Exposition of the Doctrine Contained in the Articles (part 2 of 2)

I indeed confess that in one passage, he says that the bread of the Supper has not failed to be the body of Christ to those to whom Saint Paul said: whoever eats thereof unworthily does so to his damnation, not discerning the body of the Lord. And although they received it ill, yet this is not to say that they received nothing. But he expounds himself more fully in another place, to show how this must be taken. For in treating this article deliberately — how the wicked and dissolute who have faith only in their mouth eat the body of Christ — he reproves the opinion of those who think that such people are in fact participants of the body of Christ: and says, one must not think that those who are not members of Christ eat his flesh or drink his blood — for even though we leave there many reasons, it is impossible that he who is a member of a harlot should be a member of Jesus Christ. And the Lord in speaking thus: whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood, remains in me and I in him — shows well what it is to eat in truth and in fact, and not only in sign: namely that for doing this it is required that he remain in us and we in him: for it is as much as if he said: whoever does not remain in me, and he in whom I do not remain, deceives himself, if he thinks to eat my flesh and drink my blood.

Behold the words of Saint Augustine. Wherefore, let these inconsiderate people who debate against us desist from pleading the cause of Judas, if they do not want one to suspect that under his person they speak for themselves, wishing to have Jesus Christ without having him.

As to what we say that the faithful outside the use of the Sacraments do not fail to have the effect of the spiritual goods that are figured therein: this ought well to be received by all without contradiction, seeing that every day we find by experience that it is so, and that it is also proved clearly by the Scripture. For although it is not free for the martyrs — when one holds them in prison — to receive the external sign of the Supper, yet they are not for that deprived of Christ, who triumphs in them in a magnificent glory: indeed, none who is empty of Christ ought to approach his holy table. As also in fact, Cornelius already had in himself the truth of Baptism before being plunged in the water. And Moses, in giving the sign of the sacred and divine unction to his brothers and to his nephews — although he did not receive it himself — has not failed to have the substance and truth thereof. We do not intend, nevertheless, to induce men to quit the use of the signs as if it sufficed them to be inspired from heaven. For although God — to show that his virtue is not subject or bound to any inferior means — perfects what is figured in the Sacraments without their aid, yet by this he does not reject as superfluous what he himself has ordained for our salvation. Wherefore so much the less will it be lawful for us to do so: for us, I say, who must be attentive to the Word and to the signs, as our faith is obligated thereto.

For what Saint Augustine says is most true: namely, although God sanctifies those he wishes, using visible signs, yet that he who despises the sign merits to be deprived of the thing. To which also responds and is conformable what we have said in our Accord — that is, that the utility that comes to us from the Sacraments ought not to be restricted to the time of the visible reception that is made thereof, as if they brought to us the grace of God in the same minute they are received. Which sentence is so clear that whoever would wish to reprove it would be constrained to overturn the whole order of God.

In brief, if one wants the Sacraments to bring with them their present effect, it would be necessary to anticipate the grace of God in some, and for others, it would be necessary to forge infinite Baptisms. For so it is, we see that the virtue of Baptism is null for a time in some, and then shows itself by succession. As, for example, one who will have been baptised from his mother's womb — coming to age, so far from showing himself to have been baptised in Spirit, rather in extinguishing, insofar as in him is, the Spirit of God, effaces and annihilates his Baptism: in the end God recalls him to himself. Wherefore those who wish to enclose the grace of God in the Sacrament as in a purse — thinking to adorn and magnify the Sacrament —do great injury to God. Moreover, since Christians ought to apply all their life to doing penitence, if one restricts the fruit of Baptism to the time it is given and due, that is to cut away the greatest part of its virtue, for one would make it only a sign of penitence for one day, whereas it lasts until death. In sum, one cannot better annihilate the virtue of the Sacraments, nor do them greater outrage, than in imagining that the truth does not pass beyond the external use.

