Section 16. Refutation of consubstantiation; whence the idea of ubiquity.
Some, who see that the analogy between the sign and the thing signified cannot be destroyed without destroying the truth of the sacrament, admit that the bread of the Supper is truly the substance of an earthly and corruptible element, and cannot suffer any change in itself, but must have the body of Christ included under it. If they would explain this to mean, that when the bread is held forth in the sacrament, an exhibition of the body is annexed, because the truth is inseparable from its sign, I would not greatly object. But because fixing the body itself in the bread, they attach to it an ubiquity contrary to its nature, and by adding under the bread, will have it that it lies hid under it, 634 I must employ a short time in exposing their craft, and dragging them forth from their concealments.
(Q16 See Q3 Where Calvin also uses the terminology of 'under' when he says; 'Wherefore they are represented under bread and wine' Although Calvin seeks to expose all the doctrinal weakness' of others who profess a devotion to Jesus Christ and a reverence for Holy Communion, he himself does little to enhance a better knowledge for the seeking mind, a mind, centered in God and His Love, that can only see, though it be darkly, through the revelation of unquestioning faith. At this point, Calvin's explanations are void of any revelation that came through the Holy Spirit, and in many cases defeats even his own rebuttals. Again, as you can see in Q3, Calvin uses the same term 'under bread and wine', and does little to help cement us all into the Love of God through God's WORD made flesh for the sin of the World. It seems to me that Calvin is an advocate for truth, but his mind for truth is short circuited by his extensive rhetorical maze set at defeating Roman Catholic doctrine, unfortunately at the expense of God's love for fellow believers.)
Here, however, it is not my intention professedly to discuss the whole case; I mean only to lay the foundations of a discussion which will afterwards follow in its own place. They insist, then, that the body of Christ is invisible and immense, so that it may be hid under bread, because they think that there is no other way by which they can communicate with him than by his descending into the bread, though they do not comprehend the mode of descent by which he raises us up to himself. They employ all the colors they possibly can, but after they have said all, it is sufficiently apparent that they insist on the local presence of Christ. How so? Because they cannot conceive any other participation of flesh and blood than that which consists either in local conjunction and contact, or in some gross method of enclosing.
(At this juncture, Calvin gives no insightful relief in the 'participation of flesh and blood' which he earlier alludes to in Section 7 and 9. In Section 18 he gives his best appraisal of the dynamics of Holy Communion.)
Click
17.
for the next Section: This ubiquity confounds the natures of
Christ.
Subtleties answered.
Communion