oelists use the word of blessing or thanksgiving indifferently. For where Mark hath εὐλογήσας, that is to say, blessing,” Matthew, Luke, and Paul have εὐχαριστήσας, that is to say, “giving thanks;” which word Mark also using a little after writeth: “And when he had took the cup,” εὐχαριστήσας, that is, “when he had given thanks, he gave to them.” To bless therefore is, as the apostles themselves do interpret it, to give thanks, since that they put the one for the other. The diligent reader may sce them? also in that place of Paul, which is 1 Cor. x. cap.; which place we will fully and wholly entreat of in that which followeth. Our adversaries therefore have not as yet proved out of the scriptures, that to bless is as much as to change the things; or that by words, pronunciation or reciting of words, the things themselves signified are brought to, or made present3. The ancient writers, truly, made mention of a mystical blessing, but in a far other sense than these consecrators. Of true consecration we will speak anon; and will confute also in another place whatsoever things they have brought concerning blessing or consecrating of baptism. Now we will make an end of that which we began. Words of themselves were instituted of God to this end, to signify; and by signifying to bear witness, and to admonish: neither have they beside any hidden force to change the natures of things, or to cause the things themselves to be corporally present; neither do we read that holy men ever used them after this manner: therefore they sin and deceive men, which otherwise use them than they were instituted. Aurel. Augustine acknowledgeth? the very same thing, who in in. his Encliridion ad Laurent. Capit. 22, saith: “And verily fence words to this purpose are instituted, not that men should deceive one another by them, but by the which one might make another to know his meaning: therefore to use words unto deceit, and not to that end whereunto they were ordained, is sin.” The same Aurelius Augustinus, gathering a
[[I Mark xiv. 22; Matth. xxvi. 26; Luke xxii. 19; 1 Cor. xi. 24.]
[Bullinger borrows here from Erasm. Annot. in Mare. xiv. 22.] [2 So also ed. 1584; but 1577, the same: idipsum, Lat.) [3 Rather, or by words, &c, to bring or make present, ὅσο. [+ So also ed. 1584; but 1577, acknowledged: agnovit, Lat.] [5 Et utique verba propterea sunt instituta, non per que se invicem]
[homines fallant, sed per que in alterius quisque notitiam cogitationes]
sum of his whole book intituled De Magistro, asketh this question: “But now I would have thee tell me, what thy opinion is of all this that I have spoken unto thee?” Which by and by he answereth: “I have learned being admonished by the words, that a man is taught no other thing by words than to learn; and that it is a very small matter, that by speech or talk we know partly what he thinketh that speaketh: but whether the words which he spake were true, that teacheth he only, who admonished that he dwelt in the heart when the other spake with the tongue”.” Thus much he in the last chapter of his book De Magistro. To this purpose pertain the words of Solomon the wise, in the book of the Preacher, saying: “The words of the wise are like pricks, and nails that go through of the authors of gatherings, which are given of one shepherd.” Where we willingly acknowledge, that there is a great force in eloquence and prayers of the just!; as the Grecians signified by that Hercules of Gallia, also Cicero very plentifully hath declared the same Lib. 1. De Oratore: but that which they do forge and imagine of Pitho, or Suada, or Suadela, the lady and mistress of eloquence, that verily do we attribute to the Holy Ghost, which doth both give grace to the speaker, and prepareth and stirreth up the minds of the hearers. By these things it is manifest unto all men, I think, that it is a new forgery of man, and not a doctrine of Oracle, to say, that in the celebration of the sacraments there is such force graffed in the words recited, that they turn and change the things, or make the things signified to be present,
[suas perferat. Verbis igitur uti ad fallaciam, non ad quod instituta]
[sunt, peccatum est.—August. Enchirid. cap. 22, Opp. Tom. m1. fol. 34.]
[col. 3. Par. 1531.] [ὁ So also ed. 1584; but 1577, thy.] [7 Sed mihi jam dicas velim, quid de hoc toto meo sermone]
[sentias.. AD. Ego vero didici admonitione verborum tuorum, nihil]
[aliud verbis, quam admoneri hominem ut discat, et perparum esse]
[quod per locutionem aliquanta cogitatio loquentis apparet: utrum autem]
[vera dicantur, enum docere solum, qui se intus habitare cum foris loque-]
[retur admonuit.—Aug.de Magistro. cap. 14, Opp. Tom. 1. fol. 120. col. 1.] [8 Velut clavi plantati inter folia collectitia, tradita ab uno pastore,]
[Lat. and Bibl. Lat. Tigur, 1544.] [9 The translator’s explanation.] (10 Rather, and a perfect speech: orationi juste, Lat.] [1 the lady—ecloquence, not in Lat.]]
and either put on or join them with the signs. But we will shew hereafter, that the signs are not changed or mingled with the things signified, but that both of them do remain still in their own nature and property. It shall be sufficient, if we attribute that to the words which the scripture doth attribute; to wit, the office of signifying and admonishing, of moving and stirring up, which they have from God. For they do defile and blemish the words of God, which deck them with strange and falsified titles.
We acknowledge indeed, that all the power of almighty God is attributed to the word of God: but who seeth not, J that that is spoken and meant of the everlasting Son of God, who in! the scripture is called the Word of God? Who is such a dorhead? that cannot rightly distinguish between the everlasting Word of God, which is the Son of God, the second person in the reverend Trinity, and the word rehearsed, spoken, or pronounced by man? The everlasting Word of God remaineth in his own substance and nature a creator, and not a creature: it is not mingled, it is not graffed or incorporated into man’s voice. The word which proceedeth from man is a creature, not a creator, and remaineth still a creature; for it is a sound which passeth away: nevertheless it 155 a virtue which (still) remaineth, if it be sincere and not adulterate, and received by faith. For so it preserveth; yet not of his own proper virtue or power, or because it is pronounced by man: but through his power or virtue which revealed the word, who is true, and therefore preserveth those things which by his word he promiseth to preserve?; so that now indeed God himself doth preserve, who said that by his word he would preserve those that believe. The word therefore, which God hath revealed unto us by his servants the prophets and by his chosen apostles, is not, neither is called, the word of God, as if the sound of syllables, words, and voices, are of their own nature the word of God; that very same, I mean, which of his own substance is the Son of God: but because the revelation of the word was made from God in the Holy Ghost through the word or wisdom of God. Wherefore although
[1 Misprinted in all the editions, wherein: qui in, Lat. ] [2 See Vol. π. p. 332, n. 1.] [3 Fit, Lat.: it becomes. ] [ to preserve, not in Lat. ] [5 of his substance, ed. 1577.]]
the original be of God and not of man, yet the words which the prophets and apostles uttered are man’s words, neither can they do anything else but give signification; with the which, notwithstanding, I would not have the due force of the external word of God to be lifted up above that which is meet and comely, and those things imputed to the literal word which is proper to God I acknowledge all those things, which with a sound understanding or judgment are attributed to the word of God. But of this thing I have elsewhere discoursed more at large.