I understand this word thus: although the visible figure passes, yet the grace that is testified therein remains and does not vanish with the sight of the sign. Meanwhile, my intention is not to adhere to the foolish superstition of those who keep the bread of the Supper in the temple, as if the consecration that was made thereof retained its vigour after the Supper is celebrated. Now this article well merits being expounded, to the end that one may not attach the hope of our eternal salvation to what is transitory: so that faith may conceive no more than what we comprehend by the regard of the eyes.

I come now to the question that has engendered such great combats and violent ones in our time: namely, what is the communication that Jesus Christ gives us of his body and blood in the holy Supper. Now in our Accord, before determining on this point, we had well wished to repulse the fantasy that has reigned in the world touching local presence: we had also wished to expound this word of Jesus Christ, Behold my body, because one has so sharply debated it. But because now I deliberate to abate the anger of these unlearned and peevish people who are so transported inconsiderately to calumniate all that one says — unless one prevents the doubts and scruples that vex them, or to appease the simple people who are badly imbued with the propositions by which the malicious defame us — I prefer here to begin at this end: namely, how Jesus Christ communicates himself to us in the Supper.

In the first place, we confess that Jesus Christ truly accomplishes what he figures by the signs of the bread and wine: that is, to nourish our souls, giving them his flesh for food and his blood for drink. Wherefore this frivolous calumny must be brought low — that we make of the Supper as of a farce that would be played on a scaffold: as if we made it believed that Jesus Christ shows us there something by sign, without effect. For we do not intend that anything should be signified therein that is not truly given therein and received. The Lord commands us to take there the bread and wine: meanwhile he pronounces that he gives us for nourishment of our souls his body and his blood: we say that he does not present to us a simple and bare figure to frustrate us: but that under the bread and wine he gives us good pledges to which the truth responds and is conjoined — that is, that our souls are truly nourished by his body and blood.

For the rest, under the name of Faith, we do not intend any imagination, as if the faithful received only by thought or by memory what is promised to them: but we add expressly that faith is required therein, to the end that one may not think that Jesus Christ is so thrown to abandon that the unbelievers participate in him. For also Saint Paul, in saying that Jesus Christ dwells in us by faith, does not introduce an imaginary dwelling that is only by fantasy, but only shows how we enter into possession of so great and singular a good as to have Jesus Christ dwelling in us.

Thus we confess without circuit or cavilling that the flesh of Jesus Christ is vivifying — not only insofar as by it our salvation was once acquired for us: but that now, being united with Jesus Christ, it inspires life of itself in us: or to say it more briefly, that we being engrafted in the body of Christ by the virtue of the Holy Spirit, we communicate with his life. For the life that resides properly in the divine essence, as in its source, has been spread in the flesh of Christ to flow into us: so that it is from thence that we must draw it.

But because our understandings are inclined to conceiving gross follies when one treats of the celestial mysteries of God, it is necessary in this matter to cut short the absurdities that the world makes itself believe. And it is to this that we have had regard in our Accord, declaring notably that the faithful do not participate in Jesus Christ as if some mixture or distillation of substance were made, but since we draw life from the flesh that was once hung on the cross for us.

If someone is not content with this declaration, I say first that he has devised from his own brain more than one finds in Scripture, and more than the rule of faith permits: and then I say that it is too great a pride to wish to impose a law on others to subject them to an opinion forged at a venture. If they want the substance of the flesh of Jesus Christ to be mixed with our souls, into how many absurdities will they not involve themselves?

They allege that one must not lower so high a mystery to the order of the world, nor measure its infinite greatness according to the smallness of our spirits, which I willingly grant them. But must one, under the colour of this modesty that ought to be in the faith, disguise all the doctrine of our religion and confound it amid monsters altogether repugnant to reason and truth? If, so it were, what would be the most extravagant would best suit Jesus Christ, and the most foolish and nature-repugnant reveries would be the best articles of faith.

