TILEMAN HESHUSIUS.

PREVIOUS CHAPTER - NEXT CHAPTER - HELP     

Bible Library

Forex Trading

Store Items

Audio Bible

eBook Business

IMUST patiently submit to this condition which providence has assigned me — petulant, dishonest, rabid men, as if they had conspired together, must make me the special object of their virulence. Other most excellent men indeed they do not spare, assailing the living and lacerating the names of the dead; but the only cause of the more violent onset which they make on me, is, because Satan, whose slaves they are, the more useful he sees my labors to be to the Church of Christ, stimulates them the more strongly to attack me. I say nothing of the old ravers, whose calumnies are already obsolete. A foul apostate of the name ofSTAPHYLUS has lately started up, and without a word of provocation, has uttered more calumnies against me than against all the others who had depicted his perfidy, bad morals, and depraved disposition. From another quarter one named\parNICOLAS LE COQ, has begun to neigh against me. At length from another sink comes forthTILEMAN HESHUSIUS, of whom I would rather have the reader to form a judgment from fact and from his writings than express my own opinion.

OPHILIP MELANCTHON! for I appeal to thee who art living in the presence of God with Christ, and waiting for us there until we are united with thee in beatific rest: Thou hast said a hundred times, when weary with labor and oppressed with sadness, thou didst lay thy head familiarly on my bosom, Would, would that I could die on this bosom! Since then, I have wished a thousand times that it had been our lot to be together! Certainly, thou hadst been readier to maintain contests, and stronger to despise obloquy, and set at nought false accusations. Thus, too, a check had been put on the naughtiness of many who were emboldened in insult by what they termed thy softness. The growlings of Staphylus, indeed, were severely chastised by thee; but though thou didst complain to me privately of Le Coq, as thy own letter to me testifies, yet thou didst neglect to repress his insolence and that of his fellows. I have not indeed forgotten what thou didst write. I will give the very words: I know that with your admirable prudence you judge from the writings of your opponents what their natures are, and to what stage of display they look.

I also remember what I wrote in reply, and will in like manner quote the words: Rightly and prudently dost thou remind me that the object; of our antagonists is to exhibit themselves on a stage. But though their expectation will, as I hope and believe, greatly disappoint them, yet were they to carry the applause of the whole world along with them, the more intently must we be fixed on the heavenly Captain under whose eyes we fight. What? will the sacred company of angels, who both animate us by their favor, and show us how to act strenuously by their example, allow us to grow sluggish or advance with hesitation? What of the whole band of holy fathers? will they add no stimulus? What, moreover, of the Church of God which is in the world? When we know that she both aids us by her prayers, and is animated by our example, will her suffrage have no effect upon us? Mine be this stage. Contented with its approbation, though the whole world should hiss me, I will never be discouraged. So far am I from envying their senseless clamor, that I make them welcome to the stale glory of their obscure corner for a brief season. I am not unaware what it is that the world applauds and dislikes, but to me nothing is of more consequence than to follow the rule prescribed by the Master. And I have no doubt that this ingenuousness will ultimately be more acceptable to men of sense and piety, than a soft and equivocal mode of teaching betokening empty fear. As thou acknowledgest that thou owest thyself to God and the Church, I beseech thee to pay the debt as soon as possible. I do not insist in this way, because I trust to throw part of the obloquy upon thee, and so far ease myself. Nay, rather from the love and respect I bear thee, I would willingly, were it allowable, take part of thy burden on my own shoulders. But it is thy own business to consider without any suggestion from me, that if thou do not quickly remove the doubts of all the pious who look up to thee, the debt will scarcely ever be paid at all. I may add, that if this late and evening crowing of the cock does not awaken thee, all men will justly cry out against thee as lazy.

For this appeal to his promise, he had furnished me with an occasion by the following words: I hear that a cock from the banks of the Ister is printing a large volume against me; if it shall be published, I have determined to reply simply and without ambiguity this labor I think I owe to God and the Church; nor in my old age have I any dread of exile and other dangers. This is ingenuously and manfully said; but in another letter he had confessed, that a temper naturally mild made him desirous of peace and quietness. His words are: As in your last letter you urge me to repress the ignorant clamor of those who are renewing the contest about the worship of bread, ajrtolatrei>a I must tell you that some of those who do so are chiefly instigated by hatred to me, thinking it a plausible occasion for oppressing me. The same love of quiet prevented him from discoursing freely of other matters, the explanation of which was either unpleasant to delicate palates or liable to perverse construction. But how much this saint was displeased with the restlessness of those men who still cease not to rage against us is very apparent from another passage.

After congratulating me on my refutation of the blasphemies of Servetus, and declaring that the Church now owed and would to posterity owe me gratitude, and that he entirely assented to my judgment, he adds, that these things were of the greatest importance, and most necessary to be known, and then jestingly subjoins, in speaking of their frivolities, All this is nothing to the Artolatria. Writing to me at Worms, he laments that his Saxon neighbors, who had been sent as colleagues, had left after exhibiting a condemnation of our Churches, and adds: Now they will celebrate their triumphs at. home, as if they had gained a Cadmean victory. In another letter, weary of their madness and fury, he does not conceal his desire to be with me.

The things last mentioned are of no consequence to Staphylus, who hires out his petulant tongue to the Roman Antichrist, and for the professed purpose of establishing his tyranny, confounds heaven and earth after the manner of the giants. This miscreant, whose base defection from the faith has left him no sense of shame, I do not deem of importance enough to occupy much time in refuting his errors. The hypothesis on which he places the whole sum and substance of his cause openly discovers his profane contempt of all religion. The whole doctrine which we profess he would bring into suspicion, and so render disreputable, on the simple ground, that since the Papal darkness was dissipated, and eternal truth shone forth, many errors also have sprung up, which he attributes to the revival of the gospel: as if he were not thus raising a quarrel with Christ and his Apostles, rather than with us. The devil never stalked about so much at large, vexing both the bodies and souls of men, as when the heavenly and saving doctrine of Christ gave forth its light. Let him therefore calumniously charge Christ with having come to make demoniacs of those who were formerly sane. Shortly after the first promulgation of the gospel, an incredible number of errors poured in like a deluge on the world. Let Staphylus, the hireling rhetorician of the Pope, keep prating that they flowed from the gospel as their source. Assuredly, if this futile calumny has any effect on futile erring spirits, it will have none on those on whose hearts Paul’s admonition is impressed, There must be heresics, in order that those who are approved may be made manifest. ( Corinthians 11:19.) Of this, Staphylus himself is a striking proof. His brutish rage, which plainly enough is the just reward of his perfidy, confirms all the pious in the sincere fear of God. The main object of this impure man, who is evidently an infidel, is to destroy all reverence for heavenly doctrine: nay, the tendency of his efforts is not only to vilify religion, but to banish all care and zeal for it. Hence his dishonesty not only fails by its own demerits, but is detested, like its author, by all good men. Meanwhile, the false charge, by which he would throw obloquy on us, is easily retorted on himself. Many perverse errors have arisen during the last forty years, starting up in succession, one after another. The reason is, because Satan saw, that by the light of the gospel the impostures by which he had long fascinated the world were overthrown, and therefore plied all his efforts, and employed all his engines, in short, all his infernal powers, either to overthrow the doctrine of Christ, or defeat its progress.