But now some will say: If by reciting the words of God sacraments are not sanctified or consecrated, from whence then have they this, that they be and are called sacraments, or holy signs? Is the consecration vain and of no force? Surely, vain and of no force is that consecration which the papists have feigned. But of consecration or true sanctification I have spoken in the beginning of this chapter, which now I will set forth a little plainer and more abundantly. The holy scriptures, when they make mention of holy things, they use very often this Hebrew word 7p, which the Greek interpreters commonly have translated by ὡγιάζω, the Latins by Sanctifico, Consecro, and Initio. The use of this word reacheth very far: for it signifieth to sanctify, to offer unto God, to purify or cleanse, and to justify; also to sever or put apart, and to separate, to separate (I mean) from profane use, and to dedicate them to holy things; to call a thing by some name, to apply, and to appoint. Therefore we say, that to consecrate, in this place, is no other thing but to sanctify, to dedicate to God, and after a fashion to separate, or of a thing profane to make an holy thing. But who doth this? or he which doth it, by what means or instrument, I pray you, doth he it? Who, I beseech you, consecrateth, or holieth? 15 it God? or is it man? Verily, God, and not man. For God instituting anything, and testifying and declaring by his word what he hath instituted and to what end, of his own holy, just, and good will, by his own only institution, I say, without
[6 Rather; by which statement meanwhile I would not disparage]
[the due force of the external word of God. Quibus interim nolo]
[externi verbi Dei vim justam elevatam, Lat. The latter half of the]
[sentence is the translator’s addition. [7 Decade 1. Serm. 1.]]
any other mean, he consccrateth the thing which he himself hath already instituted. For as he is holy, just, and good, so whatsoever he commandeth is holy, just, and good; and man, understanding by the word of God that God hath instituted anything to a holy, just, and good use, accepteth, receiveth, and useth that institution for holy, good, and just. Therefore man doth not by uttering certain words consecrate and make holy the institution. And because he believeth that all the institutions of God are holy and good, therefore he also celebrateth this institution of God, even as God hath ordained, and giveth God thanks, depending altogether upon God and the rule of his word’. Of this manner of sanctification the apostle speaking in another certain place saith: Now the Spirit speaketh evidently, that in the latter times there shall rise deceivers, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.” Lo, he saith, “meat is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.” Dut the word of God is in this place (as Paul the apostle expoundeth it) a testimony of the scripture and will of God, whereby we are taught, that all things which God hath made are exceeding good, and that they are clean, and ποὺ unclean, which God hath created for to be eaten and for our use. In the Acts St Peter heareth, Arise, Peter, slay, and eat;” for he saw in a vision before him all living creatures of the earth and the air. Peter answered, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” Therefore he heard again: “What God hath cleansed, that call thou not common.” But where, I pray you, did he make them clean? When he made and gave them for the use of man. To the word is annexed prayer, not a charming or an enchantment, but a faithful thanksgiving. For the apostle more than once or twice maketh mention of thanksgiving, that by the general word, that is to say, prayer, no other thing might be understood than the special word, I mean, thanksgiving; for prayer is (as a man would say) to invo-
[ΓΙ Of the world, edd. 1584 and 1587, by misprint: verbi ejus, Lat. ]]
cation and giving of thanks, as the root to the branches? Therefore saith he, the meat is holy, because God, who is good, hath made and appointed the same for the use of man; and also because it is received of man with faith and thanksgiving. For meat is not holy and good to many men, not through any fault in the meat, which is always the good creature of God; but in them is the fault, which acknowledge not by faith the benefits of God, or which abuse them, and glut themselves contrary to the word of the Lord. Even so standeth the case with the matter of sanctification, which we must also apply to the sacraments. God, of his own good will, and for the commodity of men, ordained sacraments. He chose unto himself, out of his good creatures, water, bread, and wine; and, appointing them to some certain end, he laid a platform, and commanded us to use and celebrate them. Now therefore, by the commandment and choice of God, the water, bread, and wine, are consecrated, and he signeth them with his word, and declareth that he will have them counted for sacraments, and sheweth the manner how he will have them celebrated: so that the consecration of sacraments is made through the will, institution, choice, or commandment of God, and seal of his word. Wherefore water, bread, and wine, used after a common manner, or not so as they are chosen and instituted of God, the word of God is as it were slandered3, and they are altogether common and profane; but being only used according to the choice or commandment of God holily, and the word or sign being added, they begin to be sacraments, which they were not afore. The same substance remaineth in them still, which they had before; but they are instituted to another end and use, for they are sealed with the word and commandment of God, and therefore are hallowed. Whereunto may also be added their holy use, by a true faith setting forth the benefit of our redemption, and giving of thanks? by faithful prayers to our bountiful Redeemer.
[2 veluti genus ad has species, Lat. ] [3 insculpta quodammodo nota verbi, Lat. The German trans-]
[lation renders this sentence: And (when) the word is not added to]
[them as a sign, then they are, &c. Compare below, They are sealed]
[with the word of God: Lat. habent nunc notam verbi Dei impressam. ] [2 Rather, the holy δα of those who by a true faith set forth, ὅσο.]
[give thanks, &ec.]]
To this purpose we may fetch examples of civil government, wherein some things, for certain new causes adjoined, having their substance remaining still, are now made that which before they were not. For silver or gold, being not yet coined with the magistrate’s mark, is nothing else but silver and gold: but if, by the commandment of the magistrate, a new form be added by a print, it is made money, which it was not before, although it be the very same substance which it was before. Wax, before it be sealed, is common and usual wax; but when, by the king’s will and commandment, that which is engraven in the king’s seal is printed in the wax, and is set to evidences and letters patents, by and by it is so esteemed, that whoso shall deface the sealed evidences! is attached as guilty of treason. Whereby I trust you see plainly, that the true sanctification or consecration of sacraments doth consist in the will and institution of God, in a certain end and holy use of the same, which are declared unto us in the word; of the which peradventure I have spoken more at large than some may think needful. But the godly reader will pardon me this my tediousness, since my desire is to open all things faithfully, diligently, and at large. Now that I have defended the lawful use of the word, and declared the virtue of it, and opened unto you, as occasion served, the true sanctification or consecration of sacraments, I will return to that where I left. And because I taught, that sacraments consist of two parts, the sign and the thing signified, it remaineth to shew, that those two parts retain their natures distinguished, not communicating properties; by declaration whereof, both to those things which go before and to those which follow, yea, and to the whole substance of the sacrament, a wonderful light without doubt shall appear. But of communicating of the names or terms I will speak in their convenient place.
That each part retaineth their natures distinguished, with- Οὐ communicating or mingling of properties, it is to be seen n the hereby; that many be partakers of the sign, and yet are ” barred from the thing signified. But if the natures of the parts were united or naturally knit together, it must needs be then, that those which be partakers of the signs must be par-
[[ aut cerum, Lat. omitted: or the wax.] [2 cum re significata nihil commune habent.]]
takers also of the thing signified. Examples of scripture, as they are ready, so are they evident. For Simon Magus, in the Acts of the Apostles, received the sign, and was baptized: but of the thing signified he had not neither received so much as one iota. And Judas Iscariot, a cruel and faithless traitor of his master, did likewise eat the bread of the Lord, but he did not eat bread the Lord3; otherwise he had lived happy, just, and blessed for ever: for he which eateth me, saith the Lord himself, shall never die:” but Judas died everlastingly; therefore he did not eat that food of life.