We confess well that the sacred unity that we have with Jesus Christ is incomprehensible to our carnal sense: we also say that what he causes his life to flow into us after having conjoined us to himself — and not only that, but that we are made one with him, as he is one with his Father — this is a secret surpassing our capacity, unless insofar as it is revealed to us in his Word. But must one, for that, imagine that his substance is transfused into us to be soiled by our filths? These good people make a show of closing their eyes, so as not to inquire too curiously into what God holds hidden, but it appears that it is nothing but pretence and lying, since they will not and cannot suffer that one teach them by the Word of God.

Indeed, behold the true sobriety of faith: it is to rest entirely on what God pronounces, and to conceive nothing beyond what is declared to us by his sacred mouth: and then, in the second place, to range oneself diligently to the Spirit of Prophecy, and to receive in all gentleness and docility all interpretations conformable to the faith. It is, therefore, as it were, an arrogance that the man should be so addicted to his sense as to reject and disdain all clarity of good and right understanding — and meanwhile not to keep himself within his limits, but to forge such inventions as seem good to him.

None of us denies that the body and blood of Jesus Christ are communicated to us: only it is a question of knowing what this communication is. I am astonished if our opposing parties dare to affirm that it is carnal, without disguising so gross an error by some cover. Yet when we say that it is spiritual, they murmur as if we meant that it is not real or in fact. Now, if on their side in saying that we communicate really with Jesus Christ, they understood that it is not in shadow nor by fantasy —we would make no combat with them on that. For we know how unbecoming it is to the servants of Christ to stir up contention for some words: but because though one grants them all that one can, one profits little — seeing that they are people so difficult that they take no reason in payment — it will suffice me to testify to all people fearing God and of settled sense, that in saying that the faithful communicate spiritually with Jesus Christ, we understand that they possess him truly and in fact.

Yet let us not be contentious nor importunate in pleading against a doctrine so right and certain as this one — namely, that the flesh of Jesus Christ vivifies us, inasmuch as Jesus Christ instils from it and causes the spiritual life to flow in our souls; likewise that we eat it when we are united by faith in one body with Christ, to the end that he being made ours, we may share all his goods.

As to the local presence — which is to attach or enclose Jesus Christ in the bread — it is marvellous if our opposing parties have not shame to molest us any more about it: yet they cover themselves with this cavilling — that they do not intend to enclose the body of Jesus Christ in some determined place: but since he is infinite, he can well be everywhere. And on our side, behold what we say: since the Scripture protests that he is held in heaven until he appears from there in judgment, one must not seek him anywhere else. Yet if someone wished to calumniate us as if we said that Jesus Christ is absent from us, in separating the head from his members, he would do us great wrong. True it is, according to what Saint Paul says, that during this mortal life in conversing in this world we are pilgrims far from God: it will be lawful for us by the same reason to say that in some sort of absence we are separated from Christ — indeed inasmuch as we have not yet mounted to heaven to dwell there with him. Thus according to the body, Christ is far from us — at such a distance as heaven is far from the earth: but according to his Spirit, he dwells in us to lift us up to himself even unto heaven: indeed in such a way that he makes us feel a present vigour of his flesh, to vivify us altogether — just as our bodies are refreshed and nourished by the substance of the sun by means of its rays.

What some have been accustomed to saying — that Jesus Christ is invisible with us — amounts to as much as if they placed his form and figure in heaven, and forged for us a hidden substance that resided throughout the world without having a proper place or seat. Now the true religion leads us rather to the contrary: that is, that he does not spread the life upon us from his flesh, unless dwelling entirely in the heavens, he descends to us by his virtue. To which also is related what we add in our Accord: that by this doctrine not only is the error the Papists have forged of transubstantiation overthrown, but also all the gross reveries and petty subtleties that many have advanced, whether to derogate from the heavenly glory of Christ, or not suitable to the truth of his human nature.

