must constantly and valiantly ficht against Satan. Α5 often therefore as we remember we are baptized with Christ’s baptism, so often are these things put into our minds, and we admonished of our duty. But the apostle handleth this matter more at large in the sixth chapter of his epistle to the Romans; where he expressly maketh mention, that we by baptism are made the grafts of Christ, that is to say, that we might grow out of him as branches out of the vine, and feel in our minds and bodies both the death and resurrection of Christ. For since we are endued with the Spirit of Christ
which worketh in us, our body vrily dieth daily, but our spirit liveth and rejoiceth in Christ. To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. 4 Of the Lord’s Holy Supper; What It Is, by Whom, When, and for Whom It Was Instituted; After What Sort, When, and How Oft It Is to Be Cele-brated, and of the Ends Thereof. Of the True Meaning of the Words of the Supper, “this Is My Body.” of the Presence of Christ in the Supper. Of the True Eating of Christ’s Body. Of the Worthy and Unworthy Eaters Thereof: And How Every Man Ought to Prepare Him-self unto the Lord’s Supper. The Ninth Sermon
Ὄντο the holy baptism of our Lord Christ is coupled the sacrament of the body and blood of our Lord, which we call the Lord’s supper: for those whom the Lord hath regenerated with the laver of regeneration, those doth he also feed with his spiritual food, and nourisheth them unto eternal life. Wherefore it followeth necessarily that we entreat next of the holy supper of the Lord. [5 and the whole kingdom of Satan, ed. 1577: omitted also in ed. 1584: et universum Satan regnum, Lat. ]
20
[Bullinger, 1v.]
This hath many names, even as hath the feast of passover, ig and is instituted in the place thereof. In old time it was called!, The passing over, or, the Lord’s passover; which was indeed a memorial of the passover, also a remembrance, sign, solemnity, a festival or holy day, a meeting together, or an holy assembly, an observation or worshipping? a ceremony and sacrifice of passover, a sacrifice or offering, of which we have spoken in place convenient. This is called by St Paul the apostle “the Lord’s supper,” because this ceremony was instituted by the Lord in his last supper, and because therein is offered UNtO us the spiritual banquet. The same Paul termeth it “the Lord’s table,” and that doubtless for none other causes. BY the same Paul it is also called the communion; not so much for that we have communion or fellowship with Christ, and he with us, as that we being many are one bread and of ONE body, which do partake of the same bread. Luke calleth it “breaking of bread,” naming the whole by a part. And it is evident, that our forefathers of old gave not unto the receivers of the Lord’s supper a morsel, but that they brake the bread amongst themselves. In time past firm leagues were performed by breaking of bread. It is called also a memorial and remembrance of the Lord’s passion; for the Lord said: Do this in the remembrance of me.” It is named a thanksgiving, because when we celebrate the Lord’s supper, we thank him for all his benefits, and especially for his death, by the which we are redeemed. It is called also a token and a mystery, and a sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord. Our forefathers did term it by this word, synaxis. ~~ Synaais is a joining together, a knitting, a closing, or an agreement. For the church is joined and united unto Christ in the holy supper by a most strait league: and to conclude, the members themselves are therewith joined very fast together. Furthermore, it is called an assembly of saints, an holy company, and a gathering together; for in the old
[1 More correctly; even as the feast of the passover, into the place]
[whereof it is instituted, was called, &ec.] 2 So also ed. 1584: but 1577, of worshipping: cultus observatio,]
[Lat.] [3 See Vol. mm. page 178, &c.] [ Rather, the Lord’s supper is so called, &e.] [5 Rather, because it is prepared for us as a spiritual banquet.]]
time it was never customably celebrated but in the common assembly of the church; which is plainly to be proved by the words of the apostle, 1 Corinth. xi. To conclude, we shall offend nothing at all, if we call the supper of our Lord the testament and will of God and of our Lord; for herein shalt thou find all things belonging to a full and perfect testament: for Christ is the testator; all faithful Christians are appointed heirs; the legacy is the forgiveness of sins and life everlasting, obtained by the body of Christ (which was) given, and his blood (which was) shed. The letters or table of this testament or will be the words of the Lord’s supper, witnessing as it were by a public writing, that Christ is the food and life of the faithful; the order and doing thereof is as it were the seal. Wherefore, even as we do call that a testament which hath letters sealed, containing a testament both by writing and sealing; so the Lord himself did call his supper a testament; for, “this cup,” said he, “is the new testament in my blood.” For otherwise the new testament is not the remission of sins: which thing Jeremy the prophet doth plainly testify in the xxxi. chapter, and Paul to the Hebrews, in the viii. chapter. This holy mystery hath divers other names; but these for the most part are chiefest and most commonly used. Of the other names we will speak elsewhere.
They do define (for the most part) the Lord’s supper to be a spiritual banquet, wherewith the Lord doth both keep his death in remembrance, and also feedeth his people unto life (everlasting). But let me set down a more large description thereof unto you. The supper of the Lord is an holy action instituted unto the church from God, wherein the Lord, by the setting of bread and wine before us at the banquet, doth certify unto us his promise and communion, and sheweth unto us his gifts, and layeth them before our senses; gathereth them? together into one body visibly, and, to be short, will have his death kept of the faithful in remembrance; and admonisheth us of our duty, and especially of praise and thanksgiving.
[6 A mistake in all the editions for, The new Testament is the]
[remission of sins: alioqui enim testamentum novum est peccatorum]
[remissio, Lat. [7 them, not in Lat.] 26—2]
First we say, that the supper of the Lord is an action or deed. For the Lord, when he made his supper, did give thanks unto God; he brake bread and gave the cup, and said, “Do this in the remembrance of me.” Again, it cannot be every action. For at the table, where we eat meat, we also give thanks unto God, we break bread and give the cup: but it is an holy action, because it is from God and instituted unto the church. Wherefore it far differeth from our ordinary meat-suppers; as well for that it is specially instituted by the Son of God unto the church, as also because it hath the word of God and the peculiar example of Christ. Therefore St Paul, making a difference between this and common κι. Cating, saith: If any man hunger, let him eat at home; lest that ye come together to your condemnation.” And again: “Have ye not houses to eat and drink in?” As though he might say, This supper is mystical. Again, what manner of action it is, it doth forthwith appear by that which followeth; where the Lord, by the setting of bread and wine before us at the banquet, doth assure us of his promise and communion, &c. This supper therefore hath his peculiar limits; of the which although I spake when I entreated generally of the virtue of the sacraments, yet will I repeat certain of them that make most for this purpose, when I shall draw toward an end of this sermon. the But concerning the description of this supper, these things are chiefly to be considered and declared. First, who did institute 10, and who 15 the true author and maker? of the Lord’s supper. Not any man, but the very Son of God himself, the wisdom of the Father, very God and man: so that we come not to the table of men, although a man being the minister be the chiefest there; neither do we receive holy signs at the hands of the minister only, but also at the hand of our Lord himself3, whose guests we are if we be faithful. He hath consecrated the supper for us, and doth yet consecrate it by his holy word, his will, and his power: of which matter we spake before. And because the faithful understand and know these things, they sit down to the holy
[1 Rather, this description: hanc descriptionem, Lat.] [2 hospes, Lat.: host. ] [3 accumbentes ad mensam Christi Domini nostri, Lat. omitted:]
[seeing we sit down at the table of Christ our Lord. ]]
and heavenly banquet with Christ, being wholly occupied in heavenly things both in mind and soul.
He instituted the supper the same night that he was betrayed; and the next night by his death and blood-shedding he confirmed the new testament. For so soon as he had eaten the figurative lamb with his disciples, and had plainly told them that from that time forwards that ceremony should not be used, the supper was established in the place of that which was abolished; that, like as the bloody lamb did signify that Christ should suffer, even so the bread which is without blood witnesseth that Christ, who is the bread of life, is already baked upon the cross, and hath suffered, and made the food of all believers, Wherefore that night was worthy to be observed and celebrated, and that last supper is full of mysteries. For we commonly most of all account of the words and deeds of our dearest friends, which they use a little before their death. Wherefore as all Christ’s doings are beloved and precious unto us, so ought this his last supper to be most dearly beloved and precious in our sight.
The supper consisteth of the word and manner, promise and ceremony. The word is this; that Christ is preached to have been given up to death for our sins, and that he shed his blood for the remission of our sins. Promise is made unto all that believe, that their offences shall be forgiven. The same thing is also expressed by the manner. The manner is diligently set down in writing by St Matthew, Mark, and Luke; whom St Paul following hath nothing at all varied from them. The words therefore, dearly beloved, as they be gathered out of these four into ome text, I will recite unto you: “The same night, in the evening wherein he was betrayed, the Lord came with the twelve; and when it was time, he sat down, and the twelve with him. And while they were eating, Jesus took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave it unto his disciples, saying, Take, and eat; this is my body which is given for you (or broken). Do this in the remembrance of me. Likewise taking the cup (after he had supped), he gave thanks, and delivered it unto them saying: Take ye this, and divide it among you; drink ye all thereof. And they drank all thereof.
[4 So ed. 1584: but ed. 1577, for all believers. ] [5 merito, Lat. omitted: deservedly.]]
And he said unto them, This is my blood, which is of the new Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of their sins, This cup is the new Testament in my blood (which is shed for you). This do, as oft as you shall drink it, in the remembrance of me. Verily I say unto you, that I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until that day come that I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” These are, word for word, the solemn and most holy words of the Lord spoken at his last supper.