To these evident testimonies of scripture I will now add also certain of St Augustine’s pertaining to that purpose, who in his treatise upon John xxvi. saith: “We receive this day visible meat: but the sacrament is one thing, and the virtue of the sacrament is another. How many do receive of the things upon the altar, and when they have received it do die! Whereupon the apostle saith, He eateth and drinketh his own damnation.” Was not the morsel poison, which the Lord gave unto Judas? and yet he received it, and after he had received it, the enemy entered into him; not because that was evil which he received, but because he, being evil, did receive that good thing unworthily.” And immediately after he saith: “The sacrament of the thing, that is, of the knitting together of the body and blood of Christ, is received at the Lord’s table, of some unto life, of other some to destruction: but the thing itself, whereof it is a sacrament, is received of all men unto life, of none to destruction, whosoever shall be partakers thereof.” And again he saith: “He which dwelleth not in Christ, nor Christ in him, without doubt he neither eateth his flesh, nor drinketh his blood spiritually; although carnally and visibly he chaw with his teeth the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ: but he doth rather eat and drink the sacrament of so great a thing to his own damnation.” And so
[3 Ili (apostoli) manducabant panem Dominum, ille (Judas)]
[panem Domini contra Dominum.—August. in Evang. Joan. Tract. LIX.]
[Opp. Tom. 1x.] [1 Nam et nos hodie accepimus visibilem cibum: sed aliud est]
[sacramentum, aliud est virtus sacramenti. Quam multi de altari]
[accipiunt, et moriuntur, et accipiendo moriuntur! Unde dicit Apo-]
[stolus, Judicium sibi manducat et bibit. Nonne buccella dominica]
forth. Te hath the like words in his book De Civit. Dei’, xxi. 25. cap. And in his book De Doctr. Christ. iii. cap. 9. he sheweth, that “in the conjunction of natures there had need to be a distinction, lest we should stick too much upon the outward sign.”
Now we come to the proofs of the scripture. The apostle witnesseth in the 1 Cor. x. cap. that “all our fathers were baptized, and did all eat of one spiritual meat, and did all drink of one manner of spiritual drink; but the Lord in many of them had no delight:” whereas, if they had eaten that spiritual meat and drunk that spiritual drink spiritually by faith, undoubtedly the Lord had delighted in them. For without faith,” as he himself saith, it is impossible to please God:” therefore with them that have faith God is well pleased. Wherefore our fathers truly were partakers of visible sacraments, but they were destitute of invisible grace: whereby it followeth, that the sign and the thing signified do retain their natures not confounded or mingled, but distinSUished and separated. Besides this, the words of the gospel have some affinity, or at the least some likeness, with sacramental signs; otherwise, the words are preferred far before the signs, the apostle saying, that he was sent to preach, and not to baptize.” But many hear with their outward ears the word of the Lord, who for all that, because they are void venenum fuit Jude? Et tamen accepit, et cum accepit in eum inimicus intravit: non quia malum accepit, sed quia bonum male malus accepit.. Hujus rei sacramentum, id est, unitatis corporis et sanguinis Christi.. de mensa dominica sumitur, quibusdam ad vitam,
[quibusdam ad exitium: res vero ipsa, cujus et sacramentum est, omni]
[homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium, quicunque ejus particeps fuerit. Ἴ]
[Qui non manet in Christo et in quo non manet Christus proculdubio 4]
[nec manducat spiritaliter carnem ejus, nec bibit ejus sanguinem, licet]
[carnaliter et visibiliter premat dentibus sacramentum corporis et san-]
[guinis Christi; sed magis tante rei sacramentum ad judicium sibi]
[manducat et bibit.— August. in Evang. Joan. Tract. xxvr. Opp. Tom. 1x.]
[fol. 47, coll. 2. 4. Par. 1531.] [1 On this chapter archbishop Cranmer has written in the margin]
[of his copy of Augustine’s works now in the British Museum: Impii]
[apostatee non manducant corpus Christi manducantes sacramentum.”]
[—Aug. Opp. Tom. v. fol. 293. col. 2.] [2 Ut autem literam sequi et signa pro rebus que iis significantur]
[accipere servilis infirmitatis est; ita inutiliter signa interpretari male]
[vagantis erroris est.—Id. de Doct. Christ. Opp. Tom. 11. fol. 11, col. 3.]
of faith, are also without the inward fruit of the word; Paul saying yet again: “For to us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, because it was not coupled with faith.” For so it cometh to pass, that many receive the visible sacraments, and yet are not partakers of the invisible grace, which by faith only is received. Whereupon yet again it followeth, that the sign is not confounded with the thing signified, but both of them do retain their substance and nature distinguished. What, and doth not the scripture expressly and pithily make a difference between the outward ministry of man, and God the inward worker and giver of spiritual gifts? For John Baptist saith: “I baptize you with water, but he (Christ) shall baptize you with the holy Ghost.” Wherewith agreeth that saying of Peter: Baptism saveth us, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but in that a good conscience maketh request to God3.”
To this now pertaineth that evident testimony of St Augustine, which is read, iil. Quest. lib. in Levit. Quest. 83. in these words: “We must diligently consider, as often as he saith, ‘I the Lord which sanctify him,” that he speaketh of the priest; when he also spake this to Moses, and thou shalt sanctify him.” How therefore doth both Moses and God also sanctify? For Moses doth not sanctify for the Lord; but Moses doth sanctify in the visible sacraments by his ministry, and the Lord by invisible grace by his Holy Spirit, where the whole fruit of visible sacraments also is. For without this sanctification of invisible grace what profit have we by visible sacraments?” Thus far Augustine. As John Baptist made distinction between his own ministry in baptism and the power of Christ, even so maketh he distinction between the
[3 See above, p. 259, n. 3.] [4 Animadvertendum est quoties dicit, Ego Dominus qui sanctifico]
[eum, loqui de sacerdote; cum hoc etiam Moysi dixerit, Et sanctificabis]
[eum. Quomodo ergo et Moyses sanctificat et Dominus? Non enim]
[Moyses pro Domino; sed Moyses visibilibus sacramentis per ministe-]
[rium suum, Dominus autem invisibili gratia per Spiritum Sanctum:]
[ubi est totus fructus etiam visibilium sacramentorum. Nam sine]
[ista sanctificatione invisibilis gratiee visibilia sacramenta quid prosunt?]
[—August. Queest. super Levit. Lib. ur. cap. 84. Opp. Tom. 1v. fol. 49.]
[col. 1. Par. 1531.] [BULLINGER, 1V.] 18]
ministry of preaching and the drawing of the spirituall teacher: “1 am,” saith he, the voice of a crier in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord.” And again: “He that cometh from an high is above all; he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth; he that cometh from heaven is above all; and what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth,” &ec. St Paul also agreeing thereunto saith: “Who is Paul, what is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So that neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.” Albeit the comparison of ministers with the signs agree not altogether and in every part (which I told you before), because ministers are fellow-labourers with Christ according to their office; but the signs which are without life are not so, unless κατ ἐξοχὴν we translate unto them that which is the ministers’: yet by other proofs I suppose it to be made plain, that the sign and thing signified do retain their natures distinguished in the sacraments.
These things do specially disprove and convince those, who are persuaded of that papistical transubstantiation of bread and wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ; for these men utterly deny that the bread and wine, being consecrated in the mysteries, do remain in their own substances. For they contend that the substances (of bread and wine) are annihilated and turned into the very body and blood of the Lord; so that after the consecration the accidents of bread and wine do remain, and no part of the substance thereof at all. For they say, that the Lord in express words pronounced over the bread and wine, “This is my body, this 15 my blood; and that the Lord can easily bring to pass, by his own omnipotency, that that which he said may be as he said. For proof whereof they allege these and such likg places; that the Lord, forsooth, fashioned man out of the clay of the earth, and by and by of the rib of man made woman, and also turned Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt; and therefore that he by the self-same his power can make of bread his
[1 interni, Lat.: inward.] [2 Joan. i. and iii. capite, Lat.] [3 So also ed. 1584: but 1577, these: has, Lat.] [4 similia non pauca, Lat.: like instances not a few.]]
body, and of wine his blood. And these truly are their bulwarks. But we in another place have plentifully disputed of the meaning of the Lord’s words, “This is my body;” so that it is superfluous to make long repetition of them. I have also told you, that of the omnipotency of God we must not gather and determine whatsoever cometh into our brain; and also that God’s power doth nothing against truth, neither against itself; and that no godly man ought to take that in hand, under pretence of the power of God, which is repugnant to the plain scriptures and the articles of the catholic faith.