And there is no need to deduce at great length why this exception was notably added by us. Some, in imagining an infinite body for Jesus Christ, take away from him what is inseparable from a body according to its nature; others enclose his divine essence under a piece of bread. Now, if someone has previously erred by ignorance: if others have heated themselves too much in dispute and thrown themselves beyond the pale — I will willingly suffer that what has foolishly escaped them be buried. I do not touch upon the persons to defame them, I do not pursue and sting them: as also in our Accord we have spared them, contenting ourselves with cutting short the errors. If we ask that one leave to Jesus Christ in his entirety all that is proper to his two natures, what occasion is there to be vexed? For we tend to no other end than that this unique Mediator, who has conjoined us to God, may not be torn to pieces. When they imagine an infinite body, it is a diabolical illusion to overturn all the hope of our resurrection. For after they have brought all their subterfuges touching the properties or qualities of a glorified body — it will be necessary to return to what Saint Paul says: namely, that we await Jesus Christ from heaven, who will reform our body of base condition to render it conformable to his glorious one — it would follow therefore that each body of the faithful should then fill the whole world: in which there is an absurdity so enormous that there is no need to speak of it further.

Wherefore let these obstinate ones learn to moderate themselves, and let them permit us to expound peaceably our doctrine, which is sound and right. For if they continue to make their skirmishes, we will be constrained to discover to their great shame what we leave as hidden. Let not our modesty embolden them, since until now we have borne with them. For although it displeases us to attach ourselves to persons, if they cannot bear that we debouch the errors, in the end it will be necessary to handle them according as their importunity merits.

What they have most favourable is that in maintaining that the body of Christ is conjoined with the bread, or is given under the bread, they pretend to maintain nothing but the truth of the Sacrament. But meanwhile, must one tear him from his celestial seat to hold him recluse under a piece of bread? For on our side, if one says that the body of Jesus Christ is offered to us under the bread as under a pledge, we do not reply to the contrary: as when we do not want one to couple in a carnal fashion Jesus Christ with the bread, we do not intend to make a divorce of the figure from its substance. We therefore confess simply and purely that the faithful under the sign of the bread receive the body of Jesus Christ, because he who promised it is veracious, and is not about to frustrate us in showing us an empty sign: but meanwhile that one should also guard against imagining that his body is enclosed in the bread: or that there is some carnal infusion or mixing of his substance with ours.

It remains to have the right exposition of the words of Jesus Christ, when he says, This is my body: in which there would be no scruple if one deliberated to acquiesce in what is shown to us by all the Scripture. Wherefore let those who find themselves impeded therein impute the evil to their obstinacy, inasmuch as they prefer to obscure everything in crying and storming, rather than to weigh the things well to judge them in integrity. What Jesus Christ named the bread, his body — they take that rigorously, and receive no declaration: which is yet necessary therein. For if they wish to hold with a precise rigour that the bread is body, it will follow that Jesus Christ is also as much bread as man. Moreover, if this way of speaking did not contain in itself some figure — they themselves would speak falsely, in saying that the body of Jesus Christ is given to us in the bread, under the bread, and with the bread: for by this means they make them diverse things, as in truth they are: which seems at first sight to be repugnant to the words. Now, if they dispense with speaking so grossly against the letter, why will it not be lawful for us to open the mouth to bring a more right, natural, and clear exposition?

To find the sense of the words, we say that one must have regard to the common and customary way of speaking that one sees throughout all Scripture, when it is a question of the Sacraments: namely, that the name of the thing signified is attributed to the sign. I believe that this rule ought well to be received. Now they will not at all hear it, under the pretext that it is simply said: Behold my body. But I ask you, is it not also said just as well that the rock was Christ? And in what sense, unless that the water that came out of the rock was the same spiritual drink as that which we taste today in the chalice of the Supper? These obstinate ones — for fear of obeying reason — dissipate things that one cannot separate: for they cannot reject this similitude without declaring themselves to be mad. But still, even if all that were permitted to them, by what title do they give themselves leave to resolve in diverse ways the word they wish to be so sacredly observed?

