Ratio ineundae Concordiae inter Ecclesias reformatas, sive, quibus modis occurri possit mirificis artibus, quibus pontificii per quosdam imprudentes theologos universas Christi ecclesias potissimum autem et primum Germanicas pessundare conantur

Since the whole force of the controversy between the theologians concerning the Supper of the Lord exists (as has often been said) regarding the mode of the sacramental presence and the manducation of the body of Christ, I will discuss these more fully and amply than before. I. It is agreed between the parties that this sacred Supper was instituted by Christ the Son of God.

II. That Christ truly gives in this Supper to all the faithful his true body to be eaten and his blood to be drunk.

III. That no fruit comes from this manducation and drink except through faith. IIII. That the body of Christ is food for the mind, not the belly, and that neither the belly nor the teeth are to be prepared for eating this food.

V. That the body of Christ is in heaven. VI. That there is no ascension or descension of the body of Christ in the Supper. VII. That this mystery or sacrament of the sacred Supper consists of an invisible or internal thing, namely, the body and blood of Christ, and a visible or external thing, namely, bread and wine.

VIII. All also confess and believe that the true body of Christ in the sacred Supper is truly eaten by all the faithful, and that his blood is drunk by the faithful, and that they become bone of his bones, and flesh of the flesh of Christ. But whoever will not confess and believe these things (since they are necessary to be believed by all the faithful for salvation), let him be anathema. But to these the Lutherans add that the body of Christ lies hidden in the bread and is received by the mouth, and among them are many who contend that the body of Christ is everywhere: Now it is deservedly necessary to know whether this mode of manducation of the body of Christ is necessarily to be believed for salvation. For if they determine that it must necessarily be believed (as they seem to determine), do not the dignity and certainty of our religion require that they should suitably prove and confirm this opinion of theirs regarding so great a matter from the writings of the Prophets, Apostles, and the common consent of the Fathers? For to say that that mode is inscrutable and inexplicable to human reason, and nevertheless to determine their