It was no slight attestation to the truth of God that it was thus violently assaulted by the lies of Satan. While the sudden emergence of so many impious dogmas thus gives certainty to our doctrine, what will Staphylus gain by spitting at it, unless it be with fickle men, who would fain destroy all distinction between good and evil?

I ask, whether of the many errors about which, for the purpose of throwing obloquy upon us, he makes so much noise, there was no mention made before Luther? He himself enumerates many by which the Church was disturbed at its very commencement. Had the Apostles been charged with engendering all the sects which then sprung up, would they have had no defense? But any concession thus made to them will be good to us also.

An easier mode, however, of disposing of the reproach of Staphylus is to reply, that the delirious dreams by which Satan formerly endeavored to obscure the light of the gospel are now in a great measure suppressed; certainly, scarce a tenth of them has been renewed. Since Staphylus has advertised himself for sale, were any one to pay more for him than the Pope, would he not be ready, in his licentious spirit, to upbraid Christ?

Whenever the gospel is brought forward, it brings along with it or engenders numerous errors. Never was the world more troubled with perverse and impious dogmas than at his first advent. But Christ the eternal truth of God will acquit himself without defense from us.

Meanwhile, a sufficient answer to the vile charge is to be found in the fact, that there is no ground for imputing to the servants of God any part of that leaven with which Satan, by his ministers, corrupts pure doctrine; and that, therefore, to form a right judgment in such a case, it is always necessary to attend to the source in which the error originates.

Immediately after Luther began to stir up the camarilla of the Papacy, many monstrous men and monstrous opinions suddenly appeared. What affinity with Luther had the Munsterians, the Anabaptists, the Adamites, the Heblerites, the Sabbatarians, the Clancularians, that they should be regarded as his disciples? Did he ever lend them his support? Did he subscribe their most absurd fictions? Nay, with what vehemence did he oppose them, in order to prevent the spreading of the contagion? He had the discernment at once to perceive what noxious pests they would prove.

And will this hog still keep grunting, that the errors which were put to flight by our exertion, while the Popish clergy did not at all bestir themselves, proceeded from us? Though he is hardened in effrontery, the futility of the charge will not henceforth impose even on children, who will at once perceive how false and unjust it is to blame us for evils which we most vehemently oppose. As it is perfectly notorious that neither Luther nor any of us ever gave the least countenance to those who, under the impulse of a fanatical spirit, disseminated impious and detestable errors, we are no more bound to bear the odium of their impiety than Paul was to bear that of Hermogenes and Philetus, who taught that the resurrection was past, and all farther hope at an end. ( 1 Timothy 2:17.)

Moreover, what are the errors by which our whole doctrine is to be covered with ignominy? The wicked falsehoods which he utters against others I need not refer to: he assigns to me one sect of his own invention.

He gives the name of Energists to those who hold that the virtue of Christ’s body only, and not the body itself, is in the Supper. He, however, gives me Philip Melancthon for an associate, and to establish both assertions, refers to my writings against Westphal, where the reader will find that in the Supper our souls are nourished by the real body of Christ, which was crucified for us, nay, that spiritual life is transferred into us from the substance of his body. When I teach that the body of Christ is given us for food by the secret energy of the Spirit, do I thereby deny that the Supper is a communion of the body? See how foully he employs his mouth to please his patrons.

There is another monstrous term which he has invented for the purpose of throwing a stigma upon me. He calls me Bisacramental. But if he would make it a charge against me that I affirm that two sacraments only were instituted by Christ, he should first of all prove that he makes them septeplex, as the Papists express it. The Papists obtrude seven sacraments. I do not find that Christ committed to us more than two.

Staphylus should prove that four more emanated from Christ, or allow us both to hold and speak the truth. He cannot expect that his bombast is to make heretics of us, while we found on the sure and clear authority of God. He classes Luther, Melancthon, myself, and many others, as new Manichees, and afterwards, to lengthen the catalogue, repeats that the Calvinists are Manichees and Marcionites. It is easy indeed to pick up these reproaches like stones from the street, and throw them at the heads of unoffending passengers. He, however, gives his reasons for comparing us to the Manichees, but they are borrowed partly from a catamite, partly from a cynical buffoon. Of what use then were it for me to clear myself from the most absurd figments in which he indulges? I have no objection, however, to the challenge with which he concludes, namely, to let my treatise on Predestination decide the dispute: for in this way it will soon appear what kind of thistles (staphyli) are produced by this wild vine.

I come now to the Cock, (Le Coq,) who with his vile beak declares me a corrupter of the Confession of Augsburg, because denying that in the holy Supper we are made partakers of the substance of the flesh and blood of Christ. But it is declared in my writings more than a hundred times, that so far am I from rejecting the term substance, that I ingenuously and readily declare, that by the incomprehensible agency of the Spirit, spiritual life is infused into us from the substance of the flesh of Christ. I also constantly admit that we are substantially fed on the flesh and blood of Christ, though I discard the gross fiction of a local intermingling. What then?

Because a cock has thought proper to name his feathers against me, are, all minds to be so terror-struck as to be incapable of judgment? Not to make myself ridiculous, I decline to give a lengthened refutation of a writing which proves its author to be no less absurd than its stolid audacity proves him drunk. It certainly proclaims that when he wrote he was not compos mentis.

