use of the Supper as well as in the Supper. The promise of
Christ is, " I am with you always, even to the end of the
world ;" and again, " Where two or three are met together in
my name, there am I in the midst of them." He will say

296 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
that there is no mention of flesh and blood. What ? Is not
the whole and entire Christ, God manifest in the flesh ? I
hold, therefore, that there also Christ is in a certain sense
to be sought.
If we transfer the same thing to the Supper, Westphal
puts on his buskins, and getting into the heroics, exclaims,
that credit is refused to the words of Christ. Let us have
no doubt, says he, that the heaven and earth of God are in
the Sacraments, and that Christ is there certainly found.
As if it were not an expression of very frequent occurrence,
God sitteth between the cherubim. Hence it follows that
the holy fathers of old ought there also to have sought him.
And indeed when David exhorts them to seek his face, he
brings forward the ark of the covenant with the altar and
whole sanctuary. Nor in the present day, when bidding
pious minds rise up to heaven, do we turn them away from
Baptism and the holy Supper. Nay, rather, we carefully ad
monish them to take heed that they do not rush upon a
precipice, or lose themselves in vague speculations, if they
fail to climb up to heaven by those ladders whicii were not
without cause set up for us by God. We teach, therefore,
that if believers would find Christ in heaven, they raust begin
with the word and sacraraents. We turn their view to Bap
tism and the Supper, that in this way they may rise to the
full height of celestial glory. Thus Jacob called Bethel the
gate of heaven, because aided by vision he did not fix down
his mind upon the earth, but learned to penetrate by faith to
heaven. Let Westphal, then, cease to exclaim that it is a total
mistake to seek God in any other way than he has revealed.
This we teach with greater lustre than he can attain to.
Let him rather consider with himself what as yet he has not
at all apprehended, viz., that God from the first manifested
himself by visible symbols that he might gradually raise be
lievers to himself, and conduct them by earthly i-udiments to
spiritual knowledge. He is far wrong in thinking himself
free from all blame, because he preaches that Christ is pre
sent where his word and promise are. When the Jews,
abusing the word of God, sought him superstitiously in the

IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 297
temple. Scripture rebuked them as severely as if they had
gone beyond the limits of the word. It is true, indeed, that
Christ is present wherever his promise appears, (it being his
living image,) provided we follow where it leads. But
Westphal urges us beyond this, to fancy that Christ is pre
sent in the Supper in another way than he has expressed in
his word ; because we deny that he is present with his body
and blood, and are dissatisfied with a corporeal presence.
Hence also he infers that we have abandoned the true and
retain only a void and empty Supper.
It was easy for Westphal with his usual audacity to blurt
out something of this kind ; but who will give him any credit
until he has explained how Christ holds forth the bread in the
Supper, and yet invites believers upwards, in order to receive
his body? This we assert, not trusting to any philosophical
speculation, or to the fallacious pretext of any single word,
but to the whole doctrine of Scripture. Let this acknow
ledgment of ours be tested by the analogy of faith, and I
have no fear that it will be found to vary from it. If a cor
poreal presence, the product of a source by no means legiti
mate, displeases us, does it follow that we do not subscribe
to the express words of Christ ? The Son of God promises
to give his body, and we at once give full credit to his word.
And though carnal sense murmurs, and nature receives not
a sublirae raystery, wonderful even to angels, yet we firmly
believe that he, by his celestial energy, accomplishes what
the visible syrabol figures. Wliile we are thus perfectly at
one with our Master, Westphal comes between and raises
a disturbance, and, as if we were abolishing the holy Supper
by refusing to acknowledge that the bread is substantially
the body, declares that, on our view, he gives nothing, and
we receive nothing but bread. What ? If Christ grants his
body to unbelievers, whence this new austerity which denies
it to us ? He contends, that Christ is accused of falsehood if
Judas does not receive his flesh and blood equally as much
as Peter. Assume that we, from the small measure of our
faith, do not yet understand the miracle which these doctors
allege, what so great crirae do we commit that they thrust us
farther away than Judas ? Such, forsooth, is their reverence

21*8 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
for Christ that his sacred ordinance has no value for them,
unless it rest on their decision. If any filthy fornicator, per
jurer, poisoner, robber, any one guilty of atrocious wicked
ness, any half heathen, comes to the holy Supper, let him
bring to it his defilements of iniquity or superstition, these
men prostitute Christ's sacred body to him. To us, because
we do not consent to their mode of receiving, they leave no
thing but bread and wine.
Westphal also declares, with open mouth, that it can do
us no good to talk of spiritual eating, as if the single article
about the presence of the flesh were of more consequence
than a full and solid faith. In regard to the nature, virtue,
and all the benefits of Christ ; in regard to the two-fold
nature of Christ, his function and office, the efficacy both of
his deatli and resurrection, and his spiritual kingdom, he is
forced to admit that my faith is orthodox. He also denies
not that the end and use of the Supper is rightly explained
by me. All this he values not a straw, because of one little
doubt — our refusal to believe that the substance of the flesh
is swallowed by the mouth. He says that, as the two things
— Do this in remembrance of me, This is my body — are con
joined, we must believe both : it is of no use to believe the
one and disbelieve the other. To what end is this wordy
denunciation, while the only thing discussed is not the
authority of Christ, but only the meaning of the words ? I
long ago taught with sufficient copiousness that the com
mand and the promise are inseparable. Why then does this
declaimer perversely insist, that the form of expression in
the words of Christ is not sacramental, and does not at all
agree with the other passages of Scripture which treat of the
sacraments, and betray his absurdity and heartlessness by
calling us unbelievers ?
Under the eighth head he maintains, from the absurd
ities with which I charge the carnal presence, that it is per
fectly plain I have no belief at all in any real distribution of
the flesh of Christ in the Supper. My answer is, that it is
one thing to believe that the body of Christ is truly given
to us, and another, that his substance is placed under
the earthly elements. This assertion, therefore, as to true

IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 299
partaking, will not prevent rae frora showing the folly of
those who hold that they cannot be the raembers of Christ
in any other way than by having the body of Christ sub
stantially under the bread. But our Westphal, no doubt to
show how acute and provident a man he is, takes a short
raethod of saving himself frora all the annoyance of discussion,
by declaring it unlawful to touch on any absurdity in his idea.
His pretence is the clearness of the words. This is my body.
Are they clearer than innumerable passages which attribute
feet, hands, eyes, and ears to God ? Let some anthropomor-
phite now come forward, and perversely assert that God is
corporeal ; let him vociferate that there is nothing ambiguous
in the words — The eyes of the Lord have seen. The Lord has
lifted up his hand. The cry has gone up to the ears of the
Lord of hosts : raust we be overwhelmed by this series of
passages, hold our peace, and allow fanatics to convert spirit
into body ? It is surely just as tolerable to clothe God with
a body as to divest the body of Christ of its proper nature ;
and just as plausible to support that view by numerous pas
sages of Scripture. There is nothing more in the verbose
declaration of Westphal on this part of the subject than
there would be in the assertion of an anthropomorphite, that
all who deny God to be corporeal are disbelievers in Scrip
ture. He scolds us roundly for presuming to inquire how we are
to reconcile the passages of Scripture which declare that
Christ, by his ascension into heaven, has withdrawn his
bodily presence, so as no longer to dwell on the earth, and
that yet his body is truly offered to believers in the Supper.
To any one who gives due attention, and does not exclude
the entrance of true knowledge by obstinacy or morose
rigidity, the mode of reconciling the passages at once occurs,
viz., that Christ, by the incomprehensible agency of his
Spirit, perfectly unites things disjoined by space, and thus
feeds our souls with his flesh, though his flesh does not leave
heaven, and we keep creeping on the earth. Here Westphal,
seized by some kind of whirlwind, inveighs against us, deny
ing that we have faith in Christ if we allow ourselves to
inquire whether Christ is to be brought down from his

300 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
heavenly throne to be inclosed in a little bit of bread, or if we
object that the bread is not properly the body unless Christ
be made bread, just as rauch as he was made man. I admit
it to be impious curiously to scrutinize the raysteries of God,
which lie beyond the reach of our own reason ; but we must
prudently distinguish between different kinds of questions.
For in what labyrinth shall we not be involved if, without
taking care to avoid absurdity, we seize at random on every
thing that is said. All are aware of the allegory which the
ancient Fathers drew from its being required in clean
beasts that they should cleave the hoof They said, that in
the same way, if discretion did not guide our faith, -we
should, under a show of humility, allow ourselves to give
foolish and easy credence to the raost raonstrous drearas.
It remains, therefore, for the reader to examine what the
questions are which Westphal so bitterly denounces. At the
same time, I would have him observe how tyrannically silence
is imposed on us by men who stigmatize an investigation
which is absolutely necessary, calling it curiosity, the parent
of blasphemy. When he says that we have taken up a wrong
beginning, in refusing to believe the words of Christ, he
only betrays his excessive stupidity ; our diligence in inquiry
being rather the proper offspring of faith. When the people
of Capernaum regarded the words which fell from the lips
of Christ as fabulous, they asked, in scorn, how he could
give them his flesh to eat ? It was not more unbelief than
a gross imagination that impelled them thus to murmur. A
thing which their sense does not comprehend they judge
to be impossible. Why so ? Just because they foolishly
imagine that the flesh of Christ will not be food to them
without being eaten in the ordinary way. We, because we
reverently embrace the words of Christ, and are firmly per
suaded that Christ does not deceive us when he calls the
bread which he holds forth to us in the Supper his body,
inquire after a mode which may not be at variance with the
rule of faith. Westphal, therefore, in inveighing against
curious questions, cannot fix any stigma on us, who are evi
dently compelled clearly to explain what the nature of our
participation in the flesh and blood of Christ is, if we would

IN ANSAVER TO THE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 301
not, under the influence of a brutish stupor, confound heaven
with earth. When he says that the Arians fell into horrid
blasphemy by philosophically investigating the generation
of the Son of God, what resemblance has it, I ask, to any
thing we do ? Having resolved avowedly to detract from
the eternal essence of Christ, they endeavoured, by various
cavils, to evade whatever favoured an opposite view. We,
without any craft and without gloss, acknowledge that Christ
performs in the Supper what he figures, and explain that
the words contain a metonymy which occurs uniforraly in
all the passages of Scripture which relate to the sacraments.
We say that the sacraraental mode of expression is to trans
fer the name of the thing signified to the sign. We make
this plain, not by one passage or two, but prove, from the
uniform usage of Scripture, that all who are moderately vers
ant in it must regard this as a common axiom.
Were I disposed to amass heresies with that rashness with
which Westphal, who makes stupidity the director of our
faith, has introduced them, how much more copiously might
I be supplied ? But not to go farther, I hurl back his
Arians at him, and tell him, that the error by which they
overthrew the raajesty of Christ was the same as that by
which he rends his body, by extending it over heaven and
earth. Why did the Arians regard Christ as inferior to the
Father, but just because they disdainfully rejected the dis
tinction between the divine and the human nature ? Arm
ing themselves with the expression, " My Father is greater
than I," they maintained that blasphemous injustice was
done to the Supreme God by adraitting Christ to an equality
of rank. The reason assigned by holy Fathers would have
satisfied them if they would only have listened to the fact
that Christ was speaking in his character of Mediator. In
as far as the mere expression went, they had the advantage ;
but it was an expression which they had no right to misin
terpret and pervert to a vile purpose. If Westphal does not
yet recognise himself, the readers, at least, have a mirror in
which they can see his living image. We neither imagine
monstrosities, when we point out the method by whicii pious
minds may free themselves from difficulty, nor impute to

302 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
others the offspring- of our own house, when we obviate the
absurdities which Westphal holds forth for us to swallow
without judgment. Far less do we pave the way for the
prostitution of religion, while we act so as to place undoubted
faith in our Saviour's words, and exhibit the heavenly mys
tery in its full splendour, yet rejecting all vicious fancies, and
maintaining within ourselves, in full vigour, that spiritual
communion which comprehends the whole efficacy and fruit
of the holy Supper.
Under the ninth head, Westphal pugnaciously contends
that I raake void the Supper, because I send unbelievers
empty away. He boasts that this is a clear argument, not
an uncertain conjecture ; for he infers from ray words, that
I speak only of the virtue and effect of the sacrament when
ever I assert that the reality is combined with the sign. To
confirm the thing, he adds, that I teach, that though the
Lord offers his grace to all, it is received by believers only.
I presume, that, to the mind of no man, however acute, would
this ingenious ratiocination of Westphal have occurred. And
-who could have guessed that, in using the term grace, I was
abolishing the primary head and source of all grace ? In
speaking of the free mercies of God, I am always accustomed
to begin with Christ, and justly ; for, until he become ours,
we raust necessarily be devoid of all the graces, the fulness
of whicii is contained in himself How far I am from desir
ing to escape by a sophism, let the passage itself declare.
I have there said, generally, that whatever free gifts God
offers us for eternal salvation are received only by faith.
Hence it follows, that believers alone are partakers of Christ
and his spiritual blessings. Westphal's clear argument finds
what no man would have suspected to be contained in my
words. Beginning thus shrewdly, he calumniously misre
presents my doctrine to be, that if a wicked man approaches
the table, virtue is no longer connected with the signs,
though I have never said any thing of the kind. When he
asks, what, then, will become of the word of the Lord which
sets the same sacraraent before all, whether good or bad, the
same page contains an answer, which any man who has eyes
may see, nay, which even the blind may feel. Besides, in the

in answer to the calumnies of WESTPHAL. 303
Agreement it is distinctly stated that the unbelief of men
does not overthrow the faith of God, because the sacraments
always retain their virtue ; that thus, on the part of God, no
thing is changed, whereas, in regard to men, every one re
ceives according to the measure of his faith. How careful I
am to guard against any idea that the truth of God depends
on men, let the reader, after perusal, deterraine.
The substance of what I say is, that there is a wide differ
ence between the two propositions, that the faithfulness of
God consists in performing what he demonstrates by a sign,
and that man, in order to enjoy the offered grace, makes room
for the promise. I think it is now^ evident to all, that in our
doctrine the authority of the word is as stable as the ordi
nance of the sacrament is firm and efficacious. But West
phal insists that the sacrament remains the same to both as
regards the substance of the flesh, but not as regards the
effect. What? Does this mean that unbelievers eat the
dead body of Christ ? Not at all, he says ; for though he who
does not use the sacrament duly receives no gift from the
Spirit, still he enjoys the flesh and blood of Christ. Who
sees not that Christ is rendered lifeless and is dissevered by
sacrilegious divorce from his Spirit and all his virtue ?
He pretends that the sacrament is made by the word, not
by our faith. Were I to grant this, it does not enable hira
to prove that Christ is prostituted indiscriminately to dogs
and swine that they may eat his flesh. God ceases not to
send rain from heaven, though the moisture is not received
by stones and rocks. There is here a strange stupidity. He
himself denies the effect of the Supper to unbelievers, without
once considering that what he clairas for them is the first
part of the effect ; unless indeed he holds that communion
with Christ has nothing to do with the effect of the
Supper. It is worth while here to observe his wondrous shrewd
ness. He says, that in the Supper, when the word of Christ
is added to the bread, the bread becoraes a sacrament. Be
it so ; provided he would not add the presence of the flesh.
But I willingly allow that the sacrament of flesh and blood
is constituted by the words of Christ. Does it therefore

304 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
follow that the body of Christ is received by unbelievers ?
Nay ; we are always brought back to the same point, that
there is a wide difference between offering and receiving.
Westphal adds, that when faith is added to the word, the
fruit of the sacrament is received, because we enjoy the bene
flts of Christ. What is this but to say that we gain possession of
Christ without faith, and yet by faith become partakers of his
blessings, thus making Christ inferior to his gifts ? He says,
that though unbelievers defraud themselves of the benefit,
the bread does not however cease to be to them an entire
sacrament. Thus the integrity of the sacrament, according
to AVestphal, consists only in a lifeless Christ. His words
are, that in regard to the integrity of the sacrament, the
unworthy receive in the very same way as the worthy.
Wlierein then will the integrity of baptism consist, if the
washing and regeneration are not taken into account ?
When Augustine teaches that by the addition of the word
the element becomes a sacrament, he is expressly treating
of baptism. His words are. Wherefore Christ says not, ye
are clean because of the baptism wherewith ye have been
washed, but because of the word whicii I have spoken unto
you. The context clearly shows his meaning to be, that by
the word the element becomes a sacrament, so that its virtue
or effect may reach us. Westphal, excluding the effect,
-wrests the meaning, and applies it to sorae strange figment
of substance. Augustine adds. Whence such virtue in water
to touch the body and clean the heart, but just from the
operation of the word ? Such is Augustine's idea of the in
tegrity of a sacrament, viz., that it is an effectual instmment
of grace to us. Westphal imagines this operation of the
word to take place without grace. But his disgraceful forg
ing of a false meaning is exposed by the clause which Au
gustine immediately subjoins, viz., This is done by the word,
not because it is said, but because it is believed ; -«'hereas
Westphal contends that the efficacy there spoken of is
effectual without faith, and feigns a word- with whicii faith
has nothing to do. And yet, after all this, he dares to lay
claim to the support of Augustine : for he asserts, that in
several passages free from all ambiguity he says that Judas

IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 305
ate the real body of Christ. He might at least have pro
duced one, or let him even now produce it. It is more than
vain to pretend that I have intentionally omitted it. Can
any one wonder at my producing him as a witness in support
of my opinion, when he comes forward of his own accord,
and not only gives us his support, but as it were leads the
way? Westphal concludes that no alleged absurdities can induce
him to depart from the words of Christ and Paul, and the
firm consent of the Church : as if this were not the trite
and common excuse for all errors. If it is to be received, I
should like to know what answer he wiU make to the Ana
baptists, whose regular custom it is to hold it forth as a
shield, and carry it aloft as a banner — that baptism cannot
be lawfuUy conferred on infants, because it is a symbol of
faith and repentance. What then can we infer from his
words, but just that he and his band remain fixed in error,
being prevented by mere obstinacy from yielding obedience
to the truth ? And yet by way of attempt to rid himself of
some of his many absurdities, he says that there cannot be
a falser accusation than that which charges his doctrine with
dissevering Christ from his Spirit. It were better to have
been sUent, than to have exposed his wretched nakedness
by so shabby a refutation. For what is his answer ? That
the same baptism is received by unbelievers, though they do
not obtain the virtue of baptism, nor partake of the Spirit
of Christ : and yet he upbraids others with a dissimulation
which has no existence, whUe he is plainly evading the ques
tion, and substituting a stone for a tree.
The matter now controverted between us, "vaz.. Whether un
believers receive the substance of the flesh of Christ without
his Spirit, is peculiarly applicable to the Supper. It has no
resemblance in this respect with baptism. Westphal, indeed,
would fain steal away from the Supper, but feeling that his
craft is detected, he, at once, without hesitation, leaps off to
baptism. But we, too, raaintain that baptisra always remains
the same, be the minister or receiver who he may. The
hinge of the whole controversy is simply this, — Do unbe-
TOL. IL D

306 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
lievers become substantially partakers of the flesh of Christ ?
To this let Westphal reply, if he would not, by his silence,
stand convicted of prevarication. If he acknowledges it in
regard to the substance of the flesh, he debates about no
thing. I have openly declared, that the body of Christ is
offered and given to unbelievers as well as to believers, and
that the obstacle which prevents enjoyraent is in themselves.
Westphal rests not, but insists that the real flesh of Christ
is eaten by unbelievers, though they taste not a particle of
his Spirit. Is not this to deprive Christ of his Spirit, and
make him the prey of unbelievers? He feels that he is
giving way in the middle of the act, and therefore drawing
up the curtain, he presents his readers with another play,
promising them some little book or other. How dexterously
he there acquits hiraself I neither know nor care, but as he
here shamefully turns his back, all can see that he is abso
lutely without an answer.
He then passes over to another subject, and says it is
now clear how beautifully I agree with the Confession of
Augsburg, and how cunningly I changed the subject of con
troversy, when I pretended that the only thing for which
Luther contended was to show that the sacred and divinely
ordained signs were not vain or empty figures. As to the for
raer point, I repeat what it was sufficient to have once adverted
to, that in the Confession, as published at Ratisbon, there is
not a word contrary to our doctrine. If any ambiguity oc
curs in the meaning, there is no fitter interpreter than the
author of it ; and this honour, as due to his merit, all pious
and learned men wiU readily confer upon hira. While I
thus boldly appeal to him, what becoraes of Westphal's im
pertinent garrulity ? As to the latter point, I again answer,
that if Luther had ahy other end than that which I have
said was chiefly contemplated by hira, it will be difficult to
keep him free from stigma. There is nothing which he more
frequently inculcates in all his writings, than that he is
fighting for the sacraments, to prevent their being stripped
of aU their effect, and reduced to frigid and empty figures.
If he pretended, what was not really the case, only to throw
odium on his opponents, who will approve of such a proceed-

IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 307
ing ? Moreover, I did not affirm absolutely that he went no
farther with his hyperboles. I simply stated in his own
words why it was that he took up the matter so keenly, and,
therefore, there is the less excuse for Westphal, who, coming
forward under the name of scholar, throws no little contumely
on his teacher. That Luther disagreed with us in regard to
substantial eating, and also when carried by the heat of de
bate beyond the limits of just moderation, uttered several
things from which I dissent, it was never my intention to
deny. Why, indeed, should I wish to deny what I have freely
declared ? We are speaking only of the principal point in
dispute, which Westphal places in a substantial presence,
thus making only an unimportant accessory of the other
point, viz., that the sacraments are not empty figures, but
true pledges of spiritual grace, and living organs of the
Holy Spirit.
He labours in vain to prove the same thing by the words
of (Ecolompadius. That holy man wisely and appropriately
urged against his opponents, when they would not admit the
bread to be a sign of the body, the inevitable consequence,
that the bread is substantially the body, that he raight
horrify them at the gross absurdity, and thus bring them to
a sounder mind. But this remark does not do away with
the many eamest declarations in which Luther and his fol
lowers state the great cause of their zeal to be, that they
cannot permit the sacraments to be reduced to nothing, and
made to differ in no respect from profane theatrical shows.
What aid does Westphal find in ray words ? Before quoting
them he inserts a preface, to serve as a kind of cloak to con
ceal his fallacy. I had said, that (Ecolompadius and Zuin
glius were induced by the best of reasons, nay, compelled by
urgent necessity, to refute a gross error which had long
before become inveterate and was connected with impious
idolatry, but that while intent on this one object, they, as
often happens in debate, lost sight of another. This passage
Westphal endeavours to blacken, as if I had said, that they
contended for the empty symbols, without thinking that the
reality was combined with them. This is the reason why he
asks pardon for using my own testimony against me.

308 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
I say nothing as to his insisting so strongly that Luther
was alike the enemy of all who denied the substantial pre
sence of Christ in the Supper. This will do me little pre
judice, as all know the excessive heat which Luther showed
in pleading this cause. And yet in private so far was he
from wishing to be my enemy, that though not ignorant of
my opinion, he declined not to address me in his own hand
in terms of respect, (reverenter.) The dishonesty of West
phal makes so much a fool of me, that I state the very term
which he used. As I wish his honour safe, it certainly
grieves me to see his good faith so rashly traduced by West
phal. He affirms, that after a reconciliation had been half
effected at Marpurg, he left the meeting with the same
feeling which he had before against (Ecolompadius and Zuin
glius, though he had then solemnly promised that he would
in future regard them as brethren. Both parties having there
agreed that they would cultivate mutual peace, either Luther
must have been softened, or he entered into a paction at
variance with his real sentiments ; a paction, too, which
was reduced to a regular deed.
As if my evidence had served Westphal's purpose, (so he
boasts,) he proceeds to quote several passages from the differ
ent writings of Zuinglius, and from these at last infers, that
if our doctrine prevail the holy Supper is raade void. He pre
mises that in order that the thing raay be established in the
raouth of two witnesses, he gives me Zuinglius as a companion,
and one too who is by no means to be despised. But although
the defence of Zuinglius would be just, and not difficult, I
must make my readers aware of the malice Avitli which he
attempts to bring me into this arena. Fifteen years ago I
publicly stated wherein I was dissatisfied with the pleadings
of both parties. I added, that nothing was raore desired by
all good and pious men than that this unhappy dispute were
buried in perpetual oblivion. Should I now appear as the
defender of Zuinglius, before I proceed to plead, Westphal
will ask me, with what conscience, nay, with what face, I
dare to defend what I do not approve ? He wiU object that
I am reviving that which I formerly devoted to etemal
darkness : in short, he will overwhelm me with reproaches.

IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 309
Being thus brought into a doubtful and slippery place, not
by the hidden craft, but the open effrontery of my enemy, in
whatever direction I move I shall be exposed to his male
diction. The truth, however, opens up a way in which I can
walk secure from his invective.
He thinks he has gained some very great point when he
finds Zuinglius declaring, that the Swiss Churches do not
agree with those of Saxony in expounding the passage,
" This is my body." As if the dispute were not perfectly
notorious, which so long occupied such great and celebrated
men, whose books proclaim the dissension in such a way as
to show that when Satan saw the gospel revived or restored
to its ancient rights, he, in order to retard its course, not
only hired professed enemies, but by an old artifice stirred
up intestine strife among the very servants of Christ. Nay,
another thing is to be observed, which Westphal labours to
suppress : How came it that to other dogmas Satan only
opposed the Papists, but on this article engaged Luther in a
quarrel with excellent men and right-hearted teachers, who,
but for this, would have been his faithful coadjutors, unless
because he saw that every extreraity was to be tried to pre
vent the world from returning from mad superstition ? I
confess that under the Papacy men were miserably infatuated
in innumerable ways, but the raost fearful and monstrous
fascination was that of stupidly adoring the bread in place
of God. When Westphal invidiously says, that Zuinglius
left nothing in respect of substance but bread and wine, it
is easy to answer, that he was only contending against a
camal presence, which we are determined to oppose with
our last breath.
I am not to be so deterred by the silly reproach of West
phal, as to desert the defence of the truth, when he charges
Zuinglius with blasphemy, for having called the substantial
union of the bread and the flesh a fiction. He might have
more correctly and not less truly have called it a dream.
The eating which has been revealed by the Son, who was in
the bosom of the Father, we holily and reverently observe,
though our faith has no resemblance to the Scythian bar
barity of Westphal. He is not less wrong in pretending that

310 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
we insist on adhering to common sense. We have not pro
fited so little in the school of Christ as not to have learned
to bring all our thoughts into the obedience of the faith.
Nay, our doctrine, as I have already observed, and any one
raay easily perceive, is as far reraoved from carnal sense as
Westphal and his'party are from the sense of the Holy Spirit,
when they produce monstrous fictions to establish their
error. Is it common sense that tells us to seek the immortal life
of the soul from human flesh ? Is it natural reason which
declares that the living virtue of Christ's flesh penetrates
from heaven to earth, and is in a wondrous raanner infused
into our souls ? Is it in accordance with philosophical spec
ulation, that a lifeless earthly element should be the effectual
organ of the Holy Spirit ? Is it from natural principles
we learn that whatever the minister pronounces with his
lips according to the word of God and figures by a sign,
Christ inwardly performs ? Certainly did we not regard the
holy Supper as a heavenly mystery, we should not attribute
to it effects so distinguished and incredible to carnal reason.
Wherefore, as far as we are concerned, we are willing to have
done with that common sense which Westphal repudiates,
though he still perversely insists on having us for his antago
nists. Who will seek the nourishment of his soul from the
flesh of Christ, and persuade himself that he has a true and
certain pledge of it in the bread, if he has not previously
brought doAvn his own feelings to the foolishness of the cross?
Any one may see how absurdly Westphal wanders about and
deals in commonplace whenever he charges us with measuring
the power of God by our carnal reason. But though I have
good reason for wishing to bury in silence the things which
long ago fell in dispute from Zuinglius and Luther, as it is
rare and difficult to regulate one's words in the heat of con
flict, still on a fair and civil interpretation of what Joachim
so bitterly assails, the substance will be found to be, that the
body of Christ neither lies hid under the bread, nor is held
forth by the minister, nor, in short, is present in its sub
stance when the Supper is celebrated.
Thus far Westphal thinks, or at least in word boasts, that

IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 311
he has proved that we distort the words of the Supper, and
differ in opinion amongst ourselves. In one thing he con
tends .that we are of the same mind, though from varying
in word we would not have it seem so, and that thing is
in denying the substance of present flesh and blood in the
communion of the Supper. As to our variance with each
other, we leave sound and impartial readers to judge. The
presence of the substance of flesh, as he imagines it, I have
no reason to disguise that I deny, seeing this is what I uni
formly teach, and am not asharaed of having hitherto from
the beginning constantly professed. Was the immensity of
Christ's flesh ever repudiated by me in an obscure manner ?
Did I not openly testify that Marcion was brought up from
the lower regions, if in the first Supper the body of Christ,
mortal, visible, and circumscribed by space, stood in one
place, and was at the same time stretched forth by his hand,
invisible, glorious, and immense? Were not believers al
ways distinctly enjoined to rise to heaven, in order to feed
on the flesh and blood of Christ ? The sincerity of our faith
here certainly needs no disguise. Nor meanwhile does
Christ cease to be ours, though he is not placed in our hand
any more than the true communion of his flesh ceases to be
offered to us under the bread, that he may invigorate our
souls by his substance, though the bread be not substantially
body. Westphal, as if his part here were now well performed,
says, that he must descend to deal with a different kind of
grievance, namely, to repel charges, in which, if he is to be
believed, I exhibit a canine eloquence. Although I long
not for the praise of eloquence, I am not so devoid of the
gift of speaking as to be obliged to be eloquent by barking.
Westphal ought either to change his mode of writing, or
take back the epithet which properly describes it. From
the withered flowers which he sheds over his discourse, it is
plain how very jejune a rhetorician he is, while his intem
perance sounds more of the Cyclops than any thing human.
One thing I deny not : I am not less alert in pursuing the
sacrilegious, than the faithful dog in hunting off thieves.
In the first place, he endeavours to get rid of the charge

312 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
of disturbing the peace, by saying that the contention did
not begin with him : as if I had said, that disturbance had
now, for the first time, only commenced. I rather distinctly
complained that, when, by the special goodness of God, it
had been calmed for a time, it was now kindled anew by
those restless men. I did not charge Westphal, in absolute
terms, with having excited commotion, lest he should retort,
as he does, that many had used our doctrine as an occasion
for tumult. I certainly admit, nay, I glory before angels,
in having said, that as soon as that gross error about the
impanation of Christ began to be discussed, Satan had risen
to throw every thing into confusion, and prevent the truth
from shining forth. And the numerous martyrdoms of holy
men in the present day attest the height of madness and
fury to which that doctrine impells all unbelievers. But
while Westphal and his fellows keep throwing oil on the fire,
after they have armed the rage of Papists against us, it is
exceedingly unjust to give us the blame of the disturbance.
If the first origin of the strife be inquired into, Luther, when
opposing transubstantiation, so to speak, blew the trumpet.
Here I am, so far from blaming hira, that, araong his many
virtues deserving of the highest praise, I give not the lowest
place to the magnanimity with which, undismayed by com
motions, he proceeded boldly to root up that preposterous
fiction. Therefore, whenever disturbances arise, the point
to be determined is, which of the parties has justice on his
side. My complaint as to the revival of disturbance Westphal
chooses to take up and, without cause, apply in a different
sense. While, among the Churches which have erabraced a
purer doctrine, and serve under the one banner of Christ
against the Papacy, there was reason to laraent that the
flame of an unhappy dissension which was sopited had again
suddenly burst forth, I said, justly, that it was excited under
bad auspices by the instigation of the devil. On this West
phal absurdly asks, " If the devil, twenty-five years ago,
brought the tragedy on board, with what face can I charge
him Avith being the mover of discord ?" I spoke not of the
first assault, but only of the renewal of the war, and of that

IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 313
he, after the devil, bears the blame. Why should I have
accused Thomas Muntzer, Melchior Pelletier, and Nicolas
Pelagius, men whom I do not know, and who had long ago
lost the power of doing mischief ? Wlien I am squeezed in
a crowd, it were foolish to expostulate with any but those
who are squeezing me. He wittily compares rae to an in
cendiary, AA-ho not only secretly supplies materials, but openly,
by throwing brands, sets houses on fire, and prevents those
who come running up from extinguishing the flames. Is
this now to be my reward, for having ever exerted myself in
favour of sound and pious concUiation ? What new thing
has lately proceeded from me ? Nay, my agreement with
the brethren of Zurich ought rather to have softened the
exasperated minds of the opposite party, as I can show, by
a letter of Vitus Theodorus, that it was a thing he more
wished than hoped for.
I had advised him not to taint the works of Luther with
any mention of that unhappy contest. He answered, that
provided I could prevail with my friends to give effect to the
doctrine contained in our Agreement, he would have a good
reason for keeping quiet. Gasper Craciger subscribed with
me in sentiment, and privately declared it as much as those
who openly gave their names. I speak only of the dead,
lest, if I should mention the living, Westphal should make
a more furious onset on them. And yet judging from the
tempers of many others, I hoped, when our Agreement was
published, that many who had previously been rather keen
would become pacified, and be more friendly with us. This
hope, if Westphal has disappointed, impartial and moderate
men will bear me witness that I had not conceived it on
slight grounds.
It was not, as he babbles, a conspiracy to establish error,
hut a candid declaration of our sentiment, which seemed ad
mirably fitted to remove offences. Pious men were long
tortured with thinking, that the sacred signs in which God
offers his favour, were put on a footing with the profane in
signia of earthly warfare, and with theatrical shows. A
suspicion, no less grave, as to making void the efficacy, was
removed. If any thing in this testimony displeases West-

314 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
phal, we make hira perfectly free to show it. But Avhen he
lays aside the office of censuring, and turns to inveigh against
our Agreement, who can pardon his malice ? Our preface
bears ample evidence that Ave had no intention to bind any
one to our Avords. Let Westphal only do what we then mo
destly requested. Nay, he makes it a ground of charge,
that while candidly declaring our sentiment, we promise to
be docile, if any one produces what is better, and to comply
with the request of all who may desire fuller explanation.
If he did not deem it right to subscribe to our doctrine, he
was at liberty openly to show Avhat it Avas he disapproved.
All Ave asked was, that he would not deal roughly with a
newly cured sore.
Let him have done, then, with his unseasonable declama
tion, that peace purchased at the expense of truth is cursed.
We desire no other peace than one, of which the pure tmth
of Christ may be the sacred bond. I had taken aAvay all
handle for censure, had not Westphal been determined, by
Avandering up and down, to draw off the reader's attention
from the cause. Moreover, wi th regard to the discussions which
have taken place in England, I would rather leave it to
Peter Martyr, a faithful teacher of the church of Strasburg, to
give the answer, AA'hich, I trust, he is now preparing. Here
I must only, in a few words, call attention to the no less
cruel and barbarous than sacrilegious insults of our censor.
He grins ferociously at all the worshippers of God, Avho had
promised themselves that the state of the church in England
would prove lasting. Who can now pity you, should it ever be
your lot to be reduced to the last extremity ? It is not enough
for you to sit at ease, while all pious men are in mourning,
but you must turn your insolent invectives against the
Church, while undergoing a miserable and mournful wasting.
Did not the sacred blood of so many martrys calm your
fury — blood which, with its sweetest odour, breathes strength
and vigour into faithful souls in the remotest regions of the
earth, as it delights God himself and the angels in heaven?
A king, of the highest promise, being suddenly cut off, the
edifice of piety which had begun to rise, is overthrown ; Sa
tan and his adherents are triuraphing over the extinguished

IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 315
light of pious doctrine ; the most fearful cruelty rages against
the children of God; distinguished men, dragged to the flames,
seal the truth with the invincible constancy Avith which they
had embraced it : Joachim not only puts out his tongue in
scorn against the afflicted daughter of Zion, but savagely
derides the hope which had been entertained of a happier
issue. This one speciraen will, I hope, suffice to give the
reader a full idea of the man's temper.
But he says he has good cause to be indignant while our
books are everywhere flying about. Let him attack them,
then, if he finds any thing in them deserving of censure :
we will reply, and the Church wiU judge. He does not dis
guise that these conditions do not suit him, as it seems a
shorter method to put all the books into the flre, and so
prevent them from giving further trouble. For nothing
could be more odious to him than our offer to discuss, or to
subject to discussion, a doctrine to which he insists that all
shaU be bound to submit without controversy. Where is
now the generous and indefatigable soldier of Christ, who
elsewhere is so loud in heralding his combats ? We come
down prepared to render an account of our doctrine, and we
humbly beg to be heard. The sum of our wishes is, that
judgment be given according to the word of the Lord. Not
only are we excluded, but Westphal barbarously upbraids us,
telling us that nothing is more unjust than to discuss a doc
trine so generally received. Is it raore generally received
than transubstantiation, the sacrifice of the Mass, and the
withholding of the cup ? If Westphal's censure is to hold
good, Luther must have been guilty of sacrilegious audacity
when he dared to root up those figraents which had received
the sufii-ages of almost the whole world. That the bread is
substantially the body of Christ, is a recent decision, for
merly never heard of For Westphal trifles when he boasts
the consent of the Catholic Church. But while some of his
companions have thought that this ought to be maintained
to the last, he thinks it sufficient not to admit of discussion.
This is truly ridiculous, until he has gone with his herd, and
made a surrender of themselves to the Pope. If consent is
to be gloried in, which of the two, I ask, has the greater

316 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
plausibility — the Pope, who holds a great part of Europe so
astricted that no man dare mutter against him, or Westphal,
who holds up a little parasol to keep off the light ?
Here I appeal to all the children of God, whom Scripture
declares to be endowed with the spirit of raeekness and
obedience. We beg audience both of Westphal and of the
Pope. Both refuse on the ground that having already oh
tained possession by general consent, they are unwilling to
yield it up. This is no idea of raine : it is Westphal's naked
defence. But if the thing is to depend on nurabers, why
should not a place be also given to us? Westphal pronounces
us heretics, of whom no account is to be taken. Let us now
hear the Pope, who has the largest number of votes. What
will he decide with regard to him as well as us ? We, however,
can rejoin that we stand always ready for discussion. Such
too has been the conduct hitherto pursued by the advocates of
the Confession of Augsburg, whose name I wonder that Joa
chim so boldly uses, while he is so far from iraitating them.
The German princes who had undertaken to defend the
gospel thought they had duly performed their duty when, so
far as depended on them, they were willing that due inves
tigation should be made, and they always complained that
this was denied thera. This too was our method of acting
whenever we were called to plead the cause of religion, and
no diets of the empire were held in which our people did
not call for discussion. At some of them I was personally
present. What they were wont to do formally appears from
the public records. To go farther, both in this city and
elsewhere, I have repeatedly had to discuss doctrine with
turbulent raen, and also with heretics. So far from refusing
to discuss, I have been the first spontaneously to offer it.
The goodness of the cause gave me confidence, and made me
have no fear of coming to the light. Whence then this
new fastidiousness on the part of Westphal, who not only
refuses all investigation to heretics, but obstinately denies
evidence to pious worshippers of God, to whom has been
given more skill than to such as he to illustrate the glory of
the gospel, and who by beneficial labours have not deserved
Ul of the Church ?

IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF AVESTPHAL. 31 7
Were the sacred majesty of the word of God to be called
in question, such license, I admit, ought to be withstood ;
but here, Westphal, it is'not Scripture, but an opinion of your
own that is brought under discussion. The question is not
whether Christ truly and correctly called the bread his body,
but what he meant to say, and what his words, which we
reverently embrace, signify. Y"ou contend that they are too
clear to need exposition. We assert the same thing as to
their clearness, provided you refuse not to open your eyes.
When you pretend that all men wiU deride our Agreement as
futile, it is not worth my while to refute you harshly, while
the anxiety with which you labour to discredit my writings
only betrays your malignity and envy too clearly to require
any lengthened demonstration. This much, indeed, I hold.
Were he not distrustful of his cause, being in other respects
raore than pugnacious enough, he would not be so ready to
^^ke flight.
For the same reason he digresses from the subject, and
gathers together rhapsodies of calumny, that he may bring
us into discredit with the simple. And the first charge
which he brings against us is, that we make every thing new
in our Churches, and abolish customs that are not without
use. I wish he had mentioned particulars, or at least in
stanced one or two, not to leave readers in suspense. We
can, however, easUy remove any doubf;. We celebrate the
sacred Supper without histrionic robes ; we do not light
tapers at mid-day ; we do not by sound of bell invite the
populace to worship the bread when, in the manner pre
scribed by the law of Moses, it is lifted up like a sacrifice.
Other things, which he afterwards enumerates, I purposely
omit until the proper time comes.
What is it, Westphal ? For what rites, pray, are you so
zealous, but just for those which are in use with you ? But
what presumption is it for any man to insist that his custom
shaU everywhere be regarded as a law ? It grieves you that
We omit what you observe : as if we had not the same ground
for expostulation. For why are we not angry at your neglect
of our ceremonies, while you would imperiously bind us to
the observance of yours, unless it be that from fraternal meek-

318 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
ness, we tolerate faults whicii cannot be corrected, while you
and yours cannot lie stUl in the mud without dragging others
in along with you ?
Who sees not that the tapers savour of Judaism ? We
may add, that no man inveighed raore harshly against those
follies than Luther, though he retained them because of
the weakness of the times. Why did he censure them so se
verely, but just because he saw that they were the offspring
of absurd superstition, and noxious from abuse ; and not only
so, but that the world was so infatuated that the error could
not easily be rooted out of their rainds ? The use of such
veheraence is laudable when necessity so demands. His not
immediately removing thera we pardon ; you, not contented
with such equity, hold us crirainal for having allowed them
to fall into desuetude.
Not to be tedious, let the reader consider that the contest
which we have with Joachim and his friends at the present
day is the same whicii Paul once had with the semi-Jews,
who, coming down from Jerusalem, and wishing to admit
nothing different from received custom, atterapted to irapose
their yoke on the Gentiles. While they raagnified the
Apostles, in whose school, and as it were lap, they boasted
of having been brought up, they invidiously assailed Paul
for pursuing a different course. In short, they regarded him
as all but an apostate, who had presuraed to abolish Apos
tolic customs among the Gentiles. Joachim, as if he were
trumpeting with their mouth, says, that by our change of
customs we have separated from Churches which agreement
in Catholic doctrine and the manifold graces of the Holy
Spirit declare to be Churches of Christ. Shall Wittemberg
then, or Hamburg, be of more consequence in the present
day than at the first preaching of the gospel was Jerasalem,
from which, as from a fountain, salvation was diffused over
the whole world ? For what was the objection which some
of the Galatians took to Paul, but just that he did not ob
serve the ceremonies retained bythe first ministers of Christ?
Whence the vitious emulation which made them obtrude
the same custom everywhere, but just from proud disdain ?
Those who contumeliously spurn the custom of others can-

IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 319
not but be excessively addicted to their own. The raore
insolently Westphal conducts himself, the better right have
we to put doAvn his vile boasting.
He boasts that the Churches, Avhose rites we do not ob
serve, are adorned with manifold gifts of the Spirit : as if
our Churches were devoid of such gifts. For here not raerely
Switzerland and the Grisons are concerned, but all Upper
Germany is condemned by one vote : and yet, heralding his
own modesty, he tells us that no man is farther removed
from Thrasonic boasting than he who thus, from his quiet
corner, insults so many distinguished Churches. Strasburg,
Augsburg, Frankfort, and several other cities, are reduced
to nothing by one blast from his mouth. 0 Ishmael, thy
hand is against every man, and every man's hand against
thee. The more praise Luther deserves for magnanimity,
in not hesitating, single-handed, to attack the whole Pa
pacy, the more detestable is thy moroseness in seeking
materials for dissension among the people of God in very
trifles. It is here worth while to touch, in passing, on the particu
lar things at which he expressly carps. The first is, that
we sometimes allow children to die unbaptized. What is
the fault he finds here, but just that we do not resign the
office of baptizing to siUy women ? Assuredly, if any one
neglects to present his children early to baptism, he is
severely rebuked for his negligence. The church is open
every day. If any man's child die without baptisra, because
he did not embrace the opportunity, he is censured. The
only thing wanting to us is, that women do not, without any
command from Christ, seize upon the solemn office of pas
tors. Joachim holds the necessity for baptism to be so ab
solute, that he would sooner have it profaned by illicit usur
pation, than omitted when the lawful use is denied. The
thing that offends him he immediately after discloses. It
is because we give hopes that infants may obtain salva
tion without baptism, because we hold, that baptism, instead
of regenerating or saving thera, only seals the salvation of
which they were previously partakers.
As I have elsewhere refuted these gross en-ors at full

320 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
length, I shall here be brief with my answer. If the salva
tion of infants is included in the eleraent of water, then the
covenant, by which the Lord adopts thera, is made void. Let
Joachim say, in one word, what weight he attaches to the
promise, — I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed. If God
do not ingraft into the body of his people those on whom he
bestows this high privilege, not only is injury done to his
word, but infants ought to be denied the external sign. Let
an Anabaptist come forward and maintain that the sym
bol of regeneration is improperly conferred on the cursed
children of Adam whora the Lord has not yet called to the
fellowship of his grace. Either Westphal must remain dumb,
or the only defence that can avail him is, that the grace which
was offered in the person of their parents is common to them.
Hence it follows, that they are not absolutely regenerated hy
baptism, from which they ought to be debarred, did not God
rank them among the members of his Son. With what face
can he deny infants the title of holy, by which Paul distin
guishes them ? If the reader will look at this passage as it
is explained in our Catechism, they will pronounce, while I
am silent, that our children trained in such rudiments, have
much sounder views than this veteran theologian has de
rived from his speculations.
His second objection is, that the Lord's Supper is not
given to the sick at their horaes. I wish that they had gone
before us in this with a purer example. Had they been careful
to adapt their practice to the genuine rale of Christ, we would
willingly have followed them. But since nothing is less ac
cordant with the doctrine of our heavenly Master than that
the bread should be carried about in procession like cakes in
a fair, and then that one individual should receive in private
and eat apart, disregarding the law of coraraunicating, pious
and learned men were from the very first much averse to
private dispensations of the Supper. Nothing, therefore, can
be more absurd than Westphal's calumny, that owing to the
crafty counsel of Satan, poor souls are deprived of consola
tion. For we carefully recaU to the remembrance of the sick
the pledge of life which was once deposited with us, that'
they may thence confirm their faith, and borrow weapons

IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 321
for the spiritual combat. In short, Ave herein profit so far
that the Supper received in the public assembly, according
to the ordinance of Christ, supports them with present con
solation not less effectuaUy than if they were to enjoy it
privately without communion.
He goes on to add (thirdly) that Ave admit to the Supper
without previous examination, and without private absolu
tion. I deny not that we everywhere do Avrong from exces
sive facility. The rale is, that the young do not come for
Avard to the sacred table till they have given an account of
their faith. Elder persons are examined, if they are not of
known and ascertained piety. I admit, however, that we
gain less by this discipline than I could wish, though it is
most false to say that we knowingly and willingly offer the
Supper indiscriminately to strangers and persons not ap
proved. This, however, is not the thing with which West
phal finds fault : it is because we omit private absolution.
If he can find an origin for this practice anywhere else
than in the fetid lagoons of the Pope, I wiU readily acknow
ledge the fault.
The utility of private absolution it is not my purpose to
deny. But as in several passages of my writings I commend
the use of it, provided it is optional, and free from supersti
tion, so it is neither lawful, nor even expedient, to bind it
upon consciences by a law. Let Westphal show, that at a
time when the Clhurch flourished, and pure religion pros
pered, private absolution was sanctioned by any law. But
if it is perfectly notorious that it was made imperative by a
dcAdce of the devil at the time when the whole state of the
Church was corrupted, nay, piety corapletely overthrown,
there is no ground for pretending that the abrogation of it
was a crime. Westphal is Avrong, too, in inferring, that be
cause we do not absolve every individual in private, we
admit to the Supper without previous examination: as if
there were an inseparable connection between trial of faith
and private absolution ; the forraer of which was always
maintained in holy vigour among believers, whereas the
latter, in regard to its being made a law, crept in among
degenerate rites after things had gone to confusion.
VOL. IL X

322 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
His fourth head of accusation is, that in order to defend
the image-war of Carlostadt, we divide the first command
ment into two. I wish that the heat of his frenzy would not
drive him headlong to expose his own disgrace and that of
his party, which, for us, would reraain buried. That the ten
coramandraents are rightly and regularly divided by us, we
have shown by solid and clear arguments : we have also the
support of antiquity. Westphal and his party, to keep the
commandment which distinctly prohibits idolatry in the
shade, improperly make two commandments of the tenth :
and yet on this occasion he hesitates not to throw the
blame of schisra upon us. Hence it is easy to infer what
the terras of peace are which these implacable masters would
impose. Let him rather see, or, if blindness prevents him,
let the reader observe whether it was not by a fatal artifice
of Satan that the second commandment of the law was
removed frora its place and hidden, in order that the people
of God raight not have idolatry in so much horror and de
testation. The less excuse is to be raade for Westphal, who,
in an error equaUy gross and noxious, not only contuma
ciously plumes himself, but stigmatizes all who dissent frora
him. I come to his fifth charge, which is the abrogation of feast-
days, and also of the divisions of the Gospel and Epistles,
which were in common use. He says, that the distinction of
feast-days is alike ancient and useful. But I should like
this good antiquary to point out the period when feast-days
first began to be dedicated in honour of the Virgin Mary
and the Saints. I am not unaware that the memory of the
Martyrs has been celebrated for raore than thirteen hundred
years, the object being to give a greater stiraulus to the
faithful to iraitate them. Among other corruptions which
afterwards followed, we ought justly to class this one of
instituting holidays and feast-days. And yet to Joachim
Christianity is gone, brotherly communion destroyed, and a
nefarious schism introduced, if the observance of days is not
looked out in the calendar of Hamburg. Surely Augustine,
who deplores that the liberty of the (Church was oppressed
in his day by the excessive number of rites, plainly testifies

IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 323
that very few feast-days were handed down frora his fore
fathers. This makes it apparent, that in the correction
which we have made, nothing more was attended to than to
renew that pure antiquity.
In regard to the division of the Gospels and Epistles, it is
evident from all the Homilies of Ancient Writers that the
Books of Scripture were expounded to the people in one
uninterrapted series. A custora gradually prevailed of ex
tracting from the Gospels and Epistles passages for read
ing suitable to the season. Hence arose those divisions
for which Westphal contends, as if it were for altars and
hearths ; though a perusal shows that they were made in
eptly and without any judgment. Certainly if portions were
to be selected to be read each Lord's day, a very different
selection should have been made. Lest any one suppose
that Westphal is flaming for nothing, I must inform the
reader that it is about the Postils he is anxious ; for how
could a great part of those whom he is courting get on with
out the Postils ?
Luther, who, while matters were yet unsettled, accom
modated himself to the common custom, must be pardoned.
Nay, in adopting this compendious method of disseminating
the Gospels, his care and diligence are to be praised. But
it is very absurd in Westphal, who, determined always to
stick in the same mire, makes the rudiments of Luther the
pretext ; just as if one, after entering on the right path, no
sooner sees the person who had shown it to him turn back,
than he obstinately takes up his station and refuses to ad
vance another step. Let Westphal, then, celebrating the
Martinalia with the Papists, join them in singing out the
Gospel and Epistles according to the forra prescribed in the
Mass, provided we be at liberty to arrange the doctrine of
the Gospel as the Apostles delivered it to us for the use of
our people. Our censor does not permit this ; but, getting
into heroics, exclaims, that no doubt this is done by us at the
suggestion of the devil, in order that no good may be got
out of the Gospel ! as if the Gospel were lost by not being
cut into pieces. Can any one doubt that this man has got
too little to do in his retirement, and has therefore set about

324 second defence of the sacraments,
giving trouble for nothing to those who are busily em
ployed ?
Perhaps his excuse is, that he is busy in the sense in which
Cataline threatened to be so — that he is employing fire to put
fire out. As I had said that the torch of discord was now
kindled by hira under evil auspices, the only kind of defence
he is able to make, is to give the name of torches and furies
to all who do not decorate their churches with idols, who
regard baptism as an appendage of the proraise, and a means
of confirming grace, but not a cause of salvation, who do
not whisper a form of absolution into every ear, nor keep
holiday in honour of saints, nor follow the Missal in break
ing down Scripture into lessons. Such is his reason for
saying that he was obliged to raake a wound and prevent
hidden putridity frora lurking Avithin : as if he could not
cherish and practise holy peace Avith us unless we slavishly
defile ourselves with other raen's irapurities. Of those apes
who take such delight in preposterous imitation, Horace
truly exclaims, 0 imitators, servile herd ! When I said
that the fire was smothered, I acknowledge I Avas deceived
by attributing too much sense to those who are now raving
without measure. Since the hope of peace has been de
stroyed by their unseasonable rage, may God quell these
furies and retort on their own heads the reproaches which
they vent against us with no less insolence than injustice.
As if he had admirably disposed of the charge of having
disturbed the peace, he noAv attempts to assert his eradi-
tion. But, to prove that he is modest, he premises that my
impudence has forced hira to exceed the bounds of modesty.
How can he prove me to be irapudent but just for having
said that he is unlearned ? But he is welcorae for me to
enjoy his titles of Master and Doctor, provided he aspire not
too eagerly to a place among the learned to the common
injury of the Church. I pass his insipid irony, in which he
jeers at rae for thinking of hira less honourably than he
wished. If any gift has been given rae, I study to employ
it usefully, without show or ostentation, for the edification
of the Church ; and my books are clear evidence, that so
far from striving for the palra of talent or learning, I avoid

IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 325
nothing more carefuUy than display. Nor was there any
reason why he should drag me into comparison, as without
any mention of myself I only advised him to give place to
more competent defenders of his cause, and not incur the
disgrace of presumption. Let him now compare himself
with the men of his own party, and claim the first place for
himself, if he is desirous to refute me. To this he coraes at
last, when he boasts that he yields to no pillars, and not
even to heavenly angels. 0 Luther ! how few imitators of
your exceUence have you left, how many apes of your holy
boasting ! It is not wonderful that this expression was ever
and anon in the mouth of him who could not fight boldly for
Christ without despising all the powers of the world. Now,
when the sarae sound comes from drones, who are only dis
turbing the hive, it is absolutely insufferable.
I wish he would show these pUlars to which he says he
would not yield. Paul might speak thus when certain
vagrants endeavoured to overwhelm him with the splendid
names of Peter and others. We have lately seen how con
tumeliously he has discarded all churches in which he flnds
any thing in the least degree at variance with his rules. Let
him take heed, then, that he do not, when raising himself
against pillars, stumble against a stone of offence. For whom
does he expect to give him credit for power bestowed by God
unless he produce his diploma ? He no more approaches to
Paul, whose character he ridiculously borrows, than a player
to a king. I wish he would prove himself an apostle of
Christ by tme testimonial.s. Of what use is it for a raan,
filled with wind or folly, to boast himself a defender of
the faith as if he had come from heaven ? If we are to be
lieve Westphal, it was necessary for him to put to his shoul
der that the integrity of the faith might not faiL This is
true, if we grant that faith stands supported by the absurd
fictions by which he deludes himself and others.
In the same way we dispose of his boast, that he has not
made so little progress as not to discern the voice of the
shepherd from the howling of wolves. Why then does he
with his howling tumultuously disturb the Church, and pre
vent the voice of Christ from being calmly heard ? And

326 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
whom will he persuade of our hoAvling, while it is well known
that night and day we do and aim at nothing else than to
see the scattered sheep gathered together by the voice of tlie
heavenly shepherd ? How faithfully I labour to make the
whole world hang on the lips of Christ alone, I may not only
take my writings and sermons to witness, but all who
see rae in my daily occupations will bear a sure testimony.
The Lord seals my labours with his blessing too clearly to
aUow the benefit derived from them to be contemptible to
ten Westphals. This commendation of my calling I have
in common with Paul. Where will he seek for his, while
heralding his own companions only, he calls for reciprocal
heralding from them ? He seems to himself a fit discemer
of spirits ; but while all hiss him, is the opinion which he has
inwardly conceived of himself to operate as a previous judg
raent in his favour ?
He tells us, that he not unsuccessfully devotes to sacred
literature good hours which others waste in play or trifling.
Whom he means to upbraid, I see not, unless it be that he
wished to frighten rae by a display of his studies. At WIt
teraberg and elsewhere he was a hearer of faithful teachers,
but just as those had been disciples of Peter and the Apos
tles, who endeavoured by their raists to obscure the Gospel
when far and widely spread. Nor does he omit to mention
araong his praises, that in his own country he holds the
office of Doctor ; and he thinks he has found a plausible
ground for exulting over rae that I ara an exile from my
country. It is strange he does not also direct his jeers
against Paul, for not having been bishop of Tarsus. So far
am I from being ashamed of voluntary exile, that I by no
means envy those delicate apostles the quiet of their nest.
In short, whoever will attend closely to his narrative will,
without my saying a word, clearly perceive in it the living
image of a false apostle, as pourtrayed by Paul in both Epis
tles to the Corinthians. Although he set out with humbly
declaring that he was conscious of his own weakness, and
left the praise of his talents and learning to others, shortly
after, forgetting this feigned raodesty, he is forced to dis
cover how much sour leaven his stomach contains.

IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 327
" Unlearned !" he exclaims, " I should like to know what
idea that man has of learned." As if it were necessary to
have recourse to Platonic ideas, when any learned man, be
sides Westphal, is looked for in the world. That you may
not trouble yourself to no purpose with long speculation, I
declare that at Leipsic and Wittemberg, and places adjacent,
are many who, in my judgment, deserve a place in a cata
logue of the leai-ned. You have no pretext for charging me
with holding none to be learned who have not been taught
in the school of Zuinglius. Though Luther differed from us,
did Ave ever contemn his erudition ? Nay, what is the whole
drift of my language, which Westphal is now assailing, but
just that he has been rash in pushing himself forward, whUe
leamed and grave men keep back ? When he sees me apply
ing the epithets of learned and grave to men of his party,
how shamefiiUy is his charge at variance with fact ? The rea
son no doubt is, that he allows none to be called learned, if
he be not of the number. Accordingly, he thinks that no
blemish of ignorance can be discovered in hira, unless it be
that he does not raeasure the body of Christ geometrically.
Perhaps he thinks of himself so highly, that he does not see
any thing deserving of contempt. But if he supposes that
all the learned will be provoked by one little expression, to
declare war on me, he is greatly raistaken. His sUly talk
about georaetrical measurement, I have already shown to be
mere calumny. That the body of Christ, which has been
received into the heavens, is absent from the earth, we did
not leam in the school of Archimedes, but believe as it is
delivered in the clear oracles of Scripture. From what phi
losophy he drew, that, in the flrst celebration of the Supper,
Christ had a twofold body, the one mortal, visible, occupy
ing its own place, the other invisible, immortal, and im
mense, I, in my ignorance, am unable to divine.
When decking hiraself in illustrious titles, he contends,
that he deserves a place in the album of the learned, because
out of the Scriptures he produces things new and old, ob
serves the leading scope of Scripture, and with simple faith
assents to the word of God, he certainly adduces nothing
which is not common to myself I wish he would show by

328 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
fact that he possesses this skill and dexterity. He is ridicu
lous in this also, though it is just his way, that after profess
ing to be contented with the lowest place, he immediately
raises hiraself to the suramit, applying to himself the words,
" I am Avise above all my teachers." What place A\-ill be as
signed to Luther, if he who occupies the lowest is above him?
At last he says, that there is no cause to fear that he would
retain the title of Doctor, if he were not learned. Little ia
wanting to extort from him a confession of the desire by
which he is strangely tortured. He asks, why do I labour
to prevent an unlearned raan from disturbing Europe, a
danger which could corae from none but able and liter
ary men endued with authority and eloquence ? As if no
harm were to be dreaded or guarded against frora the foolish
and insane. He says there is good ground for the common
proverb. The unlearned make no heresies. What then did
the Anabaptists do? What Muntzer? What the Libertines?
Nay, in the whole crew, of whom Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and
Augustine speak, how many more were involved in error by
gross ignorance than by erudition? More correctly and
wisely does Augustine say, that the raother of all heresies is
pride, by which we often see that the most ignorant are
most highly swollen.
Westphal next raakes me a deceiver, because I professed
it to be my care not to deceive the simple ; and he compares
me to the Jews, who said the sarae thing of Christ before
Pilate. Let hira, then, show hiraself to be like Christ, if he
wishes to thrust rae among that crew. That there is no
deception in the word of God, I confess no less sincerely
and from the heart, than Westphal does windily with the
tongue.- But wheTe is the expression for whicii he has so
reproachfully assaUed me ? Just as if he were sorae comic
Jupiter carrying a Minerva in his skull, he boldly masks
all his fictions with the word of God. Had it not of old
been the ordinary practice for false prophets to raake louder
pretence of the name of God the more they were estranged
from' hitn, he might perhaps gain something byhis airs; but
now, wheii devoid of all evidence, he argues as if it were
after proof, who is to be raoved- by his futile trifling? The

IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 329
word of God he has constantly in his mouth, but it is only
in word, just as Marcion, Avhen assigning a heavenly body to
Christ, denounced all as eneraies of the word Avho believed
that he was born of the seed of Abraham, because it is writ
ten. The second Adam is heavenly from heaven. But since,
on better evidence than Westphal can produce from his
party, Ave have been enabled to testify the reverence which
we feel for the word of God ; since even our books furnish
clear proof that we are faithful and honest interpreters,
Westphal Avill be a wondrous juggler if he can irapose upon
the eye of the reader, so as to convert obvious reality into
an empty phantom.
Let him have done, then, with his unseasonable garrulity,
from which it is apparent that the only thing he is hunting
after is to delude the unskilful, and prevent them from
knowing the fact. Of what use is it to charge us with folly,
as if we did not believe Moses and the prophets ? If we
interpret the words of Christ as the common usage of Scrip
ture demands, we are not, on that account, to be forthwith
regarded as unbelievers. Did we not feel astricted to the
truth of Christ ; did not religion bind us, why should we
stand continuaUy in the line of battle ? We know, indeed,
what it is to be foolish in our own eyes, so as soberly, and
in the spirit of meekness, to erabrace what God teaches to
babes ; and we trust we understand the wisdom which, as
Paul declares, comprehends heaven and earth in its breadth
and length, its depth and height. But to Westphal there is
nothing in the inestimable love wherewith God has erabraced
us in his only-begotten Son — nothing in the whole raystery
of rederaption, the boundless virtue of Christ, and his glori
ous resurrection, if the bread be not substantially the body.
To him, too, there is nothing in our doctrine that Christ, by
his Spirit, infuses into us the vivifying virtue of his flesh
and blood, that in a wonderful raanner he perforras within
what the bread figures to the eye, so that we are united to
his life, and oUr souls are invigorated by the substance of
his flesh. Wherefore let him be a monitor to himself rather
than to others, and not deceive himself by thinking he is
somewhat Avhen he is nothing. Were he not intoxicated

330 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
Avith inconceivable pride, he would not, in coraparison with
himself, despise all others who do not humbly yield to his
obstinacy. The sarae pride dictates his querulous assertion, that to
charge him with insanity is to blaspheme God. If it is so,
it is clear that he is not aniraated by any zeal for the glory
of God, as he shows no desire to return to sanity ; but until
he be joined to God by a raore sacred tie, there is no reason
at all to fear that any thing deservedly said of him can offer
contumely to God. The Apostles were derided on the day
of Pentecost as being intoxicated. This Westphal transfers
to himself with no better right than sibyls and bacchanalians
might. He certainly could not offer a greater affront to
the Apostles than by introducing himself into their order ;
until imbued with a new spirit, and transforraed to other
manners, he has ceased to be like himself As it was
sacrilegious scorn to regard the inspiration of the Spirit as
drunkenness, so to use the name of God as a pretext for in
temperate raving is a worse evil than drunkenness. But
although sober and impartial men desiderate moderation in
the veheraence of Luther, Westphal is too far distant from
him to be able to hide his disgrace under Luther's shade.
We grant that in Scripture the corrupt in the faith are con
demned as insane ; but when he infers from this that there
fore we will not be sane before we detest our error, I wonder
where he gets his therefore. When he here inserts, as if by
stealth, that in the celebration of the Supper some, stmck
with Satanic fury, omit the words of Christ, "This is my
body," we must just take it as if some abandoned person
were to go about giving bad naraes at hazard to everybody
he should chance to raeet.
The charge of arrogance he disposes of by denying it in
word, and then proving, by solid evidence, that he is a very
Thraso. He thinks he is doing nothing inconsistent with
his profession while he professes hiraself a defender of the
orthodox faith. First, what does he mean by saying he pro
fesses nothing inconsistent with his profession ? Assuredly
I deny not that by professing he professes : only I wish he
would do it truly. Nay, if the fact corresponded to the

IN ANSAVER TO THE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 331
word, he would get us all to subscribe, instead of being
forced, as we now are, publicly to oppose his false fictions.
But where is that stammering simplicity for which he cora
raends himself? Nothing like simplicity will be found
throughout his book, and for stammerers to be so loquacious is
against nature. When he alleges that he is doing the work
of the Church, he Avould have spoken more truly had he said
that he is undoing it, his whole object being to give annoy
ance to the children of God.
He would have it thought that he raight, in another way,
consult better for his own quiet : as if it would not also suit
me better to desist from writing if this restless raan would
not force me to it, and drag rae away frora other useful
studies. I raay indeed traly declare, that as I might remain
silent without being hurt, and the weapons of Westphal can
not Avound me individually, the good of the Church is the
only motive that induces me to write. What place he would
hold among his people, did he not raake a narae for himself
by exciting disturbance, I leave all men to judge. He raises
his notes louder, and says, that were he to declare that he is
contending not only for the Churches of Saxony, but others,
however remote, it would be no vain boast. And yet a
little after, as if he had forgotten himself, he adds, very in
considerately, that I cannot produce a page in which he
gives out that he is fighting for Saxony. I have no need to
tum over each of his pages. Let the book itself be brought
forth, and display its author's vanity. And I know not
what modesty it is that prevents one who embraces the
whole globe from professing himself the defender of Saxony.
For, as if he alone were sustaining the whole weight, he
says, that he writes in Latin with a view to foreign countries.
In the comraon name of all, I affirm that there is not a man
of sound brain who will not most willingly free him of his
labour. If he continues to go on, he will gain nothing for his
pains but malediction from all whose favour he is courting.
If he is to be believed, he is from nature and habit a great
lover of modesty and bashfulness, so rauch so that these
virtues from his youth up have always been his chosen at
tendants. Would that they had rather been his guides, and

332 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
not as Ave see remained behind to punish his contempt.
The blush of shame (verecundia) must certainly be a common
attendant of the Westphals ; for it cannot but be that God
will cast down in disgrace those who exalt themselves so
highly. He so transfigures himself as to raake it difficult to
select the proper point of attack. Modesty and liberty are,
I adrait, raost becoraing in the servants of Christ ; but tAvo
things reraain for Westphal to prove — first, that the cause
he pleads is the cause of Christ ; and secondly, that the
frantic irapetus with which he is carried and hurried along,
differs in no respect frora the spirit of liberty Avith which the
sons of God are endowed. For what can he gain by a prolix
coraraendation of his office, unless the fact be distinctly ascer
tained ? He says that he has been forced into this warfare
by a heavenly guide, whereas we, under no legitimate aus
pices, fight against God, take up arms against Christ sitting
on the right hand of the Father, and bear hostile standards
against his soldiers. In other words, a stolid braggart arro
gates every thing to himself ; an impure calumniator vents
at hazard invectives which fall of their own accord before
they reach us ; a profane man shamefully and licentiously
abuses passages of Scripture, just as sorcerers distort sound
words in impious incantations. And yet he quarrels with
me for rebuking hira, for combating instead of encouraging
him ; for I cannot give any other raeaning to his words,
that good leaders are wont to encourage their soldiers by
praises and proraises, not to rebuke them for fighting.
I wish he would conduct hiraself so that one raight feel at
liberty to encourage him as one of the soldiers of Christ.
As I admonished him to retire from a war improperly begun,
he vainly tries to wrest my words, and make rae mean that
I despise comraon soldiers, and seek to raise a noble trophy
to sorae great leader. Have I challenged any one ? Do I
not rather study to offer myself as a coadjutor, that Ave may
with one mind extend the kingdom of Christ ? It is Avorth
while to attend to his next remark, that it were a kind of
Thrasonic boasting to undertake to contend with the leaders.
This is completely proved by Westphal's exaraple. B.o\t
numerous and how distinguished are the individuals Avhom he

IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 333
has presumed to engage at once ! Throwing them all, living
and dead, into one bundle, he has attempted to put them all
to route by one little book. Meanwhile, his honour, as to
which he is on other occasions more than dulyanxious, he lays
too low when he charges me with being unwUling to fight
with him, because I regard hira as too insignificant an op
ponent. He then passes to another subject, and says, that we
did not yield to the chief raen. If it was Avrong not to do so,
with what face did he, Avithout any provocation, presume to
rise against the chief men ? It is less excusable audacity
voluntarily to make Avar on those who are quiet and silent,
than to defend ourselves against those who assail us. But
to spare hira, now that he flees to his coraraon asylura, (the
regular custom of those men being to take shelter under the
name of Luther, and hold it up as the shield of Ajax,) how
shall he excuse the unbridled irapudence which he blurts
forth against us ?
He assigns us for patrons Carolstadt, Suinckfeldius, and
others of Uke stamp, whom he calls satellites of Satan.
What I long ago Avrote conceming Suinckfeldius he is not ig
norant, and the whole world is my witness. In speaking of
profane men who raake void the sacraraents, I have set hira
down as the standard-bearer. (Commentary, 1 Cor. x.) See
the spiritual power with Avhich Westphal has been armed to lie
by any one rather than by Christ. Let the reader now judge
whether I did him injustice when I said that he sported at
his ease, seeing it is evident that, for the sake of beguiling
the tirae, he and his fellows not only licentiously talk what
they please against us, but also introduce it into published
writings. He says he is not exerapted from the comraon
lot of aU who bear the pastoral office. Certainly if he con
trasts ray cares with his seat, he raay justly hold hiraself to
be a Cathedral bishop. In this I do not envy him : only I
would not have him to pursue hostility to us for his mere
gratification. Were he to employ his vehemence to some
useful purpose, I would rather stimulate his holy zeal by ap
plause and congratulation than check it by rebuke.
Why does he now complain that his calumnies have raet
with their just reward ? His boast of zeal for the house of

334 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
God must be classed among the other boasts by which he
foully profanes all that is sacred. When he says that he
sometimes feels keenly against obstinate raen, but by em
ploying raoderation takes care that his fervour does not be
come a fault, you would say that Cato the Censor is speak
ing, and the stern gravity of that sage would produce a kind
of terror did not the long ears iraraediately appear and show
it to be only Westphal. There is great truth in the words
he quotes frora Nanzianzen, that the soldiers of Christ,
though raeek in other things, must be pugnacious for the
faith. But not only common experience, but this man's in
temperance, shows it to be equally true that the servants
of the devil are more than pugnacious against the faith.
Therefore if he would escape the charge of perverse violence,
let him not deck himself in another's feathers, but begin to
show himself the servant of God, instead of continuing as
hitherto to be too strenuous a soldier of the father of discord.
When he bids me compare my letter with all his writings,
and holds his violence excused by the comparison, I refuse
not the offer, only let the reader judge from his farrago which
I discussed, how rauch he deserved, and how far I ara from
having done him injustice by my sharpness. Moreover, in
order that he raay not bear the whole burden of obloquy, he
throws part of it on tale-bearers. But lest any one should
suppose that these words go to ray exculpation, he iramedi
ately after adds, that there is little difference between the
fault of those who hurt the reputation of others by their tales,
and those who, lending too ready an ear, bring charges against
the persons thus defamed, because God forbids us no less to
receive false evidence than to give it. Why then does he in
each of his pages lie so licentiously against an unoffending
multitude, and tear me so atrociously ?
He dares to cite me before the bar of God. Had he any
thought of divine judgment, he would either spare a man
who has deserved well of the Church of God, or at least treat
him raore huraanely. But why do I ask any regard to he
paid to rae, when I see such indignity and invective against
illustrious servants of God, who either spent their whole
life in maintaining his glory and promoting the kingdom of

IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF AVESTPHAL. 335
Christ, or still surviving, hold on the same course ? His
truculence appears in strong colours when he inveighs against
fugitives. He deeras it not sufficient to have denied them
hospitality and driven them away amidst the rigour of a
most severe winter, when they Avished to breathe a little, un
less he also endeavours, by all the means in his power, to
exterminate them from the face of the earth. Although
just indignation was then wrung from me by the pity with
which, if I am not of iron, I behoved to be touched at the
sad calamities of my brethren, stiU I now see and confess
that I was deceived. I thought that Westphal and his fel
lows had had some cause or other for being more than ordi
narily exasperated. Now I see that to exercise unbounded
severity against aU of us indiscriminately, it is enough for
them that we do not subscribe at their dictation. With
such virulent hatred do they inveigh against us, that they
would sooner make peace with the Turks, and fraternize
with Papists, than keep trace with us. If this indignity
stirs my bile, no man need wonder. If I have exceeded
bounds, the goodness of the cause will, I trust, procure ray
pardon with equitable judges.
But Westphal does not leave me this excuse ; for he says,
first, that the cause I plead is not good ; and secondly, that
I have given loose reins to my passions in order that I might
obscure the light of truth. As to the cause, I presume that
aU pious men are satisfied. I think I have defended it by
strong arguments, as weU as discussed it in a regular raan
ner ; for to caU in the aid of invective is a thing which the
case did not require, and which ray mind never thought of
WhUe he harangues rhetorically that any cause, be it what it
may, is rendered suspicious by mingling invective with it,
why does he not exercise some self-restraint ? How coraes it
that he is ever and anon calling out heresy and blasphemy?
How comes it, in short, that he never abstains from any kind
of insolence ? And yet, as if it were sufficient to wipe his
mouth, he pretends that the only purpose he had was to repel
my assault. See why he charges me with having adomed a
bad cause with declamation, as a kind of adventitious colour
ing, though it is plain that, after taking a firm grasp of the

336 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
subject, I have said nothing that was not relevant to it,
whUe he, touching it sparingly and raeagerly, keeps wander
ing and winding about in coraraonplace. Assuredly he will
never be so eloquent a rhetorician as to persuade others that
I am a declairaer. My concise brevity in writing, and the
firm stand I take in handling arguraent, are known to all.
Westphal has made the conclusion of his book consist of
certain cavils, by which he has endeavoured to excite suspi
cion, and detract from the credit of what was correctly stated.
At the outset, indeed, he does not dare openly to censure,
but pretends to call for the examination of the Church ; at
length, coUecting courage, he ventures to condemn. It is
something, indeed, that by his confession I pay more honour
to the sacraments, and speak of their virtue, use, and dig
nity Avith more reverence than most others. If it is so,
why did this moderation of mine not soften him ? So far
frora having had any effect in soothing- his anger, it would
seem rather to have exasperated him. If by my doctrine,
which he declares to be moderate, his moroseness could not
be entirely appeased nor his asperity softened, what cause was
there for assaulting me so violently ? For although mixing
me up with a crowd of others he did not select a single
enemy, yet he has conceived raore bitterness frora our Agree
raent than frora all other writings whatever. Let us proceed,
however, to his censures.
He acknowledges with me that the sacraments were insti
tuted to lead us to the coraraunion of Christ, and be helps by
which we raay be ingrafted into the body of Christ, or, being
ingrafted, be united raore and more. He asks why I say
that infants begotten of believers are holy and merabers of
the Church before they are baptized? I answer, that they may
grow up the raore into communion with Christ. He thinks
he is arguing acutely in denying that they are ingrafted
into the Church before baptism, if they are ingrafted by
baptism. I easily retort the objection. For if I am right
as to the effect of the sacraments, viz., that it makes those
W'ho are already ingrafted into the body of Christ to be
united to him more and more, what forbids the application
ofthis to baptism ? I do not, however, insist on this answer.

IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OP WESTPHAL. 337
I admit that the proper office of baptism is to ingraft us into
the body of Christ, not that those Avho are baptized should
be altogether aliens from him, but because God attests that
he thus receives them. There is a well-known saying of
Augustine, that there are raany sheep of Christ without the
Church, just as there are raany wolves dwelling Avithin ; in
other words, those whora God invites to himself by the Spirit
of adoption, were known to him before they knew him by
faith. Therefore, although God acknowledges as in his
Church persons who seem to be strangers, and are so in so
far as they themselves are concerned, he is justly said to
ingraft thera into his Church when he enlightens them unto
faith, AA'hich is their first entrance into the hope of eternal
life. I admit that the difficulty of the question is not yet solved.
I only adverted to these principles to let Westphal see there
is no absurdity in saying, that persons who were formerly
members of the Church are afterwards ingrafted into the
Church. Before I give my answer with regard to children
and infants, I should like to have his as to the four thousand
men whom Peter gained over to Christ by his first serm^on :
also as to Cornelius and others. If he denies that they were
raembers of the Church before baptism, then, according to
him, faith and repentance have no effect. If those whom
God has regenerated by his word — whom he has formed again
after his image — whora he has honoured with the celestial
light of faith — Avhom he has enriched with the gifts of his
Spirit, belong not to the body of the Church, by what marks
can the children of God be distinguished from the rest of
the world ? What, then, remains but for Westphal to con
cede, that in some measure, or secundum quid, (in some
respect,) as it is called, there were members of the Church
who were afterwards initiated into its society by baptism ?
Thus the sins of Paul were washed away in baptism, though
he had previously obtained pardon of them by faith.
There is nothing to prevent our applying this to infants,
whose case is not unlike ; for either the covenant by which
God adopts them is vain, and the promise void, or those whom
God declares to be of his flock are not wholly strangers.
VOL. IL Y

338 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
God gives the name of sons to those to whom the inherit
ance of salvation has been proraised in the person of their
parents. By what -title can he be their Father if they in
no way belong to the Church ? There is nothing, however,
to prevent his sealing this grace, and confirming anew the
sarae thing that he had given before. It is strange that
Westphal denies this right to infants, though without it he
could not properly adrait them to baptism. But while I
acknowledge that we becorae raerabers of the Church by
baptisra, I deny that any are duly baptized if they do not
belong to the body of the Church. It is not ours to confer
the sacraments on all and sundry ; but we must dispense
them according to the rale prescribed by God. Who author
ized you, Westphal, to bestow the pledge of eternal life, tlie
symbol of righteousness and renovation, on a profane person
lying under curse ? Were an Anabaptist to debate with you,
I presurae your only valid defence would be, that baptism is
rightly administered to those whora God adopted before they
were born, and to whom he has promised that he will be a
Father. Did not God transrait his grace frora parents to
children, to adrait new-bom infants into the Church would
be a raere profanation of baptisra. But if the promise of
God under the law caused holy branches to proceed from a
holy root, will you restrict the grace of God under the gos
pel, or dirainish its efficacy by withholding the testiraony of
adoption by which God distinguishes infants ?
The law ordered infants to be circuracised on the eighth
day. I ask, whether that was a legitiraate ingrafting into
the Church of God ? Who dares deny that it was ? But
Scripture declares them to have been holy from the womb,
as being the offspring of a holy race ; in other words, for the
reason for which Paul teaches, that the children of believers
are noA\' holy. Westphal argues as if God Avere not at liberty
gradually to perfect the faith of his people. I again say,
that they are in some respect ingrafted into the Church,
though in a different respect they were previously ingrafted.
The promise of God must not be deemed of no moment, as
if it were insufficient for the salvation of those whom he
calls sons and heirs. Confiding in it, I hold that those whom

TN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 339
God has already set apart for hiraself are rightly brought for
baptism. We are not now speaking of secret election, but of
an adoption manifested by the word, which sanctifies infants
not yet born. But as baptism is a soleran recognition by
which God introduces his children into the possession of life,
a true and effectual sealing of the proraise, a pledge of sacred
union with Christ, it is justly said to be the entrance and
reception into the Church. And as the instruraents of the
Holy Spirit are not dead, God traly performs and effects by
baptism what he figures.
If Westphal do not admit this rule, the Apostles waited
foolishly, and against reason, tiU those whom they were
afterwards to admit to baptism should be made sons of God.
According to his dogma, they ought to have baptized first, lest
the Church, by receiving thera into her bosora as already holy,
should render baptism superfluous : unless, indeed, with the
same equity with which he denied hospitality to the pious
exiles of Christ, he expunge those who are regenerated by
the Spirit from the kingdom of heaven. Cornelius, before
he was baptized with his household, having received the
Holy Spirit, being adorned with the badges of saints, justly
held some place among the children of God. The baptism
which was afterwards added Westphal must hold to be pre
posterous, if he insists that none are to be admitted to it but
strangers. It is a frivolous cavil to say that I am sporting with an
ambiguous expression, as if the reception which is given by
baptism were nothing else than an external distinction be
fore men, since I plainly affirm, that in baptism we have to
do with God, who, not only by testifying his paternal love,
pledges his faith to us, so as to give us a sure persuasion of
our salvation, but also inwardly ratifies by his divine agency
that which he figures by the hand of his minister.
This disposes of another calumny, where he says, that
some of us, while holding that infants, who, before eternal
ages, had been adopted as sons, are afterwards visibly in
grafted into the body of Christ, introduce paradoxes which
are repugnant to the words of Christ, " Whoso believeth and
is baptized shaU be saved ;" and again, " Unless ye be bom

340 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
of water and of the Spirit," &c. No one, I believe, ever pro
posed to dissever the sanction of grace frora baptism, that
the covenant might be ratified which God made by his word.
Here the reader sees how little he cares to defile the Scrip
ture with unwashen hands. The question between us turns
on infants. He contends, that by baptisra they become
merabers of Christ and heirs of life. By what passage does
he confirra this view ? Just by one, by which infants would
be cut off frora the hope of salvation, were it not clear that
it is to be understood as only referring to adults, who from
age are already fit to belicA'e. When fanatical raen impugn
Psedobaptism, they argue from this passage, not without
plausibility, that the order appointed by Christ is overthrown
if faith do not precede baptism. Their error is properly
refuted, by observing, that Christ there treats expressly of
the preaching of the gospel, which is addressed to none but
adults. Westphal breaks forth, and extracts from it, like
oil frora stone, that salvation is given to infants by baptism.
The other passage, when he has raore carefully exarained it,
he will cease iraproperly to apply to baptism.
Again, he asks, if the sacraments are instruments by which
God acts efficaciously, and testifies and seals his grace to us,
Avliy do we deny, that by the washing of baptism men are
born again ? As if our alleged denial were not a fiction of
his own. Having distinctly asserted, that men are regene
rated by baptism, just as they are by the word, I early ob
viated the irapudence of the raan, and left nothing for his
invective to strike at but his own shadow. When he expos
tulates with me for having charged him and his companions
with blindness, because they erroneously affix their confi
dence of salvation to the sacraments, and transfer to them
what properly belongs to God alone, he either is actuated
by strange eagerness for quarrelling, or he has determined
for once to carry all the superstitions in the Avorld into his
own stye.
We know how gross the errors on the sacraments are which
prevail in the Papacy, how the rainds of all, being fascinated
by a kind of magical enchantments, pass by Christ, and fix
their confidence of salvation on the elements. We know,

IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 341
that SO far from applying the sacraraents to their proper end,
they rather make them the cause of grace. Nothing of all
this does Westphal aUow to be touched, without crying out
that he is hurt : as if to please him, so many vile corrap
tions were to be fostered ; Avhereas, had he one particle of
true piety in his mind, he Avould use his utmost endeavour
to purge them away. But it is obvious, that under the in
fluence of some incredible perversity, he Avould sooner im
merse himself in the deepest pools of the Papacy than raake
any approach to us. He denies that he transfers any part
of salvation to creatures, because the question is conceming
the presence of God working by means which he has ap
pointed. I assent. What he afterwards adds, being bor
rowed from us almost verbatim, why should I repudiate?
Nay, I ara rather obliged to hira for agreeing and subscribing
to my words so far, untU, in accordance with his nature, he
falls back again upon his calumnies.
He infers, I know not from what principles, that I in
ignorance partly destroy the effect of baptism, partly bring
it into doubt. How do I destroy it ? He answers. Because
I deny that the benefit derived from the sacraraents is con
fined to the time at which they are administered. What
says he to the contrary ? He confesses with me that the
virtue of baptism extends to the whole of life, and that in
fants who have been Avashed at the sacred font often show no
benefit from it after some progress of years'. But he rejoins,
that their baptism was not therefore void and without effect.
By these words he thinks he solves the difficulty. He cer
tainly frees rae : only he adds shortly after, that they are
always truly regenerated and sanctified in baptisra, though
afterwards, from Avant of due training, they relapse into the
defilements of sin. In these words he insinuates something
too gross to be tolerated by the ordinance of God.
I ask, if Simon Magus was truly sanctified at the sarae
moment when he was washed with the water ? It is not
likely that the hypocrisy for which he is so severely rebuked
by Peter Avas ever eradicated from his mind : hence it fol
lowed, that the effect of baptism did not iramediately appear.
But had he repented at Peter's admonition, would not the

342 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
grace of baptism have resuraed its place ? And how many
daUy approach the holy table who by negligence and luke
warmness are deprived of present benefit, and yet, when
afterwards aroused, begin to receive it ? Who dare say that
none partake of Christ but those A\'ho receive him in the
very act of the Supper ? Westphal's rejoinder, that this
does not iraply that the sacraments do no good when they
are administered, is easily answered. They do good just as
a seed when thrown into the ground, though it may not take
root and germinate at the very raoraent, is not without its
use. Had it not been sown in this raanner it would not in
process of tirae have sent forth its shoot. Baptism becomes
at last effectual, though it does not work effectually at the
same moraent at which it is performed. Westphal objects,
that its virtue is not to be put off to distant years, as if God
did not regenerate infants when they are baptized. Grant
ing this, he has still to prove that they are always regen
erated. For as I do not hold it to be a universal rule, so the
exception which I adduce is manifest, that the nature of
baptism or the Supper raust not be tied down to an instant
of time. God, whenever he sees meet, fulfils and exhibits
in iraraediate effect that which he figures in the sacrament.
But no necessity must be iraagined so as to prevent his
grace from sometiraes preceding, soraetimes foUowing, the
use of the sign. The dispensation of it, its Author so
tempers as not to separate the virtue of his Spirit from the
sacred symbol.
It is easy to show how groundlessly he presses a passage
of Augustine into his service. Augustine is arguing against
the Manichees, that perfection is not to be looked for in the
very coraraenceraent of regeneration, because renovation be
gun by the sacred laver is perfected by progress, sooner in
sorae, later in others. What can any one infer from this but
just that the ordinary method in which God accomplishes
our salvation is by beginning it in baptism and carrying it
gradually forward during the whole course of life? Thus he
shows, (De Trinit. Cont. Cath. et Donat. 14,) that fuU and
entire regeneration is not conferred at the same instant when
entire forgiveness of sins is received. Hence it follows, that

IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 343
it is not always received at the very monient when it is
offered. For though there can be no doubt that on the part
of God, (to use a common expression,) this is the perpetual
virtue and utility of baptism, and this, too, the ordinary
method of dispensing grace, it is erroneous to infer that
the free course of Divine grace is tied down to instants of
time. I come now to the second branch of the calumny. He
says, that the effect of baptism is brought into doubt by me,
because I suspend it on predestination, whereas Scripture
directs us to the word and sacraments, and leads by this way
to the certainty of predestination and salvation. But had
he not here introduced a fiction of his OAvn, which never
carae into ray raind, there was no occasion for dispute. I
have written rauch, and the Lord has employed rae in various
kinds of discussion. If out of my lucubrations he can pro
duce a syUable in which I teach that we ought to begin with
predestination in seeking assurance of salvation, I am ready
to remain dumb. That secret election was raentioned by
rae in passing, I adrait. But to what end ? Was it either
to lead pious rainds away frora hearing the proraise or
looking at the signs ? There was nothing of which I was
more careful than to confine them entirely within the word.
What ? While I so often inculcate that grace is offered by
the sacraments, do I not invite them there to seek the seal
of their salvation ? I only said that the Spirit of God does
not work indiscriminately in all, but as he enlightens the
elect only imto faith, so he also provides that they do not
use the sacraments in vain. Should I say that the promises
are comraon to all, and that etemal salvation is offered in
coraraon to all, but that the ratification of them is the special
gift of the Spirit, who seals the offered grace in the elect,
would Westphal say that the word is removed from its place ?
And what does he himself daily declare to the people from
the pulpit, but just that faith comes by hearing, and yet that
those only obey to whom the arm of the Lord is revealed ?
The reason is, that while God invites all by the word, he in
wardly gives an effectual call to those whom he has chosen.
Let him cease then to cavU and pretend that I render the

344 SECOND DEFENCE OF THE SACRAMENTS,
effect of baptisra doubtful when I show that election is the
source frora which the profit found in the sacraments flows
to those to whom it has been specially given. For while,
according to the comraon proverb, things standing to each
other in the relation of superior and inferior are not contra
dictory, an inferior sealing of grace by the sacraments is not
denied, while the Spirit is called the prior and more internal
seal ; and the cause is at the same time stated, viz., because
God has elected those whom he honours with the badge of
adoption. Not less unworthy is his last cavil, by which he distorts a
sentiraent that is most true, and not raore true than useful.
I said that those act foolishly who look only to the bare
signs and not also to the proraises annexed to them. He
adraits that it was rightly said, and he freely gives it his
support. Shortly after, as if sorae new wasp had stung him,
he murraurs that caution raust be used, otherwise the pro
mise raay be dissevered frora the sacraments. What ? Was
not the proraise distinctly admitted when I joined it to them
by an indissoluble tie ? I observed that a sacrilegious divorce
was raade if any one should insist on having the bare sign,
and that dissevered from the proraise. Westphal cries out
that we must beware of separating the promise from the
signs, just as if he were to keep scolding and calling to the
builder of a cistern, who was carefully stopping up the chinks,
to take care that the water did not escape through them.
What am I endeavouring to do, but just to make those
who desire benefit from the sacraments confine themselves
within the word ? Westphal coraes upon me while so em
ployed, and finds fault with me, as if I were maintaining
that baptism is nothing but water, and that in the Supper
there is nothing but bread and wine. Why then did I
quote the testimony of Augustine — that without the word
the water is nothing but an element, and that with the word
it begins to become a sacrament — but just to show that the
sacraments derive their value frora the word with which they
are so closely connected, that on being dissevered from it
they lose their nature ? Westphal's motive, no doubt, was
this. He did not think that his hostility to us would seem

IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF WESTPHAL. 345
fierce enough if he did not out of mere spite attack the
plainest truth, seize upon the minutest particles as raaterials
for strife, and infect honey itself Avith his bitter. He chose
to publish his disgrace before the whole world sooner than
not prove to the little brothers who kept soothing and flatter
ing him, that he is our declared enemy out and out.

LAST ADMONITION OF JOHN CALVIN

JOACHIM WESTPHAL,
WHO, IF HB HEEDS IT NOT, MU.ST HEXCEFOKTU BE TREATED IN THE AVAY
WHICH PAUL PBBSCRIBES FOR OBSTINATE HERETICS ;
HERKIN ALSO ARl: REFUTED THE CENSURES BY AVHIOH THOSE OF
M.^GDEBUUG AND ELSEWHERE HAVE TRIED TO
OVEKTDRN HEAVEN AND EARTH.
Joachim Westphal has published a letter, written to
one of his friends, whose name shame makes him conceal.
Having there proraised that he is going to answer the charges
of John Calvin, he raournfuUy deplores that I have treated
him more harshly than the Anabaptists, Libertines, and
Papists. Were I to grant this, (though he here shamefully
exposes his vanity,) why does he not sit down calmly and
consider with himself, what he has deserved both by his atro
cious attacks on sound doctrine, and his barbarous cruelty
towards pious and unoffending individuals ? He asks if he
deserves no raercy, while others are raore raildly treated, as
if one who has violated all the rights of humanity, and been
seen, of set purpose, making war on equity and raodesty,
had not precluded hiraself from all title to expostulate.
Why does he not rather attend to the declaration of our
heavenly Master, " With Avhat measure ye raete, it shall be
raeasured to you again ?" As if he had been brought up in
the Roraan court during his whole life, and learned nothing
but anatheraa, he surpasses all the scribes and clerks of the
Pope, by fulrainating against us in almost every sentence.
When arguraent faUs him, he overwhelms the best cause, hy
damnatory sentences and reproaches. Nay, as in comedies
wicked slaves, driven to despair, throw every thing into con
fusion, so he by his clamour mingles light and darkness.

LAST admonition TO JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 347
Why should I not give this insanity its proper narae ? Nay,
as I had to do with a hard and stubborn head, why should
I not be permitted to use a hard wedge for a bad knot ?
Unless, indeed, he can show that he is protected by some
new privilege, Avhich entitles him petulantly to employ his
bad tongue on others, without hearing a harsh word in
reply. This, no doubt, is the reason why both those censors pro
nounce my book full of sting and virulence. I am not sur
prised at the former epithet, nor ara I sorry that raen so
stupid have, at least, felt some pricks. As to virulence, they
will find more of it in themselves than in the book. Still,
Avhatever contumely Westphal may deserve, I ought not, it
seems, to toss him about so violently. Accordingly, he ex
claims, that all covering, gloss, and pretext are removed, and
my temper stands disclosed by this one book : nay, he pre
tends that I have hitherto gone about personating a different
character frora my OAvn. The character which God gave me, I,
by his grace, so bear, that the sincerity of my faith is abun
dantly raanifest. I wish the integrity of Westphal and his
fellows were half as weU proved by sirailar fruit. I do not
envy others, though they should surpass me an hundredfold,
but it is intolerable to hear lazy drones crying down the in
dustry which they cannot imitate.
To prove that I ara devoid of all fear of God, raodesty,
humility, patience — that, in short, I have nothing becoming
a serA'ant of Christ, he alleges, that unmoved by the dread
ful denunciation of Christ, " Whoso shall say to his brother.
Thou fool, shall be liable to hell fire," I have filled numer
ous sheets with raore than six hundred reproaches. One
would say, that we have here Julian the apostate, while he
craeUy rages against the whole Christian name, discoursing
in mockery about bearing the cross. He who has hitherto
allowed himself a thousand tiraes to vociferate, without
measure or restraint, against the faithful servants of Christ,
ever and anon calling thera heretical, impious, blasphemous,
crafty, forgers, plagues, and devils, cannot bear to have one
word of condemnation uttered against his presumption. If,
in rebuking the Galatians for fickleness and thoughtlessness

348 LAST ADMONITION TO
in being too easy and credulous, Paul did not hesitate to
eraploy the term madness, with what vehemence should not
the presuraption of one Avho, with phrenzied irapetus, attacks
the doctrine of Christ and his true worshippers, be repressed?
The only wish I have is, that the rebuke had so touched the
mind of Joachim as not to leave hira guilty before that
heavenly tribunal, the terror of which he holds out to others.
But tlie precept of Christ is, to love our enemies, and bless
those that curse us. Why, then, has he of liis own accord
raade a hostile assault on his friends, and those who were
desirous to cultivate fraternal goodwill with him ? Why did
he pronounce maledictions on those who were quiet, and had
never harmed hira by a single word ? He denies both charges.
Let his writings be read, that one especially in which he
attacks our Agreeraent. Till that time I had never touched
hira or one of his faction, but had rather humbly begged,
that if any thing in our doctrine did not please, it might
not be deemed too troublesome to correct it by placid admo
nition. And, indeed, as experience afterwards showed, some
then justly derided me for being so simple as to hope that
those who had previously forgotten the rights of humanity,
and vehemently flamed out against us, would be calmed
down. Why did Joachim, when so mildly requested, choose
to cry out heresy, rather than to point out the error, if any
there was? Thus unworthily treated, not in the heat of
passion, as he falsely imagines, but to curb the excessive
ferocity in which he was indulging, I applied the remedy
somewhat more sharply than I could desire. I wish the
pain had stung him to repentance. But since he is so much
exasperated, and has, in no degree, laid aside his perverse
conduct, I console myself with another good result, viz., that
others will understand how insipidly he has defended his
error against the clear light of sound doctrine. Meanwhile,
if from blind hatred he is unable to perceive my intention,
Christ the comraon Judge recognises it, and, in his own time,
will raake it manifest that I am not so given to avenge pri
vate injuries, as not to be ready, when any hope of cure ap
pears, to lay aside all reraerabrance of them, and try all
methods of brotherly pacification.

JOACHIM AVESTPHAL. 349
When he says in another place that I have anxiously la-
ooured not to omit any kind of insult, how much he is rais
taken wiU best appear frora the fact. Many can bear me
witness that the book Avas hastily written. What the case
required, and occurred spontaneously at the time, I dictated
without any lengthened raeditation, and with a feeling so
remote from gall, (with which, he says, I am thoroughly in
fected,) that I afterwards wondered how harsher terms had
faUen from rae while I had no bitterness in my heart. But,
perhaps, the unworthy conduct of the raan, while indulging
his proud raoroseness, required that he should be raade to
feel that the defenders of the truth were not without sharp
weapons. It is easy for Joacliira to attribute to rae the
black salt of absurd scurrility and sycophantish raendacity ;
but it is equally easy for me in one word to dispose of the
calumny, by defying him to find any thing that can justify
his hateful charge. Though I should be silent, the candid
reader will alike detest his impudence and deride his folly.
With the same modesty he alleges, that I hunt in words and
syllables for absurd and insipid squibs, while it is plain that
so far from being on the watch for bitter terms, I have pur
posely omitted those which spontaneously presented them
selves. In short, if the reader wiU consider to what derision
Westphal has exposed himself, and how much subject for
irony his stupidity affords, none will be so unjust or preju
diced as not to say, that in this matter I have spared him
and used restraint. If I am a dealer in reproaches, because
I have held up the mirror to Joachim, who was winking too
much at his faults, and made him at last begin to feel
ashamed of his conduct, he must also bestow the same epithet
on the Prophets, and the Apostles, and Christ hiraself, whose
practice it was to adrainister severe reproof to the enemies
of sound doctrine, those of them especially whom they saw to
be proud and obstinate. Nay, laying hold of commonplace,
without modification and selection, as if it were unlawful to
charge the wicked defenders of error as they deserve, he
avowedly undertakes the defence of all false prophets, seek
ing to augment their licentiousness by impunity.
Westphal's complaint that I have treated him more un-

350 LAST ADMONITION TO
mercifuUy than Papists, Libertines, and Anabaptists, the
reader will perceive from my writings to be most false. To
render their pernicious errors by which all religion is cor
rupted detestable to all the pious, I depict them in their
true colours. In this matter, Westphal does not disapprove
of my severity by censuring it ; but as soon as he himself is
touched, he cries out that aU charity is disregarded. That
bitter reproaches and scurrilous witticisms are unbecoming
in Christians, both sides agree. But as the Prophets did
not refrain from derision, and our Saviour himself speaks in
cutting terms of perverse and deceitful teachers, and the
Holy Spirit everywhere inveighs with full freedom against
this class of men, it is thoughtless and foolish to raise the
question, whether it be lawful gravely and sternly to rebuke
those who expose themselves to shame and disgrace ; for this
is to bring a charge against the servants of God, whom holy
zeal often irapelled to harsh and bitter speeches. No doubt
every individual is always bound to look well to the cause
for which he either takes fire or speaks keenly.
After our Agreement was published, and Westphal had
full liberty to correct any thing that was faulty, calumniously
searching in all quarters for an appearance of repugnance,
he in savage mood lashed the living and the dead. I, in re
pelling this savage attack, refrained from giving his name,
in order that if he was of a temper that adraitted of cure
his ignorainy raight be buried. Repudiating this by a vio
lent, not to say cyclopical production, he attempted not only
to confound heaven and earth, but to stir up Acheron. Con
sidering that this obstinate intemperance was not to be
cured by gentle remedies, I took the liberty to sharpen my
pen. What could I do ? I must either by silence betray
the truth, or by soft and placid pleading, give signs of timi
dity and diffidence. As if he had wrested all the thunder
out of the hand of God to hurl it fearfully at our heads, he
endeavoured by the sound of words to strike us with dismay.
A graver refutation having dissipated the terrors of his ridi
culous anathemas, he has vented all his petulance and fury
against us, pretending it to be very sweetness, and then al
leges that I have forgotten all huraanity and modesty. Since

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 351
his ferocity has proved intractable, it is easy to see the
frivolousness and puerility of all his declamation. As if
lions and bears, after rashing madly at every one in their
way, should complain that they do not meet with soothing
treatment, this delicate little man, after atrociously attack
ing the doctrine of Christ and his ministers, regards it as a
great crime that he is not treated like a brother.
The whole question turns upon this — Did I attempt to
avenge a private injury, or was it in the defence of a public
cause that I strenuously opposed Westphal ? Any private
injury he did me I was bound patiently to bear. But if the
whole aim of my vehemence was to prevent a good cause,
even the sacred truth of Christ, from being overwhelmed by
the loud clamours of Westphal, why should it be imputed to
me as a fault ? I wish this perverse censor could have any
slight idea of what is meant by the words, " The zeal of thy
house hath eaten me up ; and the reproaches of them that
reproached thee feU upon me." Had he any such idea, he
would not so preposterously, as if in mockery, wrest the holy
admonition of Peter to his own purpose. Peter exhorts us,
hy the example of Christ, to submit calmly to all kinds of
contumely and reproach. Westphal therefore insists that
such silence as Christ kept when unjustly accused, should
be observed by his ministers whenever the trath is assailed :
as if instead of the injunction to all to cry aloud, the Apos
tle were there imposing a law of perfidious tolerance on the
preachers of the gospel. Wherefore, until Westphal shoAV
that I retaliated private wrongs, and was more devoted to
my own cause than to the defence of doctrine, the reader
will understand that it is the veriest trifling for him to talk
of patience and silence.
He also accuses me of not having studied to gain my
enemy. At first I foUowed the method best fitted to re
move offences, and now if he wishes reconciliation, though
he has so often injured me, I decline not. I appeal to Christ
as Judge, and call all angels to witness, that the moment
Westphal shall tum from his perverseness there will be no
delay in me in maintaining brotherly good-will with him.
Nay, if he can now put on the mind of a brother, I in my

352 LAST ADMONITION TO
turn am prepared to embrace him as a brother. But the
iniquitous condition is imposed, that I shall renounce the
confession of true and holy doctrine — a price for which I
would not purchase the peace even of the whole world. And
not to go on debating to weariness and without any profit,
let the reader attend to one leading point on which the
whole controversy turns. Joachim insists that any thing ja
lawful to him against us, because, as he says, he is defend
ing true doctrine against impious error. When once he shall
have proved this, I acknowledge that we must be quiet. But
if I teach and show that what he falsely arrogates to him
self traly belongs to me — that I am the faithful defender of
pure and holy doctrine, and faithfully exert myself not only
in refuting impious error, but in wiping off atrocious calum
nies, why should not I have the sarae liberty he claims?
Let judgment then be first given on the cause, that neither he
nor I may keep beating the air. What prevents the reader
frora drawing a sure distinction between holy zeal and licen
tious invective, but just the atterapt of Westphal to darken
the clear light, by clamouring that my book is stuffed with
bitter words ?
Here it is worth while in passing to notice the combined
stupidity and impudence of the man. In my former writ
ings, wishing to bring him back to a raoderate discussion of
the subject, I said it was base and absurd to attack us with
so rauch pride and petulance. He fiercely replied, that it
was necessary to fight with the utmost keenness against
heretics, and that, therefore, a composed or sedate style was
not to be used — that the more ardour any man felt in such
a contest the better he proved hiraself a zealous soldier of
Christ. In short, he used all the colouring he could to ex
cuse not only the vehemence but the fury of passion. What
does he now do ? Paul, he says, wished not that the dis
obedient should be regarded as enemies, but be corrected
as brethren. He also quotes recommendations of meekness
frora Arabrose and Gregory Nazianzen. Whoever will com
pare these two passages together, will not only say that this
raan, who so varies and differs from himself, has lost his
meraory and his senses, but will easily see that possessing

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 353
no ingenuousness, he sophistically catches now at this de
fence, now at that, and endeavours by empty froth to con
vert virtues into vices.
Tell me, Joachim, if you ever were in earnest when you
said that severity Avas by no means to be spared in con
demning error, or whether by now singing a disgraceful
palinode, you would condemn the rigour which you lauded
as holy zeal, in order to be able to throw obloquy on me ?
Meanwhile, this worthy asserter and teacher of charity, who
denies that it is to be violated by the smallest word, cries
out that aU persons whatsoever who are found to favour us
ought to be driven from the face of the earth, boasts of
having written that we ought to be refuted by the sword of
the magistrate rather than by the pen, and advises the
magistrates to pronounce interdict frora fire and water, not
only against the professors but even the approvers of our
doctrine. Westphal's definition of charity therefore is, that
he is to rage at wiU with fire and sword against us, and
then to pronounce that we have fallen frora Christianity, if
we use any freedora in speaking of him. To omit other
things, what gave him this great confidence, this atrocious
censorship, worthy of Phalaris, to be ever and anon styling us
heretics, a name which starts up not only in every page but
almost in every sentence, but just our refraining hitherto to
use invective in reply ? Assuredly, it was nothing but our
mildness that added so much to his ferocity. What say you
to this, good teacher of modesty ? While it is perfectly clear
that you abuse our patience in venting your anathemas,
what ground can you have for charging us with treating you
with harshness and austerity ?
He again entangles himself, by denying that he was
wamed. After he had raged like a bacchanalian against
the living and the dead, and not hesitated to form a cata
logue of heretics out of our names, and I, suppressing his
name, had showed my indignation, so little did I succeed,
that he proceeded much more violently to fulminate at us
with all kinds of curses and execrations. And yet the
worthy man thinks that the time had not yet arrived for
severe rebuke. When he again returns to his vulgar song,
VOL. II. 2

354 LAST ADMONITION TO
that he was not yet convicted of error, whereas he had, by
solid reasons and arguments drawn from sacred Scripture,
proved our heresy to be damnable, of what use is it to pol
lute our sheets with the odour of such falsehoods ? To remove
all ambiguity, let my book be brought forward and vindicate
itself frora the haughty charge. Assuredly, if I get it to
be read, it will soon appear how he upbraids rae with being
raore a buffoon than a divine, and how far from candour he
is in asserting that it is filled with nothing but empty in
vective. I would not object here to give a short summary
of it did not its brevity spare both the reader and myself
this trouble. Westphal has produced no argument which
Avas not there solidly refuted. I also adduced arguments
which neither he nor his whole band, do what they may,
will ever be able to shake off. This, too, I venture to assert,
that all endued with any moderate degree of impartiality
will at once, on reading- the book, admit that a doctrine
so tolerable could not without the greatest injustice be so
invidiously traduced.
But however some may embrace the doctrine of my
book, and others at least think it deserving of excuse, it
would seem I am not to gain any thing by it. For West
phal has fallen upon a witty device to elude rae, and sit
quiet while he calls in others to bear the brunt of the
battle. In order to prove that we overturn the Confession
of Augsburg, he introduces as our opponent Philip Melanc
thon, its raost distinguished author — a raan alike admirable
for piety and leaming. In another writing he brings us
into controversy with the ancient Church under the name of
Augustine. And lastly, he draws a dense phalanx from
different places in the neighbourhood of Saxony. By this
splendid array he hopes to dazzle the eyes of the simple.
As I have to deal with a man of no modesty, but of the
greatest loquacity, I must ask my readers, first, to put aside
all circumlocution, and look at the bare facts ; and secondly,
to use prudence and impartiality in judging.
As the Confession of Augsburg has obtained favour with
the pious, Joachim, with his faction, began long ago to do
as is common with raen destitute of arguraent, to obtrade it

JOACHIM WESTPHAL.

355

upon us as a shield of authority. If he could show that we
are opposed to the general consent given to it, he thought
that he would in a manner becloud the sky, or at least bring
a thick mist over the eyes of the simple, so as to prevent
one ray of light from appearing even at noon-day. To free
ourselves from the prejudice thus craftUy sought to be ex
cited, I appealed, I admit, to the author of the Confession,
and I do not repent having done so. What does Westphal
do ? With his gross barbarism he represents me as making
the victory to depend upon Philip's subscribing to us. Let
not my readers wait till he himself becomes ashamed of this
falsehood ; there is too much brass in his brow : let them
only judge what such vUe talk deserves.
My words are : in regard to the Confession of Augsburg
my answer is, that (as it was published at Ratisbon) it does
not contain a Avord contrary to our doctrine. If there is any
ambiguity in its meaning, there cannot be a more competent
interpreter than its author, to whom, as his due, all pious
and learned men wiU readily pay this honour. To him I
boldly appeal ; and thus Westphal with his vile garrulity lies
prostrate. Let him extract from these words, if he can, that I made the
victory to depend on the subscription of any single man. No
less sordid is the vanity which raakes him wonder exceed
ingly that such a stigma was fastened on his master, though,
from Philip's answer, he has learned the fact of our agree
ment more clearly than I ventured to declare it. But what
need is there of words ? If Joachim wishes once for all to
rid himself of all trouble and put an end to the controversy,
let him extract one word in his favour frora Philip's lips.
The means of access are open, and the joumey is not so very
laborious, to visit one whose consent he boasts so loftily, and
with whom he may thus have familiar intercourse. If I
shall be found to have used Philip's name rashly, there is no
stamp of ignominy to which I am not willing to submit.
The passage which Westphal quotes it is not mine to re
fute, nor do I regard what, during the first conflict, before
the matter was clearly and lucidly explained, the impor
tunity of some may have extorted from one who was then

356 LAST ADMONITION TO
too backward in giving a denial. It were too harsh to lay it
down as a law on literary men, that after they have given
a specimen of their talent and learning, they are never after
to go beyond it in the course of their lives. Assuredly, who
soever shall say that Philip has added nothing by the labour
of forty years, does great wrong to hira individually, and
to the whole Church. The only thing I said, and, if need
be, a hundred times repeat, is, that in this matter PhUip
can no more be torn from rae than he can from his own
bowels. But although fearing the thunder which threatened
to burst from violent men, (those who know the boisterous
blasts of Luther understand what I mean,) he did not always
speak out so openly as I could have wished, there is no rea
son why Westphal, while pretending differently, should in
directly charge hira with having begun to incline to us only
after Luther was dead. For when more than seventeen years
ago we conferred together on this point of doctrine, at our
first raeeting not a syllable required to be changed. Nor
should I omit to mention Gaspar Craciger, who, from his
excellent talents and learning, stood next after Philip high
est in Luther's estimation, and far beyond all others. He
so cordially embraced what Westphal now impugns, that
nothing can be imagined more perfectly accordant than our
opinions. But if there is still any doubt as to Philip, do I
not make a sufficient offer when I wait silent and confident
for his answer, assured that it will make manifest the dis
honesty which has falsely sheltered itself under the vener
able name of that most excellent man ?
I come to Augustine, whom, though all his writings pro
claim him to be wholly ours, Westphal, not content with
wresting from us, obtrudes as an adversary, not hesitating
to claim him for himself with the same audacity with which
he uniformly turns light into darkness. What view James
Bording, to Avhom he dedicates his farrago, now takes, I
knoAv not ; certainly if he has not greatly changed his mind,
he would rather that an office fraught with dishonour had
not been conferred on him. At the time when I knew him
he was distinguished not less by ingenuous modesty than by
learning. It is now only worth while briefly to advert to

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 357
what the Letter contains, not that I am going to expose all
its loquacity, but to enable my readers to form an estimate
of the temper of the man, as it wUl be easy to do from a few
heads. First, he maintains, that to prevent the contagion
from spreading, sectaries and heretics are to be banished
or otherwise subjected to punishment. As we are both
agreed on that matter, all he had to do was to subscribe to
us. It would certainly have been raore honest to have
quoted our books, frora which he borrows any arguments he
adduces, than, while pretending to make war upon us, to
fight with our own weapons. In this way he would not have
given a disgraceful specimen of stupidity, which the raan's
unreasonable conduct corapels me to notice.
As in the twenty-fourth Psalm, the Vulgate Version has
improperly rendered, " Lift up your doors, ye Princes," in
stead of " Lift up your heads, 0 ye doors," a certain learned
man, who has desei-ved Avell of the Church, from lapse of
raemory, as often happens, wishing to exhort princes to
defend piety, had used this passage. The error might be
tolerated. Westphal, quoting exactly " Lift up your heads,
0 ye doors," says, the passage enjoins magistrates to open
the doors to the Lord, and shut them against false prophets.
From this the reader may infer what reverence these men
show in handling Scripture, which they so impurely and
presumptuously lacerate. Yet the worthy raan, in his eager
ness to throw obloquy on rae, was not ashamed to insert in
the farrago, to which he gives the name of Confessions, the
letter of some foUower of Servetus, in which I am called
an incendiary for having taught that heretics are justly
punished. Let the letter be read. It brings no other charge
against me than that I teach that rulers are armed with the
sword not less to punish impiety than other crimes. The
only difference between me and Westphal is, that I say there
is no room for severity unless the case has been previously
discussed. Nay, as it is usual with the Papists in the pre
sent day to inflict craelties on the innocent without any
investigation, I justly condemn the barbarity, and recom
mend that no severe measure be ever adopted until after
due cognizance ; and I carefully warn them against being

358

last admonition to

too credulous, lest they may defile their hands by indis
criminate slaughter.
I then complain and lament that the world has been re
duced to such slavery that no discussion takes place, and
those who domineer under the name of prelates will not
hear a word at variance with their decrees ; nay, will not
even allow doubt or inquiry. I say that it is barbarity not
to be tolerated, when without cognizance raere possession,
unsupported by right or reason, is raaintained by the sword.
Certainly as, according to an ancient saying, ignorance is
audacious, so in this preposterous zeal cruelty is added to
audacity. I therefore enjoin the true worshippers of God to
take heed not rashly to undertake the defence of an un
known cause, nor be hurried by interaperance into severity ;
for as, in earthly causes, a judge Avho, hiraself in ignorance
of the whole matter, lazily passes sentence on the opinion
of others, is justly condemned ; so, how much more deserv
ing are judges of condemnation Avhen, in the cause of piety,
they, from disdain, omit to investigate ?
And I have not taught in word any thing that I have not
confirmed by act. For when Servetus was, by nefarious blas
phemies, overthrowing whatever piety exists in the world,
I, nevertheless, called him to discussion ; and not only came
prepared to give an account of my own doctrine, but chose
rather to swallow the reproaches of that vilest of men, than
furnish a bad example, by enabling any one afterwards to
object that he was crushed without being heard. Westphal
deeras it enough for magistrates to oppose the sword in place
of discussion ; and it is no wonder that a man, whose only
hope of victory is placed in darkness, should tyrannically
rage while suppressing the light of truth.
He is not ashamed to employ the narae of Augustine, as
if he had any thing in common with that raUd spirit. It is
strange, however, that while he professes in his book to
speak almost in the very words of Augustine, he so securely
differs from hira at the very outset, both in words and mean
ing. Augustine's words, in the forty-eighth Letter to Vin
eentius, are, " If they are frightened, and not taught, it will
seem wicked tyranny." And yet he is speaking of heretics.

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 359
who, impelled only by proud moroseness, had made a schism
from the Church. He therefore wishes, in order to make
the fear useful, that salutary doctrine be added. Again,
he says, (Epist. ad Fesi 167,) " Perverseness in heretics
ought not to be driven out by terror merely, but their mind
and intellect should be instracted by the authority of the
word of God. And, indeed, as the Church seeks the con
fession of her faith at the mouth of God, so, in order not
to act preposterously, she tempers her zeal according to the
same rule." Westphal, however, that he might not seem to
have nothing to say, shuts us out frora all access to a lawful
judgment, by declaring that we have been convicted ! Very
differently does Augustine, who was always prepared to
refute error, before calling in the aid of the magistrate.
When any one rose against the purity of the faith, he did
not caU him to the bar of the judge without a previous fair
investigation before the people. Accordingly, his recorded
discussions testify, that he never acted more willingly than
when he entered the field of contest armed with the sword
of the word. Nor was he ever so tired out by conflict as
not to be ready to refute all the most pestilential heretics,
while the Church stood witness and judge.
What does Westphal do ? To shake himself free of all
annoyance by a single word, he puts a black mark on any of
his colleagues that he chooses, and forthwith contends that
they are to be driven into exile. If they request to be
heard, he says, that the unseasonable application is not to
be listened to, because they are already more than convicted.
If he did not distrast his cause, would not some sense of
shame force him even against his will into discussion ? For
however specious he deems it to pretend that we have been
convicted, it is a miserable and shabby cowardice to adrait
no investigation. But how, pray, does he prove that we were
couAdcted ? The consent of many churches ought, he says, to
suffice for condemnation. Why, then, does not he in his
turn acquiesce in the judgment of our churches, by which he
is condemned ? Is it because he is near to the frozen ocean,
and while he beholds its shore, considers it the utmost limit
of the globe, that he regards all other churches wherever

360

LAST ADMONITION TO

dispersed as nonentities ? Let hira learn, if he would not
make hiraself ridiculous, to give a place to churches of some
note, whose suffrages approve our doctrine.
He adds, that a council was held at Sraalcald, in which
we were condemned. What was done at Sraalcald I dispute
not, nor do I think that Westphal knows. The only thing
certain is, that a convention of princes was there held for
the purpose of entering into a League, and that nothing was
decreed on the subject of Religion, unless that all who then
professed the Confession of Augsburg bound theraselves to
mutual defence. A few learned men were present, among
others, Bucer, whom, though dead, Westphal assigns to our
party. If these men had the chief authority, as Westphal
declares, certainly he among them, who was ours to the day
of his death, did not pass a censure upon us. Melancthon,
second to none, still survives, and will not acknowledge that
he passed so grave a sentence against us. Nor will Westphal
by all his furious uproar cause the Church of Wittemberg to
pronounce against us so harshly. Meanwhile, I wonder
that the Synod of Marpurg is passed over, in which Luther
and the opposite party did not hesitate to acknowledge us
as brethren, though the controversy Avas not so fully and
lucidly explained as in the present day. When Westphal
knows this, and conceals it, what can he gain with prudent
and sober readers by babbling about fictitious synods ?
But he is driven much further by his desperate impudence,
Avhen he is not asharaed to invite the patronage of Nicolas
II. and Gregory VII. Though I should not say one word
as to this, I cannot doubt that all good raen would detest
his blind rage. So far am I from being annoyed, that in a
Roman Council, over which Nicolas II. presided, and in that
of Vercelli, which was assembled under the auspices of
Gregory VIL, the doctrine which I follow was condemned,
that I consider it a ground of the highest congratulation, as
showing that our doctrine was always hated by the manifest
eneraies of God and by Antichrists. Certainly, in ray eyes,
their approbation would throw some suspicion on it. But
who is not horrified at the monstrous blindness of Westphal,
who seeks a colour for his doctrine from suffrages which

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 361
might rather cover the sun with darkness ? Since he has
chosen this vile pig-stye for his school, let him regale him
self on the husks which are fit for him : only let the reader
remember the proof he gives of his sharaeful poverty when
he is forced to bring his judges frora the lowest dregs of the
Papacy. As to the Council of Ephesus, the answer is not very diffi
cult. Let Westphal produce from its decrees one sentence
which is in the least degree adA-^erse to us. If he cannot,
let him cease to take out of it indirect charges, which he
absurdly hurls at us. The confession there inserted, when
duly and impartially weighed, so far from bearing hard upon
us, rather discloses the untaraeable perverseness of Westphal,
Avho, in his raalignant temper, fabricates dissensions out of
nothing. But as Paul orders us to hear all prophets who
are endued with the gift of the Spirit, and patiently examine
whatever any of them may have produced, Westphal, to
wrest this testimony from us, first strips us of all gifts of the
Spirit, and then restricts the liberty Avhich Paul claims for
the prophets to the Doctors of Saxony. As it will here be
easy for any reader, however little versed in Scripture, to
detect the wild raving of the raan, I feel at liberty to con
temn it. Westphal, forsooth, by whom not one iota of a
letter of Scripture was ever properly illustrated, avUI be
deemed a prophet, and we, whose labours are well known to
have at least yielded fruit to the Church, shall not be per
mitted to occupy the lowest seat. Surely, if faith and reli
gious reverence in the interpretation of Scripture, if learning,
and judgment, and dexterity show that a man has been
divinely called, let not Westphal arrogate to himself an
ounce of the prophetical spirit, but leave it in full tale to his
betters. When he says that we speak to destraction and not
to edification, whether it be so or not, let those who are cora
petent judge.
After this dexterous and happy preface, he begins to draw
Augustine to his party ; and that he may obtrade his lies
more securely, and with more irapunity, he, with much blus
ter, heralds his ancient lore. Undoubtedly, unskUful or less
cautious readers would think that he not only has aU that

362 LAST ADMONITION TO
Augustine ever wrote in his memory, but that, by long and
familiar use, he has almost imbibed his mind, and all his
hidden meanings. For he declares, contemptuously, that
most of us either never saw the writings of Augustine, or
have only looked at them slightly, and frora a distance, as
he expresses it. There is no reason for his doleful com
plaint, that I had presumed to address hira as an unlearned
man, now that he has completely wiped away the suspicion ;
for who will dare to think a raan unlearned to whom the
whole theology of Augustine is as well known as his own
fingers ? Whether or not I have looked from a distance at
the writings of this holy teacher, I presume I have given
evidence to all. If Westphal is in doubt, let him ask his
master, Philip Melancthon, who assuredly will scarcely
refrain from giving a crushing reproof to his petulance. But
why do I spend time in superfluous matters ? Let the pas
sages which Westphal hurls at us from Augustine be brought
forward. Augustine refutes the gross error of those who took offence
at our Saviour's discourse in Capernaum, because they ima
gined that his flesh was to be eaten and his blood drunk in
an earthly manner. Westphal contends that this passage
condemns us because we are like the Capernaumites. But
there is a weU-known refutation by Augustine, " Why do
you prepare your teeth and your stomach ? Believe, and you
have eaten." This passage clearly teaches that Augustine's
Capernaumites were those who pretend that the body of
Christ is chewed by the teeth, and swallowed by the stomach.
How can Westphal deny that he is of this class whUe he
regards the decree of a Roman Council under Nicolas as a
kind of oracle ? A little ago he insisted, on the authority of
that Council, that we were convicted of heresy ! That worthy
prelate of Westphal's, in the recantation which Berengarius
was forced to read, gave vent to this decree, " I consent to
the Holy Roman Church and the Apostolic See ; and I pro
fess that I hold the same faith Avhich my Lord and venerable
Pope Nicolas, and this Holy Synod, has affirmed to me, viz.,
that the Bread and Wine, which are placed on the altar, are,
after consecration, not only a Sacrament, but also the true

JOACHIM AVESTPHAL. 363
Body and Blood of our Lord ; and that sensibly, not only a
Sacrament, hut the reality is handled and broken by the
priests, and chewed by the teeth of the faithful." — Let West
phal, according to whom the glorified body of Christ is
broken, sensibly handled, and chewed by the teeth, now see
how he is to disengage himself from the Capernaumites.
He next accumulates ali the passages in wtich the bread
of the sacred Supper is called the body of Christ. Any one
endued with moderate judgment wUl not only laugh at the
silly garrulity of the man, but also feel indignant that such
a show is made out of nothing. So far am I frora having to
think how to make my escape, that I have rather to fear I
may rouse the reader's indignation by occupying him with a
matter so frivolous. Augustine writes, that the victim which
was offered for us, viz., the body of Christ, is dispensed, and
his blood is exhibited to us in the holy Supper : as if simi
lar modes of expression were not in use amongst ourselves.
And yet Westphal acts inconsiderately in huddling together
those passages in which Augustine indiscriminately calls the
holy bread, at one time the body of Christ, at another, the
Eucharist or Sacrament. I ask what he means by triumph
ing over us, because in one passage the body of Christ is
said to be distributed, and in another, the sacraraent of the
body and blood to be given ?
If Westphal puts his confidence in a single expression, how
much greater wiU the authority of Christ be than that of
Augustine ? And beyond all controversy, our Lord himself
declared of the bread, " This is my body." The only ques
tion is. Whether he means that the bread is his body pro
perly and without figure, or whether he transfers the name
ofthe thing signified to the symbol? Westphal, interposing
the opinion of Augustine with a view to end the dispute,
produces nothing more than that the body of Christ is com
municated to us in the Supper. Founding on this, he hesi
tates not to exclaim, that all are heretical who hold that the
bread is caUed the body, because it is a figure of the body.
What does Augustine himself say ? " Had not the sacra
ments," he says, (Ad Bonif. episi 23,) " some resemblance to
the things of which they are sacraments, they should not be

364 LAST ADMONITION TO
sacraments at all. From this resemblance they generally take
the names of the things themselves. As then, after a certain
manner, the sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of
Christ, and the sacrament of the blood is his blood, so the
sacraraent of faith is faith." What does Westphal understand
in this passage by a certain manner ? What is the resem
blance of the sign to the thing signified, because of which the
name is transferred ? Now, though the name of body should
occur an hundred times in Augustine, we understand what
the holy raan raeant by the forra of expression. He will as
suredly always acknowledge the metonymy which he once
asserted, and which he shows to be in daily use in the
Church. (Cont. Adimanth. Manich. c. 12.) And it is not
strange that this rule is laid down by him, as he distinctly
affirms, that vvhen Christ gave the sign of his body, he ex
pressly called it his body.
But Augustine distinctly says, that the body of Christ
falls to the earth and enters the mouth. Yes, but in the same
sense in which he affirms that it is consumed. Will West
phal acknowledge, that after the celebration of the ordi
nance is over, the body of Christ is consumed ? It is from
thoughtlessness he quotes these words from Augustine. I
add what immediately follows in the same place. (Lib. 3,
de Trinit. c. 10.) After saying, that after the ordinance is
over bread is consumed, he adds. Because these things are
known to men, because they are done by men, they may re
ceive honour as being religious, they cannot produce as
tonishment as being miraculous. If we admit Westphal's
fiction, that the body of Christ lies hid, and is enclosed under
a little bit of bread, who can deny the existence of a miracle
fit to excite astonishment ? Let him cease then to dazzle
the eyes of the simple, by collecting the ancient passages
which say, that Christ is received by the mouth, just as he
is believed by the heart, it being sufficiently evident that
though they were accustomed to the sacraraental raode of ex
pression, they still knew wherein the reality differed from the
sign. We are not displeased at the magnificent terms in which
the ordinance is extolled, though Westphal, after his usual
fashion, charges us with speaking of it contemptuously.

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 365
The passage which he quotes from the thirty-third Psalm,
(his book gives a wrong nuraber, but we presurae it is an
error of the printer,) is easily disposed of Augustine says,
that when Christ instituted the sacred Supper, he was car
ried in his own hands. Does Westphal think there is no
importance in the correction, which he immediately subjoins,
when he inserts the word quodammodo, (in a manner,) which
means that the expression is not strictly proper ? But just
as the hungry dog catches at the shadow instead of the flesh,
so Westphal feeds on his own imagination. Let him not at
tempt to carry readers of sense along with him in his decep
tion. Christ then, in a manner, carried himself in his own
hands, because on holding out the bread, he offered his oAvn
body and blood in a mystery or spiritually. And that can
did readers may the more thoroughly scorn his vile impu
dence, let them observe, that Westphal, to draw attention to
this sentence, prints it twice over in capital letters, and yet
omits the word quodammodo, which removes all ambiguity.
For who, on hearing that a figure or similitude is distinctly
expressed, can doubt what the writer raeans ?
To pass to another point, I should like Westphal to tell
me whether the term oblation, which occurs in Augustine a
thousand times, admits of no satisfactory interpretation ? or,
whether, when the Papists allege that the Mass is truly and
properly a sacrifice, a full solution is not given by the pas
sage in which Augustine says, that the only sacrifice of
which we now celebrate the reraerabrance was shown by
the old sacraments ? (Cont. Faust. Manich. 1. 6, c. 9.) How
much akin to this expression that which follows is, let
the reader judge : Of this sacrifice, he says, the flesh and
blood, before the advent of Christ, was promised by typical
victims; in the passion of Christ, was exhibited by the
reality ; since the ascension, is celebrated by a sacrament of
remembrance. Let Joachim see how he is to reconcile these
words with his dogma, that the body which was once ex
hibited in reality on the cross, is celebrated by itself (nu
dum) by a sacrament of remerabrance. And to omit this
testimony, who sees not that every thing which he has at
tempted to produce is more than frivolous, and that Augus-

366 LAST ADMONITION TO
tine, though no body should force hira out of his hands, slips
from him of his own accord ? I may add, that in repeatedly
giving out that he was only making a selection, he frees me
from all further trouble. For seeing he is so continually
versant in his writings, and holds his whole doctrine to a
tittle, it is not to be believed that he has omitted any
thing. The substance of the whole passage is, that Christ is given
in the Supper. But if an expression is contended for, I re
join that it is repeatedly called the sacrament of the body :
hence it follows, that all Westphal's proof comes to nothing.
For when he replies, that it is not less called the body in
some passages, than the sacrament of the body in others, I
leave children to judge how sillily he argues. Meanwhile, let
the reader remeraber that there is nothing in these words at
variance with our doctrine, that the body of Christ is truly
exhibited to us in the holy Supper, as the whole dispute
relates to the mode.
Thus Ave refute over and over the silly talk in which
Westphal endeavours to throw odium on us by drawing false
contrasts, and representing us as holding that the sacred
Supper is destitute of its reality. He says that the Supper
of the Lord was held in high honour and estimation, and re
garded with great reverence, and hence it was that they went
to it fasting, some every day, others more seldom, and that
great anxiety was shown to prevent the body ofthe Lord frora
falling to the ground. As if we were withheld by no rever
ence from prostituting the Supper ; as if we did not study
to maintain it in the highest splendour ; as if, previous to
the celebration of it, we did not eraploy serious and anxious
exhortation to raise the minds of the pious to heaven ; as if
we did not hold forth the dreadful crime of sacrilege, in
order to debar any from approaching rashly ; as if, in short,
we did not publicly testify that such persons are guilty of
the body and blood of the Lord, coraraunion in which is
here held forth to us. The foUowing words, assuredly not
Westphal's, I wiUingly borrow frora Chrysostom — Christ in
laying this table, does not feed us from any other source,
but gives himself for food. I think it is noAv sufficiently

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 867
plain, that if the mode of communion be properly explained,
we agree perfectly with the holy Fathers, but that their
words, when adapted to the gross dream of Westphal, are in
a manner torn to tatters.
On another ground, Westphal thinks he has a plausible
cause, viz., from its being said by Augustine, that the body
of Christ is given alike to good and bad. Hence he infers,
that the holy teacher makes no distinction between the two,
in regard to the thing itself, but places the whole difference
in the end, or use, or effect. How true this is, the reader
must judge from Augustine's own words, as it is not safe to
trust to the quotations of a man whose shameless audacity
raakes him capable of any fiction. That the body of Christ
is given indiscriminately to the good and bad, I uniforraly
teach, because the liberality or faithfulness of Christ depends
not on the worthiness of man, but is founded in himself
Whatever, therefore, be the character of him who approaches,
because Christ always reraains like himself, he truly in
vites him to partake of his body and blood, he truly fulfils
what he figures, he truly exhibits what he promises. The
only controversy is as to the receiving, which, if Augustine
seems anywhere to assert, let hira be his own interpreter,
and it will soon appear that he speaks raetonyraically.
A candid and impartial judge wUl be freed from all doubt
by a single passage, in which he declares that the good
and the bad coramunicate in the signs.^ (Cont. Faust. 1. 13,
c. 16.) If the unworthy received the thing, he would not
have omitted altogether to raention what was more appro
priate to the subject. In another passage he speaks much
more clearly, (De Verbis ApostoU, sec. 33,) Prepare not your
palate, but your heart : for that was the Supper recommended.
Lo ! we believe in CJhrist when we receive hira by faith ; in
receiving we know what we think : we receive a little, and
our heart is filled. It is not therefore what is seen but what
is believed that feeds. According to Westphal unbelief also
receives, and yet is not fed ; whereas Augustine teaches that
there is no receiving except by faith. This is the reason
why, in nuraerous passages, as if explaining himself, he says
that the sacraments are common to the good and the had.

368

LAST ADMONITION TO

He was not unaware that many who are not members of
the body of Christ intrude theraselves unworthily at the
sacred table, nor was he of such perverted intellect as to
iraagine that those who belong in no way to the body of
Christ are partakers of his body. Westphal restricts this to
the effect, but how frivolously is raanifest from other pas
sages. Augustine distinguishes between a sacrament and its
virtue. (In Joann. Tract. 26.) If the distinction consisted
of three members Westphal might sing his paeans with full
throat. His fiction iraplies that in the holy Supper there is
a visible element ; there is the body of Christ without fruit ;
there is the body combined with its use and end. But as
Augustine confines himself to two members only, our doc
trine needs no other defence. The Fathers, he says, did not
die who understood the visible food spiritually, hungered
spiritually, tasted spiritually, that they might be spiritually
filled. We see how, opposing the inteUigence of faith to the
external sign, he says, that nothing but the bare sign is
taken by unbelievers. If Westphal objects that he is speak
ing of the manna, this quibble is easily disposed of by the
context, for he immediately subjoins, that these sacraments
were different in the signs, but alike in the thing signified ;
and iraraediately after, repeating what he had said of the
virtue of the sacrament and the visible sacrament, he teaches,
that believers alone do not die who eat inwardly, not out
wardly, who eat with the heart, not chew with the teeth.
If nothing is left to unbelievers but the visible sacrament,
where is Westphal's hidden and celestial body ?
We therefore rightly infer, that when Augustine says that
unbelievers receive the body of Christ, it ought to be no
otherwise understood than as he hiraself explains, namely,
only as a sacrament. That there raay be no doubt as to
this, it should be known, Westphal himself being Avitness,
that the two things — the body of Christ, and the vivifying
food — are synonymous. For in order to prove that the body
lurks enclosed under the bread, Westphal adduces the latter
expression, arguing, that if the bread were not the body of
Christ, it would not be vivifying food. Let him now say

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 369
Avhether the bread of the Supper vivifies the wicked. If it
does not bestow life, I AviU immediately infer that they have
not the body of Christ.
When among other passages he quotes one frora De Civi
tate Dei, lib. xix. c. 20, I would willingly set it down as an
error of the press, did not the Avicked cunning of the man
betray itself He quotes the twentieth chapter of the twenty-
first book, where Augustine is giving the view of others, not
his own. The twenty-fifth chapter, Avhere Augustine answers
the objection, he passes in sUence. In the Avords which he
has produced, there is so far from any thing adverse to us,
that we need go no farther for a sure and clear proof of our
doctrine. For what is meant by saying that those who are
in the very body of Christ, take the body of Christ not only
by sacrament but in reality, unless it be that which plainly
appears, that the body of Christ is taken in two ways — sacra
mentally and in reality. If the reality is taken away, cer
tainly nothing- remains but the sign. Frora this too, we
without doubt infer that the Avicked do not eat the body of
Christ in any other way than in respect of the sign, because
they are deprived of the reality.
The explanation which follows in the twenty-fifth chapter
is much more clear, where he strenuously raaintains that those
who are not to be classed among the merabers of Christ do
not eat his body, because they cannot be at the same time
the merabers of Christ and the members of a harlot. And
immediately after, Christ himself saying, " Whoso eateth my
flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him,"
he shows what it is to eat the body of Christ and drink his
blood not sacramentaUy but in reality ; for this is to dwell
in Christ that Christ also may dwell in him. For it is as
if he had said. Let not hira who dweUeth not in rae, and
in whom I dwell not, say or think that he eats my body
or drinks my blood. If this does not sting Westphal to
the quick, he is more impervious than the cattle of his
fields. Out of the first book, against the Letters of Petilian, he
quotes a sentence in which we are enjoined to distinguish
the visible sacrament from the invisible unction of charity.
VOL. II. 2 A

370 LAST ADMONITION TO
Augustine is there discussing Baptisra. If Christ baptizes
not with the Spirit all who are dipt in water, will it imme
diately follow that Judas ate the body of Christ ? But if
the discourse were about the Supper, I would say that it gives
the strongest support to us, because nothing is conceded to
the wicked but the visible sacrament, which Westphal, ac
cording to his phantasm, will certainly admit to differ from
the invisible flesh of Christ. The passage from the firet
book against Cresconius Gramraaticus (the place is errone
ously given, the twenty-third chapter being set down for the
twenty-fifth) goes no farther than to say that, the wicked
corrupt the use of God's gifts by abusing them. Nay, the
whole drift of Augustine in writing against the Donatists, is
to show that things which are good do not change their
nature by the fault of those who use them improperly, and
that therefore baptism is not to be considered null because
unbelievers frora abusing get no benefit from it. In this way
it is not strange for Augustine to say that Judas was a par
taker of the body of Christ, provided you restrict this to the
visible sign. This he elsewhere states to be his view. Nor
can we in any other way understand his distinction, (Tract.
in Joann. 59,) that others took the bread the Lord, Judas
nothing but the bread of the Lord. Nay, Westphal himself,
as if he were changing sides, assists us by mentioning that
Peter and Judas ate of the same bread.
Proceeding now as if he had raade good his claim to
Augustine, he atterapts to dispose of the passages, which he
says that we have quoted in a perfidious and garbled man
ner. But I should like to know where is the perfidy or
garbling. Is it that any change is raade on the words, and
so, as Westphal is constantly doing, one thing is substituted
for another ? Is it that our people, by wresting those pas
sages to their own purpose improperly, give them a mean
ing different from the true one ? Westphal will perhaps
say, that a syllable has been falsely produced by them. In
that respect, therefore, it follows that things which Augus
tine wished to be understood differently, are improperly and
irrelevantly quoted. But should any one not very appositely
adduce Augustine as a witness in his favour, is he to be re-

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 37l
garded of course as a pei-fidious garb ler ? So, indeed, West
phal chooses to say. This law, hoAvever hard it be, I refuse
not. Let us bear the charge of perfidj', then, while he only
aUeges our want of skill.
In this part of the subject the good man uses tergiversa
tion. For what could he do ? As a shorter method of dis
entangling himself, he says, that we overturn the local pre
sence of C!hrist in the Supper in three ways — either by
feigning a figure, or by pretending that the eating is spiri
tual, or by denying that the body of Christ is iramense. We
having undertaken to prove these three articles out of Au
gustine, let us see by Avhat artifice Westphal refutes thera.
Talking of the figure, he denies that Augustine ever inter
preted the words of Christ, This is ray body, so as to show
that the bread signified body. Is it in this way he is to
convict us of perfidy, Avhen we ingenuously come forward
provided with expressions that are not in the least degree
obscure ? Augustine's words are : The Lord hesitated not to
say. This is my body, when he was giving the sign of his
body. And with what view does he say so ? To prove that
Scripture often speaks figuratively. He elsewhere says,
that Christ adraitted Judas to the first feast, in which he
commended and delivered the figure of his body to the dis
ciples. He also says that the bread is in a manner the body
of Christ, because it is a sacrament of the body. Producing
a passage from the Third Book on Christian Doctrine, how
dexterously does he escape ? He says, Augustine is in a
general way admonishing believers not to fasten upon signs,
but rather to attend to the things signified. Although I
deny not that this was the holy man's purpose, 1 would yet
have it carefully considered how it may be said to be carnal
bondage or servile weakness to take the signs for the thing. If
it were not preposterous to confound the signs Avith the things,
there would be no ground for condemning it as superstition.
When Westphal rejoins, that still the reality ought not to be
disjoined from the signs, he says nothing that is at all ad
verse to us. He indeed pretends the contrary, but with
little modesty, as it is perfectly notorious that we call the
bread a sign of the body of Christ, inasmuch as it is a badge

372

LAST ADMONITION TO

of the communion, and truly exhibits the spiritual food
which it figures.
This rauch reraains fixed, that in the words of Christ the
mode of speaking is sacramental, and the sign must he dis
tinguished from the reality, if we would not continue servilely
grovelling on the earth. Hence, too, it is cleariy inferred
that Augustine gives his full sanction to that interpretation
which Westphal so bitterly assails. As neither the sub
stance nor the principal effects of the Supper are taken away
by the word signifying, let Westphal seek some new colour
for his quarrel. But by no raeans contented with this, he
clings with desperation to the word essential, maintaining
that the bread is truly and properly called the body of
Christ. I say that in this he abandons the view of Augus
tine. He maintains that he does not. But how does he
evade the passages ? Because the words of Christ, This is
ray body, are not quoted for the express purpose. What mat
ters it, so long as we have Augustine's authority for the
mode of expression, viz., that Christ said. This is my body,
when he Avas giving a sign of his body ? Then when Augus
tine teaches generally that the name ofthe thing signified is
transferred to the sign, whenever the names of flesh and
blood are applied to the external syrabols of the Supper, who
can hesitate to follow that rule in seeking for the sense
In the epistle to Evodius, when Augustine says, that in the
sacraments there is a frequent and trite metonymy, Westphal
seeks a frivolous subterfuge, by saying that the Supper is
not mentioned, because he could not argue in this way from
the genus to the species. Why should the observation of
Augustine as to all the signs not be applied to the Sup
per ? A dove is called the Holy Spirit. Augustine tells us
that this ought to be understood raetonyraically, for it is not
new or unusual for signs to take the name of the thing sig
nified. The case of the Supper is exactly the same. West
phal will on no account allow it to be touched. But it is
not strange that he cavils so frigidly about that matter, as
he is not ashamed with more pertness to elude the words of
St. Paul.
St. Paul says that the rock which accompanied the people

JOACHIM AVESTPHAL. 373
in the wilderness was Christ. Westphal admits no interpreta
tion, because Christ was truly and properly a spiritual rock.
But it is clear, nay palpable to the very blind, that Paul is
there speaking of an external sign, no less than Christ is when
he says of the bread. This is my body. No other view would
be consistent with the context, in which Paul corapares our
Baptism and Supper to the ancient signs, so that it is out of
Westphal's power to deny that the rock is called Christ in
the same sense in which the bread is called his body. Here
at least he raust raake roora for the term signifying. I do
not ask him to raake the holy Supper void of its reality.
This is the falsehood by which he so iniquitously atterapts
to bring us into odium with the simple. I would only have
the distinction to be carefuUy drawn between the thing and
the sign, so that a transition may be made from the earthly
eleraent to heaven. The bread is put into our hands. We
know that Christ is true, and wiU in reality exhibit what
he testifies, viz., his body, but only if we rise by faith above
the world. As this cannot take place without the help of a
figure or sign, what right Westphal has to object I leave
sober and candid readers to judge. Though he should pro
test a hundred tiraes over, we certainly have the support of
Augustine in regard to the terra signifying. I raay add,
that if in the discourse of Christ, where he says that we must
eat his flesh and drink his blood, the expression is figurative,
as Westphal is forced to admit, the same thing must be said
of the holy Supper. Nay, a term of significance will be
much more adapted to a sacrament than to simple doctrine.
Were I to go over his absurdities in detail, there would be
no end : nor is there any occasion for it, unless indeed there
be so much weight in his words that the reader, after being
taught and convinced by so raany arguments, should still
believe that there is no figure in the expression. This is ray
body, merely because Westphal so declares.
Spiritual eating is held by us in such a manner as by no
means excludes sacramental eating, provided always that
Westphal do not by his vague dreara dissever things that
are conjoined. But the reader ought to understand what the
sacramental eating of this good theologian is, namely, that

374

LAST ADMONITION TO

unbelievers without faith, without any sense of piety, gulp
down the body of Christ. He drearas that Christ is spiri
tually eaten when the storaach not only swallows his body,
but the soul also receives the secret gift of the Spirit. We
maintain that in the sacraraent Christ is eaten in no Avay
but spiritually, because that gross gulping down whicli the
Papists devised, and Westphal too greedily drinks in from
them, is abhorrent to our sense of piety. The substance of
our doctrine is, that the flesh of Christ is vivifying bread,
because when we are united to it by faith, it nourishes and
feeds our souls. We teach that this is done in a spiritual
raanner, only because the bond of this sacred union is the
secret and incoraprehensible virtue of the Holy Spirit. In
this way, we say, that our souls are assisted by the sacred
symbol ofthe Supper, to receive nourishment from the flesh
of Christ. We even add, that therein is fulfilled and exhi
bited all that Christ declares in the sixth chapter of John.
But although believers liave spiritual communion with Christ
without the use of the sacrament, still we distinctly declare
that Christ, who instituted the Supper, works effectually by
its means.
Westphal confines spiritual eating to the fruit raerely, re
garding it a means by which the salvation obtained by the
death of Christ is applied to us, while his sacramental eating,
as I have observed, is nothing more than a gulping down of
Christ's flesh. What does Augustine say ? He teaches that
the body of Christ is eaten sacramentally only when it is
not eaten in reality. In two passages this antithesis is dis
tinctly expressed by him. Hence we surely gather that the
sacramental is equivalent merely to the visible or external
use, when unbelief precludes access to the reality. West
phal, therefore, acts calumniously in charging our spiritual
eating as a faUacious pretext for destroying the true com
munion which takes place in the Supper. For if spiritual is
to be separated from sacramental eating, Avhat are we to
make of the foUowing passage of Augustine ? (In Psal. 98.)
You are not about to eat the body which you see and to
drink the blood which those who are to crucify me will shed
I have committed a sacrament to you: when spiritually

JOACHIM WESTPHAL.

