Point 10: Of the Real Presence

Our consent.

We hold and believe a presence of Christ's body and blood in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper — and that no feigned, but a true and real presence — which must be considered two ways: first in respect of the signs, and secondly in respect of the communicants. For the first, we hold and teach that Christ's body and blood are truly present with the bread and wine, being signs in the sacrament. But how? Not in respect of place or coexistence, but by sacramental relation, on this manner. When a word is uttered, the sound comes to the ear, and at the same instant the thing signified comes to the mind — and thus by relation the word and the thing spoken of are both present together. Even so at the Lord's Table, bread and wine must not be considered merely as substances and creatures, but as outward signs in relation to the body and blood of Christ. This relation, arising from the very institution of the sacrament, stands in this: that when the elements of bread and wine are present to the hand and mouth of the receiver, at the very same time the body and blood of Christ are presented to the mind. Thus and no otherwise is Christ truly present with the signs. The second presence is in respect of the communicants, to whose believing hearts he is also really present. What kind of presence is this? Such as the communion in the sacrament is — and by the communion must we judge of the presence. Now the communion is on this manner: God the Father, according to the tenor of the evangelical covenant, gives Christ in this sacrament as really and truly as anything can be given to man — not by part and piecemeal, but whole Christ, God and man. In Christ there are two natures, the Godhead and the manhood. The Godhead is not given in regard of substance or essence, but only in regard of efficacy, merits, and operation conveyed thence to the manhood. In this sacrament, Christ's whole manhood is given — both body and soul — in this order: first of all is given the very manhood in respect of substance, and that really; secondly the merits and benefits thereof, namely the satisfaction performed by and in the manhood to the justice of God. Thus the entire manhood with the benefits thereof is given wholly and jointly together. For the two distinct signs of bread and wine signify not two distinct givings of the body apart and the blood apart, but the full and perfect nourishment of our souls. Again, the benefits of Christ's manhood are diversely given: some by imputation, which is an action of God accepting that which is done by Christ as done by us — and thus it has pleased God to give the passion of Christ and his obedience. Some again are given by a kind of propagation: as one candle is lighted by another and one torch's light is conveyed to twenty candles, even so the inherent righteousness of every believer is derived from the storehouse of righteousness which is in the manhood of Christ. For the righteousness of all the members is but the fruit thereof, even as the natural corruption in all mankind is but a fruit of that original sin which was in Adam. Thus we see how God for his part gives Christ, and that really. To proceed: when God gives Christ, he gives withal at the same time the Spirit of Christ, which Spirit creates in the heart of the receiver the instrument of true faith, by which the heart really receives Christ as given by God, by resting upon the promise which God has made that he will give Christ and his righteousness to every true believer. Now then, when God gives Christ with his benefits, and man for his part by faith receives the same as they are given, there arises that union which is between every good receiver and Christ himself. This union is not forged but a real, true, and near conjunction — nearer than which none is or can be — because it is made by a solemn giving and receiving that passes between God and man, as also by the bond of one and the same Spirit. To come then to the point: considering there is a real union and consequently a real communion between us and Christ, there must needs be such a kind of presence wherein Christ is truly and really present to the heart of him that receives the sacrament in faith. Thus far do we consent with the Roman Church touching real presence.

The dissent.

We differ not touching the presence itself, but only in the manner of presence. For though we hold a real presence of Christ's body and blood in the sacrament, yet we do not take it to be local, bodily, or substantial, but spiritual and mystical — to the signs by sacramental relation, and to the communicants by faith alone. On the contrary, the Church of Rome maintains transubstantiation, that is, a local, bodily, and substantial presence of Christ's body and blood, by a change and conversion of the bread and wine into the said body and blood.

Our reasons.