The high bishop of the catholic church, Christ our Lord, was celebrated his supper with his disciples in like sort, as we have now seen and heard, without all pomp, simply, plainly, and sparingly. He took away the over-busy ceremony of the law, appointing another, very easy to be gotten and nothing sumptuous. Most things appertaining to the law were troublesome, and all belonging to the gospel easy and nothing sumptuous. The Lord sitteth down with his twelve disciples: whereby we learn, that first of all there must a company be gathered together, which must celebrate the supper. In his assembly these things doth the Lord. First of all, he preach- j eth most diligently unto his disciples, of those things especially which concern the mystery of his passion and of our redemption. But wheresoever is the preaching and hearing of the word of God or of the gospel of Christ, there are also groanings and vows or prayers of the faithful: wherefore they that intend to celebrate the supper of the Lord, before all thing, according to the example and institution of the high bishop Christ our Lord, they do most diligently hear the preaching of the gospel, and also pray most earnestly. Afterward he took bread; and the Lord blessed it and brake it; moreover, he gave unto his disciples, and bade them eat. Anon he parted the cup among them, commanding them all to drink thereof. And thereupon he plainly and expressly commanded, saying, “Do this;” to wit, as you have seen me do. Wherefore the disciples did eat the bread, and drank all of the cup. Therefore they that celebrate the Lord’s supper lawfully, do one unto another break, distribute, and eat the Lord’s bread, which they receive at the hands of Christ’s ministers; and likewise distribute and drink all of the Lord’s cup, which they receive at the hands of Christ’s ministers. And like as the high bishop Christ bade them do it in remem-
brance of him, so they that celebrate the Lords supper remember the death of Christ and all his benefits. Moreover, as the Lord hath gone before us in his example, in giving thanks to God the Father; so likewise do the faithful make an end with this holy mystery with giving of thanks, praising his goodness and mercy, because he is good, and his mercy endureth for ever. This is the most simple and best manner of the Lord’s supper, which the apostles receiving of Christ! delivered to be observed of all nations.
Wherefore, when this question is asked, Whether it be lawful to sup after another rite or manner; whether it be lawful to add or diminish anything from the manner left and delivered, or to change anything therein; whether the supper of the Lord ought only to be celebrated after the manner already delivered, and not after any other;—there is no small folly and rashness, yea, rather great ungodliness, therein bewrayed. For to what end serveth the most simple, most plain, best, and perfectest form of the supper, delivered of the Lord himself and received of his apostles, if we devise another? Who, I pray you, shall deliver a better than the Son of God himself, the high priest of the catholic church, hath already delivered? Or who, I beseech you, that is well in his wits, shall either add or diminish anything to the ordinance? of God? Who dare be so bold as to change that which is delivered by the everlasting wisdom of God? All the sayings and doings of Christ are most perfect: therefore the form also of the Lord’s supper is a most perfect form of a right singular and excellent ordinance or institution. The rites or ceremonies of celebrating the sacraments of the old Testament were most perfect; so delivered from the first institution of them, that nothing was added to them nor taken from them by such as were religious, no, not many years after. For Ezechias the king celebrated the passover; so likewise did Josias celebrate the same; but not after any other rite or manner than was delivered from Moses. The fathers circumecised their infants; but not after any other manner nor any other rite than was first instituted. In times past whoso had not sacrificed in the same place and according to the same
[1 a Domino Christo, Lat.] [2 So also ed. 1584: but ed. 1577, ordinances: institutis, Lat.] [3 tradito, Lat. ]]
408 THE FIFTH DECADE. [sERrM. manner which God commanded by Moses, was by the law accused of murder. Nadab and Abihu are smitten with lightning from heaven for bringing strange fire into the tabernacle. Oza is smitten with sudden death, for that the ark of the Lord of hosts was not handled in such sort as was by the law commanded. And therefore that manner of celebrating the Lord’s supper, as it was by the Lord instituted and delivered to the church by the apostles, is to be observed with great religion: unless we will believe, that the institutions and manners of celebrating our sacraments are more unperfect than theirs of old time; and that God the Father doth nowa-days less regard the profanation or the religious observation of his Son’s institution, than these of Moses and the fathers in old time. But Paul, the vessel of election, knowing Christ’s institution to be most perfect, and that the same ought to be kept still in the church simply and without any addition, saith to the Corinthians: “I received that of the Lord, which I have also delivered unto you.” For he thought it an heinous offence, to deliver any other thing to the church than that which he had received of the Lord. Let us therefore with great religion hold that fast which is delivered unto us by the Lord and the apostles. But the apostle delivered none other thing to the Corinthians, yea, many years after the Lord’s ascension into heaven, than that which was faithfully set down unto us in writing by the holy apostles and evangelists, St Matthew, Mark, and Luke. old Certainly it is well known, how that certain hundred me years after the death of the apostles this simple manner of celebrating the Lord’s supper was held in the church. For the pastor or minister of the church, after that he had preached the gospel, and given public thanks unto God in open? prayer, then came he forth into the midst of the holy assembly. Before the face of the people stood a table furnished with bread and wine, behind the which the minister standing blessed the people, saying, “The Lord be with you.” The people answered, “And with thy spirit.” Then replied the minister, “Lift up your hearts;” admonishing the congregation, that the hely mysteries shall be celebrated, and therefore that they must lift up their minds from visible things
[1 So also ed. 1584; but ed. 1577, forefathers. ] [? previa oratione, Lat.: in prayer going before. ]]
unto invisible. The people answered: “We lift them up unto the Lord.” Afterwards, exhorting the whole company to give thanks, he cried aloud: “Let us give thanks unto the Lord our God.” The congregation answered, It is meet and right so to do.” Then proceeded the minister, saying: “It is very meet and right, our bounden duty, and behooveful for us,” (turning himself then to the Lord,) “that we give thanks always, and in all places unto thee, Lord, holy Father, almighty and everlasting God; through Christ our Lord; who the day before that he suffered his passion took bread, gave thanks, brake it, and gave it to his disciples; with the residue, as followeth in the gospel. These things being repeated out of the gospel, the minister proceeded further, saying: Let us pray: being admonished by wholesome precepts, and instructed by divine institution, we are emboldened to say, Our Father, which art in heaven, &c.” After the rehearsal of the holy mysteries, the people received the holy mysteries and did communicate together; and after they had given thanks and praised God, they were dismissed. And of this form there remain certain footsteps in the writings of the ancient fathers to be seen, to wit, in St Cyprian, St Augustine, and others. But consequently in latter times the prayers, blessings, and the ceremonies, grew to be very great. Moreover Christ’s institution was changed, and turned into a strange use; and in fine the mass was patched together, in which appeareth but small antiquity. But touching these matters I have entreated very largely in another place?, and you yourselves are very well seen in this point. We, which defend and hold that the institution of our Lord Christ which is delivered unto us by the apostles is most pure and perfect, do nothing regard neither what any man, nor at what time any bishop, hath added this or that to the holy rite, or else hath taken away or changed; but rather what he, who is before and above all, did first himself, and commanded to be done. If the authority of him that did institute, if learning and holiness, if antiquity may be of force, then the victory is ours, who have Christ on our side with the best chosen company of the
[3 So also ed. 1584; but 1577, of the Lord’s prayer: orationem]
[Dominicam, Lat.] [4 De Origine Erroris circa Ceenam Domini Sacram et Missam]
[Papisticam, cap. vii. Tigur. 1539.]]
apostles; for from these we have what we celebrate; and that which we hold, that all godly men ought to celebrate.
But why the Lord instituted this mystery under the form of bread and wine, it is evident. For bread comforteth, and wine maketh glad, the heart of man; which I also touched, where I entreated of the proportion and agreement! of the sacraments. Moreover, our fathers in the figure of manna did eat bread, which rained down from heaven. Also in their sacrifices gratulatory and of thanksgiving, and in their drinkofferings, they used bread and wine. But there hath sprung a great contention concerning the substance of the Lord’s supper; some holding opinion, that it ought to be celebrated with unleavened bread, and others, with such as is leavened. the But among our forefathers of old there was about these no Such contention; for the church? used both indifferently as them pleased. It may seem, that at the first supper the Lord used unleavened bread at the table, according to the ancient manner of celebrating the passover; whereupon many churches used unleavened bread? who notwithstanding condemned not them of heresy which used leavened bread. The pope? and his adherents, conceiving no small displeasure hereat, hath deeply accursed the Greek church for so trifling a matter. But the Artotyrites were upon some just cause condemned by the ancient fathers; of whom Epiphanius maketh mention between the Pepuzianes and the Priscillians, setting bread and cheese upon the table in their celebrating, contrary to Christ’s institution.
It is furthermore disputed upon, whether unmingled wine, with OF delayed” with water, is by the faithful to be used at the supper. Cyprian the martyr holdeth opinion, that in this
[1 analogia, Bullinger’s one word. See above, pp. 244. 280.] [2 ecclesize, Lat.: the churches. ] [3 See Bingham. Antiq. Book xv. chap. 2. 5.] [4 Autem, Lat. omitted: But the pope.] [5 Rather, not without much scandal; non levi scandalo, Lat.] [6 Κυιντιλλιανοὶ δὲ πάλιν, οἱ καὶ ἸΠεπουζιανοὶ καλούμενοι, Ἀρτοτυρῖται]
[τε καὶ Πρισκιλλιανοὶ λεγόμενοι, Kec. Ἀρτοτυρίτας δὲ αὐτοὺς καλοῦσιν ἀπὸ]
[τοῦ ἐν τοῖς αὐτῶν μυστηρίοις ἐπιτιθέντας ἄρτον καὶ τυρὸν, καὶ οὕτως ποιεῖν]
[τὰ αὐτῶν pvorjpia.—Epiphan. adv. Heres. Lib. 11. ΧΧΙΧ. sive XLIX.]