Behold, they say, it is a settled point that this word to be carries no sign or figure. Now, if they want the bread to be Jesus Christ, why do they turn aside to glosses all diverse? Whence comes from them this mastery in wishing to oblige all the world to their foolish and absurd glosses, and where there is a contradiction altogether notorious, they do not permit others to bring any sound understanding, whatever foundation there may be? If the bread ought to be reputed the body, because it is thus called, it will also be just as well the communication of the body — witness Saint Paul. Indeed, when I say that Saint Paul, as faithful expositor, has clarified what was obscure in the words of our Lord Jesus, I think that no man of settled sense will contradict me. Behold the Lord who names in one word the bread his body: the disciple comes after, who did not wish to embroil what would have been clear of itself, but in declaring more fully what was too brief in one word, he says that the bread that we break is the communication that we have with the body of Christ. If our opposing parties pass this article, the process will presently be void, since we confess that the faithful, when the bread is distributed to them in the Supper, receive the body of Jesus Christ.

But since they wish to stop so much at the words, we will still have a fine advantage over them. For since Jesus Christ in Saint Paul — instead of naming the wine his blood — says that it is the testament in his blood: every time they cry that the bread is body, inasmuch as it is thus entitled —I will have immediately my reply: that this amounts to as much as if it were said, the testament in his body. Wherefore let them desist from this foolish and brutal obstinacy, in which they do nothing but entangle themselves until rendering themselves altogether confused.

And because there is no need at this hour to enter into a longer dispute, I will hold myself to this article. After they have debated much that the bread is the body, yet they are constrained to confess that it is the sign of the body. And whence have they fished that, unless that the very words of Jesus Christ draw them there by force? One sees, therefore, that after having much pleaded that the words of Jesus Christ ought not to be taken but in a simple and literal sense, they draw from them as by stealth the word of Sign. On our side, when we say that there is figure, we bring nothing that each does not see to be altogether true and natural, and conformable to the rule of faith: and in so doing we have our refuge — as they falsely reproach us — neither in allegories nor in parables: but according as the Scripture speaks everywhere of the Sacraments — that the name of the thing signified is attributed to the sign, by a figure called Metonymy, which amounts to as much as a transfer of name. And this is a maxim so received and common among all the faithful that it is a great shame to resist it: for the examples are so frequent that the most obstinate of those who battle against us would not dare to deny that this is ordinary everywhere.

Wherefore, as the manna was formerly spiritual food, as the rock was Christ, as the dove was the Holy Spirit, as Baptism is the washing of regeneration, so also the bread and wine are named the body and blood of Jesus Christ. If they prefer another figure, this combat ought rather to be sent back to the schools of grammar: so far is it from meriting that all Christianity be troubled thereby. But even though the matter be disputed among grammarians, what will they profit unless they make themselves laughed at by little children?

For the rest, leaving that aside, I say simply that all those who seek contentions about words show well enough that they are not servants of Jesus Christ. For when one is in agreement on the thing, it is too great a villainy to break and dissipate the union of the Churches and to stir up great troubles under the pretext that some will say that the bread is named the body of Christ — inasmuch as the body of Christ is given to us under it or with it: others since it is the sign and pledge thereof — indeed not vain and fruitless, but accompanied by its truth and its effect — that is, that those who receive the sign in the mouth and the promise by faith are truly participants of the body of Christ.

In the end, if our opposing parties have determined not to cease from speaking evil and disgorging their injuries against us, I hope that all peaceable people will recognise that our doctrine is pure and right, and that we proceed therein in all simplicity. Meanwhile, that we take pains insofar as in us is to foster peace and concord: this will suffice well to absolve us. For the rest, I fear not at all that anyone will avow them or agree with their senseless cries, unless he be agitated and stung by the same fury.

Printed at Geneva by Conrad Badius, in the year M.D.LV., the fourth day of the month of March.