Reason 1. This bodily presence overturns sundry articles of faith. We believe that the body of Christ was made of the pure substance of the Virgin Mary, and that but once, namely when he was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born. But this cannot stand if the body of Christ is made of bread and his blood of wine, as they must needs be if there is no succession or annihilation but a real conversion of substances in the sacrament — unless we must believe contradictions, that his body was made of the substance of the Virgin and not of the Virgin; made once and not once but often. Again, if his body and blood are under the forms of bread and wine, then he is not yet ascended into heaven but remains still among us. Neither can he be said to come from heaven at the day of judgment, for he that must come thence to judge the quick and dead must be absent from the earth. Augustine says that Christ according to his majesty and providence and grace is present with us to the end of the world, but according to his assumed flesh he is not always with us. Cyril says he is absent in body and present in power, whereby all things are governed. Vigilius says that he is gone from us according to his humanity — he has left us in his humanity; in the form of a servant he is absent from us; when his flesh was on earth it was not in heaven; being on earth he was not in heaven; and being now in heaven he is not on earth. Fulgentius says: One and the same Christ, according to his human substance, was absent from heaven when he was on earth, and left the earth when he ascended into heaven.

Reason 2. This bodily presence overturns the nature of a true body, whose common nature or essential property is to have length, breadth, and thickness. These being taken away, a body is no more a body. By reason of these three dimensions, a body can occupy but one place at once — as Aristotle said, the property of a body is to be situated in some place, so that a man may say where it is. They therefore that hold the body of Christ to be in many places at once make it no body at all, but rather a spirit, and that infinite. They allege that God is almighty — that is true indeed, but in this and like matters we must not dispute what God can do, but what he will do. And I say further: because God is omnipotent, therefore there are some things which he cannot do, as to deny himself, to lie, and to make the parts of a contradiction both true at the same time. To come to the point: if God should make the very body of Christ to be in many places at once, he should make it to be no body while it remains a body — to be circumscribed in some one place and not circumscribed, to be visible in heaven and invisible in the sacrament. Thus he should make contradictions to be true, which to do is against his nature and argues rather impotence than power. Augustine says to this purpose: If he could lie, deceive, be deceived, deal unjustly, he would not be omnipotent. And: Therefore he is omnipotent, because he cannot do these things. Again: He is called omnipotent by doing what he will, and not by doing what he will not — which if it should befall him, he would not be omnipotent.

Reason 3. Transubstantiation overturns the very Supper of the Lord. For in every sacrament there must be a sign, a thing signified, and a proportion or relation between them both. But popish real presence takes all away, for when the bread is really turned into Christ's body and the wine into his blood, the sign is abolished and there remains nothing but the outward forms or appearance of bread and wine. Again, it abolishes the ends of the sacrament, of which one is to remember Christ till his coming again. He being present in the sacrament bodily needs not to be remembered, because aids of remembrance are of things absent. Another end is to nourish the soul unto eternal life, but by transubstantiation the principal feeding is of the body and not of the soul, which is only fed with spiritual food. For though the body may be bettered by the food of the soul, yet the soul cannot be fed with bodily food.

Reason 4. In the sacrament the body of Christ is received as it was crucified, and his blood as it was shed upon the cross. But now at this time Christ's body crucified remains still as a body, but not as a body crucified, because the act of crucifying has ceased. Therefore it is faith alone that makes Christ crucified to be present to us in the sacrament. Again, the blood which ran out of the feet and hands and side of Christ upon the cross was not gathered up again and put into the veins. The collection was needless because after the resurrection he lived no more a natural but a spiritual life, and none knows what has become of this blood. The Papist therefore cannot say it is present under the form of wine locally. We may better say it is received spiritually by faith, whose property is to give a being to things which are not.

Reason 5. 1 Corinthians 10:3-4: The fathers of the Old Testament did eat the same spiritual meat and drink the same spiritual drink, for they drank of the rock which was Christ. Now they could not eat his body which was crucified, or drink his blood shed bodily, but by faith, because then his body and blood were not yet in existence. The Papists answer that the fathers ate the same meat and drank the same spiritual drink with themselves, not with us. But their answer is against the text. For the Apostle's intent is to prove that the Jews were every way equal to the Corinthians, because they ate the same spiritual meat and drank the same spiritual drink with the Corinthians. Otherwise his argument would not prove the point he has in hand, namely that the Israelites were nothing inferior to the Corinthians.

