ought not without great cause to go from the simplicity of the word. But when as the absurdity, not of reason, but of piety, and the repugnancy of the scriptures, and contrariety to the articles of our faith, do enforce us; then we say, affirm, and contend, that it is godly, yea, necessary, to depart from the letter and from the simplicity of the words. And that these places?!, which we alleged even now, do constrain us to depart from the letter in these words of the Lord, “This is my body, This is my blood,” we will prove by most sound arguments taken out of the scriptures, when I have first briefly declared the true and ancient sense and meaning of those usual and solemn words.
The Lord, sitting at the self-same table with his disciples, of reached the bread unto them with his own hand. And he, having only one true, human, and natural body, with the very same body of his delivered bread unto his disciples, and not a body either of any other man’s, or that of his own. Neither doth that trouble us, which St Augustine reciteth of David, in expounding the xxxiii. Psalm, “And he was borne in his own hands;” whereunto he addeth immediately: “Who is borne in his own hands? A man may be borne in the hands of other men, but none can be borne in his own. This is therefore meant of David, not of Christ. For Christ was borne in his own hands, when as, commending his very body unto them, he said, This is my body: for that body was borne in his own hands?” For by these words St Augustine doth not feign, that Christ hath two human bodies; but he meaneth, that the human body bare in his hands the sacramental body, that is to say, the bread which is the sacrament of the true body; for he speaketh plainly, saying: “He, commending his body, bare that body in his own hands.” For in the second sermon, almost in the same words being but a little changed, he saith: “How was he borne in his own hands? For when he had commended his body [1 illa ipsa, Lat.: those considerations. ]:
(2 Et ferebatur in manibus suis… Quis enim portatur in manibus suis ἢ Manibus aliorum potest portari homo; manibus suis nemo portatur. Quomodo intelligatur in ipso David secundum literam non invenimus, in Christo autem invenimus. Ferebatur enim Christus in
[manibus suis, quando commendans ipsum corpus suum ait, Hoc est ig]
[corpus meum. Ferebat enim illud corpus in manibus suis.—Aug. i]
[Enarrat. in Psal. xxxiii. Opp. Tom. vir fol. 49. col. 1. Par. 1531.]]
and blood, he took that in his hands which the faithful know; and after a sort he bare himself, when he said, This is my bodys” By which words he manifestly declared, that he meant not that Christ in his natural body delivered his natural body to his disciples; but that which the faithful do know, to wit, the sacrament or mystery. For it followeth: “And he bare himself after a sort (I pray you, mark this saying, after a sort), when he said, This is my body.” Wherefore those solemn words, “This is my body, which is broken for you;” and likewise, “This is my blood, which is shed for you;”’ cat have none other sense than this: This is a commemoration, memorial, or remembrance, sign or sacrament, of my body which is given for you; This cup, or rather the wine in the cup, signifieth or representeth unto you my blood which was once shed for you. For there followeth in the Lord’s solemn words that which notably confirmeth this meaning: “Do this in the remembrance of me.” As if he should say: Now am 1 present with you, before your eyes; I shall die and ascend up into heaven, and then shall this holy bread and wine be a memorial or token of my body and blood given and shed? for you. Then break the bread and eat it, distribute the cup and drink it; and do this in the remembrance of me, praising my benefits bestowed on you in redeeming you and giving you life.
Although this interpretation be most slanderously reviled and become abominable in the sight of many, yet is it manifest to be the true, proper, and most ancient interpretation of all other. Tertullian, Lib. 1v. contra Mart., saith: Christ, taking the bread, and distributing it to his disciples, made it his body, in saying, This is my body,” that is to say, the figure of my body.” Hierome upon St Matthew’s gospel saith: “That, like as in the prefiguring of Christ Melchisedech the priest of Almighty God had done, in bringing forth bread and
[83 Quomodo ferebatur in manibus suis? Quia cum commendaret]
[ipsum corpus suum et sanguinem suum, accepit in manus suas quod]
[norunt fideles; et ipse se portabat quodammodo cum diceret, Hoc est]
[corpus meum.—Id. ibid. fol. 49. col. 2.] [+ Rather, of my body given, and of my blood shed.] [> Acceptum panem et distributum discipulis corpus suum illum]
[fecit (Christus), Hoc est corpus meum dicendo; id est, figura cor-]
[poris mei.—Tertull. adv. Marcion. Lib. 1v. cap. 40. Opp. Tom. 1. p. 305.]
