SECOND DEFENCE

PREVIOUS CHAPTER - NEXT CHAPTER - HELP     

Bible Library

Forex Trading

Store Items

Audio Bible

eBook Business

OF THE PIOUS AND ORTHODOX FAITH CONCERNING THE SACRAMENTS, IN ANSWER TO THE CALUMNIES OF JOACHIM WESTPHAL.

How unwillingly I am again dragged into this contest, which from the first till now I endeavored 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 giver serious offense. For though I have not framed my method of teaching with a view to the favor 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 effect rather of appeasing men’s minds than of increasing strife. The fervor of contention to which 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 subject. 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 Papacy, and after receiving a slight taste of sound doctrine, I read in Luther that Zuinglius and Oecolompadius left nothing in the sacraments but hare and empty figures, I confess I took such a dislike for their writings that I long refrained from reading them. Moreover, before I engaged in writing, the ministers of Marpurg having held s, 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 newer 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 the dissentients then in highest fame and authority gave any sign of offense. 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 inspected 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 ardor 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 own 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 excellent 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 Joachim Westphal started up, and as if it were an intolerable crime to efface all remembrance of offenses, in order that there might be no hidden rancor 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 cannot 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. Accordingly where any repugnance in doctrine had formerly appeared, 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 on any other condition than that innumerable dissensions shall everywhere 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 contradiction. Will you, Westphal, as your passion leads you in a different direction, force us to fight against our will to the public ruin? But in the books formerly published, something discordant is detected. This will afterwards be considered in its own place; but now what envy or malice instigates 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 concord. But when our simple and perspicuous Confession is brought forward, if it contains any thing false, it can be impugned with less trouble.

In every debate, nothing is more desired by honest and ingenuous men, 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 were, 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 arguments 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 heretics are at variance among themselves. Were he persuaded that he has a sufficient defense 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 reads attention to this, to let every one see how strong a necessity has compelled me to the defense of our Agreement, which this hot-headed zealot, without any just cause to induce him, has attempted to overthrow. And yet the excuse he now makes is, that he is undertaking the defense of himself and a good cause against my accusation. 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 dissipate his calumnies. He indeed complains vehemently, and not without great obloquy to me, if there were any color 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 preacher of the gospel was so savorless. I now see that I lost my labor 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 vituperation 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 skillfully or learnedly he discourses in it, I do not now say; only let the reader collect all the calm doctrine 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 ibis companions lately sporting ill the character of a dreamer, ventured to give out, among other follies, that my Commentary on Genesis is filled with fierce invectives against Luther, 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 honor than was due to an illustrious servant of Christ.

The first charge by which Westphal endeavors 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 condole with a private grievance, he incites all his countrymen to a common fight, as it 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 immediately 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 says is not from wine. I with, 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 notorious to all.

With no less absurdity does he digress into the commonplace, that he has the same lot with Christ and his apostles, in being loaded, without cause, with falsehoods and reproaches. 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 difficult to perceive. I had reminded him, that if he were conscious of his own ignorance, he would not believe so confidently. Nothing, 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 endeavor 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 chide 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 have your stomach charged with some kind of oppressive load. The more strange it is, that you, with the greatest confidence, repudiate a vice which 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 fictitious charge, I must again briefly remind the reader, how ingenuous you are in accusing me of petulance. You produce, 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 fiction, that I boast of immense hosts which I threaten to lead forth from all corners. He accordingly adds, that I, trusting to this great force, despise his unwarlike crowd. Were Eck or Cochlmus 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 clamor. 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 many whom he boasts to be of his opinion, though in every way much more competent and better instructed, yet remain silent and cultivate peace with us, if there was a grain of modesty in 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 maintain the proper nature of the sacraments, that was no reason why he should make a rush at us, because the sacraments are not only mentioned by us, in the most honorable 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 coloring. That he may not be thought inferior in numbers, he hesitates not to drag into his faction those pear sons 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 perfidious dissimulation I should seem, 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 whet, 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 spouting 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 blood.