Reason 6. As it may be said that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath, so it may be said that the sacrament of the Lord's Supper was made for man and not man for it. Therefore man is more excellent than the sacrament. But if the signs of bread and wine are really turned into the body and blood of Christ, then the sacrament is infinitely better than man, who in his best estate is only joined to Christ and made a member of his mystical body, whereas the bread and wine are made very Christ. But the sacrament or outward elements are indeed not better than man, the end being always better than the thing ordained to the end. It remains therefore that Christ's presence is not bodily but spiritual. Again, in the Supper of the Lord, every believer receives whole Christ, God and man, though not the Godhead. Now by this carnal eating we receive not whole Christ but only a part of his manhood. Therefore in the sacrament there is no carnal eating, and consequently no bodily presence.

Reason 7: The judgment of the ancient Church. Theodoret says: The same Christ, who called his natural body food and bread, who also called himself a vine, vouchsafed the visible signs the name of his own body — not changing nature, but adding grace to nature. And: The mystical signs after sanctification do not lose their proper nature, for they remain in their first nature and keep their first figure and form — and as before may be touched and seen. Gelasius says: Bread and wine pass into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, yet so as the substance or nature of bread and wine ceases not. And they are turned into the divine substance, yet the bread and wine remain still in the property of their nature. Peter Lombard says: If it be asked what conversion this is, whether formal or substantial or of another kind, I am not able to define. That the fathers did not hold transubstantiation I prove by sundry reasons. First, they used in former times to burn with fire whatever remained after the administration of the Lord's Supper. Second, by the sacramental union of the bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ, they used to confirm the personal union of the manhood of Christ with the Godhead against heretics — which argument they would not have used if they had believed a popish real presence. Third, it was a custom in Constantinople that if many parts of the sacrament remained after administration, young children should be sent for from school to eat them — yet these same children were barred from the Lord's Table. This argues plainly that the Church in those days took the bread after administration was ended for common bread. Again, it was once an order in the Roman Church that the wine should be consecrated by dipping into it bread that had been consecrated — but this order cannot stand with the real presence, in which the bread is turned into both the body and the blood. Nicholas Cabasilas says: After he has spoken some words to the people, he lifts their minds and raises their thoughts from earth and says, Lift up your hearts — let us think on things above and not on things that are upon the earth.

Objections of Papists.

Objection 1. John 6:55: My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. Therefore (say they) Christ's body must be eaten with the mouth and his blood drunk accordingly. Answer: The chapter must be understood of a spiritual eating of Christ. His body is meat indeed, but spiritual meat, and his blood is spiritual drink, to be received not by the mouth but by faith. This is the very point that Christ here intends to prove, namely that to believe in him and to eat his flesh and to drink his blood are all one. Again, this chapter must not be understood of that special eating of Christ in the sacrament — for it is said generally in verse 53: Unless you eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood, you have no life in you. If these very words, which are the substance of the chapter, must be understood of a sacramental eating, then no man before the coming of Christ was saved, for none did bodily eat or drink his body or blood, since it was not then existing in nature but only present to the believing heart by faith.