[Hal. Mag. 1827. ed. Semler. ]]
wine, so he might represent the truth of his body!” Chrysostom also in his 83. homily upon Matthew: “If Jesus be not dead (saith he), whose token and sign is this sacrifice??”” Ambrose upon the first to the Corinthians, cap. xi.: Because we be delivered by the Lord’s death,” saith he, being mindful thereof, in eating and drinking we do signify the flesh and the blood which were offered for us” Au. Augustine also in many places heapeth up many speeches like to this same kind of speech: The blood is the soul, The rock was Christ,” and, “This is my body.” Let us hear then what he saith of these speeches, that we may understand what he thinketh of the true interpretation of this text, “This is my body.” In the 3rd book of Questions, in the 57. question upon Leviticus, he saith: “It remaineth that that be called the soul, which signifieth the soul; for the thing that signifieth is wont to be called by the name of that thing which it signifieth; as it is written, The seven ears of wheat are seven years; he said not, Do signify seven years; and, Seven oxen are seven years; and many such like. In like sort it is said: The rock was Christ.” He said not, The rock signifieth Christ; but as though it were so indeed, which is not the same in substance, but by signification. So likewise the blood, because through a certain vital substance it signifieth the soul, In the sacraments is called the soul.” Thus far he. The same Augustine also against Adimantus, cap. 12, saith:
[1 — assumit (Christus) panem.. ut, quomodo in prefiguratione]
[ejus Melchisedec, summi Dei sacerdos, panem et vinum afferens,]
[fecerat, ipse quoque veritatem sui corporis et sanguinis repreesentaret.]
[—Hieron. Comment. in Matth. cap. xxvI. Lib. 1v. Opp. Tom. 1v.]
[par. 1. col. 128. Par. 1693—1706.] [2 See quotation above, page 317, note 4.] [3 Quia morte Domini liberati sumus, hujus rei memores in edendo]
[et potando carnem et sanguinem, qua pro nobis oblata sunt, significa-]
[mus.—Ambros. in 1 Cor. xi. p. 183. Opp. Tom. 11. col. 1616. But]
[these commentaries are not genuine. [4 Restat itaque.ut illud appelletur anima, quod significat ani-]
[mam. Solet autem res que significat ejus rei nomine quam significat]
[nuncupari: sicut seriptum est, Septem spice septem anni sunt. Non]
[enim dixit, Septem annos significant. Et, Septem boves septem anni]
[sunt. Et multa hujusmodi. Hine est quod dictum est, Petra erat]
[Christus. Non enim dixit, Petra significat Christum; sed tanquam]
[hoc esset quod utique per substantiam non hoc erat, sed per signifi-]
[cationem. Sic et sanguis, quoniam propter vitalem quandam corpu-]
“So is blood the soul, like as the rock was Christ.” And again in the same place he saith: “I may also expound, that that precept of the blood and soul of the beast &e. consisteth in the sign. For the Lord doubted not to say, This is my body,” when he gave the sign of his bodys” Thus much Augustine. There is no fool so doltish that will βὰν δ, that these words of Augustine are dark or doubtful. Who so list may add hereunto that which the same author hath plainly written concerning figurative speech, Libro 11. Contra Advers. Legis. cap. 2.7
But let us leave off to cite men’s testimonies concerning the proper and most ancient exposition of Christ’s words, “This is my body.” Let us rather proceed to allege sound arguments out of the scriptures, as we promised to do, thereby to prove that we must sometime of necessity depart from the letter, and that Christ’s words are accordingly, as I have said, to be expounded by a figure.
First, it is evident that the Lord at this present instituted a sacrament: whereby it is manifest, that the Lord spake after the same manner as he is wont to speak in other places of the scripture concerning sacraments; as when he saith, that circumcision is the Lord’s covenant; the lamb, the Lord’s passover; that sacrifices are sins and sanctifications; baptism, the water of regeneration. But we declared in the sixth sermon of this decade, that all these kinds of speeches remain to be expounded. This saying or speech therefore is to be expounded: “This is my body,” “This is my blood:” because it is sacramental. For it received? the common interpretation,
[lentiam animam significat, in sacramentis anima dictus est.—Aug.]