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 consumed by a slow fire. Shortly after these, others followed in the same city, and two in neighboring 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 themselves in discussion is attested by documents written by their own hand, and I doubt not of equal authenticity 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 admire their erudition, that none; may say they were misled by ignorance or the fervor of rash zeal and so intrepid 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 flint 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 indeed 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 from the unhappy man? (Be 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 form 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 much 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 name of Berengarius to fill us with dismay. 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. Trampling 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 name 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 companions 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 importunity, will not prevail so far as to gain either their suffrage or assent to the accursed schism at which he aims, so far are they from 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 pretense.

Put the question to whoever may be the ablest defender of that Confession, and I doubt not he will answer that the peace is disturbed under, evil auspices. This desire to maintain peace is not disguised by persons who deserve to have somewhat 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 prostitute it, when by your silence you might have kept it safe and entire? You have brought infamy upon yourself, which will not be so easily effaced, and you will increase it until you desist from your hateful love of quarreling. I repeat, you could not have consulted better for yourself at first, and cannot even now, than by holding your peace. As to your anxiety lest the eredish of your writing be lost, estimate from your feeling with regard to one, how much more 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 purpose completely to destroy the reputation of Oecolompadius, 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 preference over you to every one of those whom I have mentioned. And yet if your foolish self-love so blinds you, that you are desirous to be higher in honor 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 mention of books which you repeatedly introduce, implies that you scribble sometimes. Whatever it be, were it to perish the loss of the Church would be less than that of any one of the many books, all of which it was in your mind to destroy. Hence, even on your own showing, I have a good defense for interposing my credit and labor to prevent you from robbing the Church of her noble riches.

He divides his book into four chapters. First, he undertakes 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 assumes that he is not exciting discord while opposing the authors of disturbance; fourthly, he promises to reply to the charges made against him.

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 in manifest falsehood. It never came into my mind to bring forward this affinity of words in proof of our agreement. 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 concession, 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 common 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 showy 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, via, that our agreement could not have been better proved? I will go farther, and say, that when at any time I would throw light on my doctrine, I will seek an explanation in these words. Will he pretend that I speak contradictions, or am contrary to myself, because I study to interpret one thing more conveniently by several methods?

Coming to close quarters, I will press him harder. All who expound the words of Christ otherwise than according to the letter, as it is called, he hesitates not to style Sacramentarians. 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 particulari, 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 sufficient 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 mutual agreements with the Zurichers; our opinion is one; we give our mutual labor at no time, therefore, was there ever any discrepancy among the Sacramentarians.” The whole of this, while it is a naughty fiction, immediately involves him in another falsehood, viz., that he neither indicates persons nor time, but speaks indefinitely of our differences.

Trifler, where, then, is that farrago extracted from our books, with the name of each writer designated?

He utters a fouler falsehood against us, which it is right should fall back on its author’s rate. Mixing us up with the Anabaptists, Davidians, and almost all other fanatics, he forms them into one sect, like a hydra, because they all profess the dogma 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. Servetus, who was both an Anabaptist and the worst of heretics, agreed entirely with Westphal; and on this article of doctrine annoyed Oecolompadius and Zuinglius with his writings, 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 premises, that as the same thing was attempted by Luther, it is lawful also for him. But whatever be the example under which he cloaks himself, we must look at the thing. The attempt to throw darkness on the subject by an imagination of Carlostadt, as it is evidently far-fetched, I labor not to refute. Although I know not whence he took his other interpretations, nothing can be more vile than such calumnies as these, that the context and the order of our Savior’s words are unbecomingly and violently wrested, because some one understands that the body of Christ is spiritual food, and another transposes it thus — This, which is delivered for you, is my body. What absurdity is here, pray, in a spiritual feast preceding, in order, a sacrifice of death?

But as these frivolous reasons also fail him, he has recourse, after his fashion, to fables, and relates that a preacher of approved faith wrote to him, 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 memory of Christ’s death in the holy Supper. If the minister, in the very act of distribution, calls upon 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 Friesland 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 labor, 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 presence 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 presence of God. On this subject we have to treat more fully.

