II

Martin Luther was born at Eisleben in Southern Prussia on November 10, 1483. He became a member of the University of Erfurt in 1501, entered an Augustinian monastery at the same place in 1504, was ordained priest in 1507, and was appointed Professor of Philosophy in the University of Wittenburg in 1508. Controversies which began in 1517 led to his excommunication by Pope Leo X. in 1520, and to a sentence of outlawry decreed by the Emperor Charles V. and the Diet of Worms in 1521. In 1524 he renounced all monastic obligations; in 1525 he performed a ceremony of ordaining George Roesser deacon, and himself married a nun named Katherina von Bora. After spending the rest of his life in the translation of the Bible, finished in 1534, the organisation and government of his adherents, and the formation of service books and instructions for their use, he died in 1546 at Eisleben.

In the latter half of 1520 Luther published three works usually known as “The Three Great Reformation Treatises,” which were entitled To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation respecting the Reformation of the Christian Estate, Concerning Christian Liberty, On the Babylonish Captivity of the Church. The third of these treatises, On the Babylonish Captivity of the Church, contained a section “Concerning the Lord’s Supper”. This section affords a detailed statement of Luther’s opinions on the subject of the Eucharist in 1520.

Luther begins by limiting the number of the Sacraments to “three, Baptism, Penance, and the Bread,” though, he says, it would be “according to the usage of Scripture” to “hold that there was only one Sacrament, and three sacramental signs”. After setting aside the sixth chapter of St. John’s Gospel “as not saying a single syllable about the Sacrament,” he maintains at some length that the Eucharist ought to be received in both kinds by all. He then proceeds to discuss the doctrine of the Sacrament with reference to the ordinary belief of the time that by the consecration the substance of the bread and wine is converted into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, and that only the accidents of the bread and wine remain.

“Formerly, when I was imbibing the scholastic theology, my lord the Cardinal of Cambray gave me occasion for reflection by arguing most acutely, in the fourth book of the Sentences, that it would be much more probable, and that fewer superfluous miracles would have to be introduced, if real bread and real wine, and not only their accidents, were understood to be upon the altar, unless the Church had determined the contrary. Afterwards, when I saw what the Church was which had thus determined—namely, the Thomistic, that is, the Aristotelian Church—I became bolder; and whereas I had been before in great straits of doubt, I now at length established my conscience in the former opinion, namely, that there is real bread and real wine, in which is the real flesh and real blood of Christ in no other manner and in no less degree than the other party assert them to be under the accidents. And this I did because I saw that the opinions of the Thomists, whether approved by the Pope or by a Council, remained opinions, and did not become articles of the faith, even were an angel from heaven to decree otherwise. For that which is asserted without the support of the Scriptures, or of an approved revelation, it is permitted to hold as an opinion, but it is not necessary to believe. Now this opinion of Thomas is so vague, and so unsupported by the Scriptures or by reason, that he seems to me to have known neither his philosophy nor his logic. For Aristotle speaks of accidents and subject very differently from St. Thomas; and it seems to me that we ought to be sorry for so great a man when we see him striving, not only to draw his opinions on matters of faith from Aristotle, but to establish them upon an authority whom he did not understand, a most unfortunate structure raised on a most unfortunate foundation.”

Thus, for himself, Luther rejects the scholastic doctrine of Transubstantiation on the grounds that it lacks support in revelation and is not the most reasonable way of asserting the presence of the real flesh and blood of Christ. He does not, however, claim that all others also should reject it. His contention is that, while it is lawful as an opinion, it may not be imposed as of faith.

“I quite consent, then, that whoever chooses to hold either opinion should do so. My only object now is to remove scruples of conscience, so that no man may fear being guilty of heresy if he believes that real bread and real wine are present on the altar. Let him know that he is at liberty, without peril to his salvation, to imagine, think, or believe in either of the two ways, since here there is no necessity of faith.”

After thus declaring the freedom of Christians to hold or to reject the scholastic doctrine of Transubstantiation, Luther goes on to repeat with great vehemence, and to defend, his “own opinion” that in the consecrated Sacrament the substance of the bread and wine remain, although the real flesh and blood of Christ are there also. Throughout his arguments he appears to have had constantly in mind the tendency of the Scotist divines to question or reject the Thomist philosophy of place and the Thomist assertions that it is impossible for two natural bodies to be in the same place at the same time or for the same natural body to be in two places at the same time. The plain literal sense of Scripture seems to him to postulate the continued existence of the bread and wine; the teaching of the Church “for more than twelve centuries” supports the same view; there is no more “peril of idolatry” if the unseen substance of the bread and the wine remains than if the seen accidents remain, “for if it is not the accidents which they adore, but Christ concealed under them, why should they adore the substance of bread, which they do not see?”; there is nothing contrary to reason in the substance of the bread co-existing together with the substance of the body of Christ.