[Quest. sup. Levit. vir. Opp. Tom. 1v. fol. 47. col. 3. Par. 1531.] [5 Sic est sanguis anima, quomodo petra erat Christus.. Possum]
[etiam interpretari preeceptum illud in signo esse positum. Non enim]
[Dominus dubitavit dicere, Hoc est corpus meum, cum signum daret]
[corporis sui.—Id. con. Adimant. cap. 12, Opp. Tom. v1. fol. 39. col. 2.] [6 Ne Chorzbus dixerit.—See Erasmi Adag. Chil. p. 404. Hanov.]
[1617. in stupidos.] [7 Atque in omnibus sanctis seripturis secundum sanz fidei regu-]
[lam figurate dictum vel factum si quid exponitur, de quibuslibet rebus]
[et verbis que sacris paginis continentur, expositio illa ducatur, non]
[aspernanter, sed sapienter audiamus.—Aug. contr. Adv. Leg. et Proph.]
[Lib. τι. cap. 9. Opp. Tom. σ. fol. 130. col. 4.] [83 Rather, as the scripture is wont to speak.] [9 Admittit autem, Lat.]]
which most truly and for certainty was used and received by the catholic church ever since the time of the apostles; yea, and ever since the time of the patriarchs until this day: to wit, that signs do receive the terms and names of those things that are signified; so that thereby they receive no part of their substance, but do still continue and remain in their own proper nature.
For this cause it cometh to pass!, that our Lord Christ, in the gospel written by St Luke, did join the banquet of the passover with this our Lord’s supper, in such sort that he substituted this in the place of the other; that it should not seem strange if he had said in this our supper, “This is my body;” for in the solemnising of the feast of passover it is thus said, “The lamb is the Lord’s passover.” Which kind of speech was not dark to be understood by the apostles, who understood that this lamb was a remembrance of the passage once past. By that means also they understood, that the Lord’s bread, given unto them by the Lord, is a remembrance of his body. For in other matters of much less weight they diligently questioned and inquired of the Lord touching the proper sense and signification of the words; but of these words they never once doubted or asked any question: for all sacramental speeches were to the holy fathers very well known.
Moreover, if we continue to understand the words of the supper simply, according to the letter; it followeth, that the Lord hath delivered unto us his body and blood corporally to be received. And, I pray you, to what end should he deliver them, but that we, receiving them corporally, might live? But the universal canonical scripture teacheth, that our life or salvation, and our justification, consisteth in faith only, which we repose in the body which was given and the blood shed for us (which is the spiritual eating), not in any work of ours, much less in the bodily eating of Christ’s body; which he sheweth in another place to be nothing available. Then, since there is but one means, and that most simple, whereby to obtain life and justification, to wit, by faith only, not by the work of our eating; neither is the scripture repugnant to itself; surely the Lord hath not instituted any such work of eating: and therefore the solemn words of the supper do admit some other exposition.
Huc accedit, Lat.: Add to this.]
If the bread were the Lord’s true and natural body, it must needs follow, that even the wicked, being partakers of this bread, should eat Christ’s body, and that verily his flesh should be meat to feed the belly; since they that eat it? lack both minds? and faith. But all holy men abhor that thought as absurd and most unworthy; of which matter I will entreat more hereafter. Therefore the saying of Christ, This is my body,” admitteth an exposition.
The whole universal canonical scripture witnesseth, that our Lord Jesus Christ took a body of the undefiled virgin, consubstantial in all points unto our bodies, that is to say, an human body; yea, that he was made like unto us in all respects, except sin. Now it is manifest, that he spake of his true sensible body when he saith, This is my body;” for he addeth, “Which is broken or given for you.” But the true, natural, sensible, or human body was delivered and died for us. But this appeareth not in the bread, or under the bread. Wherefore the Lord’s words must be expounded.