Now it is evident and plain, that after consecration there remaineth in the sacrament the substance of bread and wine; and herein we need no other witnesses than our very senses, which perceive, see, taste, and feel, no other thing than bread and wine. But while clay was turned into a man’s body, the rib into a woman, and Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt, they were not, as the sacrament of the supper? that which they were before, neither did there appear unto the senses any iota of the clay, of the rib, of Lot’s wife. Very foolishly, therefore, and unaptly are these examples applied to the mystery? of the Lord’s supper, wherewith they nothing agree: which thing also we touched before?.
The gospel, very diligently describing the most holy institution of the Lord’s supper and the manner thereof, maketh no mention of miraculous transubstantiation?; but calleth the bread and wine, which the Lord took and distributed to his disciples, and which they also received, by the names of bread and wine, as well after the words of consecration (as they term it) were spoken, as also before consecration. Doth not the Lord in the xxvi. chap. of Matt. call the wine, being consecrated, not wine only, but the fruit of the vine, after a more vehement and significative! kind of speech, lest any should be ignorant that the wine was wine indeed, and so remained? In Mark we read this of the cup: And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave to them, and they!
[5 See Vol. 1. page 90; and above, p. 263.] [6 altaris, Lat.] [7 negotio, Lat.] [8 See above, p. 272.] [9 conversionis, Lat. ] [10 emphatic, is Bullinger’s one word.] [11 omnes, Lat. omitted: all.] 18—2]
drank of it; and he said unto them, This is my blood of the new Testament,” &c. Lo, they drank all (saith he) of the cup before the words of consecration (as they term it) were spoken; therefore they drank wine. Now if so be they answer, that this place of the evangelist is to be expounded by the figure Zysteron proteron, that is, when any thing is declared out of order preposterously!, then admit they tropes and figures in the celebration of the supper; which, notwithstanding, they have contended ought simply to be understood without the help of tropes or figures. But Paul also, the apostle, in the 1 Cor. chap. x. calleth the bread of the Lord, being now in very holy use, and (that I may so say) consecrated, by the name of bread. And in the 1 Cor. xi. chap. the third time he calleth it bread. To this appertaineth?, that the Acts of the Apostles do testify, how that the churches? of the apostles do call the whole mystical action the breaking of bread, not the breaking of his body or distribution of his blood. It is manifest therefore, that the substance of bread and wine in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper do remain in their own nature, and that transubstantiation is a sophistical imagination. the This also is a sophistical and a notable papistical forgeryS5, in that they say that the bread and wine, consecrated in the supper, is therefore called of the apostles’ bread and wine, Pecause they were bread and wine before. For that is now done, which is read in Exodus to have been done in times i past, where Aaron’s rod is said to devour the enchanters’ rods, which nevertheless then were not rods, but serpents; but now they are named rods, because they were rods before they were so changed, which now are serpents, and not rods. But again; who doth not see this example hath no similitude or likeness with the bread and wine of the Lord? For the rod truly was called a rod; but in the meanwhile it was, and seemed plainly to be, not now a rod, but a serpent: but the bread is called bread, neither doth it appear to be anything else but bread. Here is no form of flesh seen, as was seen there the form of a serpent. Beside this; the rod is said to
[1 This explanation is the Translator’s.] [2 His accedit, Lat.] [3 Act. ii. and xx. marg. Lat.] Soalso ed. 1584: but 1577, church: ab apostolica ecclesia, Lat. ] 5 forgery, not in Lat.] [ in literis apostolicis, Lat.]]
be turned into a serpent, and is shewed for a wonder or miracle; but ye shall read in no place that the bread was turned into flesh by any miracle: but a sacrament is instituted, which indeed loseth the name and nature of a sacrament, when, the substance of the sign being annihilated and made void, nothing remaineth there but the thing signified; for that which they triflingly say of accidents miraculously subsisting without their subject, and remaining instead of a sign? is to no purpose. If we should go about to boast of our dreams for miracles, there will be nothing so absurd and foolish which we shall not colour with our fancies and lies. Wha if this word transubstantiation doth manifestly prove, that this whole trifling toy is not fetched from the simple and plain doctrine of the apostles, but from the subtle school of quarrelling sophisters? But the apostle Paul giveth us in charge Coit. to beware both of philosophy and strangeness? of words; though at this present we do not only entreat of new words, but also of new matter and new doctrine, contrary in all points to the apostles’. For this doctrine of transubstantiation is clean contrary both to the doctrine of the apostles and evangelists touching the true incarnation of our Lord, and the true nature and property of his human body, and also the true raising up again of our bodies. For they are constrained to forge many things altogether miraculous; as of the invisible body of Christ, and of the subtle body of Christ piercing by his subtlety through the gate and the stone!!, I mean, that which covered his sepulchre; or the Lord’s very body being altogether and!? at one time in many places and filling all things; and other innumerable, which are of this stamp, absurd and wicked. Now also Joan. Scotus, a subtle doctor, in his work, Sentent. Distinct. τι. Lib. 4. quest. 3, saith!s: That the article of transubstantiation is neither expressed
[7 So also ed. 1584: but 1577, the sign. ] [ quarrelling, not in Lat.] [9 novitatibus, Lat.] [19 hie, Lat. omitted: in this place.] [11 per corpus janue et lapidis, Lat.] [12 Rather, of the Lord’s body, being a true body, and yet in the]
[meanwhile, &e.] [13 Dicendum quod ecclesia declaravit istum intellectum esse de]
[veritate fidei in illo symbolo edito sub Innocent. III. in concilio]
[Lateranensi, Firmiter credimus, &c..ubi explicite ponitur veritas]
[aliquorum credendorum, magis explicite quam habebatur in symbolo]
in the creed of the apostles, neither in those creeds of the ancient fathers; but that it was brought in and invented of the church (so saith he, meaning the Romish church,) under Innocentius the third, in the council of Lateran. Whereby ye gather, that the doctrine of transubstantiation is of late time and newly start up; the history whereof we have elsewhere more largely compiled’. But by this that I have said I think it plainly and effectually enough declared, that the signs are not mingled with the things signified, or changed into them; but that each of them remain in their several natures. But albeit either of the parts without mixture do retain their own nature, yet those two agree in one sacrament; and being joined together and not divided, do make one perfect and lawful sacrament. For water alone, both privately and ordinarily sprinkled, is no sacrament, unless it be applied and used according to the institution of Christ. Purifying also, or washing away of sins, and the engrafting or receiving into the league and fellowship of God and all saints, of itself is no sacrament, unless there be also a sprinkling of water in the name of the blessed Trinity. In like manner, it is no sacrament, if we eat bread in a common assembly, and drink wine of the self-same cup after the common manner; neither is it a sacrament, if through a faithful remembrance thou consider that the Lord’s body was betrayed for thee, and his blood shed for thee, for the which also thou givest thanks; but so far forth as they are all mysteries of God and our salvation, they are generally termed? sacraments, that is, secret and spiritual mysteries of God and our salvation. For in a perfect and lawful sacrament there must needs go together both the holy action, corporal or sensible, and the spiritual celebration thereof for the which this sacramental action was invented and put in practice.