“Why should not Christ be able to include His body within the substance of bread, as well as within the accidents? Fire and iron, two different substances, are so mingled in red-hot iron that every part of it is both fire and iron. Why may not the glorious body of Christ much more be in every part of the substance of the bread? Christ is believed to have been born of the inviolate womb of His mother. In this case, too, let them say that the flesh of the Virgin was for a time annihilated, or, as they will have it to be more suitably expressed, transubstantiated, that Christ might be enwrapped in its accidents and at length come forth through its accidents. The same will have to be said respecting the closed door and the closed entrance of the tomb, through which He entered, and went out without injury to them.… I rejoice greatly that at least among the common people there remains a simple faith in this Sacrament. They neither understand nor argue whether there are accidents in it or substance, but believe with simple faith that the body and blood of Christ are truly contained in it, leaving to these men of leisure the task of arguing as to what it contains.… As the case is with Christ Himself, so is it also with the Sacrament. For it is not necessary to the bodily indwelling of the Godhead that the human nature should be transubstantiated, that so the Godhead may be contained beneath the accidents of the human nature. But each nature is entire, and we can say with truth, This Man is God; this God is Man. Though philosophy does not receive this, yet faith receives it, and greater is the authority of the word of God than the capacity of our intellect. Thus, too, in the Sacrament it is not necessary to the presence of the real body and real blood that the bread and wine should be transubstantiated, so that Christ may be contained beneath the accidents; but, while both bread and wine continue there, it can be said with truth, This bread is My body; this wine is My blood, and conversely. Thus for the present will I understand the matter in honour of the holy words of God, which I will not allow to have violence done them by the petty reasonings of men, or to be distorted into meanings alien to them. I give leave, however, to others to follow the other opinion, which is distinctly laid down in the decretal, provided only, as I have said, they do not press us to accept their opinions as articles of faith.”

Up to this point the teaching of Luther about the Eucharist in this treatise is very clear. The consecrated bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ. They are still bread and wine as well as the body and blood. The body and blood are as really present as if the scholastic doctrine of Transubstantiation were true. Though Transubstantiation is not to be imposed on any as of faith, it may be held by those who so wish. In their “simple faith,” “the common people” of the time believe the truth that “the body and blood of Christ are truly contained in” the Sacrament, without their troubling themselves with the subtleties of the theologians about substance and accident.

A long passage of great obscurity and difficulty follows. The main object in it is evidently to reject the idea that the celebration of the Eucharist is the performance of “a good work” and the offering of a “sacrifice”.

“The third bondage of this same Sacrament is that abuse of it—and by far the most impious—by which it has come about that at this day there is no belief in the Church more generally received or more firmly held than that the Mass is a good work and a sacrifice. This abuse has brought in an infinite flood of other abuses, until faith in the Sacrament has been utterly lost, and they have made this divine Sacrament a mere subject of traffic, huckstering, and money-getting contracts. Hence communions, brotherhoods, suffrages, merits, anniversaries, memorials, and other things of that kind are bought and sold in the Church, and made the subject of bargains and agreements; and the entire maintenance of priests and monks depends on these things.”

Against the idea that “the Mass is a good work and a sacrifice,” Luther maintains that in the words of institution, “and absolutely in nothing else, lies the whole force, nature, and substance of the Mass”; that “the Mass or Sacrament of the altar is the testament of Christ, which He left behind Him at His death, to be distributed to those who believe in Him,” and “a promise of the remission of sins made to us by God, and such a promise as has been confirmed by the death of the Son of God”; that it is therefore to be approached “by no works, no strength, no merits, but by faith alone”; that, though prayers are offered in connection with it, it is itself “a gift from” God, and not “a sacrifice offered to God”.

“The bread and wine are presented beforehand to receive a blessing, that they may be sanctified by the word and prayer. But after being blessed and consecrated, they are no longer offered but are received as a gift from God. And in this matter let the priest consider that the Gospel is to be preferred to all canons and collects composed by men; and the Gospel, as we have seen, does not allow the Mass to be a sacrifice.”