Surely, if it had been the Lord’s will to make his body of bread and his blood of wine, according to the power whereby he made all things with his word; as soon as ever he had said, “This is my body,” the bread had been the body of Christ, and that very body whereof he spake, mortal, passible, to be felt and seen. For “he spake the word, and they were made; he commanded, and they were created.” He said, “Let there be light,” and light was made; and such kind of light as might be perceived and did shine. But in the supper we see nothing in Christ’s hands but bread, no body. And therefore it was not our Saviour’s meaning by these words, This is my body,” to create or make his body of the bread: for if he had meant so to do, surely it had been done.
Neither is there any cause why they should here, as it were, casting their mists before our eyes?, and apply their coloured interpretation unto a rotten construction, using words, “unspeakably, supernaturally, invisibly, not qualitively, not quantively, not as in a place.” For by these terms they, intending in the meanwhile to bring some other thing to pass, do
[2 that eat it, not in Lat.] [3 mente, Lat. ] [ Rather, scattering mists abroad, throw them before us. ] (5 Aquinas, Sum. Tot. Theol. par. ur. quest. 57. Tom. vIiL p. 218.]
[Col. Agrip. 1639. Lomb. Sentent. Lib. 1v. dist. 10. p. 310. Lugd. 1570.]]
by the wonderful judgment of God quite subvert and overthrow all that is their own. For if this their mystery be unspeakable, why then do they use these terms, essentially, substantially, really, corporally?”” For they that speak so, do utter truly and set down the manner of his presence. If the bread be supernaturally the body of Christ, why then do they add “naturally 2” And if the bread be Christ’s body invisibly, then can it not be corporally, neither can it be a true body, whose property is to be visible. Who would not laugh, if he should hear that fire burnt and gave no heat, and that light did shine and gave no light? If he be not present in quality, quantity, and as in a place, then is he not corporally present. For, I pray you, are not qualities, quantities, and place, belonging to the body? Hearken what Augustine saith unto Dardanus touching the presence of God: Take,” saith he, “space of place from bodies, and they shall be nowhere; and because they shall be nowhere, they shall not be at all. Take the bodies themselves from the qualities of bodies, and they shall be nowhere; and therefore it must needs be they cannot be at alll.” Let not us therefore rob or spoil the Lord’s body of the properties thereof, and so deny the truth of his body. Again, that we bring not so many contraries? and absurd things into one and the same opinion, we interpret the words of the Lord, “” This is my body,” This is a memorial or remembrance of my body; or else, This signifieth my body.
Moreover, if this word est, “is,” be to be understood substantively in the Lord’s words, “This is my body,” it followeth then, that the bread is changed into Christ’s body. But that this is not so, all our senses do witness; the very substance remaining, not only the accidents of the bread. It is necessary therefore that our adversaries do understand, that in this, with this, or under this, is Christ’s body. But so are they gone from the simplicity of the Lord’s words, who said, “This is my body;” and not, Under this is my body.
Again, if we be so tied to the words above recited, that upon pain of sacrilege we may not start from them an hair’s breadth; I beseech you then, how durst Luke and Paul recite the words which belong to the cup far otherwise than Matthew and Mark? Tor these two do set down the words be-
See the quotation, Vol. page 265, note 2.] [2 So also 1584: but 1577, contrary.]
longing to the cup in this sort: “This is my blood which is of the new Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of their sins.” But they two recite them thus: “This cup being the new Testament through my blood, which is shed for you;” and, “This cup is the new Testament in my blood.” But shall we think, that there is no difference between the blood of Christ and the new Testament? St Paul defineth the new Testament, after Jeremy, to be a full remission of all sins; and the self-same saith, that this remission of sins is obtained through the blood of Christ. But who will so impudently contend as will dare to affirm, that the very cup, or the wine in the cup, is really and substantially the remission of sins? What cause is there, if we hold on and stick precisely to the letter, why we should be forced to confess that the cup, not the wine, nor the drink, is either the blood of Christ, either the new Testament, or the remission of sins? For the Lord saith not, This wine, but, “This cup.” Howbeit in this place, to avoid absurdity, we willingly admit a trope: wherefore then are we not indifferent in a matter of equal importance? Therefore, like as the cup, or the wine, is the testament, or remission of sins; so likewise the cup, or the wine, is Christ’s blood, and in like manner also the bread is Christ’s body. But the cup is not substantially the remission of sins or blood, but the sacrament of Christ’s blood, whereby the new testament was dedicated, and full remission of sins obtained for us: therefore the bread is the body of Christ, because it is the sacrament of the body of Christ.