But what shall I do with Tileman Heshusius, who, magnificently provided with a superb and sonorous vocabulary, is confident of prostrating by the breath of his mouth anything that withstands his assault? I am also told by worthy persons who know him better, that another kind of confidence inflates him; that he has made it his special determination to acquire fame by advancing paradoxes and absurd opinions. It may be either because an intemperate nature so hurries him, or because a moderate course of doctrine leaves him no place for applause, on which his whole soul is bent even to madness. His tract certainly proves him to be a man of turbulent temper, as well as headlong audacity and presumption. To give the reader a sample, I will only mention a few things from the preface. He does the very same thing which Cicero describes to have been done by the silly ranters of his day, when, by a plausible exordium stolen from some ancient oration, they gave hopes of gaining the prize. In like manner this fine writer, to seize upon the minds of the readers, collects from his matter Melancthon apt and elegant sentences by which he may ingratiate himself or give an air of majesty, just as if an ape were to get clothed in purple, or an ass to cover himself with a lion’s skin. He harangues about the huge dangers he has run, though he has always hugged his delicacies no less securely than luxuriously. He talks of his manifold toils, though he has large treasures laid up at home, has always sold his labors at a high rate, and by himself alone consumes the whole. It is true, indeed, that from many places where he wished to make a quiet nest for himself, he has been repeatedly driven by his own restlessness. Thus expelled from Gossler, Rostoch, Heidelberg, Bremen, he lately withdrew to Magdeburg. Such expulsions were meritorious, had he been forced repeatedly to change his soil from a constant adherence to the truth; but when a man full of insatiable ambition, addicted to strife and quarreling, makes himself everywhere intolerable by his savage temper, there is no ground for this complaining of having been injuriously harassed by others, when his luxurious habits were disturbed by his own unseasonable conduct. Still, however, he was provident enough to take care that his migrations should not be attended with damage; nay, riches only stimulated him.

He next bewails the vast barbarism which appears to be impending; as if any greater or worse barbarism were to be feared than that from him and his fellows. To go no further for a proof, let the reader consider how fiercely he sneers and tears at his master, Philip Melancthon, whose memory he ought sacredly to revere. He does not indeed mention him by name, but whom does he mean by the supporters of our doctrine who stand high in the Church for influence and learning, and are most distinguished theologians? Indeed, not to leave the matter to conjecture, he, by his opprobrious epithets, points to Philip as it were with the finger, and even seems, in writing his book, to have gone out of his way in search of materials for traducing him. Well, he could not treat his preceptor more modestly than by charging him with perfidy and sacrilege! He hesitates not to accuse him of deceit in employing ambiguous terms in order to please both parties, and thus attempting to settle strife by the arts of Theramenes. Then comes the heavier charge, that he incurred the guilt of a most pernicious crime in aiming to extinguish the confession of faith, which ought to be conspicuous in the Church. Such is the pious gratitude of the scholar not only towards the master to whom he owes any little learning he may possess, but towards a man who has deserved so highly of the whole Church.

When he charges me with having introduced perplexity into the discussion by my subtleties, the discussion itself will show what foundation there is for the charge; but when he gives the name of Epicurean dogma to the explanation which we give, no less religiously than usefully, in regard to the ordinance of the Supper, what else is it than to vie in licentious talk with pimps and debauchees? Let him look for Epicurism in his own habits.

Assuredly both our frugality and assiduous labors for the Church, our constancy amid danger, diligence in the discharge of our office, unwearied zeal in propagating the kingdom of Christ, and integrity in asserting the doctrine of piety — in short, our serious exercise in meditating on the heavenly life, will testify that there is nothing less accordant with our disposition than a profane contempt of God, of which it would be well if the conscience of this Thraso did not accuse him. But I have said more of the man than I intended.

Leaving him, therefore, I purpose briefly to discuss the cause, feeling, that with such as he a more accurate discussion were superfluous. For though there is some show about him, he does nothing more by his magniloquence than vend the old follies and frivolities of Westphal and his fellows. He harangues loftily on the omnipotence of God, on putting implicit faith in his word, and subduing human reason, in terms he may have learned from other sources, of which I believe myself also to be one. I have no doubt, from his childish stolidity in glorying, that he imagines himself to combine the qualities of Melancthon and Luther. From the one he ineptly borrows flowers, and having no better way of rivaling the vehemence of the other, he substitutes bombast and sound. But we have no dispute as to the boundless power of God; and all my writings declare, that far from measuring the mystery of the Supper by human reason, I look up to it with devout admiration. All who in the present day contend strenuously for the candid defense of the truth, will readily admit me into their society.

I have proved by fact, that in treating the mystery of the Holy Supper, I do not refuse credit to the word of God; and therefore when Heshusius vociferates against me for doing so, he only in the most offensive manner makes all good men witnesses to his malice and ingratitude. Were it possible to bring him back from vague and sportive flights to a serious discussion of the subject, a few words would suffice.

When he alleges the sluggishness of princes as the obstacle which prevents a holy synod from being assembled to settle disputes, I wish that he himself, and similar furies, did not obstruct all means of concord. This he does not disguise a little farther on, when he denies the expediency of any discussion between us. What pious synod then would suit his choice, unless it were one in which two hundred of his companions or thereabouts, well-fed to make their zeal more fervent, should, according to a custom which has long been common with them, declare us to be worse and more execrable than the Papists. The only confession which they want is a rejection of all inquiry, and an obstinate defense of any random fiction which may have fallen from them. It is perfectly obvious, though the devil has fascinated their minds in a fearful manner, that it is pride more than error that makes them so pertinacious in assailing our doctrine.

As he pretends that he is an advocate of the Church, and in order to deceive the simple by fallacious masks, is ever and anon arrogating to himself the common character of all who teach rightly, I should like to know who authorized him to assume this office. He is ever exclaiming: We teach; This is our opinion; Thus we, speak; So we assert. Let the farrago which Westphal has huddled together be read, and a strange repugnance will be found. Not to go farther for an example, Westphal boldly affirms that the body of Christ is chewed by the teeth, and confirms it by quoting with approbation the recantation of Berengarius, as given by Gratian. This does not please Heshusius, who insists that it is eaten by the mouth but not touched by the teeth, and greatly disapproves those gross modes of eating. And yet he reiterates his Asserimus, (we assert,) just as if he were the representative of an university. This worthy son of Jena repeatedly charges me with subtleties, sophisms, nay, impostures: as if there were any equivocation or ambiguity, or any kind of obscurity in my mode of expression. When I say that the flesh and blood of Christ are substantially offered and exhibited to us in the Supper, I at the same time explain the mode, namely, that the flesh of Christ becomes vivifying to us, inasmuch as Christ, by the incomprehensible agency of his Spirit, transfuses his own proper life into us from the substance of his flesh, so that he himself lives in us, and his life is common to us. Who will be persuaded by Heshusius that there is any sophistry in this clear statement, in which I both use popular terms and satisfy the ear of the learned? Would he only desist from the futile calumnies by which he darkens the cause, the whole point would at once be decided.