In the same treatise there is one passage which, in spite of the very definite assertions of the presence in the Sacrament of the real flesh and blood of Christ by which it is surrounded, appears to bear a greater resemblance to the writings of John Wessel than to the teaching of the mediæval theologians on the possibility and value of Spiritual Communion.

“In the Mass, that chief of all promises, He gave a sign in memory of so great a promise, namely, His own body and blood in the bread and wine, saying, ‘Do this for My memorial’. Thus in Baptism He adds to the words of the promise the sign of immersion in water. Whence we see that in every promise of God two things are set before us, the word and the sign. The word we are to understand as being the testament, and the sign as being the Sacrament; thus in the Mass the word of Christ is the testament, the bread and wine are the Sacrament. And as there is greater power in the word than in the sign, so there is greater power in the testament than in the Sacrament. A man can have and use the word or testament without the sign or Sacrament. ‘Believe,’ saith Augustine, ‘and thou hast eaten’; but in what do we believe except in the word of Him who promises? Thus I can have the Mass daily, nay hourly, since, as often as I will, I can set before myself the words of Christ, and nourish and strengthen my faith in them; and this is in very truth spiritual eating and drinking.”

Luther’s Short Catechism and his Greater Catechism, written in 1529, show the forms in which he put his doctrinal system for instruction of the most simple and of a less elementary kind. In the Short Catechism the section on the Eucharist is as follows:—

“The Sacrament of the Altar.

“How the master of the house should explain it simply to his household.

“What is the Sacrament of the altar?

“Answer. It is the real body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and drink, according to the institution of Christ Himself.

“Where is this written?

“Answer. Thus say the holy Evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke, and St. Paul.…

“What avails it to eat and drink thus?

“Answer. This is shown us by the words, ‘Given and shed for you for the remission of sins,’ namely, that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are bestowed on us according to these words. For where forgiveness of sins is, there is also life and salvation.

“How can bodily eating and drinking accomplish these great things?

“Answer. Eating and drinking do not indeed accomplish this, but the words which stand there, ‘Given and shed for you for the remission of sins’. These words, together with the bodily eating and drinking, are the most important part of this Sacrament, and whoever believes these words, he has what they say, and as they speak, namely, remission of sins.

“Who, then, are they who receive this Sacrament worthily?

“Answer. Fasting and bodily preparation are in truth a good external discipline, but he is truly worthy and prepared who believes the words, ‘Given and shed for you for the remission of sins’. But he who does not believe or doubts these words is unworthy and not prepared. For the words, ‘for you,’ demand truly believing hearts.”

The Greater Catechism contains a much longer treatment of the doctrine and use of “the Sacrament of the altar”. The most important parts of it which bear on the Eucharist are the following:—

“As the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Creed retain their power and value whether we keep the commandments or not, whether we pray or not, and whether we have faith or not, so this most holy Sacrament remains unalterable; it is not divested of anything, even though we receive it and treat it unworthily. Dost thou think that God takes into consideration our actions and belief, so as to change His ordinances because of them?… Now, what is the Sacrament of the altar? Answer: It is the real body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ in and under the bread and wine, through Christ’s word, appointed for us Christians to eat and drink. And, as we said when speaking of Baptism, that it is not mere water, so we say again here that the Sacrament is bread and wine, but not mere bread and wine such as is ordinarily placed before us at meals, but bread and wine comprehended in God’s word and bound up in it. The word, I say, is what makes and distinguishes the Sacrament, so that it is not mere bread and wine, but is and is called the body and blood of Christ.… It is the word and ordinance not of a prince or an emperor but of the Most High God; wherefore all His creatures should fall at His feet, saying, Yea, it shall be as He says, and shall be accepted in all honour, fear, and humility. With these words thou canst strengthen thy conscience and say, Even though a hundred thousand devils with all their fanatics were to come and ask, How can bread and wine be the body and blood of Christ, etc.?—yet I know that all the spirits and learned men together are not as wise as is the little finger of the Almighty. And we have here Christ’s own words, ‘Take, eat; this is My body: drink ye all of it; this is the new testament in my blood’. Let us hold to this, and see who can overcome Him, or make it different from what He said. It is certainly true that if the word be omitted, or it be regarded without the word, then we should have nothing but mere bread and wine, whereas if the word remains where it should and must be then by means of it we have the real body and blood of Christ. For as we have it from the mouth of Christ Himself, so it shall be, for He cannot lie or deceive.… Though it be a rogue who takes or gives the Sacrament, it is the right Sacrament—that is, Christ’s body and blood—just as though he handled it with utmost reverence. For it is not based on the holiness of mankind but upon God’s word; and since no saint on earth, yea, no angel in heaven, can make bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood, so no one can change or alter it, though it be wrongly used. For neither the person nor the unbelief can falsify the word by which it became a Sacrament and was instituted as such. For He did not say, If ye believe or are worthy, ye have My body and blood, but, ‘Take, eat and drink; this is My body and blood: this do’ (that is, what I do now institute, give you, and bid you take). This is as much as to say, Whether thou art worthy or unworthy, thou hast here His body and blood by virtue of these words, which come to the bread and wine.… Because He offers and promises forgiveness of sins, it cannot be received otherwise than through faith. Such faith He Himself demands when He says, ‘For you given and for you shed,’ as though He would have said, I give it you and bid you eat and drink, that you may accept it and enjoy it. Now, he who takes this to heart, and believes it to be true, has it; whereas he who does not believe, has it not, for he allows it to be offered to him in vain, and cannot enjoy the gracious blessing. The blessing is opened to us and at every one’s door, yes, on every one’s table; still it is necessary that thou accept it and believe it faithfully, as given by the words. This is all that is required by a Christian, to prepare him for receiving the Sacrament worthily. For since this blessing is offered in the words, we cannot grasp or accept it otherwise than with our hearts; with our hand we could not grasp such a gift and everlasting blessing. Fasting, praying, etc., may perhaps serve as an outward preparation, and a discipline for the simple, so that our body be kept chaste and reverent towards the body and blood of Christ; but that which is given in and with it cannot be comprehended or obtained by our body. But the faith of the heart does it, as it recognises the blessing, and desires it.”