But here some move many and divers questions touching the sacramental union, whether it be personal, real, or rational. I, because I see nothing of this matter doubtfully
[apostolorum, vel Athanasii, vel Niceni.—Duns Scot. Sentent. Lib. 1v.]
[dist. 11. quaest. 3. Opp. Tom. vir. p. 618. Lugd. 1639.] [} De Origine Erroris circa Coenam et Miss. Pap. cap. x.] (2 Rather; excepting in so far as all mysteries, &c. are in a gene-]
[ral way termed, &c.] [ i.e. of that thing.] [6 anxie, Lat.]]
delivered of the apostles, and that the thing, being plain of itself, by such manner of sophistications is made dark, doubtful, difficult, and obscure; simply and plainly say, that the sign and the thing signified are joined together in the sacraments by God’s institution, by faithful contemplation and use; to be short, in signification and likeness of the things: but I utterly deny, that those two are naturally united together, so that the sign in the sacrament beginneth to be that which the thing signified is in his own substance and nature: I deny, that the thing signified is joined corporally with the sign, so that the sign remaineth still in his own substance and nature, and yet nevertheless, in the mean time, hath the thing signified corporally joined unto it; that thereby whosoever is partaker of the sign, should be also by the sign or with the sign partaker of the thing itself. The reason why I do so constantly deny that, appeareth, I think, sufficiently by those examples which I have hitherto declared, and which hereafter shall be declared.
Furthermore, 1 say that the sign and the thing signified are coupled together by God’s institution, because he which instituted the sacrament of baptism and the supper, instituted it not to this end, that with water we might wash away the filth of the body, as the custom is to do by daily use of baths; neither that we should take our fill of the bread and wine: but that under visible signs he might commend unto us the mysteries of our redemption and his grace, and, to be short, of our salvation, by representing them to renew them, and by sealing them to confirm them. My saying is, that they are coupled together in a faithful contemplation, because they which partake the sacraments religiously do not fasten their eyes on sensible things only, but rather on things insensible, signified, and heavenly; so that the faithful have in themselves both twain coupled together, which otherwise in the sign or with the sign are knit together with no bond. For corporally and sensibly they receive the signs, but spiritually they possess, comprehend, renew, and exercise the things signified. In signification and likeness of the things, I say, they are coupled together, because the sign is a token of the thing signified: and unless signs have likeness with those things whereof they are signs, then would they be no
[8 God’s, not in Lat.] [6 and by, Lat.]
signs. They have therefore most apt and very near affinity between themselves. For as water washeth away the filth of the body; as bread and wine satisfieth and maketh merry the heart of man; even so by the grace of God the people of God are purified; even so the body and blood of the Lord, which was given for us, being apprehended by faith, doth both satisfy and make merry the whole man, that he may yield himself wholly unto thanksgiving, and obedient to Godward. I would speak here more largely of the analogy, or of the sign and thing signified, but that I see I may do the same hereafter in place more convenient. But I think I shall not need any more places out of the scripture, to open these things more evidently; since they follow of their own accord upon that which we have hitherto by testimonies of scriptures confirmed, and will hereafter more at large confirm.
Moreover, in respect of the likeness of the sign and the thing signified, the name of the one is given to the other! as I will prove by most evident testimonies of scripture. In (Genesis xvii. the Lord saith thus to Abraham: “Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, both thou and thy seed after thee in their generations. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep between me and you; every man-child among you shall be circumcised. Ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a token of the covenant between me and you.” The mouth of the Lord hath spoken this. Who will gainsay the word of God? The word of God calleth circumcision a covenant; therefore the name of the thing signified is given to the sign. For in very deed circumcision is not the covenant itself; for the covenant is the bargain and agreement between God and men, which hath certain conditions and articles. Wherefore afterward, by interpretation, the same circumcision is called “a token of the covenant.” And who will find fault with this interpretation of God? The signs therefore, yea, God being the interpreter, T take the names of the things signified.
So you may read in the twelfth chapter of Exodus: Ye shall eat the lamb in haste, for it is the Lord’s passover.” Again: “And the blood shall be unto you a sign in the houses wherein you are,” &e. And again: “This day shall [1 aut nomina rerum ipsis signis, Lat. omitted: or the names of the things are given to the signs themselves. ]
be unto you a remembrance,” &c. What can be spoken more plainly, than that the lamb is called the passover? But what is the proper meaning of the passover? Let us give ear to the Lord, here again expounding himself, and saying: “1 will pass through the land of Egypt this same night, and will smite all the first-born of Egypt, from man to beast; and when I shall see the blood (of the lamb), I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you.” Behold, the Passover, God himself so interpreting it, is that passing over, whereby the angel of God, passing over the houses of the Israelites which were marked with the blood of the lamb, spared the first-born, and slew the first-born of the Egyptians. If thou art ignorant what and what manner of lamb it was, listen again to the Lord instructing thee, and saying: “In the tenth day of this month, every man take unto him a lamb according to the household; and let your lamb be without blemish, a male of a year old, which ye shall take out from among the sheep and from among the goats.” And here the lamb is plainly called the Passover. And who doth not see, that the lamb is not the Passover? Yet because it is a sign or remembrance of the Passover, as the mouth of the Lord saith, surely it taketh the name of the Passover or passing by.
Again, you read in the nineteenth of Numbers: Thus spake the Lord unto Moses: Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring thee a red cow? without blemish, and ye shall give her unto Eleazar the priest, that he may bring her without the host, and cause her to be slain before his face4, and to be burnt whole; and a man that is clean shall gather up the ashes of the cow, and lay them without the host in a clean place; and it shall be kept for the multitude of the children of Israel for a water of separation (or sprinkling); for it is sin.” Mark again the manner of the speaking of the scripture. A heifer or cow is sin, that is, a sacrifice for sin; as Christ is said to be made sin for us, that for (or by) sin he might condemn sin; which is, that by the only oblation?
[2 So also ed. 1584: but 1577, their: ipsorum, Lat.] [3 buculam, Lat.] [ ubi sacrifice, Lat. ] [5 ab ecclesia Israelitica, Lat. ] [6 de peccato, Lat. See Vol. IL. p. 256, n. 5.] [7 So also ed. 1584: but 1577, one oblation: unica hostia, Lat.]]
of his body he might cleanse and purge us from sin. Hitherto also belongeth that which the apostle, speaking of sacrifices unto the Hebrews, saith: “But in these sacrifices there is mention made of sins every year; for it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.” As often therefore as sacrifices, as heifers, goats, bulls, and lambs, are called sanctifications, cleansings, or sins, the signs take the mames of the things signified. For these were certain types and figures of the priest which was to come and of Christ!, upon whom all our sins are laid; for he truly is the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world.”
Now we are come also to the sacraments of the new Testament, whose signs also bear the names of the things signified. For Peter saith, Acts ii.: “Let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins.” And Paul also in the Acts of the Apostles heareth: “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins by calling “on the name of the Lord.” Therefore truly baptism is called a cleansing, or washing away of sins. And Peter also elsewhere saith: “Baptism saveth you, not that thereby the filth of the flesh is put away, but in that a good conscience maketh request unto God2.” And Paul also saith: “Ye are washed, ye are sanctified, ye are justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” Therefore the due and right comparing of the places between themselves doth manifestly prove, that to the sign of baptism, which is water, is given the name of the thing signified.