After Heshusius has exhausted all his bombast, the whole question hinges on this, Does he who denies that the body of Christ is eaten by the mouth, take away the substance of his body from the sacred Supper? I come to close quarters at once with the man who maintains that we are not partakers of the substance of the flesh of Christ unless we eat it with our mouths. His expression is, that the very substance of the flesh and blood must be taken by the mouth; whereas I define the mode of communication without ambiguity, by saying, that Christ by his boundless and wondrous power unites us into the same life with himself, and not only applies the fruit of his passion to us, but becomes truly ours by communicating his blessings to us, and accordingly conjoins us to himself in the same way in which head and members unite to form one body. I do not restrict this union to the divine essence, but affirm that it belongs to the flesh and blood, inasmuch as it was not simply said, My Spirit, but, My flesh is meat indeed; nor was it simply said, My Divinity, but, My blood is drink indeed.

Moreover, I do not interpret this communion of flesh and blood as applying only to the common nature, in respect that Christ, by becoming man, made us sons of God with himself by virtue of fraternal fellowship; but I distinctly affirm, that our flesh which he assumed is vivifying by becoming the material of spiritual life to us. And I willingly embrace the saying of Augustine, As Eve was formed out of a rib of Adam, so the origin and beginning of life to us flowed from the side of Christ. And although I distinguish between the sign and the thing signified, I do not teach that there is only a bare and shadowy figure, but distinctly declare that the bread is a sure pledge of that communion with the flesh and blood of Christ which it figures. For Christ is neither a painter, nor a player, nor a kind of Archimedes, who presents an empty image to amuse the eye, but he truly and in reality performs what he promises by an external symbol.

Hence I conclude that the bread which we break is truly the communion of the body of Christ. But as this connection of Christ with his members depends on his incomprehensible energy, I am not ashamed to admire this mystery which I feel and acknowledge to transcend the reach of my mind.

Here our Thraso makes an uproar, and cries out that it is great impudence as well as sacrilegious audacity to corrupt the plain word of God, which declares, This is my body — that one might as well deny the Son of God to be man. But I rejoin, that if he would evade this very charge of sacrilegious audacity, he must on his own terms become an anthropomorphite.

He insists that no amount of absurdity shall induce us to change one syllable. Hence as the Scripture distinctly attributes to God feet, hands, eyes, and ears, a throne, and a footstool, it follows that he is corporeal. As he is said in the song of Miriam to be a man of war, (Exodus 15,) it will not be lawful by any congruous exposition to soften this harsh mode of expression. Let Heshusius get into the heroics if he will, his insolence cannot withstand this strong and invulnerable argument. The ark of the covenant is distinctly called the Lord of hosts, and indeed with such asseveration that the Prophet emphatically exclaims, (Psalm 24,) Who is this king of glory? Jehovah himself is king of hosts.

Here we do not say that the Prophet inconsiderately gave utterance to that which at first glance is seen to be absurd, as this fellow wickedly babbles; but after reverently embracing what he says, we no less piously than aptly interpret that the name of God is transferred to a symbol because of its inseparable connection with the thing and reality. Nay, this is a general rule in regard to all the sacraments, which not only human reason compels us to adopt, but which a sense of piety and the uniform usage of piety dictate. No man is so ignorant or senseless as not to know that in all the sacraments the Spirit of God by the Prophets and Apostles employs this peculiar form of expression. Nay, one who will dispute this should be sent to his rudiments. Jacob saw the Lord of hosts sitting on a ladder. Moses saw him both in a burning bush and in the flame of Mount Horeb. If the letter is pertinaciously clung to, how could God, who is invisible, be seen?

Heshusius repudiates examination, and leaves us no other resource than to shut our eyes and acknowledge that God is visible and invisible. But an explanation at once clear and accordant with piety, and in fact necessary, spontaneously presents itself, viz., that God is never seen as he is, but gives manifest signs of his presence adapted to the capacity of believers.

In this way there is no exclusion of the presence of the divine essence when the name of God is metonymically applied to the symbol by which God represents himself truly — not figuratively merely but substantially.

A dove is called the Spirit. Is this to be strictly taken, just as when Christ declares that God is a Spirit? ( Matthew 3:13; John 4:24.)

Surely a manifest difference is apparent. For although the Spirit was then truly and essentially present, he however displayed the presence both of his virtue and his essence by a visible symbol. How wicked it is in Heshusius to accuse us of feigning a symbolical body is clear from this, that no candid man infers that a symbolical Spirit was seen in the baptism of Christ, from his having truly appeared under the symbol or external appearance of a dove. We acknowledge then, that in the Supper we eat the same body which was crucified, although the expression in regard to the bread is metonymical, so that it may be truly said to be symbolically the real body of Christ, by the sacrifice of which we have been reconciled to God. And though there is some diversity in the expressions, The bread is a sign, or figure, or symbol of the body; and the bread signifies the body, or is a metaphorical, or metonymical, or synecdochical expression for it, they perfectly agree in substance, and therefore it is mere trifling in Westphal and Heshusius to start difficulties where none exist.

A little farther on he starts off in a different direction, and says, that whatever may be the variety in expression, we all hold the very same sentiments, but that I alone deceive the simple by ambiguities. But where are the ambiguities, on the removal of which my deceit is to stand detected? Perhaps his rhetoric can furnish a new kind of perspicuity which will clearly manifest my alleged equivocation. Meanwhile he unworthily includes us all in the charge of teaching that the bread is the sign, of the absent body, as if I had not long ago distinctly admonished my readers of two kinds of absence, to acquaint them that the body of Christ is indeed absent in respect of place, but that we enjoy a spiritual participation in it, every obstacle from distance being surmounted by his divine energy.

Hence it follows, that our dispute relates neither to presence nor to substantial eating, but only as to the mode of both. We neither admit a local presence, nor that gross or rather brutish eating of which Heshusius talks so absurdly when he says, that Christ in respect of his human nature is present on the earth in the substance of his body and blood, so that he is not only eaten in faith by his saints, but also by the mouth bodily without faith by the wicked.

Without adverting at present to the absurdities here involved, I ask, where is the true touchstone, the express declaration of the word of God?