375

understood, it will give you life. Now, if it is clear that in
the Supper, when the body is not spiritually eaten, nothing
is left but a void and empty sign, and we infer frora the
words of Christ that spiritual eating takes place when faith
corresponds to the raystical and spiritual doctrine, there is
no ground for Westphal's attempt to dissever things which
cannot be divided. I admit it to be certain that the same
body which Christ offered on the cross is eaten, because we
do not imagine that Christ has two bodies, nor is aliment
for spiritual life to be sought anywhere else than in that
victim. How does Augustine deny it to be the same body,
but just in respect that having been received into heaven
it inspires Ufe into us by the secret virtue of the Spirit ?
Therefore a different mode of eating is denoted, viz., that
though the body remains entire in heaA'en, it quickens us by
its miraculous and heavenly virtue. In short, Augustine's
only reason for denying that the body on which the disciples
were looking is given in the Supper, was to let us know that
the mode of coraraunion is not at all carnal, that we becorae
partakers of flesh and blood in a raystery, our teeth not con
suming that grace, as he elsewhere expresses it. Thus
Westphal gains nothing by his quibbling. He is also detected
in a manifest calumny, when he charges us with wresting
this passage to mean that the Supper gives us nothing but
an empty figure.
But how does Westphal excuse the term spiritually ? By
reason of faith, he says. If so, how does he pretend that
there is an eating Avithout faith ? For to prove that there is
nothing carnal in his gross fiction, he denies that Christ is
carnally eaten, unless he is cut into pieces like a carcass,
and palpably chewed by the teeth ; and he says, that whUe
the body is offered to be taken invisibly, it is spiritually
eaten, because it is received by faith. The more he attempts
to get out of this dileraraa the faster it will hold hira — the
dUemma that profane men, endued only with camal sense,
when they rashly and unworthily intmde theraselves at the
Lord's table, eat spiritually Avithout faith, and yet there is
no such eating except in respect of faith.
I do not however admit what he stamraers out on no

376 LAST ADMONITION TO
authority but his own, viz., that when the flesh of Christ is
consumed in the bread the mode of eating is spiritual, be
cause it is invisible. The exception is too weak, that, ac
cording to the definition of Augustine, those only taste
carnally who think that the body of Christ is to be torn
as in the shambles. Although gross men imagine that
Christ intends to prepare a supper of the Cyclops out of his
flesh, we must adopt another definition, viz., that he is spi
ritually eaten, though not taken into the stomach, because
he quickens us by the secret virtue of the Spirit. Nor can
Westphal make his escape by the term faith, for our Saviour
not only distinctly requires faith to be given to his words,
but, recalling us to their force and nature, declares them to
be spiritual. These two things, it is apparent, are not less
distant from each other than heaven is frora earth.
Westphal contends that the body of Christ is truly and
properly eaten, because we must believe the plain and literal
expression, This is my body, vvhich admits no figure, and
thus the Spirit, Avhich Christ distinctly places in his own
words, he places only in faith. With the same license he
afterwards fabricates a twofold spiritual eating, one of sub
stance, another of fruit, as if the latter could be separated
frora the former. He pretends that Augustine, when he
treats of spiritual eating, at one time joins the two together,
at another points to each of them separately. He says, that
we eat the body of Christ spirituaUy in regard to the fruit,
when the forgiveness of sins obtained by his death is received
by us by faith unto salvation ; and yet that this kind of eat
ing does not prevent our spiritually swallowing the invisible
substance of the flesh in the Supper. Hence he infers that
we act sophistically when under pretext of the fruit we take
away the substance : as if we said that any are partakers of
the blessings of Christ who do not partake of his flesh and
blood. We hold that every thing which the death and resur
rection of Christ confer on us flows from this source — that
he is truly ours, and that his flesh is spiritual meat. StiU
we admit not any gross mode of swallowing, nor dissever
Avhat our Lord has expressly joined. He did not order us
to receive any body but that which was offered on the cross

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 377
for our reconcUiation, nor to drink any blood but that which
was shed for the remission of sins.
It is clear that this connection of substance and fruit is
perversely and barbarously dissevered, Avhen the wicked,
without faith, are said to receive the lifeless body of Christ.
Nay, why does Augustine (Tract, in Joann. 26) oppose visi
ble appearance to spiritual virtue in the Supper, if, when
this virtue is wanting, the body of Christ is still truly and
substantiaUy eaten ? He certainly explains the matter very
differently when he says a little farther on : A sacrament of
this thing, I mean of the union of the body and blood of
Christ, is in some places daily, in others at certain intervals,
prepared on the Lord's table, and taken from the Lord's
table by some unto life, by others unto destruction, whereas
the thing itself of vvhich there is a sacrament, is taken by
those who partake of it, unto life by all, unto destruction by
none. Certainly when the reality of the sign is considered,
no raan of sound mind will exclude secret communion in the
body and blood of Christ. Augustine holds, that this is not
common to unbelievers, and hence it follows, that as they
reject it when offered, nothing is left them but the bare sign.
To make this clearer, I disguise not that those who simply
explain, that we eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood,
when we believe that our sins have been expiated by his
death, speak too narrowly and stringently. This faith flows
from a higher principle. If Christ is our head, and dwells
in us, he communicates to us his life ; and we have nothing
to hope from him until we are united to his body. The
whole reality of the sacred Supper consists in this — Christ,
by ingrafting us into his body, not only makes us partakers
of his body and blood, but infuses into us the life whose ful
ness resides in himself: for his flesh is not eaten for any
other end than to give us life.
This doctrine Satan will in vain endeavour to pluck up
by a thousand Westphals. For when Augustine says, that
none truly and in reality eat the flesh of Christ but those
who abide in him, to refer the terms truly and in reality,
not to the reality ofthe body, but the reality of communion,
as Westphal contends, is nugatory. As Augustine distinctly

378 LAST ADMONITION TO
denies that any eat the flesh of Christ but those who, en
dued with living faith, abide in him, what is meant by
saying, that not the reality of the body, but only real
coraraunion is denied? The only account of the raatter
doubtless is, that monstrous things bring raonstrous temis
along with them. Westphal holds, that persons who do truly
swallow the body of Christ, have no coraraunion with him.
For according to him, the reality of the body is nothing else
than substantial swalloAving. Now communion is enjoy
ment ofthe spiritual gifts which corae to us from Christ. I
should like then to know to what end Christ invites us to
partake of his flesh and blood in the Supper, if it be not
that he may feed our souls. Should the body of Christ cease
to be food, of what avail would the swallowing of it be ?
With similar artifice he cuts a knot which he could not
untie, evading the passage in Avhich Augustine teaches, that
Judas ate the bread of the Lord, Avhile others ate the bread
the Lord. He says, that a twofold eating is there implied.
That indeed is clear. But when he says that Judas ate
Christ substantially, I desire to know how he reconciles it
with Augustine's Avords. If Judas is distinguished from the
other disciples by this mark, that he did not eat the bread
the Lord, it follows that he received nothing but the naked
symbol I wish that Westphal had an ounce of sound brain
to weigh the words which he quotes from Augustine. He
asserts that the twofold coraraunion is nowhere raore clearly
distinguished than in this sentence, (Serra. 2, de Verb. Apost.,)
" Then will the body and blood of Christ be life to every
one, if that which is taken visibly in the sacraraent is eaten
spiritually in the reality.'' So willingly do I erabrace this
passage, that I am contented with it alone to refute West
phal's absurdity.
Spiritual eating is so despised by Westphal, that he deems
it an execrable heresy to insist on it alone. For why does
he inveigh so fiercely against us, and keep crying that we
ought to be corrected by the sword rather than the pen, but
just because we rest satisfied with spiritual eating? Let
us now see what the other kind of eating is, without which,
according to those censors, no man in heaven or earth can

JOACHIM AVESTPHAL. 379
be saved. Augustine says that it is visible. With Avhat
eyes did Westphal ever behold his imaginary swallowing of
the substance of Christ ? Augustine teaches, that every
thing which is received in the sacrament beyond spiritual
eating is taken visibly. Let Westphal then open his eyes,
and at length recognise what is meant by sacramental eat
ing. But he objects that the sacrament would not be entire
if the body of Christ were not eaten. Just as if the body of
Christ Avere less real, because unbelievers reject what he
offers. We admit that he offers his body at the same time
to the worthy and the unworthy, and that no depravity of
raan hinders the bread from being a true and, as it is called,
exhibitory pledge of his fiesh ; but it is absurd and fatuous
to infer that it is received promiscuously by all.
EquaUy absurd is the following syllogism of Westphal :
Those things which the Lord by his word declares to be,
truly are — therefore the body of Christ must be taken by
the wicked under the bread. Who knows not that the doc
trine of Christ was fatal to the apostates to whom it seemed
a hard saying ? Yet he, Avith his OAvn lips, declared, " The
words I speak unto you are Spirit and life." But not to
detain the reader longer, let it be sufficient to advert to
Westphal's famous conclusion of this head, in which he says,
that the matter of the sacrament, in Augustine's sense, is
not the body and blood of the Lord, but the reality, grace,
and frait. These are his very words. If so, he is certainly
contending about nothing, and seeking some imagination of
his own aAvay frora the subject. If the body and blood are
not the reality of the sacrament, why does he everywhere
style us falsifiers, especially while he is forced to confess
that Ave detract in no Avay from this reality of the sacra
ment ?
The third head which he has undertaken to refute is,
That we communicate in the flesh and blood of Christ, but
in such raanner, that the reality of his huraan nature reraains
entire. Our people, after showing, from numerous passages
of Scripture, that God has taught thera this doctrine, have
also proved that it is held by Augustine. Westphal, pur
posing to deprive us of this support, but feeling it soraewhat

380 LAST ADMONITION TO
more troublesorae than he could Avish, goes beating about,
and saying, that in the mysteries of the faith we are not to
depend on human reason or physical arguments. Granting
all this, I say that our argument is derived not from philo
sophy, but from the heavenly oracles of God. Scripture
uniformly teaches that we are to wait for Christ from heaven,
from whence he will corae as our Redeeraer. And there is
no obscurity in the doctrine of Paul, that the image and
model of future redemption is displayed in the person of
Christ, who will transform our poor body, so as to be like
his own glorious body. Have done, then, with the futile
evasion, that philosophy should not be the mistress of our
faith, since we hold nothing in regard to the reality of our
flesh that was not delivered by Christ himself, the highest
and the only teacher.
But as it properly belongs to this place, let the reader
hear how finely Westphal forces Augustine away from us.
That holy teacher says, that against nature Christ came in
to the disciijles when the doors were shut, just as against
nature he walked on the water, because with God all things
are possible. If Christ, by his divine energy, miraculously
opened the doors when they were shut, does it therefore
follow that his body is immense ? But Augustine forbids
the reason to be asked here, where faith ought to reign : in
other words, we raust surely believe Avhat the Evangelist has
testified, that the Son of God was not prevented by any
obstacles frora giving that astonishing display of his power.
Therefore Westphal stolidly exults, calling it a theological
demonstration of what he and his party falsely pretend as
to the omnipotence of God. God is not subject to our
fictions, to fulfil whatever we imagine ; but his power must
be conjoined with his good pleasure, as the Prophet also
reminds us, — Our God in heaven hath done whatever he
hath pleased.
His will, says Westphal, has been sufficiently manifested
in the ordinance of the Supper. But this is a begging of
the question. For who told him that Christ, in holding
forth the sacred bread, changed the nature of his body, and
made it immense ; nay, that at the same moraent he made

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 381
the same body double, so that it was visible in one place,
and invisible in another ; iraraense, and yet of liraited dimen
sions ? At the first Supper Christ is seen incarnate ; he
retains the condition of human nature : then, however, if
we are to believe Westphal, he carried in his hands the same
body, invisible and immense. If Augustine saw this rairacle
of divine power in the Supper, why did he nowhere raention,
in a single Avord, that against nature the body of Chi-ist
lurked invisible in the bread, filled heaven and earth, and
was a thousand tiraes entire in a thousand places, because
nothing is irapossible with God ? His reraark, therefore, that
in rairacles which transcend the reach of the human raind,
Augustine is Avont to bring forward the power of God, I
retort upon hira ; for had that holy raan imagined such a
presence as Westphal fabricates, he could never have had a
fitter opportunity to proclaim the power of God ; and there
fore we raav infer frora his silence, that he had no knowlede;e
of the fiction which the devil afterwards suggested under the
Papacy. And not to dwell on a superfluous raatter, if the omni
potence of God may be turned hither and thither, the fana
tics who deny the resurrection of the body will haA'e a
specious colour for their delirious dreara. They produce the
words of Peter, that we are called to be partakers of the
Divine nature, and infer that the restitution of the huraan
race will be of such a sort that the spiritual essence of God
will absorb the corporeal nature. Why raay they not, when
any one objects, follow the example of Westphal, and ex
claim that the power of God is not to be pent up in a
corner ? As there is thus no use in asserting that God can
do it, while it does not appear that he will, all Westphal's
loquacity on this head falls to the ground, unless he can
prove that Christ has deprived his flesh of the comraon
nature of flesh.
When Westphal comes, as he pretends, to dispose of the
passages whicii our party have employed, his affected talk is
puerile and shameful in the extrerae. Tell us, Joachira, what
use there was to fill several pages with buffoonery, but just to
lead the minds of the simple to wander away with you from

382 LAST ADMONITION TO
tiie subject ? The siraple arguraent of our party is, that
Augustine plainly asserts that our Saviour, in respect of his
huraan nature, is in heaven, whence he will corae at the last
day ; that in respect of huraan nature, he is not everywhere
diffused, because though he gave iraraortality to his flesh, he
did not take away its nature ; that therefore we raust beware
of raising the divinity of the raan so as to destroy the reality
of the body ; that if we take away locality from bodies they
will be situated nowhere, and consequently not exist ; that
Christ is everywhere present as God, but in respect of the
nature of a real body occupies some place in heaven.
After Westphal has amused himself to satiety with his
wanderings, lest he should seem to have nothing to say, he at
first tells his readers that Avhen Augustine thus speaks he
was not treating professedly of the Lord's Supper. What ?
When you lately quoted his Avords in celebration of the
power of God, did you remember that then, too, he was not
treating of the Supper ? I there showed that you were pre
sumptuously involving Augustine in your own errors. Here,
however, the case is very different. Augustine clearly de
clares that the nature of Christ's body does not admit of its
being everywhere diffused, and that therefore it is contained
in heaven. If so, how Avill he subscribe to you when you
say that it is iraraense ? You are just'doing like the Papists,
Avho tell us that nothing which we produce frora Scripture
against their fictitious worship and tyrannical laws has any
application to thera, because nothing of theirs is denounced
by the Spirit in express terras. Thus when we quote the
words of Christ, In vain do they worship rae Avitli the com
mandments of men, &c., they disentangle themselves with
out any trouble — Christ was then directing his speech against
the Pharisees. With what face have you dared to obtrude
such absurdity on the world, making it obvious that you,
Avith the proudest disdain, despise all men's judgments ?
Had you thought that the readers of your farrago were
possessed of comraon sense, you raust have seen they would
certainly argue either that Avhat Augustine says is false, or
that the body of Christ does not, as you dream, lie everywhere
diffused. I will again repeat, that if Avliat Augustine says

JOACHIM AVESTPHAL. 383
holds invariably ti-ue, there Avill be no body of Christ with
out a local habitation, and therefore in respect of its nature
as body it is contained in heaven. It certainly cannot
occupy a thousand places on the earth, far less be every
Avhere without being circumscribed by space. What then
Avill become of that integrity AA-hich you confidently assert ?
Joachira afterwards adds, that Augustine had no other
intention than to teach that the body of Christ is in heaven,
and we have no otlier than to deny that he is in the Euchar
ist. How brazen-faced this dishonesty that would get rid
of so clear a raatter by a raanifest falsehood ? Augustine
teaches clearly, that Christ is nowhere else than in heaven,
in as far as he is man, and is falsely supposed to be every
where diffused in respect of his flesh, which he did not de
prive of its properties. When we teach the sarae thing in
as many words and syUables, who can say that we have a
different end in view ? Westphal says, that Augustine's ob
ject is to prevent the reality ofthe huraan nature frora being
destroyed. Just because he never could have thought that out
of such presence of the flesh as the sophists have imagined,
such a monster would arise, and, being contented with the
true and genuine raeaning of the words of Christ, he did not
adA'ert to those fatuous speculations. When Joachira sub
joins, that the reality of human nature is not destroyed if
the body of Christ is distributed in the Supper, his assertion
is most absurd. The reality, Augustine being Avitness, con
sists in the body being contained by sorae place in heaven.
Westphal is too oblivious. After expressing his utter de
testation of this physical arguraent, he now pretends to
erabrace it. Were he to hear frora rae the very thing which
he has been forced to quote from Augustine, he would cry
out sacrilege. Now, as he has deterrained to drag Augus
tine into his party in whatever raanner, provided he can
avoid the semblance of self-contradiction, there is no shape
which he is not Avilling to assurae.
But abandoning all circuitous paths, we must now deter
mine once for all, whether the true nature of the flesh is de
stroyed if it is believed to be in several places at the same
time, nay, to occupy no place. Westphal confidently takes

384 LAST ADMONITION TO
the negative. What Augustine holds, it is unnecessary to
weary the reader with repeating. We raay add, that this
raan who catches at everything, now changing his style, pre
tends that the human nature of Christ is not AvhoUy taken
away, that is, destroyed, because it remains entire and un
harmed in heaven. Just as when it is imraerged in profane
stomachs, he pretends that it is everywhere unharmed on
the earth. Westphal cannot help himself by the promise
of perpetual presence Avhich Christ made to the Church.
We believe that he is always present with his people, and
ever dwells in them, not merely in respect of his being God,
as Westphal j)erverse]y misrepresents, but as the raembers
raust always be united to their head, so we hold that the
Mediator who assumed our nature is present with believers:
For he sits at the Father's right hand for the very purpose of
holding and exercising universal empire. If the mode of
his presence is asked, we hold that it raust be attributed to
his grace and virtue.
Though Westphal uses the same terms, he iraraediately
falls back on the flesh, because he reckons grace as nothing
if the body of Christ be not substantially before hira in the
celebration of the Supper. It is a strange metamorphosis
to convert what was said of the boundless virtue of the
Holy Spirit into a flnite substance of flesh. Let the reader
reraember the state of the question to be. Whether or not
Christ exhibits himself present by his grace in any other
way than by having his body present on the earth and
everywhere ? Our view is, that though Christ in respect of
his huraan nature is in heaven, yet distance of place does
not prevent hira frora communicating himself to us — that he
not only sustains and governs us by his Spirit, but renders
that flesh in which he fulfilled our righteousness vivify
ing to us. Without any change of place, his virtue pene
trates to us by the secret operation of his Spirit, so that our
souls obtain spiritual life from his substance. Nothing suf
fices Westphal but to exclude the body of Christ from any
particular locality and extend it over all space.
It is worth Avhile to see how very consistent he is when
he insists that the presence of grace is coi-poreal, and yet

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 385
understands it to be referred to in the law, in these Avords,
Wherever I shaU make record of ray narae, there Avill I come
to you. (Ex. XX. 24.) I ask, whether he thinks that the
essence of God then dwelt between the cherabira in the
same manner in which the body of Christ is now supposed to
lie hid under the bread? To the same effect, according to hira,
is the promise, — I and my Father avUI corae unto him, and
make our abode with him. Does he think then that the
essence of the Godhead descends to us in the same way as
he affirms of the flesh of Christ, that it enters under the con
secrated bread to be there devoured ? Hoav has he so soon
fallen away frora what he had quoted frora Augustine in the
same page, that God is everywhere by the presence of his
essence, not everywhere by indwelling grace ; where this holy
teacher distinctly opposes the essence of God, in regard to
the nature of its presence, to grace ! But if such a descent
as Westphal inculcates in respect to the flesh of Christ is
not at aU applicable to the essence of the Father, let him
loose a knot of his own tying.
Having a little before repeatedly declared that he ac
knowledges with Augustine that Christ, in respect of the
nature of his flesh, is in heaven, at last, as if he had for
gotten himself, he says that the two natures are inseparably
conjoined, so that the Son of God is nowhere without flesh.
Where then is the nature of the flesh, if the divinity of Christ
extends it in proportion to his own immensity ? I confess,
indeed, that we may not conceive of the Son of God in any
other way than as clothed with flesh. But this did not pre
vent him, while filling heaven and earth with his divine
essence, from wearing his flesh in the womb of his raother,
on the cross, in the sepulchre. Though then the Son of God,
he was, nevertheless, raan in heaven as well as on earth.
Should any one infer frora this that his flesh was then in
heaven, he will confound every thing by arguing absurdly,
and be brought at last to rob Christ of his huraan nature,
and divest him of his office of Redeemer. Nay, if the flesh
of Christ is so conjoined to the Godhead that there is no
distinction between the immensity of the one and the finite
mode of existence of the other, why does Westphal contend
VOL. II. 2 B

386 LAST ADMONITION TO
that Christ is present by his grace in any other way than by
his Deity ? If it is not lawful to separate the flesh from the
divine essence, as soon as it is conceded that Christ in re
spect of Deity is everywhere, the sarae will also hold true
in regard to the flesh. But if this is conceded, the mouth of
the profane will be opened, and they may freely assert that
Christ, by his habitation on the earth, and, in like manner,
by his ascent into heaven, passed off a mere imposture. See
what it is to defend a bad cause obstinately and without any
conscience !
Shortly after he gives a new colouring to what he had
previously said, alleging that the body of Christ is de
fined by a visible forra in heaven, but lies invisible under
the bread, and that in this way should be understood what
Augustine teaches in his Epistle to Dardanus, as well as
nuraerous other places. But by what mechanism is he to
adapt to his fiction Augustine's doctrine, that there would
be no body if local space were taken away, and that the
nature of the flesh requires that it occupy some locality in
heaven ? If the body can exist invisible without place,
Augustine's argument, that unless it be bounded by" its cir
cumference it no longer exists, is unsound. Unsound also
would be the general proposition, that the nature of a true
body requires that it occupy some locality in heaven. In
short, throughout the whole of that discussion, Augustine
would have omitted the principal point, that Christ is in an
invisible raanner diffused through beaven and earth in re
spect of his flesh, although he is visible in one place.
The question is concerning the divine presence. Augus
tine answers, that the divine nature is everywhere, that the
huraan nature is confined to a certain place. How careless
would it have been, supposing the body to fill all things in the
same raanner as the Godhead, that is, invisibly, to say nothing
about it? Westphal contends, that the doctrine of Scripture
is perfectly true : but how does he prove it ? When Christ
says that he is going to his Father, and will no raore be in the
world ; when Luke relates that he was taken up in a cloud ;
when the angels say, that he will corae in like manner as he
was seen to ascend, he restricts it all to the visible form.

JOACHIM AVESTPHAL. 387
This I, too, admit, provided he would at the same time add,
that wherever the body of Christ is, it is, according to its
nature, visible. When he comes to the invisible raode, he
repeats the passages which he had formerly produced con
cerning the presence of grace : as if it followed, that when
Christ comes to us with the Father he is placed bodily on
the earth, whereas all Scripture proclaims, that he penetrates
to us by the virtue of his Spirit. The flesh of Christ, which
we see not with the eye, we experience to be vivifying in us
by the discernment of faith. If no operation of the Spirit
were here interposed, Westphal might justly boast that he is
victor ; but if it is evidently owing to the secret agency of
the Spirit that our souls are fed by the flesh of Christ, the
inference is certain, that in no other way than a celestial
mode of presence can his flesh descend to us. These few
observations expose the poverty of Westphal, who cannot
produce a single syllable out of Scripture in support of his
error. What shall we say of the contrast Avhich Augustine draws
between the word and the flesh, Avhen he is treating of the
absence and presence of Christ ? What, but just that it
utterly excludes Westphal's fiction ? Augustine says, that
Christ is to be heard, as if he were bodily present, because
although his body must be in one place, his real presence is
everywhere difiiised. Certainly if the Lord, through his
word, exhibited himself present in the flesh in an invisible
manner, Augustine would be in error in saying, that he is
absent in the flesh, while he is present with us in his word ;
and he would be in error, when in distinguishing between
presence and absence, he opposed the body to the word.
Whatever mists Westphal raay here employ, the thing is too
clear for the reader to be mystified by his trifling. When he
is held perplexed, he says, facetiously, that the comraon ex
position of Augustine's sentiraent, in regard to the Eucharist,
is that he held that the real presence of Christ is every
where diffused, as if any man, not frantic, could wrest his
words to any thing else than the doctrine of the gospel, to
which Augustine there avowedly pays reverence. He pre
tends, that in a like sense in another passage, the sacrifice

388 LAST ADMONITION TO
of the body of Christ is said to be diffused over the whole
world, as if, because Christ invites the nations everywhere to
partake in the benefit of his cross, it follows that his body is
iraraense. And though the term diffusing should apply to
the celebration of the Supper, whora can he persuade, as he
intends, that the body of Christ is wherever the Supper is
celebrated? What Augustine distinctly declares concerning
the benefit of his death, Westphal contends to be said ofthe
Supper : and AA-hen this holy doctor teaches that the sacrifice
which Christ performed is celebrated everywhere, alluding
to the Church diffused over the Avhole world, is it not absurd
to apply this Avhich is said of the body of the faithful to
their head ?
Westphal, after long turning, comes at last to this, that
violence is done to the words of Augustine, if we are de
prived of the bodily presence of Christ Avhich he elsewhere
asserts. But though he has hitherto laboured to prove this,
it has only been at a snail's speed. It accordingly stands
fixed, that the Son of God, though present Avitli his Avord, is
above with his body. Still, however, he persists, and says
that Augustine (Tract, in Joann. 50) distinctly affirms the
invisible presence. The presence of flesh or of power? If
of flesh, let the passage be produced, and I retire vanquished ;
but if the flesh is expressly distinguished frora grace and
virtue, what can be imagined more impudent than Westphal,
who assigns that invisible mode of presence properly to the
flesh? I may add, that Augustine makes Christ present
not less in the sign of the cross than in the celebration of
the Supper ; but if he thinks fit to apply this to the essence
of the flesh, then the raoment that any one makes a cross
with his finger the body of Christ Avill be formed.
The passage frora Serraon cxi., as to tirae, answers for it
self, without my saying a word. " The Lord was unwilling to
be acknowledged except in the breaking of bread, on account
of us Avho were not to see hira in the flesh, and yet were to
eat his flesh." For the method of eating, as the writer himself
elsewhere explains it, will, when it is known, remove all ques
tion. But here Westphal acts too liberally in supplying us
with shields to ward off his attacks. For he tells us out of

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 389
Augustine how we may possess Christ though absent, viz.,
because while he has introduced his body into heaven, he has
not withdrawn his majesty from the world ; and again, that
while he said in regard to the presence of his body. Me ye
shall not always have, he said in respect of his majesty, in
respect of his providence, in respect of his ineffable and
invisible grace, I am Avith you even to the end of the world.
We see hoAv Augustine, in speaking of the invisible pre
sence, always excludes the body, and shows without ambi
guity that it is to be lopked for only in heaven.
Similar in meaning is the passage frora the forty-seventh
Psalm, that Christ is felt to be present by his hidden mercy.
Were there any obscurity in this passage, another from Tract.
in Joann. 92, is more luminous, viz., that Christ left his dis
ciples in corporeal presence, but wiU always be with his peo
ple in spiritual presence ; unless indeed the epithet corporeal
is to be held equivalent to visible. Westphal would like this,
but nothing is clearer than that the essence of the flesh is
distinguished frora the virtue of the Spirit. And yet, as if
he had gained the victory, he exclaims that the spiritual is
opposed to the visible presence. In this he betrays no less
foUy than impudence, as Augustine uniforraly asserts that
Christ is absent in the flesh. If to Westphal the expression —
that provided faith be present, he Avhora we see not is with
us — is clear, why does he throw darkness on the light ? And
yet he gains nothing by it ; for Augustine adrairably ex
plains hiraself by saying that we are to send up to heaven
not our hands but faith, in order to possess Christ ; because
although Christ has taken his body to heaven, he has not
deserted us ; his majesty remains in the world.
Though these words do not awaken Westphal, it is no
wonder, as he has no sharae. After quoting the words of
Augustine : In respect of the flesh which the Son of God
assuraed, in respect of his being bom of a virgin, in respect
of his being apprehended by the Jews, he is no longer with
us, — he raises a shout of triumph, as if he had proved by this
that Christ reraains with us invisible. But Augustine de
clares that Christ, in respect of the flesh which he once as
sumed, is absent from us. If he deludes himself with the

390 LAST ADMONITION TO
fallacious principle that Christ as God and raan is wholly
everywhere, let him at least spare Augustine, Avhose view is
raore correct. He will not allow this, but pretends that he
clearly delivers the same doctrine. In what words ? Why,
that the same Christ Avas in respect of unity of person in
heaven when he spake on earth. The Son of Man was in
heaven as the Son of God was on earth, in his assumed flesh
Son of Man, in heaven by oneness of person. I wish West
phal's ears were not so very long, as to make him when he
quotes only hear himself So far is Augustine frora saying
that God and man was entire in heaven at the time when he
sojourned on earth, that he distinctly affirms that he was
then in respect of his flesh nowhere else than on the earth,
and that it was in respect of oneness of person it was said.
The Son of Man who is in heaven. Hence, too, we infer that
whenever he says he will be present, it is by a proper attri
bute of Godhead. For although he adheres to his body as
Mediator, yet the Spirit is the bond of sacred union, who,
raising our souls upwards by faith, infuses life into us from
the heavenly head. Were any one to go over the whole of
Augustine, he would find nothing else than that though
Christ, in respect of oneness of person, was in heaven as
Son of Man, while he also dwelt as Son of God on earth,
still he was nowhere but on the earth in respect of his flesh.
As it is by the resemblance between our flesh and that of
Christ that we are wont to refute the fiction of ubiquity,
Westphal assails this argument at great length and with
much fierceness. At first he exclaims that it is detestable
blasphemy to make the flesh of Christ wholly like our own.
It would be ea.sy to appease the raan were his rage sincere,
but when he maliciously stirs up fictitious disturbance about
nothing, what kind of treatment does he deserve ? He says
that the contamination of sin is excepted. Which of us
does not say so ? He says that the flesh of Christ has this
special privilege, that it was the temple of divinity, and the
victim to expiate the sins of the world. Wliat has this to
do with the property of essence ? When from the resem
blance we infer that the body of Christ is finite, and has its
dimensions just like our own, we have no intention to anni-

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 391
hilate the excellent endowraents with which it Avas adorned :
we only show that the hope of future resurrection is over
thrown, if a model of it is not exhibited in the flesh of
Christ. For it has no other foundation than the fellowship
of the members with their head. Here we introduce nothing
of our own : we only ask due weight to be given to the
doctrine of Paul in the fifteenth chapter of first Corin
thians. We also appeal to the unambiguous declaration in
the second chapter of the Philippians, that we look for
Christ our Redeemer frora heaven, who will transform our
vile body, and make it like his own glorious body. If
Westphal detect any blasphemy in this comparison, he raay
impose upon himself, but the imposture will not harra any
other person. Moreover, unless he hold that after the re
surrection we shall be everywhere, the flesh of Christ, as
Paul testifies, cannot now possess any immensity.
As we quote a passage from Augustine, in which he de
clares that the sacraraents under the law, though differing
frora ours in signs, were the sarae in reality, Westphal
thought it would gain applause for the concluding act of his
play, if he could deprive us of this support, and he accord
ingly makes his refutation the conclusion of his book. But
what does he accomplish ? He says that we craftily pro
duce maimed and garbled passages. And yet the only way
in which he corrects our fault is by quoting verbatim what
our writings contain. Surely the whole controversy lies in
these few words : The Fathers ate the same spiritual food in
the manna that is now offered to us in the Supper ; for the
sacraments are different in the signs, alike in the thing:
they differ in visible form, are the same in spiritual virtue.
Westphal quibbles that Augustine is speaking ofthe spiritual
mode of eating. But nothing is clearer than that describ
ing the nature of the signs, as ascertained from the ordin
ance, he holds that while the signs are different the thing is
one. What avails it then to apply to man what is thus de
livered in explaining the force and efficacy of the signs ?
The question is. What is the Supper to us now, or what its
effect? Augustine answers, That in it we enjoy the same
spiritual food which the Fathers anciently received from the

392 LAST ADMONITION TO
manna. This certainly is not to discuss how either the
fathers used the symbol of the law, or we now use ours ;
but what the Lord anciently instituted under the law, and
what Christ afterwards instituted in the gospel. But as the
substance, efficacy, and reality of the signs depend on the
word, we certainly infer that the promises given are the
same, as according to the word we have the fruition of Christ
in both. But as it was not safe for Westphal to take his
stand on the raeaning of Augustine, he wanders and winds
about, and yet all his windings only bring him back to this,
that we argue vitiously from the genus to the species. But
such mode of arguing is aUowed by logicians. For what
prevents us from applying to the Supper that which is truly
said of all the sacraments ? He afterwards, however, ex
plains himself a little raore exactly, perversely objecting
that we confound things that are different, or omit to men
tion wherein the species differ from each other, or eraploy
not proper but only accidental differences. How unjust this
charge is may easily be made palpable from our books.
First, from want of skill or from malice, he represents it as
our general proposition, that sacraraents, which are different
in the signs, are alike in the thing, whereas in that pas
sage the manna only is compared with our Supper. It is
needless, therefore, to talk of sacrifices and other ceremo
nies. He asks, Must we equal the ancient sacrifices to the
sacraments instituted by Christ, raerely because it appears
that they were signs ? As if we were deriving an argument
from the terra signs, when Ave say that Augustine makes out
this resemblance between the manna and the Supper — that
under different signs they contain one thing or the same
spiritual virtue. Here, indeed, he brings a most pernicious
error into the very eleraents of piety ; when wishing to show
the difference, he denies that the ancient sacraraents, with
the sole exception of circuracision, contained any promise of
the forgiveness of sins. How dares he to call himself a
theologian, while he knows not or sets at nought a statement
which Moses raakes a hundred tiraes, viz., that by the offer
ing of sacrifice iniquity will be expiated ? Meanwhile, let the
reader observe how raalignantly he perverts the equality

JOACHIM AVESTPHAL. 393
which we assert out of Augustine : because in assuraing the
principle, that while our Supper differs from the manna in
visible form, the thing and spiritual reality is the sarae, we
do not assert that the mode of coramunication is altogether
equal. Nay, on the contrary, I uniformly declare that the
same Christ Avho was held forth under the law is now exhi
bited to us more fully and richly. I also add, that we are now
substantially fed on the flesh of Christ, which in the case of
the fathers only exerted its virtue before it actually existed.
This more clearly establishes Westphal's dishonesty in charg
ing us Avith confounding degrees, which, as we justly ought,
we carefully distinguish.
But that inequality does not at aU prevent the same
Christ, who now comraunicates hiraself to us, frora having
communicated himself to the fathers under the signs of the
law. This makes Westphal's impietymore intolerable in main
taining that the manna and the rock were figures, whereas
the reality is the body of Christ given us in the Supper.
I omit to say, how injurious he is to the fathers in robbing
them of the communion of Christ. Is it not sacrilegious
audacity to make void the effect of a sacrament ordained
by God ? And to treat hira with more leniency, it is pre
posterous to talk so frigidly and jejunely of a sacrament
which Paul adorns with the noblest title. The words of
Paul are, that the same spiritual food which we receive in the
Supper was given to the fathers. Westphal mutters, that
they ate and drank in a figure, many of them even without
faith : as if this latter remark were not applicable also to
the Supper, or as if the context of Paul would admit that
when a coraparison of parts is raade, the substance and real
ity is placed in one, and the figure remains in another. West
phal tells us, it was not said of the manna or the water.
This is my bodj'. This is my blood : as if there were not the
same force in Paul's declaration that the rock was Christ.
This, let Westphal do what he will, must be understood of
the external sign. For it were altogether inconsistent with
the exhortation not to bring on ourselves by abusing the
gifts of God the same destraction which befell them, should

394 LAST ADMONITION TO
we confine to believers alone that which Paul expressly ap
plies to unbelievers.
The substance of what he says is, that as the coramunica
tion of Christ was formerly offered to the whole ancient people
under the manna and water, and yet many of them did not
please God, we raust not now plume ourselves too highly on
the invitation which Christ gives us to partake of the same,
but must endeavour to make a due and pious use of the ines
timable gift. Any differences which Westphal produces out
of Augustine tend only to show that the spiritual gifts which
the fathers tasted under the law, or possessed only according
to the measure of that time, are fully exhibited in the gospel.
The two distinctly teach, that our sacraraents and those of
the fathers differ in respect of the degrees of more or less,
because though Christ is the substance of both, he is not
equaUy manifested in both. This again overthrows the im
piety, as the Avords which he quotes frora Augustine prove
the impudence of Westphal, in maintaining that they were
the same in meaning not in reality, the figure being then
but the truth now ; as if either Paul were opposing the figure to
the reality when he makes us comraon partakers ofthe same
spiritual grace under similar signs, or as if Augustine were
placing the dissimilarity anywhere else than in the raode of
signifying. When he says, that if it raay be denied that the
body of Christ is received in the Supper, because the an
cients had Christ present in figure, it raay equally be denied
that the Apostles saw Christ in the Supper, because he was
present to the fathers by faith, he proves hiraself to be
just as acute a logician as he had previously proved himself
to be an honest and faithful divine. For since it is clear
that under the figure of bread the same Christ is offered to
us who was formerly given under the figure of manna, the
nature of the difference is as great as that between ocular
inspection and faith.
It is of no use to go farther in pursuit of the follies of this
man, which vanish of their own accord. He occupies six
pages in enumerating the differences in degree between the
sacraments of the law and those of the gospel, as observed

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 395
by Augustine, and at length concludes that they are the same
in respect of the things signified, but not in respect ofthe ex
hibition of the things, as if significance without effect were any
thing more than a mere faUacy. After twisting hiraself about
with the tortuosity of a snake, he endeavours to cloak his
absurdity ; but any one Avho attends to the scope wiU see
that there is not less difference between his fiction and the
doctrine of Augustine, than there is between that holy
teacher and Scotus, or any other of the band of the Sophists.
I will therefore leave all his vain boastings, because they
disappear Avith the sarae idle wind which brought them.

I come now to the Confessions of the Saxons, either
elicited by the flattery or extorted by the importunity of
Westphal, as appears, I do not say from his own statement,
but from letters which he could not keep to hiraself I
would only have the reader to observe how servilely he
fawns on his acquaintance when supplicating their suffrage,
and how harshly he insults others. I say nothing as to his
scamperings up or down, the rumour of which has reached
even as far as this. Certainly as he has chosen to leave
none ignorant of the raeans by which he has drawn his party
into subscription, or irapelled thera to speak evil of the op
posite view, we are at liberty to infer what degree of credit
is due to their testiraony ; and yet this good raan is brazen
faced enough to write, that for four years I have been seek
ing suffrages in support of my error, in Germany as well as
Switzerland : as if this labour were necessary araong the
Swiss, none of whora conceal that they hold the doctrine
which I have defended in common with me. No doubt
those who to a man were ready to lend rae their aid, had to
be humbly entreated not to spurn what I offered ! As to the
Germans, I wait calmly for the witnesses by whom he is to
prove my iraportunity. Meanwhile his beggary is notorious
to all. As to the raen whom he has found to declare Avith
long ears that they are my eneraies, he makes a loud boast
that nothing now remains for rae but to sing dumb, because

396 last ADMONITION TO
all Saxony is against me. But while I have learned modestly
to cultivate connection with the pious and faithful servants
of Christ, I do not depend on their decisions. Being per
suaded that there are not a few learned and right-hearted
men, and men of sound judgment in Saxony, among whom
truth and reason would have some effect, I offered my book
to the inspection of all. Westphal proudly upbraids me with
having been repulsed ; as if I were responsible for the con
tinuance of our mutual civility.
Since Westphal raakes such a boast of the number of his
supporters, as to imagine that ray tongue is tied, I raay be
permitted to answer in a few words, that I had no occa
sion, in order to obtain favour to my cause, to pay a high
price for the purchase of any man's stolidity. I have hither
to thought, according to what is everywhere believed, that
Wittenberg and Leipsic are the two eyes of Saxony. West
phal will not deny that he tried these churches. Nay, the
fawning letters to N. and N., which he has published, pro
claim more loudly than his distinct acknowledgraent could
have done that he raet with a repulse. Now that, after
having plucked out the eyes of a reraainder, consisting
perhaps of the tenth part of Saxony, he is not asharaed to
give thera the name of the whole, I am confident that no
man is so stupid as not to feel disgust at his trifling. I may
add, that distrusting his own strength, and feeling a want
of better support, he has been compelled to insert thc letter
of some follower of Servetus, as if he had been building up
a wall with dirt collected from all quarters. It is probable,
indeed, that any sprinkling of praise which was formerly
bestowed on a man who was famishing for it, has been
raked together by him to take off the stigma of ignorance.
There is one letter, the purpose of which it is not easy to
conjecture. Westphal himself proclaims, that it was sent
him frora La Babylone, as if it Avere not apparent, without
interposing the Italian article, that the author is a Baby
lonian. Accordingly, some acute persons guess that it
comes from a Piedmontese lawyer, who, in many places, has
plainly acknowledged that he is an advocate of the irapious
and execrable dograas of Servetus. If this conjecture is

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 897
true, he has put an amusing hoax on Westphal, as it is cer
tain that nothing gives him greater pleasure than to look on
while we fight. Be this as it may, I make the subscribers
to Westphal welcorae to enjoy this associate, since by pub
lishing their sharae, they have not refused to submit to this
ignominy, which I wish it had been in my power to hide :
only I ara not sorry that their blind irapetus has thus been
rewarded frora above. In their writings I also observe the
perfect truth of an obserA-ation raade to rae in a letter frora
a friend of distinguished leaming and eloquence, that in
that maritime district some raen are so wondrously wise, that
if the Sibyl of Cumae were still alive, she should be sent to
them to learn to divine. For those little fathers pronounce
on this cause no less confidently than the Roman Pontiff
from his chair hurls thunderbolts of anathema at the whole
doctrine of the gospel : and not contented with this arro
gance, they assail a man on friendly terms with them with
barbarous invective, as if the best raethod of gaining a re
putation for strict gravity were to spare no contumely or
reproach. But as this is not to speak but to spit, it is bet
ter to contemn their ridiculous censures than to take the
spittle with Avhich they have defiled none but themselves
and throw it back into their face.
But as those of Magdeburg seem not to attach such sover
eign authority to their opinion as not to fight with argu
ment also, and observe some method in their doctrine, I
must discuss their confession, which, if overthrown, will easily
involve all the others in its downfal. But to leave them
no ground for the smallest self-complacency, I hope soon
to make it manifest to all that it is a compound of futile
quibbles. The truculence of the style, which might at first
give some fear to the simple, afterwards degenerates into
mere scurrility, and therefore does not greatly move rae. It
might, however, have been decent, in reraerabrance of their
own calaraity, to deal a little more mercifully with the raany
churches by which, as God is witness, anxious and earnest
prayers were during three whole years constantly offered for
their deliverance. The severity of ray defence against West
phal displeased them, and they pronounce his rage to be

98 LAST ADMONITION TO
necessary zeal. It is enough for me to appeal from their
unjust and savage intemperance to the tribunal of God.
Meanwhile, though I Avere silent all see that it is perverse
hatred to Philip (Melancthon) which makes them humbly,
not to say sordidly, flatter Westphal. Matthias of lUyria
seemed to act raodestly in withdrawing his narae, but has
consulted ill for his reputation by again subscribing. How
ever he may uow put a black raark upon rae, it is not very
long since in his own hand he deigned to address rae with
respect. The sarae is to be said of Erasmus Sarcerius, who,
after addressing rae by letter as his ever to be respected pre
ceptor, places me by his censure among detestable heretics.
I freely forgive him the title of preceptor, but I regret a
want of constancy of faith in the cultivation of brotherly
good-will to Avhich nothing should put an end but change of
doctrine, which cannot be said of me. Henceforth, not to
seera too rauch occupied with my own case, I shall advert
only to the doctrine.
When they say that Christ is the author of his own Supper,
and thence infer that he is its efficient cause, they mention
what is not the subject of any controversy. When they
enumerate two raaterial causes, viz., the outward eleraents
of bread and wine, and also the body and blood of Christ,
in this also I assent to thera. For to say that Ave utterly
reraove the true and natural body of Christ from the Sup
per, is false and calumnious. Their petulance is less toler
able when they charge us with making- types, shadoAvs,
phantasms, and deceptions of the body of Christ. Perhaps
they suppose that by a futile falsehood they can obliterate
what I long ago declared in my Institutes, as well as repeat
edly elsewhere, not only that Christ was from the first the
raatter of all the sacraraents in general, but was especially
so in the holy Supper. Nor have I passed this in silence in
my reply to Westphal. How the body and blood of Christ
are the matter of the Supper, we shall afterwards explain
raore fully. This only I raust now say, that the men of
Magdeburg, in throwing obloquy upon us, maliciously darken
the cause at the very threshold.
In regard to the formal cause, there is no wonder if I

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 399
differ from them. They say that there is a coupling of the
bread and wine, first with the flesh and blood of Christ ; and
secondly, with the proraise of salvation and the coraraand
which enjoins all to take the sacraraent. I willingly erabrace
the sentiment of Augustine, that the element becomes a
sacrament as soon as the word is added; but the Magdeburg-
ians confusedly and erroneously confound the effect or fruit
of the Supper with the matter itself But it is perfectly clear
from the context that they fall frora their distinction : for
wishing shortly after to raark the distinction between thera
selves and us, they say that we take away part of the matter.
In this they betray their want of thought. How dexterously
they infer, that according to us figures only and symbols are
held forth, will appear more fitly in its own place. At pre
sent, let the reader only observe that these methodical doctors
understand not what it is they are speaking of, nor attend
to a distinction which they theraselves had laid down three
sentences before. When they add that we differ frora their
sentiment, inasmuch as Ave insist that faith has reference to
the promise and to the corporeal presence of Christ, they say
something and yet do not say the whole. The promise to
which we direct the faithful, does not exclude the communion
of the flesh and blood of Christ which it offers ; but as the
exhibition of what is promised depends on it, we bid them
keep their minds fixed on it. In this way we acknowledge
that the promises in the sacraments are not naked but
clothed with the exhibition of the things, seeing they make
us truly partakers of Christ. The miracle which the Mag-
deburgians pretend is well enough known to be foreign from
our doctrine, — I mean that the Lord places his body under
the bread and his blood under the wine; but it is equally
well known that we hold the mode of coramunication to be
miraculous and supernatural. But as the whole of this be
longs to the second head, and is irrelevantly introduced here,
I will not follow it farther.
When they add, that not only is the audible word to be
attended to, but the visible signs also, which for this reason
Augustine terms visible words, there is nothing in it opposed
to us in the least, as we uniformly teach that the signs are

400 LAST ADMONITION TO
appendages and seals of the Avord. The forraal cause may,
therefore, be more simply and correctly defined to be the
comraand (with the addition of the promise) by which Christ
invites us to partake of the sacred symbol. In the final
cause the perplexity caused by their introduction of various
things is repugnant to their proposed raethod. Their titles
promise a beautiful and harmonious arrangeraent of topics,
but what follows is an indigested mass. But as my purpose
is not to attack the raethod in which they deliver their doc
trine, it will be sufficient briefly to dispose of the calumnies
by which we are unjustly assailed.
They wish it to be carefully observed, that the promise of
grace is not given to the eating of bread alone, but to the
body of Christ, in order to teach contrary to us, that the for
gi A'eness of sins is not applied by symbols merely. But the
Avorld is witness, that raany years before they thus spoke I
had written that as we do not coramunicate in the blessings
of Christ till he himself is ours, those who would receive due
frait from the Supper should begin with Christ hiraself, that
being ingrafted into his body they raay be reconciled to
God by his sacrifice. The calumny goes thc further length
of declaring that we deny the application of the forgiveness
of sins in the Supper, as if I did not use the term applica
tion in its proper and genuine meaning. They represent us
as reasoning thus : We are justified by faith alone, therefore
not by the sacraments. But we are not so raw as not to
know that the sacraments, inasmuch as they are the helps of
faith, also offer us righteousness in Christ. Nay, as we are
Ijerfectly agreed that the sacraraents are to be ranked in
the sarae place as the word, so while the gospel is called the
power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, we
hesitate not to transfer the same title to the sacraments.
Therefore did not a lust for carping and biting impel them
to attack us in any way, there was no reason for their here
putting themselves into so great a passion. I care not for
their evil speaking, provided I make it raanifest to the
reader that we are loaded undeservedly with alien and
fictitious charges. Seeing we everywhere teach, as the true
end of the Supper, that being reconciled to God by the

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 401
sacrifice of Christ we may obtain salvation, it cannot be
doubtful or obscure to any one how unworthily they deny us
the elements of piety.
Before I proceed farther, I must again remind the reader,
in a few words, that as the Magdeburgians in various ways
obscure or explain aAvay our doctrine, they must not take it
on their statement. Whether it be from error or malice, I
know not ; and yet as the tendency of their account is to
throw obloquy upon us, it is probable that being raore intent
on fighting than on teaching, they have not dealt with us sin
cerely or faithfully. Wherefore, lest the eye of the reader
should be blinded either by their tortuous sophistry, or by
the odious sentiments whicii they ascribe to us, I would
here declare that in separating the external symbols from
(!!hrist's flesh and blood, we stiU hold that he traly and in
reality perforais and fulfils what he figures under the bread
and wine, namely, that his flesh is meat to us and his blood
is drink. We accordingly teach, that believers have true
communion Avith Christ in the holy Supper, and receive the
spiritual food which is there offered. AAvay, then, with the
vile calumny that we leave nothing but an empty phantom,
as we have hitherto candidly declared, that the truth is so
conjoined with the signs, that our souls are fed with spiritual
food not less than our tongues taste bread and wine. The
difference is only in the mode, we holding that the visible
bread is held forth on the earth, in order that believers may
climb upwards by faith and be united with Christ their
head, by the secret agency of the Spirit.
But although (Jhrist infuses life into us from his flesh
and blood, we deny that there is any mingling of substance,
because, whUe we receive life from the substance of the flesh
and blood, still the entire man Christ remains in heaven.
In this way we repudiate the bodily immensity which others
feign. In order that Christ may feed and invigorate us
by his flesh, it is not necessary that it should be inclosed
under the bread and swallowed by us. MeanwhUe we teach
that nothing else than the trae and natural body is there
held forth, so that here too it plainly appears that our ene
mies act disingenuously, while they so much contend that
VOL. II. 2 c

402 LAST ADMONITION TO
the same body which hung on the cross is coraraunicated to
us : as if we pretended that Christ has two bodies, instead
of testifying by our writings, that life is to be sought frora
the sarae flesh which was once offered in sacrifice.
The whole question tums on this — Are we fed by the flesh
and blood of Christ, when by thera he infuses life into us ;
or is it necessary that the substance of his flesh should be
swallowed up by us in order to be meat, and that the blood
should be substantially quaffed in order to be drink ? The
other head of controversy relates to promiscuous eating, we
asserting that the blood and flesh of Christ are offered to all,
and yet that believers alone enjoy the inestimable treasure.
Yet though unbelief precludes the entrance of Christ, and
depriA^es those who approach the Supper impurely of any be
nefit from it, we deny that any thing is lost to the nature of
the Sacraraent, inasmuch as the bread is always a true
pledge of the flesh of Christ, and the wine of his blood, and
there is always a true exhibition of both on the part of
God. Our opponents so include the body and blood under
the bread and wine, as to hold that they are swallowed by
the wicked without any faith. It is not now my purpose to
establish our faith on its own grounds, but I wished to make
this declaration, in order that if at any tirae the reader
should see us invidiously assailed by the false cavils of the
Magdeburgians, he raay always carry back his eyes to this
rairror. What I shall afterwards add will not only tend to
clear explanation, but suffice for solid confirraation, and pre
vent the fumes of calumny which the Magdeburgians have
sent abroad from casting a shade on the noonday sun.
As the Magdeburgians contend that we raust abide by
the literal sense of the words of Christ, they insist that the
bread is without figure substantially the body ; and to prove
this opinion they collect twenty-eight reasons, which they
call foundations. So they would have thera thought ; but
their readers discover that what at the outset they count
three are in fact only one. I ask what they are to gain by
this show of multiplying their number ? The sura of all they
say is, that a sincere, proper, and certain understanding of
this controversy, and a plain and firm decision raust be

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 403
sought from the ipsissima verba of Christ, from their clear
and native meaning, not from the will or gloss of man ;
and as the natural raan receiveth not the things which are
of God, and carnal reason is blind, being involved in dark
ness, that which Christ asserts in distinct and perspicuous
terms must be apprehended by faith ; for though an owl
cannot see the sun's rays, the sun does not therefore cease
to shine. We must therefore hold the thing simply implied
in the words. This is my body.
That the whole of this is not less frivolous than they
deemed it plausible, will readily appear in three sentences.
We are perfectly agreed that we must acquiesce in the words
of Christ : the only question is as to their genuine raeaning.
But when it is inquired into, our raasters of the letter admit
of no interpretation. Away, then, with all this cunning, and
leave us at liberty to ask what our Saviour meant. Let the
ipsissima verba remain, only let them not be fastened on
without judgment, just as if one crying out that in Scripture
he finds eyes, ears, hands, and feet attributed to God, should
insist that God is corporeal. We do not fasten extraneous
glosses on the word of God, but only wish to ascertain from
the common and received usage of Scripture what is meant
by the sentence. This is my body. Nor do we measure the
recondite mystery of the Supper by our sense, but with mo
desty and pious docility we desire to learn what Christ pro
mises to us. In the meantime, if we adapt the sacramental
mode of expression to the analogy of faith, surely the sun
does not therefore cease to shine.
While I admit the fourth reason adduced to be trae, I deny
its relevancy. Christ does not make a parable of his ordi
nance. Who ever said so ? But neither does Paul make a
parable when he says that the rock was Christ ; and in all
the passages which treat of sacraments, we say not that
parables are delivered, but that there are sacramental modes
of speaking, by which an analogy is expressed between the
thing and the sign. When they add, that Christ does the
very thing which he shows, and ratifies what he does, I wil
lingly admit it ; but from this it is erroneously inferred that
there is no mystery to which the sacramental mode of ex-

404 LAST ADMONITION TO
pression applies. Though our Lord did not speak in parables
when he told his disciples of his ascension to heaven, it does
not follow that the bread is not a symbol of the body.
In the fijth reason they inculcate what they had said he
fore, that they found on the simple Avords and oppose them
to the Avisdom not only of men but of angels, because we are
enjoined by the heavenly oracle to hear the Son of God.
With equal malice and dishonesty do they object to us the
authority of Christ, as if it were our purpose to deviate one
iota from pure and genuine doctrine, whereas avc have shown
not less strongly by facts than they pretend by words that
Ave receive with reverence every thing that fell from the
sacred lips of our Lord. Therefore let the Son of God be,
Avithout controversy, our supreme, perfect, only Master, in
Avhose doctrine it is not lawful to change one word or syl
lable. But the obedience of faith does not hinder us from
giving attention to the sound meaning of his Avords. How
many of his expressions are on record, the harsh sound of
which cannot be softened in any other way than by skilful
and appropriate interpretation ? Nay, if we are to be bound
by a law to receive the simple sound of the words, there is
no kind of absurdity for which profane men may not defame
and scoff at his doctrine. The Magdeburgians then have no
ground for making it their boast to the unskilful that they
hear Christ according to the comraand of God. So far are
Ave from desiring to be wise above his teaching, that in in
genuously defending it raany of our brethren daily meet
death. We, too, stand daily in the field Avhile arrows fly
around. Their sixth objection, that we are forced without any ne
cessity to feign a trope, will be sustained, when they shall
have disposed of all the arguments by which we have shown
a hundred tiraes, that this passage cannot be duly expound
ed Avithout adraitting a trope. Nay, if we grant them all
they ask or imperiously demand, the bread will not be pro
perly called the body. Therefore, let them tAvdst themselves
and the Avords of Christ as they may, they will never logically
conjoin the body of Christ to the bread, as the predicate to
the subject : and hence they cannot avoid the metonymy hy

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 405
which it is strange they are so rauch offended, seeing the
body of Christ cannot be in the Supper, unless it be given
under the symbol of bread. The words, they say, are clear,
and are not an image of the sun, but the sun himself Why
they speak of an image of the sun, I know not. The clear
ness of the words, did not their obstinacy interpose a cloud,
would be manifest to us by itself ; but if they choose to Avink
in the light, Avhy do they insult sound and candid inter
preters ?
How solid their seventh reason is, let the reader determine
for himself They say that the ordinance of the Supper is
new, having been ordained by Christ only in the New Tes
tament, and that there is nowhere else any mode of expres
sion simUar to this. Eat, this is my body : as if Paul, after
premising that not similar, but the sarae spiritual food was
given to the fathers, and immediately adding. That rock Avas
Christ, had not used an expression admirably accordant with
it. When in another passage Paul caUs baptism the laver
of regeneration, is there no reserablance in the words ? But
if baptisra washes us, how is the blood of Christ elsewhere
termed our ablution ? If they answer that baptism instru-
mentally cleanses our defilements, I, in my turn, rejoin, that
the bread is sacramentally the body of Christ. However in
censed they may be, they cannot deprive us of the Aveapons
fiirnished by the Spirit of God.
The eighth reason is, that it is contrary to the usage of all
languages to make the demonstrative pronoun in this pas
sage point out any thing but that which is held forth. I
never could have thought there was such audacity outside
the cloisters of monks. For why, pray, should it be lawful
in other passages to expound the demonstrative pronoun
otherwise than is lawful here ? And even were this granted,
how wUl they prove the restriction frora the coraraon use of
all languages ? It is a trite and common usage in the lan
guages of all nations, to denote absent things by the dc
monstrative pronoun. If they deny this, let them go to
hoys to learn their first rudiments, nay, let them recall to
mind what they leamed from their nurses, provided they
were nursed on mothers' milk. If this is generally true.

406 LAST ADMONITION TO
why in one passage only shall all languages lose their force
and nature ? StiU we deny not, that under the symbol of
bread we are called to partake of the flesh of Christ : I only
show how disgracefuUy absurd it is to insist, that the pro
noun this refers entirely to the body. It signifies no more
in respect of the bread, than the fuller expression in the
other part of the Supper, This cup. For what else does
This cup mean, but just This ? As, therefore, the term cup
means the cup which is held forth, so it is plain that the
pronoun. This, is affirmed of the bread which is offered with
the hand ; unless, indeed, they make out that we have two
grammars in the one Supper of Christ.
The ninth reason is, that Christ used the substantive verb.
How long are we to have the same thing ? Just as the rus
tic host made many dishes out of the same pig, when he
wished to hide his poverty ; so those men, while they only
insist on one reason, compound their heap out of various
colours. Moreover, if this is the nature and property of the
substantive verb, why should it not take effect in all the othcr
words of Christ ? He certainly used the substantive verb in
all his parables. If they object that parables are to be kept
by themselves, yet Christ everywhere uses thera. The words,
" I ara the true vine, ye are the branches, ray Father is the
husbandraan," fell from the lips of Christ, not less than those
for which they contend so rigidly. What if I should also
urge the words of John, " As yet the Holy Spirit was not,
for Christ was not yet glorified." The substantive verb is
there used, and ought to have the same force in denying as
in affirming. Had the essence of the Holy Spirit then its
first origin in the resurrection of Christ? They will say
that the words are used of the manifestation of the Spirit.
Let them cease, then, to obtrude the substantive verb upon
us in a different sense, as adraitting of no interpretation.
They say that Christ, who was the eternal Word (Aoyo'})
of God, raight have spoken differently if he choose, e.g., This
figures, symbolises, shadows forth my body. As if to catch
favour it were sufficient to play the buffoon, they invent
monstrous terms. To bear us down, they without any shame
put forth what must produce shame in candid and right-

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 407
hearted readers. That Christ raeant to speak raost clearly,
I deny not, nor do I see why the Magdeburgians should ex
tort frora him the grossest expression, unless it be that un
der the shadow of it their gross delirium may find a lurk
ing place. And though Christ were adapting hiraself to our
capacity in these words, I deny that in the sacraraental mode
of expression there was any great danger. They coraplain
that they are led into a pernicious error, if Christ does not
give his body. I ansAver, that although Christ gives what
he promises, and performs in reality what he figures, his
words are not to be astricted to the grossness of those who
insist, that the bread differs in no respect from the body.
My last remark with regard to the substantive verb will be
this, Christ is in the New Testament called the Church,
just as much as the bread is called the body. Paul's words
are, " As the members of our body being many, are one body,
so also is Christ." If this is a new expression, to which
none similar is found, let them show me a difference pre
venting me from maintaining, that we all are truly and pro
perly Christ, on the very ground on which they maintain
that the bread is his body. Paul declares, that Christ is
such as is the connection of one body with its different mem
bers. Is Christ found such in himself? Unless they would
form a confused chaos, and plunge themselves into a fearful
labyrinth, they must become somewhat more moderate in
regard to the admission of tropes.
The tenth reason is, that Christ did not call it a figure of
the body. Nor did Moses say that the larab was a figure of
the passover, and yet unless any one chooses voluntarily to
betray his own madness, it is clear, by the consent of all
men, that the lamb which is called the passover is a figure.
Whenever it is said of the old sacraments. This wiU be an
expiation, none wiU presurae to deny that the expression is
to be understood figuratively. The Evangelist hesitates not
to call a dove the Holy Spirit, evidently on the sarae ground
on which the narae of body is transferred to the bread. Still
more insipid is their next observation, that Christ, when he
discourses of his body, does not caU it a figure ; as if such a
monstrous expression ever fell from any one, as that the

408 LAST ADMONITION TO
body is a figure of the body. Had the Lord pointed to his
own body, there would have been no dispute ; but when, in
pointing to the bread, he uses the name of body, we must
doubtless look for an analogy between the thing and the
thing signified.
On the eleventh head, repeating the same thing, they per
haps think, I know not how, that they are doing some good
to their cause. He said. My body, not the figure of a
body which wUl be elsewhere : I, says he, exhibit myself
present to you, this body which I have ! As I have already
declared that no other body of Christ is offered in the Supper
than that which was once offered on the cross, let them have
done with the calumny which they are so eager to concoct
out of the term figure. But as the figure does not exclude
the thing signified, so neither does the reality repudiate the
figure. What is to prevent the Son of God, while he invites
us to partake of his flesh and blood, from consulting at the
same time for our weakness, by holding forth the external
syrabol ? We, holding that the Lord does not deal deceit
fully with us, certainly infer that the body is given to us
when he exhibits a figure of it before our eyes. Let them
explain how the Lord gave to his disciples, under the bread,
the same body Avhich was visibly before them. If they in
sist that he was substantially swallowed under the bread, his
nature was double. In one place it Avas visible and mortal ;
and it was elsewhere, or nowhere, and yet at the same time
lurked everywhere, hidden and endued Avith celestial glory.
Meanwhile, we hold a different mode of presence from that
of Avhich the Magdeburgians dream ; for, in order to our
gaining possession of the flesh and blood of the Lord, it is
not necessary to imagine that both descend to us, the secret
agency of the Spirit sufficing to forra the connection.
The twelfth foundation totters miserably. Their words
are : " In the other part of this Supper he does not vary in
the words, but again lucidly and distinctly repeats the same.
This is my blood. Here at least our Saviour Avould have
figured somewhat had he not delivered the very things of
which he speaks. He is ordaining a matter of the utmost
importance : he accordingly speaks seriously, not feignedly ;

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 409
openly, not in parables. We neither attribute dissimulation
to the Son of God, Avlien we Avillingly acknowledge that this
inystery is' accomplished by the incomprehensible agency of
the Holy Spirit, nor do we make any pretence of parables :
and hence, Avithout our saying a word, it is very obvious that
those who prate thus are raere buffoons. But with what face
do they dare to affirra that there is no variation of expres
sion in holding forth the cup. Luke and Paul, as if frora
the Hps of Christ, narrate. This cup is the new covenant in
my blood. Had the Magdeburgians been contented with their
somewhat, so clear a difierence Avould not have affected them.
The ordinance of the Supper is expounded by four witnesses
sent down from heaven under the guidance and teaching of
-the same Spirit. Two of them call the cup the blood of the
new covenant ; the other tAvo call it the covenant in the
blood. If these words differ nothing in meaning, why do we
not immediately give up our debate. If the Magdeburgians
insist that the meaning is different, there will be a variation
in the thing, not to say in the words. I raight wonder at
their being so oblivious, did not their supine security always
carry thera to the sarae license. But as all the evangelists
delivered the sarae thing in the sarae words, we justly hold
it as confest that the body of Christ is not given in the
Supper in any other way than the nature of the new cove
nant admits, namely, that he is our head, and we are his
members. Not to expatiate longer, no other communion of
the flesh and blood must be sought in the Supper than that
which is described in the sixth chapter of John — a com
munion very different frora the carnal eating of which these
gross doctors dream.
The thirteenth objection proves them to be nothing better
than falsifiers and wicked calumniators. As Christ says
that the body which he gives is no other than that which
was shortly after to be sacrificed on the cross, they infer
that it is not a spiritual body, in other words, not the
Church ; as if we took the mystical body in the Supper for
the Church. Whether they will or not, this principle is cer
tainly comraon to us both, that by the words of Christ is de
signated the tme body, whose immolation has reconciled us

410 LAST ADMONITION TO
to God. The only question is how it is designated. The
Magdeburgians say, that it retains its native signification.
That is, it lets us know that that body on which our souls
are spiritually fed is the sarae which hung on the cross, but
not that the bread becomes body, or that the body lies hid
under the bread. What need was there to represent Christ
as prudent and explicit, in order to guard against trans
ferring his words to another new body ? They say that by
prudence and a learned tongue he took care that no falsifier
should be able to say that shadows only, types, figures,
raasks, or magical impostures were given. This is the
reason why I said that their falsity is here made manifest.
For as we are the last to teach that naked or empty figures
are given, so there is nothing to prevent the true exhibition
of the thing from having the figure annexed. The Supper
of Christ without type or figure would not be a sacrament.
Magical impostures we leave to those who are not ashamed
to make a bi-corporeal Christ, Avho, whUe exhibiting his body
present before their eyes, gave it to each of them invisible
under the bread.
On the fourteenth head I cannot raake out their raeaning.
They say that the natural, not spiritual blood of Christ was
shed on the cross, and is therefore given in the Supper ; as
if we iraagined any other blood of Christ than that which he
assuraed on becoming man. Only, when wishing to express
the manner of drinking, seeing it is not drunk in a human
manner, we call it spiritual drink. Thus pious and sound
teachers have always spoken, and in this the Magdeburgians,
however rauch they raay murraur, will not find any thing
absurd. Nay, Irenseus says, that whatever is given in the
Supper besides bread and wine is spiritual In the same
way I interpret the expression of Jerome — (In Cap. 1. ad
Ephes.) — " The flesh of Christ is understood in a twofold sense,
the one spiritual and divine, of which he says, my flesh is
meat indeed, and that which was cracified ; not that he
makes it twofold in reality, but because the mode of partici
pation raises us above heaven." Not unlike is the passage
which we have elsewhere quoted from Augustine, (in Ps.
xcviii.,) that the body given to the disciples was not that

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 411
which hung upon the cross. As he in another place teaches,
that the Jews Avhen converted drank the blood whicii they
had shed, how comes it that he now denies it to be the same,
but just because the spiritual communion could not other
wise be expressed ?
In the fifteenth foundation, they infer that the proper
body and blood of Christ are undoubtedly communicated in
the Supper, because he meant to institute a thing difficult,
miraculous, and new, like nothing previously in the world,
and that purposely, and no doubt with the counsel of the
Father and the Spirit, in order that there might be a most
evident and raost transparent and most certain application
of his love and raerits in so precious and arduous a pledge.
Were I to concede all this, the doctrine whicii they impugn
would still reraain entire. For we deny not that the flesh
and blood of Christ are coraraunicated to us. We only ex
plain the mode, lest carnal eating should either derogate in
any respect from the heavenly glory of Christ, or overthrow
the reality of his human nature. But these men are not to
be satisfied, unless that which is received only by virtue of
faith be devoured by the mouth. The real aira of this mira
culous and arduous, I know not Avhat, is not to leave a place
for faith or the secret operation of the Spirit.
The magnUoquence which bursts frora thera on the six
teenth head, easily falls and vanishes of itself They prie-
mise that the Evangelists and Apostles are most worthy of
belief, and have a testiraony that they spoke by the Holy
Spirit, and do not err. What, pray, do they produce after
this long breath ? They all say. This is my body. They
point to the bread and the cup, and use the substantive
verb. But there is no controversy as to this. The only thing
is to see whether, as Christ instituted a sacraraent, we
are not at liberty to say, by way of interpretation, that
the bread is the body sacraraentally. It is indeed certain
that Christ is called the Son of God in another and different
sense from that in which the bread is called the body. For
after aU the thunder of their clamour, they are forced to
confess that the bread is a symbol of the thing which it
figures. Moreover, how much they are fascinated by their

412

LAST ADMONITION TO

fiction appears from this, that to them the covenant in the
blood is equivalent to the blood inclosed in the cup.
The same argument is repeated in the seventeenth head.
They oppose to us great and approved witnesses ; as if our
interpretation Avere detracting one iota from their authority.
They ask. If the bread and wine were shadows, symbols, and
figures of absent things, would not the Evangelists have
made out of one Ls one 8ignifi,es ? Would not the Holy
Spirit, the guide of hearts and tongues, have somehow sug
gested one vocable of syrabol or figure ? Since he was to sug
gest all things that Christ taught, I answer that they act
rigidly and presumptuously in daring to dictate words to the
Holy Spirit. A raode of expression uniformly employed in
treating of the sacraraents, is to give the sign the name of
the thing signified. It was anciently said that God dwelt
between the cherubim ; and Moses declared that God was
present in the sanctuary, that the lamb was the passover,
that circumcision was a covenant, that the sacrifices were
expiations for sins, just as much as it was said that the
bread and the cup are the body aud blood of Christ. In all
these modes of expression there is no obscurity or harshness,
would not the Magdeburgians disdainfully reject every thing
that is not said according to their rule. It is repeatedly
said of circumcision, This is my covenant, as it is said of the
bread. This is my body. While in the old sacraments, the
name of the thing signified is raetonyraically transferred to
the sign, the substantive verb occurs an hundred times ; the
word syrabol or figure not once. Why should the Holy
Spirit not now have the same freedom ? Is he to be forced
to change his language at the dictation of men of Magde
burg? They proceed stiU further in the eighteenth head, and sub
ject the Apostles to their laws. They say. If the Apostles
did not dare to mutilate any thing in the narration itself, on
the ground that witnesses raay not take away or add any
thing, they ought at least in some other place to have ex
plained the true view. But what if the truth has been suffi
ciently explained to the teachable in the words ? For who can
doubt that in all the sacraments we are to rise from the ex-

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 413
ternal and earthly sign to the heavenly reality ? I hear a
dove caUed the Holy Spirit. I do not quarrel with the
Evangelists for not expressly telling me it Avas a figure, be
cause on attending to the analogy between the sign and the
thing signified, all ambiguity is removed. Thus in the words
of Christ, on attending to what the nature of a sacrament
requires, though I hold it certain that that which the words
imply is truly fulfilled, yet I reject not the figure by which
Christ has been pleased to help the weakness of my faith.
Thus, too, a proper transition is raade from the bread and
the cup to the flesh and the blood. Nor in this Avay is the
doctrine of Christ concealed — a doctrine which, if the Magde
burgians were so desirous to illustrate as they pretend, they
would not so preposterously involve and confound things
which, when kept distinct, throw full light upon it. They
insist that the bread is substantiaUy the body: we teach
that it is a symbol to which the true exhibition of the thing
is annexed, because the Lord does not fallaciously figure
that his fljesh is meat to us, but shows to the eye what he
truly performs within by the energy of his Spirit. This sim
ple doctrine the Magdeburgians in vain endeavour to distort
by monstrous terms, when, like silly buffoons, they attribute
to us the spurious word figurizing. They ought rather,
while they relate that Paul speaks as well of the eleraents as
of the body and blood of the Lord, to consider raore atten
tively what place the elements hold. For unless they are
regarded as symbols, and figures, and signs, and types, of
spiritual things, the action will be not only ludicrous but
absurd. The nineteenth foundation will for rae remain untouched.
For who can deny that the tme body of Christ is celebrated
hy Paul, just as I hold, that not a fallacious, or iraaginary, or
shadowy body is given us in the Supper, but that natural
body, by the sacrifice of which on the cross sins were expi
ated? If ubiquity is no more applicable to it than opaque
density or earthly ponderousness to the sun, it follows, that
hy the fiction of the Magdeburgians, we are drawn away
from the tme body of Christ to some indescribable phantom.
For in vain do they exclaim that it is the tme body of Christ,

414 LAST ADMONITION TO
while they raake it a false body. Because Paul charges
those Avith sacrilege who eat the bread of Christ unworthily,
not discerning the Lord's body, they coolly and absurdly
infer that the substance of the flesh lies hid under the bread.
Though it is not given to be chewed by the teeth, this does
not excuse the irapious profanation of those who contemn
what is spiritually offered.
The passage which they quote in the twentieth head
plainly supports us. Paul says, that the bread which we
break is the fellowship (Koivavia) of the Lord's body. They
interpret this to raean dispensing, as if it could be said that
fellowship is any thing but distribution. The meaning of
Koivcovia is made perfectly clear from the context, when he
says, that those who sacrifice are partakers (koivcovoi,) of the
altar, and forbids believers to become /cotvwvoi with devils.
If KOivoyvia of the altar and with devils means dispensation,
the nieaning will be the same in regard to the body of
Christ. But if all agree, that fellowship is denoted, why do
the men of Magdeburg carry their heads so high ? They
contend that nothing raore significant or expressive can be
said of the raaterial cause of the Supper. Verily so be it.
Nay, I assist them, for I teach that no term could better ex
plain the mode in which the body of Christ is given to us,
than the term communion, implying that we become one
with hira, and being ingrafted into hira, truly enjoy his life.
It is clear and certain, that this is done not naturaUy, but
by the secret agency ofthe Spirit. I hold that the spiritual
raatter of the Supper is the body and blood of Christ, just as
the earthly raatter is the bread and wine. The only ques
tion is, whether the body of Christ becoraes ours by our de
vouring it ? Paul points out a different mode, by directing
us to the feUowship by which we are made one with him.
They object that Paul does not terra the elements of bread
and wine figures or symbols. But if they are bare elements
and not signs of spiritual things, the Supper will cease to be
a sacraraent. Such is the result of the material theology to which they
remain so fixed, that from hatred to signs, they take away
all significancy from the sacraments. In order to make an

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 415
impression on the unskilful, they say that Paul, Avitli full
and clear voice, declares that the bread is Koivavia, not a
.shadow or type. And of Avhat thing ? Not of the bread, but
of the body ; as if it had been possible to call the bread the
communion of the bread. When, pray, is this trifling to
end ? Did it require such a wide raouth to declare that we
communicate with Christ in the Supper ? I should like to
know whether, according to them, this communion belongs
indiscriminately to unbelievers as well as to believers. This
they assert with their usual confidence. How admirably
are those said to coraraunicate with Christ who are alto
gether aliens from him ! That the body of Christ is devoured
by the wicked, monstrous though it be, may be easily said ;
hut no man not actually turned into a trunk can believe that
he who is not a member of Christ can partake of Christ.
Wlien, on the twenty-first head, they say that the final
cause ought not to be confounded with the matter, I grant
it. There was no need of calling in Jerome as a witness to
a point sufficiently agreed between us, unless, perhaps, they
imagine that they are the only custodiers of logic, and none
but themselves know how to distinguish between the end
and the matter.
On the twenty-second head they again exaggerate, saying,
that as the Supper of Christ is a testament, it cannot law
fully be violated or corrupted by a different meaning. Which
of the two pays raore respect to the testament, I leave the
impartial to judge. The Magdeburgians expose the body of
Christ to the wicked and sacrilegious without faith, without
the Spirit ; as if the Son of God had by testament appointed
the profane despisers of his grace the lords of his body and
blood. Our doctrine is, that whosoever receives the proraise
of the Supper in faith truly becoraes a partaker of the body
and blood of Christ, because he never raeant to deceive when
he plainly declared that it was his body. What violation can
be discovered here ? Surely, while contented with external
signs and earthly pledges, we firmly believe that the body of
Christ is vivifying bread to us, and that every thing which
the sign represents to the eye is traly performed, Ave by no
means rescind the testimony of Christ. The charge which

416 LAST ADMONITION TO
they falsely bring against us I retort on their OAvn head, viz.,
that the sacraraent is abolished and extinguished, if the
spiritual truth is not figured by external syrabols.
In the twenty-third head they call the ancient and ortho
dox fathers to their support ; as if it were not easy to dis
pose of all their glosses by a single word. Nor had Philip
(Melancthon) any other intention than to prove the com
munion, as to which he entirely agrees with us. What West
phal has gained by his farrago I leave the reader to judge.
In the twenty-fourth head they excuse themselves by say
ing that they believe no other raode of presence than that
which Christ appointed. If this were true, there would be
no reason for debating. But when they add, that the body
of Christ is everywhere present, before they obtain what
they want, they will have to proA^e that this dream of their's
is the heavenly oracle of Christ. How unseasonably they
introduce the power of Christ, methinks I have sufficiently
shown in my defence against Westphal. I adrait that it is
Christ who reveals hidden things to us. Why, then, do they
throw darkness on his revelations ? In regard to Christ, we
acknowledge that the Father coraraands frora heaven that
all are to hear him. Why, then, do they make a turmoil,
and pretend that no interpretation of his words is to be
admitted ? We acknowledge that with Christ nothing is
impossible. Why, then, do they themselves not believe, that
though he is in heaven, he can, notwithstanding, by the
wondrous virtue of his Spirit, give us his flesh and blood for
spiritual nourishment ? It is certainly a proof of traly divine
and incomprehensible power, that how reraote soever he may
be from us, he infuses life, frora the substance of his flesh
and blood, into our souls, so that no distance of place can
irapede the union of the head and members. Hence it clearly
appears how vain and calumnious it is to say that we mea
sure this mystery by human reason. But as the Magde
burgians, from the proud obstinacy of their own brain, despise
the work of Christ, they pretend that all must give way who
depend not on their pleasure. I wish that they themselves
would stand on some solid foundation, rather than cast others
down headlong by their empty thunder.