Objection 2. Another argument is taken from the words of the institution: This is my body. Therefore (say they) Christ's body must be received literally. It is objected that when any make their last wills and testaments they speak as plainly as they can — and in this Supper Christ ratifies his last will and testament, and therefore he spoke plainly, without any figure. Answer: Christ here speaks plainly and by a figure also, for it has always been the usual manner of the Lord in speaking of sacraments to give the name of the thing signified to the sign. As Genesis 17:10: Circumcision is called the covenant of God, and in the next verse in way of exposition, the sign of the covenant. And Exodus 12:11: The Passover lamb is called the passing over of the houses of the Israelites, whereas indeed it was but a sign thereof. And 1 Corinthians 10:4: The rock was Christ. 1 Corinthians 5:7: The Passover was Christ. The like phrase is to be found in the institution of this sacrament concerning the cup, which the Papists themselves confess to be figurative — when it is said in Luke 22: This cup is the new testament in my blood, that is, a sign, seal, and pledge thereof. Again, the time when these words were spoken must be considered: it was before the passion of Christ, when yet his body was not crucified nor his blood shed. Consequently neither of them could be received in bodily manner, but by faith alone. Again, Christ was not only the author but the minister of this sacrament at the time of its institution. If the bread had been truly turned into his body, Christ with his own hands would have taken his own body and blood and given them to his disciples. Nay, which is more, he would with his own hands have taken his own flesh and drunk his own blood — he would have eaten himself. For Christ himself did eat the bread and drink the wine, that he might with his own person consecrate his Last Supper, as he had consecrated baptism before. And if these words should be properly understood, every man must be a man-slayer in his eating of Christ. Lastly, by means of popish real presence, it comes to pass that our bodies should be nourished by naked qualities without any substance, which in all philosophy is false and erroneous. To help this and the like absurdities, some Papists make nine wonders in the sacrament — that Christ's body is as large a quantity as when on the cross and yet exceeds not the quantity of the bread; that there are accidents without a subject; that bread is turned into the body of Christ and yet is not the matter of the body; that the body of Christ is not increased by consecration of many hosts nor diminished by frequent receiving; and so on. On this manner it will be easy for any man to defend the most absurd opinion that is or can be, if he may have liberty to answer arguments alleged to the contrary by wonders.

To conclude: seeing there is a real communion in the sacrament between Christ and every believing heart, our duty therefore is to bestow our hearts on Christ, endeavoring to love him, and to rejoice in him, and to long after him above all things. All our trust must be in him and with him. We being now on earth must have our conversation in heaven. And this is the true real presence which the ancient Church of God has commended to us. For in all these liturgies these words were used — and are yet extant in the Popish Mass: Lift up your hearts; we lift them up to the Lord. By which words the communicants were admonished to direct their minds and their faith to Christ sitting at the right hand of God. Thus said Augustine: If we celebrate the ascension of the Lord with devotion, let us ascend with him and lift up our hearts. Again: They who are already risen with Christ in faith and hope are invited to the great table of heaven, to the table of angels, where is the bread.

Our consent.

We hold and believe in a presence of Christ's body and blood in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper — not a pretended but a true and real presence. This presence must be considered in two respects: first, in relation to the signs, and second, in relation to those who receive the sacrament. Regarding the first: we hold and teach that Christ's body and blood are truly present with the bread and wine, which are signs in the sacrament. But in what sense? Not in terms of physical location or of existing side by side, but by sacramental relation — in this way: when a word is spoken, the sound reaches the ear and at the same moment the thing signified comes to the mind. In this relational sense, the word and the thing it refers to are both present together. In the same way, at the Lord's Table, bread and wine must not be considered merely as physical substances, but as outward signs in relation to the body and blood of Christ. This relation, arising from the very institution of the sacrament, consists in this: when the elements of bread and wine are present to the hand and mouth of the receiver, at that very same moment the body and blood of Christ are presented to the mind. In this way, and no other, Christ is truly present with the signs. The second presence is in relation to those who receive the sacrament, to whose believing hearts Christ is also truly present. What kind of presence is this? It corresponds to the kind of communion that occurs in the sacrament — and it is by the nature of that communion that we must understand the presence. The communion takes place as follows: God the Father, according to the terms of the evangelical covenant, gives Christ in this sacrament as truly and really as anything can be given to a person — not partially or in installments, but whole Christ, both God and man. In Christ there are two natures: the divine and the human. The divine nature is not given in terms of its substance or essence, but only in terms of its power, merits, and operation conveyed into the human nature. In this sacrament, Christ's whole humanity is given — both body and soul — in this order: first, the humanity itself in substance, and that truly; then, the merits and benefits of that humanity, namely the satisfaction made by and in the humanity to the justice of God. Thus the entire humanity, with all its benefits, is given wholly and together. The two distinct signs of bread and wine do not signify two separate givings — the body separately and the blood separately — but the full and perfect nourishment of our souls. Furthermore, the benefits of Christ's humanity are given in different ways. Some are given by imputation — an act of God by which what Christ did is counted as done by us. In this way God has given Christ's suffering and obedience. Others are given by a kind of transmission: just as one candle is lit from another and one torch's light passes to twenty candles, so the inherent righteousness of every believer flows from the storehouse of righteousness in Christ's humanity. The righteousness of all the members is only the fruit of Christ's righteousness, just as the natural corruption of all humanity is only the fruit of the original sin in Adam. This is how God gives Christ — truly and really. And when God gives Christ, He also gives at the same time the Spirit of Christ. That Spirit creates in the heart of the receiver the instrument of true faith, by which the heart truly receives Christ as given by God, resting on the promise God has made to give Christ and His righteousness to every true believer. When God gives Christ with His benefits, and a person by faith receives these as they are given, there arises the union between every faithful receiver and Christ Himself. This union is not imaginary but a real, true, and close joining — closer than any other — because it is formed by a solemn giving and receiving that passes between God and the person, and by the bond of one and the same Spirit. To come to the point: since there is a real union and consequently a real communion between us and Christ, there must therefore be such a presence in which Christ is truly and really present to the heart of the person who receives the sacrament in faith. This is the extent of our agreement with the Roman Church on real presence.