[Opp. Tom. 1. p. 417. Par. 1622.] [7 softened; dilutum, Lat.]]
mystery the wine ought not to be unmingled, but delayed with water, and so to be offered, that is to say, drunken by the faithful. For thus he hath written: Because Christ hath borne us all, who also bare our sins, we may perceive that in the water the people is to be understood; in the wine, the blood of Christ is to be understood. For when water is mingled with the wine in the cup, the people is united unto Christ; and the multitude of the believers is coupled and joined unto him in whom they believed. And thus in blessing the Lord’s cup, only water may not be offered, neither in like sort may wine only. For if any man offer only wine, the blood of Christ beginneth to be without us; but if it be water only, then doth the multitude begin to be without Christ. But when they are both mingled together, and are joined with a confused mixture betwixt them, then is there an heavenly and spiritual sacrament wrought” By these words truly doth St Cyprian shew unto us a good mystery. But why do we seek to be wiser than Christ, and to mingle together! more mysteries than we have received of him? The holy scripture maketh mention of no water, but rather reporteth that the Lord used nought else but mere wine. For the Lord saith: “Verily I say unto you, that henceforth I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine.” For he plainly! said not, the wine, but, “the fruit of the vine,” that herein we should make no manner of mingling. But what if that holy martyr of God himself, St Cyprian, hath laboured by all the means he might to shew, that that only is to be followed of the faithful in celebrating of the Lord’s supper, which they have received of our Lord Christ himself? And forasmuch as that testimony doth make much to all this our treatise
[8 propter mysterium, Lat.: by reason of a mystery.] [2 υἷα nos omnes portabat Christus, qui et peccata nostra portabat,]
[videmus in aqua populum intelligi, in vino vero ostendi sanguinem]
[Christi. Quando autem in calice vino aqua miscetur, Christo populus]
[adunatur, et credentium plebs ei in quem credidit copulatur et con-]
[jungitur.. Sic autem in sanctificando calice Domini offerri aqua sola]
[non potest, quomodo nec vinum solum potest. Nam si vinum tantum]
[quis offerat, sanguis Christi incipit esse sine nobis: si vero aqua sit]
[sola, plebs incipit esse sine Christo. Quando autem utrumque misce-]
[tur, et adunatione confusa sibi invicem copulatur, tunc sacramentum]
[spiritale et celeste perficitur.—Cyprian. Epist. Lx. Opp. p. 154.]
[Oxon. [10 comminisci, Lat: to devise.] [11 significanter, Lat.]]
concerning Christ’s supper, to be celebrated according to the words of the gospel, I will recite it word for word out of the Second epistle of the 3rd book of his Epistles. We must the… no- Ποῦ, saith he, depart in any respect from the doctrine of but the gospel; and those things that our Master taught and did himself, the scholars also ought to observe and do. The blessed apostle in another place speaketh more constantly and stoutly, saying, ‘I marvel that you are so soon changed from him that called you to grace unto another gospel: which is nothing else; but there be some that trouble you, and go about to overthrow the gospel of Christ. Howbeit, if we ourselves, or an angel from heaven, do preach unto you any other thing than that we have taught, let him be accursed. As T have said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other thing unto you than that which you have received, let him be accursed.” Since, therefore, neither the apostle himself, neither an angel from heaven, can preach or teach otherwise than Christ himself once hath taught and his apostles have preached; I much marvel from whence this custom hath grown, that, contrary to the doctrine of the gospel and the apostles, in some places water is offered in the Lord’s cup, which being taken alone cannot express the Lord’s blood.” And again: “There is no cause, dearly beloved brother, that any man should think that the custom of certain men is to be followed, if there be any that heretofore have supposed that water alone is to be offered in the Lord’s cup. For it must be demanded of them, whom they have followed herein. For if in the sacrifice, which is Christ, none is to be followed but Christ; doubtless then ought we to hearken unto and to do after that which Christ hath done and commanded to be done, since he himself saith in his gospel: If you do that which I command you to do, I will call you no longer servants, but friends.” And that Christ alone should be heard, the Father himself also witnesseth from heaven, saying, This is my well-beloved Son, in whom I have delight: hear him.” Wherefore if only Christ is to be heard, we ought not to regard what any other before us hath thought meet for us to do, but what Christ did first who 15 before all other. Neither ought we in any case to follow the custom of men, but the truth of God; considering what the Lord speaketh by the prophet Esay, saying, They worship me in vain, teach-
ing the commandments and doctrine of men.’ And again the Lord repeating the selfsame words in the gospel saith: Ye set God’s commandments aside, to establish your own traditions.” And in another place he saith: He that shall break any one of the least of these commandments, and shall on this sort teach men, shall be accounted least in the kingdom of heaven.’ But if it be not lawful to break the least of the commandments of God, how much more heinous is it to break things so great, so weighty, and so much belonging to the Lord’s passion and the sacrament of our redemption; or else to change it into any other order by man’s traditions, than is instituted by God’?” And so forth as followeth.
[1 Ab evangelicis preeceptis omnino recedendum non esse, et eadem]
[que magister docuit et fecit discipulos quoque observare et facere]
[debere, constantius et fortius alio in loco beatus apostolus docet,]
[dicens: Miror quod sic tam cito demutamini ab eo, qui vos vocavit ad]
[gratiam, ad aliud evangelium; quod non est aliud, nisi sunt aliqui qui]
[vos turbant et volunt convertere evangelium Christi. Sed licet nos]
[aut angelus de ccelo aliter annunciet preeterquam quod annunciavimus]
[vobis, anathema sit. Sicut preediximus, et nunc iterum dico, Si]
[quis vobis annunciaverit preterquam quod accepistis, anathema sit.]
[Cum ergo neque ipse apostolus, neque angelus de ccelo annunciare]
[possit aliter aut docere praeterquam quod semel Christus docuit et]
[apostoli ejus annunciaverunt, miror satis unde hoc usurpatum sit, ut]
[contra evangelicam et apostolicam disciplinam quibusdam in locis]
[aqua offeratur in dominico calice, que sola Christi sanguinem non]
[sequendam esse quorundam consuetudinem, si qui in preeteritum in]
[calice Dominico aquam solam offerendam putaverint. Queerendum est]
[enim, ipsi quem sint secuti; nam si in sacrificio quod Christus obtu-]
[lerit (Bullinger read, est) non nisi Christus sequendus est, utique id]
[nos obaudire et facere oportet quod Christus fecit et quod faciendum]
[esse mandavit; quando ipse in evangelio dicat, Si feceritis quod mando]
[vobis, jam non dico vos servos, sed amicos. Et quod Christus debeat]
[solus audiri, Pater etiam de ceelo contestatur, dicens, Hic est Filius]
[dilectissimus, in quo bene sensi: ipsum audite. Quare si solus Christus]
[audiendus est, non debemus attendere quid alius ante nos faciendum]
[putaverit; sed quid qui ante omnes est Christus prior fecerit. Neque]
[enim hominis consuetudinem sequi oportet, sed Dei veritatem, cum]
[per Isaiam prophetam Deus loquatur et dicat, Sine causa autem colunt]
[me, mandata et doctrinas hominum docentes; et iterum Dominus]
[in evangelio hoc idem repetat, dicens, Rejicitis mandatum Dei ut tra-]
[ditionem vestram statuatis. Sed et alio in loco ponit et dicit, Qui]
[solverit unum ex mandatis istis minimis, et sic docuerit homines,]
[minimus vocabitur in regno ceelorum. Quod si nec minima de man-]
There is no man can deny but that these things are of authority, even against the author himself. For neither by the scriptures, nor by the example of Christ, can it be proved that water was mingled with the wine at the supper. As for the authorities and testimonies which the author allegeth, every man may perceive how little they make to the purpose, yea, that they be wrested from their natural meaning. The gospel plainly pronounceth, that the Lord drank of the fruit of the vine unto his disciples. And as often as Paul maketh mention of the cup, yet teacheth he in no place that water was mingled with the wine, or that it ought to be mingled with it. Wherefore these water-men, that is to say, they that use water only in celebrating the Lord’s supper, are justly condemned: such as the Marcionites and Tatians! were. Howbeit it is an indifferent matter, whether you use red wine or white in the supper. kinds Again, why did not the Lord deliver the sacrament of the SUpper unto us under one form of bread or wine only, but rather under both kinds? The doctors of the church by one consent suppose this to be the cause; for that he would signify, or rather testify, unto us that he took both soul and flesh upon him, and gave the same for us, and also hath delivered our souls and flesh from everlasting destruction. For although there be two kinds, yet do they make but one sacrament, and they may not be separated. Neither is their opinion of judgment to be allowed of, who of their own private or rather sacrilegious authority do corrupt the institution of Christ; offering to the lay people which do communicate the one kind only of bread, and granting to priests both kinds, and so challenging both kinds to themselves only2. But Paul the apostle received the authority from the Lord himself, to admit all the faithful people of Christ unto the Lord’s cup: and therefore let these bold fellows consider, from whom they have received commandment to put back the laity, and to forbid them the cup, which by the Lord our God is granted unto
[datis Dominicis licet solvere, quanto magis tam magna, tam grandia,]
[tam ad ipsum Dominicee passionis et nostra redemptionis sacramentum]
[pertinentia fas non est infringere, aut in aliud, quam quod divinitus]
[institutum sit, humana traditione mutare!—Cyprian. Epist. Lx Opp.]