Assuredly it cannot be found in the barbarous terms now quoted. Let us see, however, what the explanation is which he thinks sufficient to stop the mouths of the Calvinists — an explanation so senseless that it must rather open their mouths to protest against it. He vindicates himself and the churches of his party from the error of transubstantiation with which he falsely alleges that we charge them. For though they have many things in common with the Papists, we do not therefore confound them together and leave no distinction. I should rather say, it is long since I showed that the Papists in their dreams are considerably more modest and more sober.

And what does he himself say? As the words are joined together contrary to the order of nature, it is right to maintain the literal sense by which the bread is properly the body. The words therefore, to be accordant with the thing, behoove to be pronounced contrary to the order of nature.

He afterwards excuses their different forms of expression, when they assert that the body is under the bread or with the bread. But how will he persuade any one that it is under the bread, unless it be in respect that the bread is a sign? How, too, will he persuade any one that the bread is not to be worshipped if it be properly Christ? The expression, that the body is; in the bread or under the bread, he calls improper, because the substantial word has its proper and genuine signification in the union of the bread and Christ. In vain, therefore, does he refute the inference that the body is in the bread, and therefore the bread should be worshipped. This inference is the invention of his own brain. The argument we have always used is this, If Christ is in the bread, he should be worshipped under the bread. Much more might we argue, that the bread should be worshipped if it be truly and properly Christ.

He thinks he gets out of the difficulty by saying, that the union is not hypostatical. But who will concede to a hundred or a thousand Heshusiuses the right to lay worship under whatever restrictions they please? Assuredly no man of sense will be satisfied in conscience with the silly quibble, that the bread, though it is truly and properly Christ, is not to be worshipped, because they are not hypostatically one. The answer will instantly occur, that things must be the same when the one is substantially predicated of the other. The words of Christ do not speak of anything accidental to the bread, but if we are to believe Heshusius and his fellows, they plainly and unambiguously assert, that the bread is the body of Christ, and therefore Christ himself. Nay, they affirm more of the bread than can be lawfully affirmed of the human nature of Christ. But how monstrous is it to give more honor to the bread than to our Savior’s sacred flesh? Of this flesh it cannot truly be affirmed, as they insist on affirming in regard to the bread, that it is properly Christ. Though he may deny that he imagines any community of being metousia I will always force him to admit, that if the bread is properly the body, it is one and the same with the body. He subscribes to the sentiment of Iranaeus, that there are two different things in the Supper — an earthly and a heavenly, namely, the bread and the body. But I not do see how this can be reconciled with the fictitious identity, which, though he does not express it in a word, he certainly asserts in fact, inasmuch as things must be the same whenever we can say of them, That is this, This is that.

The same reasoning applies to the local enclosing which Heshusius pretends to repudiate, when he says, that Christ is not contained by place, and can be at the same time in several places. To vindicate himself, he says, that the bread is the body not only properly, truly, and really, but also definitively. Should I answer that I cannot give any meaning to these monstrous contradictions, he will meet me with what he and his fellows bring forward on all occasions as a shield of Ajax — that reason is inimical to faith. This I readily grant if he is to be regarded as a rational animal.

Three kinds of reason are to be considered, but he at one bound overleaps them all. There is a reason naturally implanted which cannot be condemned without insult to God, but it has limits which it cannot overstep without being immediately lost. Of this we have a sad proof in the fall of Adam. There is another kind of reason which is vicious, especially in a corrupt nature, and is manifested when mortal man, instead of receiving divine things with reverence, would subject them to his own judgment. This reason is mental intoxication, or pleasing insanity, and is at eternal variance with the obedience of faith, since we must become fools in ourselves before we can begin to be wise unto God. In regard to heavenly mysteries, therefore, we must abjure this reason, which is nothing better than mere fatuity, and if accompanied with arrogance, grows to the height of madness. But there is a third kind of reason, which both the Spirit of God and Scripture sanction. Heshusius, however, disregarding all distinction, confidently condemns, under the name of human reason, everything which is opposed to the frenzied dream of his own mind.

He charges us with paying more deference to reason than to the word of God. But what if we adduce no reason that is not derived from the word of God and founded on it? Let him show that we profanely philosophize on the mysteries of God, that we measure his heavenly kingdom by our sense, that we subject the oracles of the Holy Spirit to the judgment of the flesh, that we admit nothing that does not approve itself to our own wisdom. The fact is far otherwise. For what is more repugnant to human reason than that souls immortal by creation, should derive life from mortal flesh? This we assert. What is less accordant with earthly wisdom, than that the flesh of Christ should infuse its vivifying energy into us from heaven? What is more foreign to our sense, than that corruptible and fading bread should be an undoubted pledge of spiritual life? What more remote from philosophy, than that the Son of God, who in respect of human nature is in heaven, so dwells in us, that everything which has been given him of the Father is common to us, and hence the immortality with which his flesh has been endowed is ours? All these things we clearly testify, while Heshusius has nothing to urge but his delirious dream, That the flesh of Christ is eaten by unbelievers, and yet is not vivifying. If he refuses to believe that there is any reason without philosophy, let him learn from a short syllogism: He who does not. observe the analogy between the sign and the thing signified, is an unclean animal, not cleaving the hoof; he who asserts that the bread is truly and properly the body of Christ, destroys the analogy between the sign and the thing signified; therefore, he who asserts that the bread is properly the body, is an unclean animal, not cleaving the hoof.

From this syllogism let him know, that even though there were no philosophy in the world, he is an unclean animal. But his object in this indiscriminate condemnation of reason, no doubt was to procure license to his own darkness, and give effect to the inference, that as when mention is made of the crucifixion, and of the benefits which the living and substantial body of Christ procured, the body referred to cannot be understood to be symbolical, typical, or allegorical, so the words of Christ, This is my body, This is my blood, cannot be understood symbolically or metonymically, but substantially. As if mere tyros did not see that the term symbol is applied to the bread, not to the body, and that the metonyomy is not in the substance of the body, but in the texture of the words. And yet he here exults as if he were an Olympic victor, and bids us try the whole force of our intellect on this argument—an argument so absurd, that I will not deign to refute it even in jest. For while he says, that we turn our backs, and, at the same time, stimulates himself to press forward, his own procedure betrays his manifest inconsistency. He admits that we understand that the substance of the body of Christ is given, seeing that Christ is wholly ours by faith. It is well that he harmlessly butts at the air with his own horns, and makes it unnecessary for us to be on our guard. I would ask, if we turn our backs when we thus distinctly expose his calumny in regard to an allegorical body? But as if he had fallen into a fit of forgetfulness, after he has come to himself, he brings a new plea, and charges us with holding the absence of the body, telling us that the giving of which we speak, has no more effect than the giving of a field to one who was to be immediately removed from it. How dare he thus liken the incomparable virtue of the Holy Spirit to lifeless things, and represent the gathering of the produce of a field, as equivalent to that union with the Son of God, which enables our souls to obtain life from his body and blood? Surely in this matter he overacts the rustic. I may add, that it is false to say that we expound the words of Christ as if the thing were absent, when it is perfectly well known that the absence of which we speak is confined to place and actual sight. Although Christ does not exhibit his flesh as present to our eyes, nor by change of place descend from his celestial glory, we maintain that there is nothing in this distance to prevent him from being truly united to us.