The dissent.

We disagree not about the presence itself, but only about the manner of it. We hold a real presence of Christ's body and blood in the sacrament — but not a local, bodily, or substantial presence. Rather, it is spiritual and mystical: to the signs by sacramental relation, and to the communicants by faith alone. The Church of Rome, in contrast, maintains transubstantiation — a local, bodily, and substantial presence of Christ's body and blood, by a change and conversion of the bread and wine into that body and blood.

Our reasons.

Reason 1. This bodily presence undermines several articles of faith. We believe that Christ's body was made from the pure substance of the Virgin Mary — once, at the moment of His conception by the Holy Spirit and birth. But this cannot stand if Christ's body is made from bread and His blood from wine, as must follow if there is a real conversion of substances in the sacrament rather than any succession or annihilation — unless we are asked to believe contradictions: that His body was made from the Virgin and not from the Virgin; made once and yet not once but many times. Furthermore, if His body and blood are present under the forms of bread and wine, then He has not yet ascended into heaven but remains still among us. Nor can He be said to come from heaven at the day of judgment, since the One who is to come from there to judge the living and the dead must currently be absent from the earth. Augustine says that Christ according to His majesty, providence, and grace is present with us to the end of the world, but according to His assumed flesh He is not always with us. Cyril says He is absent in body but present in power, by which all things are governed. Vigilius says: 'He has gone from us according to His humanity; He has left us in His human nature; in the form of a servant He is absent from us. When His flesh was on earth it was not in heaven; being on earth He was not in heaven; and being now in heaven He is not on earth.' Fulgentius says: 'One and the same Christ, according to His human substance, was absent from heaven when He was on earth, and left the earth when He ascended into heaven.'

Reason 2. This bodily presence overturns the nature of a true body — whose common nature and essential property is to have length, breadth, and thickness. Take these away, and a body is no longer a body. Because of these three dimensions, a body can occupy only one place at a time — as Aristotle observed, the defining property of a body is to be located somewhere, so that one can say where it is. Those who hold that Christ's body is in many places at once make it no body at all, but rather something like an infinite spirit. They appeal to God's omnipotence — which is certainly true, but in matters like this we must not debate what God is capable of doing, but what He has chosen to do. I say further: because God is omnipotent, there are in fact certain things He cannot do — such as deny Himself, lie, or make both parts of a contradiction true at the same time. To come to the point: if God were to make Christ's very body present in many places at once, He would be making it no body while it remains a body — at once confined to one specific place and not confined, visible in heaven and invisible in the sacrament. He would be making contradictions true, which is contrary to His nature and reflects limitation rather than power. Augustine speaks to this: 'If He could lie, deceive, be deceived, act unjustly, He would not be omnipotent. And therefore He is omnipotent because He cannot do these things.' And again: 'He is called omnipotent by doing what He wills, not by doing what He does not will — for if the latter were to happen, He would not be omnipotent.'