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 417
They croak the same thing in the twenty-fifth article. How
can I otherwise describe it ? They pretend to be horrified
at our theology, as savouring of nothing but what is carnal ;
as if it were a dictate of the flesh that the boundless virtue
of Christ penetrates through heaven and earth, in order to
feed us with his flesh from heaven : that the flesh, which by
nature was mortal, is to us the fountain of life : that every
thing which he figures by the visible symbol is truly fulfiUed
by him : and that, therefore, the flesh of Christ in the Supper
is spiritual food, just as our bodies are daily fed with bread.
There is something Avorse, when, in order to condemn what
they pretend to be our carnal sense, they quote a passage
from the eighth chapter of the Romans, in which Paul says
that the flesh is enraity against God. This, no doubt, is
their reverence in handling Scripture ; and lest any thing
should be wanting to complete their fatuity, they append, as
if from Paul, Likewise, he who receives Avith the faith ofthe
Sacramentarians is guilty of the body and blood of Christ.
But were I disposed to sport after their fashion, I could
extract from their words, that there is therefore no need bf
camal eating, in order to be guUty of the body and blood of
Christ ; for our faith excludes their camal eating, Avhich
they, however, pretend to extract frora the words of Paul.
In the twenty-sixth head, they raost unjustly charge us
with explaining away the dignity of this sacraraent. Every
thing belonging to the sacred Supper is set forth in the
most honourable manner by us : only we do not give the
body of Christ to be swallowed by Judas as well as by
Peter. In order to prove their charge, they affirra that Ave
do not distinguish between bare proraises and those clothed
with sacraments : as if after they have produced their best,
the reader could not leai-n more clearly and fully from our
writings, how Christ works effectually in the Supper and in
baptism. In the twenty-seventh head, they object that the person of
Christ is dissolved by us, because we deny that he can be in
his human nature wheresoever he pleases. If this is to dis
solve the person, it will be necessary to rob the human
nature of every thing that is most proper to it, in order to
VOL. IL 2 D

418

LAST ADMONITION TO

his continuing to be Mediator. What can be imagined more
absurd than that the flesh of Christ was in heaven while
he hung upon the cross? Yet undoubtedly the whole
Christ, God and man, was then also in heaven. But those
proud censors must be taught a vulgar distinction which
was not unknown either to Peter Lombard (Lib. 3. Sentent.
dist. 22) or the sophists who came after hira, viz., that Christ,
the Mediator, God and raan, is whole everywhere, but not
wholly, (totus ubique, sed non totum,) because in respect of
his flesh he continued sorae time on earth and now dwells in
heaven. It is strange how these men fly so petulantly in
the face of the primitive Church. Let those who are in
clined see a full and clear proof of this, by that faithful
minister of Christ, our venerable brother Bullinger. They
say that Christ, by these words, This is my body, intends to
be present with the whole Church. Be it so, only let them
not append to it this most wicked falsehood, that we upset
this will and presence of Christ on philosophical principles,
since it is perfectly notorious, that there is no article of
Christian doctrine which we support by more numerous pas
sages of Scripture.
No less perversely do they, in the last place, bring the
calumnious charge against us of taking away the credit due
to Christ, together with his omnipotence : as if any of us
had ever before raised the question, or now disputes whether
it is possible for Christ to fulfil what he proraises, or whether
he deludes us by fallacious phantoras. Our raethod of doc
trine so reconciles the will of Christ with all the principles of
the faith, that the presence and coraraunion of his flesh
which we enjoy is tied down to no space, and he performs
what he proraises in a wonderful raanner, transcending the
coraprehension of our mind. In short, we so harmonize the
analogy of the sign and the thing signified, that to the word
and visible syrabol are annexed not only the fruit or effect
of the grace which we receive frora Christ, but also the
reality of secret communion with his flesh and blood.
We must now see how dexterously they dispose of our
arguraents which they pretend to be woven of sand, because

JOACHIM AVESTPHAL. 419
Irenjsus so spoke of heretics. The first of the fifty-nine
arguments which they enumerate is amply sufficient to dis
pose of all the objections with which they have hitherto ima
gined themselves to be completely fortified. On looking raore
closely at what they advance, the substance araounts to this,
that we raust reject all interpretation, and siraply adhere to
what the words contain. This, hoAvever, is our Avail of
brass — As Christ instituted a sacraraent, his words ought to
be expounded sacraraentally according to the coramon usage
of Scripture. For a kind of perpetual rule in regard to all
the sacraments is, that the sign receives the name of the
thing signified. What do the Magdeburgians say to this ?
They say, that this may be conceded, on the condition, that
the sacrament be taken as it was ordained in clear terras by
Christ, not as it is raeasured by huraan reason. I accept
the condition, provided they do not obscure the clearness of
the terms by their obstinacy. For if the sacramental raode
of expression is adraitted, the raetonymy and the analogy
which ought ahvays to be raaintained betAveen the sign and
the thing signified Avill dissipate all doubts. How then
will the bread be the body ? Just in the sense in which a
sacrament implies, viz., our faith must rise from the earthly
symbol to the celestial gift. There is no measuring by
human reasoii Avhen it is said, that the spiritual reality trans
cends the whole order of nature. We do not here iraagine
some kind of theatrical exhibition, but look up with rever
ence to the secret agency of the Spirit in effecting this
mystery, inasmuch as it cannot be comprehended by our
capacity. The Magdeburgians, indeed, dare not deny, that
the words of Christ ought to be taken sacramentally. This
being granted, they have no longer any cause to plume
themselves. Their aUegation, that we strenuously abuse the
term sacrament, is nugatory ; for, according to thera, raany
teachers in the Church hold a sacraraent to be a kind of
mystical allegory. I rejoin, that there is no ambiguity in
the common rale, that the sacraraental forra of speech ought
to receive effect in the sacraments. Having thus finely ex
plained, they say they are going to enter more particular laby
rinths : as if they had disentangled themselves frora the first.

420 LAST ADMONITION TO
Our second arguraent, to which they refer, is. That if the
expression in the Avords of the Supper were to be strictly
urged, the Evangelists would not have varied, nor have
theraselves used any trope : But they do vary, and speak
figuratively ; for Luke and Paul, while the others use the
terra blood, say, " a covenant in the blood." The Magde
burgians reply, that the raajor raight be conceded, had the
Evangelists always, and everyAvhere in the same case, spoken
figuratively, but that as they do not heap up various figures
and allegories it is false. We contend, that the figure is
everywhere; for the bread is called body, and the wine blood
metonymically. As they perversely deny this, we compel
thera to acknowledge a variation, at least in one part, and
thus rightly conclude that they ought not to insist rigidly on
the words. It was said of the bread, This is ray body, in no
other sense than it is added of the cup, This is my blood.
Luke and Paul, who wrote after the others, interpret the
blood raore fully and clearly as the covenant in the blood.
Reason requires that the same thing should be transferred
to the bread also, so as to make it a covenant in the body.
The reader will find no sophistry in this.
The reply which they make to the minor proposition is
the same, viz., that as the variation is only in the second
part, it ought not to be transferred to the first : as if there
were any difference in the reason. But they allege a rule,
that what is clear and properly expressed, raust not be ex
pounded by figurative expressions: as if the bread were
called the body properly, and without figure, or as if there
were any obscure trope in the expression. This cup is the
covenant in my blood. Hence it appears hoAv securely they
keep chattering in their nests. We hold that the Avords of
Christ, because they contain a figure, need interpretation.
This is, in some measure, supplied by Luke and Paul, who,
as they wrote after the others, probably made an addition to
interpret what had been previously Avritten. The Magde
burgians answer, that obscure and figurative expressions
ought to be explained by those whicii are clear and simple.
We, too, contend for this. As we have to do Avith hard and
obstinate heads, I leave the reader to judge which of the

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 421
two expressions is the raore clear — This cup is ray blood, or.
This cup is the covenant in my blood. Surely as brevity al
ways tends toAvards obscurity, the fuller expression naturally
gives more light. Luke and Paul raight justly be charged
with culpable thoughtlessness, had they, after a thing was
clearly expressed by their colleagues, purposely darkened it
by a circumlocution.
Our third argument is. That the words of the Supper ought
not to be separated from others, which Christ uttered almost
at the same instant of tirae : Noav, he at that tirae repeat
edly declared, that he was leaving the world. The solution
of the Magdeburgians is, that however the major might have
been tolerated, nothing is said of the mystery of the Supper
in that lengthened discourse from which we have raade quo
tations concerning the departure of Christ. What then?
This much, in the meauAvhile, reraains fixed, that as the Son
of God, when about to institute the Supper, distinctly pro
mised that he was leaving the world to go to the Father,
and when the Supper was over, frequently repeated the same
thing, the intermediate action ought to be understood in a
sense Avliich leads us to seek him afterwards only in heaven.
We do not in this way confound all the actions and senti
ments of Christ. Though he instituted the sacraraent separ
ately, it is certain that his discourse depends on it so far,
that he speaks to his disciples of his departure raore freely,
because of the distinguished consolation he had just given
them. There is no ground for the remark, that it is all over with
us if Christ has actually left us. For Avhile we loudly pro
claim the spiritual presence of Christ, which with them goes
for almost nothing, they only betray their shamelessness by
such silly calumnies. Accordingly we hold, that though by
Christ's ascension into heaven the presence of his flesh has
heen taken from us, still he fills all things by his virtue and
grace, and extends the vigour of his empire over the whole
globe. Nor does he only defend us by present aid. He
also tmly dwells in us ; nay, feeds our souls by his flesh and
blood. In this way there is no repugnance between the ex
pressions, " I go to the Father," and, " Take, this is my

422 LAST ADMONITION TO
body;" because, while we are rerainded that Christ is not
to be sought on the earth, we clirab by faith to heaven in
order to enjoy hira. The Magdeburgians insist, that Christ
is not in the world in visible shape, but is invisibly hid under
the bread. So they say ; but who will believe them ? No less
absurd is their additional remark, that this departure com
raenced at death itself, because he then said, " I go to the
Father." I wish they were as literary as they long to be
literal. Nothing in Hebrew phraseology is more trite than
the use of the present tense for the future. They, disre
garding all reason, restrict the departure of Christ to the
raoment at which he said, I go. This ignorance might, per
haps, be pardoned, did it not carry with it the other impious
dream, that when Christ truly ascended to heaven, a depar
ture Avas exhibited to the Apostles which had previously
taken place. As if Luke were teUing of some phantom, and
making void one Of the leading articles of our faith.
The fourth argument is, Luke makes the Supper of the
paschal lamb precede the Lord's Supper : the supper of the
paschal larab is a raystery or figure : therefore the Lord's
Supper is mystical or figurative. Whether anybody has
argued in this way, I know not ; I certainly do not think it
likely. What they have turned to suit their own purpose I
will restore thus, Christ ordained the Supper to be substi
tuted in the place of the paschal lamb : but the nature and
end of both sacraments is alike : therefore it is not strange
if they bear a mutual affinity to each other, and also a re
semblance in the words. What do the Magdeburgians now
say ? They say that the argument drawn from unequals is
not good. But I neither urge their equality nor infer any
necessity that what is said of the one should be as applica
ble to the other. I only extort from them, whether they will
or not, that it is reasonable to expect that a comparison with
the paschal lamb wUl assist us in understanding the Supper.
It is a frigid quibble to say, that the passover was then abo
lished. Though the use of the ceremony ceased, stiU the
doctrine and the reality remain entire ; otherwise when
baptism is considered, there would be no room to refer to cir
cumcision. Nor are they helped by the distinction, that the

JOACHIM AVESTPHAL. 423
sacraments of the law designed Christ Avho was to come,
whereas ours exhibit him present ; provided the presence be
referred as it ought to be to the advent of Christ, by which
God fulfiUed what he had promised under the law.
'ihe fifth argument is. If the raode of expression in the Sup
per were different frora that of other sacraraents, as Avhen the
lamb is called the passover, the Apostles Avould have interro
gated their Lord as they Avere wont to do on other occasions ;
this they did not ; therefore they understood the Supper mys
tically, the expressions being such as they were used to. The
Magdeburgians answer, that a consequence draAvn from symp
toms not necessary is not valid. Still they do not make out
that it is not a probable conjecture. We know that not only
were they accustoraed to interrogate Christ in difficulty or
perplexity, but as often as their ignorance thrcAv thera into
any doubt. If, as these raen pretend, something new and
miraculous had then been suddenly declared concerning the
invisible presence of the flesh, was there such perfection of
faith in the disciples that no doubt arose in any one mind ?
Who, I ask, will believe that men slow of heart and doubtful
in the smallest matters, on the unheard of announcement,
hastened with readiness and alacrity to swallow the immense
and invisible body of Christ under the bread ? Wherefore
we not unaptly argue from probability, that as they were ac
customed to sacraraental modes of expression, they raised
no question on a matter that was known. I will not honour
with a reply their rejoinder, viz., that Christ clearly and
without tropes uttered the sentence. This is my body, and
hence the Apostles being contented did not think of tropes,
figures, and allegories ; otherwise, frora their desire to learn,
they would have interrogated their Lord. First, seeing that
the clearness of the words depends on the figure, in order to
perceive the former it is not proper to exclude the latter.
Secondly, seeing that the thing was plain, what use was
there, according to the common expression, to seek a knot
in a thom ? The question only arises when the bread is said
to be properly and substantially the body of Christ.
In regard to the sitcth argument, as it was only produced
for a calumnious purpose, I give a brief reply. We hold.

424 LAST ADMONITION TO
indeed, that it is not only to pervert the whole order of
Christ, but to rob the Holy Spirit of freedora of utterance,
to insist literally on the controverted terras, This is my body,
as if it were unlawful to add a syllable in the way of inter
pretation. They ask whether is and signifies are always to
be equivalent, and whether the Holy Spirit nowhere speaks
properly ? as if we were laying down an universal rule, and
not rather holding, from the circumstance of place and sub
ject, that we ought to consider what is most appropriate.
In this ordinance Ave wish to give effect to that which those
Avho are moderately versant in Scripture knoAV to be common
to all the sacraraents. We insist on the intei-vention of a
symbol which raay enable us to raake a transition to the
spiritual reality. These new doctors protest that it is un
lawful to deviate one hair's-breadth from the words and syl
lables. What is this but to rise up and imperiously forbid
freedom of speech to the Holy Spirit ?
They next ask raore petulantly, whether the terra body,
is ahvays to be held equivalent to phantasm of the body ?
Must we hold, then, that as the Apostle teaches that through
out the worship of the law there were figures of spiritual
blessings, we are at liberty to substitute phantasms for
figures ? See what they gain by throwing their ugly squibs
at us. No one ever said that the body is taken for the
figure of the body, but that the bread is called the body
symbolically, being interposed as a kind of visible pledge
when Christ would make us partakers of his flesh. Let their
subsequent reproaches be left to their own nostrils. Their
ever and anon recurring to the same thing is a sign of weak
ness and poverty. They contend that the words of Christ,
This is my body, are plain, because he says not symbol or
spectre. As to spectre, of what use is it again to utter a
disgraceful falsehood ? We maintain that the analogy be
tween the sign and the thing signified is to be observed, in
order that the reality may be conjoined Avith the visible
element. If in this way we make a spectre of the bread of
the Supper, rauch raore raay the sarae be said of the ark of
the covenant. Their question. Where will there be any reli
gion, if it be lawful to substitute shadows and types for the

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 425
realities, I retort upon thera. If it be lawful to substitute
realities for types and shadows, where will religion be ? No
longer the blood of Christ, but corruptible water will be our
ablution. The seventh argument they quote is. Explanation must be
sought from the words of Christ — but he declares that the
flesh profiteth nothing — hence it follows that the eating de
livered by hira in the Supper is not carnal but spiritual.
They admit the major, provided what is raore obscure re
ceives light from what is clearer. Now, in order to put an
end to the controversy, if we believe thera, we raust abide by
the very institution of the Supper. I object that when our
Lord instituted the Supper, he spoke briefly, as is usually
done in federal acts, whereas in the sixth chapter of John he
discourses copiously and professedly ofthat mystery of sacred
conjunction, of which he afterwards held forth a mirror in
the Supper. In vain will they now keep crying that we
must go to the fountain-head : just as an Anabaptist, by
laying hold at random of the words, Preach and baptize. He
who believeth and is baptized, would, by the same pretext,
preclude all entrance to arguraent. Wherefore no raan of
sound mind can now doubt which of the two passages is
fitter and raore convenient to illustrate the subject. When
they come to the minor, they show how rauch they are per
plexed. At first they object that the words are clear and
manifest. The bread which I will give is my flesh which I will
give for the life of the world. I wish they had been less ac
customed to unbridled license in lacerating Scripture. I not
only admit their postulate, that the bread is truly flesh, but I
go farther, and add what they injuriously and shamefully
omit, that this bread is given daily, as the flesh was offered
once on the cross for the salvation of the world. Nor is the
repetition of the expression, / will give, superfluous. The
bread, therefore, is truly and properly the flesh of Christ, in
asmuch as he is there speaking not of a corruptible or fading
but of heavenly aliment.
The Magdeburgians subjoin, that Christ speaks explicitly
in these words, Unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood
of the Son of Man, you have no life abiding in you. Again,

426 LAST ADMONITION TO
My flesh is raeat indeed and ray blood is drink indeed.
They tell us he raight as easily have said. The bread signifies
ray flesh ; but that no one might dreara of any figure, he was
pleased to speak siraply, and thus early obviate all fictions: as
if he had then used a visible syrabol instead of having
spoken of his flesh as raeat or bread metaphorically — there
being no other Avay in which our souls can be nourished
unto etemal life. It is just as if any contentious person,
laying hold of the terra water in Isaiah and Ezekiel, should
deny that in baptism the external symbol of water is an
nexed to spiritual washing. Christ had not instituted the
Supper when he thus discoursed in Capernaum. What he
then said he was pleased afterwards to seal in the Supper
by a visible figure. What madness is it to confound the
spiritual bread with a corruptible element ? The Magdebur
gians proceed, that the same offence at which we stumble
was objected by the people of Capernaum, because they
robbed Christ of divine virtue. What lirait, pray, will there
be to falsehoods ? Did a carnal eating of Christ ever come
into our mind ? If their associates, whose obstreperous unbe
lief is there condemned, coraplain, let those come forward
who differ with them in one thing only, pretending that the
flesh of Christ is devoured in an invisible and yet carnal
manner. Our eating is just that whicii the words of Christ
express. It cannot be doubted that the language of Christ is meta
phorical. He gives the narae of bread not to that Avhich is
coraposed of flour; he gives tbe name of raeat not to that
which is baked in an oven or dish, but to spiritual aliment,
by which our souls are fed for the heavenly life. Therefore,
the eating and drinking which he mentions does not at all
require the teeth, palate, throat, or storaach, but hungering
of soul ; for we do not, in corapliance with that coramand
ment of Christ, eat his flesh or drink his blood in any other
way than by being made one with hira by faith, so that he,
dwelling in us, raay truly give us life. Why he claims the
office of nourishing for his flesh and blood is by no meaus
obscure. It was to let us know that our life is to be sought
nowhere else than in the sacrifice by which he has reconciled

JOACHIM AVESTPHAL. 427
the Father to us. Many in their pride Avould wUlingly pass
by the flesh in Avhich the expiation was raade, and climb
beyond the clouds. Therefore, as Christ Avas humbled for
us, he, in order to keep our faith humble, recommending the
mystery of redemption, declares that his flesh gives us life.
How, pray, can the Magdeburgians disentangle theraselves,
in insisting that the flesh is received carnally ? They also
stumble more grossly, in teaching that there is an antithesis
which is of very common occurrence in St. Paul. But as it
is a regular practice for thera to corrupt Scripture, by quot
ing it inconsiderately, let their error here, so far as I am
concerned, remain buried. I would only have their answer in
regard to a declaration of Christ. If the quickening Spirit
is nothing else than the gift of understanding, what does our
Saviour mean by immediately after adding. The words whicii
I speak unto you are spirit and life ? Will they deny that
the words are called spirit, because they are spiritual ? This
heing granted, it Avill be easy to infer that the eating of
which he speaks is of the same nature.
The eighth argument they produce frora us is, AU sacra
mental raodes of expression have a like principle : the prin
ciple is, that the narae of the thing is transferred to the
sign ; therefore there is such a metonymy in the words of the
Supper. The major they restrict by adding to it. When they
are of the sarae kind and tirae. But they deny that the
sacraments of the Old and New Testament are of the same
kind, because, in the Old Testaraent, figures and shadows
were brought forward ; whereas, in the New, the thing itself
is clearly exhibited, as is expressly iraplied by the words.
This is my body. If the dispute is as to the words, the same
are read in the Old Testaraent also : nor is the forra of ex
pression. This is ray body, raore transparent than. The larab
is the passover ; Circumcision is ray covenant. I^et them
cease then to atterapt to excite a vain prejudice in their favour
from the words, the sense and meaning of which forms the
subject of dispute. The diversity which they pretend savours
of the delirium of Servetus ; as if the holy fathers, con
tented with bare figures, had had no fellowship with us in
spiritual gifts. I admit that the shadows of future things

428 LAST ADMONITION TO
were then held forth ; only let it be understood that Christ
also was held forth to them, that we may not think they
Avere deluded by empty figures. Surely to thera the lamb
was the passover, and circumcision a covenant, in the same
way in which the bread is now body to us. Their allegation,
that ever since Christ was exhibited to the world, there is
no more room for types, not only originates in disgraceful
ignorance, but shows, that frora proud conterapt, they spum
the grace of Christ. Is their faith so perfect that they can
reject the aid of types, and receive Christ present ? And to
what end did Christ institute the Supper and Baptism, but
just in accommodation to our weakness, to raise us upwards
to himself by the vehicles of types ? I confess, indeed, that
the body and substance of those things which the law sha
dowed forth now exist in Christ, as Paul plainly teaches ;
only let this be referred to the different modes of signifying,
and let us not be altogether depriA^ed of the use of signs,
which experience shows to be no less necessary to us than to
the ancient fathers.
The Magdeburgians, to disentangle themselves, make a
childish play upon the term sin, the victim being called sin :
as if we did not use this passage. Why do they not rather
reply to the other points, to dispose of which no araount of
raere talk will suffice ? The blood of a beast is said to be ex
piation, and Christ is called circuracision. Here it wiU do
them no good to philosophize on guilt and punishment. But
feeling that they are still held fast, they devise Avhat, if we
believe them, is a good interpretation, viz., that the lamb is
the passover not figuratively but in reality ; just as Christ
is called our passover, not by way of memorial, but because
he redeemed us. I thought that Christ was called the pass-
over, because that legal sacrifice Avas a type of him, and re
presented in a mystery the redemption forwhich they hoped.
If so, that lamb was to the ancient people a sign and pledge
of an entire and eternal deliverance, just as the bread of the
Supper is to us now.
But if it be asked Avhether they admit no figure in the
Supper, they answer. Let the thing itself remain, and away
with tropes, shadows, and all darkness, as suited only to the

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 429
Old Testament. Let the reader remember that Ave are here
treating of figure. These literal masters utterly repudiate
it, and though they use invidious names, they annihilate the
most essential property of a sacraraent. For Avliat is a sacra
ment without type or figure ? Their absurdity afterwards
betrays itself more plainly. They say the things theraselves
being safe, that is, the material, and formal, and principal
ends being exhibited, sorae figures raay be adraitted, at least
soberly. When they place a tAvofold raatter in the Supper,
they insist that there are lifeless and profane eleraents there,
as if Christ were shutting up his body in a little chest. Do
they think that the body is coupled with the bread by raa
gical incantation, so that the faithful are deprived of all
doctrine ? What then will be the use of the word if there is
no figure ? If the visible word be not engraven on the ele
ment, away with an empty and Avorthless spectacle. Whether
types and figures are suitable to the Old Testament only, let
the Holy Spirit answer for himself, who appeared twice in
the form of a dove, and a third time in tongues of fire, unless
indeed he used those external appearances without any view
to teaching ; as a kind of boyish show, or something still
more ridiculous and insipid. I orait the gross contumely
which they offer to God, when they give the name of dark
ness to the exercises of piety, by which he guided the pious
under the law to the Sun of Righteousness. Did they say
that the persons were in darkness, the expression would be
rough and harsh ; but to stigmatize the lamps which showed
them the way as darkness, is altogether intolerable blasphemy.
But on the decision of the Magdeburgians, what figure will
remain ? The Supper will denote the union of the Church,
and that it is exposed to the cross and to trials. They have
therefore already forgotten what they said of the final cause.
For if it was the purpose of Christ to hold forth his body
under the bread to be eaten for the forgiveness of sins, this
doctrine ought certainly to be taken into account. For to
what end or to whora did Christ direct the words ? Was it
that they might vanish uselessly away ? And what is raore
plain than that the bread being offered before their eyes,
taught that his flesh was spiritual raeat ? Let thera go now

430 LAST ADMONITION TO
and deny being so fascinated with their error, that though
veteran theologians, they understand not what children learn
in their catechism.
The ninth argument is. That since the ark of the covenant
is above four hundred times called the presence of God, it is
not strange if in the sarae way the bread be called the body.
They deny the antecedent, as if by denying they did not
palpably augraent their disgrace. Whenever it is said in the
law, Thou shalt not corae into the presence of God erapty ;
again, When thou shalt have appeared before the face of thy
God ; again, 0 God, that dwellest in the sanctuary ; again,
God sitting between tho cherubim, they must grant that the
presence of God is denoted. If they are to contend for Avords,
nothing can be found in the Supper more distinctly expressed
than these. If in all the passages of the law there is a
figure, why do they decline to admit it in a similar place ?
They say that in strict propriety the ark is not so called,
but the better thing which was added to the ark by the word
of God. The solution is subtle, but it is one by Avhich they
put a rope about their own necks. On their own authority I
now say that the bread is improperly called body. The thing
denoted is the better thing adjoined to it by the word of God.
The tenth argument is taken from a comparison of the
raanna Avith the Supper. They answer, that tbe things are
dissimilar, because the manna was not a sacrament. Paul,
therefore, is raistaken in making the fathers like us in this
respect, that they ate spiritual food. For how could food be
spiritual without a raystery? Nay, how could it be spiritual,
except in so far as it represented Christ in a raystery?
They afterwards add, that the raanna was food by feeding
the storaach, and that the spiritual thing farther denoted
by it was not the principal. It is enough for rae, that inas
rauch as the manna was a sacred symbol of Christ, it was
spiritual food to the fathers, and the sarae with that which
Christ now sets before us. For frora this I will immedi
ately infer, that those act perversely who imagine any other
spiritual food at the sacred table of Christ, although the mode
of eating be different, the condition of the fathers being in
ferior to ours.

JOACHIM AVESTPHAL. 431
In regard to the sentence which is immediately subjoined,
there is need of no ordinary attention. I will not say, that
Turks, Saracens, in short, the worshippers of Ceres and
Bacchus, speak more honourably of their sacred rites ; but
seldom did any thing so delirious and profane fall from a
man in a frenzy as that which the Magdeburgians here
send forth as an oracle. We deny not, they say, that the
Eucharist and the other sacraraents were, in a certain way,
spiritual. Is it come to this, that the mysteries of our sal
vation, whicii raise us frora the earth above the heavens, they
are ashamed to call spiritual without inserting a modifica
tion ? One might rather expect to hear that every thing con
tained in them raust be regarded as spiritual. Their carnal
dream now so absorbs all their senses, that they are averse
to the distinguishing epithet of the kingdora of Christ. In
what can they say that the gospel differs from the law,
except that the spiritual reality of the ancient shadows has
been exhibited in Christ? Why then are they so rauch
afraid of this raark, without which Christ is not Christ ?
This doubtless is the just reward of those who defend a bad
cause with a bad conscience — their boldness undoes thera.
For the reader will uniforraly observe, that the narae of
mystery, or raystical virtue, is not less frightful to thera than
spiritual reality is irksorae.
The exaraple which they afterwards append frora baptisra
is whoUy in our favour. Baptism is external washing, and yet
is a spiritual laver. But how skilfully do they apply this to
the Supper ? They say it is not corporeal aliment, though the
body of Christ is taken by the external mouth. So anxious
are they about the palate, throat, and storaach, that they
dare not to caU the Supper a spiritual raystery, lest the body
of Christ should escape their teeth. They say they do not
understand it to be spiritual, so as to raean only sorae invisi
ble thought or phantasy, or sueh a spiritual eating as Abra
ham ate, who knew nothing of this sacrament. You would
say that they are muttering soraething or other in Arabic,
still more to stupify their stupid disciples. What is an in
visible thought ? As if they could produce a visible one.
We leave them the phantasy. Contented with the true and

432 LAST ADMONITION TO
vivifying participation of Christ, we have no need of their
erratic fiction, which only goes to replenish the gullet. Then
what is it to eat an eating ? Perhaps they raean to say, that
as Abrahara had not the internal sign, he was not a partaker
of Christ. Than this nothing can be iraagined raore unbe
coming or more preposterous : for though Ave now excel in
abundance of grace, it was common to aU the sacraments to
ingraft all believers into Christ.
The eleventh argument, which either from ignorance or
malice, they construct badly, we frame thus, — No conception
is to be formed concerning the raystery of the Supper, ex
cept what is dictated from heaven : Paul saying that the
Jews ate the same spiritual food with us, adds by Avay of
interpretation. That rock was Christ : Therefore this divine
declaration should be held to prove, that the bread and wine
in the Supper are the body and blood of the Lord to feed us
spiritually. The Magdeburgians wonder that Ave insist so
incautiously on what they call gross and inconvenient foun
dations, after they have so often told us, that Paul is speak
ing of a spiritual rock. I am aware of their usual talk
on the subject, but the proof is required. The rock, they
say, did not accompany the Jews through the wilderness. I
answer, that their own information ruins them. Paul gives
the name of rock, not to the stone composing it, but to
the drink flowing from it. Were it otherwise, the clauses
would not correspond with each other. Then unless refer
ence is made to the external and visible syrabol, Paul's
reasoning would be raaimed, for this would raake hira speak
of persons who ate a spiritual sacrament, not spiritually.
They hold the expression clearly to mean. The spiritual rock
was Christ. But Paul's argument does not .allow any appli
cation of the rock to any thing else than the drink which
he compares to our raystical cup. They add in concluding,
Most of the expressions of the Old Testaraent differ from
the words of the Lord's Supper : as if Paul, after speaking
a little before of the Supper of Christ, had intended to em
ploy a different discourse to banish the reraerabrance of it
frora the hearts of the pious.
The twelfth arguraent is. The letter of the Avords of the

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 433
Supper ought not to be pertinaciously retained, since, in
most other passages of Scripture, great absurdity would fol
low from pressing the precise terms. They aftervvards quote
examples, as if avc had produced them from our bosora, — The
bread was raade flesh ; The Father is greater than I ; He Avho
sees rae sees the Father also. Where they got the two
latter exaraples, I knoAv not ; but as they are by no means
apposite to the present cause, I prefer selecting from a
countless number others that are raore appropriate. It is
certain, that were Scripture pressed so violently as they in
sist, almost as many absurdities would spring up as it con
tains verses. God avUI be a man of war ; he will repent ; he will
come down frora heaven to know the deeds of raen ; he avUI
desire revenge ; he Avill at one tirae be carried awaj' by anger,
at another he will sraile appeased ; at one time he Avill sleep,
at another he will rise, as if aAvakened from a debauch ; at
one time he Avill turn away his eyes, at another he will re
member. Let the Magdeburgians say Avhether they mean
to insist on all the syUables in these sentences. There is no
room here for tortuous windings. For I have already said,
what all perceive to be strictly true, that when they reject
all interpretation, and insist simply on the expression. This
is my body, they take up a cause not unlike that which the
old Anthropomorphites had, Avhen frora his ears, eyes, and
feet, they proved that God was corporeal. For Avhat is raore
manifest than the numerous passages of Scripture whieh at
tribute nostrils, eyes, feet, and hands to God? The odour
of the incense of Noah's sacrifice Avas grateful to God. How
could he sraell it without possessing nostrUs ? The Magde
burgians, in continuing the sarae strain after we have warned
them of the consequence, show any thing but candour.
They afterAvards add. Some passages are to be taken,
not according to the letter (to pfjrov) but the raeaning, (Sta-
votav ;) but they are unwilling to place the words of the Supper
in this class, because it would be necessary to prove frora
the words theraselves that they ought to be understood dif
ferently frora their literal raeaning. We find no difficulty
in drawing the proof, as well frora the coraraon nature of
sacraments, as from the ordinance of the Supper itself, and
VOL. II. 2 E

434 LAST ADMONITION TO
this has been shown by us too distinctly to be answered by
the silly gibe, that it is too hard a nut for our tooth. As
yet, they say, no sacramentarian has descended into this
arena, to which Luther challenged thera, viz., to show by
sure and strong reasons, that the words of the Supper are
to be understood figuratively : as if the reasons were not
strong, which they have hitherto in vain endeavoured to
overthrow. But it is well. If we have sung to the deaf,
we have recovered, at least, three hundred thousand men
from error. Surely when our Catechism has been subscribed
by two hundred thousand, exclusive of German, Swiss, Ita
lians, and English, it is ridiculous in men of Magdeburg to
attempt to overthrow our arguments by their deafness or
stupidity. The thirteenth argument is drawn from the authority or
consent ofthe primitive Church. The Magdeburgians answer
that the primary antiquity is in Christ. This we willingly
admit, but as we had to remove the charge of novelty whicli
they invidiously and unjustly brought against us, it was not
out of place to produce passages from pious writers to show
that the doctrine which avc now deliver is none else than
that Avliich was anciently received without controversy. But
Christ distinctly said. This is ray body. Yes, as avc too dis
tinctly say it. While we are enjoined iraplicitly to obey the
Avords of Christ, we are also permitted to seek the interpre
tation of thera. Wherein then is the clearness of this sen
tence, but just in its accoraraodation to the nature of a sacra
ment ? Were it otherwise it Avould not only be puzzling but
replete with absurdity. But the fathers theraselves often
call the bread the body of the Lord, and the Avine his blood.
Provided they agree as to the sense, we are perfectly pleased
with this raode of expression ; if it is clear that they con
sidered the bread as symbolically the body, their authority
Avill undoubtedly go to our support.
If we believe the Magdeburgians, the fathers never explain
their mind without letting sorae inconsistency escape them.
One would say that these censors assurae so rauch authority
that their raere breath is to dim the eyes of the whole world.
What they forthwith adduce concerning allegories is wholly

JOACHIM AVESTPHAL. 435
irrelevant. I admit that the fathers Avere too much addicted
to allegory ; but the question here is, how did they expound
the words of the Supper ? Then, though it is clear enough
that they admirably accord Avith each other, the Magde
burgians, by talking to no purpose, endeavour to obscure
their consent. The glossing of a feAv ancient passages is all
they think necessary for victory. Justin says, that the bread
and wine, by thc Avord of prayer and thanksgiving, become
the flesh and blood of Christ. We, too, say the sarae thing,
provided the raode of coraraunion, which was then known
to the Church, be added. Cyril teaches, that by virtue of
the mystical benediction Christ dwells in us bodily. If the
mystical benediction effects this, Avhy have they hitherto so
strongly maintained that the Lord's Supper, inasmuch as
his body is therein given to us, is not raystical ? Why, ac
cording to them, does raystery differ from corporeal eating ?
CyrU says in another place. When Ave eat the flesh of Christ,
which is vivifying by the conjunction of the word, Ave have
life in us ; why then do they raaintain that unbelievers eat
of it without benefit ? If the flesh of Christ when it is eaten
gives life, it is incongruous to say that it is promiscuously
eaten by those Avho reraain in death. Here, however, we
must inform the reader, that, as Cyril was contending against
the Arians, he is led into hyperbole, and teaches that be
lievers become substantially one with Christ, just as he is
one with the Father. The sarae Avas the case with Hilary,
whose words, however, are so far from being contrary to
our doctrine that I appositely retort thera on the Mag
deburgians. That saint contends, that the real nature of flesh and
blood is proved by the words, My flesh is meat indeed. And
on Avhat point have we at this day a debate Avith the Mag
deburgians, but just that while they feign an immense
phantasm instead of the flesh, we defend the reality of the
human nature on Avhich our faith is founded. Hilary adds,
These received and taken make us to be in Christ and Christ
to be in us. What say the Magdeburgians? That unbelievers,
though eating the body of Christ and drinking his blood,
remain in a state of complete alienation from hira. Irenaeus

436 LAST ADMONITION TO
says, When the cup is mingled antl thc bread broken the
word of God causes it to become the Eucharist of the flesh
and blood of Christ, by which the substance of our flesh is in
creased and consists. What is to be gathered from the term
Eucharist let the Magdeburgians show. I hold it to be
equivalent to mystery. This they recoil from as if it were
some dire omen. That our flesh is refreshed by that spiri
tual meat and drink I deny not. For we have coraraunion
with Christ in the hope of a blessed resurrection, and there
fore Ave must be one with him not in soul only but in flesh ;
just as each of us in respect of the flesh is said to be a
meraber of Christ, and the body of each a teraple of the
Holy Spirit.
Tliey quote the words of Cyprian, That this common bread
being changed into flesh and blood, jsrocures life to our bodies.
Tliis they do inconsiderately or with wicked guile, since
the difference of style plainly shoAvs that the expression is
not Cyprian's. But granting that it is, why do they craftily
withhold the exposition which immediately follows. That the
Son alone is consubstantial with the Father, whereas our
connection with him neither mingles jiersons nor unites sub
stances, but associates affections and confederates wills?
Were I to speak in this way, would they not exclaim that the
matter of the Supper is taken away ? Shortly after, in the
same discourse, it is added, " The eating of this flesh is a
kind of greediness and appetite to remain in him ; by this
we so impress and melt within us the sweetness of charity
that it adheres to our palate, and the savour of love is in
fused into our boAvels, penetrating and imbuing all the re
cesses of soul and body. Drinking and eating are of the
same nature. As by them the bodily substance is nourished
and lives and continues safe, so the life of the spirit is nour
ished by this ijroper aliment. The same that eating is to the
flesh is faith to the soul ; the same that food is to the body
is the word to the Spirit, by its more excellent virtue per
forming eternally what corporeal elements do temporally."
When he professedly explains the mode of eating, where is
the swallowing ? Nay, in place of it he substitutes faith and
spirit. This the Magdeburgians hold in the greatest detes-

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 437
tation. Theodoret quotes the Avords of Ambrose to Theo
dosius, " With what eyes Avill you behold the temple of our
common Lord ? With Avhat feet Avill you tread his holy pave
ment ? How Avill you stretch out hands frora which innocent
blood is still dropping ? Hoav with such hands Avill you re
ceive the holy body of the Lord, and drink Avith your mouth
the cup of precious blood ?" Is it strange if the holy raan, to
make his rebuke more stinging, spoke in the highest and
most splendid terms he could use of that sacred ordinance ?
But had any one asked Ambrose whether the body of Christ
was actually handled in the Supper, he undoubtedly Avould
have abominated the gross delirium. Therefore, when he
says that it is handled by the hands, every sober and sen
sible man sees the metonymy.
The coraraunion mentioned by Augustine is not in the
least adverse to us, to Avhom the Suiiper is the true and
spiritual communion of the flesh and blood of Christ. In
the second passage, where he says, that Christ, vA-hen he
handed the Supper to his disciples, Avas in a manner carried
in their hands, their impudence and falsehood are detected,
inasmuch as they Avickedly orait the expression, in a manner,
Avhich entirely reraoves any difficulty. When Augustine
elsewhere says, that in the bread is received that which hung
upon the cross, and in the cup is drunk that Avhicli Avas shed
upon thc cross, I have no objection to receive it, provided
the method of eating and drinking is exidained in other
words of Augustine. Let the Magdeburgians, therefore,
cease henceforth to vend their sraoke to the simple. It has
been so often dissipated, that there is no place for it in
the clear light. They substitute Westphal as a pledge or
surety in their stead, but his nakedness has lately been so
completely exposed by me that it is vain to look to hira for
any help.
The fourteenth argument is. As our opponents admit a
trope in the Avords of Christ, they must also allow us to do the
same. They deny that they aci:nowledge afigure inthe words.
This is my body, holding that they ought to be taken most
strictly. What? When they would express their own mean
ing most strictly, do they not ,say that the body of Christ is

438 LAST ADMONITION TO
given under the bread or with thc bread ? They answer,
that when a raan is said to be under his clothes there is no
figure: as if this quibble will avail them unless they can
show that a raan is most strictly and without figure his
clothes. Whence do they gather that the body of Christ is
under the bread or with the bread, unless frora our Lord him
self having declared of the bread. This is my body ? But if
this expression is to be taken so strictly, not only are tliey
Avrong in extracting from it raore than they ought, but they
are falsifiers and corrupters in introducing so far-fetched a
raetaraorphosis. The body Avith the bread is a thing of
heaven with a thing of eartli : to hold that the bread is the
body is nothing else than to confound heaven and earth to
gether. Akin to this argument is the fifteenth. Our opponents
confess that the bread and the body are different things :
therefore they admit a trope. They say the consequence
does not hold. Whether it holds or not, let the reader con
sider. They say that the raajor is not good in the syllogism,
viz.. Whenever the things are different, there is a trope.
What can they gain by this puerile quibbling ? It is certain
that whenever the predicate does not correspond strictly
with the subject, the expression is either false or figurative.
If the proposition, The bread is the body, is taken without
a figure, it will be monstrously false : inasrauch as that Avill
be predicated of the essence of bread, Avhich is altogether
different. The sixteenth arguraent, as they give it, states feebly and
frigidly. The Papists adrait no trope; therefore let those who
agree with them take up their banner and go over to their
carap. When Westphal was not asharaed to obtmde a
decree of Hildebrand, and to say that our doctrine was suffi
ciently conderaned by the judgment of that sacrUegious mis
creant, I answered that there Avas nothing now to hinder
him from going over to the Papists. Whether I was right
or wrong in this let the reader judge. These Magdeburgians,
therefore, have no ground for their invidious answer, that
they do not admit squibs and sarcasms to be arguments.
I ask, where was there any affectation of wit or sarcasm in

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 439
my siraple reraark ? I wish rather they Avould refrain frora
their squibs and not raake theraselves ridiculous by excessive
eagerness to raise a laugh. Of this nature is their absurd
irony, that we are not only tropologists but tenebrists ; and
again, their representing us as saying that the bread is not
the body, but symbolizes, umbrizes it. They boast that they
employ their vigils, their cares, and labours in opposing the
Pope, as if no struggles were to be borne by us, over whose
necks the violence of the Papacy is specially impending.
Whether I fight for worldly glory, the Son of God, under
whose auspices I serve, avUI be my witness and judge on that
day. Those to whom my condition is better known, see
clearly that if I were not intent on that tribunal nothing
would be more desirable for rae than quiet retireraent. But
it was not enough for the Magdeburgians to take up the
coramon defence of a foul error, without hastening to patron
ize all the wild sayings of a madraan.
The seventeenth arguraent is. Circumcision was a sign, and
yet the thing was at the sarae tirae offered — there is no
thing therefore to prevent a visible sign in the Lord's Sup
per, and the spiritual reality frora being at the same time
annexed to it. They answer, that it is not sound to argue
from things unlike. The question here is not what pleases
us, but what the Son of God, the author of the Supper, has
ordained. We do not pass in silence any dissimilarity which
there may be in the sacraraents, nor do we introduce our
own decisions to abolish the faith of Christ, whose authority
is not less reverently maintained, nor doctrine less faithfully
expounded by us, than is proudly pretended and imagined to
be skilfully achieved by the Magdeburgians. In what respect
circumcision differs from the Supper the reader will fully learn
from our writings. This rauch they certainly have in coraraon,
that a spiritual reality was conjoined with a A'isible symbol.
God, who was pleased to give circumcision to his ancient
people as a pledge of his adoption, did not deceive his children.
Now, I say that there is nothing to prevent our Saviour from
employing the symbols of bread and wine in the Supper to
figure what he there means to testify, and traly accomplish
ing the reality signified by them. If the spiritual reality of

440 LAST ADMONITION TO
the Supper is different from that which I have attributed to
circumcision, the Magdeburgians will be entitled to insist
that the difference ought to be observed. But there is no
controversy as to this, nor have I profited so ill in the school
of Christ as not to point out the different modes and de
grees. I hold, then, that just as by circumcision the fathers
were ingrafted as a sacred people, in order that trasting to
the paternal love of God they might be heirs of heavenly
life, so Ave now receiA'e a figure, symbol, badge, and pledge
of sacred union with the Son of God. But as Christ does
not act deceitfully with us, the syrabols truly represent what
they signify, so that the flesh and blood of Christ in reality
feed and give life to us by their substance.
Nothing, therefore, can be imagined more absurd than
the conduct of the Magdeburgians, who falsely assert, that
instead of a spiritual reality we substitute a figure of the
forgiveness of sins and of divine grace : and that it is clear
from our words, that the sign of a sign only is given, and not
the things themselves ; as if I did not say a hundred times
over, that the matter of the Supper differs frora the effect or
fruit, inasmuch as the graces which we receive from Christ
are preceded in order by spiritual communion with his flesh
and blood. Nay, so shameless are they, that they clamour
against us as leaving only a sign of the forgiveness of sins.
When they at last add, that we introduce only the signs of
signs, the shadoAvs of shadows, and nothing but mere dreams
and phantoms, it is not only sarcasm, but vile pertness
mingled with virulent mendacity, and nothing- better than
the snarling of dogs. Immediately after they betray them
selves by quoting my words, viz., that the flesh of Christ, by
the secret agency of the Spirit, penetrates to us, and effec
tually inspires life into our souls. Is this a raere phantasm
or the shadow of a shadow ? Though I do not make the
mode of coramunication to be the same as the Magde
burgians make it, am I therefore to be subjected to the two
fold calumny of not ouly taking away the reality but also
the sign of the reality, and leaving only the sign of a sign ?
They rejoin, that it is not what man utters, but what Christ
asserts that is to be looked to : and Christ does not say, I,

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 441
sitting in heaven, VA-ill operate in you the virtue of ray flesh,
but, This is ray body : as if the eating of the body Avere to
do us any good without our knoAving that it is given us for
spiritual food as being vivifying. What the effect, Avhat the
aim of the Supper, are things of which these dull men have
no idea. The Avords of Christ avUI yield us no frait unless
they speak to our hearts thus : This bread is my body, and
this cup is my blood, because ray flesh is raeat indeed, and
my blood is drink indeed. There is no swallowing here, but
the life which we receive is obtained by secret communion.
And yet the Magdeburgians hesitate not to attack us
again with their falsehoods, charging us with a raost violent
rending of the Supper, as urging the promise alone, and
even it not sincerely, or as urging the spiritual operation of
Christ in us iu such a raanner that the Supper only signifies
the forgiveness of sins, but does not apply it. They must,
therefore, regard it as a kind of disgraceful thing to insist
on the proraises. I always supposed it the highest praise of
faith and piety to rest in the promises of God. All their
fulminations and vain clamour have too little effect to make
me desirous for more than the proraise of Christ offers rae.
Of the application of grace, I have elsewhere said as rauch
as was sufficient, viz., that it is as highly celebrated by us
as any ability of theirs enables thera to do. Let thera as
they Avill explain away the kind of communion which I
teach, their malignity will not prevent all the pious from
recognising that I orait nothing which tends to the advance
ment of faith. Wherefore no man of sound brain Avill be
moved in the slightest degree by their cruel calumny, that
we altogether take away the earnest of the assurance of
faith from the Supper, inasmuch as wc take away the matter,
viz., the body of Christ, and make the whole effect of the
Supper depend on the secret communion of flesh and blood,
to Avhich it is owing that he infuses his own life into us and
we become one with him. But what kind of earnest of assur
ance will the body be if all men, however wicked, raay swal
low it indiscrirainately ? They, making carnal eating their
prow and anchor, care not one straw for spiritual life.
The eighteenth argument they state is. No interpretation

442 LAST ADMONITION TO
contrary to faith ought to be admitted — but this interpreta
tion, that Christ gives his own body to be eaten substantially
and in an invisible manner, is not agreeable to the analogy of
faith — it is therefore to be rejected. Although there is no
difficulty in the raajor, they mutter, hoAvever, that false teach
ers bring forward raany things forthe sake of giving a colour.
Our proof of the rainor is, that when he held forth the bread,
his body was visibly before his disciples, and therefore it
raust, according to this view, be bicorporal. But it is absurd
and repugnant to the principles of faith to give Christ a
double body. They answer. Although huraan reason, dash
ing violently against the rock of offence, raakes shipwreck,
faith rests satisfied with the distinct Avords of Christ : as if
«
any thing delivered clearly in Scripture were a device of
huraan reason. Human reason did not dictate to us that
the Son of God, to reconcile us to the Father by the sacrifice
of his death, assuraed our flesh : and in order to becorae our
brother, was made like unto us, sin excepted. That true
flesh, by Avliich the sins of the Avorld were shortly after to be
taken away, was then before the eyes of the Apostles, and
they behoved to fix their faith on the view of it, so as not
to hope for salvation anywhere else. For their rainds to fly
off to sorae kind of invisible body, had been nothing else
than to avert their eyes from the true and only price of re
demption. There is no ground for obstreperously asserting
that thus the power of Christ is diminished, and that he is
accused of falsehood. They theraselves do not believe him
to be true, except by supposing that he was a sorcerer. To
us his reality is entire, while we hold that he gave the
natural body Avith Avhich he Avas invested to be eaten in the
Supper. We must call the reader's attention to the sincerity
with which these men deal with us in falsely attributing to
us a fiction of their own. Whether there was a true and
natural body, which, subject to death, was seen by the eye
in one place, and elsewhere a celestial and invisible body
lurking at the sarae raoment in the Supper, let not common
sense answer, but faith instructed according to the word of
God. Assuredly no pious mind can doubt that a twofold
body destroys the trae nature of a single body. They con-

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 443
tend that it is the sarae ; as if the Son of God had practised
a delusion in assuraing our flesh, that he might therein pro
cure righteousness. And yet they hesitate not to asperse
us with the stigma of denying that thc true and natural
body of Christ is given us in the Supper.
They mention as the nineteenth argument. As the Supper
is a heavenly action, the rainds of belie\'ers ought to be
raised up to heaven. They object to this reasoning on the
ground of ambiguity. For though the action is heavenly, as
Christ is the dispenser, still Ave are not enjoined to perform
it in the heavens. By heavenly action, Ave mean nothing
more than must immediately occur to the mind of any man,
viz., that it is a spiritual mystery, and ought, according to
the nature of Christ's kingdom, to be separated frora earthly
actions. It is strange that these raen, who pretend to be
fighting for the dignity and excellence of the sacred Supper,
can scarcely concede what tends especially to recommend it.
In short, the term heavenly is understood in no other sense
than is no less truly than skilfully described in the Avords of
Augustine, viz., that it is performed on earth but in a
heavenly, hy raan but in a divine manner. If the Magde
burgians hesitate to admit this, let thera have shambles for
their temple. But they object, that though the raind ought
to have respect to the heavenly proraises, it ought also to be
directed to the present action, by which Christ, as with out
stretched hand, brings us his body. I admit that any one
who passes by the extemal sign cannot be benefited by this
sacrament. But how can avo reconcile the two propositions,
that the sacraraents are a kind of ladders by Avhich believers
climb upwards to heaven, and yet that we ought to stop at
the elements theraselves, or reraain fixed, as if Christ Avere
to be sought on earth? It is preposterous in thera to pre
tend that Christ holds out his hand to us, while they over
look the end for which he does it, viz., to raise us upwards.
For we must reraeraber that our Lord descends to us, not to
indulge our body, or keep our senses fixed on the world, but
rather to draw us to himself, and hence the preamble of the
ancient Church, Hearts upward, as Chrysostom interprets.
But if the Magdeburgians repudiate him, let us be contented

444 LAST ADMONITION TO
with the authority of Paul, Avho raises us upwards, in order
that we may be conjoined Avith Christ. Though they tell us
a hundred times that heaven does not raean the visible con
cave firraaraent, it reraains certain that none duly enjoy
Christ but those Avho seek hira above.
The twentieth arguraent is. Whatever is not in something
qualitatively or quantitively, or in place, is present not cor
porally but spiritually — all admit that the body is not under
the bread in these modes — therefore the mode of presence is
spiritual. Thej' answer, that an argument is not good that
is drawn a non distributo ad distributum, meaning by these
terms, when there is not a full enumeration of parts. Let
them, therefore, divide more subtilely, if any thing seems
imperfect. They are satisfied, however, with saying, in one
word, that more modes of existence might be j^roduced. But
though they cut and mutilate, they can never find a fourth
member. Driven from this resource, they flee to their ordi
nary pretext, that God is not bound by physical principles.
I admit he is not, except in so far as he has so ordained.
They rejoin, that this ordcr takes effect only in the comraon
course of nature, but not at all in theolog-y. That is true,
unless indeed part of theology bc the very ordcr of nature,
as it is in the present case. For we do not siraply assert
that Christ's body is in one place, because it is natural, but
because God was pleased to give a true body to his Son, and
one finite in its dimensions, and he himself was pleased to
sojourn for a time on earth under the tabernacle of this
body, and with the same body to ascend into heaven, from
whence he bids us look for him. Do not the words of the
angel bear, Christ is not in the sepulchre in respect of his
flesh, for he is risen ? ShaU we charge the angel Avith false
hood in openly denying immensity to the body of Christ ?
They reply, that the special actions of God are to be distin
guished frora coramon and natural actions. WeU, be it so ;
only let not the aUegcd specialty be a fiction devised by a
human brain. But the exi^ression. This is my body, is very
far from proving its immensity. For though thc body retain
its quality, it wiU not cease to be truly offered in a mystery.
How Christ entered Avhen the doors were shut, has been

JOACHIM AVESTPHAL 44,5
elsewhere stated. He was able to open thc doors for himself
as he was to remove the stone that closed the sepulchre. It
was not necessary to deprive his body of its nature in order
that he might penetrate through wood or stone. Accord
ingly the reasoning founded on a perverse interpretation is
frivolous. When they say that sacraraental actions ought not to be
compared vvith nature, they state what is true, provided they
would not use the incomparable poAver of God as a pretext
for imagining monstrosities contrary to his Avord. Our faith
rests in the saying, " This is ray body," so far as to have no
doubt that the coraraunion of Christ is truly offered. In
this way there is no need of subtle arguments as to the
quantity of the body. These we are forced to use by the
extraA'agance of those AA-ho, depriving Christ of the reality of
his flesh, transforra him into a phantasm. When we say
that we are raade partakers of Christ spiritually, we do not
mean that his body is held forth to be eaten only in a figur
ative, symbolical, and allegorical sense. This vile falsehood,
like the others, sufficiently declares that these men who thus
assume a license of making anything out of anything, have
not one particle of ingenuous shame. The spiritual raode
we oppose to the carnal, because tbe Holy Spirit, who is the
bond of our union with Christ, infuses life into us from the
substance of his flesh and blood.
I know not Avhere they got the twenty-first argument. It
is. That which is perceived ineffably is not perceived corpo
really. I do not believe that any of us have spoken thus.
Some, perhaps, raay have objected, as I confess I have done
myself, that an ineffable raode is rather spiritual than car
nal. Seeing, then, they found on an ineffable rairacle, they
are justly conderaned for their perverseness, in not allowing
the intervention of the secret agency of the Spirit to unite
us to Christ.
The twenty-second arguraent is, It is the saying of a theo
logian, not a philo.sopher. Take away a local position from
bodies, and they will be nowhere, and being nowhere, will
not exist, — therefore the body of Christ cannot be present
in the Supper, unless a place be assigned to it. They an-

446 LAST ADMONITION TO
swer, that though the sentiment Avas advanced by a theo
logian, it is, however, physical, and is ineptly applied to
divine things. They add, that the fathers often unseasonably
mixed up human Avith divine things, and in this way shame
fully diluted theology. This, no doubt, means, that as they
dare not deprive Augustine of the name of theologian, they
think it less contumelious to charge him with a shameful
corruption, Avhich makes it difficult to excuse him from blas
phemy. Augustine is there professedly treating of the flesh
of Christ ; and he raentions, that in order to be real, it must
have its finite dimensions. The Magdeburgians answer, that
theology has been shamefully corrupted by physical argu
ments ; as if they had persuaded themselves that in divine
things they see much more acutely than that holy man,
than whom all antiquity has not produced one who taught
ecclesiastical doctrines with more solidity and moderation.
No Avonder that those who treat Augustine pertly trample
down little men like us with magisterial superciliousness.
The twenty-third argument is not produced sincerely. It
will be found that none of our party ever used it. It is.
Baptism retains its efficacy, though the water is not con
verted into the blood of Christ ; therefore the Supper also
will retain its efficacy though the true body of Christ be not
eaten under the bread. That they may not torture them
selves Avitli a nugatory ansAver, we raust tell them that we
compare the Supper Avith Baptisra for a different purpose.
To baptism is attributed a property which belongs only to
the blood of Christ and the Holy Spirit ; and yet it must
not therefore be said that water is changed into blood or
Spirit. Hence there is no absurdity in transferring to bread
that whicii does not properly belong to it. If they object
that the cases are unlike, because the Avater is nowhere
called either blood or Spirit, it is enough for ray purpose
that it is adorned with the proper epithets of both, as being
a syrabol of both. I may add, that Paul's expression. That
we put on Christ in baptism, is not a whit more obscure
than. This is my body. Let them tell me how we put on
Christ. Is it in a corporeal manner, as they contend in
regard to the Supper ? If so, it will follow that Christ is not

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 447
less included under the water than under the bread. They
wUl betake themselves to their asylum, that it is not said of
baptism. This is ; as if he vvho says that we put on Christ
were asserting nothing at all. This certainly disposes of
their frivolous answer, that the difference between the Supper
and Baptism consists in this, — that the Supper was insti
tuted, in order that therein the body of Christ might be
given us under the bread ; Baptism, that we might be
washed in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the
Holy Spirit. This is at variance with Paul's definition, from
which it plainly appears that we no less put on Christ in
baptism than eat him in the Supper.
The twenty-fourth argument, which they maliciously cor
rupt and mutilate, I thus frame, — Christ dwells in the hearts
of the pious, so as to be their life, by a different raethod
from that of camal presence, and, therefore, it is of no use
to contend so much for carnal presence. Here our censors
not only charge us with presumption, but add, that we de
serve something raore severe for daring to reforra God : as
if we were denying that the body of Christ is substantially
eaten, by insisting, that he can effect our salvation in a dif
ferent manner by the agency of his Spirit. Our argument is,
first, that when a thing is not necessary, it ought not to be
pertinaciously contended for ; and, secondly, that the mode
of communication must be learned frora the coraraon doctrine
of Scripture. They will object, as usual, that there is some
thing special in the Supper. Were I to adrait this to be
true, still we must hold that it has no other end in view than
that which is elsewhere described. The perfection and croAvu
of our felicity is, when Christ dAvelling in our hearts by faith
not only makes us sharers and associates in all the blessings
bestowed upon him by the Father, but also infuses his own
hfe into us, and so becomes one with us. As this is the goal
beyond which we may not go, avc hold that the Supper was
instituted with no other intention than that by means of it
we might be united to the body of Christ. Here the Mag
deburgians foolishly restrict the promise of eating the flesh
of Christ to the carnal raouth, because it was said, " Take,
eat, this is ray body ;" for although a promise was annexed

448 LAST ADMONITION TO
to the ordinance, we must carefully consider what the nature
ofthe ordinance itself iraplies. The external and sacramental
act Avas indeed annexed to the promise, but in such a man
ner, that nothing is raore preposterous than to confound
that act with spiritual eating. When Paul was discoursing
of the perfect communion or union of believers with Christ,
had there been anything more exceUent in the Supper, he
was not so oblivious as to have omitted it. On the whole,
since the special end of the holy Supper is to coraraunicate
Christ and his life to us, we should consider in what way
Christ is our life : if there is any deviation from this mark,
there is an impious laceration of the holy ordinance.
The twenty-fifth argument is. The promises of the gospel
are spiritual, and as they are to he received by faith, so they
are raade effectual by faith — but all the sacraments depend
on the promise — therefore, the Supper is spiritual, and is
raade effectual only by faith — if so, it is not necessary that
Christ should be eaten corporeally. They ansAver, that either
the definition is faulty, or that the enumeration of parts is
not complete. They insist, that the major is to be under
stood only of bare promises, exclusive of the sacraraents.
But who except themselves ever attempted to disjoin the
Spirit and faith from the sacraments ? If we adopt their
view, it will be necessary to say, that the promises annexed
to the signs are carnal and efficacious without faith. Though
they should protest a hundred times, I say that the promise
of the forgiveness of sins, in the very same way as that of
eating, has been connected with the act of the Supper, since
the two things are raentioned conjointly, and are united by
an indissoluble tie, when it is said, This is the blood Avhich
is shed for the remission of sins. How portentous the re
sult, were God to reconcile . carnal men to himself without
faith. Though they say that that is not their view, it mat
ters not. Their perverse speculation certainly binds them
to it by a knot Avhich they cannot untie.
Then how do they say that the enumeration is incomplete,
because thc corporeal action is oraitted ? Can we judge of
it in any other way than from its promise ? What else is
the bread and wine of the Sujiper than a visible word?

