AD SELNECCERVM

accommodating themselves to the weakness of our understanding are to be denied: but those who speak correctly and truly about sacramental expressions teach that there is one primary metonymia metonymy/substitution of names present in them, just as Philipp Philipp Melanchthon, the teacher of this man himself, acknowledged. Therefore, Selneccer confuses these words, Corpus Christi Body of Christ, and plays with the ambiguity of terms, because he does not at all distinguish by what meaning the thing of the sacrament itself is called the body of Christ, and by what other meaning the sign of the sacrament itself is also called the body of Christ. For that thing is the true and substantial body of Christ; but this sign is merely a symbolic and sacramental body of Christ. Now indeed, the body of Christ, which is the thing of the sacrament, is truly present to us who believe in the Supper: but yet it is not present sōmatikē parousia by bodily presence, as it is only in heaven, because it is above all these visible heavens: nor by essential or substantial assistance and conjunction with the sign: nor by any other mode through which that one and singular body of Christ is spread into many places, or is brought down from heaven, because through faith, not through the carnal chewing of the mouth itself, do we participate in that true and precious body of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Supper of the Lord. And so it is excellently called food not of the belly, but of the mind by both Cyprian and Augustine. But the signs, which are themselves also called the body and blood of the Lord, as we have said, are those things which are present in the Supper of the Lord corporally or by bodily presence, which certainly with that essential body of Christ here

ccon-