[pp. 152, 155. Oxon.] [1 See Mosheim. E. H. Book I. cent. 2. part 2. chap. 5. ὁ 7 and 9.] [2 solis his, Lat.: to these (i. e, the priests) only]]
them. For Christ in plain words, and as it were by the spirit of prophecy, foreseeing what should come to pass in the church, said not of the bread, “Eat ye all of this;” but when he took the cup he added, “Drink ye all of this.” St Mark also adjoineth hereunto, not without deep judgment? “And they drank all thereof.” Hereunto also appertaineth that which the Lord speaketh in St Luke: Take this, and divide it among you.” St Paul the apostle, having a special regard unto this excellent and plain institution of Christ, three or four times joineth the cup to the bread, saying: As often as you shall eat of this bread, and drink of this cup, you shall express the Lord’s death.” Again: “Whosoever eateth of this bread, or drinketh of the Lord’s cup unworthily, he shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” And again he saith: “Let a man examine himself, and then let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup.” Again: “” Whoso eateth and drinketh unworthily,” &e. These testimonies are manifold, and worthy absolutely to be believed; and unto which all traditions of all men whatsoever should give place. The Lord hath instituted the cup of the supper unto all the faithful; wherefore the apostles exhibited the same unto all the faithful. For if the sacrament of the blood of Christ were given to the apostles only, surely then the thing itself, to wit, the remission of sins, which is obtained through Christ’s blood, belongeth only to the apostles. Howbeit the Lord saith plainly: This is the blood of the new Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” It is also in other places of the scripture manifestly set down, that Christ’s blood was shed for the remission of the sins of all the faithful. Wherefore if the laity be capable of the thing, how much more of the sign? Now if our adversaries proceed further and say, that the apostles only sat at the supper, (who represented the figure of the priests,) and that the use of the cup was granted unto them only, and not to be granted unto other, but to such only as were present at the first supper; then do we demand of them, by what authority they give the Lord’s bread to the laity, or by what right they do admit simple women unto the Lord’s supper? since it is manifest that neither the one nor the other (according unto their speaking in this matter) sat at the Lord’s table. And in this point
[3 non sine gravi causa, Lat.]
they, being taken tardy, can go no further. But they object the danger of the cup; which if it be given unto all without exception, it would come to pass, through the folly and negligence of men, there might some great offence be committed in letting it fall, or pouring it on the floor: as who should say, The eternal providence hath not foreseen so great an offence, which these wise men do well perceive now at length in the end of the world, and do amend that wherein the Son of God did amiss. For they cry out, that one kind is enough for the lay people, forasmuch as by a necessary coherence it followeth, that where the body of Christ is, there is his blood also; and thus must it then follow, that the one kind is instituted in vain. But the Lord distinctly first offered the bread, and afterward the cup; and the Lord instituted nothing in vain: therefore both kinds, since the Lord hath so commanded, ought to be parted among all the faithful; which as many as have read the writings of the ancient fathers will report was observed ever before, even almost unto the time of the council of Constance!: of whom many? have not been afraid to say, that the dividing of this sacrament after this manner could not be done without sacrilege.
The matter and substance of the supper being declared, there is lightly some question moved concerning the form, or of the consecration of the bread and wine. But forasmuch as I have entreated hereof in the general consideration of the sacraments?, there is no cause why I should, with loathsomeness to the hearers, repeat the self-same thing again. We do not acknowledge any transubstantiation to be made by force of words or characters; but we affirm, that the bread and wine remain as they are in their own substances, but that A there is added unto them the institution, will, and word of Christ, and so become a sacrament, and so differ much from common bread and wine, as we have said in place convenient. Consequently ensueth the question touching this point: Who should administer the supper: that is to say, whether the
[1 A.D. 1414]
[2 nonnulli, Lat. Gelasius. Decret. Gratian. Decr. Tert. Pars De Consecr. Dist. 1m. Can. 12. col. 1918. See also Cyprian, Serm. de Lapsis.
[3 See above, page 267.]
any one of the congregation ought to be chief in the cclebrating of the supper: then, who the same should be? Surely, the thing itself requireth, and nature also commandeth, that everything be done decently and in good order: and religion requireth that all things appertaining to the supper be done according to Christ’s example. But he was the chief dealer in the supper: and he likewise hath appointed ministers of the church, by whom he will have the sacraments to be administered. Wherefore, like as every man doth not baptize, but the lawful minister of the church; so appertaineth it not unto every man to prepare and minister the holy supper, but to the minister which is ordained by God. Herein now we disprove the papistical doctrine, which alloweth of private masses, and teacheth that the priest offereth up the body and blood of our Lord for the standers by; and that by the mass he applieth the merit of redemption unto them that with devotion come to that sacrifice. For as there is no one word of the Lord extant, that commandeth the priests to sacrifice, or privately to apply the supper for others, or that promiseth anything unto them that stand by and look on it; (for he saith, “Do this; eat ye and drink ye all in the remembrance of me;” he saith not, Look upon the priests only while they be eating and drinking for you;) so Christ is not bodily present in the bread and wine; he is joined unto our hearts and minds by his Spirit; for it were of none effect that he remained in the bread. And if he were present there indeed, yet could he not be sacrificed, both for that he hath offered up himself once upon the cross, neither can the most worthy and only-begotten Son of God be offered up again to God the Father by a sinful man: as also for that there is no need for him to offer again. For St Paul saith: “Christ, being one only sacrifice offered up for sin, sitteth for ever at the right hand of God, looking for that which is yet to come, until his enemies be made his footstool. For by one oblation he hath made them for ever perfect that are sanctified.” And again he saith: ‘ Where as is full remission of sins, there is no more oblation for sin.” But we have full remission of sin by the death which Christ once suffered: therefore there is no sacrifice in the church for sin Indeed, the church doth
[2 So also ed. 1584: but ed. 1577, to none effect. ] [5 amplius, Lat. omitted: any more. ] 27 [RULLINGER, 1V]]
celebrate the memorial of the sacrifice which was once perfectly finished upon the cross; but the church doth not offer up sacrifice any more, either with blood or without blood. Praise and thanksgiving are a most acceptable sacrifice to the Lord: the same the minister offereth not for others, but with others. Here now therefore we ascribe none other thing to the minister but the ministry; that he be the president or chief dealer to recite the prayers in the celebration of the supper; and after the holy prelection and the pronouncing of the solemn words let him, after the example of Christ, begin to break the Lord’s bread and distribute his cup, and let him receive also the sacrament for himself, as the other faithful people do, as companion of the faith; and when the communion is done, let him end the holy action with thanksgiving and some holy exhortation.
Concerning the place where the supper is to be celebrated, I find no contention hath been amongst the most “ancient ministers of the church. It is read how that our Lord Jesus used the hall of a certain private man’s house. ΑΠπά also the apostle Paul both preached and brake bread at Troas in a certain dining-place. The ancient church, which ensued immediately after the death of the apostles, almost unto the time of Constantine the great, had none or very few large and public churches; for it was scarce lawful or safe in so troublesome a time for the Christians to creep abroad. In the meantime they used very honest places, in the which they met together in holy assemblies, having places of prayer. At this present there seemeth no place to be more worthy or more commodious to celebrate the holy supper in, than that which is appointed for doctrine and prayer. For so have we learned of St Paul, 1 Cor. chap. xi. Howbeit, if tyrannical power will not suffer us to have a church, what shall let us but that we may reverently celebrate the supper in honest private houses?
Touching the holy instruments belonging to the supper, the matter also requireth to speak something in this place. In the time that the apostles lived, they supped at tables set forth and furnished for the purpose; they knew no fixed altars builded of stone, which are more fit to make fire upon and to burn beasts on for a sacrifice’. A removing table
[1 for a sacrifice, not in Lat.)
agreeth better with the example of Christ. Notwithstanding, we condemn not standing altars, so that they serve only to the lawful use of the supper. St Paul, in the first to the Corinthians, calleth the altars of ethnicks tables; so that we need not to marvel that the ancient fathers termed our tables altars. For it is an easy matter to fall from the one to the other; and it should seem, that they alluded unto the only altar of the tabernacle of God. In old time the tables were covered with some fair cloth, with some linen table-cloth, or towel; from whence perhaps were borrowed those things which are called corporals, As for that outward bravery and worldly trimming, it was not then used on the altars of Christians. We read how it is forbidden by the law, that there must no altar be builded of hewn stone; by which proviso all cost and bravery in religion is forbidden.
