Chapter XVII: The Lord’s Supper and Its Advantages (2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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