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 449
Therefore, if the Supper is separated frora the word, it differs
in no respect frora a profane feast. We are right, then, in
contending, that it ought not to be vicAved in any other way
than is iraplied in the proraises from Avliich all its iraportance
is derived. But the spiritual promise and corporeal eating
ought not to be dissevered ! Certainly no more than faith
and the Avord should be dissevered frora the external sign,
Avlien the narae of sacraraent is mentioned. But corporeal
eating is to be defined differently, namely, from the promise.
Here we see their reason for attacking a sentiment which
Ave have advanced, and which is not less true than useful,
viz., that Christ does not irapart to us the raatter of bread
and wine, but rather would have us to look to the promise.
They object that we dissever things which are conjoined.
On the contrary, we fitly explain the nature of the conjunc
tion, when we teach, that we are not to look to the bare ele
ments, which, in themselves, can do nothing for spiritual life,
but to turn our eyes to the vicAv of the word there engraven.
Should any one, discarding the bread and wine from the Sup
per, (this some fanatics have done,) make the Supper allego
rical, the Magdeburgians might, not without reason, insist
that the sign is visible. But how does this apply to us,
whose object is to shoAv whence the utility of the signs is to
be sought, in order to prevent a judgment frora being formed
of their virtue from their corraptible nature? Therefore,
that the meaning raay be trae and effectual, and the reality
may be exhibited, we recall the rainds of the pious to the
promise. To this Augustine refers, when he says. Let the
word be added to the eleraent, and it avUI become a sacra
ment. Hence it appears with what good faith the Magde
burgians charge us with guile, and how raodestly and civiUy
they upbraid us with iraperiously ordering what never carae
into our raind. For who sees not, that the use of signs is
truly held to profit in piety, Avhen due honour is given to
the promise, without which the whole action degenerates
into a kind of ludicrous show ?
The twenty-sixth arguraent is. The Lord's Supper is re
ceived by faith : Faith applies to things absent : Therefore,
in the Supper the body of Christ is not actually present. It
VOL. IL 2 F

450 LAST ADMONITION TO
might be raore correctly stated thus. The Supper was in
stituted that we might by faith seek Christ seated in his
heavenly glory ; for in this way is fulfilled the Apostle's de
claration, that faith is in things absent : Christ, therefore, is
locally absent in respect of his human nature. I use the
term locally, because distance is no obstacle to such presence
as faith desires. Here there is no room for the answer of
the Magdeburgians, that faith is sometimes conversant with
corporeal objects ; for though it apprehends Christ as born
of the Virgin, and crucified, it does not draw him down
from heaven and raake him locally present. We acknow
ledge in the Supper such a presence as is accordant with
faith, and confine the absence to the real human nature. In
this way believers recognise, in a raanner which surpasses
hope, that though they are pilgriras on the earth, they have
life in common Avith their head.
The twenty-seventh arguraent is. The huraan body is defi
nite, and cannot be everywhere : Christ truly assumed a
huraan body, and still retains it : Therefore, he cannot, in
respect of his huraan nature, be everywhere. It appears
that the Magdeburgians have played into each other's hands;
and while wishing to overturn the sacred and inviolable
symbol of Christ, have each brought their own symbols, as
it were, to market. I wish here to forewarn my readers, that
when they afterwards see that Avhat has now been said of
place is repeated even to weariness, they should infer from the
confused raass that our opponents have digested nothing with
judgment or reason, but, while rautually indulging themselves,
have received every absurdity which each individual may
have been pleased to advance. To orait other things, what is
raeant by inculcating the very sarae thing under the thirtieth
head, but just that he who had first advanced it did not like to
repudiate it when it Avas afterwards advanced by his fellow ?
I come now to their reply. They say that we argue from
the special to the absolute, (a dicto secundum, quid ad dic
tum simpliciter!) How do they prove it ? Because the major
contains a physical principle which is understood of bodies,
in which there is nothing more than the creature. They
accordingly ask, Was the body in which God appeared to

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 451
Abraham infinite or not ? Had they any sharae, they Avould
here certainly be durab, and not, by their childish talk, ex
pose the profane arabition which they cherish araong them
selves. To the minor they answer, that Christ is endued
not only Avith the human, but also with the divine nature,
the two natures being united in an ineffable manner. What,
pray, can they make out of this? Certainly they cannot
constract the monster AA-hich they have imagined, since unity
of person neither mingles nor confounds the natures. When
they cite the Church as a witness, they ought at least to
have attended to the difference Avhich there is according to
ordinary usage between the terras unity and union. Unity
of person in Christ is received without controversy by all the
orthodox. If an unity of the divine with the human nature
is affirmed, there is no pious person who avUI not abhor it.
In the union, therefore, it is necessary that each nature
retain its own properties.
When they ask how Christ passed through his tomb Avith
out breaking the seal, and how he came in to the disciples
whUe the doors Avere shut, there is no need of any new ex
planation. How can any barriers, constructed by human
art, preA'ent God frora raaking a passage for hiraself He
who made all things of nothing may for a time annihilate
whatever seems to irapede the progress of his operations.
And, indeed, wdiat shall we say became of the bodies in
which he clothed both himself and his angels, after his pur
pose was accompUshed ? These bodies appeared at the com
mand of God, and afterAvards vanished ; and yet it must be
confessed that they were real bodies. Here we do not pry
more than we ought into the power of God, as those men
accuse us of doing. I wish that they Avould duly reverence
that power instead of using it raerely as a cloak. Let thera
have done, then, Avith their glossing pretexts, that Christ
raised his own body into the air : for we are not here con
sidering what rairacles Christ performed in the flesh, but what
the tme nature of body necessarily requires. Peter walked
upon the water. Did he therefore cease to have a true body ?
This would have been the case had he at the same raoraent
sat either in the vessel or in the harbour; for Avhatever

452 LAST ADMONITION TO
had appeared, Avould haA'e been a phantom and imagination.
When Peter came out of prison he did not pass through
doors that Avere shut ; and yet, as he did come out after the
doors were locked and barred, we acknowledge that a miracle
Avas performed beyond the ordinary power of nature ; but
that he Avas in two places at the same tirae, Ave deny ; just
as we Avoiild deny that he had two bodies. This explanation
shoAvs that Ave have no need to accuse Christ of falsehood,
a charge Avhich the Magdeburgians, with their usual inso
lence, bring against us. We knoAv that our faith by which
Ave rest in the words of Christ, is a sacrifice of sweet savour
in heaven. While they throw out the hyperboles of Luther
to gain favour, at one time vvith the populace, at another
with their little brethren, contented with the applause of
this popular theatre, they care little either for the judgraent
of God or angels. It was this which made rae formerly say
that Luther has had many apes, but few imitators.
As if they had put on their buskins and got into thc
heroics, they say. We leave it to himself to explain hov/ it is
possible for a definite body to be present wherever the Sup
per is celebrated : sufficient for us the sure command to
hang on his lips. But Christ himself has sufficiently ex
plained, and it is in vain for them, Avhile spontaneously clos
ing their eyes, to throw the blame of their ignorance upon
him. When they endeavour to shelter themselves by say
ing, that the one person of Christ is God and man, avc have
elsewhere shown how inept it is. After they have said all
they can say, this doctrine stands approved by the consent
of the jirimitive Church, that Christ as Mediator is every
Avhere, and inasmuch as he is one person, he, as God and
man, or God manifest in the flesh, fills all things, although
in respect of his flesh he is in heaven. Whether they are
entitled to say that we put an affront on Christ, the supreme
king and high-priest, by refusing to extend his body to a
fantastical imraensity, we leave it to all, high and low, to
judge. Their sovereign oracle is a reply of Luther, One body
cannot be in different places, according to huraan reason, but
it may according to the poAver of God : because AvhatcA'er
God says, he is able to perform, and nothing is impossible

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 453
Avith God. This is just as if one Avere to proA'c that thc
Avorld Avas created from eternity, because God is eternal : or
that the sarae sun may at the sarae tirae give liglit and no
light, because God can do all things.
In the twenty-eighth place, they construct an arguraent at
their oaa-u pleasure, that they raay at their oAvn pleasure
overthrow it. It would seera that they have made it their
business to frarae soraething Avhicli might catch applause
under the form of a negative. They state it thus, (iod can
only do what he Avills: He only Avills things whatever is
accordant with the nature of things : It is not accordant
with the body of Christ to be at the same time in the Sup
per and in heaven : Therefore, Christ cannot raake his body
to be received corporeally in the Supper. Such, I perceive,
is the kind of prattle they have among themseh'es. Our
mode of reasoning- is different. It is, As God does A\hatever
he wills, his power is not to be separated frora his Avill : It
is therefore foolish, irreleA'ant, and preposterous, to dispute
about what he can do Avithout taking his will into account :
But as he has noAvhere shown that he Avishes to make the
true and natural body of his Son iraraense, those are prepos
terous and perverse heralds of his power avIio insist on prov
ing from the immense power of God, that there is an im
mensity of flesh in Christ. The only remaining solution left
to the Magdeburgians is, that the Avill of God is clear, from
the words of Christ, This is my body. This might perhaps
be listened to were the use of prophecy and the gift of in--
terpretation entirely abolished. Such is all their victory.
The twenty-ninth arguraent is, Christ ascending into
heaven and leaving this Avorld cannot be everywhere : But
he did ascend into heaven : Therefore, he is not bodily on the
earth. They answer, that the major holds in regard to mere
creatures. Did the angel then say of a mere creature. He
is not here ; he is risen ? When Mark speaks of his with
drawing, or when Peter declares that the heavens must re
ceive him at the last day, are we to understand it of a new
creature? I wish these men would rather confine them
selves to their rudiments, than prove by bad logic that they
are very bad theologians ! They afterwards reply to the

454 LAST ADMONITION TO
minor, that the invisible presence of Christ is not destroyed
by his visible ascent to heaven, because there are clear pas
sages of Scripture in favour of both. The testimony of God
in regard to the local absence of the body, I hear through
the angel : He is not here ; he is risen. Unless the logic they
have learned be better than that of angels, the argument
Avill hold good that the assigning of one place is the denial
of any other. The same is to be said of the words of Peter,
that the heavens raust contain hira. Peter is not there
speaking of a visible form, and yet he fixes the abode of
Christ in heaven, which he says must contain him. If there
Avere not dimensions, where were the containing ? (compre-
hensio.) We hold, therefore, that as the body of Christ is con
tained it is not iramense. Will they say that the doctrine of
godliness has been shamefuUy corrupted by Peter also ?
They seem to think they have fallen on the best evasion
Avhen they compare the visible ascension of Christ with the
visible exhibition ofthe Spirit. They say. The Spirit, though
he was everywhere invisible, appeared under the form of
tongues of fire, and therefore the visible ascension of Christ
does not take away his invisible presence. This is just as
if they were to argue, God appeared in visible form in the
tabernacle, and in other places, and yet was everywhere in
visibly : therefore there is nothing in the visible form of the
world to prevent the world frora being invisible. They will
reply, that the same thing has not been declared of the world
that was declared of the flesh of Christ. But I ara only speak
ing of their coraparison, which vanishes without refutation.
It is no new thing for God, who is invisible by nature, to
assume whatever forms he pleases, whenever he would in
this way manifest himself to men. This preternatural mani
festation makes no change on the nature of God. But how
does this apply to Clirist ? A manifest repugnance appears
at once. The body of Christ, which was naturally visible,
was taken up to heaven while the Apostles beheld. The
Magdeburgians insist that contrary to its nature it remained
invisible on earth. Let them now, discarding a comparison
which does not assist them in the least, prove that though
Christ is in heaven he may in respect of his flesh be invisibly

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 455
wherever he pleases. It is easy for them to say he is, but
the pious are not to be driven by empty sound out of what
Scripture affirms concerning the ascension of Christ to
heaven. They say that Christ ascended to heaven in a
visible manner, in order to show by some external act that
he was truly risen, that he had thrown open the kingdom of
heaven to all believers, and would be their high-priest in the
heavenly sanctuary. This is sorae part, but not the whole.
He declared to the Apostles that his departure was expedient
for thera, because if he did not go away the Spirit Avould not
come. Could the Spirit not come while he was present ?
The meaning is, that it was necessary that their minds
should be raised upwards to receive his divine influence. Of
the same import is his saying to Mary, — Touch rae not, for
I have not yet ascended to ray Father. Why, do we suppose,
was Christ unwiUing that his feet should be erabraced, but
just that he wished henceforth to be touched by faith only ?
This too is the reason Avhy a cloud received hira out of their
sight. Had they been persuaded that he was in the bread
invisibly they would not have stood gazing up to heaven.
The thirtieth arguraent is. He who is in a place is not
everywhere : Christ being received into the heavens is in a
kind of place : Therefore, he is not corporeally in the Supper.
They reject the raajor as being a physical principle ; as if
theology were to perish if in deference to God, the Author
of nature, we refuse to violate the order which he has raade.
Away with the absurd cavils which floAV in too large a streara
from these raen. For the principle which we assurae is the
same in effect as if we Avere to prove that Christ Avas really
man, because he felt hunger, was fatigued by traveUing,
feared, was sorrowful, in short, because he grew up from in
fancy to raanhood and died. If the Magdeburgians grin here
and say, that these are nothing but physical principles, wiU
their perverseness be endurable ? Nature dictates that the
sun is warra and bright ; in short, that the sun is the sun is a
natural principle. Must Ave, in order to be theologians, deny
that it is an iUustrious specimen of the admirable wisdom
of God ? To be in a place and everywhere is the same in
effect as that a place is no place. There is nothing however

456

LAST ADMONITION TO

which the hyperbolical faith of the Magdeburgians does not
overleap, not even excepting the incomprehensible depths of
divine Avisdom. This is apparent from their words.
When by passages of Scripture, as avcU as of the fathers,
Ave prove that Christ is in heaven as in a place, they an
swer in regard to the fathers, that their sayings are towers
of paper. Away then with all human authority, provided
these masters Avill concede that Ave make common cause with
the fathers, and provided also they Avill refrain henceforth
frora fuming so indignantly against the heresy of Beren
garius. They object the saying of Christ, This is ray body,
and tell us, that no reason, not even that of angels, can over-
throAv it ; as if we Avere either Platonics, or of sorae other
sect opposed to Christ. But Avhat do they gain by rejecting
inter23retation and boasting the authority of Christ Avliile
giving his Avords a perverse and alien sense ? That thc fiction
of the invisible presence of Christ was known to the father*
all readers sound and foolish Avill believe Avlien it is shown
to have the support of Scrijjture. They say, it is not to be
inferred that Christ is tied to heaven, how spacious soever
it raay be. Let us leave the tying, and content ourselves Avith
Peter's expression, AA-here he says that he must be contained
(comprehendi) by heaven. What more do they desire ? Let
them also add the words of the angel. He is not here, he is
risen ; it is in vain for the Apostles to keep gazing up to
heaven, for Jesus Avill come on the last day as he has been seen
to ascend. They rejoin, that he Avill come in visible form ; as
if the angel had omitted the far more approjiriate consolation,
vvhich, had he been educated in the school of Magdeburg, he
Avoiild undoubtedly have given, namely, that if he lies invisi
ble under the bread it Avas not necessary to go far to find him.
When they insist on our proving- that Christ spoke falsely
Avhen he said. This is my body, their raving is too detestable
to detain us long in refuting it. As if they Avere advancing
soraething great or new they call upon their readers to ob
serve that he did not say. This is a symbol, figure, .shadow,
phantasm ; as if we held the body to be a phantasm such
as that Avhich they fabricate in their own forge. We acknow
ledge that it is a trae body communion Avhich is offered

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 4o7
under the bread. Although the communion be mystical, the
words of Christ cease not to maintain their credit and truth,
did not they indirectly charge him Avith falsehood by tramp
ling his ordinance under their feet, and subjecting him to
their gross delirium. But as Christ has promised to be with
us to the end of the Avorld, they say tliat they are only be
lieving liis word ; as if he could not be present with believers
by his boundless energy Avithout including a phantastical
body under the bread.
As the thirty-first argument is perfectly identical Avith the
previous one and the twenty-seventh, I am unwilling to
waste Avords upon it.
In the thirty-second place they attribute to us what I readily
allow thera to refute. It is, Christ sitteth on the right hand
of the Father, and therefore cannot be everywhere. While
they aA'owedly direct their whole virulence against me, of
what use was it to catch at applause Avith the unlearned by
a thing of nought ? Nor is thc answer given in any other
than my own words, except that they insert their own fiction
regarding the ubiquity of human nature. Therefore, if their
purpose is to attack mc, let there be an end on both sides
to this dispute about the right hand. My mode of express
ing the doctrine is this : As Christ is in heaven in respect
of the substance of his flesh, so he sits in his flesh on the
right hand of the Father, yet filling the whole Avorld with
his power and virtue. Hence it appears that Christ the
Mediator is God and man everywhere whole, not wholly,
(totus non totum,) because his empire and the secret poAver
of his grace are not confined within any liraits.
The thirty-third argument is, Scripture declares, that
Christ, after his resurrection, retained the body which he
had formerly had, and that its nature was not changed : The
same thing is taught Avith great uniformity by the Fathers :
Therefore Christ cannot be corporeally in the Eucharist.
They answer, that every thing which we assert concerning
the nature of the body springs from a bad fountain : be
cause the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit.
But it is most false to say, that we judge Ly carnal sense,
when we quote words Avhich certainly proceeded from God

458 LAST ADMONITION TO
himself The angels said, that Christ was not to be sought
in the tomb, when no raention Avas raade of the Supper.
Did they not speak of the very body Avhich the Magdebur
gians inclose in a tomb, as often as they bury him under the
bread? Christ, speaking of his flesh, uttered two expres
sions between which there is an apparent repugnance — the
one. Handle rae and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones;
and the other. Take, eat, this is my body. The question is,
how are they to be reconciled ? As if the former expression
were of no moment, the Magdeburgians take desperate hold
of the second, and reject all interpretation ; as if the same
credit were not due to Christ in everything. They are un
able to disentangle themselves without feigning a twofold
mode of presence, and obtruding upon us a fiction not more
repugnant to reason than to faith, viz., that the body which
Christ gave to be handled and seen, was of a different nature
frora that which lies hid under the bread.
The thirty-fourth arguraent is. Scripture declares that our
bodies will be raade conformable to the glorious body of
Christ ; but our bodies will not then be everyAvhere : There
fore, neither is the body of Clirist everywhere. They answer,
that it is vicious to argue frora the special to the absolute,
(a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter^ But let
thera show where the dissimilarity is in the present case. I
admit that the degrees of glory in the head and members
will not be equal ; but in so far as pertains to the nature of
the body, there will be no conforraity unless that flesh which
is the type and raodel of our resurrection retains its dimen
sions. They object, that it was not said of the flesh of Peter
or Paul, Take, this is my body. But as the point in dispute
is the sense in which these words ought to be taken, the in
terpretation of thera must be sought frora other passages.
The Magdeburgians become furious, and will not hear of
this, as if there was to be no freedom of interpretation with
out their perraission. But when the Holy Spirit declares,
that Christ was transported to celestial glory, in order to
make our bodies conforraable to his own body, who wiU
adopt the distinction which these new raasters prescribe?
Add, that Paul celebrating the virtue of Christ, by which he

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 459
can do all things, extols the rairacle Avhich the Magdebur
gians would explain aAvay, extols it too highly for sound and
pious readers to allow themselves to be driven out of so sure
a doctrine by their objection of dictum secundum quid.
The thirty-fifth arguraent is, Araong the early Christians
there was no contention as to tbe Lord's Supper: Therefore,
they all understood Christ's Avords figuratively. They retort,
that as there Avas no controversy, they all unaniraously era-
braced the literal sense. But as nothing is more silly than
to sport iu disposing of some jejune arguraent whicli they
have themselves chosen to concoct, let the readers allow rae
to give thera the true arguraent. — As some early writers
taught freely that Christ said. This is my body, Avhen he
Avas giving a sign of his body, and also, that the bread is the
body of Christ, because a sacrament is regarded as in a man
ner the thing itself; as others taught, that the body of which
a sign was given in the Supper Avas the true body of Christ,
while others called the bread a type, of which the body was
the antitype, there is no probability that the error of a cor
poreal presence under the bread prevailed at that time, as in
that case the controversy must have iraraediately arisen. Here
there is no reason why they should corapare us to the Philis
tines, unless, according to the practice often adopted in plays,
they would suddenly break off the pleading by the crashing
sound of broken benches, and thus disappoint the readers.
The thirty-sixth arguraent relates to novelty, which ought
justly to be suspected of error, and states as a good ground
for conderaning the figraent of a corporeal presence, that it
originated at no ancient date among the gross corruptions
of ignorance and superstition. They answer, that it is a re
gular practice with the advocates of bad causes to lay hold
of some kindred subject on which they may declaim plau
sibly, and make great tragic display ; that in this way we
transfer to the corporeal presence what applies only to tran
substantiation, which they theraselves strenuously condemn.
So they say. But, first, I deny that we vociferate tragically
in this matter, when we simply say, that the fiction which
they venerate as a heavenly oracle, was fabricated by so
phists, who knew nothing of a purer theology ; and, secondly,

460 LAST ADMONITION TO
I deny that Ave court applause by fastening on a kindred
subject. How strenuously they oppose transubstantiation,
appears from the Avritings of Westphal, Avho hesitates not to
rank Councils held under Nicolas and Gregory VIL, as or
thodox. But let us have done Avith transubstantiation. We
accuse them of feeling and speaking more grossly of the
corporeal presence than the Papists. There is no reason
why they should get into the heroics, and exult so furiously
on producing the Avords, This is my body. We deny not
that these are the words of Christ, though this they, with
little raodesty, raake a ground of charge against us. Neither
can they deny the foUoAving to be the words of God, The
eartli is ray footstool, though frora them, if wc adopt their
raethod of judging, it Avill follow, that the feet of God rest
upon the earth, and support his body. The novelty is not
in the words, but in insisting on their being understood
strictly according to the letter.
In the thirty-seventh place, they mention as an argument
adduced by us, that as ancient writers were accustomed to
use both modes of expression — ^to say that the bread and
wine are the body and blood of Christ, and also that they
are signs, and syrabols, and sacraraents of the body and
blood, it raay hence be inferred that the Avords Avere not
understood by thera Avithout a figure. Here they exult
over us, for having lately contended that the ancients Avere
ignorant of the corporeal presence, and now distinctly ad
mitting that they call the bread the body : as if it Avere not
comraon to us both so to call it. But here Ave are consider
ing the meaning. No man objects to use a form of expres
sion of which the Son of God, our heavenly Master, is the
author. We only maintain, that as often as the fathers call
the bread and wine signs, symbols, and sacraraents of the
body and blood, they sufficiently explain their meaning, as
this implies that clear distinction between the sign and the
thing signified for Avhicli we contend. Nay, a distinct rea
son is given why the terms flesh and blood are applied to
the bread and the wine. Here the Magdeburgians perti
naciously insist, that it is enough for them, that, according
to the ancients, the bread is the body : as if the other ex-

JOACHIM AVESTPHAL. 40" 1
pression, as being fuller and raore explicit, were not to be
added by Avay of interpretation. Paul says in one passage,
that he supplies Avhat is lacking in the suflerings of Christ
for his Church : in another passage, repeating the same thing,
he says, it is for the confirmation of believers. If a question
is raised as to Paul's meaning, (as under pretext of thc
former passage the Papists transfer part of our redemption
to apostles and niai tyrs,) are vve to overlook the explanation
Avhich is volunteered in the latter passage ? To say, there
fore, in regard to a matter so clear and notorious, that they
appeal to the Son of God, is absurd.
No less futUe is their rhetoric, that Christ is not an un
learned, raAV, or stammeriug judge, being on account of his
utterance called the Logos : that he is not crafty, not
double-tongued, not corrupted by bribery, no respecter of
persons. Of Avhat use is this loquacity but to shoAv how well
and at what length the Magdeburgians can prattle ? Every
thing which proceeded frora the sacred lips of Clirist vve rever
ently adore as Avell as implicitly embrace : but his authority,
whicii is above all exception, is injuriously impaired Avheii
they continue to assert it out of season, as if it were doubtful.
They manifest sirailar folly in citing their witnesses. Of
AA'hat use was it, pray, Avhen adducing- passages of Matthew,
Mark, Luke, and Paul, to add the ridiculous proviso, Always
excepting the judgment of their superior, that is, Christ
himself; as if there Avere a danger lest Christ should deny
himself in the organs of his Spirit. Let the thing then be
distinctly announced. We acknowledge that those four
authentic scribes of God have, Avith the most perfect good
faith, stated the ordinance of Christ — an ordinance so clearly
mystical, that any one denying it to be so is fit only for
Anticyra. We are entitled then to inquire what analogy
the bread bears to the body. The Magdeburgians, however,
in order to haA'e the flesh of Christ inclosed under the bread,
refuse to admit that there is any inystery. What is to be
gained by oraitting the state of the question, and giving
only a bare narrative ? Hoav vain and futUe thc attempt to
conceal the real controversy, by caUing the evangelists clear,
eloquent, and trae 1 Surely he who seeks an interpretation

462 LAST ADMONITION TO
of these words does not charge them with any want of
utterance. Nay, the true respect for them is not to fasten
at random and Avithout consideration on everything they say,
as if we would tie them down to individual Avords and syl
lables, but attentively to consider their raeaning, in order
that by a proper exposition of their words Ave may Avithout
controversy embrace what they truly intended.
It is, therefore, raere petulance and falsehood to assert
that we appeal from Christ and the apostles to third parties.
Hence it is no wonder, if intoxicated with scurrility, they
expose their own disgrace when they say that they will come
with us to a third set of judges. WiU they then, to gratify us,
do Christ the wrong of abandoning his tribunal and consent
ing to leave the final decision to mortals ? They premise that
they stand by the two forraer judges, and Avill never yield,
though angels from heaven should give a contrary decision.
Still ifthey saw that men were erecting a tribunal to overturn
the judgraent of Christ, they ought not to have moved one foot.
I willingly relieve them from their offer of sacrilegious sub
mission, for we ought sooner by a hundred deaths to confirm
the authority of Christ than yield to any human judgments.
Nothing of the kind, however, is done Avlien the name of
interpreters is given to the fathers. If for thera to perform
this office is to make them, judges over Christ, let their
writings, as thus derogating from the sovereign authority of
the Son of God, be accursed. MeanAvhile they declare that
they have no doubt of the support of the fathers, though
they deny the accordance of the phraseology eraployed by
thera with the Avords of Christ. They do Avell and providently,
however, in leaving the decision to children of four years old.
Had they appealed to children of seven, they would easily
have detected such sUly trifling as the following: "Let
neither part here have recourse to mere jangling, but let us
set down the words of Christ and his Apostles on the one
hand, and compare them with those of the fathers on the
other, in this way : Christ says, This is my body, and the
Apostles repeat the same thing ; the fathers affirm that the
bread is the body. Child of four years old, guess and say
Avhether these raodes of expression differ widely from each

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 463
other. To continue the coraparison, Christ says, This is my
body ; the fathers affirm that the bread is a syrabol, sign,
and figure of the body. Again, child of four years old, judge
whether these phrases agree."
Surely if religion had any serious hold of their rainds they
would scarcely have stooped to such puerile trifling. The
fathers occasionaUy in this ordinance retain the mode of
expression used by Christ, as Avhen the raajesty of the doc
trine is to be asserted, they quote the passages of Scripture
verbatim, and yet they do not orait the office of interpreters
as often as the occasion requires. Hence their fuller and
more explicit stateraent, that as the bread is a sacrament of
the body, it is in a raanner the body. If there is any doubt
as to their raeaning, whether is it to be reraoved by the con
cise stateraent or by the added light of interpretation ? How
then dare the Magdeburgians, under the pretext of one expres
sion, obscure a clear stateraent and explanatory paraphrase ?
The thirty-eighth arguraent is taken from Augustine, who
terms it a foul affair to eat the flesh of Christ corporeally.
They answer, that Christ having ordered this, there is no
thing flagitious in it. Were the antithesis real, wo to Augus
tine for having dared thus to asperse the Judge of the world.
But as that holy man Avas no less comraendable for modesty
than piety and erudition, Ave must see whether he has indeed
charged Christ Avith a crime. On the contrary, being aware
that wicked and profane men Avere calumniating every ex
pression of a harsher nature Avhich occurs in Scripture, and
that the foolish often Avithout judgment and choice insisted
too rigidly on the raere words, he, in order to defeat the
malice of the former, and cure the error of the latter, pre-
¦ scribes a rule of sound interpretation. And as when Christ
orders us to eat his flesh, there Avould be raanifest absurdity
in the literal sense, he teaches that the expression is not
simple .but figurative. The Magdeburgians, to disentangle
themselves, must therefore prove tAvo things — that Christ
ordered his body to be eaten corporeally, and that Augustine
does not speak of this corporeal eating.
In the thirtieth place, they relate a statement which I
have made, that seeing the opposite party say that Christ is

464 LAST ADMONITION TO
contained by the bread, just as Avine is by a tankard, Ave too
may be permitted to give an appropriate interjiretation of
the words of Christ. Here they accuse us of calumny ; as
if their books were not extant. Although I attack no one,
and would rather suppress this than furnish materials for
new strife, the simile Avas not invented by me, but certainly
proceeded from certain among themselves Avlio thought it
plausible. The fortieth arguraent as set down by thera is faulty. It
is, Christ will return to final judgment as he Avas seen to as
cend : Therefore, he is not corporeally present in the Supper.
The complete statement should be. The same Christ, who was
Avithdrawn from the view of raan and taken up to heaven,
Avill, as the angel declares, come in like manner as he was
seen to ascend, and is, as Paul declares, to be looked for as
the Redeemer from heaven : Therefore, he is not noAv on the
earth bodily. The Magdeburgians answer, that he will come
in a visible form. But there is no such distinction in thc
words either of Paul or the angel, and yet nothing Avould
have been more appropriate than to have added the comfort
ing consideration of his invisible presence, Avere it real. As
their language speaks of Christ simply, hoAV presumptuous
is it to iraagine that he is at the same time visible and in
visible ? The sense in Avhich he promises to be present Avith
his disciples, I have elsewhere expounded in the Avords of
Augustine ; though the expression itself is too clear to re
quire an interpreter. For what can be more preposterous
than to wrest what is said of grace, virtue, and assistance
to the essence of flesh ?
The forty-first argument is, Stephen sees Christ sitting in
heaven : Therefore, he does not dwell bodily on. earth. The ¦
Magdeburgians answer, that that which Christ instituted in
the Supper is not taken aAvay by a special revelation. Nay,
but that which Avas revealed to Stephen most completely
refutes their fictitious error. For if at that time the presence
of Christ alone could give Stephen invincible constancy of
faith, it would have been much better to set hira before him,
so that he had only to stretch forth his hand, than to exhibit
hira at a distance. Therefore, just as the heavens were then

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 465
opened, let the Magdeburgians learn to open their eyes and
recognise that Christ though sitting in heaven is yet united
to believers on earth by the boundless and incomprehensible
energy of his Spirit. Their idea that Christ's dweUing in
Stephen at the time when he saw hira in heaven cannot be
otherwise reconciled, is too ridiculous, Christ having hiraself
distinctly stated that in tbe same raanner in which his Father
dwells in us, he too dwells. This raanner Paul explains to
he by faith. There is nothing to perplex in the doctrine
that Christ dwelling in heaven in respect of his flesh, still
as Mediator fills the Avhole world, and is truly one with his
members, as their life is coraraon.
The forty-second argument is. The body of Christ was in
closed in the womb of Mary, suspended on the cross, and
laid in the tomb : Therefore it is not iraraense and every
where. They answer that it is just as Christ declares, and
therefore that he both wills and can make it to be in one
place and at the same tirae in every part of the world. But
this is no better than if sorae anthropomorphite Avere bab-
blingly to say that God has nostrils because he declares that
he smeUs sacrifice. Here indeed they are finely caught.
They say that we often reason fallaciously and sophistically
from the properties of body in the abstract to the person of
Christ. This calumny is easily disposed of We do not
teach that because the body of Christ is finite, he is himself
confined within the same diraensions ; nay, we assert that he
fills aU things, because it were impious to separate him frora
his members. But as the question is concerning the flesh,
we insist on it. In short, we fully illustrate the distinction
between the flesh of Christ in the abstract and his person,
while they most perversely confound it. For in order to
prove that the flesh of Christ is iraraense and everywhere,
they are ever and anon insisting that there is one person in
Christ, and that he therefore fills heaven and earth in respect
of his flesh as weU as his divinity. Do they not drag the
body of Christ in the abstract as it were by the hair, in raak
ing it follow the divinity wherever it extends ?
The forty-third arguraent I will state somewhat more
faithfully than they do, thus : Christ's promise to be in the
VOL. II. 2 a

466 LAST ADMONITION TO
midst of us should be understood of his spiritual presence :
but the thing promised is of all others the most desirable ;
therefore faith can rest satisfied Avitli spiritual presence.
They answer, that we finish ourselves by this clear sentence,
by inferring from it that Christ is present with us as he then
was, that is, both as God and man. What if I maintain, on
the contrary, that he is not corporeally present as he then was,
unless he is present visibly ; for, if I mistake not, this is to be
ranked as a raost proper and inseparable quality of body ?
But as nothing is plainer than that Christ there joins him
self to us as our Mediator and Head, the whole dispute is at
an end the raoraent it is agreed that Christ, in the person of
Mediator, or, if they prefer it, the whole person of the Medi
ator, is truly and essentiaUy in the raidst of us, although the
flesh of Christ, or, Avhicli is the sarae thing, Christ is, in
respect of his flesh, in heaven. For when raention is made
by us of the spiritual presence, the other ought to be re
stricted to the flesh. After they have emptied themselves
of a large stream of words, the Avhole coraes to this, that the
flesh of Christ reraains in heaven though he dwells in us in
his capacity of Mediator.
The forty-fourth arguraent is. If the substantial body of
Christ is given in the Supper, it is received and swallowed
indiscriminately by believers and unbelievers. Who has
spoken in this way, I know not. I, for my part, would
attach no weight to this argument. All the time I was
under the strange delusion that the very substance of the
flesh was given under the bread, I shuddered at the idea of
its being prostituted to the ungodly. And the monstrous
results with which that error is replete, nay, swollen even to
bursting, I think I have elsewhere more than sufficiently
demonstrated. Christ said. Eat, this is my body. What if
the sacred bread is devoured in raockery by a Turk or a
Jew ? Will it be no profanation of the body of Christ to
allow it to pass into the stomach of a despiser ? The Mag
deburgians answer, that as the words of Christ imply that it
does so, they are not moved by any absurdity. But I sup
posed, that as the promise and the coraraand are united to
each other by an indissoluble tie, the forraer is not fulfilled

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 467
unless the latter is obeyed. And, indeed, since Luther
taught that the bread is the body only during the act of
celebration, Avhile they theraselves insist that the bread is
not a symbol, but the true and substantial body, I should
like to know hoAv they are to escape frora this dileraraa ?
Suppose that, according to their custora, one hundred mor
sels are prepared for the use of the Supper, and the number
of actual guests is fewer than an hundred ; when the cele
bration is finished, is that wliich remains over the body of
Christ, or does it, at the conclusion of the ordinance, cease
to be body ? Provided I ara allowed to enjoy the body of
Christ with all the pious, I will make them Avelcome to share
their imaginary body with Judas.
The forty-fifth arg-ument is. We teach nothing at variance
with the confession of Augsburg, and therefore they have no
cause for quarrelling so bitterly, or rather, so savagely. If
there is any doubt as to this, Ave appeal to Philip (Melanc
thon) who Avrote it. As the Magdeburgians speak hesi
tatingly in their reply, I, trasting to a good conscience,
venture freely to repeat what I said. Let Philip, as often
as it is thought proper, be called upon to explain his own
meaning. Meanwhile, they only prove theraselves contu
macious by dissenting from their confession.
The forty-sixth argument is. If Christ is believed to be cor-
poreaUy in the Supper, the transubstantiation of the Papists
cannot be firraly opposed. They answer, they are not to do
evil, that good may come. Where they got this arguraent, I
know not ; but I willingly give it entirely up to them : nay,
its futility is apparent from our Avritings. For while we re
fute transubstantiation by other valid arguments, we hold
this one to be amply sufficient, that it destroys the analogy
between the sign and the thing signified ; for if there be not
in the sacrament a visible and earthly sign corresponding to
the spiritual gift, the nature of a sacraraent is lost.
The forty-seventh arguraent is. As the iraagination of a cor
poreal presence gave occasion to the idolatry of the Papists,
and still confirras it, it ought not to be maintained. They
answer, that a consequence drawn from an accidental vitia
tion is not valid. But what if we assert that the two things

468

LAST ADMONITION TO

are connected ? We not only deny the corporeal presence for
the purpose of discountenancing idolatry, but the better to
make it manifest how detestable the fiction of a corporeal
presence is, we show that it necessarily carries an impious
idolatry along with it. When they affirra that the body of
Jesus Christ is not to be worshipped although it be in the
bread, because Christ does not receive worship there, their
answer Avould be good if all raen would admit its validity.
They pretend that no command has anywhere been given
as to worshipping the body of Christ. It is certainly said
properly of Christ as man, God hath exalted him, and given
¦him a narae which is above every name, that at the name of
Jesus every knee should bow. Accordingly, Augustine justly
and shrewdly infers from this, that the flesh of Christ is to
be worshipped in the person of the Mediator. But I am
surprised that the Magdeburgians so liberally concede to us
what the rest of their party tenaciously retain. What does
Luther mean in writing against the doctors of Louvain, by
speaking of the holy and adorable sacrament, if the body is
not to be worshipped in the bread ? Here let thera at least
agree among themselves, and subscribe once raore to their
friend Westphal, if they would not deal deceitfully with the
cause of Avhich they are advocates.
The forty-eighth argument is stated incorrectly and un
faithfully. For we do not infer that there would be one
substance (hypostasis) of the flesh and bread, if the flesh is
in the bread, but if the bread is the flesh, as they insist, pro
perly and without figure. For while they constantly incul
cate, that it is only with a view to explanation they say that
the flesh is given under the bread, but that in the meantime
we raust hold by the words of Christ, that the bread is flesh,
I should like thera to tell me how the subject and predicate
are to be reconciled if there is not one substance. There
fore, however closely they study concealment, their secret
will be forced out of them. They stand convicted of a mani
fest contradiction in now admitting what they formerly de
nied, viz., that the body is conjoined with the bread. For,
under their twelfth head, they compared together the two
passages. The word was made flesh, and, This is my body.

JOACHIM AVESTPHAL. 469
In the forty-ninth place, in order to accuse us of mendi
city, they give utterance to sorae strange fabrication of their
own, — Nothing useless is trae ; the doctrine of a corporeal
presence is useless : therefore it is not true. Here they tell
us, that like persons faraishing for hunger, we scrape toge
ther food not only from the abodes of dialecticians, but frora
the fields of rhetoricians also. As I Avould be ashamed to
be rhetorical in such a style, I leaA'e thera what is their oavu.
Meanwhile let them defend themseh'es against Paul, who
condemns all questions from Avhich no edification arises.
Certainly if their doctrine is useless, it foUoAvs that they are
wrong in raising such contests about it. It is evident that
they are more friendly to the Papists than to us. If it is
because of a friA'olous question, let thera consider how they
shall one day render an account of their truculence. Where
fore, in order to refute the raajor, there Avas no need to vent
foul blaspheray against the law of God. But they contend
that what is useless is soraetimes true. To prove a thing to
be without doubt the law of God, is of no use to them. The
Apostle had said that the ceremonies, as being shadows, did
not profit the worshippers — that is, did not profit by them
selves. Is therefore the whole law useless, Avhile its utility
is apparent even in passing sentence of condemnation on
men ? It reraains now to see vA-hat benefit is produced by
the figment which they obtrude upon us. The passage,
" The flesh proflteth nothing," has already been expounded.
But though we were not to found on any passages of Scrip
ture, still as our doctrine contains the entire union of Christ
with his merabers, in which our Avliole salvation and felicity
consist, whUe they insist on a promiscuous eating by Peter
and Judas, it is clear that they are quarrelling for nothing.
In the fiftieth argument they employ a gloss, and hence it
is easy for them to dissipate shadows of their own raising ;
but I should Hke them to answer the arguraent when I state
it thus. The communion of the substance of the flesh of
Christ which they maintain, is either teraporary or perpe
tual. If they say it is perpetual, Christ wiU remain in the
most abandoned, in the fornicator, tbe murderer, the man
stained by aborainable crimes. If it is temporary and only

470 LAST ADMONITION TO
for a moment, of what avail is it to receive Christ, and
leave him in the same place the raoment you Avithdraw your
foot from the table ? Assuredly if there be not a perpetual
communication beyond the act of communicating, nothing
more will be conferred than the remembrance of something
lost. And it is certain, that what the Lord elsewhere affirms
of his perpetual abiding in us, and what Paul teaches as to
his dwelling in our hearts by faith, is sealed in the Supper.
Hence we infer that the communion of which we are par
takers in the Supper is perpetual. I may now therefore
argue thus. The proraise of Christ's dwelling in us is special,
and is addressed to believers only ; therefore none but be
lievers obtain possession of Christ in the Supper. See how
attentive our good censors are to the cause, Avliile they tell
us to give it a raore attentive consideration.
The fifty-first argument is, A doctrine carrying many ab
surdities with it is not true : the doctrine of the corporeal
presence of Christ is involved in many absurdities ; therefore
it follows that it is not true. The raajor they deny to hold
universally, because there are various species of absurdities,
and in theology every thing is not to be held absurd which
is repugnant to huraan reason. But whether or not those
which we produce are of that description, let our readers
judge frora the following :
In the fifty-second head they raention the first absur
dity. It is absurd that the body and blood of Christ should
be everywhere: but the corporeal presence in the Supper
requires ubiquity. The Magdeburgians answer, that it is
absurd to huraan reason only, not to faith, because it never
can be absurd to believe Christ. Had they proved that we
have not to attend to what is suited to the nature of the
sacraraent, they raight now perhaps produce a doubt, but as
we have proved a hundred times, that though the presence
of the flesh of Christ does not lurk under the bread, due re
verence and credit are given to his Avords, the difficulty is
not yet removed. An argument which they obscure by
stating it in brief and equivocal terms, is very stringent
against them. Either the whole body of Christ is given
under the bread or only a part : if the whole, the bread is no

JOACHIM WESTPHAL, 471
less blood than flesh. The sarae may be applied to the cup,
so that the wine is not less body than blood. If they pre
tend that the body of Christ is Avithout blood, and hold that
the blood is extracted apart from the flesh, could any thing
be more monstrous ? We are not here speaking of coraraon
meat and drink. I ask, in Avhat way they suppose that they
eat the body and drink the flesh of Christ in the Supper ?
If they answer that the Avhole is in every part, Avhy do they
consider the bread rather than the Avine to be the body ?
and why the Avine rather than the bread to be the blood ?
If they answer, that the mode has not been revealed, why do
they decide so boldly on the presence of the substance ? It
is this which plunges them into the abyss. Should they
choose to mutter that the absurdity is merely physical, none
but those who are raore than fatuous will be persuaded that
the substance of the blood can be dissevered by Christ frora
the substance of the flesh. It is said that their union is re
pugnant to the words. But though Christ reraain entire in
heaven, there is nothing to prevent hira from giving his flesh
as meat and his blood as drink, and from nourishing and
vivifying us separately by each.
As in the fifty-third place they mutUate and corrupt our
words, let the reader attend to the following absurdity.
Seeing it is derogatory to the celestial glory of Christ that
his body should be inclosed under earthly elements, he is
insulted when he is placed corporeally in the bread. The
Magdeburgians will perhaps object, that in a natural view
this may seem insulting to CTirist, but in a theological it is
not so. What ? When that is asserted of Christ, which no
mortal man but God hiraself declares respecting hira, Avill
they not be ashamed to flee to that raiserable asylura ? I
know that it was not disgraceful to Christ to be suspended
on the cross, on which, triumphing over death and the devil,
he sat as it were sublime in a triumphal chariot. But here,
when he is drawn down frora his celestial seat and fastened
to an earthly and corraptible eleraent, how different is the
case ? When he was hanging on the cross it was not the
Father's pleasure that he should yet enjoy a blessed imraor
tality in heaven, but now he has removed him from the

472

LAST ADMONITION TO

earth that he raay be exalted above all heavens. Wherefore
let the Magdeburgians cease frora telling us that the wisdom
of God is foolishness to the world — let them not, under the
blinding influence of their own sense, presume to throw
everything into confusion.
They follow their usual practice under the fifty-fourth
head, but the sura is. Any doctrine, which leads to contradic
tion in the Scriptures, is false ; but if the corporeal presence
of Christ in the Supper is admitted, the Scriptures wiU con
tradict themselves ; this error therefore is justly repudiated.
As to the raajor, they raention that disputes often arise from
true doctrine ; as if we were saying that the doctrine is vicious
for any other reason than for raaking Scripture self-contra
dictory. Their denial that Scripture is set at variance by
their fiction is not to be wondered at ; for nothing is easier
for thera than to reconcile heaven with hell. When they
deny that there is any contradiction in saying that the body
of Christ is everywhere and yet in a particular place, that it
is finite and immense, visible and invisible, mortal and im
mortal, whole and partial, in what else can any contradiction
be found ? But I beseech pious and sober readers not to
allow giddy men to seize upon the Spirit of concord and
unity, to set him at variance with himself, and rend the
Scriptures, that they may be able thereby to fabricate a
multiform Christ.
The fifty-fifth argument it pains me to mention, but I
must briefiy inform the reader of their incredible impudence
in presuming to construct an absurd argument without any
plausibility, and then throAving it in our face. For Avho
ever thought of arguing, that as Christ assumed our fiesh he
does not give it to us to eat ? On the contrary, our uniform
doctrine is, that he assumed our flesh for the very purpose
of giving life to our souls by communication with it. We
teach that, inasmuch as he was raade man, he is bone of our
bone and flesh of our flesh. Let the Magdeburgians then
assail their own falsehood as they will, but let not us be
burdened with any share of the obloquy or disgrace.
The fifty-sixth arguraent is. It is a contradiction to say,
that Christ in his flesh left the world and was received into

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 473
heaven, and to say also, that in his flesh he lies hid under
the bread. They answer, that there is no variance between
these things in the view of faith, though, by our spirit
of giddiness, they becorae Avhat is easily said but not so
easily proved. When they say that faith does not raeasure
the works of God by the capacity of reason, but renders
praise to his truth and oranipotence, although Ave adrait it
to be true, yet seeing the truth of God is simple and undi
vided, it does not follow that faith transfigures God, and
makes him at variance with hiraself The testiraony of God
is, that Christ Avas received into the lieavens, and behoves to
be contained by the heaA'ens until he is to corae as Redeemer,
and that we should seek him there. As this doctrine is
altogether inconsistent with the fiction of a corporeal pre
sence, what can they gain by attempting to disguise the
inconsistency ? Place must be given to the omnipotence of
God, especially when a simple and easy explanation tells us
how Christ sitting in heaven may give hiraself to be enjoyed
by us on earth. With hoAv rauch greater plausibility are we
entitled to maintain that it is preposterous to exercise faith
in a carnal eating of Christ, seeing it is far raore congruous
to his nature that we should rise upwards in order to enjoy
Christ spiritually ?
The fifty-seventh arguraent is akin to the last. It is, There
is an inconsistency in the assertion that there is a flesh of
Christ which, invisible in heaven, is invisibly and insensibly
eaten under the bread. Their stateraent, that it is incon
gruous to hold that Christ AA-ho has flesh and bones is eaten
without flesh and bones, though they represent it as ours,
we leave to themselves. For what has this to do with a
debate as to the eating of his flesh ? When they answer,
that there is no repugnance as far as faith is concerned, it
is just as if the anthropomorphites Avere to allege that when
they believe, on the words of Scripture, that God has eyes,
nose, mouth, ears, arras, and feet, they shut their eyes to all
absurdities, because faith surraounts all contradiction.
In the fifty-eighth place they betray their absurdity not
less than their raaiice. I had said that the petulance of
Westphal and his fellows could not but be odious to learned

474 LAST ADMONITION TO
and right-hearted men ; all the raost leamed of Luther's
friends and disciples having declared their satisfaction with
ray doctrine. I raentioned two, Gaspar Craciger and Vittus
Theodorus. Here the Magdeburgians fix rae in a dilemma,
as if I had actually draAvn the inference that we have there
fore a good cause, and all the Saxon doctors ought at once
to pass over to our view. These worthy men, who so roll
themselves in the mire, are gricA'ed forsooth at the stigma
which I have thus thrown on the dead. Now, that they
raay not appeal in vain to the Church of whicii Theodore
was rainister, I again repeat that I said nothing which I
cannot prove by his own handwriting whenever it shall be
necessary. As to Craciger's consent, not to go further, I
take Philip hiraself to witness, whose authority with his
disciples ought to be above exception.
The last of the arguments enumerated is. We sacramen
tarians have Avritten on this subject more splendidly than
those of the opposite opinion are able to do ; we therefore
hold the truth, and our opponents should be sUent. First,
in pretending that we admit the narae which they theraselves
have wickedly imposed upon us as a stigma, nothing can be
more senseless than their trifling. Let them call me sacra-
raentarian whenever they please, it shall raove rae no more
than the barking of a dog. But they even employ them
selves in bringing a charge against us to whicii they are truly
and justly liable. For as those who insert false legacies
or substitute false heirs are called Testamentarii, do not
these worthy men, when they substitute a fictitious body
contrary to the mind of the testator, deserve the same name?
There is certainly no colour for applying it to us. But with
out regarding their absurdity I come to the subject. I said,
I admit, and I do not repent having said, that I have spoken
raore splendidly of the sacred Supper and its entire virtue,
that I have explained its dignity and efficacy better and
raore faithfully than aU who are like Westphal, and that
therefore it is unjust for any one to pretend that he is fight
ing against me in defence of the Supper. And indeed
what can be more unworthy than for turbulent men, induced
by mere moroseness to disturb the Church of God, to come

JOACHIM AVESTPHAL. 475
forward under the fallacious pretence of defending the sacred
Supper against us, Avho no less honourably assert its dignity
than lucidly treat of its whole nature and virtue ? To omit
all my books, in which I distinctly teach that Christ by no
means deceives us with bare and erapty signs, but truly per
forms what he figures, does not our Agreement contain the
same thing ? And yet these men cease not to cry that we
make void the holy Supper.
At present they furtherraore object that I ara not serious
in leaving thera to decide. But if they would look raore
closely to the judges to Avhora I have appealed, they Avould
see that there is no i^lace for thera in the list. Faithful ser-
A-ants of Christ, grave and raoderate men, I decline not as
judges, but no reason admits of -such authority being given
to proud, obstinate, and contumacious despisers of the
brethren. And yet they compare theraselves to infants by
whom God perfects praise, Avhile they calumniously charge
us Avith a vile atterapt to terrify them by vile ostentation.
I wish they were endued Avith a spirit of meekness and
modesty, so as to prove themselves at least to be men.
Wliere can greater and vainer ostentation be found than
in themselves ? Hence their Thrasonic boast in this very
place, that they will make our ears tingle and our hearts
tremble by their cries. See the humble children who so ar
rogate everything to theraselves, that they leave not a par
ticle of the Spirit to servants of Christ by whose labours, if
they possessed one particle of docility, they ought to profit.
Still harsher is their calumny that we resist the ti-uth con
trary to conscience. That the iniquity of this calumny raay
be known to the whole world, I appeal to thee, 0 Christ, the
Son of God, suprerae Judge ofthe world, whose authority is
dreaded by devils theraselves, that thou wouldst raake it
manifest now and on that day whether ray raind has ever
entertained the raad thought of tainting thy doctrine by any
falsehood or coiTuption. But if thou seest rae to be free
and most remote from this crime ; nay, if thou art my faith
ful Avitness, that I sincerely and frora the heart profess the
faith whieh I have learned from thy sacred holy gospel, be
pleased to suppress the diabolical slander of raen who are

476

LAST ADMONITION TO

SO blinded by obstinacy or pride as to be incapable of any
discrimination. I again address ray speech to you, pious readers, and be
seech you all not to allow your senses to be stupified by that
tingling of which the Magdeburgians boast. An expression
constantly in their raouths is, that there is no room for dis
cussion, when Christ the only Master and Teacher has
clearly taught what is to be believed — no room for debate,
when the same suprerae Judge has distinctly given forth his
decision. This they say, because they see that nothing would
subject us to greater odium or be more plausible in their
favour than to persuade the unskilful that no question can
be raised as to this ordinance without overthrowing the
authority of Christ. It is part of the same artifice to keep
ever and anon crying that there is no less danger in listen
ing to human reason than is incurred by him who listens to
the blandishments of a harlot and gets entangled in Jier
deadly snares. Though they use this language for the sake
of procuring favour, we have no cause to fear that a know
ledge of the fact will not wipe away all their glosses, and
therefore there is nothing we raore desire than that all
should be able to forra their judgraent frora the case itself
In this way it wUl at once be seen that our only reason for
seeking an interpretation for the words of Christ is, thatthey
raay be engraved with due reverence on our hearts ; that
discarding human reason, and raising our minds above
the world, we receive this high mystery with due faith, and
hold it in the highest admiration. The smoke by which they
would most iniquitously blind the eyes of the simple being
thus dispersed, the false and invidious charges in which our
opponents place the substance of their defence, quickly dis
appear. But what do the men of Bremen on their part adduce ?
To retain quiet possession of their status, they pronounce
high eulogiums on the magnanimity of Luther. These I
readily admit, provided they do not wickedly and unwor
thily abuse the name of this justly celebrated teacher for
their own advantage, or rather their own caprice. If any
defect mingled with the lofty virtues of Luther, I would bury

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 477
it in oblivion. Whatever it raay have been, reverence and
love for the gifts with which he Avas endoAved would raake
me refrain frora exposing it ; but to extol his defects as ifthey
were virtues is foolish and preposterous affectation. Still
less excusable is the fervour of their rash zeal in basely and
shamefuUy corrupting Scripture in order to adorn Luther
with the spoils of John the Baptist. For though they deny
not that in John the Baptist was fulfilled Avhat Malachi had
foretold of Elias that Avas to corae, they insist that this pro
phecy is also to be understood of Luther, who is that Elias
who was to restore all things, and that that whicii was once
accomplished by John the Baptist, the prophets as well as
the testimony of Christ not obscurely intiraate to have been
again repeated in Luther. By this false assertion they dis
honour the narae of Luther not less than the Egyptians did
the body of Jereraiah by worshipping his sepulchre. Ad
mitting that the narae of Elias may be given to Luther, it is
sacrilegious teraerity to assert that he is the last Elias, as if
the hand of God were shortened, and he were unable here
after to send forth an equal or a greater. What oracle re
vealed to thera that the treasures of divine power were so
exhausted or irapaired by the forraation of one individual,
that none like hira can corae forth from his boundless and
incomprehensible fulness ? I have no doubt that Satan
purposely excites these insane eulogists in order to furnish
profane scoffers with a longed-for opportunity of slander.
I wish that the hand of him Avho could only subscribe by the
single letter T, had been as unable for the whole writing as
for that one word,
Luther having always held the principle, that it was not
permitted either to hiraself or to any other raortal to be wise
above the word of God, it is strange and laraentable that
the Church of God should be so iraperiously bound down to
his decrees. They Avill deny that they intend this. There
fore let the name of Luther rest for a little until we have
discussed the point Avith calm and placid reason. Their
caution to beware of false teachers I too give, the object of
our admonition being to guard the chUdren of God against
their pestiferous delusion. But Avhat of the thing itself

478 LAST ADMONITION TO
They pronounce raagisterially that they receive the Avords of
Christ, This is my body, not symbolically or raetonyraically,
but in the raeaning which they naturally iraport. I hold
that there is a metonymy, because the name of body cannot
apply to the bread, unless in respect of its being a symbol.
This view is completely confirraed by the analogy which the
Scriptures uniformly preserve betAveen the sign and the
thing signified. If you ask the reason why, with gross ab
surdity they fasten upon the bare literal sense, they answer
that nothing is more unjust or foolish than the question. Of
what use is it for them daily to lift up their voice in the
pulpit, if the interpretation of Scripture is denied to the
Church ? But they say that a clear text needs no exposition.
Certainly not, provided they would adrait that a sacraraent
is a sacraraent. When Paul declares, that the Church is
cleansed by the washing of water, the truth of the declara
tion is universally admitted. If they infer frora it that the
impurities of the soul are cleansed by the corruptible element
of Avater, the Sun of righteousness himself Avill be obscured.
Another declaration by Paul, that believers put on Christ,
Avill be assented to by all. But if the raen of Breraen trans
figure Christ into a garraent, what darkness Avill be substi
tuted for clearness ? And yet we hear Avhat the words liter
ally iraport. Moreover, in regard to the interpretation I
should like thera to point out the hostile standards under
which they falsely pretend that we are at war araong our
selves : although any diversity in the teaching of sorae from
that of others is nothing to the point.
Let the reader then consider whether the sacraraental
raode of expression, because it does not please the raen of
Breraen, is to be altogether repudiated. There are four
reasons which will not allow thera to give up their opinion.
The first is, that Jesus Christ, true and perfect God and
raan, is inseparably united in one person. But the union of
the huraan nature with the divine does not confound the
unity of both, nor does unity of person mix up the divine
nature with the huraan, so as not to leave each its pecu
liar properties. Surely the soul of Christ approached nearer

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 479
to divinity than his body, and yet Luther did not on this
account admit that Christ, as raan, had always a foreknow
ledge of all things. Their second reason is, that the right
hand of God, on which Christ sits, is everywhere ; as if we
denied that Christ, the Mediator between God and raan,
fills all things in an ineffable raanner, so as to be everywhere
entire, and yet in respect of his flesh occupies a seat in
heaven. Their third reason is, that the word of God is not
faUacious or lying. But the question is not as to any false
hood in the word, but as to their stubborn obstinacy Avhich
prevents them from giving any place even to the first rudi
ments of Scripture. For would they peaceably allow a place
for the rale, which, whether they will or not, is observed in
regard to all the sacraments, all disputes would at once ter
minate. Their fourth reason is, that God has raanifold and
various ways of existing in a place. But this variety can
not have raade the body of Christ, when he instituted the
Supper, to be in one place -visible, finite, and raortal, and at
the same time in several places, invisible, iraraense, and
immortal. See how tmly they boast that the reasons which
they adduce to establish their error are certain, firm, and
unrefutable. It is stupor only that raakes thera acquiesce
in it ; they certainly cannot rest in it in safety. When they
object that the figure of the body was not delivered, nor the
sign of the blood poured out, we have a still clearer proof
how boldly these little fathers fight with their own shadow.
For what is the effect of the raetonymy on which we insist,
but just to raake the bread to be in a sacraraental raanner
the trae body of Christ that was sacrificed for us, and thus
he truly communicated to us ? We do not found merely on
physical arguments, but wish that which Scripture plainly
teaches concerning the flesh of Christ to reraain firra and
inviolable ; just as I a little ago observed, that we do not
give the words of Christ a forced meaning, but that which
similar passages demand.
The men of Breraen get finely out of the difficulty by say
ing, that as it is written, " In vain do they worship with the
commandments of men," the door is shut against all argu
ments. How irrelevantly they arra themselves with the

480 LAST ADMONITION TO
specious dictum, that the word of God must always be op
posed to huraan reason, I think I have already clearly shown.
For as we willingly follow without lifting our eyes any course
to which God by his own voice calls us, so we are unwilling
by a brutish stupor to confound ourselves with the unclean
aniraals which do not cleave the hoof That this niemorable
epistle might not be Avithout its due weight. Christian Have-
man appends his name. To him is added another who sub
scribes himself John T, A., and by his single celebrity sup
ports all the others. For the words are : To take advantage of
the opportunity of sending by the faithful merabers of Christ
who Avere to visit you by the way, we could not procure the
Avritten subscriptions of all the pious brethren. Sorae were out
of town, others not at home : meanAvhile, that the truth may
be confirraed in the raouth of two witnesses, I declare, &c. I
am not noAV sur^Jrised at tlieir lifting their heads so disdain
fully under pretext of the words of Christ, since they hold
the whole world bound to believe thera on the first letters of
their naraes. In another place, however, the sarae indivi
dual is not only more literal in expressing his name, but
also by a silly and absurd addition, wishing to be thought
facetious, says, I, John Teman of Arasterdara, pastor of the
Church of Bremen, in Martin's Church, or, if the Sacramen
tarians Avill, in the Church of St. Martin, Bishop of Tours.
This speciraen of gravity wilL doubtless have the effect of
procuring credit to the man.
Weary of all this folly, I would uoav pass to others,
were I not detained for a little by another confession,
which they say has been absolutely forced frora thera, by
ray having dedicated ray trifles to thera. As I perceive,
that not only the raen of Breraen, but others also of the
sarae faction, are very indignant at my having perforraed
my duty towards thera, I raust briefly tell thera that they
have put theraselves into a passion for nothing. They
clamorously express their high displeasure at my having
dared, under a show of respect, to obtrude my book on the
churches of Saxony. I may be pardoned for having thought
thera raen, though they now breathe nothing but the ferocity
of wild beasts. I have, however, a better excuse. I had no

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 481
intention to dedicate ray book to the foUoAvers of Westphal,
nor have I, by any expression, manifested such an intention.
The dedication is. To all honest ministers of Christ, and sin
cere worshippers of God, Avho observe and foUoAv the pure
doctrine of the gospel in the churches of Saxony and Lower
Germany. To this class they certainly do not prove thera
selves to belong. With them, pride occupies the place of
piety, ferocity is substituted for every humane feeling, and
mere obstinacy leaves no roora for any thing like moderation.
Their confession is, That the true body of Christ is given to
he substantially eaten in the Supper. We not less distinct
ly maintain true coraraunion (Koivavia) with the flesh of
Christ of which Paul speaks. The only question is as to the
mode. They say they care not how the thing is done, be
cause they siraply believe the Avords of Christ. I answer,
that Ave too simply believe the words of Christ, but do not
voluntarily quench the light of the Spirit by neglecting the
gift of interpretation. This disposes of their specious ex
cuse, that they feel constrained by the testimonies of Mat
thew, Mark, Luke, and Paul. Our doctrine does not refuse
credit to their testiraony, but faithfully and fully elucidates
what others absurdly inA'olve in darkness. Whether or not
all four affirra distinctly and without any interpretation that
the bread is the true and natural body of Christ, let their
words show. The raen of Bremen extract this meaning from
the context. We too, therefore, raay extract frora the sarae
context that the body and blood of Christ are offered to us
in the Supper in a different Avay from that which they im
agine. What do Luke and Paul affirm to be given in the
cup ? A covenant in the blood. As the same thing must be
trae of the body, it follows that nothing else can be inferred
from the words of Christ, than that under the bread there is
the ratification of a covenant in the body of the Son of God
which was cracified for us. We are ordered to eat the body
which was crucified for us ; in other words, to become par
takers of the sacrifice by which the sins of the world were
expiated. If they insist that the two things are conjoined,
viz., the fruit of the sacrifice and the communion of the
flesh, I myself press the very same point — that since by the
VOL. II. 2 H

482 LAST ADMONITION TO
same laAv and in the same Avords the Son of God offers his
body, and the covenant in the body, thc one is not to be
taken without the other. As it Avas said. Eat, this is my
body, they insist that the body of Christ is eaten substan
tially by all men whatsoever. Why raight not I, on the
other hand, insist that all raen whatsoever receive the cove
nant by drinking of the cup ? Frora this it Avould follow,
that all vvho approach the table truly and spiritually com
municate Avith Christ. Let the men of Breraen loose this
knot if they would not be strangled by it.
But although the true bodj' of Christ is eaten in the Sup
per, this is no ground for holding, as they do, that spiritual
interpretation is excluded. This interpretation would de
fine the raode, and show the tAvo things to be perfectly re
concilable, viz., that the same body which Avas once offered
as a victim is given to us, and yet is not eaten in a carnal
manner. Certainly in the age of Augustine and Jerome no
man doubted that the body of Christ was one. The forraer,
however, to obviate a gross iraagination, introduces Christ as
saying, I have committed an ordinance to you, which, spirit
ually understood, will give you life. The latter declares
more harshly, that the flesh of Christ which we eat in the
Supper is different from that which was offered on the cross,
and the blood drunk different from that which was offered ;
not that he really thought the natures of the flesh and blood
to be different, but that he raight raore distinctly express
that they are eaten in a raystery, that is, that it is owing to
the secret agency of the Spirit that the true and spiritual
flesh of Christ gives life to us. Forraerly, it was soraetimes
denied that the body of Christ, Avhich is given us for spiritual
food is spiritual ; as if the dignity of Christ's glorious body
at present were inferior to that which will one day be pos
sessed by all his members. Paul, speaking of the general
resurrection of the righteous, says, that that which is now
an animal body will then become a spiritual body, because
mortality will be SAvallowed up of life. But the perverseness
of the raen of Breraen, not contented Avith one error, wholly
excludes the spiritual raode and interpretation.
Still raore grossly do they infer frora the terra breaking.

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 483
that the bread which is distributed in thc Supper is the true
and natural body of Christ. Paul, I adrait, says in one
place, that the bread is broken, and in another. This is ray
body Avhich is broken for you. But I wonder that those
worthy teachers of the Hebrew tongue, avIio shortly after
convert the pronoun Hoc into the masculine Hic, because
the HebrcAv has no neuter, do not understand Avhat boys
learn in their rudiments, that the present tense should be
resolved into the future. Paul certainly says the same thing
as the evangelists, who make no raention of daily breaking,
but speak merely of a delivery which took place on the
cross. The breaking of Paul is therefore equivalent to im
molating, except that he aUudes to the mj-stical act, which
is a vivid raiiTor of the death of Christ. The fiction which
the raen of Breraen obtrude for the genuine sense, viz., This
is my body Avhich is broken for you or distributed in the
bread, is nothing better than a brutish profanation, whicii
Avill I hope excite the disgust of all the godly against thera
and their error, which they cannot defend without perverting
every thing.
There is no reason why they should insist so rauch on the
term KoivmvLa. It signifies participation. What then ? If
they infer from this that the body of Christ is substantially
eaten, we in our tum will say that the substance of the
altar was devoured by the priests, and the idol swaUowed
substantially by its worshippers, as Paul applies the tei-ra
Koivavta to both in the same passage. They altogether scout
the introduction of the symbols and figures of the Old Testa
ment ; but while I adrait that the distinction should be ob
served between shadows and the body, stiU I hold that we
ought not to disregard a resemblance Avhich the Holy Spirit
distinctly asserts. Above I have fully shown with what jus
tice they pretend to have the support of the primitive and
more modem Church : nor is it necessary to give a new re
futation of what they allege in regard to the oranipotence of
Christ. Their assertion that all who teach that the words of
Christ contain a raetonyray, whicii gives the sign the narae
ofthe thing signified, and raakes the bread to be syraboUcally
the body of Christ, charge Christ himself with falsehood, is

484 LAST ADMONITION TO
barbarous in the extreme : especially when they at the same
time give utterance to a furious anathema, consigning to the
lower regions all Avho say that it is by virtue ofthe Holy Spirit
that our souls are spiritually fed by the substance of the flesh
of Christ, and who bid us rise to heaven in order to be admit
ted to this communion. In this Avay they certainly doom to
perdition the Avhole primitive Church, which, in celebrating
this mystery, regularly began Avith exhorting those present
to raise their minds upwards. If the raetonyray is not only
accursed, but teeras Avith blaspheray, what will become of
poor Augustine, Avhose words we formerly quoted, viz., that
the bread of the Sujjper is in a raanner the body of Christ,
because the sacraments, if they did not receive the name of
things which they figure, Avould not be sacraments? The
sense in which ancient Avriters occasionally say, that the
body of Christ is taken by the carnal raouth, AA'e have else
Avhere explained to be the sarae as the sense in which they
at the sarae tirae add that it is consuraed. Should the raen
of Breraen, trusting to these words, follow out the process of
digestion to the last, Avho would not be revolted by the
raonstrous idea ? To conclude. If frora the words of Christ,
This is my body, it is inferred, that the substantial body of
Christ is received by the carnal mouth, it raight Avith equal
force be argued that the divine essence of the Spirit was
seen by the camal eye, because it Avas said. Upon whom ye
shall see the Spirit of God descending. Hence it will fol-
loAv, that the Spirit of God was transformed into a visible
dove. Next corae the raen of Hildesheim, avIio say that they
approach the cause Avith great confidence, because they
are supporting Christ, and denounce irapending destraction
on us whose rainds they describe as swollen with self-ad-
rairation, and corapletely carried away by pride — a mag
nificent exordium, provided the result corresponds with the
outset. But Ave shall soon see that this sounding- boast
comes to nothing. The confession AA-hich they subjoin, that
Christ instituted the Supper to be used as a perpetual or
dinance in the Church, I could regard as tolerable, did
they not iraraediately after corrupt it by a vile coramentary.

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. 485
That a comraand and a promise are therein contained, that
the corruptible material of bread and wine is set before the
eye, and that the true body of Christ is at the sarae tirae
given, is beyond controversy, and therefore the Avliole dispute
relates to the definition. As they attack rae directly, by
defending Westphal, all I have to do is to raaintain ray
cause. Away, then, with the odious naraes of sects. With
what face do they say that I leave no mystery, no spiritual
fruit, in the Supper, but hold only that there are bare ele
ments, which differ in no respect frora other bread and Avine?
I uniforraly testify, that as Christ is by no means fallacious
in his signs, so the reality is annexed to the visible element ;
and the thing which the bread and Avine figure is truly per
formed inwardly by the secret virtue of the Spirit. Shortly
after they are forced to confess that there is much which we
properly teach concerning spiritual eating, in which, if there
is no consolation or fruit, where can consolation be found ?
Ifthey do not perceive this, liOAv disgraceful is their stupor?
But the adA'ocates of a bad cause, having tlieir confidence
only in calumny, must of necessity be thus carried to and fro.
If their purpose is to amuse one another Avith silly jests, and
try who can utter the greatest falsehoods against us, let thera,
if they wiU, enjoy the sport to satiety. But how blind is it
not to see, that by disserainating and publishing their false
hoods, aU they gain is to make the whole obloquy, which
they would fain throAV upon us, fall back upon theraselves.
It is notorious, that we do not strip the ordinance of Christ
of its reality, nor give the narae of simple bread to that which
has been sanctified for a peculiar use. For Ave clearly teach
that whosoever receives the sacred bread with true faith is
nourished unto spiritual life by the flesh of Christ, just as
the body is sustained by earthly bread. Of what use,
then, is it to darken the cause, by raising smoke which can
be so easily dissipated ? Why do they not rather ingenu
ously maintain that our sentiments are plainly repugnant to
each other ? We acknowledge, on both sides, that the true
communion of the flesh and blood of Christ is held forth in
the Supper ; but when, in explanation of the mode, avc add,
that it is owing to the secret and incomprehensible virtue of

486 LAST ADMONITION TO
the Spirit that Christ truly feeds our souls from heaven with
the substance of his flesh and blood, and that the bread and
wine are true pledges of the heavenly things which they
figure, because everything whicii the minister promises ac
cording to the coramand of Christ is fulfilled by its author,
the raen of Hildesheim here begin to recoil. As it is no
wish of mine to retaliate injury, I acknowledge that they
speak with raore moderation and raodesty than those we
have hitherto heard. Worship, and kneeling at the sacra
raent, are distinctly conderaned by thera : they hold it super
stitious to be in terror of conscience, lest the bread fall to
the ground, or any simUar accident occur : and they do not,
like the Magdeburgians, dread the terms mystery and sym
bol. In short, Avhether they alloAv it or not, they have many
things in coramon with us. Our whole controversy with
thera hinges on their affirmation of the two following things
— that the body of Christ is not only spirituaUy eaten in the
Supper, but is also substantially enclosed under the bread,
and is received not by believers only, but promiscuously by
all. If their purpose is to discuss with rae, let thera here
after confine themselves within these limits. If they assail
me with calurany, I presurae that the dishonesty of so doing
has already been sufficiently established. They are, there
fore, the less to be borne with in charging us with craft — the
only charge by which they attempt to give a plausibility to
their cause ; though the impudence is too gross to deceive
any man of sound raind.
Let us noAV attend to the terms in Avhich they oppose nie.
It is blaspheraous derision, they say, to represent that the
body is called and invited forth from heaven, or is fixed to
the bread. Were we speaking of the ordinance of Christ, I
admit there Avould be an impious scoffing in these Avords ;
but Avhat blaspheray can there be in stigmatizing gross
errors ? They insist that the flesh of Christ is taken by the
carnal mouth and chewed by the teeth ; they contend that
the same body is immense, and lies invisible under the
bread ; and they will have it that the bread is truly and
properly thc body. May not ono, Avithout blaspheray, attack

JOACHIM AVESTPHAL. 487
these monstrous errors ? Wherefore there is no ground for
charging- us with impudence when vve employ some marks to
distinguish the sacred ordinance of Christ frora their sense
less and absurd figraents. As to the ordinance itself, they
Avill not find any araong their party Avho speak of it more
reverently. Hoav do they prove us to be blasphemers ? Be
cause Paul teaches that the bodies of the pious are temples
of God, and that Christ dwells in their hearts by faith ; as if
in these cases where God the Father and Christ have chosen
us as mansions for themselves, the mode of inhabitation were
not spiritual. If there is any doubt as to this let Paul be
the interpreter of his own expression. He says, Ye are the
temples of God, for his Spirit dAvelleth in you. A third pas
sage shows what religious reverence they have in quoting
Scripture. That Christ is the hope of glory to the Colos
sians Paul terms a raystery hid frora e3'es. Is he here
including the substance of the flesh of Christ in us ? It is
not either in iraagination only, or by general power, that
Christ dwells in us, though Ave do not eat the substance of
his flesh with our raouths. For that peculiar method not
only more than distinguishes us from brute beasts (a charge
which those Cyclops, Avith their usual candour, bring against
us,) but frora all the profane, while God sanctifies us as
temples for hiraself, and Christ ingrafts us into union vvith
his own body, so as to give us a coraraon life with himself
Were we disposed to vie with them in giving bad naraes,
Ave should not want Avords, but our nature is averse to it, and
our soul utterly abhors it. I Avould far rather be tongueless
than rival these people in evil speaking. They raake them
selves chaste and uncorrupted virgins, and liken us to har
lots who proclaira their sharae. They exclaim that avo are
unworthy of a place on the earth ; that if we are not sud
denly exterminated from the world, the mildest treatment
that can be given will be to banish us to the Scythians or
Indians : they accuse princes of slothfulness, in not eraploy
ing the SAvord forthwith to cut off our memory, because we
say that Christ, having left the earth in respect of his flesh,
has been received into heaven. Though frora thinking iu
their petulance that any liberty may be taken with us, they

488 LAST ADMONITION TO
misrepresent our words, still let thera foam as they may,
they will not prevent our doctrine from standing forth cleai-,
viz., that though Christ as God and man, and the Mediator
between God and men, whole and undiA'ided, fills heaven and
earth, yet in respect of his flesh, he is only in heaven. I
have elsewhere mentioned the coraraon saying of the schools,
that Christ is everywhere Avhole, but not wholly, (Lib. 3.
Sentent. distin. 23.) Had this been known to these good
theologians, it might have calmed their rage. What insult,
I ask, is offered to Christ, Avhen the flesh whicii he assumed,
and in Avhich he suffered, is said to have been taken up to
heaven just as it was enclosed in the sepulchre ? They ex
claira, that nothing more atrocious could have been said by
Jews or Saracens. Why then do they not tum their rage
against the angels, for having presuraed to argue that Christ
was not in the torab after he had risen? If Christ is CA'cry-
where in the flesh, because of his Divine nature, it was a
foolish answer. He is risen, he is not here. Peter, too, de
serves to be raore severely punished than all blasphemers,
for having given utterance to the Avorst of all blasphemies,
viz., that Christ raust be contained in the heavens. What
shall I say in regard to antiquity ? It is certain that all an
cient writers, for five centuries doAvnwards from the Apostles,
with one consent support our view. Here they bedaub us
with the slime of their own Osiander, as if we had any kind
of affinity Avith him. Be it that Osiander, in his insane
pride, despised a humiUated Christ ; vvhat is that to us,
whose ijiety is too well known to be defamed by such vile
falsehoods ? Nay, with the best right I throw back the
empty talk at their OAvn heads. By denying- a hurailiated
Christ, they extinguish the whole substance of our salvation,
and irapiously abolish an incomparable pledge of the Divine
love toward u,s. If Christ was not emptied of his glory
when he hung on the cross and lay in the sepulchre, where
is the humiliation? They pretend that he was then pos
sessed of celestial blessedness, and not only so, but that that
flesh in which he suffered sat immortal in the heavens. All
this shows that their only purpose is to stupify the mere
populace by the noise of their thunder.