Thus it is manifest, that in the ancient times there were no precious nor costly vessels used at the supper. For like as Christ and the apostles taught, that frugality should be used in all places, condemning superfluity, and beating into us the contempt of gold and silver; so in those holy mysteries they have not overthrown that doctrine of theirs, or given occasion of excess. After long persecution, when peace was restored to the church, then began the custom to celebrate in the church with vessels of gold and silver. But then also there were some, that brought the same again to his old frugality and simplicity. Chrysostom cried out (as I have also declared in another place?), that in receiving the Lord’s supper we ought to have golden minds, not golden vessels, And St Ambrose saith: ‘ The sacraments require not gold, neither are those things pleasant in gold which are not bought with gold, The ornaments of the sacraments is the redemption of captives.” St Hierome commends St Exuperius, bishop of
[2 Fine linen cloths, on which the host is laid in the Romish]
[churches. ] [3 De Origine Erroris circa Ceenam Domini Sacram et Missam Pa-]
[pisticam, cap. v1. fol. 207. Tigur. 1539.] [4 — μηδὲ νομίζωμεν ἀρκεῖν ἡμῖν εἰς σωτηρίαν, εἰ. ποτήριον χρυσοῦν]
[καὶ λιθοκόλλητον προσενέγκωμεν τῇ τραπέζῃ. τὴν ψυχὴν προσένεγκε..]
[ταῦτην χρυσῆν woinoov.—Chrysost. in Matth. Hom. 1,. Opp. Tom. ὙΠ.]
[Ρ. 518.] [> So also ed. 1584; but ed. 1577, ornament. ] [6 Aurum sacramenta non queerunt, nec in auro placent, quae auro 27—=2]
Toledo, who carried the Lord’s body in a basket of wicker and the blood in a glass, and had expelled covetousness out of the church? And truly that canon of the Triburean council, which is yet extant in the pope’s decrees, forbidding that no priest should minister this holy mystery in wooden vessels, doth prove sufficiently, that certain churches, more than eight hundred years since Christ’s passion, used to drink the blood of Christ in wooden vessels: wherefore wooden cups in the supper be of all most ancient. Bonifacius the archbishop, (which example although I have alleged elsewhere, yet am I enforced to repeat it here again, for that it agreeth so fitly with this present matter,) being asked long since, Whether it were lawful to minister the sacraments in vessels of wood, answered: “In old times,” saith he, “golden priests used wooden cups; but now contrariwise, wooden priests use golden cups” But if any man bring vessels made of any other stuff, without excess and superstition, I would not greatly strive with him, so that he will also acknowledge that they do not offend which use the wooden. For as touching the form and matter of the cups, all are free and lawful for the faithful church to use.
Moreover, it is evident that the Lord in the first supper, yea, and the apostles also in celebrating the same supper, used their own usual and decent apparel. And therefore it is not disagreeable from the first institution, if the minister come unto… of the Lord’s table covered with his own garment, so that it be
[non emuntur. Ornatus sacramentorum redemptio captivorum est.—]
[Ambros. de Officiis, Lib. 1. cap. 28. Opp. Tom. 1v. col. 61. Par. 1615 ] [1 Rather, Toulouse; Tolosanum, Lat.] [2 Sanctus Exuperius Tolosze episcopus.. corpus Domini canistro]
[vimineo, sanguinem portat in vitro. Qui avaritiam ejecit e templo.—]
[Hieron. Epist. ad Rustic. xcv. Opp. Tom. 1v. par. 2. col. 778. Par. 1693]
[—1706.] [3 Vasa, in quibus sacrosancta conficiuntur mysteria, calices sunt]
[et paterse: de quibus Bonifacius, martyr et episcopus, interrogatus, si]
[liceret in vasculis ligneis sacramenta conficere, respondit: Quondam]
[sacerdotes aurei ligneis calicibus utebantur: nunc e contrario, lignei]
[sacerdotes aureis utuntur calicibus.—Gratian. Decret. par. 111. de Con-]
[secrat. Dist. 1. can. 44. col. 1900. Taurin. 1620. Labb. et Coss. Concil.]
[Triburiens. can. 18. Tom. 1x. col. 450.] [ This reference, which was introduced into ed. 1587, is to the]
[joint letter of Bullinger and Gualther (Zurich Letters, 1st Series.]
[Append. Let. 111.) which was added to that edition of the translated]
[Decades.—See title-page, Vol..—A similar reference is inserted in]
comely and honest. Surely the communicants do wear on them their own usual apparel. We must take heed then that there creep in no superstition. Our forefathers, as it seemed, did wear a cloke cast over their common garments; which they did not after the example of Christ or the apostles, but according to man’s tradition. At the length that stuff, which is used at this day, was taken up according to the imitation of the priest’s garments of the old law, and appointed to be worn by the ministers that would celebrate the supper. Neither doth Innocentius, the 3d of that name, dissemble this matter in the iv. chap. and 4 book of his work, De Sac. Altar. Mysterio. As for us, we have learned of late?, that all Levitical matters are not only put away, but not to be brought again into the church by any. Forasmuch therefore as we remain in the light of the gospel, and not in the shadow of the law, we do upon good cause reject that Levitical massing apparel.
I have also declared in another place?, that it hath been the manner in old time? that every nation hath used their own native and vulgar tongue! in ministering the sacraments. Of the gestures which the ministers do use in celebrating the Lord’s supper, we can say none other thing out of the gospel than what we have learned: “The Lord took the bread, blessed it, brake it, distributed it,” &ec. If the minister do follow these things, he needs not to be careful of other gestures. Those which at this day are by the invention of men received into the celebration of the mass, are so far off from giving any majesty to the mysteries, that they bring them rather the more into contempt. I will say nothing else that may seem more grievous. the margin of the London edition of the Latin Decades by Henry Middleton. ]
[5 hic, Lat. omitted: in this matter. ]
[6 Sciendum quod non omnes antiquee legis consuetudines abjecit ecclesia, sed quasdam provida consideratione retinuit… Adhuc habet. vestes, et vasa, et pontifices, et Levitas.—Innocent. Pap. IIL Myster. Miss. Lib. 1v. cap. 4. Opp. Tom. 1. p. 376. col. 1575. Cf. Zurich Letters, p. 158. A.] [7 See Vol. 11. page 255.] [8 De Origine Erroris circa Coenam, &e. cap. vI. fol. 208,7 [9 ab antiquo, Lat. ] [10 et omnibus intelligibili, Lat. omitted: and that which all could understand.
it. The matter is indifferent, whether the church take the supper sitting down, or going to the table; whether a man take the holy mysteries in his own hand, or receive it into his mouth at the hands of him that ministereth. It is most agreeable with the first simplicity and institution of the supper, to sit, and to receive the sacraments in a man’s own hands of him that ministereth; and afterwards to break it, eat it, and to divide it unto others. For as the Lord sat at table with his disciples, so he reached forth the mysteries, saying: ‘” Take, and divide it among you.” Moreover, as there is more quietness and less stir in sitting at the supper, while the ministers carry the holy mysteries about the congregation; so it is well known by histories of antiquity, that the sacrament hath been delivered into the hands of the communicants. It is mere superstition and repugnant to the doctrine of the apostles, to scrape the hands of the lay people that have touched the holy sacrament of the supper. Why do they not also by the same law scrape the lips, tongue, and jaws of the communicants?
Of these things before handled springeth another question: What is to be thought of the remnants and leavings of the Lord’s supper; and whether there ought any part of it to be reserved; and whether that which is reserved or shut up ought to be adored? This question seemeth to have no godliness at all in it, but to be altogether superstitious and very hurtful. For who knoweth not, that bread and wine, out of the holy and lawful use appointed, are not a sacrament? Shall we proceed to demand with these sophisters, what that is which the mouse gnaweth when he gnaweth the Lord’s bread? to Lhese questions are most unworthy to be demanded, and to be raked up in holy oblivion. Touching the shutting up of the sacrament, the Lord teacheth us not one word in the gospel, much less of worshipping it. Take,” saith he, “eat, and divide it among you.” He saith not, Lay it up, and worship it; for the true worshippers worship the Father in spirit and truth. Moreover, we read how the Lord hath plainly said in the gospel: “If they say unto you, Behold, where he is in the desert, go not forth; behold, where he is in the innermost parts of the house, do not believe.” He setteth down the cause of this his commandment: For like as the lightning goeth forth of the east, and appeareth in the west,
so shall the coming of the Son of man be.” The coming again of the Son of man!, saith he, shall be glorious and not obscure; neither shall he come again but to judge both the quick and the dead. And therefore St Paul the apostle, teaching us true religion, willeth us to worship Christ, not upon the earth, but with our minds lifted unto heaven, where he sitteth at the right hand of his Father. And who will be so frantic, I beseech you, to worship the holy sign for the holy thing itself? It appeareth by the decrees made of late, that these things were invented by man’s device: for it is certain, that the feast of Christ’s body, commonly called Corpus Christi, was instituted but of late years under pope Urban, in the year of our Lord, 1264; as it may appear in Clement, the iil. book, title 16, the chapter beginning, 5% Dominum?.
It remaineth, that we discuss the question concerning the time of celebrating the Lord’s supper, and what season is meetest for the same, the morning or evening; whether we ought to sup together; whether we must receive it fasting, or when we have dined; also, how often we must celebrate the supper, once, or often, or seldom. It is evidently enough known, that Christ sat down at the table with his disciples in the evening; but it followeth not hereof, that the supper cannot be rightly celebrated at any other time but at evening. The Lord, upon occasion of the feast of the passover, and because he should be betrayed that night, did both eat the supper that evening with his disciples, and instituted also the supper for us. Notwithstanding, he left the liberty to remove this mystery unto the morning; for that when we be sober, then are we most meet to deal in all matters, specially in religion, for which we be then fitter than when our bellies be full of good cheer. Wherefore this banquet requireth fasting and empty guests; but yet not so fasting, that a man may not taste of somewhat aforehand for his health’s sake; for St Paul saith: “If any man be hungry, let him eat at home.” The same apostle also will not have any other feast to be received together with the Lord’s mystical supper. And therefore we say, that we ought not to receive that with other meat. Tertullian writeth, that Christians have used oftentimes to eat
[1 in mundum, Lat, omitted: into the world.] [2 Corpus Jur. Can. Clement. Lib. nw tit. 16. coll. 240, &c. Lugd.]