But let us attend to the kind of presence for which he insists. At first sight his view seems calm and sensible. He admits that Christ is everywhere by a communication of properties, as was taught by the fathers, and that, accordingly, it is not the body of Christ that is everywhere, the ubiquity being ascribed in the concrete to the whole person in respect of the union of the Divine nature. This is so exactly our doctrine, that one is tempted to think he means to curry favor with us: by disguising his own. Nor have we any difficulty in agreeing with him, when he adds, that it is impossible to comprehend how the body of Christ is in a certain part of heaven, above the heavens, and yet the person of Christ is everywhere, ruling in equal power with the Father. Nay, it is notorious to all, how violently I have been assailed by his party for the defense of this very doctrine. And, in order to express this in a still more palpable form, I employed the trite dictum of the schools, that Christ is whole everywhere, but not wholly, (torus ubique sed non totum;) in other words, in his entire person of Mediator he fills heaven and earth, though in his flesh he is in heaven, which he has chosen as the abode of his human nature, until he appear to judgment.. What then prevents us from adopting this evident distinction, and agreeing with each other? Simply, because Heshusius immediately perverts what he had said, and insists that Christ did not exclude his human nature when he promised to be present on the earth. Shortly after, he says, that Christ is present with his Church, dispersed in different places, and this in respect not only of his Divine, but also of his human nature. In a third passage he is still plainer, and maintains, that there is no absurdity in holding that he may, in respect, of his human nature, exist in different places wherever he pleases. And he rudely rejects what he terms the physical axiom, that one body cannot be in different places. What can now be clearer than that he holds the body of Christ to be immense, and imagines a monstrous ubiquity? A little before he had admitted, that the body is in a certain place in heaven, now he assigns it different places.

This is to lacerate the body, and refuse to raise his heart upwards.

He objects that Stephen was not carried above all heavens to see Jesus; as if I had not repeatedly disposed of this quibble. As Christ was not recognized by his two disciples when he sat familiarly with them at the same table, not on account of any metamorphosis, but because their eyes were holden; so eyes were given to Stephen to penetrate even to the heavens. Surely it is not without cause mentioned by Luke, that he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and beheld the glory of God. Nor without cause does Stephen himself declare, that the heavens were opened to him, so that he beheld Jesus standing on the right hand of his Father. This, I presume, makes it plain, how absurdly Heshusius endeavors to bring him down to the earth. With equal shrewdness he infers, that Christ was on the earth when he showed himself to Paul; as if we had never heard of that carrying up to the third heaven, which Paul himself so magnificently proclaims.

What says Heshusius to this? His words are: Paul could not be translated above all heavens, whither the Son of God ascended. I have nothing to add, but that no degree of contempt can be too great for the man who thus dares to give the lie to Paul when testifying of himself. But it is said, that as Christ distinctly offers his body in the bread, and his blood in the wine, all pertness and curiosity must be curbed. This I admit; but it does not follow that we are to shut our eyes in order to exclude the rays of the sun.

Nay, rather, if the mystery is deserving of contemplation, it becomes us to consider in what way Christ can give us his body and blood for meat and drink. For if the whole Christ is in the bread, nay, if the bread itself is Christ, we may with more truth affirm, that the body is Christ — an affirmation not more abhorrent to piety than to common sense. But if we refuse not to raise our hearts upwards, we shall feed on Christ entire, as well as expressly on his flesh and blood. And indeed when Christ invites us to eat his body, and to drink his blood, there is no necessity to bring him down from heaven, or require his actual presence in several places, in order to put his body and his blood within our lips. Amply sufficient for this purpose is the sacred bond of union with him, when we are united into one body by the secret agency of the Spirit. Hence I agree with Augustine, that in the bread we receive that which hung upon the cross; but I utterly abhor the delirious fancy of Heshusius and his fellows, that it is not received unless it is introduced into the carnal mouth. The communion of which Paul discourses does not require any local presence, unless we are to hold, that Paul, in teaching that we are called to communion with Christ, ( 1 Corinthians 1:9,) either speaks of a nonentity, or places Christ locally wherever the gospel is preached.

The dishonesty of this babbler is intolerable, when he says, that I confine the term koinwnia to the fellowship which we have with Christ, by partaking of his benefits. But before proceeding to discuss this point, it is necessary to see how ingeniously he escapes from us. When Paul says, that those who eat the sacrifice are partakers of the altar, ( Corinthians 9:13,) this skillful expounder gives as the reason, that each receives a part from the altar, and from this he concludes, that my interpretation is false. But what interpretation? Only that which he has coined out of his own brain; communion, as stated by me, being not only in the fruit of Christ’s death, but also in his body offered for our salvation.

But this interpretation also, which he regards as different from the other, is rejected by him as excluding the presence of Christ in the Supper. Here let my readers carefully attend to the kind of presence which he imagines, and to which he clings so doggedly, that he can almost regard the communion which John the Baptist had with Christ as a mere nullity, provided he is allowed to hold that the body of Christ was swallowed by Judas. I would ask this reverend doctor how, if those are partakers of the altar who divide the sacrifice into parts, he can exonerate himself from the charge of rending while he gives each his part? If he answers, that this is not what he means, let him correct his expression. He must, at all events, surrender what he regarded as the citadel of his defense, and desist from asserting that I leave nothing in the Supper but a right to a thing that is absent, seeing I uniformly maintain, that through the agency of the Spirit there is a present exhibition of the thing, though it is absent in respect of place. Still, while I refuse to subscribe to the barbarous eating, by which he insists that Christ is swallowed by the truth, he will continue, as before, to give vent in invective to his implacable fury. Verbally, indeed, he denies that he inquires concerning the mode of presence, and yet he insists no less absurdly than imperiously on the reception of his monstrous dogma, that the body of Christ is eaten corporeally by the mouth. These, indeed, are the very words he employs. In another passage, he says, We assert not only that we become partakers of the body of Christ by faith, but that also by our mouths we receive Christ essentially or corporeally within us; and in this way we testify that we give credit to the words of St. Paul and the evangelists.