In his other writings Luther continuously maintains the same general position, that the continued existence of the bread and wine is consistent with the presence of our Lord’s body and blood in them, that this presence of Christ is independent of the state and motives of the communicants who receive the Sacrament, that the benefits of reception can be gained only through faith, and that the presence is a promise of the spiritual benefit which faith gains rather than a means of conveying it.

In 1523 Luther appears to have held that, while his doctrine of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament might logically be thought to imply a duty of adoring our Lord therein present, yet, since the purpose of the institution of the Sacrament is Communion, it is diverted from its proper purpose so far as adoration is made prominent. His two lines of thought may be seen in the following passage from his treatise On the Adoration of the Sacrament, which was published in 1523.

“He who does not believe that Christ is present in the Sacrament with His body and blood does rightly if he does not adore either with his spirit or with his body. But he who believes this—and it has been shown superabundantly that we ought so to believe—cannot possibly without sin deny reverence to the flesh and blood of Christ. For I must acknowledge that Christ is there present where His body and blood are present; His words tell me no lie and He cannot in any way be separated from His body and blood.… There is a difference between Christ sitting on high in heaven and His being present here in the Sacrament and in the hearts of the faithful. Certainly He ascended into heaven for this purpose, that we may adore Him there, and acknowledge that He is Lord over all things. But in the Sacrament and in the hearts of the faithful He is properly present not for this purpose, that He wishes to be adored there, but that He may act with us and help us, as also He came to earth in the flesh, not that He should be adored, but to minister to us, as He Himself said, ‘I have not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give My life for many’. … We are of opinion that those ought not to be condemned as heretics who do not adore the Sacrament. For this was not commanded, neither is Christ present for this purpose. Moreover, the Apostles are not recorded to have adored; for the bread and wine were given to them as they were reclining. But on the other hand, neither are those who adore the Sacrament to be condemned as heretics. For, although Christ did not command this, yet neither did He forbid it. Therefore either course may be adopted.”

Luther’s retention of the ceremony of the elevation of the consecrated Sacrament till 1544 does not tend in an opposite direction from the passage which has just been quoted, when the retention is viewed in the light of his allusion to the elevation in 1520 in his treatise On the Babylonish Captivity of the Church, the reason given for retaining it in 1523 in his Form of Mass and Communion, his opinion expressed in 1542 that this ceremony was an indifferent action of no doctrinal importance, and his defence of the omission of it in 1545. In the treatise On the Babylonish Captivity of the Church he wrote, with reference to the elevation prescribed in the canon of the Mass:—

“Since all these gifts were sanctified by the word and prayer after the Hebrew rite, in accordance with which they were lifted on high, as we read in Moses, the words and the practice of elevation, or of offering, continued in the Church long after the custom had died out of collecting and bringing together the gifts which were offered or elevated.… For the same reason the priest elevates the bread and the cup as soon as he has consecrated them; but the proof that he is not therein offering anything to God is that in no single word does he make mention of a victim or an oblation. This too is a remnant of the Hebrew rite, according to which it was customary to elevate the gifts which, after being received with giving of thanks, were brought back to God. Or it may be considered as an admonition to us, to call forth our faith in that testament which Christ on that occasion brought forward and set before us, and also as a display of its sign.… The priest ought to call forth our faith by the very rite of elevation.”