[1624. See Jewel’s Works, ed. Park. Soe. Vol. 1. p. 516.]]
other meat with it; which kind of supper, as he writeth, was called ἀγάπη, that is to say, mutual love or charity, borrowing the name from love!: for that there the poor were refreshed with the feasting of the richer sort. Howbeit, provision of meat, drink, and other necessaries, might well enough be made for them without the church. Paul will not permit, that in one place both public feasts should be made, and also the mystical supper of the Lord celebrated.
Furthermore, how many times in a year the faithful ought to receive this sacrament of the Lord’s supper, the apostles have given forth no commandment, but have left it indifferent unto every church’s discretion. For what is more plain than that which St Paul hath said: “As often as you shall eat of this bread, and drink of this cup, you shall declare the Lord’s death until he come?” For the Lord (as the same apostle setteth it down), first commanding, said: “Do this, as oft as you shall drink it, in remembrance of me.” Howbeit, let no man think, that the celebration of the Lord’s supper is left so freely unto him, that he need never to receive it; for that were no lawful liberty, but most unlawful licentiousness. They that celebrate the supper of the Lord upon certain and ordinary times of the year, would not have it brought into contempt or loathed by reason of the daily frequenting. For they have some consideration of their own people; and they would have the supper to be celebrated worthily, and that the people may have a desire unto it. But they that celebrate it very oft, they suppose it an unmeet thing, that good things, by often frequenting them, should be despised: for the better the thing is, the oftener, say they, it is to be used. Both these sorts desire to serve the Lord, and would have that to be 4 done to great and good effect, which the Lord hath left free. Between these, if St Augustine be made umpire? and judge, doubtless he would pronounce none other judgment, than that which he hath already pronounced of the same cause, writing unto Januarius, and saying: “He shall best decide this strife between them, who so advised them especially to abide in the peace of Christ; and that every man do that which according to his faith he is persuaded to be good and godly. For neither
[1 Tertull. Apolog. cap. 39. Opp. Tom. v. p 75. ed. Semler. Hal.]
[Mag. 1828. ] hodie, Lat. omitted: at this day.]]
of them dishonoureth the body and blood of our Lord. Only that meat must not be contemned?.”
Now for whom this holy supper is instituted, and to whom it is to be ministered, we have also to consider. It seemeth, that it is instituted and to be given unto all faithful christian people, of what sex soever, men and women, high and low. Wherefore so great a mystery is not to be cast unto swine and dogs, to be contemned and trodden under foot. Before it be ministered, all men are earnestly and effectually to be admonished unto whom this meat appertaineth, namely, to them that acknowledge their sins, that are sorry for their faults, and believe in Christ; all are to be admonished, that every man descending into himself do prove himself, and afterward so eat of this holy bread and drink of this holy drink, that he eat not and drink not thereof unworthily unto his condemnation. But after this severe admonition, if any approach unto the table and sit down, and by their sitting down do as it were openly profess, both that they are, and also desire to remain, true worshippers of Christ, by whom they trust to have remission of their sins; surely such are not to be put back by the ministers, neither are the holy mysteries to be denied them. For the Lord himself, who is the searcher of hearts, severely, diligently, plainly, and in many words In his last supper, before he distributed the mysteries, admonished Judas, being an hypocrite, a thief, a traitor, a murderer, yea, a parricide, a blasphemer, and a forsaker of his master; but being admonished, when notwithstanding he departed not from the table, but tarried among the saints, the Lord did not violently put him away, nor bade him openly to depart, neither withheld he the Lord’s bread from him, but gave it unto him as he did unto others, although he knew assuredly what he was: which thing the ministers of the church do not always so certainly know of them that sit down at the table. Neither did the Lord offend any whit at all in so doing, neither did he cast that which was holy to the dogs. For the Lord warned him diligently of all matters, whereof he
[3 Rectius inter eos fortasse quisquam dirimit litem qui moneat]
[preecipue in Christi pace permaneant; faciat autem unusquisque quod]
[secundum fidem suam pie credat esse faciendum. Neuter enim eorum]
[vult cibus ille—Aug. Ep. cxvir. Opp. Tom. 1. fol. 108. col. 3.]]
was to be warned; and he, hearing and understanding them all, remaineth notwithstanding among the saints, vaunteth himself for one of the faithful, not for an hog, and as one of the faithful taketh part of the bread and of the cup. By which hypocrisy, notwithstanding, he provoked the heavy judgment of God against him; even as also at this day this holy meat and this holy drink turneth to the destruction both of the body and soul of all hypocrites. Neither did the presence of the hypocrite at the Lords supper defile the other faithful disciples of Christ which sat at the table: like as neither at this day are the faithful polluted, although they see many hypocrites sit down at the table with them; for they sup not with them as with hypocrites, but as it were with the faithful. In the meanwhile, the hypocrite hurteth himself, and not others; he falleth and perisheth to his own destruction, he eateth and drinketh his own damnation; but the faithful liveth by his own faith: of which thing we have entreated in other sermons.
And although that infants are reputed to be of the church or and in the number of the faithful, yet are they not capable of supper. In this point the ancient fathers shamefully erred: which I have also noted in the sermon of Baptism?2. Infants are not deprived of everlasting life, although they depart out of this world without receiving this mystical meat. This was instituted for them that are of lawful years, and not for infants. Let a man examine himself,” saith the apostle, “and let him so eat of the bread, and drink of the cup.” And the Lord saith: “Do this in the remembrance of me.” And again: “Shew forth the Lord’s death until he come.” All which sayings take place in people of lawful years, not in infants. Our children must be diligently instructed from their infancy, that they may rightly understand those mysteries, and frequent them; which thing the Lord commanded the children of Israel, saying: “If your children shall say unto you, What manner of worshipping is this? you shall answer, It is the sacrifice of the Lord’s passover, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel, when he stroke the Egyptians and delivered our houses.” Surely we must not shew ourselves to be more slack in informing our children than they were, since we have received a more noble benefit than they have.
[1 See Vol. 1. page 103; and above, page 13.] [2 See above, page 379.]]
Of like nature unto this question are these other: Whether the supper be to be celebrated privately for every cause or necessity? whether it be to be carried unto the sick and those that keep their beds? whether it be to be applied to the dead, that is to say, to be offered for the dead, to obtain rest for them? Touching these matters, I know what is commonly said and done. There happeneth some pestilence, famine, war, or tempest, and by and by the supper is commanded to be celebrated, that as it were by this sacrifice? the present calamity may be taken away. Again, there is one sick; another perisheth with hunger, and afflicted for want of all manner of necessaries; the same requireth of the priest to have the Lord’s supper ministered unto him, that thereby the disease may be cured as by a most present and approved remedy, and his hunger and poverty released. But this is not the due celebration of the supper, but a filthy profanation thereof. For the Lord hath not instituted it to be a cleansing sacrifice against all calamities, whereby he would be pleased; but to be a memorial of his death, and a dutiful thanksgiving. For when we be at the supper, we offer nothing unto him for which he should be favourable unto us, and turn away such an evil from us, and give us such a good thing as we desire of him; but we give thanks for the benefits which we have received. It is lawful otherwise for them that are oppressed with troubles, to offer up their vows (that is to say, their prayers) to the Lord; but it is not lawful to convert his holy mysteries to any other purpose than he hath appointed. Neither have we any examples to prove, that any holy man? did ever use the Lord’s supper to any such end as these men do. The children of Israel received the feast of the Paschal Lamb in remembrance of their deliverance out of Egypt, and that they should continue thankful unto so beneficial a Lord: how great an offence had they committed, if they had so oftentimes eaten their banquet as, being oppressed with calamities, they desired to be delivered, and desired it by doing that deed! They received the ark of the covenant from the Lord in token of his divine presence and assured help; but when, contrary to the end whereunto it was appointed, they bare it into the camp,
[3 expiatione, Lat.] [ So also ed. 1584; but ed. 1577, men: viros, Lat.]]
to the intent they might obtain the victory thereby, they themselves were put to flight and slain, and the ark carried away by the Philistines into captivity.