Reason 3. Transubstantiation undermines the very nature of the Lord's Supper itself. Every sacrament must have a sign, a thing signified, and a proper relation between the two. But the Roman doctrine of real presence destroys all three — for when the bread is truly turned into Christ's body and the wine into His blood, the sign is abolished and nothing remains but the outward forms or appearances of bread and wine. It also abolishes the purposes of the sacrament. One purpose is to remember Christ until He comes again. But if He is bodily present in the sacrament, there is no need to remember Him — since aids to memory are used for things that are absent. Another purpose is to nourish the soul for everlasting life. But by transubstantiation, the primary feeding is of the body and not of the soul — and the soul can only be fed with spiritual food. Though the body may benefit from food intended for the soul, the soul cannot be fed with bodily food.

Reason 4. In the sacrament, Christ's body is received as it was crucified and His blood as it was shed on the cross. But at this present time, Christ's crucified body remains a body — just not a crucified body, because the act of crucifying has ceased. Therefore it is faith alone that makes Christ crucified present to us in the sacrament. Furthermore: the blood that poured from Christ's feet, hands, and side on the cross was not gathered up and restored to His veins. Such a gathering would have been unnecessary, since after the resurrection He no longer lived a natural but a spiritual life — and no one knows what became of that blood. The papist therefore cannot say it is present locally under the form of wine. We may more rightly say that it is received spiritually by faith, which has the property of giving reality to things that are not physically present.

Reason 5. 1 Corinthians 10:3-4 says: 'Our fathers all ate the same spiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.' The fathers of the Old Testament could not eat His crucified body or drink His shed blood physically — since at that time His body and blood did not yet exist. They could only do so spiritually, by faith. The papists reply that the fathers ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink as each other, not as us. But this reading contradicts the text. Paul's purpose is to prove that the Israelites were in every respect equal to the Corinthians — because they ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink as the Corinthians. Otherwise the argument would not prove what he is trying to establish, namely that the Israelites were in no way inferior to the Corinthians.

Reason 6. Just as it may be said that the Sabbath was made for people and not people for the Sabbath, so it may be said that the Lord's Supper was made for people and not people for it. Therefore people are more excellent than the sacrament. But if the signs of bread and wine are truly converted into the body and blood of Christ, then the sacrament is infinitely greater than a human being — for in his best state a person is only joined to Christ and made a member of His mystical body, whereas the bread and wine would actually become Christ Himself. But the sacrament and its outward elements are not in fact greater than a human being, since the end is always greater than the thing ordained to serve it. It therefore follows that Christ's presence is not bodily but spiritual. Furthermore: in the Lord's Supper, every believer receives whole Christ — God and man — though not the divine nature itself. But by this supposed physical eating, we would receive not whole Christ but only a part of His humanity. Therefore in the sacrament there is no physical eating, and consequently no bodily presence.

Reason 7: The testimony of the ancient Church. Theodoret says: 'The same Christ who called His natural body food and bread, and who called Himself a vine, condescended to give the visible signs the name of His own body — not changing their nature, but adding grace to nature.' And: 'The mystical signs after sanctification do not lose their proper nature — they remain in their original nature and keep their original figure and form. They can be touched and seen as before.' Gelasius says: 'Bread and wine pass over into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, yet in such a way that the substance and nature of bread and wine do not cease. They are converted into the divine substance, yet the bread and wine remain in the properties of their nature.' Peter Lombard says: 'If someone asks what kind of conversion this is — whether formal, substantial, or of some other kind — I am not able to define it.' That the church fathers did not hold to transubstantiation I prove by several points. First: in earlier times it was the practice to burn with fire whatever of the sacrament remained after the administration. Second: by the sacramental union of bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ, the fathers used to confirm the personal union of Christ's humanity with His divine nature against heretics. They would not have used this argument if they had believed in the Roman doctrine of real presence. Third: it was a custom in Constantinople that when much of the sacrament remained after the administration, young children were brought from school to eat the remainder — even though those same children were excluded from the Lord's Table. This clearly shows that the church in those days regarded the bread after the administration as ordinary bread. It was also once a practice in the Roman Church for the wine to be consecrated by dipping into it bread that had already been consecrated — but this practice is incompatible with the real presence, in which the bread is said to be converted into both body and blood. Nicholas Cabasilas says: 'After saying some words to the people, he lifts their minds and raises their thoughts from earth and says, "Lift up your hearts — let us set our minds on things above and not on things that are on the earth."'