In his Form of Mass and Communion of 1523 he wrote:—

“The bread and the cup are to be elevated, this ceremony being still maintained for the sake of the weak, who might perhaps be offended by a sudden change in this notable ceremony in the Mass, especially when they have been taught by popular discourse what is to be sought for at this elevation.”

In 1542, two years before he ceased to use the ceremony, he wrote:—

“As to the elevation of the Sacrament, do what you like. In no such matter will I lay a snare for any one. So I write and have written and will write to all those who are vexing me with this question every day.”

In 1545 in his Short Confession about the Holy Sacrament he wrote with reference to the abandonment of the practice of elevation:—

“I hear it said that some people are moved to think that we are at one with the fanatics because we have given up and ceased to practise the elevation in our churches, as if we admitted that the body and blood of Christ are not in the Sacrament, and are not received with the mouth. But the matter stands thus. It is now twenty or twenty-two years since I began to condemn the Mass and made a strong assault on the papists, contending that the Mass is not an offering or a work of ours, but a gift and boon or testament of God, which we cannot offer to God, but must receive from God.… At that time I had it in mind to abolish the elevation because of the papists, who make of it an offering and a work offered by us to God, and have observed it in this way for over six hundred years. But, because at that time our doctrine was new, and was beyond measure scandalous to the whole world, I was obliged to act gently, and for the sake of the weak to leave much which I afterwards changed. So also the elevation was left, since it is capable of a good explanation, as I wrote in my little book On the Babylonish Captivity.”

Then, after saying that he would have abandoned the practice of elevation at an earlier date but for the false charge of Carlstadt and others that by retaining it he allowed that the Mass is a sacrifice, and that in it Christ is crucified and slain, Luther added:—

“The only reason why we have given up the elevation is this: For a long time most of the Churches have given up the elevation; and therefore we have wished to be in union with them as to this, and that there may not be a difference on such a matter, which in itself is free and can be kept or left without any injury to the conscience.”

The consideration of these statements makes it clear that, while he retained the ceremony of elevation, Luther did not intend thereby to commit either the ministers who used it or the congregation to adoration.

Luther’s contention that the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the consecrated elements does not require the cessation of the existence of the bread and wine was to a large extent connected with the views about place developed by the Scotist theologians. Some parts of his teaching would seem to imply that he regarded the presence as being of the body of Christ in its natural state and after a natural manner, a doctrine rejected by all schools of mediæval theologians. He rejects as inadequate a view that the Eucharist affords a participation in the spiritual body of Christ; and his use of language closely resembling that in the declaration imposed on Berengar by the Council of Rome of 1059 is, in all the circumstances of his history, somewhat difficult to account for, if he were intending to reject the carnal view which many have thought to be expressed by that language. Thus, in 1528 he maintained that it had been right to force Berengar to acknowledge that the real body of Christ is crushed by the teeth; and he wrote in 1534:—

“This is the sum of our opinion, that the body of Christ is really eaten in and with the bread, so that all which the bread does and suffers, the body of Christ does and suffers, so that it is divided and is eaten and is bitten with the teeth.”

On the other hand, he used language in 1527 and 1534 which appears to tend in an opposite direction. In 1527 he wrote:—

“We … are not so foolish as to believe that the body of Christ is present in the bread in the gross visible manner in which bread is in the basket, or wine in the cup, as the fanatics would lay to our charge”;

and in 1534 he wrote:—

“We hold that Christ is present with the bread in the Sacrament not only by way of operation.… We hold that Christ is present with the bread not only according to His Godhead. We hold that the body and blood of Christ are present with the bread and wine in the Sacrament by way of substance or essence. The fundamental point in the contrary opinion is this, that the body of Christ must be in one place locally, that is, by way of dimensions, and cannot be in any other way than locally, that is, by way of dimensions, and therefore the body cannot be at the same time in more places than one; and also that it is impossible for the body to be present to several different bodies which are not in the same place, which also are not themselves together. In opposition to this, we hold that the body of Christ must not be in one place only locally, that is, by way of dimensions, but we hold that the body of Christ can also be at the same time in other ways in more places than one; and we hold that the body and blood of Christ are really and substantially present in other places and bodies, where it is guaranteed that they are, than with the bread and wine in the Sacrament. And it is not true that the body of Christ cannot be in any other way than locally, that is, by way of dimensions. We hold also that, by virtue of this union, the body of Christ is present with the bread and wine in the Sacrament, although unworthy persons use and eat the Sacrament.”