After the same manner is it to be seen in the institution? of the Lord’s supper, or Eucharist. The bread is called the body of Christ, and the wine the blood of Christ. But since the right faith believeth, that the true body of Christ, ascended out of this world, liveth and is now in heaven, and that the Lord returneth no more into this world until he come in the clouds of heaven to judge the quick and the dead; every man understandeth, that to the sign, to wit, bread and wine, the names of the things themselves, to wit, the body and blood of Christ, are given through the communicating of names.
[1 venturi sacerdotis hostice Christi, Lat.] [2 See above, 274.]
[3 So also ed. 1584: but 1577, these: horum, Lat. ] H
[6 habet negotium, Lat.)
Many other speeches used in the scripture and in our daily talk are not much unlike to the speeches used in the sacrament. We read that Christ is, and is called, a lion, a lamb, a shepherd, a vine, a door, a way, a ladder, the day, the light, the sun, the water, the bread, a spring, and a rock: which if at this day any should roughly urge, contending that Christ is a lamb indeed, a door in substance, a natural vine, or such like; who, I pray you, could abide him so reasoning? We would hiss and drive out from among us such a one, as a mad man, and a perverter of God’s oracles. We read indeed, “And that rock was Christ:” in the meantime it is to be considered what should follow. For if that rock really and in very deed had been Christ, none of them that drank of that rock had been reprobates; for they are acceptable unto God which are partakers of Christ. But in many of them, that drank of the rock, the Lord had no delight; for they were slain in the wilderness.” Therefore they which drank of the rock, which was Christ, were not made partakers of Christ. Therefore the rock was not Christ really and in very deed. We also seeing the standards of kings, princes, and cities, we call the signs by the names of the kings, princes, and cities: for we say, This is the king of France, This is the prince of Germany, This is Tigure, This is Berne. So if we see the marriage-ring, or the image of any prince, we call it the faith and troth of wedlock, or man and wife; yea, and we say by the image, This is the prince. For matrons, shewing their wedding-ring, say, This is my husband: when we shew to any man the picture or image of the duke of Saxony, we say, This is the duke of Saxony. If any should go? obstinately to affirm, that the sign in very deed is the thing signified, because it beareth the name thereof; would not all men cry ou, that such a one were without wit or reason, and that he were to be abhorred by all means as an obstinate brawler?
Those therefore that are skilful in the things understand that that is and hath been catholic, received of all men, and also sound, which we shewed even now at large; to wit, that the signs do borrow the names of the things, and not turn into the things (which they signify). And therefore the ancient
[5 rigide, Lat.] [6 Zurich.] [7 So also ed. 1584: but 1577, go on: pergeret, Lat. ]]
fathers moved no strife nor contentions about the sacraments, 2.. ΔΒ are at this day among us. For as they did beautify [60 signs with the names of the things (signified), so did they acknowledge the kind of speech; neither did they roughly urge the words, as though the very signs were really and corporally that selfsame thing which they signified. Therefore this canon or rule is so often repeated and beaten upon by Aurelius Augustine, “That the signs do take or borrow the names of things signified.” By the same canon or rule he maketh plain certain dark places; of which thing we will now set down some testimonies. In his Epist. 23. ad Bonifacium, de Parvulorum Baptismate, he saith: “If sacraments had not some likeness with those things whereof they are sacraments, no doubt they were no sacraments; for of this likeness, for the most part, they take the names of the things themselves. As also the apostle, speaking of baptism, saith, We are buried with Christ by baptism into his death.” He doth not say, we signify the burial; but he doth flatly say, we are buried.’ Therefore he called the sacrament of so great a thing no otherwise but by the name of the selfsame thing.” And in Tract. super Joan. 63: “When the unclean person is gone, all which remain are clean. Such a like thing shall there be, when the world, being overcome of Christ, shall pass away, and there shall no unclean person remain among the people of God; when, the tares being separated from the wheat, the just shall shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. The Lord foreseeing this would come to pass, and now witnessing that it was signified, when Judas fell away as tares separated, the holy apostles remaining as wheat, he saith, Now is the Son of man glorified;’ as if he had said, Behold what shall be when I am glorified, where there shall be no wicked person, and where no good man shall perish. For he
[1 Solet res que significat ejus rei nomine quam significat nun-]
[cupari.—August. Quest. super Levit. Lv] [2 Si sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum, quarum y]
[sacramenta sunt, non haberent, omnino sacramenta non essent: ex]
[hac autem similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina acci-]
[piunt… Sicut de ipso baptismo apostolus, Consepulti, inquit, sumus]
[Christo per baptismum in mortem. Non ait sepulturam significamus,]
[sed prorsus ait, Consepulti sumus. Sacramentum ergo tants rei non]
[nisi ejusdem rei vocabulo nuncupavit.—Id. Epist. xxm1. ad Bonifac.]
[Opp. Tom. 11. fol. 18. col. 4. Par. 1531.]]
[erit cum victus a Christo transierit hic mundus, et nemo in populo]
[Christi remanebit immundus; cum zizaniis a tritico separatis justi]
[fulgebunt sicut sol in regno Patris eorum. Hoc futurum preevidens]
[Dominus, et nunc significatum esse contestans, discedente Juda tan-]
[quam zizaniis separatis, remanentibus tanquam tritico apostolis sanc-]
[tis, Nune, inquit, clarificatus est Filius hominis: tanquam diceret,]
[Ecce in illa clarificatione mea quid erit, ubi malorum nullus erit, ubi]
[bonorum nullus perit! Sic autem non est dictum, Nunc significata]
[est clarificatio Filii hominis: sed dictum est, Nunc clarificatus est]
[Filius hominis; quemadmodum non est dictum, Petra significabat]
[Christum, sed, Petra erat Christus: nec dictum est, Bonum semen]
[significabat filios regni.sed dictum est, Bonum semen hi sunt]
[filii regni, zizania autem filii maligni. Sicut ergo solet loqui serip-]
[tura, res significantes tanquam illas que significantur appellans; ita]
[locutus est Dominus dicens, Nunc -clarificatus est Tilius hominis,]
[posteaquam separato inde nequissimo, et secum remanentibus sanctis,]
[significata est glorificatio ejus, quando separatis iniquis manebit in]
[seternitate cum sanctis.—August. in Evang. Joan. Tract. Lx. Opp.]
[Tom. 1x. fol. 84. col. 3.]]
which signifieth taketh the name of that thing which it signifieth. The Holy Ghost is said to descend and remain upon him in the bodily shape of a dove. For so also is the rock Christ, because it signifieth Christ.”