Again; if the Lord’s supper be a public holy feast of the nt whole church gathered together in one, in the which there for ought to be breaking, distributing, eating and drinking, and thereby the communion of the body and blood of Christ be declared and sealed; it followeth, that the Lord’s supper ought not to be ordained neither for any in health or sickness, neither for any lying sick in his bed or at the point of death, be it either! privately at home, or openly? at church: neither can the godly require the Lords supper unto any such private uses. For the institution of Christ our Lord must not be altered by any human authority or custom. Verily, St Paul requireth a public assembly of the church and a general meeting for the due celebrating of the supper. “When you meet together therefore in one place, this is not to take the supper of the Lord,” that is to say, “ye do not eat the Lord’s supper.” The reason is, “For every one, when they should eat, taketh his own supper, ἅς, Wherefore he will not that anything be done therein privately. Likewise in the same place he saith, that they meet together and eat the Lord’s supper to their own damnation, which make haste to the supper, not tarrying for the congregation until they do all meet, and they eat and drink together. For he saith: “Wherefore, my brethren, when you meet to eat and drink, tarry one for another (if any man be hungry, let him eat at home, to wit, that he be not constrained? to eat before the residue), that ye meet not together to your condemnation.” Wherefore the Lord’s supper is not a private, but a public supper, to be given to no man privately. And forasmuch as that assembly is not public or general, when four or five do communicate with the sick; their saying is nothing which say, that the supper may be ordained for the sick, if so be that others do sap with them. Moreover, who will deny that the example of Christ and the apostles is perpetually to be
[[I Rather, privately, be it either, &c.] [2 openly, not in Lat.] [3 propter famem, Lat. omitted: because of hunger. ] [4 See Original Letters, ed. Park. Soc. p. 123. Sec also Zurich]
[Letters, 2nd Series, p. 358.]]
followed? But it is evident enough, that Christ celebrated his supper in a common dining place, having gathered the church unto him, as well as it might at that time be gathered. St Paul saith, that in that point he followed the example of the Lord, and that he hath delivered no other thing to the church than that which he received of the Lord. Neither read we in any place of the scriptures, that the other apostles of Christ carried the sacrament to the sick, and that they ordained the holy supper privately for every one to appease his tentation. But all the apostles command us in every place to confirm and strengthen the sick and afflicted conscience with the Lord’s word: they teach us also to succour the distressed with diligent prayer. St James hath diligently set down in writing, how the faithful shall behave themselves towards the sick and them that are departing out of this world: but as touching the celebrating or carrying the sacrament unto them, he speaketh not one word. Neither is it likely, that the apostles, the most faithful doctors of the church, would dissemble the matter, if so be they had thought that it had appertained chiefly to our salvation. They have warned us often of things of far less importance. And certain it 15, that they have taught the church all things that belong to true godliness and salvation: but as for this matter, they have not mentioned one word of it.
They object out of the Acts of the Apostles this authority: “And breaking bread from house to house, they ate meat together with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God.” But that place is to be understood of the bodily and nourishing meat, not of the mystical food; for it followeth: “They received meat or sustenance together.” And therefore, as it is read in the lviii. chapter of Esay, to break bread is as much to say as to feed, and so it signifieth here also. For the richer sort gave food to the poorer, which they did with a cheerful, not with a sorrowful heart; and they that received the benefit praised God. But if any man do stubbornly contend, that the apostles did sup in private houses, we answer, that it maketh nothing to the present matter of the sick, and of private communion; for, as 1 have said before, at that time they used private houses instead of churches.
[6 hic, Lat. omitted: in this matter] [ὁ Rather, and the troubled in conscience. ]]
And therefore they supped in private houses, not to feed the sick with the bread of the sacrament, but because the universal church of that place was gathered together in them: as it appeareth in the xx. chapter of the Acts; as the manner is in persecutions.
They object, moreover, that the ancient fathers sent the sacrament unto them that were bound in prison, and to them that were departing, to feed on upon the way. But I have declared in place elsewhere!, wherefore the ancient fathers did so. Hereunto also we add, that man’s custom cannot prejudice the word of God. The blessed martyr Irenaeus writeth, that the bishops of Rome were wont to send the sacrament to other bishops which came to Rome from other places, in token of concord and agreement. But that custom was not used by all bishops, neither is it used in the church at this present. Hereof it followeth, that many things were used by the ancient fathers (as that whereof we spake before, which was, in giving the sacraments to infants), which notwithstanding are no law unto us. Good men also at this day may suffer a private supper, for a time, for them that do not yet understand the full use of the supper. But who will gather hereof, that every man ought of duty to do that which is permitted unto some upon sufferance? But if we continue contentiously to affirm it to be a relief for us in our travel, it will grow to this, (which we have seen received already certain hundred years ago,) that there shall be hope and confidence put in the receiving of the sacrament, as though that in respect thereof we were acceptable unto God, and when we depart out of this life we should fly straichtways up into heaven, but without receiving the sacrament be thrown directly down to hell. There must also needs arise sundry other errors. Neither is there any necessity to constrain us to minister the sacrament to the sick. For as prisoners are absent from receiving the Lord’s supper without danger of salvation, so likewise are the sick and those that are ready to die. For being nevertheless by perfect faith gathered to the body of Christ, and although they be absent in body yet being in mind present with the congregation, they be also made partakers of all spi-
[1 De Origine Erroris circa Ceenam, &e. cap. 1v. fol. 198.] [2 Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. v. cap. 24.] [3 asserere viaticum illud, Lat. ]]
ritual good things. And it is sufficient for them, that as long as they have been in health they have been always present at the holy mysteries. The feast of passover was not celebrated everywhere, but at Hierusalem only, in one place. But how many were there, think we, that by reason of their bodily health impaired with sickness, and for old age, could not travel to Hierusalem from so large and wide a kingdom? And although no man brought them home a piece of the paschal lamb in their pockets, notwithstanding they did communicate with the whole church of Israel. And who doubteth but that by the coming of Christ the condition of the Christians is not impaired 5?
Our Lord Christ did not institute his mystical supper for the dead, but for the living only: wherefore it is not to be celebrated for the dead, and to be applied to their redemption. They that die without faith immediately fall under the judgment of damnation; but they that are dead in Christ are already joined unto the company of the elders, and stand before the Lamb, singing Hallelujah for evermore. For I have declared in my sermon of the soul, that the salvation of the faithful souls, which are departed by corporal death, is most undoubted. And where some object, that the ancient fathers have made mention of offering for the dead, we suppose that it appertaineth not unto us. For we believe the canonical scriptures without contradiction: we believe not the fathers further than they can prove their own sayings by the canonical scriptures; neither would they have themselves otherwise believed. And therefore if the fathers think, that the supper is a sacrifice, and that it is to be offered to procure rest to the souls departed; we do not receive that opinion, as not agreeing with the canonical scriptures, which teach that the Lord instituted not his supper for that purpose, and therefore by such abuse of the supper God is rather displeased than pleased: yea, that there is no work of man, be it never so good, much less if it be against God’s word, that can sanctify, since that prerogative belongeth only to the merit of the Son of God: and moreover, that the souls departed are not in any such state in that other world, that
[4 ecclesie, Lat. omitted: of the church.] [5 So also ed. 1584; but ed. 1577, is made better? Minime factam]
[esse deteriorem? Lat. [6 See Vol. 11. page 404, &c.]]
432 THE FIFTH DECADE. [sERM. they can or ought to be holpen by any works in this world. But if the ancient fathers by oblation or offering do understand the sacrifice of praise or thanksgiving; we will not strive against them but that there may be made oblations for the dead, that is to say, that thanks be given to God and his goodness praised, who hath called out of this miserable world such as were endued with true faith, and hath joined them unto the companies of angels and all the blessed saints in that everlasting kingdom of all joy and felicity. But surely there is no truth nor godliness that willeth us to celebrate the supper for the dead.
And we make a distinction in sacrifice or oblation. For there is a sacrifice of expiation, and there is a sacrifice of confession or praise. The sacrifice of expiation is offered to cleanse or purge sins, and also for satisfaction for sins. This cannot be accomplished without death and blood: as St Paul the apostle sheweth plainly in the ix. chapter to the Hebrews. The sacrifice of Christ was such a one (the figures of which were all the sacrifices of all the holy fathers of the old Testament); who, being both priest and sacrifice, offered up himself once to God the Father, while he suffered upon the cross, and, shedding his most innocent blood, there gave up the ghost. The supper at this day is no such sacrifice, but a commemoration of the death or of the sacrifice once offered upon the cross. For neither ought or can Christ be sacrificed again, who, being once offered, is sufficient to cleanse all the sins of all ages. Why then should he be sacrificed again? Neither can the Son of God be sacrificed by any man, since that for the same cause he offered up himself once to God, as being a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech. Therefore the minister of the church doth not in the church sacrifice the body and blood of Christ in the supper for the living; but together with the whole church doth celebrate the remembrance of the sacrifice which was once offered upon the cross. Of which, as I have said elsewhere!, the supper may also be called a sacrifice, because it is a sacrament or sign of the sacrifice which was once offered by Christ, as Augustine also hath left written
[1 De origine Erroris circa Ceenam, &e. Lib. 1v. fol. 199.] [2 Nonne semel immolatus est Christus in seipso? Et tamen in]
[sacramento… populis immolatur..Si enim sacramenta, &c.— See]
[quotation above, p. 284. note 2.]]
The sacrifice of confession is of praise and thanksgiving, which we offer to God for the redemption and benefits of God freely bestowed upon his church. And since we offer the same always unto God in prayer, but chiefly when we are joined in the sacrament of the eucharist or celebrating the supper, therefore the ancient fathers called it a sacrifice, because in the same we give thanks unto God for our deliverance from death, and for the inheritance of everlasting life which is given unto us. And that this sacrifice is generally offered by the universal church in celebrating the supper, and not by the minister of the church alone, for those that live in the church, we told you before.