It was partly in connection with the doctrine of the Eucharist that Luther developed his theory of the ubiquity of our Lord’s body. His argument was that wherever Christ is as God, there He is also as Man; that where He is as Man, there is His manhood; that where His manhood is, there must His body be; and that therefore, since He is everywhere present as God, His body must be present everywhere. Consequently, the uniqueness of the Eucharistic presence is not that the body of Christ is in the consecrated elements, for it is in every material thing, but that it is there sacramentally for special purposes under the promise of Christ. In 1528 he wrote:—

“The body of Christ can sit at the table and nevertheless be in the bread, as also He can be in heaven and wherever He wills and nevertheless in the bread. There is no barrier far or near to prevent Him from being at the table and at the same time in the bread.… Wherever God is present to me, there must His manhood be present to me.… The manhood is more closely united with God than our skin with our flesh or our soul with our body.… He is God and Man, one Person, and the two natures are more closely united with one another than body and soul, so that Christ must be also as Man wherever He is as God. He is as God and Man in one place: does it therefore follow that He is not as Man and God also in another place? He is as Man and God also in another place: does it therefore follow that He is not in a third and a fourth and a fifth and in every place?”

“It is a sacramental unity that the body of Christ and bread are given us in the Sacrament; it is not a natural or personal unity.… Where is the bread, there is the body of Christ.”

And in 1539 he wrote:—

“What is there absurd in believing that the body of Christ is at the same time in heaven and in the Sacrament? Is that which seems to us incredible difficult to Almighty God? In the third chapter of St. John it is said, ‘No man hath ascended into heaven, but He that descended out of heaven, even the Son of man, which is in heaven’. If then He was in heaven when He walked on earth, how shall He not be at the same time in different places? If this is incredible to any one, how will he believe that God is Man? How should true God be at the same time essentially in the Virgin’s womb? How should one Person of the wholly simple Godhead become incarnate without the Others?… It is reason which demands that the same body cannot be in different places. But reason is blind; and what is impossible to it is most easy to God. I have not the same body in heaven and on earth; but what am I? I have not a great body in a little particle of bread; but who am I? Nothing is impossible to God.”

It was not unnatural that from the view of a sacramental presence of the ubiquitous body and blood of Christ in the bread and wine for the purpose of Communion Luther should develop a theory limiting this sacramental presence to the time of the administration of the Sacrament; and this theory, which was an important part of the belief of the later Lutherans, was expressed by him with some care in a letter written in 1543, in which he says:—

“Certainly Dr. Philip has written rightly that there is no Sacrament outside the sacramental action; but you define the sacramental action too sharply and abruptly. Wherefore you will bring it to pass that you will seem to have no Sacrament at all. For, if that excessive limitation of the action hold good, it will follow that after the utterance of the words, which is the chief and principal action in the Sacrament, no one will receive the body and blood of Christ because the action has ceased. This certainly Dr. Philip does not wish. And that definition of the action would produce boundless scruples of conscience and endless questions, like the discussion of the papists whether the body and blood of Christ are present at the first or the middle or the last syllables.… We will define the time or sacramental action as beginning from the beginning of the Lord’s Prayer, and lasting until all have communicated and they have emptied the cup and consumed the particles and the people have been dismissed and the departure from the altar has taken place. So we shall be safe and free from the scruples and scandals of endless questions. Dr. Philip defines the sacramental action in relation to what is external, that is, against the reservation and carrying about of the Sacrament; he does not divide it within itself or define it against itself. Wherefore you must take care that whatever is left of the Sacrament be received either by some of the communicants or by the priest and minister himself, not that the deacon alone or some other simply drink what is left in the chalice, but that he give to others who also have partaken of the body, lest you should seem to set a bad example and divide the Sacrament or to handle the sacramental action irreverently. Such is my opinion, and such also is Philip’s, I know.”