By these examples alleged out of the seripture it is plain,
i
sa. that the signs do borrow the names of the things, and not ex: their natures and substances. Whereupon it is undoubtedly trye, that they err as far as heaven is wide, which are persuaded, that the sacramental speeches are not to be expounded as figurative and borrowed, but most properly and literally; so that by that means the water, bread, and wine, are not now signs and tokens only of regeneration, and of the body of Christ given and of his blood shed for us; but regeneration itself, and the very substantial body and blood of our Lord Jesus. For being of this opinion, they are offensive unto the common manner both of speaking and interpreting used in all ages; they are also repugnant to true faith, yea, and to common sense. Whereby it cometh to pass, that by their confounding of the sign with the thing signified they bring in a servile weakness, and (that I may use St Augustine’s words) “a carnal bondage.” For he, Li. iii. de Doct. Chr. ca. 9, entreating of the sacraments of Christians, saith: The Lord himself, and the apostles in their doctrine, have left us few things instead of many; and those most easy to be done, most reverend in understanding, and most pure in observing; as is baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord: which sacraments every man when he receiveth, being instructed, acknowledgeth whereunto they are referred, that we should not worship them with carnal servitude or bondage, but rather with spiritual freedom or liberty. And as to follow the letter, and to take the signs instead of the things which are signified
[[ Sonitus ille vocis et columbz species corporalis, et linguze]
[divisee velut ignis, qui insedit super unumquemque eorum, sicut illa]
[in monte Syna que terribili specie facta sunt, et sicut columna illa]
[nubis per diem et flamme per noctem, significativa operatione acta]
[atque transacta sunt. Illud in his maxime cavendum est, ne cui-]
[quam Dei natura vel Patris, vel Filii, vel Spiritus Sancti commutabilis]
[et convertibilis esse credatur. Nec moveat quod aliquando res que]
[significat nomen ejus rei quam significat accipit. Spiritus Sanctus]
[dictus est corporali specie tanquam columba descendisse et mansisse]
[super eum. Sic enim et petra Christus, quia significat Christum.—]
[August. Epist. cir. ad Evod. Opp. Tom. 11. fol. 89. col. 1.]]
by them, is a point of servile weakness; so to expound the signs unprofitably is a point of evil-wandering error” And yet he speaketh more plainly, chap. 5: First of all you must beware, lest you take a figurative speech according to the letter. For to this agreeth that which the apostle saith: The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” For when that which is figuratively spoken is taken as though it were spoken properly, it is carnally understanded. Neither is there anything that may more agreeably be termed the death of the soul, than when that wherein we excel beasts, which is understanding or knowledge, is made subject to the flesh by following the letter. For he that followeth the letter, understandeth words translated or borrowed, as proper or natural; neither doth he refer that which is signified by a proper word to another signification: but if (for an example) he shall hear mention of the sabbath, he understandeth it no otherwise but as one day of the seven which by continual course come and go. And when he heareth mention made of sacrifice, it will not out of his head, but that this is meant of that which was wont to be done about offering of beasts and fruits of the earth. To be short, this is the miserable bondage of the soul, to take the signs for the things themselves, and not to be able to lift up the eyes of the mind above the bodily creature for the obtaining of everlasting light?” Thus far Augustine. By these
[2 Pauca pro multis, eaque factu facillima et intellectu augustis-]
[sima et observatione castissima, ipse Dominus et apostolica tradidit]
[disciplina: sicuti est baptismi sacramentum et celebratio corporis et]
[sanguinis Domini: quae unusquisque cum percipit, quo referantur]
[imbutus agnoscit, ut ea non carnali servitute sed spiritali potius]
[libertate veneretur. Ut autem literam sequi, et signa pro rebus que]
[iis significantur accipere, servilis infirmitatis est; ita inutiliter signa]
[interpretari, male vagantis erroris est.—Id. de Doct. Christ. Lib. τπ.]
[cap. 9. Opp. Tom. ΠΙ. fol. 11. col. 4.] [3 In principio cavendum est, ne figuratam locutionem ad literam]
[accipias. Et ad hoc enim pertinet quod ait apostolus, Litera occi-]
[dit, spiritus autem vivificat. Cum enim figurate dictum sic accipitur]
[tanquam proprie dictum sit, carnaliter sapitur. Neque ulla mors]
[anime congruentius appellatur, quam cum id etiam quod in ea bes-]
[tias antecellit, hoc est, intelligentia, carni subjicitur sequendo literam.]
[Qui enim sequitur literam, translata verba sicut propria tenet;]
[neque illud quod proprio verbo significatur refert ad aliam significa-]
[tionem: sed si sabbatum audierit, verbi gratia, non intelligit nisi]
words of Augustine we do gather, that they reverence the sacraments by spiritual liberty, which neither stick to the letter, neither worship and reverence the visible things and elements, as water, bread, and wine, instead of the things signified; but being rather admonished and stirred up by the signs, they are lifted up in their minds to behold the things signified. πεν This same Augustine, in the same book, chapter 15, teaching when and after what manner a trope or figure is to be received or acknowledged, saith: “In figurative speeches this manner of rule shall be kept; that so long you view with diligent consideration what is read, until the interpretation come unto the rule of charity. For if it be not repugnant to charity, think not that it is a figurative speech.” And yet more plainly he addeth in the 16. chapter following: “If it be an imperative speech, cither forbidding any heinous offence or wicked deed, or commanding any profitable or good deed, it is no figurative speech: but if it command any wicked deed, or forbid any deed of charity, then it is figurative. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you” He seemeth to command some horrible offence or wicked deed; therefore it is a figurative speech, commanding us to communicate with the passion of Christ, and comfortably and profitably to lay up in our remembrance, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us. The scripture saith, If thine enemy hunger, feed him.” Here no man doubteth but he commandeth well-doing; but that which followeth, for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, a man would think that a wicked and evil deed were commanded: therefore doubt not but that it is figuratively
[unum diem de septem, qui continuo volumine repetuntur; et cum]
[audierit sacrificium, non excedit cogitatione illud quod fieri de vie-]
[timis pecorum terrenisque fructibus solet. Ea demum est mise-]
[rabilis anime servitus, signa pro rebus accipere, et supra creaturam]
[corpoream oculum mentis ad hauriendum sternum lumen levare non]
[posse.—August. ibid. cap. 5. Opp. Tom. 1m. fol. 11. col. 2.] [1 Servabitur in locutionibus figuratis regula hujusmodi; ut tam]
[diu versetur diligenti consideratione quod legitur, donec ad regnum]
[caritatis interpretatio perducatur. Si autem hoc jam proprie sonat, τ]
[nulla putetur figurata locutio.—Id. ibid. cap. 15. fol. 12. col. 2.]]
F VI. OF SACRAMENTS. 289 spoken” And so forth. All these things do convince their error, which interpret sacramental speeches as proper, and reject all figures and tropes, especially in the institution of the supper.
Nevertheless, I am not ignorant what they set against this last testimony of St Augustine; that the words of our Saviour, in the sixth of John, do make nothing to the interpretation of the ministration of the sacrament; and therefore that the place of St Augustine doth nothing agree to our purpose. But it is manifest, that in the same book St Augustine disputeth of signs and of the sacramental speeches. And that is manifest also by many other places out of St Augustine, that he often alleged these words of our Saviour, out of the sixth of John, to expound the celebration of the supper. But why do they nothing pertain to the celebration of the supper? Doth he speak of one body in the supper, and of another in the sixth chapter of John? Shall we believe that the Lord had and hath two bodies? Our Lord Jesus hath but one body, the which as it profiteth nothing being eaten corporally according to St John, vi, chapter; even so that body, being corporally eaten, doth nothing avail according to St Matthew, xxvi. chapter. But this matter we have elsewhere handled?. And of as little force is this unsavoury objection of theirs; which is, that the consequence is false when we argue thus: Circumcision is the covenant, the lamb is the passover, sacrifices are sins and sanctifications or cleansings, are sacramental speeches, mystical and figurative; therefore this also, This is my body,” is a mystical and figurative speech. For since
[2 Si przceptiva locutio est, aut flagitium aut facinus vetans, aut]
[utilitatem aut beneficentiam jubens, non est figurata: si autem flag-]
[tium aut facinus videtur jubere, aut utilitatem aut beneficentiam]
[vetare, figurata est. Nisi manducaveritis, inquit, carnem Filii hominis]
[et sanguinem biberitis, non habebitis vitam in vobis. Facinus vel]
[flagitium videtur jubere; figura est ergo, praecipiens passioni Domini]
[esse communicandum, et suaviter atque utiliter recondendum in]
[memoria, quod pro nobis caro ejus crucifixa et vulnerata sit. Ait]
[scriptura, Si esurierit inimicus tuus, ciba illum.. Hic nullo dubi-]
[tante beneficentiam preecipit. Sed quod sequitur, Hoc enim faciens]
[carbones ignis congeres super caput ejus, malevolentize facinus putes]
[juberi; ne igitur dubitaveris figurate dictum.—August. ibid. cap. 16.]