Objections of Papists.

Objection 1. John 6:55: 'My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.' Therefore, they say, Christ's body must be eaten with the mouth and His blood drunk accordingly. Answer: The entire chapter must be understood as speaking of a spiritual eating of Christ. His body is true food — but spiritual food — and His blood is spiritual drink, to be received not by the mouth but by faith. This is the very point Christ is establishing in this chapter: that to believe in Him, to eat His flesh, and to drink His blood are all one and the same thing. Furthermore, this chapter cannot be referring to the specific act of eating Christ in the sacrament — for verse 53 states generally: 'Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.' If these words, which are the heart of the chapter, must be understood as referring to sacramental eating, then no one before Christ's coming was saved — since no one then ate or drank His body or blood physically, as that body and blood did not yet exist. They were present only to the believing heart by faith.

Objection 2. A further argument is drawn from the words of institution: 'This is My body.' Therefore, they say, Christ's body must be taken literally. The objection is also made that when people make their last wills, they speak as plainly as possible — and in this Supper Christ was ratifying His last will and testament, so He spoke plainly, without any figure. Answer: Christ here speaks plainly and also figuratively — for it has always been the Lord's customary manner, when speaking of sacraments, to give the name of the thing signified to the sign. For example: Genesis 17:10 calls circumcision 'the covenant of God,' and the very next verse, by way of explanation, calls it 'the sign of the covenant.' Exodus 12:11 calls the Passover lamb 'the Lord's Passover' — yet it was only a sign of it. 1 Corinthians 10:4 says 'the rock was Christ.' 1 Corinthians 5:7 calls the Passover lamb 'Christ.' The same figurative language is found in the institution of this sacrament with regard to the cup — which the papists themselves admit is figurative — where Luke 22 says: 'This cup is the new covenant in My blood,' meaning a sign, seal, and pledge of it. The timing of these words must also be considered: they were spoken before Christ's passion, when His body had not yet been crucified nor His blood shed. Therefore neither body nor blood could at that moment be received physically — only by faith. Furthermore, Christ was not only the author but the minister of this sacrament at its institution. If the bread had truly been turned into His body, Christ with His own hands would have taken His own body and blood and given them to His disciples. More than that, He would with His own hands have taken His own flesh and drunk His own blood — He would have eaten Himself. For Christ Himself ate the bread and drank the wine to consecrate His Last Supper with His own person, just as He had consecrated baptism before. And if these words were to be understood literally, then every person eating Christ would become a killer of a human being. Finally: because of the Roman doctrine of real presence, it would follow that our bodies are nourished by bare qualities without any substance — which is philosophically false and incoherent. To handle this and similar absurdities, some papists invent nine miracles in the sacrament — that Christ's body is as large as it was on the cross yet does not exceed the size of the bread; that accidents exist without a subject; that bread is turned into Christ's body yet is not the matter of that body; that Christ's body is not increased by consecrating many loaves nor diminished by frequent reception; and so on. By this method, any person could easily defend the most absurd position imaginable, if allowed to answer every objection simply by appealing to miracles.

In conclusion: since there is a real communion in the sacrament between Christ and every believing heart, our duty is to give our hearts to Christ — striving to love Him, to rejoice in Him, and to long for Him above all things. All our trust must rest in Him and with Him. Though we are on earth, our hearts and minds must dwell in heaven. This is the true real presence that the ancient church of God has commended to us. In all the ancient liturgies these words were used — and they still appear in the Roman Mass: 'Lift up your hearts. We lift them up to the Lord.' By these words the communicants were urged to direct their minds and faith to Christ seated at the right hand of God. Augustine said: 'If we celebrate the ascension of the Lord with devotion, let us ascend with Him and lift up our hearts.' And again: 'Those who have already risen with Christ in faith and hope are invited to the great table of heaven, to the table of angels, where the true bread is.'