But we, too, reject the sentiments of all who deny the presence of Christ in the Supper, and I therefore ask what the kind of presence is for which he quarrels with us? Obviously that which is dreamt by himself and others who share in his frenzy. To cloak such gross fancies with the names of Paul and the evangelists is the height of effrontery. With them for his witnesses, how will he prove that the body of Christ is taken by the mouth both corporeally and internally? He has elsewhere acknowledged that it is not chewed by the teeth nor touched by the palate. Why should he be so afraid of the touch of the palate or throat, while he ventures to assert that it is absorbed by the bowels? What does he mean by the expression “within us?” (intra nos.) By what is the body of Christ received after it has passed the mouth? After the mouth, if I mistake not, the passage of the body is to the viscera or intestines. If he say that we are calumniously throwing odium on him by the use of offensive terms, I should like to know what difference there is between saying that that which is received by the mouth is taken corporeally within, and saying that it passes into the viscera or intestines? Henceforth let the reader understand, and be careful to remember, that whenever Heshusius charges me with denying the presence of Christ in the Supper, the only thing for which he blames me is for thinking it absurd to hold that Christ is swallowed by the mouth, and passes bodily into the stomach. And yet he complains that I sport ambiguous expressions; as if it were not my perspicuity that maddens him and his associates. Of what ambiguity can he convict me? He admits that I assert the true and substantial eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood of Christ; but he says, that when my meaning is investigated, I speak of the receiving of merit, fruit, efficacy, virtue, and power, descending from heaven. Here his malignant absurdity is seen not darkly, but as in open day, while he confounds virtue and power with merit and fruit. Is it usual for any one to say that merit descends from heaven? Had he one particle of candor, he would have quoted me as either speaking or writing in such terms as these, — To our having substantial communion with the flesh of Christ there is no necessity for any change of place, since, by the secret, virtue of the Spirit, he infuses his life into us from heaven. Distance does not at all prevent Christ from dwelling in us, or us from being one with him, since the efficacy of the Spirit surmounts all natural obstacles.

A little farther on we shall see how shamefully he contradicts himself when he quotes my words, The blessings of Christ do not belong to us until he has himself become ours. Let him go now, and by employing the term merit mystify the nature of the communion which I clearly teach. He argues that if Christ is in heaven he is not in the Supper, that instead of him we have symbols merely; as if the Supper were not to the true worshippers of God a heavenly action, or a kind of vehicle which carries them above the world. But what is this to Heshusius, who not only halts on the earth, but does all he can to keep groveling in the mire? Paul teaches that in baptism we, put on Christ. ( Galatians 3:27.) How acutely will Heshusius argue that this cannot be if Christ remain in heaven? When Paul spoke thus it never occurred to him that Christ must be brought down from heaven, because he knew that he is united to us in a different manner, and that his blood is not less present to cleanse our souls than water to cleanse our bodies. If he rejoins that there is a difference between “eating” and “putting on,” I answer, that to surround us with clothing is as necessary in the latter case as the internal reception of food is in the former. Indeed, nothing more is needed to prove the folly or malice of the man than his refusal to admit any but a local presence. Though he denies it to be physical, and even quibbles upon the point, he however places the body of Christ wherever the bread is, and accordingly maintains that it is in several places at the same time. As he does not hesitate so to express himself, why may not the presence for which he insists be termed local?

Of a similar nature is his objection that the body is not received truly if it is received symbolically; as if by a true symbol we excluded the exhibition of the reality. He ultimately says it is mere imposture, unless a twofold eating is asserted, viz., a spiritual and a corporeal. How ignorantly and erroneously he wrests the passages which relate to spiritual eating, I need not observe, as children may see how ridiculous he makes himself. In regard to the subject itself, if a division is vicious when its members coincide with each other, (and this is one of the first lessons which boys learn from their rudiments,) how will he escape the charge of having thus blundered? For if there is any eating which is not spiritual, it will follow that in the ordinance of the Supper there is no operation of the Spirit.

Thus it will naturally be called the flesh of Christ, just as if it were a fading and corruptible food, and the chief earnest of eternal salvation will be unaccompanied by the Spirit. Should even this not overcome his effrontery, I ask, whether independently of the use of the Supper, there be no other eating than spiritual, which according to him is opposed to corporeal? He distinctly affirms that this is nothing else than faith, by which we apply to ourselves the benefits of Christ’s death. What then becomes of the declaration of Paul, That we are flesh of the flesh of Christ, and bone of his bones? ( Ephesians 5:30.) What will become of the exclamation, This is a great mystery? For if with the exception of the application of merit, nothing is left to believers beyond the present use of the Supper, the head will always be separated from the members, except at the particular moment when the bread is put into the mouth and throat.

We may add on the testimony of Paul, (1 Corinthians 1) that fellowship with Christ is the result of the gospel no less than of the Supper. We saw a little ago in what terms Heshusius speaks of this fellowship: but the same thing which Paul affirms of the Supper he had previously affirmed of the doctrine of the gospel. Were we to listen to this trifler, what would become of that noble discourse in which our Savior promises that his disciples should be one with him, as he and the Father were one? There cannot be a doubt that he there speaks of a perpetual union.

In making this absurd division, Heshusius is not ashamed to represent himself as an imitator of the fathers. He quotes a passage from Cyril on the fifteenth chapter of John: as if Cyril did not there plainly contend that the participation which we have of Christ in the Supper proves that we are united with him in respect of the flesh. He is disputing with the Arians, who, quoting the words of Christ, That they may be one, as thou Father art in me and I in thee, pretended to infer from thence that the unity of Christ with the Father was not in reality and essence, but only in consent. Cyril, to dispose of this quibble, answers, that we are essentially one with Christ, and in proof of it, instances the force of the mystical benediction. Were he contending only for a momentary communion, what could be more irrelevant? But it is no wonder that Heshusius thus betrays his utter want of shame, since he even claims the support of Augustine, who, as all the world knows, is diametrically opposed to him. He says, that Augustine distinctly admits (Serm. 2 de Verb. Dom.) that there are different modes of eating the flesh, and warns that Judas and other hypocrites ate the true flesh of Christ. But if it shall turn out that the epithet true is interpolated, how will Heshusius exonerate himself from a charge of forgery? Let the passage then be read, and without a word from me, it will be seen that Heshusius in using the term true flesh, has falsified.