[fol. 12. col. 1.] [3 De Orig. Error. circa Cen. et Miss. Pap. cap. 10.] 19 [BULLINGER, 1Vv.]]
in sacraments there is the like reason, why may we not frame arguments from the one to the other? And that sacraments have the like reason, it is received of all them which acknowledge the truth aright; and it shall be proved hereafter to the full. But if it be not lawful to reason from the sacraments of the old Testament, and by them after a certain comparison to interpret ours, and by ours to make them plain; truly then the apostle did not well, who by a false consequent by comparison we read to have argued from their sacraments unto ours, in the 1 Corinth. x. and to the Coloss. ii. chapter. But now we return to our purpose.
That we may yet at length make an end of this place; they are sacramental and figurative speeches, when we read and hear that the bread is the body of Christ, and the wine the blood of Christ; and that they do eat and drink the body and blood of Christ, which eat and drink the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord; also that they are purged from their sins and regenerated into a new life, which are baptized in the name of Christ; and that baptism is the washing away of! our sins. And after this manner speaketh the scripture, and this form of speech kept the old doctors of the church; whom for so doing none that is wise doth dispraise: neither can one discommend any man which speaketh after this manner, so that he also abide in the same sincerity wherein it is manifest that those holy men of God did walk. For as they did willingly and simply use those speeches, so did they not roughly and rigorously strain the letter and speeches: they did interpret them in such sort, that none was so unskilful but that he might understand, that the signs were not the thing itself which they signified, but that the signs do take the names of the things; therefore they used words significatively, sacramentally, mystically, and figuratively.
Now whereas some will not have the sacramental speeches to be expounded, as though, being not expounded, they were of more authority, majesty, and worthiness; this draweth after it a sore danger, and giveth a most grievous offence, and is repugnant to the rule of the apostles, to sound reason, and to the custom of them of old. For when these kind of speeches are set forth and uttered to the simple sort, being not ex-
[1 So also 1584: but 1577, all: omnium, Lat.]
pounded; to wit, “That bread is the body of Christ; When
thou drinkest the wine of the Lord, thou drinkest the very blood of the Lord; Baptism saveth us,” &ec.; what other thing, I pray you, is set forth, than a snare of carnal bondage, and a most dangerous offence of idolatry? Many words need not in this matter, since experience doth abundantly enough set forth in this place what hath been done, and what at this day is done2.
The rule of the apostles commandeth the divine oracles to be expounded in the church, and to lay forth all the mysteries of the scripture, that they may be soundly understanded, as we may see 1 Corinth. xiv. And reason itself teacheth us,. that the mind of man is little or nothing moved, if the things themselves be not understood. What fruit therefore shall the simple sort receive by the sacraments, unto whom the meaning of the sacraments hath not been opened? Better therefore did the ancient fathers, not only in expounding all the mysteries of the kingdom of God, and especially the sacraments; but in teaching also that they ought to be expounded: which although it be made plain enough by those things which go before, yet will I add two examples out of St Augustine touching this matter. He, cap. 6. De Catechisandis Rudibus, saith: Let the new christian man be taught concerning the sacraments, that they be visible signs of heavenly things, and that invisible things are to be honoured in them; neither that the sign, after it is blessed and sanctified, is so to be taken as it is daily used. It must also be told him what that speech signifies which he heareth; and what thing is given in the sign, whereof it is a representation. Moreover, upon this occasion he must be taught, that if he hear any thing even in the scriptures that soundeth carnally, although he under- ~ stand it not; yet to believe that some spiritual thing is signified thereby, which belongeth to holy manners and to the life to come?” And as followeth. The same Augustine, Lib. iv. De Doctr. Chri. cap. 8. doth utterly forbid the doctors and
[2 Rather, Experience, (that is,) what has happened, and what is]
[daily happening, abundantly illustrate this point.] [3 De sacramento quod accepit, cum ei bene commendatum fuerit,]
[signacula quidem rerum divinarum esse visibilia, sed res ipsas invisi-]
[biles in eis honorari; nec sic habendam esse illam speciem benedic-]
[tione sanctificatam quemadmodum habetur in usu quolibet: dicendum]
[etiam quid significet et sermo iile quem audivit, quid in illo condatur, 19—2]
teachers of the church, not to think that they ought therefore to speak obscurely of the mysteries of the scripture, because they see that these things are delivered somewhat intricately and darkly in the scripture; but he rather requireth light and plainness in them. If any man desire to hear his words, they are these: If we fetch examples of the manner of speaking out of the writings of our canonical authors and doctors which are easily understood, yet we ought not to think that we should follow them also in those speeches wherein they have used a profitable and wholesome obscurity, to exercise, and as it were to quicken, the readers’ minds, and to take away loathsomeness, and to stir up the studies of the willing learners, and also to make the minds of the wicked zealous, that they may either be turned to godliness, or else excluded from the mysteries. For so they spake, that those which came after them, and could understand and rightly expound them, might reveal a second grace unlike to the former, but yet ensuing in the church of God. Therefore they which expound them ought not so to speak, as if they by the like authority would offer themselves to be expounded: but in all their kind of speeches, first let them labour chiefly and first of all to be understanded, with as plain kind of speaking as they can, that he be very dull and slow witted which doth not understand; or at the least let not the fault of the hardness and subtilty of the things, which we go about to open and declare, be in our own speech, whereby that which we speak should be somewhat longer in understanding.” Thus far Augustine. And let this that I have hitherto said of sacramental speeches be sufficient. The Lord be praised. Amen. (Bullinger read, condonatur) cujus illa res similitudinem gerit. Deinde monendus est ex hac occasione, ut si quid etiam in seripturis audiat, quod carnaliter sonet, etiamsi non intelligit, credat tamen spiritale aliquid significari, quod ad sanctos mores futuramque vitam pertineat,—August. de Catech. Rud. cap. 26. Opp. Tom. 1v. fol. 208. [ a et eloquentes quidem non solum sapientes canonicos col. 3.
[nostros auctores doctoresque fateamur tali eloquentia usos, quali per-]
[sonis ejusmodi congruebat. Sed nos etsi de literis eorum, que sine Eg]
[difficultate intelliguntur, nonnulla sumimus elocutionis exempla, ἡ]
[nequaquam tamen putare debemus imitandos eos nobis esse in iis 3]
[que ad exercendas et elimandas quodammodo mentes legentium, et]
THAT WE MUST REASON REVERENTLY OF SACRAMENTS; THAT THEY DO NOT GIVE GRACE? NEITHER HAVE GRACE INCLUDED IN THEM. AGAIN, WHAT THE VIRTUE AND LAWFUL END AND USE OF SACRAMENTS IS.
That They Profit Not without Faith
That They Are Not3 Superfluous to the Faithful; and That They Do Not Depend upon the Worthi-ness or Unworthiness of the Minister. The Seventh Sermon
← 65. Decade 5, Sermon 6, Part 1 · Contents · 67. Decade 5, Sermon 7, Part 1 →