The contradictions against which 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 brings forward the gloss of Carlostadt, which all of us long ago distinctly repudiated. Afterwards, to deceive the eyes of the simple by a semblance of repugnance, he says that this absurd fiction is rejected by me as if it were a tragical 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 suffrage 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 mouth of Luther, and be stigmatized as heresy if it come from any other quarter?

In the fourth place, he inveighs against Oecolompadius, 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. Oecolompadius said that the body of Christ is not offered to believers to be eaten, inasmuch 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 become 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 passage he is not treating of the Supper; but as the reason is the same, why should Westphal fall foul of a holy man 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 color will the Sacramentarians paint, with what gloss will 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 passion; at another, the death; at another, the memorial of the passion; at another, faith; at another, the vigor; 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 Christ; 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 universally detestable? The brief and simple answer to all this is, that by different modes of speech, without any repugnance, 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 meaning 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. Therefore, 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 interpretation 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 disagreement between sign and symbol. Now, however, he begins to speak more cautiously, affirming that he blames difference not in words, but things and opinions. I, however, feeling confident that readers of sense see clearly how he distorts, mutilates, and obscures various modes of expression, 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 because 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 — candor which among profane rhetoricians 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 time 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 full 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 malignity in mutilating sentences? To omit the examples to which I lately referred, 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 koinwnia of the body of Christ? And yet in the tangled forest of our discord he finds nothing more plausible than that koinwnia is interpreted by some, the right of fellowship which has been given us in the body of Christ, and by others, the mystical fellowship of the Church.

Were I to carp in this way at the expressions 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 make ill-natured and illiberal attacks on every one whom he drags into his party.

Meanwhile, how dexterously and honestly he amplifies the charge, thinking it would be productive of odium, the reader must be briefly informed. His words are As often as they take up the passage in Paul, the Sacramentarians make the utmost efforts to corrupt his words. And he inserts on the margin to draw attention, What, according to Sacramentarians, is the koinwnia of the body of Christ. What? Ought he not at least to have excepted those who speak differently? Let him turn over my 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, making 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 koinwnia. I say the same thing of the bread. I hear also what Paul adds, as if by way of explanation, that we who communicate in the same bread are all made one body. And whence, I ask, is that koinwnia between us, but just that we are together made one with Christ, under the condition that we are flesh of his flesh and bones of his bones?

For to be incorporated, 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 may infer that koinwnia 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 distinguished memorial of purchased redemption, 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 absolutely that the name body can be applied to the mystical body ,of the Church, let him 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 impossible to disentangle himself 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 me 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 prevent the bread from being properly the body of Christ. He answers, that he has indefinitely opposed a true trope, which 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 attempting to explain the words of Christ, 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 absolutely literal sense without holding that the bread is converted 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 matter as if there were any doubt about it, when nothing is more common or more generally received among them 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 whom it is that this frantic man, who so beautifully mauls himself, contends. This it was absolutely necessary to say, if I would 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 mouth, stands condemned of heresy, having boldly pronounced all without exception to be heretics who, in explaining the words of Christ, admit a figure. He artfully gets off by upbraiding me with wishing to appear facetious. See, Joachim, which of the two is fourier of facetiousness — I who, without any affectation, used that expression which was naturally suggested by the circumstances, or you who, without any wit, go far to seek your frigid buffoonery? But your triumph, that your trope was sanctioned by Christ and his Apostles, is not chanted by you before victory; for you cease not to applaud yourself for having already vanquished me and laid me prostrate. Your 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 assume 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 symbol of the body, and a symbol conjoined with its reality?

As you allege that Scripture is not tied down to the laws of logicians or grammarians, which 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 Mike 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 consonance in their words, they yet write contradictorily, I, in my turn, 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 serious disagreement: that in endeavoring as far as he can to darken and mystify our Agreement, in which all differences are buried, he is the enemy of peace and concord: and that it is mere impudence which makes him bring into the arena of conflict men who have explained this article of doctrine in the same 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 endeavors to clear himself from the charge of having uttered a calumny, 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 the signs and the thing signified, we do not disjoin the reality from the sign. This view is followed out more clearly and fully in my Defense.