JOACHIM AVESTPHAL. 489
They say that the Son of God, our only glory and salva
tion, reigns in heaven, is most free, is not affixed to the bread,
nor tied to the spheres. This, too, is our faith and profes
sion ; only let thera concede, that the flesh of Christ is in
vested with heavenly glorj', not divested of its oavu nature.
Hence it is that the sarae man, Christ, Avho endured a most
painful and horrible kind of death for us on the cross, now
obtains a name which is above every narae, that before hira
every knee should bow. Herein consists the true and full
liberty of his authority and power, that as head of the
Church he fills all things. But it is preposterous to wrest
this into a proof of the imraensity of his flesh. It is much
more aug-ust Avhile inhabiting heaven, in respect of his flesh,
to exhibit his presence both above and below, by the agency
of his Spirit, as seems to him good, than to have his power
of working necessarily astricted to the presence of his flesh.
We say, that Christ, the Mediator, is not prevented by dis
tance of place frora infusing- life into us from his flesh, and
exerting the present efficacy of that flesh in which he once
reconciled us to the Father : we declare that flesh gives life
to us, just as our body is nourished by earthly bread. This
proud faction of giants acknoAA'ledges no presence of Christ,
unless his flesh is actually placed before them. Is not this
to force him into narrow limits ? Hoav he came out of the
tomb, when it Avas closed, and came in to the disciples when
the doors were shut, I have elsewhere explained, making it
clear that they argue ignorantly and erroneously, in inferring
from hence, that the ascension of Christ was a raere delu
sion. And yet Avhile they set no limits to their slanders,
they pretend that the thing on which they are wholly in
tent, is to lead us to a knowledge of the subject.
MeanwhUe, some one having happened to charge them
with Scythian barbarity, they boil so tumultuously at the
expression as to lose sight of the cause, saying, that they
are thus unworthily charged because of that doctrine in
which they are supported by Christ, the Apostles, and aU
orthodox writers. But the first point to have considered
was, first, whether Christ by saying. Eat, this is ray body,
transformed his own body so as to raake it at the same

490 LAST ADMONITION TO
moment raortal and imraortal, visible and invisible, circum
scribed by place and yet iramense ; and, secondly, whether
posterity were entitled to employ the Avords of Christ in
support of the monstrous fiction, that those to Avhom the
bread is given in the Supper eat substantially of the flesh of
Christ. Until they prove this they are not liberated from
the charge. But what can be more impudent than their
sharaeless boast of the consent of the priraitive Church,
which has so often been shown to be against them ? They
refuse to admit any trope, alleging, that there cannot be one
in words so clear as, This is my body ; as if there was not
equal clearness in the words, On whom you shall see the
Holy Spirit. Were Ave disposed to indulge in such empty
garrulity, Avhat raight we not raake of the term see, and the
name of Spirit ? If they say that the form of a dove was
the Spirit, nothing can be raore absurd. They here falsely
accuse us of devising a trope, because the extent of our rea
son is not equal to the height of the raj'stcry. Does that
incoraprehensible communion Avliich we assert fall within the
reach of sense ? If they cease not to indulge in such impos
tures, I fear they will only expose their disgrace, Avhich had
better remain hid. So far am I frora taking pleasure in
exposing- their folly, that I feel ashamed of it. I can easily
alloAV all the opprobrious epithets which they vent against
us to be read without any defence on our part ; only let our
doctrine be at the same time borne in mind, as frora it will
at once appear how causelessly they charge us Avith intro
ducing a trope into the words of Christ merely in deference
to human reason. As I have always loudly enough declared
that Christ is communicated to us in the Supper in an in
coraprehensible manner, and that we ought accordingly to
adore this mystery which far surpasses our highest concep
tions, what is raeant by the rabid and dishonest assertion
that Ave believe nothing but Avliat huraan reason dictates ? I
have already shoAvn, that we hold there is a metonymy in the
sacraments, in accordance vvith the comraon and perpetual
usage of holy Scripture, and that, consequently, Ave have been
corapelled to adopt the interjiretation vvhich they impugn, not
so much by physical arguraents as by tbe heavenly oracles.

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. -"*^'

It seems to thera plausible to exclaim : Do you hear, 0
flesh ? Do you hear, 0 reason ? Consider the letter, consider
the sense — that those Avho eat uiiAvorthily, Avhile they com
ply Avith the ordinance, are called guilty of the body and
blood of the Lord : the Spirit lies not, but every man is a
liar ; every one who would dissever the reality frora the sign
should be placed in this class. But Avhile it is agreed that
the body of Christ is truly offered under the syrabol of bread,
and that his blood is truly oflered under the cup, it is raere
childish talk to inveigh with so rauch veheraence against the
flesh and reason. Hoav rauch more appropriately might we
reply, Do you hear, 0 barker ? Do you hear, 0 frantic, 0
bratish man ? We assert a true communion of the flesh and
blood of Christ in the holy Supper. To Avhat end then all
your tumultuous claraour ? How can you expect to pluck
the eyes out of your readers, and prevent them from seeing
\A-hat is so raanifest ?
In regard to proralscuous eating, their error has been re
futed too clearly to raake it necessary to add a word. I hold
that profaners of the Supper are guilty of the body of Christ ;
that is, his offered body, though they receive it not ; just as
the Apostle testifies, that the despiser of the gospel traraples
the blood of Christ under foot, for no other reason than be
cause Christ by his own voice invites us to a participation
with himself In repeating so often, that the unbelieving and
perfidious obey the ordinance of Christ, though they think it
acute, they raerely trifle. This no doubt is the reason why at
the outset they separated the ordinance frora the coramand
and the proraise ; as if Christ in instituting the Supper did
not add the other two things along with it. Nay, what else
Avas the institution of the Supper than a coramand to per
forra the ordinance, with the intervention of a promise ?
Certainly the institution of Christ is the trae laAv and rule
for performing the Supper. But Avho can say that the rule
prescribed by Christ is foUoAVcd by those Avho, passing by the
command and suppressing the proraise, feign some imaginary
thing of their own ? It would seem that the obedience of
these worthy theologians consists iu the illusory and faUa
cious perforraance of a naked ceremony without faith.

49J>

LAST ADMONITION TO

TUeman Cragius boasts that he is happy at having written
these frivolities. I Avisli that instead of being so carried aAvay
to vapid clamour, by the iraraoderate tide of his joy, he had
handled this very serious topic with becoraing sobriety and
temperance. He flatters his comijanion Westphal for hav
ing incurred so rauch odiura by collecting the passages of
Augustine against us. Let him look at the contrary pas
sages which I have here adduced, and it Avill be strange if he
does not fall down from very shame. Though frora ray love
of rectitude and true candour, I confess that I ara disgusted
Avith such perverse terapcrs, yet this trifler is false in alleg
ing that I hate men for Avhose sah'ation I purposely consult
in the very sharpness of the terms Avhich I employ. For
having formerly tried in a friendly epistle what eflect meek
ness and lenity might have upon them, I think I can now
only hope for their repentance by repressing their insane
pride more harshly.
I believe I liave novv performed raj' -part in regard to all,
unless I were to weary out the reader by repeating the same
thing ten times over ; indeed I fear I have already pro
longed my discourse more than I ought. For what need
Avas there to refute the raen of Bremen, who had brought
forward almost nothing except an inclination to hurt ? After
violently oppressing their colleagues at home, the only rea
son they pretend for spouting their venom upon me at a dis
tance is, because I have condemned the Saxons as drunkards.
But if they are not of the number, of what use Avas it for
them to put themselves into such a passion ? From this,
however, it is apparent that these good Areopagites to save
themselves the annoyance of seeing the light, write their de
cisions in the dark. I had chanced somewhere to speak of
Westphal as temulent, having no intention, as I have already
explained, to charge hira with drunkenness, but merely to
apply the language of the Prophet, Avho speaks of certain
persons as drunken but not with wine, namely those who
struck Avitli stupor or seized with giddiness, have fallen from
a sound mind.
To Avrest this which Avas said of an individual and apply
it to a whole nation, is truly a mark of blind teraulence.

JOACHIM WESTPHAL. j.,:?^
Let them henceforth learn to be more cautious and not to be
borne headlong by blind revenge. How secure they have
felt in handling this cause is clear frora the simple fact that
they lay claira to the victoi y raerely frora having proved the
eating of the true body Avithout saying'anything of the raode.
I never made it a question, AA-hether the true body of Christ
is eaten in the Supper : I ouly Avish them to consider Iioav
it is done. How ridiculously they have paid their court to
Westphal, is manifest frora the sUliness of the subscriptions,
on which it pains me to animadvert. In particular, that
man of Hildesheim who exults Avith insane joy, was not
worthy of a word, Avhich Avould have made my replies cumu
lative by adding two raore than was required. Let the
others, when they see that any objection Avhich seeraed to
them plausible has been fuUy refuted, though they may not
have been speciaUy replied to, set it doAvn as an advantage.
How eager they are for contests to disturb the Avhole Avorld,
appears from their furious incentives : for they do not dis
guise that nothing vexes thera raore than their inability to
involve as raany as they could Avish in the quarrel. The
only thing Avhich prevents them from charging all vvho differ
from us vvith treachery, is the fear of incurring disgrace by
disclosing the fewness of their own numbers. Though we
should not remark it, the silence of those who, notAvithstand
ing of their disagreement frora us, cherish peace, is a suffi
cient conderanation of Westphal's faction. For they pru
dently consider Avhat indeed is true, that Avhen we are agreed
on both sides that Christ in the Supper offers us his body
and blood that our souls raay be fed Avith their substance,
and differ in sentiraent only as to the raode of eating, there
is no just ground for fierce quarrel. Were a just coraparison
made, there are many things which might impel us to fight
more keenly. But so long as any hope of pacification ap
pears, it will not be my fault if mutual good-will is not
maintained. Though frora being unworthily provoked I
have been raore veheraent in this writing than I was in
clined to be, still were a time and place appointed for
friendly discussion, I declare and proraise that I Avill be ready
to attend, and manifest a spirit of lenity which wiU not re-

^ >^' LAST ADMONITION TO JOACHIM WESTPHAL.
tard the desired success of a pious and holy concord. I am
not one who delights in intestine dissension, nor am I so
tickled by the gratulations of those who subscribe to me,
as to catch at strife as furnishing the raaterials of victory.
On the contrary, I laraent that those who ought to have in
terposed their authority to repress contention have by their
delay left rae no altemative.
Rumours of some pacificatory convention haA'e been often
circulated : and it cannot be believed that princes are so
careless as not to feel solicitous to provide some remedy for
this calamitous rending of the Church. Therefore as I have
no doubt that the subject has been repeatedly agitated in
their councils, so I know not Avhat has caused the delay ;
only Avith great sorroAv I see that while some pertinaciously
cleave to their own views, and others indulge in uncharit
able suspicions, this most useful measure is neglected or even
spurned. But I feel assured that in the event of a friendly
conference, those Avho can now tolerate a candid defence of
the truth Avould become still more irapartial. Henceforth,
therefore, let these raen rage as they Avill, my determination
is by delivering sound doctrine calmly and without conten
tion, rather to consult for the sober, docile, and modest, than
waste words on the petulant, disdainful, and obstinate.
Meanwhile, I will beseech ray Saviour, whose proper office it
is to gather together all that lies scattered throughout the
world, that while our adversaries give no hope, he himself
would find a remedy for this unhappy dissension.

CLEAR EXPLANATION OF SOUND DOCTRINE

COXCF.RSIKG THE

TRUE PARTAKING OF THE FLESH AND BLOOD OF CHRIST
IN THE HOLY SUPPER,

IN OB.UEK TO DISSIPATE THE MISTS OF

TILEMAN HESHUSIUS.

TRUE PARTAKING

FLESH AND BLOOD OF CHRIST.

I MUST patiently subrait to this condition which providence
has assigned rae — petulant, dishonest, rabid men, as if they
had conspired together, must make me the special object of
their virulence. Other raost excellent raen indeed they do
not spare, assailing the living and lacerating the naraes ofthe
dead ; but the only cause of the raore violent onset Avhich
they raake on rae, is, because Satan, whose slaves they are,
the more useful he sees my labours to be to the Church of
Christ, stimulates thera the raore strongly to attack rae. I
say nothing of the old ravers, whose calumnies are already
obsolete. A foul apostate of the name of Staphylus has
lately started up, and Avithout a word of provocation, has
uttered more calumnies against rae than against all the
others who had depicted his perfidy, bad morals, and de
praved disposition. From another quarter one named Ni
colas Le Coq, has begun to neigh against me. At length
from another sink comes forth Tileman Heshusius, of whom
I would rather have the reader to form a judgment from
fact and from his writings than express my own opinion.
0 Philip Melancthon ! for I appeal to thee who art
living in the presence of God with Christ, and waiting for
us there until we are united Avith thee in beatific rest : Thou
hast said a hundred times, when weary with labour and op
pressed with sadness, thou didst lay thy head familiarly on
ray bosora, Would, would that I could die on this bosora !
Since then, I have wished a thousand tiraes that it had been
our lot to be together ! Certainly, thou hadst been readier
to raaintain contests, and stronger to despise obloquy, and

true partaking of the flesh and blood of CHRIST. 497
set at nought false accusations. Thus, too, a check had
been put on the naughtiness of raany who wero eraboldened
in insult by what they terraed thy softness. The groAvlings
of Staphylus, indeed, Avere severely chastised by thee ; but
though thou didst complain to me privately of Le Coq, as thy
own letter to me testifies, yet thou didst neglect to repress
his insolence and that of his fellows. I liaA'c not indeed for
gotten Avhat thou didst write. I will give the very words : I
know that with your adrairable prudence you judge from
the -writings of your opponents what their natures are, and
to what stage of display they look.
I also remeraber what I wrote in reply, and will in like
manner quote the words : Rightly and prudently dost thou
remind me that the object of our antagonists is to exhibit
themselves on a stage. But though their expectation avUI, as
I hope and believe, greatly disappoint thera, yet were they
to carry the applause of the whole world along with thera,
the more intently must we be fixed on the heavenly Captain
under whose eyes we fight. What ? will the sacred corapany
of angels, who both aniraate us by their favour, and show us
how to act strenuously by their example, alloAV us to grow
sluggish or advance with hesitation ? What of the whole band
of holy fathers ? will they add no stimulus ? What, raore
over, of the Church of God which is in the world ? When we
know that she both aids us by her prayers, and is aniraated
by our exaraple, will her suffrage have no effect upon us ?
Mine be this stage. Contented Avith its approbation, though
the whole world should hiss rae, I will never be discouraged.
So far ara I frora envying their senseless clamour, that I
make thera welcorae to the stale glory of their obscure
corner for a brief season. I ara not unaware what it is that
the world applauds and dislikes, but to rae nothing is of
more consequence than to follow the rule prescribed by the
Master. And I have no doubt that this ingenuousness wiU
ultimately be more acceptable to men of sense and piety,
than a soft and equivocal mode of teaching betokening erapty
fear. As thou acknowledgest that thou owest thyself to God
and the Church, I beseech thee to pay the debt as soon as
possible. I do not insist in this way, because I trust to throw
VOL. XL 2 I

498 THE TRUE PARTAKING OF THE FLESH AND
part of the obloquy upon thee, and so far ease myself Nay,
rather frora the love and respect I bear thee, I would wil
lingly, were it allowable, take part of thy burden on my
own shoulders. But it is thy own business to consider with
out any suggestion from rae, that if thou do not quickly re
move the doubts of all the pious who look up to thee, the
debt will scarcely ever be paid at all. I raay add, that if
this late and evening crowing of the cock does not awaken
thee, all raen will justly cry out against thee as lazy.
For this appeal to his proraise, he had furnished rae with
an occasion by the following Avords : I hear that a cock from
the banks of the Ister is printing a large volurae against me ;
if it shall be published, I have determined to reply simply
and without ambiguity : this labour I think I owe to God and
the Church ; nor in ray old age have I any dread of exile and
other dangers. This is ingenuously and raanfully said ; but
in another letter he had confessed, that a temper naturally
mild made hira desirous of peace and quietness. His words
are : As in your last letter you urge me to repress the ignor
ant claraour of those who are renewing the contest about
the worship of bread, (aproXarpeia^ I raust tell you that some
of those who do so are chiefly instigated by hatred to me,
thinking it a plausible occasion for oppressing rae. The
sarae love of quiet prevented hira frora discoursing freely of
other raatters, the explanation of which was either unpleasant
to delicate palates or liable to perverse construction. But
how rauch this saint was displeased with the restlessness of
those raen who still cease not to rage against us is very appar
ent from another passage. After congratulating me on my
refutation of the blasphemies of Servetus, and declaring that
the Church now owed and would to posterity owe me grati
tude, and that he entirely assented to ray judgraent, he adds,
that these things were of the greatest iraportance, and most
necessary to be known, and then jestingly subjoins, in speak
ing of their frivolities. All this is nothing to the Artolatria.
Writing to me at Worms, he laraents that his Saxon neigh
bours, who had been sent as colleagues, had left after ex
hibiting a conderanation of our Churches, and adds : Now
they will celebrate their triumphs at home, as if they had

BLOOD OF CHRIST IN THE HOLY SUPPER. 499
gained a Cadmean victory. In another letter, Aveary of
their raadness and fury, he does not conceal his desire to be
with rae.
The things last mentioned are of no consequence to Sta
phylus, Avho hires out his petulant tongue to the Roraan
Antichrist, and for the professed purpose of establishing his
tyranny, confounds heaven and earth after the manner of
the giants. This miscreant, whose base defection frora the
faith has left him no sense of shame, I do not deera of ira
portance enough to occupy ranch tirae in refuting his errors.
The hypothesis on Avhich he places the Avhole sura and sub
stance of his cause openly discovers his profane contempt of
all religion. The whole doctrine which we profess he Avould
bring into suspicion, and so render disreputable, on the
simple ground, that since the Papal darkness was dissipated,
and eternal trath shone forth, many errors also have sprung
up, which he attributes to the reviA'al of the gospel : as if
he were not thus raising a quarrel with Christ and his
Apostles, rather than with us. The devil never stalked
about so much at large, vexing both the bodies and souls of
men, as when the heavenly and saving doctrine of Christ
gave forth its light. Let him therefore calumniously charge
Christ with having come to make demoniacs of those who
were formerly sane. Shortly after the first promulgation of
the gospel, an incredible number of errors poured in like a
deluge on the world. Let Staphylus, the hireling rhetori
cian of the Pope, keep prating that they flowed from the
gospel as their source. Assuredly, if this futile calumny has
any effect on futile erring spirits, it will have none on those
on whose hearts Paul's admonition is impressed. There raust
be heresies, in order that those who are approved may be
made manifest. (1 Cor. xi 19.) Ofthis, Staphylus himself
is a striking proof. His brutish rage, which plainly enough
is the just reward of his perfidy, confirms all the pious in
the sincere fear of God. The raain object of this impure
man, who is evidently an infidel, is to destroy all reverence
for heavenly doctrine : nay, the tendency of his efforts is
Bot only to vilify religion, but to banish all care and zeal for
it. Hence his dishonesty not only fails by its own demerits,

500 THE TRUE PARTAKING OF THE FLESH AND
but is detested, like its author, by all good raen. Mean
while, the false charge, by which he would throw obloquy on
us, is easily retorted on himself Many perverse errors haA'e
arisen during the last forty years, starting- up in succession,
one after another. The reason is, because Satan saw, that
by the light of the gospel the impostures by which he had
long fascinated the world were overthrown, and therefore plied
all his efforts, and eraployed all his engines, in short, all his
infernal powers, either to overthrow the doctrine of Christ,
or defeat its progress. It was no slight attestation to the
truth of God that it Avas thus violently assaulted by the lies
of Satan. While the sudden eraergence of so many impious
dogmas thus gives certainty to our doctrine, what will Sta
phylus gain by sjsitting- at it, unless it be Avith fickle men,
who Avould fain destroy all distinction between good and evil?
I ask, Avhether of the many errors about Avliich, for the
purpose of throAving obloquy upon us, he makes so much
noise, there Avas no raention made before Luther? He him
self enuraerates many by whicii the Church Avas disturbed at
its very comraenceraent. Had the Apostles been charged
Avith engendering all the sects which then sprung up, would
they have had no defence ? But any concession thus made
to them Avill be good to us also. An easier mode, however,
of disposing of the reproach of Staphylus is to reply, that the
delirious dreams by Avhich Satan formerly endeavoured to
obscure the light of the gospel are novv in a great raeasure
sujDpressed ; certainly, scarce a tenth of them has been re
newed. Since Staphylus has advertised himself for sale,
Avere any one to pay raore for him than the Pope, Avould he
not be ready, in his licentious spirit, to upbraid Christ ?
Whenever the gospel is brought forward, it brings along Avith
it or engenders numerous errors. Never Avas the Avorld more
troubled with perverse and imjjious dogmas than at his first
advent. But Christ the eternal truth of God will acquit
himself Avithout defence from us. Meanwhile, a sufficient
answer to the vile charge is to be found in the fact, that
there is no ground for imputing to the servants of God any
part of that leaven with which Satan, by his rainisters, cor
rupts pure doctrine ; and that, therefore, to form a right

BLOOD OF CHRIST IN THE HOLT SUPPER. 501
judgraent in such a case, it is ahvays necessary to attend to
the source in Avhicli the error originates.
Iramediately after Luther began to stir up the camarilla
of the Papacy, raany monstrous raen and monstrous opi
nions suddenly appeared. What affinity Avith Luther had the
Munsterians, the Anabaptists, the Adamites, the Ileblerites,
the Sabbatarians, the Clancularians, that they should be
regarded as his disciples ? Did he ever lend them his sup
port? Did he subscribe their most absurd fictions? Nay,
Avith what vehemence did he oppose thera, in order to pre
vent the spreading of the contagion ? He had the discern
ment at once to perceive Avhat noxious pests they would
prove. And Avill this hog still keep grunting, that the errors
which Avere put to flight by our exertion, Avhile the Popish
clergy did not at all bestir theraselves, proceeded from us ?
Though he is hardened in effrontery, the futility of the charge
wUl not henceforth impose even on children, who will at
once perceive how false and unjust it is to blame us for evils
which we most vehemently oppose. As it is perfectly no
torious that neither Luther nor any of us ever gave the least
countenance to those who, under the irapulse of a fanatical
spirit, disserainated irapious and detestable errors, Ave are no
more bound to bear the odiura of their impiety than Paul
was to bear that of Hermogenes and Philetus, Avho taught
that the resurrection was past, and all farther hope at an
end. (1 Tim. ii. 17.)
Moreover, what are the errors by which our whole doc
trine is to be covered with ignominy ? The Avicked false
hoods which he utters against others I need not refer to :
he assigns to rae one sect of his own invention. He gives
the name of Energists to those who hold that the virtue of
Christ's body only, and not the body itself, is in the Supper.
He, however, gives rae PhUip Melancthon for an associate,
and to establish both assertions, refers to ray writings against
Westphal, where the reader will find that in the Supper our
souls are nourished by the real body of Christ, which was
crucified for us, nay, that spiritual life is transferred into us
from the substance of his body. When I teach that the body
of Christ is given us for food by the secret energy of the

502 THE TRUE PARTAKING OF THE FLESH AND
Spirit, do I thereby deny that the Supper is a communion
of the body ? See how foully he employs his mouth to please
his patrons.
There is another monstrous term Avhich he has invented
for the purpose of throwing a stigma upon rae. He calls me
Bisacraraental. But if he would raake it a charge against me
that I affirm that two sacraments only Avere instituted by
Christ, he should first of all prove that he makes them sep-
teplex, as the Papists express it. The Papists obtrude seven
sacraments. I do not find that Christ committed to us more
than two. Staphylus should prove that four raore emanated
frora Christ, or allow us both to hold and speak the truth.
He cannot expect that his borabast is to make heretics of us,
while we found on the sure and clear authority of God. He
classes Luther, Melancthon, myself, and many others, as new
Manichees, and afterAvards, to lengthen the catalogue, repeats
that the Calvinists are Manichees and Mnrcionites. It is easy
indeed to pick up these reproaches like stones fromthe stieet,
and throw them at thc heads of unoffending passengers. He,
however, gives his reasons for comparing us to the Manichees,
but they are borrowed partly from a catamite, partly from a
cynical buffoon. Of what use then were it for me to clear
rayself frora the most absurd figments in AA'hich he indulges ?
I have no objection, however, to the challenge with which he
concludes, naraely, to let ray treatise on Predestination decide
the dispute : for in this way it Avill soon appear Avhat kind of
thistles (staphyli) are produced by this wild vine.
I corae now to the Cock, (Le Coq,) who with his vile beak
declares rae a corrupter of the Confession of Augsburg, be
cause denying that in the holy Supper Ave are raade partakers
of the substance of the flesh and blood of Christ. But it is
declared in my Avritings raore than a hundred times, that so
far am I frora rejecting the term substance, that I ingenu
ously and readily 'declare, that by the incomprehensible
agency of the Spirit, spiritual life is infused into us from the
substance of the flesh of Christ. I also constantly admit
that we arc substantiaUy fed on the flesh and blood of Christ,
though I discard the gross fiction of a local intermingling.
What then ? Because a cock bas thought proper to ruffle

BLOOD OF CHRIST IN THE HOLY SUPPER. 603
his feathers against rae, are all rainds to be so terror-struck
as to be incapable of judgraent ? Not to make rayself ridi
culous, I decline to give a lengthened refutation of a writing
Avhich proves its author to be no less absurd than its stolid
audacity proves hira drunk. It certainly proclaims that
Avhen he wrote he was not compos mentis.
But Avhat shall I do Avith TUeman Heshusius, Avho, magni
ficently provided with a superb and sonorous vocabulary, is
confident of prostrating by the breath of his raouth anything
that withstands his assault ? I ara also told by worthy
persons who knoAv hira better, that another kind of confi
dence inflates him ; that he has raade it his special determi
nation to acquire farae by adA-ancing paradoxes and absurd
opinions. It raay be either because an intemperate nature
so hurries hira, or because a raoderate course of doctrine
leaves him no place for applause, on Avhich his Avliole soul is
bent even to madness. His tract certainly proves hira to be
a man of turbulent teraper, as well as headlong audacity and
presumption. To give the reader a sample, I will only men
tion a few things frora the preface. He does the very sarae
thing AA'hich Cicero describes to have been done by the silly
ranters of his day, when, by a plausible exordiura stolen frora
some ancient oration, they gave hopes of gaining the prize.
In like manner this fine Avriter, to seize upon the minds of the
readers, collects from his master Melancthon apt and elegant
sentences by which he may ingratiate himself or give an air
of majesty, just as if an ape Avere to get clothed in purple, or
an ass to cover himself Avith a lion's skin. He harangues
about the huge dangers he has run, though he has always
hugged his delicacies no less securely than luxuriously.
He talks of his raanifold toUs, though he has large treasures
laid up at horae, has always sold his labours at a high rate,
and by himself alone consumes the whole. It is true, indeed,
that from raany places where he wished to raake a quiet
nest for himscif, he has been repeatedly driven by his own
restlessness. Thus expelled from Gossler, Rostoch, Heidel
berg, Bremen, he lately withdrcAV to Magdeburg. Such ex
pulsions were raeritorious, had he been forced repeatedly to
change his soU frora a constant adherence to the truth ; but

504 THE TRUE PARTAKING OF THE FLESH AND
when a man full of insatiable ambition, addicted to strife
and quarrelling, makes hiraself everywhere intolerable by his
savage temper, there is no ground for this complaining of
having been injuriously harassed by others, Avhen his luxu
rious habits Avere disturbed by his own unseasonable con
duct. Still, however, he was provident enough to take care
that his migrations should not be attended with damage ;
nay, riches only stimulated him.
He next bewails the vast barbarism which appears to be
impending ; as if any greater or worse barbarism Avere to be
feared than that frora hira and his fellows. To go no further
for a proof, let the reader consider how fiercely he sneers and
tears at his master, Philip Melancthon, whose meraory he ought
sacredly to revere. He does not indeed raention him by name,
but Avhom does he mean by the supporters of our doctrine who
stand high in the Church for influence and learning, and are
most distinguished theologians ? Indeed, not t,o leave the
matter to conjecture, he, by his opprobrious epithets, points to
Philip as it were with the finger, and even seems, in writing
his book, to have gone out of his way in search of materials
for traducing him. Well, he could not treat his preceptor
more modestly than by charging him with perfidy and sacri
lege ! He hesitates not to accuse him of deceit in employing
ambiguous terms in order to please both parties, and thus
attempting to settle strife by the arts of Theramenes. Then
coraes the heavier charge, that he incurred the guilt of a
most pernicious crime in aiming to extinguish the confession
of faith, which ought to be conspicuous in the Church. Such
is the pious gratitude of the scholar not only towards the
raaster to whora he owes any little learning he may possess,
but towards a man who has deserved so highly of the whole
Church. When he charges me with having introduced perplexity
into the discussion by my subtleties, the discussion itself
wiU show what foundation there is for the charge ; but
when he gives the narae of Epicurean dograa to the explana
tion which we give, no less religiously than usefully, in re
gard to the ordinance of the Supper, what else is it than to
vie in licentious talk with pimps and debauchees ? Let him

BLOOD OF CHRIST IN THE HOLV SUPPER. 505
look for Epicurism in his own habits. Assuredly both our
fragality and assiduous labours for the Church, our con
stancy amid danger, dUigence in the discharge of our office,
unwearied zeal in propagating the kingdora of Christ, and
integrity in asserting the doctrine of piety — in short, our
serious exercise in meditating on the heavenly life, Avill tes
tify that there is nothing less accordant Avith our disposition
thau a profane contempt of God, of Avhich it would be well
if the conscience of this Thraso did not accuse him. But I
have said more of the man than I intended.
LeaA-ing him, therefore, I purpose briefly to discuss the
cause, feeling, that Avith such as he a raore accurate discus
sion Avere superfluous. For though there is some show about
him, he does nothing raore by his raagniloquence than vend
the old follies and frivolities of Westphal and his fellows. He
harangues loftily on the oranipotence of God, on putting im
plicit faith in his Avord, and subduing human reason, in terms
he may have leamed from other sources, of Avhich I believe
myself also to be one. I have no doubt, from his childish
stolidity in glorying, that he iraagines himself to combine
the qualities of Melancthon and Luther. Frora the one
he ineptly borrows flowers, and having no better Avay of
rivalling the veheraence of the other, he substitutes bombast
and sound. But Ave have no dispute as to the boundless
power of God ; and all my writings declare, that far from
measuring the mystery of the Supper by human reason, I
look up to it with devout adrairation. All Avho in the pre
sent day contend strenuously for the candid defence of the
truth, will readily admit me into their society. I have
proved by fact, that in treating the mystery of the Holy Sup
per, I do not refuse credit to the word of God ; and therefore
when Heshusius vociferates against me for doing so, he only
in the raost offensive raanner raakes all good raen witnesses
to his raaiice and ingratitude. Were it possible to bring
him back from vague and sportive flights to a serious dis
cussion of the subject, a few words would suffice.
When he alleges the sluggishness of princes as the obstacle
which prevents a holy synod from being asserabled to settle
disputes, I wish that he himself, and similar furies, did not

506 THE TRUE PARTAKING OF TIIE FLESH AND
obstruct all means of concord. This he does not disguise a
little farther on, when he denies the expediency of any dis
cussion between us. What pious synod then would suit his
choice, unless it were one in Avliich two hundred of his com
panions or thereabouts, well-fed to raake their zeal more
fervent, should, according to a custora which has long been
common with thera, declare us to be worse and raore execra
ble than the Papists. The only confession which they want is
a rejection of all inquiry, and an obstinate defence of any
randora fiction which may have fallen from them. It is per
fectly obvious, though the devil has fascinated their minds
in a fearful manner, that it is pride raore than error that
raakes thera so pertinacious in assailing our doctrine.
As he pretends that he is an advocate ofthe Church, and
in order to deceive the simple by fallacious masks, is ever and
anon arrogating to himself the common character of all who
teach rightly, I should like to knoAv Avho authorized him to
assume this office. He is ever exclairaing : We teach ; This
is our opinion ; Thus Ave speak ; So we assert. Let the far
rago Avhich Westphal has huddled together be read, and a
strange repugnance will be found. Not to go farther for an
exaraple, Westphal boldly affirms that the body of Christ is
chewed by the teeth, and confirms it by quoting Avitli appro
bation the recantation of Berengarius, as giA'cn by Gratian.
This does not please Heshusius, who insists that it is eaten
by the mouth but not touched by the teeth, and greatly dis
approves those gross modes of eating. And yet he reiterates
his Asserimus, (we assert,) just as if he were the representa
tive of an university. This worthy son of Jena repeatedly
charges me with subtleties, sophisms, nay, impostures : as if
there were any equivocation or ambiguity, or any kind of
obscurity in ray mode of expression. When I say that the
flesh and blood of Christ are substantially offered and ex
hibited to us in the Supper, I at the same tirae explain the
mode, namely, that the flesh of Christ becoraes vivifying to
us, inasrauch as Christ, by the incoraprehensible agency of
his Spirit, transfuses his own proper life into us from the
substance of his flesh, so that he himself lives in us, and his
life is common to us. Who wUl be persuaded by Heshusius

BLOOD OF CHRIST IN THE HOLY SUPPER. 507
that there is any sophistry in this clear statement, in which
I both use popular terras and satisfy the ear of the learned ?
Would he only desist frora the futile calumnies by which he
darkens the cause, the whole point would at once be decided.
After Heshusius has exhausted all his bombast, the whole
question hinges on this, Does he who denies that the body
of Christ is eaten by the mouth, take away the substance
of his body from the sacred Supper? I come to close
quarters at once Avith the man who maintains that we are
not partakers of the substance of the flesh of Christ, unless
we eat it with our raouths. His expression is, that the very
substance of the flesh and blood raust be taken by the
mouth; whereas I define the mode of coraraunication without
ambiguity, by saying, that Christ by his boundless and won
drous power unites us into the sarae life Avith himself, and
not only applies the frait of his passion to us, but becomes
truly ours by coraraunicating his blessings to us, and accord
ingly conjoins us to himself in the same Avay in which head
and members unite to forra one body. I do not restrict this
union to the divine essence, but affirm that it belongs to
the flesh and blood, inasmuch as it was not simply said. My
Spirit, but. My flesh is meat indeed ; nor was it siraply said.
My Divinity, but. My blood is drink indeed.
Moreover, I do not interpret this coraraunion of flesh and
blood as applying only to the comraon nature, in respect that
Christ, by becoming man, made us sons of God with himself
by virtue of fraternal feUowship ; but I distinctly affirm, that
our flesh Avhich he assumed is vivifying by becoming the
material of spiritual life to us. And I willingly embrace the
saying of Augustine, As Eve was formed out of a rib of Adara,
so the origin and beginning of life to us floAved frora the side
of Christ. And although I distinguish between the sign and
the thing signified, I do not teach that there is only a bare
and shadowy figure, but distinctly declare that the bread is
a sure pledge of that coraraunion with the flesh and blood
of Christ which it figures. For Christ is neither a painter,
nor a player, nor a kind of Archiraedes, who presents an
empty iraage to amuse the eye, but he truly and in reality
. performs what he, proraises by an external syrabol. Hence

508 THE TRUE PARTAKING OF THE FLESH AND
I conclude that the bread whicii Ave break is truly the com
munion of the body of Christ. But as this connection of
Christ with his merabers depends on his incomprehensible
energy, I ara not asharaed to adraire this mystery Avhich I
feel and acknowledge to transcend the reach of my mind.
Here our Thraso makes an uproar, and cries out that it is
great impudence as well as sacrilegious audacity to corrupt
thc plain Avord of God, which declares. This is my body —
that one raight as well deny the Son of God to be man. But
I rejoin, that if he would evade this very charge of sacrile
gious audacity, he raust on his own terras becorae an anthro
pomorphite. He insists that no amount of absurdity shall
induce us to change one syllable. Hence as the Scripture dis
tinctly attributes to God feet, hands, eyes, and ears, a throne,
and a footstool, it follows that he is corporeal. As he is said in
the song of Miriam to be a man of Avar, (Ex. xv.,) it will not
be lawful by any congruous exposition to soften this harsh
mode of expression. Let Heshusius get into the heroics if
he will, his insolence cannot withstand this strong and in
vulnerable argument. The ark of the covenant is distinctly
called the Lord of hosts, and indeed with such asseveration
that the Prophet emphatically exclaims, (Ps. xxiv.,) Who is
this king of glory ? Jehovah himself is king of hosts.
Here we do not say that the Prophet inconsiderately gave
utterance to that whicii at first glance is seen to be absurd, as
this felloAv wickedly babbles ; but after reverently embracing
what he says, we no less piously than aptly interpret that the
name of God is transferred to a symbol because of its insepar
able connection with the thing and reality. Nay, this is a
general rule in regard to all the sacraments, which not only
huraan reason corapels us to adopt, but which a sense of piety
and the uniforra usage of piety dictate. No raan is so ignor
ant or senseless as not to know that in all the sacraments
the Spirit of God by the Prophets and Apostles employs this
peculiar form of expression. Nay, one who will dispute this
should be sent to his rudiments. Jacob saw the Lord of hosts
sitting on a ladder. Moses saw hira both in a burning bush
and in the flarae of Mount Horeb. If the letter is pertina
ciously clung to, how could God, who is invisible, be seen ?

BLOOD OF CHRIST IN THE HOLY SUPPER. 509
Heshusius repudiates exaraination, and leaves us no other
resource than to shut our eyes and acknoAvledge that God is
visible and invisible. But an explanation at once clear and
accordant with piety, and in fact necessary, spontaneouslypre-
sents itself, viz., that God is never seen as he is, but gives mani
fest signs of his presence adapted to the cajiacity of believers.
In this Avay there is no exclusion of the presence of the
divine essence when the narae of God is raetonyraically
applied to the syrabol by AA-liich God represents hiraself
truly — not figuratively raerely but substantially. A dove is
called the Spirit. Is this to be strictly taken, just as when
Christ declares that God is a Spirit? (Matt. iii. 13 ; John
iv. 24.) Surely a manifest difference is apparent. For
although the Spirit was then truly and essentially present,
he however displayed the presence both of his virtue and
his essence by a visible symbol. How Avicked it is in Heshu
sius to accuse us of feigning a symbolical body is clear
from this, that no candid man infers that a symbolical Spirit
was seen in the baptism of Christ, frora his having truly ap
peared under the symbol or external appearance of a dove.
We acknowledge then, that in the Supper we eat the sarae
body which was crucified, although the expression in regard
to the bread is raetonyraical, so that it may be truly said to
be symbolically the real body of Christ, by the sacrifice of
which we have been reconciled to God. And though there
is some diversity in the expressions. The bread is a sign, or
figure, or symbol of the body ; and The bread signifies the
body, or is a metaphorical, or raetonyraical, or synecdochical
expression for it, they perfectly agree in substance, and
therefore it is raere trifling in Westphal and Heshusius to
start difficulties Avhere none exist.
A little farther on he starts off in a different direction,
and says, that whatever may be the variety in expression, we
all hold the vcry same sentiraents, but that I alone deceive
the simple by ambiguities. But Avhere are the ambiguities,
on the removal of which my deceit is to stand detected ?
Perhaps his rhetoric can furnish a new kind of perspicuity
which will clearly manifest my alleged equivocation. Mean
while he unworthily includes us aU in the charge of teach
ing that the bread is the sign of the absent body, as if I had

510 THE TRUE PARTAKING OF THE FLESH AND
not long ago distinctly adraonished my readers of two kinds of
absence, to acquaint thera that the body of Christ is indeed
absent in respect of place, but that Ave enjoy a spiritual parti
cipation in it, every obstacle from distance being surmounted
by his divine energy. Hence it follows, that our dispute
relates neither to presence nor to substantial eating, but
only as to the raode of both. We neither adrait a local pre
sence, nor that gross or rather brutish eating of which
Heshusius talks so absurdly when he says, that Christ in
respect of his huraan nature is present on the earth in the
substance of his body and blood, so that he is not only eaten
in faith by his saints, but also by the raouth bodily without
faith by the wicked.
Without adverting at present to the absurdities here in
volved, I ask, where is the true touchstone, the express declar
ation ofthe word of God ? Assuredly it cannot be found in the
barbarous terras now quoted. Let us see, however, what the
explanation is which he thinks sufficient to stop the mouths
of the Calvinists — an explanation so senseless that it must
rather open their mouths to protest against it. He vindicates
hiraself and the churches of his party frora the error of tran
substantiation with which he falsely aUeges that we charge
thera. For though they have raany things in coraraon with
the Papists, we do not therefore confound thera together and
leave no distinction. I should rather say, it is long since I
showed that the Papists in their drearas are considerably mcfre
raodest and more sober. And what does he hiraself say ? As
the words are joined together contrary to the order of nature,
it is right to raaintain the literal sense by which the bread
is properly the body. The words therefore, to be accordant
with the thing, behove to be pronounced contrary to the order
of nature.
He afterwards excuses their different forras of expression,
when they assert that the body is under the bread or with
the bread. But how will he persuade any one that it is
under the bread, unless it be in respect that the bread is a
sio-n ? How, too, will he persuade any one that the bread
is not to be worshipped if it be properiy Christ ? The ex
pression, that the body is in the bread or under the bread,
he calls iraproper, because the substantial word has its

BLOOD OF CHRIST IN THE HOLY SUPPER. oil
proper and genuine signification in the union of the bread
and Christ. In A-ain, therefore, does he refute the inference
that the body is in the bread, and therefore the bread should
be worshipped. This inference is the invention of his own
brain. The arguraent Ave havc always used is this. If Christ
is in the bread, he should be Avorshipped under the bread.
Much raore raight Ave argue, that the bread should be Avorship
ped if it be truly and properly Christ.
He thinks he gets out of the difficulty by saying, that
the union is not hypostatical. But who will concede to a
hundred or a thousand Heshusiuses the right to lay wor
ship under whatever restrictions they please ? Assuredly
no man of sense vvill be satisfied in conscience with the silly
quibble, that the bread, though it is truly and properly
Christ, is not to be worshipped, because they are not hypo-
statically one. The answer Avill instantly occur, that things
must be the sarae when the one is substantiaUy predi
cated of the other. The words of Christ do not speak of
anything accidental to the bread, but if we are to believe
Heshusius and his fellows, they plainly and unarabiguously
assert, that the bread is the body of Christ, and therefore
Christ hiraself Nay, they affirra raore of the bread than
can be lawfully affirmed of the human nature of Christ.
But how monstrous is it to give more honour to the bread
than to our Saviour's sacred flesh ? Of this flesh it cannot
trhly be affirmed, as they insist on affirming in regard to
the bread, that it is properly Christ. Though he raay deny
that he iraagines any coraraunity of being (/Merovaia,) I
wiU always force hira to admit, that if the bread is properly
the body, it is one and the same with the body. He sub
scribes to the sentiment of Irenseus, that there are two
different things in the Supper — an earthly and a heavenly,
namely, the bread and the body. But I not do see how
this can be reconcUed Avith the fictitious identity, which,
though he does not express it in a word, he certainly asserts
in fact, inasmuch as things must be the same whenever we
can say of them. That is this. This is that.
The same reasoning applies to the local inclosing which
Heshusius pretends to repudiate, when he says, that Christ

512 THE TRUE PARTAKING OF THE FLESH AND
is not contained by place, and can be at the same time in
several places. To vindicate hiraself, he says, that the bread
is the body not only properly, truly, and really, but also de
finitively. Should I answer that I cannot give any meaning
to these monstrous contradictions, he Avill meet me with
what he and his felloAvs bring forward on all occasions as a
shield of Ajax — that reason is inimical to faith. This I
readily grant if he is to be regarded as a rational animal.
Three kinds of reason are to be considered, but he at one
bound overleaps them all There is a reason naturally im
planted Avliich cannot be condemned without insult to God,
but it has limits Avliieh it cannot overstep without being
immediately lost. Of this we have a sad proof in the fall of
Adara. There is another kind of reason Avhich is vicious,
especially in a corrupt nature, and is manifested when mor
tal raan, instead of receiving divine things with reverence,
would subject thera to his own judgment. This reason is
mental intoxication, or pleasing insanity, and is at eternal
variance Avith the obedience of faith, since we must becorae
fools in ourselves before we can begin to be wise unto Qod.
In regard to heavenly mysteries, therefore, we must abjure
this reason, which is nothing better than mere fatuity, and
if accompanied with arrogance, groAvs to the height of mad
ness. But there is a third kind of reason, Avhich both the
Spirit of God and Scripture sanction. Heshusius, however,
disregarding all distinction, confidently condemns, under the
narae of huraan reason, everything which is opposed to thc
frenzied dreara of his own raind.
He charges us Avith paying raore deference to reason than to
the Avord of God. But what if we adduce no reason that is not
derived from the word of God and founded on it? Let him show
that we profanely philosophize on the mysteries of God, that
we measure his heavenlykingdom by our sense, that we subject
the oracles ofthe Holy Spirit to the judgraent ofthe flesh, that
we admit nothing that does not approve itself to our own wis
dom. The fact is far otherwise. For what is more repugnant
to human reason than that souls imraortal by creation, should
derive life from mortal flesh ? This we assert. What is less
accordant with earthly wisdom, than that the flesh of Christ

BLOOD OP CHRIST IN THE HOLY SUPPER. 513
should infuse its vivifying energy into us frora heaven?
What is more foreign to our sense, than that corruptible and
fading bread should be an undoubted pledge of spiritual
life? What more reraote frora philosophy, than that the
Son of God, who in respect of huraan nature is in heaven, so
dwells in us, that everything which has been given hira of
the Father is coraraon to us, and hence the iraraortality
with which his flesh has been endowed is ours ? All these
things we clearly testify, while Heshusius has nothing to
urge but his delirious dreara. That the flesh of Christ is
eaten by unbelievers, and yet is not vivifying. If he refuses
to believe that there is any reason without philosophy, let
him learn from a short syllogism : He who does not observe
the analogy between the sign and the thing signified, is an
unclean animal, not cleaving the hoof; he who asserts that
the bread is tmly and properly the body of Christ, destroys
the analogy between the sign and the thing signified ;
therefore, he who asserts that the bread is properly the
body, is an unclean aniraal, not cleaving the hoof
From this syUogism let him know, that even though there
were no philosophy in the world, he is an unclean animal.
But his object in this indiscriminate conderanation of reason,
no doubt was to procure license to his own darkness, and
give effect to the inference, that as when raention is raade of
the cracifixion, and of the benefits Avhich the living and sub
stantial body of Christ procured, the body referred to cannot
be understood to be syrabolical, typical, or allegorical, so the
words of Christ, This is my body. This is my blood, cannot
be understood symbolically or raetonyraically, but substan
tially. As if raere tyros did not see that the temi syrabol is
applied to the bread, not to the body, and that the metony
my is not in the substance of the body, but in the texture ol
the words. And yet he here exults as if he were an Olympic
victor, and bids us try the whole force of our intellect on
this argument — an argument so absurd, that I will not deign
to refute it even in jest. For while he says, that we turn
our backs, and, at the same time, stimulates himself to press
forward, his own procedure betrays his manifest inconsist
ency. He admits that we understand that the substance
VOL. II. 2 K

514 THE TRUE PARTAKING OF THE FLESH AND
of the body of Christ is given, seeing that Christ is wholly
ours by faith. It is well that he harmlessly butts at the air
with his own horns, and raakes it unnecessary for us to be on
our guard. I would ask, if we turn our backs when we thus
distinctly expose his calumny in regard to an allegorical
body ? But as if he had fallen into a fit of forgetfulness,
after he has come to hiraself, he brings a new plea, and
charges us with holding the absence of the body, telling us
that the giving of which we speak, has no raore effect than
the giving of a field to one who was to be iramediately re
moved frora it. How dare he thus liken the incomparable
virtue of the Holy Spirit to lifeless things, and represent
the gathering of the produce of a field, as equivalent to that
union with the Son of God, which enables our souls to ob
tain life from his body and blood ? Surely in this matter
he overacts the rustic. I raay add, that it is false to say
that we expound the words of Christ as if the thing were
absent, when it is perfectly well known that the absence of
which we speak is confined to place and actual sight. Al
though Christ does not exhibit his flesh as present to our
eyes, nor by change of place descend frora his celestial glory,
we raaintain that there is nothing in this distance to pre
vent hira frora being truly united to us.
But let us attend to the kind of presence for which he in
sists. At first sight his view seeras calra and sensible. He
adraits that Christ is everywhere by a coraraunication of
properties, as was taught by the fathers, and that, accord
ingly, it is not the body of Christ that is everywhere, the
ubiquity being ascribed in the concrete to the whole person
in respect of the union of the Divine nature. This is so ex
actly our doctrine, that one is terapted to think he means
to curry favour with us by disguising his own. Nor have
we any difficulty in agreeing with him, when he adds, that
it is impossible to comprehend how the body of Christ is in
a certain part of heaven, above the heavens, and yet the per
son of Christ is everywhere, ruling in equal poAver with the
Father. Nay, it is notorious to all, how violently I have
been assaUed by his party for the defence of this very doe-
trine. And in order to express this in a still raore palpable

BLOOD OF CHRIST IN THE HOLY SUPPER. 515
form, I employed the trite dictum of the schools, that Christ
is whole everywhere, but not AvhoUy, (totus ubique sed non
totum;) in other Avords, in his entire person of Mediator he
fills heaven and earth, though in his flesh he is in heaven,
which he has chosen as the abode of his human nature,
until he appear to judgment. What then prevents us frora
adopting this evident distinction, and agreeing with each
other? Siraply, because Heshusius iraraediately perverts
what he had said, and insists that Christ did not exclude
his human nature AA-hen he proraised to be present on the
earth. Shortly after, he says, that Christ is present with his
Church, dispersed in different places, and this in respect not
only of his Divine, but also of his huraan nature. In a
third passage he is still plainer, and raaintains, that there
is no absurdity in holding that he raay, in respect of his
human nature, exist in different places wherever he pleases.
And he rudely rejects what he terras the physical axiora, that
one body cannot be in different places. What can now be
clearer than that he holds the body of Christ to be immense,
and imagines a monstrous ubiquity ? A little before he had
admitted, that the body is in a certain place in heaven, now
he assigns it different places. This is to lacerate the body,
and refuse to raise his heart upwards.
He objects that Stephen was not carried above all heavens
to see Jesus ; as if I had not repeatedly disposed of this
quibble. As Christ was not recognised by his two disciples
when he sat familiarly with them at the same table, not on
account of any metamorphosis, but because their eyes were
holden ; so eyes were given to Stephen to penetrate even to
the heavens. Surely it is not without cause mentioned
by Luke, that he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and beheld
the glory of God. Nor without cause does Stephen himself
declare, that the heavens Avere opened to hira, so that he
beheld Jesus standing on the right hand of his Father.
This, I presurae, raakes it plain, how absurdly Heshusius
endeavours to bring hira down to the earth. With equal
shrewdness he infers, that Christ was on the earth when he
showed himself to Paul ; as if we had never heard of that
carrying up to the third heaven, which Paid himself so mag-

516 THE TRUE PARTAKING OF THE FLESH AND
nificently proclairas. What says Heshusius to this? His
words are : Paul could not be translated above all heavens,
whither the Son of God ascended. I have nothing to add,
but that no degree of conterapt can be too great for the man
who thus dares to give the lie to Paul when testifying of
himself But it is said, that as Christ distinctly offers his
body in the bread, and his blood in the wine, all pertness
and curiosity must be curbed. This I adrait ; but it does
not follow that we are to shut our eyes in order to exclude
the rays of the sun. Nay, rather, if the raystery is deserving
of conteraplation, it becoraes us to consider in what way
Christ can give us his body and blood for raeat and drink.
For if the whole Christ is in the bread, nay, if the bread it
self is Christ, we may with more trath affirm, that the body
is Christ — an affirraation not more abhorrent to piety than
to common sense. But if we refuse not to raise our hearts
upwards, we shall feed on Christ entire, as well as expressly
on his fiesh and blood. And indeed when Christ invites us
to eat his body, and to drink his blood, there is no necessity
to bring hira down from heaven, or require his actual pre
sence in several places, in order to put his body and his blood
within our lips. Amply sufficient for this purpose is the
sacred bond of union with him, when we are united into one
body by the secret agency of the Spirit. Hence I agree
with Augustine, that in the bread we receive that which
hung upon the cross ; but I utterly abhor the delirious fancy
of Heshusius and his feUows, that it is not received unless it
is introduced into the carnal mouth. The coraraunion of
which Paul discourses does not require any local presence,
unless we are to hold, that Paul, in teaching that we are
called to communion with Christ, (1 Cor. i. 9,) either speaks
of a nonentity, or places Christ locally wherever the gospel
is preached. The dishonesty of this babbler is intolerable, when he says,
that I confine the term Koivavia to the fellowship which we
have with Christ, by partaking of his benefits. But before
proceeding to discuss this point, it is necessary to see how in
geniously he escapes from us. When Paul says, that those
who eat the sacrifice are partakers ofthe altar, (1 Cor. ix. 13,)

BLOOD OF CHRIST IN THE HOLY SUPPER. 51 7
this skilful expounder gives as the reason, that each receives
a part from the altar, and from this he concludes, that my
interpretation is false. But Avhat interpretation ? Only that
which he has coined out of his own brain ; coraraunion, as
stated by rae, being not only in the fruit of Christ's death,
but also in his body offered for our salvation. But this in
terpretation also, Avhich he regards as different from the
other, is rejected by hira as excluding the presence of Christ
in the Supper. Here let my readers carefuUy attend to the
kind of presence Avhich he imagines, and to which he clings
so doggedly, that he can almost regard the communion
which John the Baptist had with Christ as a mere nullity,
provided he is allowed to hold that the body of Christ was
swaUowed by Judas. I Avould ask this reverend doctor how,
if those are partakers of the altar who divide the sacrifice
into parts, he can exonerate himself from the charge of rend
ing whUe he gives each his part ? If he ansAvers, that this
is not what he raeans, let hira correct his expression. He
must, at aU events, surrender what he regarded as the cita
del of his defence, and desist from asserting that I leave
nothing in the Supper but a right to a thing that is absent,
seeing I uniformly maintain, that through the agency of the
Spirit there is a present exhibition of the thing, though it
is absent in respect of place. Still, while I refuse to sub
scribe to the barbarous eating, by which he insists that
Christ is swallowed by the mouth, he will continue, as before,
to give vent in invective to his implacable fuiy. Verbally,
indeed, he denies that he inquires concerning the raode of
presence, and yet he insists no less absurdly than iraperi
ously on the reception of his raonstrous dograa, that the
body of Christ is eaten corporeally by the mouth. These,
indeed, are the very words he employs. In another passage,
he says. We assert not only that we becorae partakers of the
body of Christ by faith, but that also by our mouths we
receive Christ essentially or corporeally within us ; and in
this way we testify that we give credit to the words of St.
Paul and the evangelists.
But we, too, reject the sentiraents of all Avho deny the
presence of Christ in the Supper, and I therefore ask what

518 THE TRUE PARTAKING OF THE FLESH AND
the kind of presence is for which he quarrels with us ? Ob
viously that which is dreamt by himself and othe;-s who
share in his frenzy. To cloak such gross fancies with the
names of Paul and the evangelists is the height of effrontery.
With them for his witnesses, how will he prove that the
body of Christ is taken by the mouth both corporeally and
internally ? He has elsewhere acknowledged that it is not
chewed by the teeth nor touched by the palate. Why should
he be so afraid of the touch of the palate or throat, while he
ventures to assert that it is absorbed by the bowels ? What
does he raean by the expression " witliin us ?" (intra nos.)
By what is the body of Christ received after it has passed
the mouth ? After the mouth, if I mistake not, the passage
of the body is to the viscera or intestines. If he say that
we are calumniously throwing odium on him by the use of
offensive terms, I should like to know what difference there
is between saying that that which is received by the mouth
is taken corporeally within, and saying that it passes into
the viscera or intestines ? Henceforth let the reader under
stand, and be careful to remeraber, that whenever Heshusius
charges rae with denying the presence of Christ in the Sup
per, the only thing for which he blaraes me is for thinking
it absurd to hold that Christ is swallowed by the mouth, and
passes bodily into the stomach. And yet he complains that I
sport ambiguous expressions ; as if it were not my perspi
cuity that maddens him and his associates. Of what ambi
guity can he convict me ? He admits that I assert the true
and substantial eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood
of Christ ; but he says, that when my raeaning is investi
gated, I speak of the receiving of raerit, fruit, efficacy, virtue,
and power, descending from heaven. Here his malignant
absurdity is seen not darkly, but as in open day, while he
confounds virtue and power with raerit and fruit. Is it
usual for any one to say that raerit descends from heaven ?
Had he one particle of candour, he would have quoted me
as either speaking or writing in such terras as these, — To
our having substantial communion with the flesh of Christ
there is no necessity for any change of place, since, by the
secret virtue of the Spirit, he infuses his life into us from

BLOOD OF CHRIST IN THE HOLY SUPPER. 619
heaven. Distance does not at all prevent Christ from dwell
ing in us, or us from being one with him, since the efficacy
of the Spirit surmounts all natural obstacles.
A little farther on Ave shall see how shamefully he con
tradicts himself when he quotes my words. The blessings of
Christ do not belong to us until he has hiraself becorae ours.
Let him go now, and by employing the term merit mystify
the nature of the coraraunion which I clearly teach. He
argues that if Christ is in heaven he is not in the Supper,
that instead of him we have syrabols raerely ; as if the Sup
per were not to the trae worshippers of God a heavenly action,
or a kind of vehicle which carries thera above the world. But
what is this to Heshusius, who not only halts on the earth,
but does all he can to keep grovelling in the raire ? Paul
teaches that in baptisra we put on Christ. (Gal. iii. 27.)
How acutely will Heshusius argue that this cannot be if
Christ remain in heaven ? When Paul spoke thus it never
occurred to him that Christ raust be brought down frora
heaven, because he knew that he is united to us in a different
manner, and that his blood is not less present to cleanse our
souls than water to cleanse our bodies. If he rejoins that
there is a difference betAveen "eating" and " putting on," I
answer, that to surround us with clothing is as necessary in
the latter case as the intemal reception of food is in the
former. Indeed, nothing more is needed to prove the folly
or malice of the man than his refusal to admit any but a
local presence. Though he denies it to be physical, and even
quibbles upon the point, he however places the body of Christ
wherever the bread is, and accordingly raaintains that it is
in several places at the same time. As he does not hesitate
so to express himself, why may not the presence for which
he insists be termed local ?
Of a similar nature is his objection that the body is not
received traly if it is received symbolically ; as if by a true
symbol we excluded the exhibition of the reality. He ulti
mately says it is mere imposture, unless a twofold eating is
asserted, viz., a spiritual and a corporeal. How ignorantly
and erroneously he wrests the passages which relate to spi
ritual eating, I need not observe, as chUdren may see how

520 THE TRUE PARTAKING OF THE FLESH AND
ridiculous he makes himself In regard to the subject itself,
if a division is vicious when its merabers coincide with each
other, (and this is one of the flrst lessons Avhich boys learn
frora their rudiraents,) how will he escape the charge of hav
ing thus blundered ? For if there is any eating which is not
spiritual, it will follow that in the ordinance of the Supper
there is no operation of the Spirit. Thus it will naturally
be called the flesh of Christ, just as if it were a fading and
corruptible food, and the chief eamest of eternal salvation
will be unaccompanied by the Spirit. Should even this not
overcome his effrontery, I ask, whether independently of the
use of the Supper, there be no other eating than spiritual,
which according to him is opposed to corporeal ? He dis
tinctly affirms that this is nothing else than faith, by which
Ave apply to ourselves the benefits of Christ's death. What
then becomes of the declaration of Paul, That we are flesh of
the flesh of Christ, and bone of his bones? (Eph. v. SO.)
What will become ofthe exclaraation. This is a great mystery?
For if with the exception ofthe application of merit, nothing-
is left to believers beyond the present use of the Supper, the
head Avill ahvays be separated frora the members, except at
the particular moment when the bread is put into the mouth
and throat. We may add on the testiraony of Paul, (1 Cor. i.)
that felloAvship with Christ is the result of the gospel no less
than of the Supper. We saw a little ago in what terms
Heshusius speaks of this feUowship : but the same thing
which Paul affirm.s of the Supper he had previously affirmed
of the doctrine of the gospel. Were we to listen to this
trifler, what would become of that noble discourse in which
our Saviour proraises that his disciples should be one with
hira, as he and the Father were one? There cannot be a
doubt that he there speaks of a perpetual union.
In making this absurd division, Heshusius is not ashamed
to represent himself as an imitator of the fathers. He quotes
a passage frora Cyril on the fifteenth chapter of John : as if
CyrU did not there plainly contend that the participation
Avhich we have of Christ in the Supper proves that we are
united with him in respect of the flesh. He is disputing
Avith the Arians, who, quoting the words of Christ, That they

BLOOD OF CHRIST IN THE HOLY SUPPER. 521
may be one, as thou Father art in rae and I in thee, pre
tended to infer frora thence that the unity of Christ with the
Father was not in reality and essence, but only in consent.
Cyril, to dispose of this quibble, ansAvers, that we are essen
tially one with Christ, and in proof of it, instances the force
of the raystical benediction. Were he contending only for a
momentary coraraunion, what could be more irrelevant ?
But it is no wonder that Heshusius thus betrays his utter
want of shame, since he even clairas the support of Augus
tine, who, as all the world knows, is diaraetrically opposed to
hira. He says, that Augustine distinctly admits (Serra. 2
de Verb. Dora.) that there are different raodes of eating the
flesh, and affirras that Judas and other hypocrites ate the
true flesh of Christ. But if it shaU tum out that the epithet
true is interpolated, how will Heshusius exonerate hiraself
from a charge of forgery ? Let the passage then be read,
and without a word frora me, it will be seen that Heshusius
in using the terra true fiesh, has falsified.
But he will say that a twofold eating is there mentioned:
as if the sarae distinction did not everywhere occur in our
writings also. Augustine there eraploys the terms flesh and
sacrament of flesh indiscriminately in the same sense. (Ep.
23, ad Bonif) This he has also done in several other passages.
If an explanation is asked, there cannot be a clearer interpre
ter than himself He says, that frora the reserablance vvhich
the sacraraents have to the things, they often receive their
names ; for which reason the sacraraent of the body of Christ
is in a manner the body of Christ. Could he testify more
clearly that the bread is termed the body of Christ not pro
perly, but because of the reserablance ? He elsewhere says,
that the body of Christ falls on the ground, but this is in
the same sense in which he says that it is consumed : Did
we not here apply the reserablance forraerly noticed, what
could be raore absurd ? nay, what a calurany would it be
against this holy writer to represent him as holding that the
body of Christ is taken into the intestines? It is long since
I accurately explained what Augustine raeans by a twofold
eating, namely, that while sorae receive the virtue of the
sacrament, others receive only a visible sacrament ; that it

522 THE TRUE PARTAKING OF THE FLESH AND
is one thing to take inwardly, another outwardly ; one thing
to eat with the heart, another to chew with the teeth. And
he at last concludes that the sacrament which is placed on
the Lord's table is taken by sorae unto destruction, by
others unto life — that the reality of which the Supper is the
sign, gives life to all who partake of it. In another passage,
also, treating in express terras of this question, he distinctly
refutes those who pretended that the wicked eat the body of
Christ not only sacramentally but in reality. (August. Hom.
26 in Joan ; De Civit. Dei, 21, c. 25 ; Contra Faust. 1. 13,
c. 13; see also in Joan. Tract. 25-27, 59.) To show our
entire agreeraent with this holy writer, Ave say that those
who are united by faith, so as to be his merabers, eat his
body truly or in reality, whereas those who receive nothing
but the visible sign, eat only sacramentally. He often ex
presses hiraself in the very sarae way.
But as Heshusius by his iraportunity compels us so often
to repeat, let us bring forward the passage in which Augus
tine says that Judas ate the bread of the Lord against the
Lord, whereas the other disciples ate the bread of the Lord.
It is certain that that pious teacher never makes a threefold
division. But why raention hira alone ? Not one of the
fathers has taught that in the Supper Ave receive anything
but that which reraains with us after the use of the Supper.
Heshusius will exclaira, that the Supper is therefore useless
to us ; for his words are, " Why does Christ by a new com
mandraent enjoin us to eat his body in the Supper, and
even give us bread, since not only hiraself, but all the pro
phets, urge us to eat the flesh of Christ by faith ? Does he
then in the Supper coraraand nothing new ?" I in my turn
ask hira, Why God anciently enjoined circumcision and sacra-
fice, and aU the exercises of faith, and also why he instituted
baptism ? Without his answer, the explanation is sufficiently
simple, viz., that God gives no more by visible signs than-
by his word, but gives in a different manner, because our
weakness stands in need of a variety of helps. He asks,
How very iraproper raust the expression be, " This cup is
the New Testaraent in my blood," if the whole is not cor
poreal ? To this we all long ago answered, that that which

BLOOD OF CHRIST IN THE HOLY SUPPER. 523
is offered to us by the gospel without the Supper is sealed
to us by the Supper, and hence coraraunion with Christ is
no less truly conferred upon us by the gospel than by the
Supper. He asks. How it is called the Supper of the " New
Testament," if types only are exhibited in it as under the
Old Testaraent ? First, I Avould beg ray readers to oppose
to these sUly objections the clear stateraents which I have
delivered in my writings ; — then they will not only find
what distinction ought to be raade between the sacraments
of the new and of the ancient Church, but will detect
Heshusius in the very act of theft, stealing everything but
his own ignorant idea, that nothing was given to the ancients
except types. As if God had deluded them with erapty
figures, or as if Paul's doctrines were nugatory, when he
teaches, that they ate the same spiritual food with us, and
drank the sarae spiritual drink. (] Cor. x. 3.) Heshusius
at last concludes — " If the blood of Christ be not given
substantiaUy in the Supper, it is absurd and contrary to
the sacred writings to give the narae of ' new covenant'
to wine, and therefore there must be two kinds of eat
ing, one spiritual and metaphorical, which was coraraon
to the fathers, and another corporeal, which is proper to
us." It were enough for rae to deny the inference whicii
might move even chUdren to laughter, but how profane
the talk which contemptuously applies the terra metapho
rical to that which is spiritual j as if he would subject the
mystical and incomprehensible virtue of the Spirit to gram
marians. Lest he should allege that he has not been corapletely
answered, I must again repeat. As God is always trae, the
figures were not fallacious by which he proraised his ancient
people life and salvation in his only begotten Son. Now,
however, he plainly represents to us in Christ the things
which he then showed as frora a distance, and hence Bap
tisra and the Supper not only set Christ before us raore fully
and clearly than the legal rites did, but exhibit him as pre
sent. Paul accordingly teaches, that we now have the body
instead of shadows, (Col. ii 18 ;) not only because Christ has
been once manifested, but because Baptism and the Supper,

524 THE TRUE PARTAKING OF THE FLESH AND
like sure pledges, confirra his presence with us. Hence ap
pears the great distinction between our sacraraents and
those of the ancient people. This, however, by no raeans de
prives thera of the reality of the things which Christ now
exhibits raore fully, clearly, and perfectly, as raight be ex
pected from his presence.
His insisting so keenly and obstinately that the unworthy
eat Christ I would leave as undeserving of refutation, were
it not that he regards this as the chief bulwark of his cause.
He calls it a grave raatter, and one fit for pious and learned
raen to raake the subject of a rautual conference. If I grant
this, how coraes it that hitherto it has been irapossible to
obtain frora his party a calra discussion of the question ? If
discussion is allowed, there will be no difficulty in arranging
it. The arguraents of Heshusius are, first : Paul distin
guishes the blessed bread frora comraon bread, not only by
the article but by the demonstrative pronoun : as if the
same distinction were not sufficiently raade by those who
call the sacred and spiritual feast a pledge and badge of our
union with Christ. The second arguraent is : Paul raore
raanifestly asserts, that the unworthy eat the flesh of Christ
when he says, that they becorae guilty of the body and
blood of Christ. But I ask, whether he raakes thera guilty
of the body as offered or as received ? There is not one syl
lable about receiving. I admit, that by partaking of the
sign they insult the body of Christ, inasmuch as they reject
the inestimable boon which is offered them. This disposes
of the objection of Heshusius, that Paul is not speaking of
the general guilt under which all the wicked lie, but teaches
that the wicked by the actual taking of the body bring
down a heavier judgraent on theraselves. It is indeed trae,
that contumely is offered to the flesh of Christ by those
Avho with impious disdain and contempt reject it when it is
held forth for food ; for we maintain, that in the Supper
Christ holds forth his body to reprobates as well as to be
lievers, but in such raanner that those who profane the
Sacraraent by unworthy receiving raake no change on its
nature, nor in any respect impair the effect of the promise.
But although Christ remains like to hiraself and true to his