But he will say that a twofold eating is there mentioned: as if the same distinction did not everywhere occur in our writings also. Augustine there employs the terms flesh and sacrament of flesh indiscriminately in the same sense. (Ep. 23, ad Bonif.) This he has also done in several other passages. If an explanation is asked, there cannot be a clearer interpreter than himself. He says, that from the resemblance which the sacraments have to the things, they often receive their names; for which reason the sacrament of the body of Christ is in a manner the body of Christ. Could he testify more clearly that the bread is termed the body of Christ not properly, but because of the resemblance? He elsewhere says, that the body of Christ falls on the ground, but this is in the same sense in which he says that it is consumed: Did we not here apply the resemblance formerly noticed, what could be more absurd? nay, what a calumny would it be against this holy writer to represent him as holding that the body of Christ is taken into the intestines? It is long since I accurately explained what Augustine means by a twofold eating, namely, that while some receive the virtue of the sacrament, others receive only a visible sacrament; that it is one thing to take inwardly, another outwardly; one thing to eat with the heart, another to chew with the teeth. And he at last concludes that the sacrament which is placed on the Lord’s table is taken by some unto destruction, by others unto life — that the reality of which the Supper is the sign, gives life to all who partake of it. In another passage, also, treating in express terms of this question, he distinctly refutes those who pretended that the wicked eat the body of Christ not only sacramentally but in reality. (August. Hom. 26 in Joan; De Civit. Dei, 21, c. 25; Contra Faust. 50:13, c. 13; see also in Joan. Tract, 25-27, 59.) To show our entire agreement with this holy writer, we say that those who are united by faith, so as to be his members, eat his body truly or in reality, whereas those who receive nothing but the visible sign, eat only sacramentally. He often expresses himself in the very same way.

But as Heshusius by his importunity compels us so often to repeat, let us bring forward the passage in which Augustine says that Judas ate, the bread of the Lord against the Lord, whereas the other disciples ate the bread of the Lord. It is certain that that pious teacher never makes a threefold division. But why mention him alone? Not one of the fathers has taught that in the Supper we receive anything but that which remains with us after the use of the Supper. Heshusius will exclaim, that the Supper is therefore useless to us; for his words are, “Why does Christ by a new commandment enjoin us to eat his body in the Supper, and even give us bread, since not only himself, but all the prophets, urge us to eat the flesh of Christ by faith? Does he then in the Supper command nothing new?” I in my turn ask him, Why God anciently enjoined circumcision and sacrifice, and all the exercises of faith, and also why he instituted baptism?

Without his answer, the explanation is sufficiently simple, viz., that God gives no more by visible signs than by his word, but gives in a different manner, because our weakness stands in need of a variety of helps. He asks, How very improper must; the expression be, “This cup is the New Testament in my blood,” if the whole is not corporeal? To this we all long ago answered, that that which is offered to us by the gospel without the Supper is sealed to us by the Supper, and hence communion with Christ is no less truly conferred upon us by the gospel than by the Supper. He asks, How it is called the Supper of the “New Testament,” if types only are exhibited in it as under the Old Testament? First, I would beg my readers to oppose to these silly objections the clear statements which I have delivered in my writings; — then they will not only find what distinction ought to be made between the sacraments of the new and of the ancient Church, but will detect Heshusius in the very act of theft, stealing everything but his own ignorant idea, that nothing was given to the ancients except types. As if God had deluded them with empty figures, or as if Paul’s doctrines were nugatory, when he teaches, that they ate the same spiritual food with us, and drank the same spiritual drink. ( Corinthians 10:3) Heshusius at last concludes — “If the blood of Christ be not given substantially in the Supper, it is absurd and contrary to the sacred writings to give the name of ‘new covenant’ to wine, and therefore there must be two kinds of eating, one spiritual and metaphorical, which was common to the fathers, and another corporeal, which is proper to us.”

It were enough for me to deny the inference which might move even children: to laughter, but how profane the talk which contemptuously applies the term metaphorical to that which is spiritual; as if he would subject the mystical and incomprehensible virtue of the Spirit to grammarians.

Lest he should allege that he has not been completely answered, I must again repeat. As God is always true, the figures were not fallaciously which he promised his ancient people life and salvation in his only begotten Son. Now, however, he plainly represents to us in Christ the things which he then showed as from a distance, and hence Baptism and the Supper not only set Christ before us more fully and clearly than the legal rites did, but exhibit him as present. Paul accordingly teaches, that we now have the body instead of shadows, ( Colossians 2:18;) not only because Christ has been once manifested, but because Baptism and the Supper, like sure pledges, confirm his presence with us. Hence appears the great distinction between our sacraments and those of the ancient people.

This, however, by no means deprives them of the reality of the things which Christ now exhibits more fully, clearly, and perfectly, as might be expected from his presence.

His insisting so keenly and obstinately that the unworthy eat Christ I would leave as undeserving of refutation, were it not that he regards this as the chief bulwark of his cause. He calls it a grave matter, and one fit for pious and learned men to make the subject of a mutual conference. If I grant this, how comes it that hitherto it has been impossible to obtain from his party a calm discussion of the question? If discussion is allowed, there will be no difficulty in arranging it. The arguments of Heshusius are, first:

Paul distinguishes the blessed bread from common bread, not only by the article but by the demonstrative pronoun: as if the same distinction were not sufficiently made by those who call the sacred and spiritual feast a pledge and badge of our union with Christ. The second argument is: Paul more manifestly asserts, that the unworthy eat the flesh of Christ when he says, that they become guilty of the body and blood of Christ. But I ask, whether he makes them guilty of the body as offered or as received? There is not one syllable about receiving. I admit, that by partaking of the sign they insult the body of Christ, inasmuch as they reject the inestimable boon which is offered them. This disposes of the objection of Heshusius, that Paul is not speaking of the general guilt under which all the wicked lie, but teaches that the wicked by the actual taking of the body bring down a heavier judgment on themselves. It is indeed true, that contumely is offered to the flesh of Christ by those who with impious disdain and contempt reject it when it is held forth for food; for we maintain, that in the Supper Christ holds forth his body to