The substance, however, is, that Christ is truly offered to us by the sacraments, in order that being made 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 hired, keeps crying out that we convert them 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 complain of grievous injustice being done him. And not to waste more words in debt to, let him simply tell me, 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 fullness 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 blasphemy from 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 enjoyed by his faithful followers, though he descend not to the earth.

In vain does he endeavor to find a subterfuge in my acknowledgment, that Oecolompadius and Zuinglius, at the commencement of the dispute, from being too intent on refuting superstition, did not speak of the sacraments in sufficiently honorable 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 exposition was added afterwards. What else then is this but to remain blind in light, which even the blind may see? Will he here again tell me theft I have a two-edged sword; that if he produces clear passages, I accuse him of uttering contradictions; and if he omits them, charge him with perfidy? I was perfectly entitled to charge him with perfidy, 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 established 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 in other passages 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 me with two swords whose edge he would fan 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 believe 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 between opinions most remote from each other, and confounding 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 vehemently. Who does not see that he would have laid more restraint upon himself had he not been urged to this extravagance by a foreign impulse?

Westphal certainly pays little honor to Luther, and would have others pay little, by denying him the slight degree of judgment necessary to distinguish 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 by the sacred agency of the Spirit, he instills 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 lifeless 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 from our place, precipitates us into the same condemnation, 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 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 from 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 most 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 unhappy 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 presence which Westphal imagines: for though the flesh of Christ gives us life, it does not follow that his substance must be transferred into us. This fiction of transfusion being taken out of the way, it never came into my mind 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 obscuring 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 communicate 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 comparing 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 enclosed 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 colors so that some, though not stupid or obtuse, could scarcely divine what I meant. As to my desire, this much I sacredly declare, that while I most religiously endeavored to deliver divine truth purely and sincerely, it was no less nay care to express myself in a manner distinguished by its simplicity and perspicuity. What I gained by my diligence is declared by the books themselves, which he pretends to have been more acceptable from my seeming to be of the same sentiments 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 favor 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 aiming with his fellows to exterminate my books in all quarters. With what fairness, let themselves see; since it is not probable that they were acceptable to pious readers without being fit and useful for the edification of the Church. I believe that honest men, and men of sound judgment who have experienced this, will not be so fastidious, as for one article to deprive themselves 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 Defense I had again recourse to subterfuges, that I might walk about incognito, covered by a cloud; while, in the next page, he declares it unnecessary to furnish proofs to convict me of holding different sentiments, because the Defense 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 myself. Had I been attempting any thing fraudulent, a slight degree of caution might have enabled me to be on my guard. But the reader will find that nothing has been my 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. Westphal having divided whatever he deemed deserving of censure, 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 rigor 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 Church, 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 something different, which is to have the effect of abolishing the gift of the body, for I am simply explaining the mode in which it is given. He rejoins, that I am deceiving by using the term body in an ambiguous 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 detestable impiety to imagine Christ with two bodies. I know, 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 the 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 ill 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 sacrament, 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 because 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. But why does he maliciously extenuate the force of an expression by which I highly extol our communion with Christ? For I not only say that his merits are applied, but that our souls receive nourishment 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 cannot be offered to us in the Supper without being locally enclosed. He is offended at my opposing a real to an imaginary 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 agreement 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. Thai; 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 present 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 lineally under the bread. I rejoin, that he does no less erroneously when assigning an immense body to Christ, he contends that it is present wherever the Supper is celebrated. For to say that the body which the Son of God once assumed, and which, after being once crucified, he raised to heavenly glory, is atopov (without place,) is indeed very atopov (absurd.) What he afterwards triflingly says about a spiritual body, he falsely and without color applies to us. Let him with his band dream as they will of a spiritual body, which has no affinity with a real body, I deem it unlawful 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 labor 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 believers do not swallow the body, he thinks that they are denied the eating of it. We teach that Christ is to be sought by faith, that he may manifest 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