BLOOD OF CHRIST IN THE HOLY SUPPER. 525
proraises, it does not follow that that which is given is re
ceived by all indiscrirainately.
Heshusius araplifies and says, that Paul does not speak of a
slight fault. Nor is it a slight fault which an Apostle denoun
ces when he says, that the wicked, even though they do not
approach the Supper, crucify to theraselves tlie Son of God,
and put him to an open sharae, and trample his sacred blood
under their feet. (Heb. vi. 6 ; x. 29.) They can do all this
without swaUowing Christ. The reader sees, whether, accord
ing to the siUy talk of Heshusius, I twist wondrously about,
and involve myself in darkness frora a hatred of the light,
when I say that men are guilty of the body and blood of
Christ when they repudiate both the gifts, to a participation
in which eternal truth invites them. But he rejoins, that this
sophisra is brushed away like a spider's web by the words of
Paul, when he says, that they eat and drink judgraent to
themselves : as if unbelievers under the law did not also eat
judgment to themselves, by presuming while impure and pol
luted to eat the paschal larab. And yet Heshusius, after his
own fashion, vaunts of having made it clear that the body of
Christ is taken by the wicked. How much more correct is the
sentiment of Augustine, that raany in the crowd press on
Christ without ever touching him ? StiU he insists, and ex
claims that nothing can be clearer than the declaration, that
the wicked do not discern the Lord's body, and that darkness
is violently and intentionally throAvn on the clearest truth by
aU who refiise to adrait that the body of Christ is taken by
the unworthy. He raight have sorae colour for this, if I de
nied that the body of Christ is given to the unworthy; but as
they impiously reject what is liberally offered to them, they
are deservedly conderaned for profane and brutish conterapt,
inasmuch as they set at nought that victim by which the sins
of the world were expiated, and men reconciled to God.
Meanwhile, let the reader observe how warra Heshusius
has waxed. He lately began by saying, that the subject
was a proper one for mutual conference between pious and
leamed men, but here he flaraes fiercely against all who
shaU presurae to doubt or inquire. In the sarae way he is
enraged at us for maintaining that the thing which the bread

526 THE TRUE PARTAKING OF THE FLESH AND
figures is conferred and perforraed not by the minister but
by Christ. Why is he not rather enraged at Augustine and
Chrysostom, the one of whora teaches that it is adrainistered
by man, but in a divine raanner — on earth, but in a heavenly
raanner, while the other speaks verbatim thus. Now Christ is
ready ; he who spread the table at which he sat now conse
crates this one. For the body and blood of Christ are not
raade by hira who has been appointed to consecrate the Lord's
table, but by hira who was cracified for us, &c. I have no
concern with the subsequent reraark of Heshusius. He says
it is a fanatical and sophistical corruption to hold, that by
the unworthy are raeant the weak and those possessed of
little faith, though not wholly aliens frora Christ. I hope
he will find sorae to answer him. But he twists about, and
tries to engage rae in the defence of another cause, in order
to overwhelra rae with the crirae of a sacrilegious and most
cruel parricide, (such is his language,) because by my doc
trine timid consciences are raurdered and driven to despair.
He asks Calvinists with what faith they can approach
the Supper — whether with a great or a little faith ? It is
easy to give the answer furnished by the Institutes, where I
distinctly refute the error of those who require a perfection
which is nowhere to be found, and by this severity keep
back frora the use of the Supper not the weak only, but
those best qualified to receive it. Nay, even our children,
by the forra which is in coraraon use, are fully instracted
how to refute the silly calumny. It is vain for hira there
fore to display his loquacity by running away frora the sub
ject. That he might not plume himself by his perforraance
in this respect, we think it proper to insert this rauch by
the Avay. He says the two things are diametrically opposed,
viz., forgiveness of sins and guilt before the tribunal of
God ; as if the least instructed did not knoAv that believers
in the same act provoke the wrath of God, and yet by his
indulgence obtain favour. We all condemn the craft of
Rebecca in substituting Jacob in the place of Esau, and
there cannot be a doubt that in the eye of God the act was
deserving of severe punishment ; yet he so mercifuUy for
gave it, that by means of it Jacob obtained the blessing. It

BLOOD OF CHRIST IN THE HOLY SUPPER. 627
is worth Avhile to obsei-ve in passing, with what acuteness he
disposes of my objection, that Christ cannot be separated
from his Spirit. His answer is, that as the words of Paul
are clear, he assents to thera. Does he raean to astonish us
by a miracle Avhen he tells us that the blind see it ? It has
been clearly enough shown that nothing of the kind is to be
seen in the words of Paul. He endeavours to disentangle
himself by saying, that Christ is present with his creatures
in many ways. But the first thing to be explained is, how
Christ is present with unbelievers, as being the spiritual food
of souls, and, in short, the life and salvation of the world.
And as he adheres so doggedly to the words, I should like
to know how the wicked can eat the" flesh of Christ which
was not cracified for thera ? and how they can drink the
blood which was not shed to expiate their sins ? I agree
with hira, that Christ is present as a strict judge when his
Supper is profaned. But it is one thing to be eaten, and
another to be a judge. When he afterwards says that the
Holy Spirit dwelt in Saul, we must send him to his rudi
ments, that he raay learn how to discrirainate between the
sanctification which is proper only to the elect and the
children of God, and the genei-al power which even the re
probate possess. These quibbles, therefore, do not in the
slightest degree affect my axiom, that Christ, considered as
the living bread and the victim iramolated on the cross, can
not enter any human body which is devoid of his Spirit.
I presume that sufficient proof has been given of the ig
norance as well as the eflfronteiy, stolidity, and petulance of
Heshusius — such proof as must not only make him offensive
to men of worth and sound judgment, but raake his own
party blush at so incorapetent a charapion. But as he pre
tends to give a confirraation of his dograa, it raay be worth
while briefly to discuss what he advances, lest his loud boast
ing should irapose upon the siraple. I have shown elsewhere,
and indeed oftener than once, how irrelevant it is here to
introduce harangues on the boundless power of God, since
the question is not what God can do, but what kind of cora
raunion with his flesh the Author of the Supper has taught
us to believe. He comes, however, to the point when he

528 THE TRUE PARTAKING OF THE FLESH AND
brings forward the expressions of Paul and the Evangelists ;
only he indulges his loquacity in giving vent to the absurdest
caluranies, as if it were our purpose to subvert the ordinance
of Christ. We have always declared, with equal good faith,
sincerity, and candour, that avc reverently erabrace what
Paul and the three Evangelists teach, provided only that
the raeaning of their words be inquired into Avith becoraing
soberness and modesty. Heshusius says, that they all speak
the same thing, so rauch so, that there is scarcely a syllable
of difference ; as if, in their raost perfect agreeraent, there
Avere not an apparent variety in the forra of expression which
raay Avell raise a question. Two of thera call the cup the
blood of the new covenant; the other two call it a new
covenant in the blood. Is there here not one syllable of
difference ? But let us grant that the four eraploy the sarae
words, and alraost the same syllables, must we forthwith
concede, as Heshusius demands, that there is no figure in
the words ? Scripture makes raention, not four, but alraost
a thousand tiraes, of the ears, eyes, and right hand of God.
If the sarae expression, four tiraes repeated, excludes all
figures, will a thousand passages have no effect at all, or a
less effect ? Be it that the question relates not to the fruit
of Christ's passion, but to the presence of his body, provided
the terra presence be not confined to place. Though I
should grant this, I deny that the point on which the ques
tion turns is, whether the words. This is ray body, are used
in a proper sense or raetonyraically, and therefore I hold
that it is absurd in Heshusius to infer the one frora the
other. Were any one to concede to hira, that the bread is
called the body of Christ, because it is an exhibitive sign,
and at the same time to add, that it is called body, essen
tially and corporeally, what ground of quarrel would he have
with him ?
The proper question, therefore, regards the raode of cora
raunication, though if he chooses to insist on the words I
have no objection. We must therefore see whether they are
to be understood sacraraentally, or as implying actual de
vouring. There is no dispute as to the body which Christ
designates, for I have declared again and again that I have

BLOOD OF CHRIST IN THE HOLY SUPPER. 529
no idea of a two-bodied Christ, and that therefore the body
which was once crucified is given in the Supper. Nay, it is
plain from ray Comraentaries how I have expounded the
passage. The bread which I will give is my flesh, which I
will give for the life of the world.
My exposition is, that there are two kinds of giving, because
the same body which Christ once offered for our salvation, he
offers to us every day as spiritual food. AU therefore that he
talks about a syrabolical body is nothing better than the slan
der of a low buffoon. It is insufferable to see hira blinding the
eye of the reader, Avhile fighting with the raasks and shadows
of his own iraagination. Equally futile is he, when he says,
that I keep talking only of fruit and efficacy. I uniformly
assert a substantial coraraunion, and only discard a local pre
sence and the figraent of an imraensity of flesh. But this
blundering expositor cannot be appeased unless we concede
to him, that the words of Paul, " the cup is the new covenant
in my blood," are equivalent to " the blood is contained in
the cup." If this be granted, he must submit to the dis
grace of retracting what he lias so pertinaciously asserted in
regard to the proper and natural raeaning of the words. For
who will be persuaded by hira that there is no figure when
the cup is caUed a covenant in blood, because it contains
blood ? I do not disguise, however, that I reject this sense
less exposition. It does not follow from it that we are re
deemed by wine, and tliat the saying of Christ is false ;
since, in order to drink the blood of Christ by faith, the
thing necessary is not that he should come down to earth;
but that we should climb up to heaven, or rather, the blood
of Christ must remain in heaven, in order that believers may
share it araong theraselves.
Heshusius, to deprive us of all sacraraental modes of ex
pression, maintains that we must learn, not from the institu
tion of the passover, but frora the words of Christ, what it is
that is given to us in the Supper ; and yet, in his giddy way,
he immediately flies off in another direction, and finds a pro
per phrase in the words. Circumcision is a covenant. But can
anything be more insufferable than a pertinacious denial, that
in accordance with the constant usage of Scripture the words
VOL. XL 2 L

530 THE TRUE PARTAKING OF THE FLESH AND
of the Supper are to be interpreted in a sacramental manner ?
Christ was a rock ; for he was spiritual food. A dove was the
Holy Spirit. The water in baptism is both the Spirit and the
blood of Christ, (otherwise it would not be the laver of the
soul.) Christ hiraself is our passover. While we are agreed
as to all these passages, and Heshusius does not dare to deny
that the forras of speech in these sacraments are similar,
why does he kick so obstinately when we corae to the Sup
per ? But he says that the words of Christ are clear. What
greater obscurity is there in the others ?
On the whole, I think I have raade it plain that he has
entirely failed, with all his empty noise, to force the words
of Christ into the support of his delirious dreara. As little
effect will he produce on raen of sense by his arguments
which he deems to be irresistible. He says, that under the
Old Testaraent all things were shadowed by types and figures,
but that in the New, figures being abolished, or rather ful
filled, the reality is exhibited. So be it ; but can he hence
infer that the water of baptism is truly, properly, really, and
substantially the blood of Christ ? Far more accurate is St.
Paul, Avho, while he teaches that the body is now substituted
for the old figures, does not mean, that what was then sha
dowed forth was completed by signs, but holds that it was
in Christ hiraself that the substance and reality were to be
sought. Accordingly, a little before, after saying that be
lievers were circuracised in Christ by the circuracision not
raade Avith hands, he iraraediately adds, that a pledge and
testiraony of this is given in baptisra, making the new sacra
raent to correspond with the old. Heshusius, after his own
fashion, quotes frora the Epistle to the Hebrews, that the
sacrifices of the Old Testament were types of the true. But
the term true is there applied not to Baptism and the Sup
per, but to the death and resurrection of Christ. I have
acknowledged already, that in Baptism and the Supper
Christ is offered otherwise than in the legal figures ; but if
the reality, of which the Apostle there speaks, is not sought
for in a higher quarter than the sacraments, it will not be
found at all. Therefore, when the presence of Christ is con
trasted with the legal shadows, it is wrong to confine it to

BLOOD OF CHRIST IN THE HOLY SUPPER. 531
the Supper, since the thing referred to is the superior raani
festation Avherein the perfection of our salvation consists.
Even were I to grant that the presence of Christ spoken of
is to be referred to the sacraraents of the New Testaraent,
this would still place Baptism and the Supper on the same
footing ; and therefore, Avhen Heshusius argues thus :
The sacraraents of the gospel require the presence of
Christ :
The Supper is a sacraraent of the gospel.
Therefore, it requires the presence of Christ :
I, in ray turn, rejoin :
Baptisra is a sacrament of the gospel.
Therefore, it requires the presence of Christ.
If he betakes hiraself to his last shift, and tell us that it
was not said in baptisra, " This is ray body," I answer, that
it is nothing to the point, which entirely depends on the dis
tinction between the Old Testaraent and the New. Let hira
cease, then, frora his fooUsh talk, that if the bread of the
Supper is the syrabol of an absent thing, it is therefore a
symbol of the Old Testaraent. The reader raust, raoreover,
remember that the controversy is not regarding every kind
of absence, but only local absence. Heshusius Avill not allow
Christ to be present with us, unless by making hiraself pre
sent in several places, wherever the Supper is administered.
Hence, too, it appears that he talks absurdly Avhen he op
poses presence to frait. The two things perfectly agree.
Although Christ is distant frora us in respect of place, he is
yet present by the boundless energy of his Spirit, so that his
flesh can give us life. He is still raore absurd when he says
that we differ in no respect frora those under the Old Testa
ment in regard to spiritual eating, because the raode of vivi
fying is one and the sarae ; and they received just as rauch
as we. But what had he said a little before ? That in the
New Testaraent are offered not the shadows of things, but
the reality itself, trae righteousness, light, and life, the true
High-Priest ; that this testaraent is established, and the
wrath of God appeased by true, not by typical blood. What
does he understand by spiritual, but just the reality, true
righteousness, light, and life ? Now he insists that aU these

532 THE TRUE PARTAKING OF THE FLESH AND
were common to the fathers, than which nothing can be
more absurd, if they are peculiar to the New Testament.
But lest I raay seera raore intent on refuting ray opponent
than on instructing ray readers, I raust briefly reraind them
that everything is subverted when he makes the fathers
equal to us in the raode of eating ; for though they had
Christ in coraraon with us, the raeasure of revelation was
by no raeans equal. Were it otherwise, there would have
been no ground for the exclamation. Blessed are the eyes
which see the things which ye see, (Matt, xiii 16 ;) and
again. The law and the prophets were until John ; Grace and
trath came by Jesus Christ. (John i. 17; Matt. xi. 13.) If
he answer, that this is his understanding, I ask whence
spiritual eating is derived ? If he admits that it is from faith,
there is a manifest difference in the very doctrine from which
faith springs : for the question here relates not to the
quantity of faith which was in individuals, but to the nature
of the proraises under the law. Who then can tolerate hira
when, snarling like a dog, he endeavours to stir up odium
against us, because we say that the light of faith now is
greater than it was under the ancient people ? He objects
by quoting our Saviour's coraplaint. When the Son of man
cometh, shall he find faith on the earth ? (Luke xviii. 8.)
To what end does he quote, unless he would on this pretext
obtain pardon for his unbelief? So be it. Christ will not
find faith in a thousand Heshusiuses, nor in the whole of his
crew. Is it not true that John the Baptist was greater than
all the Prophets, and yet that the least araong the preachers
of the gospel was greater than he ? (Luke vii. 28.) The
faith of the Galatians was not only small but almost stifled,
and yet Paul, while he compares the Prophets to children,
says, that the Galatians and other believers had no longer
any need of a pedagogue, (Gal. iii. 25,) as they had grown
up ; that is, in respect of doctrine and sacraraents, but not
of raen. So far from having profited in the gospel, Heshusius,
like an- ape decked out in silk and gold, surpasses all tbe
monks in barbarisra.
In regard to the eating of the flesh of Christ, how rauch
better our condition is than that of the fathers, I have shown

BLOOD OF CHRIST IN THE HOLY SUPPER. 533
in expounding the tenth chapter of the first Epistle to the
Corinthians. Still I differ Avidely frora those who dreara
of a corporeal eating : for although life raight be infused
from tbe substance of a flesh Avhich as yet did not exist, so
that there was truly a spiritual eating, such as Ave now have,
still a pledge was given thera of the same coraraunion.
Hence it follows, that the expression of Augustine is strictly
trae, viz., that the signs which they had differed frora ours
in visible forra, not in reality. I add, however, that the mode
of signifying was different, and the measure of grace not
equal, because the coraraunion of Christ noAv exhibited is
fuUer and more abundant, and likewise substantial.
When Heshusius says that his controversy with me relates
to the pledge, not to the reality, I wish my readers to under
stand what his raeaning is. He adraits that the fathers were
partakers of spiritual eating in an equal degree Avith us, where
as I hold that it was proportional to the nature and mode of
the dispensation. But it is evident that a pledge being in
terposed, their faith was confirraed by signs as far as the
absence of Christ adraitted. We have already said how our
pledges exhibit Christ present, not indeed in place, but be
cause they set visibly before us the death and resurrection
of Christ, Avherein consist the entire fulness of salvation.
Meanwhile, Heshusius, contradicting hiraself, disapproves of
the distinction which I raake between faith and spiritual
eating. If we are to believe hira, it is a raere sophisra. Ac
cordingly, there is no part of it which he allows to pass Avith
out carping and censure. In this way it raust be a raere
sophisra when Paul says that Christ dwells in our hearts by
faith — that we are ingrafted into his body — that we are
ci-ucified and buried with hira — in fine, that we are bone of
his bones, and flesh of his flesh, so that his life is ours. He
who sees not that these things are the fraits and effects of
faith, and therefore different from faith, is raore than blind.
Equally blind is it to deny that the inestiraable blessing of
a vivifying communion Avith Christ is obtained by us by
faith. But he cares not what confusion he causes, provided
he is not forced to acknowledge that believers without the
Supper have the very thing which they receive in the Sup-

534 THE TRUE PARTAKING OF THE FLESH AND
per. But he says that eating raust differ from sealing. It
does, but just in the same Avay as the sealing Avhich takes
place in baptism differs frora spiritual washing. Are we not,
independently of baptism, cleansed by the blood of Christ
and regenerated by the Spirit ? It is true, that to help our
infirmity a visible testimony is added, the better to confirm
the thing signified, and not only so, but to bestow in truth
and more fully that Avhich Ave receive by the faith of the
gospel even without any external action.
He here gives a display of the raalignity of his teraper,
by raaking it a ground of charge against rae, that I teach
in the catechism, that the use of the Supper is not unneces
sary, because we there receive Christ more fully, though
already, by the faith of the gospel, he is so far ours and
dwells in us. This doctrine, if we are to believe Heshusius,
is not only absurd, but insults the whole rainistry of the
gospel. Let hira then accuse Paul of blaspheray for saying
that Christ is forraed in us like the foetus in the worab.
His Avell-known words to the Galatians are, My little chil
dren, for whora I again travail as in birth until Christ Jesus
be forraed in you. (Gal. iv. 1 9.) This is not unlike what he
says in another place, Until ye grow up into a perfect man,
to tbe raeasure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. There
is no need of raany Avords to prove this ; for if Christ dwells
in us by faith, it is certain that he in a raanner grows up in
us in proportion to the increase of faith. The objection of
Heshusius is, What then is to becorae of an infant which,
iraraediately after being baptized, dies without having re
ceived the Supper? as if I were iraposing a law on God,
or denying his poAA'cr of working when he pleases, without
the aid of the Supper. For I hold Avith Augustine, that
there raay be invisible sanctification Avithout the visible sign,
just as, on the other hand, there may be the visible sign
without true sanctification. John the Baptist was never ad
raitted to the Supper, and yet surely this did not prevent him
from possessing Christ. All I teach is, that we attain to
coraraunion with Christ gradually, and that thus it was not
without cause he added the Supper to the gospel and to bap
tisra. Hence, though God calls suddenly away frora the

BLOOD OF CHRIST IN THE HOLY SUPPER. 535
world raany who are children, not in age raerely but in faith,
yet one spark from the Spirit is sufficient to give thera a life
which swallows up all that was raortal in thera, as Paul, too,
elsewhere declares. But in the eyes of Heshusius, Paul seems
to he but a raean authority, since he charges hiin Avith teaching
a doctrine which is absurd and irapious. He indeed charges
him in my name, but where is the difference, if the doctrine
is taught in Paul's words ? There is no ground therefore for
his attack upon rae for saying that the coraraunion of Christ
is conferred upon us in different degrees not raerely in the
Supper, but independently of it.
Though I deera it notorious to the whole world that our
doctrine is clearly approved by the consent of the priraitive
Church, Heshusius has again opened up the question, and
introduced certain ancient Avriters as opposed to us and in
favour of his opinion. Hitherto, indeed, I have not handled
this matter professedly, that I might not do what has been
done already. This was first perforraed with accuracy and
skiU by CEcolorapadius, who clearly showed that the figraent
of a local presence was unknown to the early Church. He
was succeeded by Bullinger, who perforraed the task with
equal felicity. The whole was crowned by Peter Martyr,
who has left nothing to be desired. As far as Westphal's
importunity corapelled rae, I believe I have satisfied sound
and impartial readers in regard to the consent of antiquity,
nay, I have said what ought to have stopped the mouths
even of the contentious. But however solid the reasons by
which they are confuted, it is like talking to the deaf, and I
shaU therefore be contented with a few brief remarks, to let
my readers see that this new antiquarian is no less absurd
and barren than Westphal was. It is rather strange that
whUe he is ashamed to use the authority of Joannes Damas-
cenus and Theophylact, he caUs thera not the least araong
ecclesiastical writers. Sound and raodest readers wiU find
more leaming and piety in a single comraentary on Matthew,
which is falsely alleged to be an unfinished work of Chry-
sostora, than in aU the theology of Daraascenus. The writer,
whoever he raay have been, distinctly says that the body of
Christ is only given to us ministerially. I thought it pro-

536 THE TRUE PARTAKING OF THE FLESH AND
per to raention this much, lest any one raight suppose that
Heshusius was acting liberally in declining the support of
Daraascenus. While I grant that he also repudiates Clement
Alexandrinus and Origen, I wish my readers to reraeraber
that he has it in his power to select frora antiquity whatever
suits his purpose. He begins with Ignatius. I wish his
writings were extant to prevent his narae from being so fre
quently eraployed as a cloak by impostors like Servetus and
Heshusius. For where i.s the candour in quoting an epistle
which scarcely one of the monkish herd would acknowledge
to be genuine ? Those who have read that silly production
know that it speaks only of Lent, and chrisra, and tapers, and
fast and festival days, which began to creep in under the
influence of superstition and ignorance long after the days of
Ignatius. But what of this fictitious Ignatius? He says
that sorae reject the Supper and oblations because they deny
that the eucharist is the fle.sh of Christ which was sacrificed
for us. But what kindred or coraraunity with those heretics
have we who look up with reverence to the eucharist, in VA-hich
we know that Christ gives us his flesh to eat ? But he will
rejoin, that the eucharist is styled the flesh. It is, but we
raust see that it is so styled iraproperly, if we would not shut
our eyes against the clearest light. The narae of eucharist
is derived either frora the act of celebration or frora both
parts of the sacraraent. Take which you please, certainly
the Uteral raeaning cannot be urged. That we may not be
obliged repeatedly to dispose of the sarae cavU, let it be un
derstood once for all that we have no quarrel with the usual
forms of expression. Early writers every vvhere call the con
secrated bread the body of Christ : for Avliy should they not
be at liberty to imitate the only begotten Son of God, on
Avhose lips we ought to hang and learn wisdora ? But how
very different is this frora the barbarous fiction, that the bread
is properly the body which is therein corporeally eaten.
With the sarae probity he classes us Avith Messalians and
enthusiasts, who denied that the use of the holy Supper does
either good or harra : as if I had not frora the first spoken
of the utility of this mystery in loftier terras than the Avhole
crew who disturb the world by raging like bacchanalians

BLOOD OF CHRIST IN THE HOLY SUPPER. 537
against me. Nay, they had kept perfect silence as to the
end for which the Supper was instituted and tbe benefit
which believers derive frora it, until the reproaches of the
godly corapelled thera to make an extract frora my writings
in order to escape from the odiura of suppressing the most
important thing contained in it. But he does not hesitate
to give us Schuencfeldius for an associate. Why do you, like
a cowardly dog, who is afraid of the wolves, only attack un
offending guests ? When Schuencfeldius Avas infecting Ger
many with his poison, avc withstood hira boldly, and thus
incurred his deepest hatred ; but now, if Heshusius is to be be
lieved, it was we that fostered hira. Then, when he involves
us in the impious dogma of Nestorius, what answer can I give,
but just that one who slanders so wickedly refutes himself?
He next comes down to Justin Martyr, whose authority I
willingly aUow to be great. But what in him is adverse to
our cause ? He says, that the bread of the Supper is not
common. The reason is, that he had previously explained
that none are admitted to partake of it but those who have
heen Washed by baptisra and have embraced the gospel.
He afterwards goes farther, As Christ was made flesh, so we
are taught that the food which was blessed by him by the
word of prayer, and by which our flesh and blood are
nourislied through transmutation, is the flesh and blood of
Christ himself The coraparison of the raystical consecration
in the Supper with the incarnation of Christ, seems to
Heshusius sufficient to carry the victory : as if Justin were
making out that the one was as miraculous as the other,
while all he raeant was, that the flesh which Christ once
assumed frora us is daily given us for food. For in confirra
ing this opinion, he is satisfied with simply quoting the
words of Christ, and contends for no more than that this
benefit is imparted to the disciples of Christ alone who have
heen initiated into trv.e piety.
I grant, Heshusius, that Irenaeus is a clearer expounder
of what is thus briefly stated by Justin. I wiU not quote all
his words, but wiU not omit anything which is pertinent.
He inveighs against heretics who maintained that flesh is not
capable of incorruption. If so, he says, neither has the Lord

538 THE TRUE PARTAKING OF THE FLESH AND
redeemed us by his own blood, nor is the cup of the euchar
ist the communion of his blood, nor the bread which we
break the coraraunion of his body. The blood coraes only
from the veins and other substance of the man in which the
Son of God truly redeemed us. And since we are his mera
bers, and are nourished by the creature, and he hiraself con
fers the creature upon us, raaking his sun to rise and rain to
descend as it pleaseth hira, he declared that that cup which
is a creature is his body by which he nourishes our bodies.
Therefore when the raingled cup and broken bread have the
word of God pronounced, there is forraed a eucharist of the
body and blood of Christ, by which the substance of our
flesh is nourished and consists. How is it denied that the
flesh is capable of the gift of God Avhich is etemal life, seeing
it is nourished by the body and blood of Christ and is his
member, as the Apostle says, We are raembers of his body
and of his bones, &c.
Let the reader attend to the design of Irenseus. He is not
discussing Avhether or not we eat Christ corporeally : he is
only contending that his flesh and blood are raeat and drink
to us, so as to infuse spiritual life into our flesh and blood. The
whole question cannot be better solved than by attending to
the context. The only coraraunion which we are there asserted
to have with Christ in the Supper is spiritual, which is both
perpetual, and is given to us independently of the use ofthe
Supper. Heshusius insists that the only way in which we re
ceive the body of Christ is corporeally and Avithin us, and there
is nothing he can less tolerate than the doctrine, that believers
are substantially conjoined Avith Christ. For throughout the
whole book he insists on it as a capital article, that spiritual
eating is nothing but faith, and that the Supper would be
an erapty shoAv, Avere not corporeal eating added, and only
at that raoraent when the bread is introduced into the mouth.
This he repeats a hundred tiraes. But what does Irenseus
say ? Surely all see, that in regard to the coraraunion which
we enjoy in the Supper, he neither thinks nor speaks differ
ently frora Paul, Avhen he says, that believers, both in life
and in death, are the raerabers of Christ, flesh of his flesh
and bone of his bones. To overcorae his stupidity, I raust

BLOOD OF CHRIST IN THE HOLY SUPPER. 539
speak in still plainer terras. He wishes to prove, from the
words of Irenseus, that the body of Christ is received not
only in a spiritual raanner, but corporeally by the mouth,
and that it is heretical to acknoAvledge only the spiritual
eating of which our Saviour discourses in the sixth chapter
of John, and Paul in the fifth chapter of the Ephesians ;
because corporeal eating cannot laAvfuUy be disjoined from
bread. What does Irenseus ansAver ? That avc are nourished
by bread and wine in the sacred Supper, as Paul declares,
that we are members of Christ. There is an end, therefore,
to that distinction between corporeal and spiritual eating in
which he boasted and gloried as the hingeing point of the
whole controversy. Who wiU believe him, vvhen he says, that
this is sophistry ? Irenseus affirras that the two propositions.
This is my body, and, We are the members of Christ, are the
same both in degree and quality, whereas our censor ex
claims, that unless the two be separated, all piety is subverted
and God is denied. Nay, he distinctly applies the terra
Epicureans to those Avho think that nothing more is con
ferred in the Supper than to raake us one body with Christ.
Our view is not affected by the doctrine delivered on the
subject, with one consent, by Tertullian and Hilary, viz., that
our flesh is nourished by the flesh of Christ, in hope of eter
nal life ; for they do not point to such a mode as Heshusius
imagines. On the contrary, they remove all ambiguity, by
referring to the perpetual union which we have with Christ,
and teaching that it is the effect of faith, whereas, according
to Heshusius, corporeal eating is confined to the Supper, and
is as different from spiritual as earth is frora heaven. Hi
lary says, (Lib. 8, de TrinUate,) As to the reality of the flesh
and blood, there is no roora left for ambiguity. For now, both
by the declaration of our Lord himself, and our faith, they
are raeat indeed and drink indeed : and these when received
and taken, cause us to be in Christ and Christ to be in us.
Is not this reality? He hiraself then is in us through his
flesh, and we are in hira, while that which we are with him
is in' God. That we are in him by the sacrament of com
municated flesh and blood, he himself declares when he says.
The world now seeth rae not, but ye shall see rae ; be-

540 THE TRUE PARTAKING OF THE FLESH AND
cause I live, ye shall live also ; because I am in the Father,
and you in rae. (John xiv. 19.) If he wished unity of
will only to be understood, why did he point out a certain
degree and order of corapleting the union ? Just because,
while he is in the Father by the nature of his diA'inity, we
are in hira by his corporeal nativity, and he, on the other
hand, is in us by the raystery of the sacraraents. Thus
perfect union was taught by the Mediator: while, we re
raaining in him, he remained in the Father, and remaining
in the Father, reraained in us — thus, advancing us to unity
with the Father, since while he is naturally in the Father in
respect of nativity, we are naturaUy in him, and he remains
naturally in us. That there is this natural unity in us, he
himself thus declared. Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh
my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. (John vi. 56.) For
none will be in him save those in whom he himself shall have
been, having in himself only the assumed flesh of him who
has taken his own. Shortly after he says. This is the cause
of our life, that we who are in ourselves carnal, have life
abiding in us by the flesh of Christ. Although he repeatedly
says, that we are naturally united to Christ, it is apparent
from this short sentence, that his only object is to prove that
the life of Christ abides in us, because we are one with him.
No less clearly does Irenseus show that he is speaking of
the perpetual union which is spiritual. He says, (Lib. 4,
c. 34,) Our opinion is consonant to the eucharist, and the
eucharist confirms our opinion. For we offer to hira the
things which are his, when consistently proclairaing the
coraraunion and union of flesh and spirit. For as that which
is earthly bread, on being set apart by God is no longer
coraraon bread, but a eucharist consisting of two things,
an earthly and a heavenly, so likewise our bodies, receiving
the eucharist, are no longer corruptible, but have hope of
resurrection. In the fifth book he explains raore fully, that
we are the raembers of Christ, and united to his flesh be
cause of his Spirit dwelling in us. The reason why Heshu
sius charges us with extrerae effrontery is, just because we
deny that propositions which perfectly agree with our doc
trine are adverse to it.

BLOOD OF CHRIST IN THE HOLY SUPPER. 541
If a more familiar exposition is required Cyril will supply
it ; for, in his third book, when explaining our Saviour's
discourse contained in the 6th chapter of John, he acknow
ledges that there is no other eating in the Supper than that
by which the body of Christ gives life to us, and by our
participation in it leads us back to incorruption. And in his
fourth book (cap. 1 3) he says : Our Lord gave his body for
the life of all, and by it again infuses life into us : how he
does this I will briefly explain, according to my ability. For
when the life-giving Son of God dAvelt in the flesh, and was
in whole, so to speak, united to the ineffable whole by the
mode of union, he made the flesh itself vivifying, and hence
this flesh gives life to those who partake of it. As he asserts
that this takes place both in the Supper, and without the
Supper, let Heshusius explain what is raeant by " sending
life into us." In the seventeenth chapter he says, Were any
one to pour wax on raelted wax, the one raust becorae inter
mingled with the other. In like manner, when any one re
ceives the flesh and blood of the Lord, he must be united
with him : he must be in Christ and Christ in him. In the
twenty-fourth chapter he distinctly raaintains, that the flesh
of Christ is raade vivifying by the agency of the Spirit, so
that Christ is in us because the Spirit of God dwells in us.
Heshusius, after raaking a vain and ridiculous boast of
those holy writers, insolently applauds hiraself for leaving Cle
ment Alexandrinus, because he is borne down by his author
ity. He also boasts, that he not unfrequently acts as our
advocate and representative, by enhancing and amplifying,
according to the best of his abUity, everything advanced
by us, that he may know whether anything forcible, &c.
If this is trae, he must not only be feeble, but altogether
nerveless and broken down. Still, did he eraploy his abUities
in judging aright, instead of using them entirely for quarrel
hng and invective, rauch of the interaperate rage Avith which
he burns would cease. He certainly would not charge me
with raaintaining an aUegorical eating, while I acknowledge
that- aUegory is condemned by the words of Christ. But it
is right that those whose pertinacious arabition hurries thera
into contest should be smitten frora above with a spirit of

542 THE TRUE PARTAKING OF THE FLESH AND
giddiness, which makes them prostitute both their raodesty
and their faith.
It is strange, that while he is such a severe censor of
Origen, that he will not class hira araong writers worthy of
credit, he does not raake a sirailar attack on Tertullian. We
see Avith what implacable rage he burns against all who pre
surae to interpret the words of Christ, This is my body, in
any other but the strict and natural sense, holding those
who do so guilty of a sacrilegious corruption. But when he
feels hiraself struck by the words of Tertullian, instead of
attempting to bear him down by violence, he rather tries to
escape frora him by raeans of tergiversation. Tertullian
says : Christ made the bread, received and distributed to the
disciples his own body, by saying. This is my body, that is,
the figure of ray body. Now it could not have been the
figure were it not the body of the reality : for an erapty
thing, as a phantasm is, could not take a figure. Or, if lie
raade the bread to be his body, because it wanted the reality
of body, then he raust have delivered bread for us. The
vanity of Marcion would be gratified if the bread were cru
cified. Tertullian proves, that the bread was the true sub
stance of the fiesh of Christ, because it could not be a
figure without being the figure of a true substance. Hesh
usius is dissatisfied with this raode of expression, because
it seeras dangerous ; but, as if he had forgotten hiraself, he
adraits it, provided there is no deception under it. By de
ception he raeans, calling the bread the sign or figure of the
absent flesh. That he raay not gloss over the terra absence
in his usual raanner, let the reader remeraber, as I formerly
rerainded hira, that though Christ, in respect of place and
actual inspection, is absent, still believers truly enjoy and are
nourished by the present substance of his flesh.
All his quibbles, however, cannot deprive us of the support
of Tertullian. For when he says, that the bread was raade
body, the raeaning can only be ascertained frora the context.
To consecrate the blood in Avine cannot be equivalent to the
expression. To annex the blood to wine ; but corresponds to
the next sentence, where he says, that Christ confirraed the
substance of his flesh when he delivered a covenant sealed with

BLOOD OF CHRIST IN THE HOLY SUPPER. 543
his own blood, because it cannot be blood unless it belong to
true flesh. No man can doubt that the sealing which Avas
performed on the cross is compared Avith the consecration by
which Christ enters into an eternal covenant Avith his jieople.
Heshusius raakes no more out of the other passage, in which
he says, that our flesh eats the body and blood of Christ, in
order that it may be fed on God, in other words, be made a
partaker of the Godhead. The sum is, that it is absurd and
impious to exclude our flesh from the hope of resurrection,
seeing that Christ deigns to bestow upon it the syrabols of
spiritual life. Accordingly, he ranks in the same class not
only baptism but anointing, the sign of the cross, and the lay
ing on of hands. But VA'ith strange stupidity, in order to proA'e
that we do not become partakers of the flesh of Christ by faith
alone, Heshusius quotes a passage from a tract on the Lord's
Prayer, in Avhich Tertullian says. That the petition for daily
bread may be understood spiritually, inasmuch as Christ is our
bread, inasmuch as Christ is our life, inasrauch as he is the
word of the liA-ing God, who carae doAvn from heaven, and his
body is held to be in the bread. Whence he concludes, that
we seek perpetuity from Christ and individuality from his
body. I ask whether, if it had been his intention to change
sides, he could have given better support to our cause ? See
what ground he has for glorying in antiquity.
With simUar dexterity he obtains the support of Cyprian.
Cyprian contends that the blood of Christ is not to be de
nied to believers who are called to the service of Christ
under the obligation to shed their own blood. What can he
evince by this but just that the blood of Christ is given us
by the cup as the body is given under the symbol of bread ?
In another passage, when disputing against the Aquarii, he
says, that the vivifying blood of Christ cannot be thought to
he in the cup if the wine is Avanting, by which the blood
itself is shown, he clearly confirras our doctrine. For what
is meant by the blood being represented by the wine, but
just that the wine is a sign or figure of the blood ? Shortly
after he repeats the same thing, saying, that water alone
cannot express the blood of Christ, that is, designate it.
But he says, at the sarae time, that the blood is in the cup :

544 THE TRUE PARTAKING OF THE FLESH AND
as if the idea of local inclosing ever carae into the mind of
this holy martyr, who is only occupied with the question.
Whether the raystical cup should be raixed with water only
to represent the blood of Christ ?
Another passage quoted by Heshusius is. How can they
dare to give the eucharist to the abandoned, that is, profane
the holy body of Clirist, seeing it is written. Whoso eateth
or drinketh unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood
of the Lord ? I neither think differently, nor ara I wont to
speak differently. But by what logic did this good man
learn frora these words that the body of Christ is given to
the unAvorthy ? All see that the word giving applies to the
eucharist. Cyprian holds that if all are admitted indis
criminately, there is a profanation of the sacred body. See
the ground on Avliich our Thraso composes pseans. In an
other passage Cyprian says. That the Avicked who, with im
pious hands, intrade to the Supper, invade the body of
Christ ; and he inveighs bitterly against the sacrilegious per
sons Avho take offence at priests for not at once receiving the
body of the Lord with polluted hands, or drinking his blood
with poUuted lips: as if it were not hitherto known that
this raode of speaking is coraraon Avith early writers, or as if
I had any objection to the same style, having raany years
ago quoted the sarae passage, and another similar to it, from
Arabrose. Heshusius does not see the absurdity in which
he is involving hiraself: for it will follow that Christ hira
self is exposed to the licentiousness and violence of the un
godly, since Cyprian there also says that they do violence to
his flesh and blood.
Eusebius quotes a passage in which Dionysius of Alexan
dria maintains that it is not lawful to initiate, by a new bapr
tism, any one who has long been a partaker of the flesh and
blood of the Lord, and has received the sacred food. Heshu
sius argues, that if he who was baptized by heretics has re
ceived the body of Christ, it must be eaten without faith ,
and repentance : as if there were no difference between :
thoughtlessness or error and impiety. He iraagined that he
was to gain rauch by pronouncing lofty encomiums on the
ancient writers whose names he obtrudes, but he has only

BLOOD OF CHRIST IN THE HOLY SUPPER. Si5
made himself more than ridiculous. He thunders forth
their praises, and then, on coming to the point, finds they
give him no support.
Athanasius, he says, is a divine writer worthy of iraraortal
praise. Who denies it ? But what is this to the point ?
Why, in stating that Christ Avas a high-priest by means of
his own body, and by means of the sarae delivered a rays
tery to us, saying, This is ray body, and. This is the blood
of the New, not of the Old Testament, it is evident that he
speaks of the true body and blood in the Supper. Do Ave
tben imagine it to be false blood, when we raaintain that it
is impossible without nefarious divorce to separate the words.
The body which is delivered for you, and. The blood whicii
is shed for the remission of sins ? Rightly then does Athana
sius teach that a mystery has been consecrated for us by
the flesh and blood of Christ, nor could anything be said
that was better fitted to explain our view ; for had not
Christ been possessed of trae flesh and trae blood, (the only
point there deUvered,) the consecration by Avhich our salva
tion is placed in thera would have been vain.
I have already shown how preposterously he opposes us
with Hilary, when he distinctly treats of the vivifying par
ticipation of Christ, which demands not the external use of
the Supper, but maintains perpetual vigour in believers.
Heshusius says, that that is not the subject of dispute. Of
what use then is it for hira to twist his words against us, Avliile
they have no bearing on the point ? Still raore absurdly does
he say that we are refuted by the single expression, that We
receive the flesh of Christ under a raystery. As if under a
mystery were not just equivalent to sa,cramentally. This
again is most apposite for the confirraation of our doctrine.
But lest any one should think that he errs through folly
merely, he afterwards shows his malice by adding, that, ac
cording to us, divinity alone is given us in the Supper.
This is his reason for saying that that one passage should
suffice in the judgment of all to settle the controversy.
He exposes himself in the sarae way in quoting Epipha
nius. That writer, discoursing how man is created in the
image of God, says that, If it is understood of the body,
VOL. II. 2 ^

546 THE TRUE PARTAKING OF THE FLESH AND
there cannot be a proper likeness betAveen what is visible
and palpable, and the Spirit whicii is invisible and incom
prehensible; whereas, ifit refers to the soul, there is a wide
distance, because the soul being liable to raany Aveaknesses
and defects, does not contain tbe divinity within itself He
therefore concludes, that God, who is incomprehensible, truly
performs Avhat he bestows upon men in respect of his image.
He afterwards adds, And how many things are deduced from
the like ! For we see how our Saviour took into his hands,
as it is contained in the gospel, how he rose up at the Sup
per, and took, and after giving thanks, said. That is this of
raine. But we see that it is not equal or like either to a
corporeal shape, or an invisible deity, or the figures of raem
bers. For this is round, and in regard to feeling, insensible.
He meant to say, that by grace. That is this of raine ; and
no raan refuses credit to his words. For he who believes not
that he is true in what he said, has fallen from grace and
from faith. Let the reader attend to the state of the case.
Epiphanius contends, that though nothing like is the same,
yet the image of God truly shines in raan, just as the bread
is truly called body. Hence it is plain that nothing is less
accordant with the raind of this writer than the dreara of
Heshusius, that the bread is truly and substantially body.
He asks, why does Epiphanius insist on faith in the words
of the Supper, if the bread of the eucharist is not the body ?
Just because it is only by faith we comprehend that corrup
tible food is the pledge of eternal life. Meat for the body,
says Paul, and the body for raeat, but God will destroy
both. (2 Cor. vi. 1 3.) In the bread and Avine Ave seek a spi
ritual aliment, which may quicken our souls to the hope of
a blessed resurrection. We ask Christ that we raay be united
to hira, that he may dwell in us and be one with us. But
Epiphanius treats not of the fruit or efficacy of the Supper,
but of the substance of the body. How true this is, let the
reader judge frora his concluding words. Before speaking
of the ordinance of the Supper, he says. The figure began
with Moses, the figure was opened by John, but the gift was
perfected in Christ. All therefore have that which is ac
cording to the iraage, but not according to nature. For in

BLOOD OF CHRIST IN THE HOLY SUPPER. 547
having that which is according to the image, they have it
not in respect of equality with God. For God is incompre
hensible, a Spirit above all spirit, light above all light. He
is not, however, devoid of these things which he has defined.
I wonder how Heshusius dares to make raention of faith,
while he raaintains that the body of Christ is eaten without
faith, and bitterly assails us for requiring faith.
He boasts that Basil is on his side, because he applies the
terms abandoned and impious to those who dare with un
cleanness of soul to touch the body of Christ. This expres
sion he uses in the sarae sense as that in which early writers
often say that the body of Christ falls to the earth and is
consumed, because they never hesitated to transfer the name
of the thing to the symbol. I forraerly acknowledged, that
Ambrose has spoken in the same way, but in what sense is
apparent fi'ora his interpretation of the words of Christ. He
says, (in 1 Cor. xi.,) Having been redeeraed by the death of
Christ, we comraeraorating this event by eating the flesh
and blood which were offered for us, signify, &c. Shortly
after he says. The covenant was therefore established by
blood, because blood is a witness of Divine grace, as a type
of which we receive the mystical cup of blood. Again, What
is it to be guilty of the body, but just to be punished for
the death of the Lord ? He, accordingly, enjoins us to come
to the communion with a devout raind, recollecting that re
verence is due to hira whose body we approach to take. For
each ought to consider with hiraself, that it is the Lord whose
blood he drinks in a raystery. Heshusius has the effrontery
to produce this passage against us, though it supports us,
as if we had actuaUy borrowed the expression of our doc
trine frora it.
But Heshusius opposes us even with verse. Because Gre
gory Nazianzen, indulging the poetic vein, says, that priests
carry in their hands the plasraa of the great God, he boldly
infers that the bread is properly the body of Christ. My
answer, which I ara confident wiU be approved by all men of
sense, is siraply this, that Gregory meant nothing raore than
Augustine has expressed soraewhat more farailiarly, -w-hen
speaking of Christ holding forth the bread to his disciples.

548 THE TRUE PARTAKING OF THE FLESH AND
he says. He bore himself in a manner in his hands, an ex
pression by which the difficulty is completely solved. For
when he says, (Serm. de Pasch.,) Be not irapiously deluded
when hearing of the blood, and passion, and death of God,
but confidently eat the body and drink the blood, if thou
desirest life, Heshusius absurdly wrests his words to a
raeaning foreign to them, since he is not there speaking of
the ordination of the Supper, but of our Saviour's incarna
tion and death, though I deny not that Gregory, in the
words eating and drinking, in which, however, he recom
mends faith, alludes to the Supper.
In regard to Jerome, there is no occasion to say much.
Heshusius quotes a passage, in which he says, that the bread
is the body of Christ. (In Malach. c. 1.) I make him wel
come to more. For he writes to Heliodorus, that the clergy
raake the body of Christ. Elsewhere, also, he" says, that
they distribute his blood to the people. The only question
is, in what sense does he say this ? If we add the clause, in a
mystery, will not the controversy be at an end, since it is
clear, that in a mystery and Corporeally are antithetical?
(In Ecclesiast.) As Jerorae removes all doubt by expressing
this exception, what is to be gained by sophistical cavUling ?
I admit, that in another passage, (in Malach. c. 1,) Jerome
says, that the wicked eat the body of Christ, but, as he adds,
that they in this way pollute it, why seek for a difficulty where
there is none ? Unless, indeed, Heshusius is to raake Christ
so subject to the licentiousness of the ungodly as to have his
pure and holy flesh polluted by infection from them. But
in another passage Jerome speaks raore clearly : for he dis
tinctly denies that the wicked eat the flesh of Christ, or
drink his blood. In like raanner, he says, (in Hos. c. 9,)
The wicked sacrifice raany victiras, and eat the flesh of them,
deserving the one sacrifice of Christ, and not eating his flesh,
though his flesh is meat to them that believe. Why does
Heshusius childishly cavil about a word, Avhile the thing in
tended is so transparent ? The substance of all his sophistical
jargon raay be forraed into a syllogisra thus :
Whatever is called the body of Christ is his body substan
tially and in reality.

BLOOD or CHRIST IN THE HOLY SUPPER. 649
Irenseus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Justin, Ambrose, Jerome,
Augustine, and several others, call the bread of the
sacred Supper the body of Christ :
Therefore, the bread of the Supper is the body of Christ
substantiaUy and in reality.
While Heshusius talks thus confidently, I should like to
hear his answer to a distinction, by Ayhich Jerome so com
pletely dissipates and upsets his dream, that his words re
quire to be softened down in an opposite direction. He says,
(in Ephes. c. 1,) The flesh and blood of Christ is taken in a
twofold sense ; either that spiritual and divine, of which he
himself said. My flesh is meat indeed ; or the flesh which
was crucified, and the blood which Avas shed by the soldier's
spear. I do not suppose, indeed, that Jerome iraagined a
twofold flesh ; and yet I presurae that he took notice of a
spiritual, and therefore different raode of coraraunicating, to
guard against the fiction of a corporeal eating.
The passage Avhich Heshusius has produced frora Chrysos
tom I Avill ran over slightly. Because that pious teacher
enjoins us to approach with faith, that we may not only re
ceive the body when held forth, but rauch more touch it
with a clean heart, this able expositor infers that some
receive without faith with an unclean heart ; as if Chrysos
tom were hinting at the corporeal reception of a substantial
body, and not under the terra body, coraraending the dignity
of the ordinance. What if he elseAvhere explains himself,
and at the same tirae clearly unfolds the raind of Paul. He
asks, (in 1 Cor. Hora. 27,) What is it for one to be guilty ofthe
body and blood ofthe Lord ? Since he has shed it, he shows
that it was raurder also, and not raerely sacrifice. As his
enemies did not pierce him that they raight drink, but that
they raight shed, so he who coraraunicates unworthily ob
tains no benefit. Surely even the blind raay now see that
Chrysostora holds the wicked guUty, not of drinking, but of
shedding the blood. With greater folly Heshusius transfers
what was said by Chrysostora conceming the spiritual eat
ing of the soul te the storaach and intestines. The words
are, The body is set before us, not only that we raay touch
it, but that we raay eat and be fiUed. Heshusius holds

550 THE TRUE PARTAKING OF THE FLESH AND
this to be equivalent to saying that it is received into the
boAvels. In producing Augustine as an advocate or witness, he
passes the height of impudence. That holy person tells us
to receive in the bread that which hung on the cross. Ac
cording to Heshusius, nothing can be clearer than these
words. They, no doubt, are so, if we are agreed as to the
mode of receiving. Thus, when he says, in his Epistle to
Januarius, that the order of the Church should be approved,
requiring us to go fasting to the sacred table, in order that
the body of Christ may enter the raouth before any other
food, if we add, in a mystery, or sacramentally, all conten
tion will cease. But Heshusius, absurdly laying hold of an
arabiguous terra, loses sight of the point in dispute. In his
serraon on the words of the Apostle, by speaking of a two
fold eating, naraely, a spiritual and a sacramental, he dis
tinctly declare.s, that the wicked who partake of the Supper
eat the flesh of Christ. Yes; but, as he elsewhere teaches,
sacramentally. Let Heshusius say that we may as well deny
that the sun shines at mid-day, as that these passages clearly
refute our doctrine; I feel confident, that in my answer to
Westphal, I so completely disposed of his calumnious charges,
and those of his fellows, that even the contentious, in whom
there are any remains of candour, would rather choose to be
silent than to incur derision by imitating the petulance of
Heshusius. He pretends that Augustine asserts the tme
presence of the body of Christ in the eucharist, because he
says that the body is given in the bread, and the blood in
the cup, distributed by the hands of the priests, and taken
not only by faith, but by the raouth also ; not only by the
pious, but also by the wicked. I answer, that unless a clear
definition is given of the sense in which Augustine uses the
term body, Heshusius is acting deceitfully. But Avhere can
we find a better expounder than Augustine himself ? Be
sides using the term eucharist or sacraraent of the body pro-
raiscuously in the sarae passages, there is one Avhich clearly
explains his meaning, in which he says, that the sacraments,
in respect of resemblance, receive the names of the things
which they signify, and, accordingly, that the sacrament of

BLOOD OF CHRIST IN THE HOLY SUPPER. 55]
the body is in a raanner the body. (Ep. 23, ad Bonif)
Wherefore, as often as Heshusius obtrudes the arabiguous
expression, it Avill be easy to rejoin, that Augustine, in so
speaking, did not forget hiraself, but follows the rule which
he prescribes to others. (Contra Adimant.) To the sarae
eff'ect, he elseAvhere (in Ps. 3) calls the sign of the body a
figure. Again, he says, (in Ps. 33,) that Christ in a raanner
carried himself in his own hands. Even were I silent, Augus
tine would clear himself of the caluranious charge. It is
because of reserablance he transfers the narae of the thing
signified to the external syrabol, and, accordingly, calls the
bread the body of Christ, not properly or substantially, as
Heshusius pretends, but in a certain raanner.
The view vvhich the pious Avriter took of the presence is
perfectly apparent frora the Epistle to Dardanus, where he
says, Christ gave imraortality to his flesh, did not destroy its
nature. We are not to think that in respect of this nature
he is everywhere diffused ; for Ave raust beware of so elevat
ing the divinity of the man as to destroy the reality of the
body. It does not follow that that which is in God is every
where as God. At length he concludes, that he who is the
only-begotten Son of God, and at the same time the Son of
Man, is everyAvhere wholly present as God, and in the temple
of God, that is, the Church, is as it Avere the inhabiting God,
and is in a certain place in heaven in respect of the nature
of a trae body. Of the same purport is the following pas
sage, (in Joan. Tr. 50,) In respect of the presence of his
majesty we have Christ always ; in respect of the presence of
his flesh it was truly said. Me ye have not always. There
are similar passages in which the holy writer declares how
abhorrent he is to the idea of a local presence. How raiser
ably Heshusius quibbles, in regard to his assertion that the
body of Christ is eaten by the Avicked, is plain frora a variety
of passages. First, he opposes the virtue of the sacraraent
to the visible sacrament ; he raakes an antithesis of eating
inwardly and outAvardly, of eating with the heart and chew
ing with the teeth. Were there any invisible eating of the
body different frora spiritual eating, he ought in expounding
it to have used a threefold division. Shortly after he repeats

552 THE TRUE PARTAKING OF THE FLESH AND
the same antithesis, (Tr. in Joann. 26,) He who abides not
in Christ, and in whom Christ abides not, unquestionably
neither spiritually eats his flesh nor drinks his blood, although
he press the sacraraent of the body carnally and visibly with
his teeth. Had Augustine approved of the fiction of Heshu
sius, he would have said, " although he eat the body cor
poreally." But the pious teacher is always consistent with
himself, and here delivers nothing different from what he
afterwards teaches when he says, (Tract, in Joan. 59,) That
the other disciples ate the bread the Lord, whereas Judas
ate the bread of the Lord against the Lord. This is well
confirraed by another passage, (Contr. Faust. L 3, c. 16,)
Avhere he again opposes, as things contrary to each other,
sacramentally and truly eating the flesh of Christ. Hence
it follows that it is not truly eaten by the wicked. In fine,
what he understands by the expression sacraraentally, (sac-
ramento tenus,) he shows more fully when he declares that
good and bad coramunicate in the signs. He says elsewhere,
(Serm. 2 de Vert. Apost.,) Then has every one the body and
blood of Christ, when that which is taken visibly in the sac
rament is in reality spiritually eaten and drunk. If Heshu
sius objects that the wicked do not eat spiritually, I ask
what Augustine means by the reality of which he makes
believers only to partake ? Moreover, if Augustine thought
that the body of Christ is substantially eaten by the wicked,
he ought to have represented it as visible, since nothing is
attributed to the wicked but a visible taking. If, as Heshu
sius pretends, one sentence of Augustine is worth more in
his estiraation than ten prolix harangues of other fathers,
every one raust see that he is worse than a senseless trunk
if these striking passages raake no impression on him. And
indeed when I see hiraself engaged with such a buffoon, I
ara alraost asharaed at spending ray tirae in discussing his
frivolities. Having perforraed this part of the play, he again flies off,
and endeavours to lead us away frora the subject. And, no
doubt, while he goes up and down gathering invectives, as
if he were making up a garland of flowers, he seems to him
self a very showy rhetorician, while I, when I hear his fri-

BLOOD OF CHRIST IN THE HOLT SUPPER. 553
volous loquacity, cannot help thinking of the shabbiest of
orators. He pretends to discern in us the special charac
teristics of heretics, viz., that AA-hen we are unable to defend
our error we clothe it Avith deceitful words. But when we
corae to the point, Avhat deceptions does he discover, what
subterfuges, Avhat frauds, or cavils, or tricks does he detect ?
I omit the Greek terms which he would not omit, and in re
gard to which, by substituting adjectives for substantives, he
betrays his ignorance. He admits that I reject metaphors
and allegory, and have recourse to raetonyray. As yet he
has shown no cavil. Next he says, that I repudiate the
sentiment of those who affirra that to eat the body of Christ
is nothing else than to erabrace his benefits by faith. This
distinction also does not by any raeans substitute sraoke for
light, but is an apt and significant exposition of the subject.
My maintaining that spiritually to eat the flesh of Christ is
something greater and more excellent than to believe, he calls
a chimera. What answer shall I give to this impudent asser
tion, but just that he is mentally blind, since he cannot under
stand what is so plain and obvious ? When he represents me
as substituting raerit and benefit for fiesh and blood, and
shortly afterwards adds, that I acknowledge no other presence
in the Supper than that of the Deity, ray writings without
a word from me refute the irapudent calurany. For not to
mention many other passages, after treating farailiarly in
my Catechism of the whole ordinance, the foUowing passage
occurs : —
" M. Have we in the Supper only a sign of the blessings
which you have mentioned, or are they there exhibited to
us in reality ?
" 8. Seeing that our Lord Jesus Christ is truth itself,
there cannot be a doubt that he at the same tirae fulfils
the proraises which he there gives us, and adds the reality
to the figures. Wherefore, I doubt not, that as he testifies
by words and signs, so he also raakes us partakers of his own
substance, by whicii we grow up into one life with him.
" M. But how can this be, seeing that Christ is in heaven,
and that we are still pUgriras on the earth ?
" 8. He effects this by the miraculous and secret agency

554 THE TRUE PARTAKING OF THE FLESH AND
of his Spirit, to whom it is not difficult to unite things other
wise disjoined by distance of place."
Moreover, I say in my Institutes, " I ara not satisfied with
those who, when they would sIioav the raode of coraraunion,
teach that we are partakers of the Spirit of Christ, omitting
all mention of the flesh and blood : as if it were said to no
purpose, ' My flesh is raeat indeed,' " &c. This is followed
by a lengthened explanation of the subject. Soraething, too,
had been said on it previously. In the Second Book I had
refuted, as I suppose, with no less perspicuity than care, the
fiction of Osiander, which he falsely accuses rae Avith follow
ing. Osiander imagined that righteousness is conferred on
us by the Deity of Christ. I showed, on the contrary, that
salvation and life are to be sought frora the flesh of Christ in
which he sanctified himself, and in Avhich he consecrates
Baptism and the Supper. It will be there also seen how
completely I have disposed of his dream of essential right
eousness. I have got the sarae return from Heshusius that he
made to his preceptor Melancthon. The laws make false wit
nesses infamous, and enact severe punishments against calum
niators. The more criminal it is to corrupt public records,
the raore severely ought the miscreant to be punished who, in
one passage, is convicted of three crimes — gross calumny,
false testimony, and corruption of written docuraents. Why
he so eagerly assails rae with bitter invective, I know not,
unless it be that he has no fear of being paid back in kind.
I insist on the thing itself, which he would by no means
wish me to do. I say that although Christ is absent frora
the earth in respect of the flesh, yet in the Supper we truly
feed on his body and blood — that owing to the secret agency
of the Spirit Ave enjoy the presence of both. I say that dis
tance of place is no obstacle to prevent the flesh, which was
once crucified, frora being given to us for food. Heshusius
supposes, what is far frora being the fact, that I iraagine a
presence of deity only. All the dispute is with regard to
place ; but because I will not allow that Christ is inclosed
under the bread, is swallowed, and passes into the storaach,
he alleges that I involve my doctrine in arabiguous expres
sions. And to pretend sorae zeal for the piety he never

BLOOD OF CHRIST IN THE HOLY SUPPER. 555
tasted, he brings forward Paul's exhortation to retain the
forra of sound words. As if Paul's doctiine were expressed
to the life, or could have any affinity with such monstrous
dogmas as these — that the bread is properly and substan
tially the body of Christ — that the body itself is eaten cor
poreally by the raouth and passes into us. This worthy imi
tator of Paul, in a very short treatise, misinterprets about
sixty passages of Scripture so absurdly, as to raake it raani
fest that not one particle of that living exhibition of which
Paul speaks had ever entered his raind.
In vain, too, does he endeavour to obtain greater license
for his petulance, by opposing us with the churches of
Saxony, and complaining of our having unjustly accused
him. For to omit raany things which are obvious, I only
wish to know whether or not he and his fellows have not
been endeavouring for several years to pluck out the two
eyes of Saxony, the schools of Wittemberg and Leipsic.
After extinguishing these two lights, why, I ask, would he
boast the empty name of Saxony ? With regard to the accu
sation, my answer is, that I do not repent of having corapared
to Marcion and the Capemauraites all who raaintain the
imraensity or ubiquity of the flesh of Christ, and insist that
he is in several places at the same tirae. When he corapares
the two sentences. The bread is the sign of the absent body,
and. The body is truly and substantially present and is
given under the bread, it is easy to answer that there is a
medium between these extreraes, that the body is indeed
given by the external syrabol, but is not sisted locally. See
why he exclaims that we are Epicureans and inured to secu
rity. But the raore causeless noise he raakes, the more
clearly he discloses his teraper, feelings, and raanners. If
any raan has in this age been exposed to great and perilous
contests, many know that it is I. And while we are still as
sheep destined to slaughter, this meek doctor of the gospel
insults in raockery over the terrors which press us on every
side, as if he were envying our quiet. But perhaps this pro
vident raan, who is carefully treasuring up the raeans of
luxury for a whole life, derides us for our security in living
frora hand to raouth, and being contented with our hurable

556 THE TRUE PARTAKING OF THE FLESH AND
means. With the same shamelessness he fabricates strange
understandings between me and all those whose errors I
withstood single-handed, while he was sleeping or feasting.
And to make it apparent how eagerly he is bent on calum
ny, having heard of the name of Velsius, which it is well
known that I assuraed and bore at Frankfort, he substitutes
the narae of Felsius, that he raay be able to raake me an
associate of the man whom he allowed to go about raving at
Heidelberg, because he dared not to engage with such a com
batant. With the sarae candour and raodesty he estimates
our doctrine by its fruit, saying, that it induces contempt of
the sacred Supper. Would that he and his feUows would
come to it with equal reverence ! When he charges us with
setting no v^alue on the use of it, I leave him to be put down
by ray Institutes, frora which I quote the following passage
verbatim : — " What we have hitherto said of this sacraraent
abundantly shows that it was not instituted to be received
once a year, and that perfunctorily, as is now the coramon
custom, but to be in frequent use araong all Christians."
After raentioning the fruits of it, I proceed thus : — " That
such was the practice of the Apostolic Church, Luke tells us
in the Acts, when he says, that the believers were persever
ing in doctrine, in coraraunion, in the breaking of bread,
&c. Matters were to be so raanaged that there should be
no raeeting of the Church without the word, prayer, and the
communion of the Supper." After severely condemning this
corruption, as it deserved, by quotations frora early writers,
I next say, " This custora of requiring raen to coraraunicate
once a year was raost assuredly an invention of the devil"
Again, " The practice ought to be very different. The table
of the Lord ought to be spread in the sacred asserably at
least once a Aveek. No one should be compelled, but all
should be exhorted and stimulated : the torpor of those who
keep away should also be reproved. Hence it was not
without cause I coraplained at the outset that it was the
wUe ofthe devil which intruded the custora of prescribing one
day in the year, and leaving it unused during all the rest."
And yet this dog wiU still bark at rae, as having cut the
sinews of the sweetest consolation, and prevented believers

BLOOD OF CHRIST IN THE HOLY SUPPER. 657
from recognising that Christ dwells in them — a subject on
whicii if he has any right views, he has stolen them from me.
But the proof which he has added sufficiently declares the fran
tic nature of his attacks, since the very thing which he had
detested he now seizes upon as an axiora of faith, viz., that
the hypostatic union of the divine and human natures in
the person of Christ cannot exist unless the flesh be at the
same time in several places. How could he prove raore
plainly that he has no belief than by thus contradicting
himself ? This levity and inconstancy indicates either exces
sive heat of brain, or variety of cups.
A still further degree of tedium must be endured, while I
make it plain to the reader, how acute, faithful, and dex
terous he shows himself in refuting our objections. After
deluding the rainds of the simple in the way jugglers do, he
says, that araong our objections the one which seeras raost
specious is, — that a true and physical body cannot in sub
stance be in several different places at the sarae tirae, that
Christ has a trae and physical body in which he ascended
to sit at the right hand of the Father in a certain definite
place until he appear to judge the Avorld, and that therefore
this body, which is circurascribed in heaven by a certain
space, cannot be in its substance in the Supper. He adds,
moreover, that there is no arguraent in Avhich I place equal
confidence. First, how naughtily he lies in saying that I
thus confine the right hand of the Father to a narrow space,
is attested by several passages of ray writings. But to for
give him this, what is more futile than to make the state of
the question to depend on a physical body, since often before
this I have declared that in this case I pay no regard to
physical arguments, nor insist on the decisions of philoso
phers, but acquiesce in the testiraony of Scripture. Frora
Scripture, it is plain that the body of Christ is finite, and
has its proper diraensions. Georaetry did not teach us this ;
but we do not allow what the Holy Spirit taught by the
Apostles to be wrested from us. Heshusius foolishly and
not without inconsistency objects that Christ sits in both
natures at the right hand of the Father. We deny not that
the whole and entire Christ in the person of the Mediator

658 THE TRUE PARTAKING OF THE FLESH AND
fills heaven and earth. I say whole, not wholly, (totus, non
totum,) because it Avere absurd to apply this to his flesh.
The hypostatic union of the two natures is not equivalent to
a coraraunication of the iramensity of the Godhead to the
flesh, since the peculiar properties of both natures are per
fectly accordant with unity of person. He rejoins, that sit
ting at the right hand of the Father is, according to the
testiraony of Paul, to be understood of eternal and divine
raajesty and equal power. And what do I say ? More than
twelve years ago, ray exposition, which quotes the very
words of Paul, was published throughout the world, and
bears, " This passage shows plainly, if any one does, what
is raeant by the right hand of God, naraely, not a place, but
the power which the Father has bestowed upon Christ to
adrainister the government of heaven and earth. For see
ing that the right hand of God fills heaven and earth, it
follows, that the kingdom and also the virtue of Christ are
everywhere diffused. Hence it is an error to endeavour to
prove that Christ, from his sitting on the right hand of God,
is only in heaven. It is indeed raost true that the humanity
of Christ is in heaven, and is not on the earth, but the other
proof does not hold. For the Avords, in heavenly places, which
iraraediately follow, are not raeant to confine the right hand
of God to heaven," &c.
He boldly persists in his impudence, and adding another
passage from the sarae Epistle, pretends that it is adverse to
rae. But ray exposition is in the hands of the public. I
here insert the substance of it : Since to flll often means to
perform, it may be so taken here. For Christ by his ascension
to heaven entered on possession of the dorainion given hira
by the Father, viz., to rule all things by his power. The
raeaning, however, will in ray judgment be raore elegant, if
the two things, which though contrary in appearance agree
in reality, are joined together. For when we hear of the
ascension of Christ, the idea which iraraediately rises in our
rainds is, that he is far removed from us. And so indeed
he is in respect of his body and human presence. Paul,
however, reminds us, that though withdrawn in respect of
bodily presence, he yet fills all things, namely, by the agency

BLOOD OF CHRIST IN THE HOLY SUPPER. 559
of his Spirit. For wherever the right hand of God, which
embraces heaven and earth, is diffused, there the spiritual
presence of Christ, and Christ himself is present by his
boundless energy, though his body raust be contained in
heaven, according to the declaration of Peter. Should any
one ask, whether the body of Christ is infinite, like the God
head, he answers, that it is not, because the body of Christ,
his humanity being considered in itself, is not in stones,
and seeds, and plants. What is meant by this clause or
exception, but just that the body of Christ naturally, when
his humanity is considered by itself, is not infinite, but is so
in respect of the hypostatic union? But ancient writers,
when they say that the flesh of Christ, in order to be vivify
ing, borrows frora his Divine Spirit, say not a word of this
immensity, because nothing so monstrous ever came into
their thoughts. While Heshusius admits that this is a dif
ficulty which he cannot explain, he gets off by representing
things raost dissimilar as alike. How the siraple essence of
God consists of three persons : how the Creator and the
creature are one person : how the dead, who a thousand
years ago Avere reduced to nothing, are to rise again, he says
he cannot comprehend ; but it is enough for hira, that the
two natures are hypostaticaUy united in Christ and cannot
be dissevered : nor can it be piously thought that the person
of the Logos is without the body of Christ.
While I willingly grant all this, I wonder whence he draws
the inference that the obscurity in the sacred Supper is the
sarae. For who that is moderately versant in Scripture does
not know AA'hat is and what is not the force of sacraraental
union? Moreover, as local presence cannot exist without
ubiquity, he impugns ray declaration, that the body of Christ
is in the pious by the agency of the Spirit. This he does
not in precise terras. He rather acknowledges that it is
perfectly true, and yet he insists that the human nature of
Christ is not less everywhere, or in several places, than his
divine nature. I here ask, seeing that the habitation of
Christ in believers is perpetual, why he denies that he dwells
bodily without the use of the Supper ? It seems to me
there cannot be a firmer inference than this, If it is unlaw-

560 THE TRUE PARTAKING OF THE FLESH AND
ful to dissever the flesh of Christ from his divinity, wherever
the divinity dwells the flesh also dwells corporeally. But the
deity of Christ always dwells in believers as well in life as in
death ; therefore so dwells the flesh. Let Heshusius, if he can,
dispose of this syllogism, and I will easily explain the rest.
I again repeat. As the divine majesty and essence of
Christ fills heaven and earth, and this is extended to the
flesh ; therefore, independently of the use of the Supper, the
flesh of Christ dwells essentially in believers, because they
possess the presence of his deity. Let him not cry that we
dissever the indivisible person of Christ by not attributing the
sarae qualities to both natures. For this being established,
it will follow that the substance of the flesh is no raore found
under the bread than in the mere virtue of faith. I may
add, that he declares his assent to Cyril, who contends that
by the communion of the flesh and blood of Christ we be
come one with him, while Heshusius uniformly maintains
that the Avicked hj no means become one vvith Christ, though
they are corporeally interraixed with hira ; and bringing to
gether two passages from Paul, concludes that the presence
of Christ, on whicii alone he insists, is not idle. There is
still more ridiculous fatuity in what follows ; for from a
passage in which Paul affirras that Christ speaketh in him,
he infers that Christ is lacerated if we iraagine hira to speak
by his divinity alone, to the exclusion of his flesh. After
granting this, raight I not justly infer that Christ was not
less corporeally in Paul when he was writing than when he
received the bread of the Supper ?
I have therefore gained all I wished, viz., that we be
corae substantially partakers of the flesh of Christ not
by an external sign but by the simple faith of the gos
pel. His quibbling objection, that the flesh is excluded
from the Sujiper and from all diA'ine acts when Ave teach
that it is contained in heaven, is easily disposed of, since
local absence does not exclude the mystical and incom
prehensible operation of the flesh. Heshusius is under a
very absurd hallucination when he imagines that fixture
to a place implies exclusion, unless the body be inclos
ed under the bread. But he says, the Spirit is not with-