Now forasmuch as we have hitherto discussed certain circumstances or questions, which are wont to be moved about the Lord’s supper, so far forth as the necessity of the matter seemed to require, and as much as our small ability was able to perform; it remaineth, that we descend further to declare for what cause the Lord’s supper was by the Lord instituted: which place truly is not rashly reckoned among the chiefest. For we made mention of the same immediately upon the beginning of this sermon. For the Lord, by setting bread and wine before us in the holy banquet, would have his promise and communion testified unto us, and his gifts represented unto us, and made manifest to our senses; and would also gather us visibly into one body, and retain the memory of his death in the hearts of the faithful; and finally, put us in mind of our duty, chiefly of praise and thanksgiving. ΑἹ] these things have we severally expounded, having discoursed upon them at large in the general consideration and treatise of the sacraments: and therefore at this present we will do no more but touch them briefly for memory’s sake, meaning to handle those things somewhat more largely which shall by occasion arise as they are entreated upon.
But [by] this word communion I mean, the society, conjunction, or partaking of the Lord Christ, by the which through his Spirit he doth wholly knit and join himself to us, and we are made partakers of him by faith, and are coupled unto him: so that, being by him delivered from sin and death, we may live in him, being made heirs of everlasting life; and that he may live in us and be wholly ours, as we be wholly his. Neither do we say that the communion of the Lord’s body 28
[Bullinger, 1v.]
and blood is anything else. For by his body which was delivered over to death for us, and by his blood which was shed for the remission of our sins, it is come to pass, that we, being purged from our sins, are made his members; and he now quickeneth us and sustaineth us, as food which giveth life: whereupon we are also said to eat and drink him as the meat and drink of life. The promise therefore, whereof we made mention even now, is none other than the word of God, which declareth unto us that life is in Christ only: for Christ delivered his body to the death, and shed his blood, for the remission of sins, that we, believing in him, may have life everlasting. But this promise and communion of Christ is not now first of all given in the supper, or by the supper. For the Lord our God, immediately after the creation of the world, promised life and remission of sins unto Adam and his seed through Christ; and afterward reneweth the same promise with Noe, Abraham, Moses, and David, and the other fathers. And that the fathers did communicate with Christ and were partakers of his goodness, Paul the apostle, with the whole scripture, is a witness. But this so great goodness happened not to the fathers only. For the promise was made unto us also, and the communion of Christ was conveyed unto us, and is conveyed particularly unto every one of us in holy baptism, and also in the manifest preaching of the gospel. Moreover, we receive the same by faith, by which we are joined to Christ, and are made his members. Thereforeas we are not void and without Christ before the supper, but are quickened by him and made his members or partners; so in the very action or celebration of the supper the promise is renewed unto us, and we renew and continue that fellowship which we have in Christ by the body and blood of Christ spiritually, truly participating his life and all his good gifts through faith. And by this means we eat the Lord’s body, and drink his blood. Moreover, the Lord doth visibly declare and seal unto us that spiritual communion and promise of life, made through Christ, by visible signs, to wit, the banquet of bread and wine, joined to his word or promise; namely, that it is a quickening bread and drink; and that we (having [} So also ed. 1584: but ed. 1577, renewed: renovavit, Lat.]
[2 So also ed. 1584: but ed. 1577, with Christ: communionem Christi in qua sumus, Lat. ]
[5 So also ed. 1584: but ed. 1577, that %e is the: se esse, Lat.]
received the signs by faith and obedience) being thereto sealed, do take upon us the promise and communion of Christ?, by imprinting or transferring into our bodies the seal or sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. Of which thing the apostle hath also entreated in the first Corinthians, cap. x.; and also to the Romans, cap. iv.: and we also have said more thereof in the general treatise of the sacraments.
But before I entreat further of the other ends of the supper, consisting in the description thereof; I will recite what other some allege of the promise and communion of Christ. They condemn our doctrine as heretical. For they contend, that the Lord promised that he would give unto the faithful his very body and blood, to be caten and drunken under the form of bread and wine; therefore it must by all means, and without all contradiction, be believed, that the bread is the Lord’s natural body, and the wine his blood; and that these ought to be eaten and drunken, not only spiritually, but also corporally, unto life everlasting. And that Christ is bodily present in the supper, and that the bread is his body and the wine his blood, thus they prove: That which the Lord speaketh cannot be false, for he is the truth itself; but he saith, that the bread is his body, and the wine his blood; therefore the bread and wine of the sacrament are verily, really, and essentially the body and blood of Christ. Which truth, they say, must simply be believed, although reason itself, the whole world, all senses, and nature itself, be against it. We answer: That indeed all things are very true which the Lord hath spoken, who is truth itself; but in that sense which he himself said and understood, not in that meaning which we will enforce upon his words. Wherefore before all things we must search out the true sense of the Lord’s words in the supper, This is my body,” “This is my blood, &e.”
These men cry out, saying, that the Lord’s words ought to be expounded simply, and according to the letter; for they are the words of a testament; and that permitteth not his words to be expounded by a trope or figure. But we
[4 Rather: And we, having reccived, &c., bear the promise and]
[communion of Christ sealed upon us, &ec.] [> So also ed. 1584: but ed. 1577, of other ends.] [6 So also ed. 1584: but ed. 1577, and the same would not have his]
[words to be taken &ec.: hoc non admittere, Lat. 28 —2]
say, that all the evangelical and apostolical books are numbered under the title of the testament; and therefore throughout all and every place of the scripture nothing must be corrupted, nothing added, nothing diminished? unless we will be subject to the curse of God. And yet we are also constrained to confess, that there be infinite sentences in the holy scriptures, which if we will proceed to expound simply according to the letter, we shall overthrow the whole scripture and the true faith, or we shall seem to charge the scriptures with lies and contradiction. I will bring forth one or two examples of this sort. The evangelist St John writeth: “The Word became flesh.” Now if we will cleave to the very words, then must we say that God was changed into man. But forasmuch as this sense is contrary to the faith and the seriptures; for God is immutable: and Christ is true God and man, and therefore without all mixture or conversion of natures’, but remaining still in their own properties: and so do we admit that” exposition which declareth that the Word took flesh, and that God was made man. And this sense is not against scripture; for Paul saith, that the Son of God in no sort took upon him the nature of angels, but the seed of Abraham. Moreover?, the catholic fathers, together with the apostle, do expound this word est, by this word assumpsit, took upon him; whereof Theodoret hath entreated at large in his Polymorphus, Dialog. Again, the Lord saith in the same John: “The Father is greater than 1.” We should enforce an inequality upon the holy Trinity”, if we [! So also ed. 1584: but ed. 1577, the name.]
[2 So also ed. 1584: but ed. 1577, taken away: detrahendum, Lat.] [> So also ed. 1584: but ed. 1577, omits of G’od: maledictioni Dei, Lat. [4 So also ed. 1584: but ed. 1577, to go about to reprove the scriptures of lies or contradiction: videbimur arguere, Lat.] [5 So also ed. 1584: but ed. 1577, perfect God and man, without all mingling or converting of natures. ] [6 and so do, should be omitted. ] [7 So also ed. 1584: but ed. 1577, this. ] [8 So also ed. 1584: but ed. 1577, never: nuspiam, Lat.]
[9 So also ed. 1584: but ed. 1577, And therefore: Proinde, Lat.]
[10 Theodoret. Eranist. seu Polymorph. Dial. 1. Opp. Tom. 1v. p. 13. Par. 1642—84.]
[11 So also ed. 1584: but ed. 1577, make an inequality in adoring the Trinity: ineequalitatem adorande Trinitati obtrudemus, Lat.]
should contend that the Lord’s words are simply to be understood, without interpretation. But by conference of other places and taking advice of faith, we say that the Son is equal with the Father touching his divinity, but inferior unto him in respect of his humanity; according to that saying of the prophet, which is alleged by the apostle to that purpose: “Thou hast made him little inferior to the angels.” We read in the gospel, that Christ our Lord had brethren, and that St John the apostle was called the son of Mary, and Mary called the mother of John. But who, unless he were infected with the heresy of Helvidius!?, will stand herein, that these places are to be expounded according to the letter?—specially since other places of the scripture do manifestly prove, that they were called brethren which indeed were brothers’ and sisters’ children, cousin germans, kinsmen, or near of blood. Also the circumstances of the place in the xix. cap. of St John prove, that Mary was committed to John as a mother to her son. Wherefore if they have a desire still to wrangle, as hitherto at their own pleasures we have by proof found them to do, crying out, and reiterating in their cries, This is my body, This is my blood; This is, This is, This is, This is; Is, Is, Is;” we will also repeat: “The word was made, was made, was made flesh: The Father is, is, is greater than I: Christ hath brethren; I say, he hath brethren, he hath brethren. The scripture hath so. The truth saith so.” But tell me now, what commodity shall there redound to the church by these troublesome and odious outecries and most froward contentions? How shall the hearers be edified? How shall the glory of God be enlarged? How shall the truth be set forth? Necessity therefore constraineth us to confess, that in some places we must forsake the letter, but not the sense; and that sense is to be allowed which faith itself, with other places of scripture conferred with it, and finally, the circumstances of the place, the first being compared with the last, do yield as it were of their own accord. Howbeit, we also cry out and repeat again and again, that we
[12 So also ed. 1584: but ed 1577, omits and: et, Lat.] [13 Helvid ianiexorti ab Helvidio ita virginitati Marie contradicunt,]
[ut eam post Christum alios etiam filios de utero suo Joseph peperisse]
[contendant.—August. de Heres. Opp. Tom. v1. fol. 7. Par. 1531.] [4 So also ed. 1584: but ed. 1577, and in crying to repeat.]]
← 70. Decade 5, Sermon 8, Part 2 · Contents · 72. Decade 5, Sermon 9, Part 2 →