BLOOD OF CHRIST IN THE HOLY SUPPER. ' 561
out the Son, and therefore not Avithout the flesh. I, in my
turn, retort, that the Son is not without the Spirit, and that
therefore the dead body of Christ by no raeans passes into
the storaach of the reprobate. Frora this let the reader
judge Avhere the absurdity lies. Nay, in order to drag the
body of Christ under earthly eleraents, he is forced to as
cribe an immensity to the bodies of all believers, and tries
to play off his Avit upon us, saying, that if each retain his
own diraensions, those who sit nearest to Christ after the
resurrgctioh avUI be the happiest. Resting satisfled with the
reply of Christ, Ave wait for that day when our heavenly
Father vvill give each his proper station. Meanwhile we
abominate the delirium of Servetus, which Heshusius again
obtrudes. His conclusion is. If the boundless Avisdora and power of
God is not liraited by physical laws ; if the right hand of God
does not raean sorae sraall place in heaven, but equal glory
with the Father ; if the huraan nature of Christ, from being
united to the Logos, has sublirae prerogatives, and sorae
properties coraraon to the divine essence ; if , Christ, not only
in respect of the Spirit, but inasrauch as he is God and raan,
dwells in the breasts of believers, then by the ascension of
Christ into heaven his presence in the eucharist is secured
and firmly established. I, on the other hand, rejoin. If our
dispute is not philosophical, and we do not subject Christ
to physical laws, but reverently shoAV from passages of Scrip
ture what is the nature and property of his flesh, it is absurd
in Heshusius to gather frora false principles Avhatever raeets
his vicAv. Again I infer. If it is plain, as I have raost clearly
demonstrated, that Avhatever he has produced as adverse to
me concerning the right hand of God, he has borrowed from
my writings, he is proved to be a wicked calumniator. When
he says, that- certain properties are common to the flesh of
Christ and to the Godhead, I caU for a demonstration which
he has not yet attempted. Finally, I conclude. If Christ, in
respect of both 'natures, dwells naturaUy or substantiaUy in
believers, there is no other eating in the Supper than that
which is received by faith without a syrabol. He at last says,
in a cursory way, that aU our objections with regard to the
VOL. II. 2 ^

562 THE TRUE PARTAKING OF THE FLESH AND
departure of Christ, are easily solved, because they ought to
be understood not of absence of person but only of the mode
of absence, naraely, that we have hira present not visibly but
invisibly. The solution is indeed. trite, being not unknown
even to sorae old wives in the Papacy ; and yet it is a solu
tion which escaped Augustine, by the admission of Heshu
sius hiraself, the chief, and best, and raost faithful of ancient
teachers. For in expounding that passage, he says, (in Joann.
Tr. 50,) In respect of his raajesty, in respect of his providence,
in respect of his ineffable and invisible grace, is fulfilled what
he said, I ara with you always ; but in respect of the flesh
which the Word assuraed, in respect of his being born of the
Virgin, in respect of his being apprehended by the Jews,
fixed to the tree, laid in the sepulchre, and raanifested in
the resurrection, ye shall not have rae with you always.
Wherefore ? After he was conversant, in respect of the pre
sence of his body, for forty days with the disciples, and they
conducting hira, seeing, but not following, he ascended into
heaven, and is not here. He sits then at the right hand of
the Father, and yet he is here ; for the presence of his
raajesty has not retired. Otherwise thus : In respect of the
presence of his raajesty we have Christ always : in respect
of the presence of his flesh, it was truly said to the disci
ples. Me ye shall not have always.
With what raodesty, raoreover, Heshusius says that I
prove the eating of the flesh of Christ to be useless from the
words of Christ, The flesh profiteth nothing ; while I am
silent let my Commentary demonstrate, in which I speak
verbatim thus : Nor is it correct to say that the flesh of Christ
profits, inasrauch as it was crucified, but the eating of it
gives us nothing : we should rather say that it is necessary
to eat it in order that we raay derive profit frora its having
been cracified. Augustine thinks that we ought to supply
the words alone, and by itself, because it ought to be con
joined with the Spirit. This is consonant to fact: for
Christ has respect siraply to the raode of eating. He does
not therefore exclude every kind of utility, as if none could
be derived frora his flesh, but he only declares that it will
be useless, if it is separated frora the Spirit. How then

BLOOD OF CHRIST IN THE HOLY SUPPER. 563
has fiesh the power of vivifying, but just by being spiritual ?
Whosoever therefore stops short at the earthly nature of
flesh will find nothing in it but Avhat is dead ; but those who
raise their eyes to the virtue of the Spirit with whicii the
flesh is pervaded, will learn by the result and the experience
of faith, that it is not without good cause said to be vivify
ing. The reader raay there find raore to the sarae purpose
if he desires it. See why this Thraso calls upon the Cal
vinists to say whether the flesh of the Son of God be useless :
Nay, why do you not rather call upon yourself, and awake
at length frora your sluggishness ?
Our third objection, according to hira, is. The peculiar
property of aU the sacraraents is to be signs and pledges
testifying somewhat : and therefore in the Supper it is not
the body of Christ, but only the symbol of an absent body
that is given. Csesar, boasting of the rapidity of an eastern
victory, is said to have written, Vidi, Vici, I have seen, I
have conquered ; but our Thraso boasts of having conquered
by keeping his eyes shut. In our Agreeraent it is twice or
thrice distinctly stated, that since the testimonies and seals
which the Lord has given us of his grace are true, he, Avith
out doubt, inwardly performs that which the sacraraents
figure to the eye, and in thera accordingly we obtain posses
sion of Christ, and spiritually receive hira with his gifts :
nay, he is certainly offered in coramon to all, to unbelievers
as weU as to believers. As rauch as the exhibition of the
reality differs from a bare and erapty figure does Heshusius
differ from our sentiments, when he pretends to extract
from our writings falsehoods of his own devising. Hence as
he is sole author of the siUy quibble which he falsely attri
butes to us, I admit that he argues iU ; and as what he
says of the absence of the body is cobbled by his own brain,
though he is a bad cobbler, the flttest thing for him is to
send him to his shoes with his frigid witticisms. Meanwhile
I would have my readers to remember what was formeriy
said of a twofold absence ; for from thence it wiU be plain,
that things which are absent in respect of place and of the
eye, are not, however, far reraote. These two kmds of ab
sence Heshusius, from ignorance or malice, improperfy con-

564 THE TRUE PARTAKING OF THE FLESH AND
founds. It is at the sarae tirae worth while to observe how
adrairably he extracts the presence of Christ from the pas
sage in which Peter calls baptisra the answer (eTrepoiTrjCK:)
of a good conscience, though the Apostle there expressly
distinguishes between the external syrabol of baptism and
the reality, saying, that our baptism, not the putting away
of the filth of the fiesh, but the trial of a good conscience by
the resurrection of Christ, is similar to the ancient figure.
According to Heshusius, our fourth objection is. The
sacraraents of fhe New Testaraent, viz., Baptisra and the
Supper, are of the same nature, and entirely agree with each
other : Therefore as in Baptism the water is not called the
Holy Spirit except by a raetaphor, so neither can the bread
ofthe Supper be called the body of Christ, except allegori-
cally, or, according to^ Calvin, raetonyraically. Our method
of arguing will shortly be seen. Meanwhile let the reader
observe, that Heshusius has again fabricated expressions
which may furnish materials for fighting vvith shadows. Ac
cordingly -the " entirely agree" which he refutes is altogether
his own; we have nothing to do with it, and hence I could
easily allow him to knock down his own raen of straw, pro
vided he would cease from deluding the simple.
I now come to our arguraent. Since Scripture plainly de
clares (1 Cor. iii. 23) that we put on Christ in baptism, and
are washed by his blood, Ave reraark that there is no reason
why he should be said to be raore present in the Supper
than in Baptisra. The reserablance therefore is not placed
in their being both sacraraents of the New Testaraent, but
in this, that Baptisra requires the presence of Christ not
less than the Supper. There was another reason. As they
boldly rejected everything AA-hich was produced from the
Old Testaraent, we showed that there Avas no roora for this
evasion in baptisra. It is plain that they endeavoured to
escape by a subterfuge, when they objected that there were
only shadows under the law. The distinction was not un
known to us, nor was it destroyed by our doctrine, but we
were thus forced to show, frora the constant usage of Scrip
ture, what was the force of sacraraental raodes of expression.
But since their perverseness could not be overcorae in any

BLOOD OF CHRIST IN THE HOLY SUPPER. 565
other way than by leaving the laAv out of view, and showing
to these new Manichees, that in Baptism and the Supper, as
being the sacraraents of the Ncav Testaraent, an analogy
was to be observed, we clearly deraonstrated, as was easy to
do, that baptisra is called the washing of regeneration and
renovation in no other sense than that in which Christ
caUed the bread his body. I do not state all which the
reader Avill find in ray last adraonition to Westphal, as at
present it is sufficient to have pointed to the objections
which Heshusius dilutes. And yet I ought not to orait, that
though he had read in the twenty-third article against the
objectors of Magdeburg, Avhat should have been more than
sufficient to refute aU his subtleties, he turns it over as if
nothing had ever been written.
Next coraes the fifth objection, in Avhlch he introduces us
as speaking thus : — In the phrase. This is ray body, we raust
have recourse to a trope, just as those phrases, Circuracision
is a Covenant, The Larab is a Passover, The Rock was Christ,
cannot be explained Avithout the help of trope, raetaphor, or
metonyray. This raay perhaps pass for wit with his boon
companions, but all raen of sense and piety raust regard him
as a falsifier, since this trifling is not to be found in our
writings. We siraply say, that in considering the sacra
ments, a certain and peculiar raode of expression is to be
observed in accordance with the perpetual usage of Scrip
ture. Here we escape by no evasion or help of trope : we
only produce Avhat is notorious to all but bratish minds that
would darken the sun. I acknowledge, then, our principle
to be, that in Scripture there is a form of expression com
mon to all the sacraments, and though each sacraraent has
something peculiar to itself, distinct from the others, yet all
of them contain a metonymy, which transfers the narae of
the thing signified to the sign. Let Heshusius now answer.
His words are : It is not easy to adrait that there is a trope
in the words. The rock was Christ. StiU out of his facility
he grants us this. Here the reader will observe his difficult
facility. But how can he deny that the rock is figuratively
called Christ ? Is tbis aU his great liberality ; to concede to
us that Christ, strictly speaking, was not the mass of stone

566 THE TRUE PARTAKING OF THE FLESH AND
from which the water in the wUderness flowed ? He goes
farther, and says, it does not follow from this that all the
articles offaith are to be explained metaphorically. But the
question was concerning the sacraraents. Let the pious and
dUigent reader turn over the whole of Scripture, and he will
find that what we say of the sacraraents always holds, viz.,
that the narae of the thing signified is given to the sign.
This is what is called by graramarians a figurative expres
sion ; nor will theologians, when they express themselves,
invert the order of nature. With what propriety Heshusius
flies off from Baptisra and the Supper to all the articles of
faith, I leave others to judge : every one raust see, that like
an unruly steed, he overleaps the goal. His answer, that in
dividual exaraples do not forra a general rale, is nothing to
the purpose, because Ave do not produce any single example,
but adhere to a rale which is coraraon to all the sacraraents,
and which he in vain endeavours to overturn.
He is not a whit raore successful in solving the other
difficulty. We say with Augustine, that when a manifest
absurdity occurs, there is a trope or figure in the expression.
He answers, that in the judgment of reason nothing is more
absurd than that there are three hypostases in the one
essence of God, and yet no remedy of a trope is required ;
as if it were our intention, or had been that of Augustine,
to raeasure absurdity by our camal sense. On the contrary,
we declare that we reverently embrace what human reason
repudiates. We only shun absurdities abhorrent to piety
and faith. To give a literal meaning to the words. This is
my body, we hold to be contrary to the analogy of faith, and
we, at the sarae time, maintain that it is remote from the
common usage of Scripture wherever sacraraents are spoken
of When Heshusius says that this opinion of ours is refuted
by the name of New Testament, it is Avitli no greater reason
than if he were to deny that the Holy Spirit is raetonyrai
cally termed a dove. He says, falsely and nugatorily, that
insult is offered to Paul, as if we were rejecting his explana
tion. The bread is the coraraunion of the body, Avhereas this
coraraunion is nowhere raore fully illustrated than in our
writings.

BLOOD OF CHRIST IN THE HOLY SUPPER. 667
The rules of rhetoricians adduced by him show that he
has never mastered the rudiraents of any liberal study.
But not to make rayself ridiculous by imitating his silli
ness, I give the only answer AA-hich becomes a theologian, —
that although a figurative expression is not so distinct, it
gives a more elegant and significant expression than if the
thing were said simply, and without figure. Hence figures
are called the eyes of speech, not that they explain the mat
ter more easily than simple ordinary language, but because
they attract attention by their elegance, and arouse the raind
by their lustre, and by their lively sirailitude make a deeper
impression. I ask Heshusius, whether in our Saviour's
discourse in the sixth chapter of John there is no figure ?
Surely, whether he will or not, he will be forced to confess
that it was metaphorically said, Unless ye eat the flesh of
the Son of God, and drink his blood. All, however, see
more clearly what our Saviour meant to express, viz., that
our souls, by a spiritual partaking of his flesh and blood, are
nourished unto heavenly life. He makes it a ground of loud
triumph over me, that when I saw that the grosser meta
phors of others were exposed by the judgment of Luther, I
craftily carved out a raetaphor, which, however, is not at
all consistent. He indeed admits the ti-uth of what I teach,
viz., that the sign is aptly expressed by the name of the
thing signified, but holds that things unlike are here con
joined hy a marvellous raode of expression. I hear what he
would say ; but by Avhat authority does he prove it ? He
not only despises us, but rejects the interpretation of Bren
tius as confidently as he does ours.
Now then, although he persuade hiraself that, like an
other Pythagoras, he is to be believed on his own asser
tion, (avTOTTto-To?,) in what way does he hold the body of
Christ to be one with the bread ? He answers, in the sarae
way as the Holy Spirit was a flame resting on the heads
of the Apostles, and a dove which appeared to the Bap
tist. He means, then, that in an unwonted raanner tongues
of fire were the Spirit, and a dove was the Spirit. What
need is there here for long discussion, as if the reader could
not easily judge for himself which of the two is more con-

568 THE TRUE PARTAKING OF THE FLESH AND
sistent — that the name of the thing should be applied to
the sign, or that the sign should be, strictly speaking,
the very thing ? The dove, under the forra of which the
Holy Spirit appeared, immediately vanished : but as it
was a sure symbol of the presence of the Spirit, we say that
the narae of the Spirit was correctly and aptly iraposed on
it. Although this is displeasing to Heshusius, who main
tains that however metonyray raay be twisted, it cannot be
raade to apply ; there is now no wonder that he is so much
in love with all kinds of absurdity, and hugs thera as they
were his children, as he seeras to be borne away by some
monstrous fondness for paradox, and can only approve of
what is absurd. Meanwhile, I receive what he grants, viz.,
that the bread of the eucharist is- called the body of Christ
for the sarae reason for whieh the dove is called the Spirit.
I cannot have the least doubt, that in regard to the latter
expression, all will at once agree with me that there is a
raetonyray. When, to defend his pride, he glories in mere
ignorance, the only thing fit for him is Paul's answer. He
that is ignorant, let him be ignorant.
If he feels that' Aveariness, by which, according to Juvenal,
Occidit miseros crambe repetita magistros,
why^oes he, in his sixth objection, infiict spontaneous mis
ery upon himself, not only by useless repetition, but also by
vain fiction ? Our raode of arguing, though nothing of the
kind was ever in our thoughts, he pretends to be as follows :
Were the presence of Christ in the Supper corporeal, the
wicked would, equally with believers, be partakers of the
body of Christ. This inference, Avhich Heshusius draws,
I reject as absurd. Hence it appears in what kind of wrest
ling he is exercising hiraself But the reason is, that he was
unwilling to lose a verse of Menander, which forraerly, when
talking tediously on thi-s article, he had forgotten to insert.
I,; think I have clearly demonstrated how nugatorily he at
tempts to raake a gloss of the immensity of God, that- he
may; thus separate Christ frora his Spirit. God, he says, fills
all things, and yet does not sanctify all things by his Spirit.
But the reason is, that God does not work everywhere as
Redeemer. The case is different with Christ, who, in his

BLOOD OF CHRIST IN THE HOLY SUPPER. 569
character as Mediator, never coraes forth Avithout the Spirit
of holiness. For this reason, Avherever he is, there is life.
Therefore, not to Avander in vain beyond our bounds, let
Heshusius show that Christ, considered as born of tbe Virgin
to be the Redeeraer of the Avorld, is devoid of the Spirit of
regeneration. In the seventh objection he raakes it plain how truly I said
that those who inclose the body of Christ in the bread, and
his blood in the cup, cannot, by any tergiversation, avoid
dissevering the one frora the other : for seeing no means of
evasion, he breaks out into invective, and calls rae an Epi
curean. It is of no consequence to observe Avhat kind of
scholars his oavu school has produced. It is certain that the
stye of Epicurus does not send forth raen who boldly offer
their li\'es in sacrifice, that they raay confirra the ordinance
of the Supper by their own blood. Six hundred martyrs
will stand before God to plead in defence of my doctrine.
For the same cause three hundred thousand raen are this
day in peril. Heshusius and his fellows Avill one day feel
how intolerable, before the tribunal of God, and in presence
of all the angels, is the sacrilege of not only fiercely lacerat
ing the living servants of God, whose piety is placed beyond
a doubt by pious labours, watchings, and wrestlings, but also
of dishonouring innocent blood, sacred even to God, by cruelly
assailing the dead. This is my brief answer to his reproaches.
As to the subject, let hira at last give his own answer. He
says, that without disseveration the flesh of Christ is eaten
in the bread, and his blood drunk in the wine, but that the
mode in which this is done is unknoAvn to him. In other
words, while he advances the most raanifest contradictions,
he AviU not allow thera to be exarained. But I press hira
more closely. As Christ does not say of the bread. This I
am, but calls it his body, and separately offers the blood in
the cup, it necessarily foUows that the blood raust be sepa
rated from the body. It is a frigid sophisra of the Papists,
that the body is in the cup, and the blood in the bread, by
concomitance. Distinct syrabols were not used Avithout
cause, when he gave his flesh for raeat, and his blood for
drink. If ihe sarae thing is given by both syrabols; then

570 THE TRUE PARTAKING OF THE FLESH AND
substantially the bread is blood, and the wine is body ; and
the bread, as well as the cup, will each be the whole Christ
tAvice over. But if it was the purpose of Christ to feed his
believers separately on spiritual raeat and drink, it follows
that there is neither flesh in the bread, nor blood in the
wine, but that by these syrabols our minds are to be carried
upwards, that by eating the flesh and drinking the blood of
Christ we raay enjoy solid nourishraent, and yet not dissever
Christ. Though Heshusius, to darken this light, boldly de
fames, under the name of philosophy, a doctrine derived from
pure theology, he gains no raore than to raake his obstinacy
and arrogance detestable to all raen of sense and raoderation.
The eighth objection, concerning the worship of the bread,
(apTo'Karpeia,) though not faithfully stated, he adopts a very
silly raethod of refuting. He raaintains that the bread is
not to be worshipped, because it is not the body of Christ by
hypostatic union. Surely Philip Melancthon was not so
ignorant of things and words as not to perceive this distinc
tion. He saw, however, that if the bread was the body, it
was to be worshipped without any reservation. Indeed, I
have already shown, that were we to grant to Heshusius
that it does not follow frora his error that the bread is to be
worshipped, he cannot, however, evade the charge of apro-
'Karpeia, because he cannot deny that Christ is to be wor
shipped in the bread, or under the bread. It is certain, that
wherever Christ is, he cannot be laAv fully defrauded of his
honour and AVorship. What, then, is raore preposterous than to
place hira in the bread and then refuse to worship hira ? Nor
have we to dispute about the raatter, as if it were doubtful.
For to Avhat end is the bread lifted up araong thera ? Why
do they fall on their knees before the bread ? If such gross
superstition is excusable, the prophets did grievous wrong to
the Gentiles when they said that they worshipped gold, sil
ver, wood, and stones. All infidels thought that they were
venerating the celestial Deity when they supplicated statues
and iraages. They had no hypostatic union, but only a re
serablance ; and though they annexed the power of God to
images, they would never have ventured to assert that a
piece of wood was substantially God. Shall we suppose that

BLOOD OF CHRIST IN THE HOLY SUPPER. 571
those who unblushingly affirm the sarae thing of the bread
are not worshippers of the bread ?
His next sentence gives no obscure indication of the re
verence with Avhich he conteraplates the boundless essence
of God. If it is so, he says, let us worship wood and stones
in which the trae essence of God is. For although God
fills heaven and earth, and his essence is everywhere diffused,
the perverse fiction which Heshusius appends to this, and
his profane language concerning it, are abhorrent to piety.
The Spirit of God, he says, dwelt in Elias : why did not the
followers of Elias worship him ? But what resemblance is
there between all the forms of divine presence of which
Scripture speaks, and this for Avhich Heshusius contends ?
He is not entitled proudly to despise objections which he
is so unsuccessful in obviating. It is strange also why he
represents the arguments which overthrow his error as so
few in nuraber. He is not ignorant that the objectors of
Magdeburg set them down at fifty-nine. Why then does he
pass the greater part of them without notice, but just be
cause he Avould not advert to difficulties which he could not
solve without disgracing himself, and, seeing how the others
had been handled, the best course seemed to be to dissemble.
Though at greater length than I anticipated, I ara not'
sorry at having discussed the silly production of a man not
less wicked than absurd, if raodest and worthy readers de
rive aU the profit which I hope from my labour. It was for
their sakes I subraitted to the weary task. The slanderer
himself was undeserving of an answer. That the whole
world raay in future know raore certainly with what title tur
bulent raen so violently assail our doctrine, with what trath
they charge us with equivocation and iraposture, with what
civility they load us with words of conturaely, it has seeraed
proper to append a brief suramaiy of ray doctrine. Perhaps
this right and trae no less than lucid exposition raay have
the effect of appeasing sorae individuals ; at aU events, I ara
confident that it wiU fully satisfy all the sincere servants of
God, since nothing has been oraitted in it which the dignity
and reverence due to this ordinance deraands. The paltry
censures by which Heshusius has endeavoured to excite

572 TRUE PARTAKING OF THE FLESH AND BLOOD OF CHRIST.
hatred or suspicion of ray writings, I regard not, nor labour
to refute, but rather ara pleased that there should exist a
notable speciraen of the depravity and malevolence with
which he is irabued, the stolid pride, and insolent audacity
with which he swells. I do not now question his title to
assurae the office of censor against me. It is enough for me
that while I ara silent all sensible and raoderate raen will
recognise under the character of the censor one who has the
spirit of an executioner ; so foully does he adulterate, cor
rupt, Avrest, garble, lacerate, and subvert everything. Had
he anything like candour or docility, I would clear rayself
frora his calumnies, but as he is like an untamed bull I leave
it to Beza to prune his wantcmness, and bring hira into due
subjection. .

THE BEST METHOD OF OBTAINING CONCORD,
PROVIDED THE TRUTH BE SOUGHT WITHOUT CONTENTION.

That no doubt or suspicion raay delay and hinder Concord,
we must, in the first place, explain what the points are on
which we are agreed ; for those points which, at the com
mencement of our contests, chiefly exasperated the rainds of
both parties, are now undisputed. What produced the great
est hatred was the aUegation by one party that the grace of
the Spirit was tied down to external eleraents ; and, by the
other, that only bare and erapty figures resembling theatrical
shows were left. This contention has now ceased, because
we acknowledge on both sides, —
First, that the Sacraments are not only marks of outward
profession before raen, but are testiraonies and badges of
divine grace, and seals of the promises, giving a stronger
confirmation to our faith.
That, therefore, their use is twofold — to sustain our con
sciences before God, and testify our piety before the world.
That God, moreover, as he is true and faithful, perforras
by the secret virtue of his Spirit that which he figures by
external signs, and, accordingly, that on the part of God
himself, not empty signs are set before us, but the reality
and efficacy at the same tirae conjoined with thera.
That, on the other hand, the grace or virtue of the Spirit
is not inclosed by the external signs, because they do not
profit all equally or indiscriminately, nor does the effect also
appear at the same raoraent ; but that God uses the Sacra
raents as to him seems good, so that they help forward the

574 THE BEST METHOD OF OBTAINING CONCORD.
salvation of the elect, and instead of conferring anything on
others rather turn to their destruction.
That, in short, the Sacraraents are of no avail unless they
are received in faith, which is a special gift of the Spirit,
not depending on earthly eleraents, but on the celestial
operation of the same Spirit. External helps are only added
to meet the weakness of our capacity.
Particularly, in regard to the holy Supper of Christ, it is
agreed, that under the symbols of bread and wine an ex
hibition of the body and blood of Christ is held forth ; and
we are not raerely rerainded that Christ was once offered
on the cross for us, but that sacred union is ratified to which
it is owing that his death is our life ; in other Avords, being
ingrafted into his body, we are ti-uly nourished by it, just
as our bodies are nourished by raeat and drink.
It is also agreed, that Christ fulfils in reality and effica
ciously whatever the analogy between the sign and the thing
signified deraands ; and that, therefore, in the Supper com
munion with the body and blood is truly offered to us, or,
(which is the same thing,) that under the bread and wine
we receive an earnest which makes us partakers of the body
and blood of Christ.
It remains to mention the articles as to which it is not
yet clear either what view we are to take or how we are to
speak. Every raan who, endued with a sound and correct judg
ment, possesses also a calm and well-ordered mind, will ad
rait that the only dispute is in regard to the mode of eating.
For we plainly and ingenuously assert that Christ becomes
ours in order that he raay thereafter coraraunicate the bless
ings which he possesses to us : that his body also was not
only once given for our salvation when it was sacrificed on
the cross to expiate sin, but is daily given us for nourish
ment, that while he dwells in us we may enjoy a participa
tion in all his blessings. In short, we teach that it is vivify
ing, because he infuses his own life into us in the same way
in which we derive vigour from the substance of bread.
Therefore, according to the different raodes of eating adopt
ed, disputes arise. Our explanation is, that the body of

THE BEST METHOD OF OBTAINING CONCORD. 575
Christ is eaten, inasrauch as it is the spiritual nourishraent
of the soul. Again, it is called nourishraent by us in this
sense, viz., because Christ, by the incomprehensible agency
of his Spirit, infuses his life into us, and raakes it coraraon
to us, just as in a tree the vital sap diffuses itself frora the
root araong the branches, or as the vigour of the head is
extended to the members. In this definition there is no
quibble, no obscurity, nothing arabiguous or equivocating.
Some, not contented with this lucid simplicity, insist that
the body of Christ is swallowed ; but this is not supported
hy the authority of Scripture, or the testimony of the prirai
tive Church, so that it is wonderful hoAV men endued with
moderate judgraent and learning contend so pertinaciously
for a new invention. We by no means call in question the
doctrine of Scripture, that the flesh of Christ is meat indeed,
and his blood drink indeed ; because they are both truly
received by us, and are sufficient for entire life. We also
profess that this coraraunion is received by us in the sacred
Supper. Whosoever urges us farther certainly overleaps the
proper hounds.
Moreover, to insist on the essential expression is not agree
able to reason, since the subject in question is the Sacraments
to which Scripture assigns a peculiar raode of expression.
Hence it follows, that the words, " This is my body," and
also, " The bread which we break is the communion of the
body of Christ," ought to be expounded ih a sacraraental
manner. As some are suspicious of danger here, it is easy
to obviate their fears. When the mode of expression is said
to be sacramental, they think that the reality is overthrown
by the figure. But they ought to observe that the figure is
not set down as an erapty phantom, but is taken gramraati-
cally to denote a metonyray ; lest any one should suppose
that the bread is caUed "-The body of Christ," as absolutely
as Christ hiraself is caUed " The Son of God." The terra
body is therefore figuratively transferred to the bread, and
yet not figuratively as if Christ presented a naked and
erapty iraage of his body to our eyes, because the reality is
not excluded by the figure, but only the difference is denoted
between the sign and the thing signified. This is not re-

576 THE BEST METHOD OF OBTAINING CONCORD.
pugnant to their union. Let cavilling only be laid aside, as
it ought to be, in seeking concord, and it Avill be seen that
there is nothing in this doctrine AA'hich ought to be odious
or liable to misconstruction, and that it has ever been ap
proved both by coraraon sense and coraraon usage.
First of all, it is necessary to reraove the obstacle with
regard to the iraraensity ofthe body. Unless it is adraitted
that it is finite and contained in heaA'en, there will be no
raeans of settling the dispute. The idea of sorae, that there
is no absurdity in supposing it to be everywhere, in conse
quence of its being united to the Divinity, is easily disposed
of For although the two natures forra the one person of
the Mediator, the properties of each reraain distinct, since
union is a different thing frora unity. There Avas no dispute
in ancient tiraes as to this raatter, for it was held Avitli uni
versal consent, that as Christ, the Son of God, the Mediator,
and our Head, Avas once received into heavenly glory, so he
is separated frora us in respect of his flesh by distance of
place, but still, by his Divine essence and virtue, and also
spiritual grace, fills heaven and earth.
This being fixed, it will be laAvful to adrait forras of
speech, by which, on account of their ambiguity, some are
perplexed, viz., that the body of Christ is given us under
the bread, or with the bread, because the thing denoted is
not a substantial union of corruptible meat with the flesh of
Christ, but saci'araental conjunction. And there is no dis
pute araong the pious as to the fact, that there is an in
separable tie between the sign and the thing signified in the
very proraise which raakes no fallacious exhibition, but
figures what is truly and in reality perforraed.
Moreover, it is in vain to dispute about a twofold body.
There was indeed a change in the condition of the flesh
of Christ, Avhen received into celestial glory it laid aside
all that was earthly, raortal, or perishable. Still, however,
we ought to hold that no other body is vivifying to us, or
can be regarded as raeat indeed, but that whicii was cruci- .
fied for the expiation of sin, as the Avords iraport. The
sarae body, therefore, which the Son of God once offered to
the Father in sacrifice, he daily offers us in the Supper as

THE BEST METHOD OF OBTAINING CONCORD, 577
spiritual food. Only, as I lately hinted, we must hold in
regard to the raode, that it is not necessary that the essence
of the flesh should descend from heaven in order to our being
fed upon it, the virtue of the Spirit being sufficient to break
through all irapediraents and surmount any distance of
place. MeanAvhile, Ave deny not that this raode is incompre
hensible to the human raind ; because neither can flesh na
turally be the life of the soul, nor exert its poAver upon us
from heaven, nor Avithout reason is the coraraunion which
makes us flesh of the flesh of Christ, and bone of his bones,
caUed by Paul, " A great raystery." (Eph. v. 30.) There
fore, in the sacred Supper, we acknowledge a rairacle which
surpasses both the liraits of nature and the raeasure of our
sense, Avhile the life of Christ is coraraon to us, and his flesh
is giA'en us for food. But we raust haA'e done with all inven
tions inconsistent with the explanation lately given, such as
the ubiquity ofthe body, the secret inclosing under the syra
bol of bread, and the substantial presence on earth.
After these raatters have been arranged there still arises
the doubt as to the terra substance, to settle which the easy
method seems to be to remove the gross iraagination as to
the eating of the flesh, as if it Avere sirailar to corporeal
meat which is receiA'cd by the mouth and descends into the
stomach. For when this absurdity is out of the way, there
is no reason why we should deny that we are substantially
fed on the flesh of Christ, because we are truly united into
one body with him by faith, and so made one with hira.
Whence it foUoAvs, that we are conjoined Avith him by a
substantial fellowship, just as substantial vigour flows from
the head to the members. The explanation to be adopted
will thus be, that substantiaUy we become partakers of the
fiesh of Christ — not that any carnal raixture takes place, or
that the flesh of Christ brought down from heaven penetrates
into us, or is swalloAved by the raouth, but because the flesh
of Christ, in respect of its power and efficacy, vivifies our
souls in the same way that bread and wine nourish our
bodies. Another controverted point relates to the terra spiritually,
to which many are averse, because they think that sorae-
VOL. II. 2 °

578 THE BEST METHOD OF OBTAINING CONCORD.
thing vain or iraaginary is denoted. Definition raust there
fore here come to our aid. Spiritual then is opposed to
carnal eating. Ba' carnal is meant that by which some sup
pose that the very substance of Christ is transfused into us
in the same Avay as bread is eaten. In opposition to this
it is said, that the body of Christ is given to us in the Sup
per spiritually, because the secret virtue of the Spirit makes
things AA'hich are Avidely separated by space to be united
Avith each other, and accordingly causes life frora the flesh of
Christ to reach us from heaven. This power and faculty of
vivifying raight not improperly be said to be something ab
stracted frora the substance, provided it be truly and dis
tinctly understood that the body of Christ reraains in heaven,
and that yet Avhile Ave are pilgriras on the earth life flows
and coraes to us from its substance.
When some charge us Avith ignorantly confounding the
two modes of eating, we deny that it is through ignorance
we omit the notion Avhich they have fabricated for themselves
in regard to sacraraental eating, Avhich they insist to be an
eating of the substance of the flesh without effect or grace.
Nothing of the kind is either delivered in Scripture, or
supported by the testiraony of the priraitive Church. For
certainly the reality and substance of the sacraraent is not
only the application of the benefits of Christ, but Christ hira
self with his death and resurrection. Wherefore, they are
not skilful expositors who, on the one hand, raake Christ de
void of the gifts of his Spirit and of all virtue, and, on the
other, conjoin hira with spiritual gifts and the fruit of eat
ing, because he cannot without insult be separated frora
his Spirit any more than dissevered from himself Nor is
any support given thera by the words of Paul, that those who
eat the bread of the Supper unworthily are guilty of the
body and blood of the Lord, (1 Cor. xi. 27;) since the guilt
is not ascribed to receiving, nor is it anywhere read, nor is
it consonant to reason, that the receiving of Christ is the
conderanation of any man. The conderanation is for reject
ing him. Let it be agreed, then, in regard to this article,
that the body of Christ is eaten by the wicked sacraraent
ally, not truly or in reality, but in so far as it is a sign.

THE BEST METHOD OF OBTAINING CONCORD. 579
This definition answers the question, What is it to receive
the body of Christ in tho Supper by faith ? Some are sus
picious of the terra faith, as if it overthrew the reality and
the effect. But avc ought to view it far otherwise, viz.. That
the only way in Avhich Ave are conjoined to Christ is by rais
ing our rainds above the world. Accordingly, the bond of our
union with Christ is faith, which raises us upvA'ards, and casts
its anchor in heaven, so that instead of subjecting Christ to
the figments of our reason, aa'c seek him above in his glory.
This furnishes the best method of settling a dispute to
which I adverted, viz.. Whether believers alone receive
Christ, or all, Avithout exception, to whora the syrabols of
bread and wine are distributed, receive hira ? Correct and
clear is the solution which I have given ; Christ offers his
body and blood to all in general ; but as unbelievers bar the
entrance of his liberality, they do not receive what is offered.
It raust not, however, be inferred frora this, that when they
reject what is given, they either make void the grace of
Christ, or detract in any respect from the efficacy of the
Sacrament. The Supper does not, through their ingra
titude, change its nature, nor does the bread, considered
as an earnest or pledge given by Christ, beconie profane, so
as not to differ at all frora coraraon bread, but it still truly
testifies coraraunion with the flesh and blood of Christ.

THE END OF VOLUME SECOND OF CALVIN's TRACTS.

GENERAL INDEX.

Abraham ate Christ spiritu,illy, 431.
Absence, Present bodily, of Christ,
240.
Absurdities produced by too closely
pressing the literal seuse of Scrip
ture, 433.
Absolution, The utility of, if private
and optional, 3"21 ; should not be
imposed by law, 3-21.
Abstinence and fasting laudable vir
tues, 149.
Administrator, The efficacy of the Sa
craments depends not on the, 1 52,
233.
Adam, Our common ruin from, 131,
141.
Agency of the Holy Spirit, 50-53; effi
cacy of the Sacraments depend en
tirely on, 134.
Agonies, Fearful, by which our Sa
viour's soul was pierced, 46.
Agreement in regard to the Sacra
ments between the Churches of
Zurich and Geneva, 221, 253 ; no
ground for alleging it to be a ficti
tious, 273.
Allegory, Excessive fondness of the
Fathers for, 435.
Ambrose, The Emperor Theodosius
rebuked by, 437.
Angels and Saints not to be worship
ped, 7 1 ; the proper office of, 7 I .
Anabaptists, Similarity of the argu
ments of, against infant baptism to
those used in maintaining a local
presence of Christ in the Supper,
305, 425; Servetus one of the, 265;
detestable ravings of, 1 33.
Anthropomorphites argue like those
contending for a local presence of
Christ in the Supper, 299, 433, 508,
528.
Apostles' Creed, why so called, 39;
four great divisions of, 39.

Arians, Source of the heresy of the,
301.
Ark of the Covenant, how called the
presence of God, 430.
Artolatria, or worship of the bread,
498, 570.
Ascension, The body of Christ no long
er on earth since his, 48.
Assurance of forgiveness, 146; not to
be sought in predestination, 343.
Assemblies, Duty of holding Christian,
83.
Athanasius, The only point of resem
blance between, and Westphal, 258;
his high authority, 545 ; quoted,
545.
Augsburg, The Confession of, as pub
lished at Ratisbon, 225 ; liigh esti
mation in which held, 354 ; accord
ance of, with the Agreement be
tween the Churches of Zurich and
Geneva, 225, 261,277, .'J06, 355.
Augustine, The drift of, in writing
against the Donatists, 370 ; the
chief, best, and most faithful of the
Fathers, 562; quoted, 162, 225,
227, 230-232, 234-236, 264, 286,
304, 342, 358, 359, 362-365, 367-
371, 374, 377, 378, 386,388, 389,
410, 437, 449, 521, 522, 551, 562.
Auricular Confession part of the
tyrannical yoke of the Pope, 133,
149.
Axioms, two articles forming a kind of,
147. B
Baptism, Purposes served by formal
profession of faith in, 34 ; how de
fined, 8b', 1 53 ; title of infants to,
87. 88,114,115, 134, 154,319,320,
336-338, 425 ; how said to be
holy, 320 ; how connected with
regeneration, 86, 87, 336-340 ;
form of administering, 113-118;

582

GENERAL INDEX.

multiplicity of ceremonies in, right
ly abolished, 117, 118; how it dif
fers from the Lord's Supper, 92,
93, 446, 447, 564 ; proper uses of,
87, 114, 115, 337, 339; outward
act of, not always accompanied by
invisible grace, 237; absurdity of
allowing women to administer, 319.
Barbarism with which Christendom
threatened, 35.
Basil quoted, 547.
Believers, The imperfection of, 145;
imperfection no ground of despair
in, 178 ; receive Christ indepen
dently of the Sacraments, 236 ;
Christ received only by, 302.
Berengarius, The alleged heresy of,
260, 362, 506; his recantation, 260.
Bethel, why called the gate of heaven,
296.
Beza, Calvin leaves Heshusius to the
correction of, 572.
Blasphemous prayers to the Virgin
Mary, 145.
Blessings, Temporal, how far promised,
63, 64.
Body of Christ no longer on earth, 48,
49 ; locally in heaven, 2-20 ; how
eaten in the Supper, 277.
Bread of the Supper, Clirist not to be
adored in, 2-20; not the sign of an
absent body, 509; nor the body of
Christ, 171, 172; an appropriate
symbol of our Saviour's body, 89;
called the body of Christ in the
same sense iu which baptism called
the washing of regeneration, 565 ;
Christ not to be adored in the, 220 ;
what included under, 78, 498, 570.
Brotherly love. The Lord's Supper a
strong inducement to, 173, 174, 177.
Bucer of blessed memory, 211, 281 ;
his excellent writings, 2G2 ; at
tempt to destroy the reputation of,
262; accordance of his views on the
Sacraraent with those of Calvin,
281; presence of, at Sraalcald, 360.
Bullinger, his excellent writings, 262 ;
attempt to destroy the reputation
of, 26-2 ; local presence of Christ in
the Supper refuted by, 535.

Cesar, The boast of, 563.
Calvin, His care in preparing his
Catechism, 34; reasons for writing
his Catechism in Latin, 35; reasons
for writing his Treatise on the
Lord's Supper, 164; visits Zurich

in company with Farel, 201 ; draws
up the Agreement between the
Churches of Zurich and Geneva,
201; his high respect for Luther,
224 ; Letter of the pastors of Zurich
to, -201 ; exertions in order to pro
duce concord, 201, 202, 246, 247;
his labours for the edification of
the Church, 250 ; unwillingly drag
ged into contest, 252; his familiar
intercourse with the leading Pro
testants, 253 ; unjustly accused of
violence by Westphal, 347; absurd
ly charged with bringing a general
charge of drunkenness against the
Germans, 256, 492; his attempt to
reconcile Zuinglius and Luther,
277 ; atterapt to depreciate his Com
mentaries, 278 ; kind of eloquence
to which he aspired, 311, 324 ; suc
cess of his labours, 326 ; absurd
oharge of infidelity against, 329 ;
no declaimer, 336 ; his views as to
the punishment of heretics, 357,
358 ; his treatment of Servetus,
350; calumnious charge of resist
ing the truth against his conscience,
475 ; solemn appeal on this sub
ject, 475.
Calvinists falsely charged as Marcion-
ites and Manichees, 502.
Catechism, important uses of a, 34, 35;
Calvin's care in preparing his, 34 ;
rules to be observed in fraraing, ib. ;
desirable that all Churches should
have a comraon, J6. ; pernicious con
sequences of a bad, 35 ; Calvin's
reastms for publishing a Latin, 35;
extensive use of Calvin's, 434.
Catechising neglected by the Papacy,
36; importance of, 37.
Capernaumites, a name properly given
to Westphal's party, 362, 555.
Canonists, The, ashamed of the recan
tation forced from Berengarius,
260.
Carlostadt misinterprets the words of
institution in the Supper, 267; the
image war of, 322,
Celibacy, Imposition of, part of the
tyrannical yoke ofthe Papacy, 1 33;
unlawfulness of imposing, 149 ;
abuses arising from, 149.
Ceremonies, Multiplicity of, rightly
abolished, 117, 118, 317.
Ceremonies of the ancient law, why
abolished, 191; absurd imitation of
ancient, 192.
Christ, the eternal wisdom of the
Father, 40; the offices of, 42, 43;

GENERAL INDEX.

583

how the Son of God, 43 ; miracu
lous conception of, 44 ; why he as
sumed our nature, 44; why pro
nounced innocent before being con
demned, 45; how he endured the
wrath of the Father, 47; benefits
from the resurrection and ascen
sion of, 48; no longer bodily pre
sent, 48; the only spiritual nour
ishment of our souls, 166; the sub
stance of the sacraments, 169; the
only perfect sacrifice, 192 ; how
communicated to us, 213; the body
of, locally in heaven, 2-20 ; cannot
be received without faith, 234; not
placed under the bread, or coupled
with it, 242 ; though not locally
present, yet given substantially in
the Supper, 277 ; spiritually eaten
under the Old Testament as under
the Xew, 293, 294; tilt- flesh of, not
immense, 385 ; our supreme, per
fect, only. Master, 404 ; nothing
impossible to, 4 16 ; why called the
Passover, 428; how put on in bap
tism, 446 ; as the head of the
Church fills all things, 489.
Cbristian assemblies, Dutv of holding,
83.
Chalcedon, Council of, 130.
Chambery, Five Protestants bumed at,
259.
Charity taught by the Lord's Supper,
177; duty of mutually exercising,
197.
Cherubim, The presence of God be
tween the, 385.
Christendom threatened with barbar
ism, 35.
Chrysostom quoted, 3(;C, 549 ; an un
finished work falsely attributed to,
535.
Church, the, Nature of, 50; why called
holy, 50 ; the unity of, 51 ; how
far' visible, 51 ; why called Catho
lic, 51 ; no safety out of the, 52 ;
government of, by pastors, 83; the
whole spiritual government of, leads
to Christ, 212 ; the duty of, in re
gard to careless ministers, 233; not
to be disturbed on slight grounds,
244 ; difference between the Sac
raments of the new and the ancient,
523.
Churches of Saxony and Lower Ger
many, 208; views of, in regard to
the Sacraments, 208.
Churches of Switzerland, The doctrine
of the, in regard to the Sacraments,
246.

Circuracision, What signified by, 338,
440.
Clemens, Alexandrinus, his authority,
541 ; quoted, 541.
Civil Government, The divine author
ity of, 1 35.
CochlfEus, A reference to, 258.
Commentaries of Calvin, Attempt to
depreciate the, 278, 279.
Commandments, 'I'en, how divided, 56 ;
spiritual meaning of, 67.
Common sense. Mysteries of Scripture
not to be tested by, 310.
Communicants, unworthy, Duty of ex-
cludiug, 93, 120; partake only in
the signs, 158; in what sense guilty
of the body and blood of Christ, 234.
Communion, The requisites of, worthy,
176; the propriety of frequent, 179;
grounds insufficient for abstaining
from, 180, 181 ; enjoined only once
a year under the Papacy, 188 ; in
one kind only frivolous reasons for,
189 ; with Christians in the Supper
not fictitious, 226; not confined to
the Supper, 91.
Consubstantiation, Absurdity of, 159;
almost as absurd as Transubstan
tiation, 272,
Confession of Augsburg, 225, 261, 277,
306, 354, 355.
Convention to settle disputes on the
Sacraments desirable, 494.
Controversy, religious. Proper mode of
terminating, 202.
Cornelius, The baptism of, 219; re
ceived the Holy Spirit before bap
tisra, 219, 236, 339,
Conscience, Men cannot bind the, 147.
Confession of Faith, 130.
Council of Nice, 130 ; Ephesus, 130,
361; Chalcedon, 130; Tours, 159,
360 ; Vercelli, 360.
Confidence, The knowledge of God in
Christ, the only foundation of, 38.
Corporeal presence of Christ in the
Supper, Fiction of the, not of an
cient date, 459.
Covenant, Ark of the, why called the
presence of God, 430.
Creed, Apostles', why so called, 39; four
great divisions of, ib. ; why punish-
rai-nt of hell not mentioned in, 53.
Crucifixion, Why of importance that
Christ should die by, 4fi.
Conscience, Terrors of the awakened,
167, 168, 175. , f .,,
Cruciger Gasper, Agreement of, with
Calvin in regard to the Sacra
ments, 313.

584

GENERAL INDEX.

Cyprian quoted, 436, 543.
Cyril quoted, 435, 541.
D
Daily bread. What included under, 78.
Damascenus, Joannes, a writer of no
authority, 535.
Davidians, a sect of fanatics, 265.
Dead, Prayers to the, dishonouring to
Christ, 147.
Death no longer terrible, 63; kind of,
to be experienced by those alive at
the last day, 49 ; premature, not
neces'^rily a curse, 63.
Debate, Proper method of conducting,
255.
Debtor, God can never be our, 1 45.
Decalogue, how divided, 56; spiritual
meaning of, 67.
Decree of God, Free and sovereign,
231.
Demonstrative pronoun, The use of,
in denoting things absent, 405.
Descent of Christ into hell, What
meant by, 46.
Devil wicked by nature, according to
the Manichees, 133.
Devils and wicked men, how overruled
by God, 41.
Dionysius of Alexandria quoted, 544.
Donatists, The drift of Augustine in
writing against the, 370.
Doubt a bar to effectual prayer, 146.
Dove, how called the Holy Spirit, 171,
37-2.
Duty of excluding unworthy communi
cants, 93, 120. E
Earth, True happiness not to be found
on, 52.
East Friesland, Dedication of Calvin's
Catechism to the ministers of, 34.
Eck, A reference to, 258.
Edward VI. of England, a king of the
highest promise, 314; sudden death
of, 314.
Elect, The Sacraments available only
to the, 231 .
Election, Lawful, necessary to confer
the pastoral office, 1 33,
Elements of bread and wine become
Sacraments only when the Word is
added, 227.
Eighth Commandment, What implied
in, 65.
Elias, Luther compared to, 477.
England, Discussion as to the Sacra

ments in, 314; cruel persecution in,
under Mary, 315; loss sustained iu,
by death of Edward VI., 314.
Ephesus, The Council of, 361.
Epiphanius quoted, 545, 546.
Epistles, Gospels and. Division of Scrip
ture into, 322.
Error, People of God soraetimes allow
ed to fall into, 194.
Eusebius, Dionysius of Alexandria
quoted by, 544.
Eutyches, Heresy of, 131.
Evangelists, their different accounts of
the institution of the Supper, 209,
243,409,4-20,481.
Egyptian bondage, a type of the spiri
tual bondage of sin and tyranny of
the devil, 57.
Eunoraians, The heresy of, 141.
Empty shows. The Sacraments separ
ated from Christ are only, 215.
Evangelical union. The advantages of,
35; strong inducements to, among
Protestants, 251.

Faith, Importance of unity in the, 34 ;
definition of, 53; how produced, 53;
benefits resulting from, ,54; justifi
cation by, 54; proper root of all
good works, 55; should continually
increase, 85 ; the Scriptures the
only rule of, 141 ; true nature of,
144; Christ received only by, 234,
303 ; the true modesty of, 239 ;
body and blood of Jesus Christ re
ceived only by, 172,
Famine, Our spiritual, must be felt,
that we may long for food, 1 76.
Fanatics, Abuse of the doctrine of pre
destination by, 143,
Farel, visit with Calvin to Zurich, 201.
Farel, William, the indefatigable zeal
of, 200; visits the Church of Zurich
with Calvin, 200 ; assists in draw
ing up the Agreement between the
Churches of Geneva and Zurich,
221.
Fasting and abstinence laudable vir
tues, 149,
Fathers of tbe Church too much ad
dicted to allegory, 435 ; their me
thod of settling controversy, 202.
Father, What meant by the right hand
of the, 49.
Feast days in honour of the Virgin
Mary and saints, 322.
Filial confidence in God, on what
founded, 75.

GENERAL INDEX,

58.5

FiU in Scripture, often equivalent to
perform, 558.
Fifth Commandment, What implied
in, 63.
First-bom among many brethren,
Christ why called the, 44.
First Commandment, What implied
in, 57.
Form of dispensing Baptism, 113-118.
Foi-m of dispensing Lord's Supper,
11 9-1 ¦2-2.
Form of celebrating MaiTiage, 123-
126.
Form of visitation of the sick, 127, 128.
Foi-giveness of sins, how obtained, 52,
79 ; figured by Baptism, 86; assur
ance of, 146 ; not to be dissevered
from reformation of life, 1 32.
Flesh, prohibition of, under pain of
mortal sin, unlawful, 149,
Flesh of Christ not immense, 385.
Fourth Commandment temporary, in
so far as ceremonial, 61 ; given for
three reasons, 61; how to be ob
served, 62, 63.
France, Confession of Faith by the
Protestants of, 1 40 ; martyrdoms in,
259.
Frankfort, The Church of, 3 1 9 ; Diet of,
to which French Protestants sent
their Confession, 1 38.
Frequent Communion, The propriety
of, 179-
Friesland, East, Dedication of Calvi.n's
Catechism to ministers of, 34.
French Protestants, The loyalty of,
140; assent of, to all the articles
decided by ancient councils, 140;
constrained to take up arms, 140,
Fundamental principle of religion. A,
142.
Food, Our souls have in Christ their
only, 157 ; how the word of God
distributes this, 166.
Feelings indicating a fitness to receive
the Lord's Supper, 1 78.
Frivolous grounds for abstaining from
Communion, 180.

Gehenna, Consciences how brought
into a kind of, 17§.
Geneva, Agreement of the pastors of,
with those of Zurich, 201.
Genesis, Calvin's Commentary on,
falsely charged with containmg
fierce invectives against Luther,
•256.
Gentile idolatry. The nature of, 570.

Germans, Calvin falsely accused of
bringing a general charge of drun
kenness against the, 256.
German Princes, always willing that
their principles, as Protestants,
should be examined, 316.
Germany, Churches of Lower, 208;
views in regard to the Sacraments'
208.
God, The knowledge of, the chief end
of human life, 37 ; wherein the
true knowledge of, consists, 38; no
thing worse than not to live to, 38 ;
the method of duly honouring, 38;
the know-ledge of, in Christ the only
foundation of confidence, 38 ; unity
of the Trinity, 39 ; why called Fa
ther, 40 ; the providence of, not
general, but particular, 40, 41 ; be
cause the Father of Jesus Christ,
our Father also, 40 ; devils and
w-icked men, how overruled by,
41 ; why called jealous, 59 ; how
man can glorify, 76; how he blesses
or punishes posterity, 52, 60; what
comprehended under the love of,
67 ; how dwelt between the cheru
bim, 385.
Godhead, Three persons in the, yet
God not divided, 39.
Good, wherein consists the chief, 37.
Good works. The necessity of, 55 ; the
source of, 55; not meritorious, 143.
Gospel, The Sacraments appendages of
the, 212.
Gospels and Epistles, Division of the
Scriptures into, 322.
Governinent in the Chureh necessary,
94 ; leads to Christ, 212 ; civil, tlie
divine authority of, 135.
Gregory Nanzianzen quoted, 334, 547.
Grisons, The Churches of the, 207.
Grains, The variety of, in bread era
ployed as an illustration, 177.
Galatians, Strong language employed
by Paul in rebuking the, 347, 348.
H
Hamburg, inhospitable treatment of
Protestant exiles at, 335,
Hand, right, of the Father, What meant
by the, 49.
Happiness, True, not to be found on
earth, 52.
Heart more especially required in

praye

,72,

Heaven, The proper idea of, 290.
Hell, The punishment of, why not
mentioned in the Creed, 53 ; what

586

GENERAL INDEX.

meant by the descent of Christ into,
46.
Heresy of the Manichees, 130, 131 ; of
Mai-cion, 131; Nestorius, 131; Eu
tyches, 131; Servetus, 130, 131 ;
Schuencfeldius, 131.
Heresy sometimes originates with the
unlearned, 328.
Heretics, mode of treating, 357 ; liable
to punishment by the civil magis
trate, 357.
Hebrew, Use of the present tense for
the future in, 4-22, 483,
Heathen rites, several derived frora the
ancient patriarchs, 228; how the
sacraments are converted into, 228,
Heshusius, The effrontery, stolidity,
and petulance of, 527 ; Calvin
leaves Beza to correct, 572.
Holy living, The Lord's Supper a
strong inducement to, 173, 174.
Holy Scriptures, how to be received
and used, 82.
Holy Spirit, The agency of the, 50, 53;
efficacy of the Sacraments depends
entirely on, 134.
Human life. The chief end of, 37.
Human traditions. The danger of, 148.
Hypostatic union of the two natures in
Christ, 558.
Hierarchy, Popish, a, diabolical con
fusion, 134.
Hilary quoted, 435, 539.
Huinan reason, Proper province of,
422 ; different kinds of, 442, 512 ;
mysteries of Scripture not to be
measured by, 512.

I

Institution of the Supper, Reasons for
the, 167.
Intentions, Good, not sufficient, 149;
abuses founded on the pretext of,
149.
Interpretation of Scripture necessary,
478,481, 48-2.
Irenseus quoted, 511, 537, 540.
Incomprehensible, Manner in which
Christ is communicated to us is,
490.
Intellect, human. Mysteries of Scrip
ture not to be measured by, 249.

Jealousy, How attributed to God, 59.
Jerome quoted, 410, 549.
Jesus, Meaning of tlie name, 42, 43.
Judaizing exemplified iu regard to the
Lord's Supper, 3 1 8.
Judas, How admitted by our Saviour
to the last Supper, 93 ; in what
sense the flesh and blood of Christ
was received by, 297, 376, 417,
Justification, how received by faith, 54,
13-2, 145.
Justin Martyr quoted, 435, 537.
Juvenal quoted, 537, 568.
K
Kingdom of Christ, The nature of the,
4-2.
Kingdom of God, Wherein consists
the, 76 ; how said to come, 76, 77.
Knowledge of God, Wherein consists
the, 38.
KoivMvia, The proper raeaning of, 269,
270, 414,483,516,517.

Idolatry, Gentile, the true nature of,
570,
Idol, How the bread of the Supper
converted into an, 220.
Ignatius, Spurious w-ritings attributed
to, 535 ; abuse of these writings,
535.
Illumination by the Holy Spirit, The
necessity of, 53.
Images, Making and worshipping of,
how prohibited, 58.
Immensity of the body of Christ, The
figment of, 160, 241, 288, 311, 444,
529.
Impanation of Christ, The absurdity
ofthe, 312.
Imputation of righteousness, 213.
Infants, The baptism of, 87, 88, 1 14,
11.5, 134, 154, 305, 319, 320, 336-
338, 425 ; how raid to be holy, 320.

Ladders, The Sacraments a species of,
229.
Lascus, John a. The excellent writings
of, 26-2, 267.
Law, The office of the, 68, 69 ; unre
generate cannot perform in any
degree, 68 ; Christ the end of, 212.
Law, Ancient, the ceremonies appoint
ed under the, 191,
Lawgiver, God the only, 148.
Le Coq, his attack on Calvin, 496.
Leipsic, learned teachers at, 327 ; one
of tlie eyes of Saxony, 396, 555.
Life, The chief end of human, 37.
Literal sense of Scripture, not to be
pressed too closely, 433 ; words
used in instituting the Supper not
to be taken in the, 68.

GENERAL INDEX.

587

Local presence of Christ in the Supper
a mere figment, 218, 237, 240, 280,
384, 450-458.
Lord's Supper, True nature of the, 91,
157, 167 ; profanation of, 93, 94,
174; mode of dispensing, 105, 106;
h.ow it difi"ei-s fx-om baptism, 92, 93;
union with Christ in, 91, 134; uu-
worthy communicants receive the
sign only, 158; danger of error in
regard to the, 164 ; how' made pro-
fiuble to us, 167, 173; all the trea-
suies of spiritual grace contained
in, 168 ; iu what seuse the bread
and wine in, are body and blood,
170 ; well titttd to remind us of
our obligations to God, 173 ; a
strong inducement to holy living
and brotherly love, 173, 1 74; great
guilt of protauing the, 174; erroi-s
in regard to, 182 ; not a sacrifice,
183; how abused under the Papacy,
187, 188; recent disputes in regard
to the, 194.
I^ve of God, What comprehended
under the, 67.
Loyalty of French Protestants, 1 39.
Luther, First views of, iu regard to
the Supper, 195 ; opposition of, to
Zuinglius and CEcolorapadius, 195,
25-2, 317; defect in his views, 196;
his occasional vehemence, 224, 253,
238, 276, 277, 307, 330; respect of
Calvi.n for, 224 ; abuse made of his
name, 276, 330, 333, 450, 477; his
re=pect fur Calvi.v-, 308; his mag
nanimity, 319; sometimes prudent
ly accommodated himself to the
times, 323; his learning, 327; com
pared to Elias, 477 ; sometimes
mentioned in extravagant terms,
477 ; his implicit submission to the
word of God uot always imitated
by his admirers, 4 77,
Laxity, The prevalence of, too great in
admitting to the Communion, 321.
Lombard, Peter, quoted, 418.
Louvain, Luther's work against the
Doctors of, referred to, 468.
Lyons, Martyrdom at, 259.

M
Magdeburg, Strong sympathy for, raa
nifested by the Churcli of Geneva
during its calamitous siege, 397.
Magnitude, definite, Our Saviour's
body continues of a, 160.
Man The natural misery of, 168; can

not seek to glorify God without
advancing his own interest, 74, 75.
Manichees, Heresy of the, 133.
Manna, a symbol of spiritual food, just
as bread and wine are symbols of
the body and blood of Christ, 243,
293, 297, 391 ; a species of sacra-
me;.t, 430.
Marpurg, The conference at, 253, 308,
360.
Miircion, The heresy of, 130; his ab
surd reason for assigning a heaven
ly body to Christ, 329.
Martyr, Peter, The excellent writings
of, -262 ; a faithful minister of Stras
burg, 314 ; his refutation of a local
presence of Christ in the Supper,
535.
Martyrdom of Protestants at Cham
bery and Lyons, and other parts of
France, 259 ; of six hundred per
sons holding Calvin's views on the
sacraments, 569.
Martyrs, communicate with Christ,
though deprived of the sacraments,
236; celebration of the memory of,
322 ; antiquity of the celebration,
323 ; corruptions introduced in
celebrating the memory of, 322.
Marriage, Design of God in instituting,
123 ; form of celebrating, 123-126.
Mary, Virgin, BIas]diemous prayers
ofiered to the, 145,
Mary, W liy J esus says to, " Touch me
nut," 455.
Mary, Queen, Bloody persecutions iu
England under, 315.
Mass, and other adulterations of the
Lord's Supper, rightly abolished,
122 ; an execrable aboraination,
13,5, 154; numerous corruptions
connected with, 156, 183, 184, 191.
Matthew's Gospel, Commentary on, by
an unknown author, 535.
Melancthon, Philip, justly esteemed
by all princes and learned men,
355 ; appeal to by Calvin, 355, 467 ;
his love of peace sometimes exces
sive, 356 ; perfect agreement with
Calvin in regard to the Sacra-
meiits, 356 ; his presence at Sraal
cald, 360 ; Calvi.n's soleran apos
trophe to, 496.
Melchisedec, Christ sole and perpetual
Priest after the order of, 15b.
Member of the Church, How a man
attests that he is a true, 52.
Merit, none in raaii, 145.
Metonymy, commoii in the Sacraments,
219.

.588

GENEK.VL INDEX,

Messalians, a sect of enthusiasts, 536,
Mimicry and buffoonery in celebrating
the Supper, 193,
Ministry of death and condemnation,
The law why called the, 69.
Monks, Evils of enjoining celibacy on,
133, 149.
Mortal sin, Absurd dogma in regard
to the obstacle of, 217.
Moses, The model shown in the mount
to, 228 ; his reception of divine
unction without being circumcised,
236.
Murder in the sight of God, Anger,
hatred, and any desire to hurt is,
64,
Mysteries of the faith not to be scanned
by the human intellect, 249.

N

Nestorians, The heresy of, 131.
Neufchatel, The Pastors of, subscribers
to the Agreement between the
Churches of Zurich and Geneva,
201.
Nice, The Council of, 130.
Ninth Commandment, What implied
in, 66 ; why public purjury spe
cially raentioned in, 66.
Neighbour, What implied in the term,
69.
Number seven. The, implies perfec
tion, 62.
Nuns, Evils of enjoining celibacy on,
149.
Nicolas, Pope, conderanation of Beren
garius, 260.

Oaths, how far prohibited, and how
far lawful, 60.
CEcolorapadius, The views of, in re
gard to the Supper, 195, 267, 307;
his views attacked by Luther, 1 95,
252; dt feet in his views, 196,275;
a faithful servant of Christ, 21 1 ;
his refutation of a local presence
in the Supper, 535.
Omnipotence of God not impugned by
denial of Clirist's'ubiquity, 161.
Original Sin, the nature of, 131, 142.
Osiander despised a humiliated Christ,
488 ; his idea that righteousness is
conferred on us by the deity of
Christ, 554.

P

P^DOBA prisM, A plausible argument
against, refuted, 340.
Papacy, Catechising neglected nnder
the, 36; spurious sacraments of the,
36, 37, 134 ; gross abuses of, in re
gard to the Lord's Supper, 187, 1 88,
340 ; communion once a year only
enjoined by the, 188; tyrannical
yoke of, 1 33.
Papists, their absurd method of answer
ing objections, 382.
Passion and death of Christ, the only
perfect sacrifice, 192.
Pastoral office. Lawful election to, ne
cessary, 1 33,
Pastors, Government of the Church by,
83, 133 ; subjection due to, 151;
wherein consists the proper power
of, 134, 135.
Pacification, Duty to aim at, by all law
ful means, 493.
Passover, A lamb figuratively called
the, 407 ; substituted for the Lord's
Supper, 422.
Particular obligation on Christians to
live in charity, 197.
Patriarchs, many heathen rites bor
rowed from the, 228,
Paul, Saint, How tar the account ofthe
Supper given by, agrees with that
of the Evangelists, 209, 242, 243 ;
strong language used by him in
rebuking the Galatians, 347, 348,
Peace, The only kiud of, desirable,
314,
People of God allowed to fall into error,
194.
Pestilence, war, and chastisements
from God, 106.
Pope, The tyrannical ordinances of
the, 133, 149 ; his primacy repug
nant to Scripture and the priraitive
Church, 150 ; has encroached on
the jurisdiction of God, 151.
Popish Hierarchy a diabolical confu
sion, 134.
Popish requisite of intention in the offi
ciating minister, 233.
Posterity, how blessed or punished
by God, 59, 60.
Prayer to he made to God only in the
name of Christ, 70, 71, 73, 147;
in what spirit to I e offered, 72, 73;
sluggishness in, how to be over
come, 72; ground of confidence in,
73, 1 46 ; proper subjects of, 74, 1 47 ;
faith gives access to God in, 133;

GENERAL INDEX.

589

God the only proper object of, 1 46 ;
doubt a bar to effectual, 146,
Prayer, The Lord's, the model, but
not the only form of, 83, 133.
Prayei-s to the dead dishonouring to
Clu-ist, 147 ; to the Virgin Mary,
blaspheraous, 145.
Presence of Christ, The nature of the,
in the Supper, 289-291 ; scholastic
distinction as to the, 418.
Predestination, The doctrine of, abused
by fanatics, 143 ; assurance of sal
vation not to be sought in, 343.
Pretended unworthiness in fellow-com
municants no ground for abstaining
from communion, 181.
Priesthood of Chi-ist, Nature of the,
42 ; benefits derived from, 43.
Primacy of the Pope, an enormous
usurpation, 150.
Primitive Church, The doctrine of
transubstantiation not countenan
ced by the, 1 85 ; accordance of
Calvi.n's views on the Sacrament
with those of the, 535.
Promise the thing chiefly to be re
garded in the Sacraments, 215.
Pronoun demonstrative. The use of, in
denoting things absent, 405.
Proper method of keeping back un
worthy communicants, 181.
Prophet, How Christ is a, 42.
Propriety of frequent communion, 179.
Protestants generaUy agreed as to the
leading doctrines of Christianity,
25 L
Protestants, French, The loyalty of,
139; constrained to take up arms,
140.
Purgatory, The dogma of, derogatory
to the finished work of Christ, 147.
Public perjury, why expressly raen
tioned in the ninth commandment,
66.
Perfection the mark at w hich we ought
to aim, 69.
Philosophy, true. Wherein consists, 161.
R
Ratlsbon, The confession of Augsburg
published at, 225.
ReaUty in the Sacraments conjoined
with the visible signs, 91, 135, 172,
225, 440.
Reality of Christ's human nature
destroyed by the dogma of a local
presence in the Supper, 187-
Reason, Human, Proper province of,
422- different kinds of, 442, S12;

mysteries of Scripture uot to be
measured by, 512.
Rebecca, The craft of, in substituting
Jacob for Esau, 526.
Regeneration, how connected with bap
tism, 86, 87, 153, 218, 342 ; where
in it consists, 1 14.
Recantation of Berengarius, 260.
Religious controversy, proper mode
of terrainating, 202.
Remission of sins attested by baptism,
411.
Reformation, The, unjustly charged
with the heresies which then arose,
499, 500.
Repentance, The definition of, 56.
Reproof, Severe, often justifiable, 349.
Resurrection, Order of the, 53 ; fana
tically denied on the ground that
we are to be partakers of the divine
nature, 381.
Reprobates can only blame thera
selves, 232.
Reverence due to distinguished ser
vants of God, 1 97.
Righteousness, The free imputation of,
213.
Right hand of the Fathei-, What meant
by, 49, 457, 559.
Rock in tlie wilderness, how said to be
Christ, 242, 373, 432, 565.
Rulers, Civil , Submission due to, for
conscience' sake, 1 35, 1 5 1 ; the au
thority of, subordinate to that of
God the Sovereign Prince, 135.
Rites, Profane, how the Sacraments
are converted into, 228; several
borrowed frora ancient patriarchs,
228.
Ridicule allowable in attacking error,
486, 487.

S
Sabbath, The observance of, how far
stiUobligatory, 61, 62; mode of ob
serving the, 61.
Sacraments, the. Definition of, 83 ;
instituted in accommodation to our
weakness, 84 ; the utility of, 84, 85,
225; how to be received, 85; num
ber of, 86, 153; Christ Jesus the
substance of, 169 ; efficacy of, not
dependent on the administration,
152, 233 ; danger of despising the,
1 62 ; reality always conjoined with
the signs, 162 ; the efficacy of, de
pends entirely on the agency of
the Holy Spirit, 134; the promise
the principal thing to be looked to

590

GENERAL INDEX.

in the, 215 ; effect nothing by,
themselves ; gifts in, ofiered to all,
but received by believers only, 217;
believers coraraunicate with Christ
independently of the, 218; benefit
of the, not always received in the
act of communicating, but appears
long after, 2 1 8 ; no local presence of
Christ in the, 218, 219; the words of
institution not to be talien Uterally,
219 ; the Spirit inwardly performs
what is figured in the, 226, 238;
not to be extolled above the word,
227 ; a kind of ladder to enable ns
to climb upwards, 229 ; unhappy
disputes in regard to the, 246 ; how
constituted by the words of Christ,
303.
Sacramental eating, what meant by,
373, 374.
Sacramental, mode of expression, 243,
250, 419.
Sacramentarians, a term of derision
applied to those holding Calvin's
views on Sacraments, 206, 211.
Sacrifice, a term anciently applied to
the Supper, but improperly, 156;
the Lord's Supper not a, 1 83 ; the
deatli and passion of Christ the
only perfect, 1 92,
Salvation, The mercy of God the only
source of, 142.
Saints not to be worshipped, 70; feast-
days in honour of, 322.
Satan,' the true instigator of the dis
putes on the Sacraments, 309; his
crafty policy, 206, 309,
Saxony and Lower Germany, The
Churches of, 206 ; the views of, in
regard to the Sacraments, 206, 309.
Saxony, Wittemberg and Leipsic, The
two eyes of, 396, 555.
Schismatics, Who properly called, 151.
Scholastic distinction as to the pre
sence of Christ, 418, 51?,
Schuencfeldius, The erroneous views
of, 131, 266, 537.
Scripture, The literal sense of, not to
be pressed too closely, 433 ; division
of, into Gospel and Epistle, 322, 323;
necessary to keep within the limits
of, 148; authority and use of, 82,
83; the sufficiency of, 133, 147;
only rule offaith, 141.
Self-deception, Various forms of, 178.
Self-denial necessary in order to par
ticipate in the blessings of Christ,
175.
Self-examination necessary before re
ceiving the Supper, 175.

Second commandment. What implied
in, 58, 59; improperly made an ap
pendage of the first comraandment,
322. ¦
Servetus an Anabaptist, 265 ; op
poses Zuinglius and (Ecolompadius
on the Sacraments, 266; how treat
ed by Calvin, 358; his abuse of
spurious writings attributed to Ig
natius, 636 ; deliriums of, 561.
Seed, The Sacraments compared to,
34-2.
Seventh coramandment. What implied
in, 65,
Sick, Visitationof the, 127, 128; admin
istration of the Supper to, in private,
320.
Seven, The number, implies perfec
tion, 62.
Sixth Commandment, What implied in,
65.
Simon Magus, The baptism of, 341.
Sin, Original, The nature of, 131, 142.
Son of God, In what sense Christ the,
43.
Sorbonne, Subtle discussion of the Doc
tors of, 186; figment of, in regard
to the Sacraments and mortal sin,
232,
Spirit, The agency of the, 50, 84; life
transferred from the flesh of Christ
by the, 249; necessity of being re
generated by, 144.
Sraalcald, Conference at, 300.
Spiritual regeneration figured by bap
tism, 86-
Spiritual eating not opposed to sacra
mental eating, 373.
Stephen, The reference of, to the mo
del sliown on the mount, 228; vision
of, 464, 515.
Sum of the ten commandments, 67, 68,
Strasburg, Peter Martyr, a minister
of, 314, 319.
Superstition, Necessity of guarding
agaiust, 228.
Superstitious practices in regard to the
Supper, 193, 237.
Supper, The, though received with
little benefit at the tirae, may after
wards bear fruit, '218.
Switzerland, Doctrine of the Churches
of, in regard to the Supper, 204.
Synodal Epistles designed to promote
unity of faith, 35.

Ta pers. The use of, savours of Judaism ,
318.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 01310 9856

I