Surely it is a strong and firm argument that we have brought forth: and of no less force and strength, we hope, is that behind, which we will now bring forth. The Lord at the celebrating of the holy supper saith: “Do ye this in remembrance of me.” These words do not import, that we would determine them to be really present whom we ought to remember; for who shall be said to remember those things which he beholdeth before him in presence? But we must go from the simple signification of remembrance or
[3 sumus iniquiores, Lat.: are we more rigid.] [+ So also ed. 1584: but ed. 1577, should. ] [> So also ed. 1584: but ed. 1777, not go: Non debemus recedere,]
[Lat.]]
memory, specially since Paul saith: “Declare the Lord’s death until he come.” For thus we gather thereby: He whose remembrance is repeated until he come or return, he surely is not counted to be present, but is looked for to come: therefore the Lord’s body which was given for us, the remembrance whereof is celebrated in the mystical supper, is not present, but is looked for to come.
Now those places, touching Christ’s leaving the world and departing hence, do not simply admit the interpretation of the words of the supper. “It is expedient for you,” saith he, “that I depart: for if I go not away, the Comforter shall not come unto you; but if I depart from you, then will I send him unto you.” Also: “I went from the Father, and came into the world: again, I leave the world and go to the Father.” And again: “And henceforth I am not in the world; but these are in the world, and I come unto thee.” These sayings truly are repugnant: That he went hence; That he is no longer in the world; That he left the world; and, That his natural body is in the world, and that verily it is given and received really and substantially in the supper. Neither is it lawful figuratively to interpret the testimonies which are brought forth of St John’s gospel concerning Christ’s departure; for the apostles do confess, that the Lord spake plainly or simply, without any parable. Insomuch therefore as the apostles do testify, that this speech of the Lord was simple and simply pronounced, it is needful that those other words which are contrary unto these, This is my body,” be expounded by a figure, that the scripture be not repugnant to itself.
Moreover, those places, which bear record that Christ’s body after the resurrection was circumscribed by place, seen and felt, which also do make a difference between Christ’s body clarified and the angelical spirits (where, by the way, we may see that here is no place left for the device of the definitive mean’), do not admit the bare interpretation of the solemn words of the Lord. The angels say: “He is risen, he is not here. Behold the place where they laid him.” Also: “He shall go before you into Galilee; there shall you see him.” And again he himself saith to his disciples: “Feel me, and 566: a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me
[1 modi definitivi, Lat.]
have.” These sayings of 2 the clarified body (which is that which ascended, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father) repugn wholly with ubiquity or being in every place, and the insensibility of Christ’s body: which notwithstanding must needs be granted, if we proceed to enforce the real presence of Christ’s body out of the words of the supper simply understood. Wherefore? belongeth that which the apostle, disputing of the resurrection of the dead, saith: “If the dead do not rise, neither is Christ risen;” but, “Christ is risen, being the firstfruits of them that sleep;” and therefore shall we rise also. Wherefore, by our own bodies being raised again it appeareth, what manner of body Christ’s glorious body was, or is, whereunto our bodies are made like. But our bodies shall be true bodies, consisting of sinews, veins, flesh, skin, and bones, visible, not invisible, and remaining in some certain place in heaven, not everywhere: whereupon it followeth, that the Lord’s body is not invisible and everywhere. But if any man think that to be no good argument, which is fet from our raised bodies to the Lord’s raised body, or contrariwise, let him accuse St Paul, who hath taught us this by his example. Therefore the catholic and right ancient faith constraineth to expound the words of the supper by a trope or figure. i Finally, when as the Capernaites had heard the Lord dispute touching the eating of his body and drinking of his blood, and did think and imagine of a carnal eating and drinking, he said that he would ascend into heaven: to wit, that they should not think on the eating of his natural body, since in the selfsame body he would ascend into heaven. Neither is there left here any place for the new and frivolous device of certain men, which feign that to ascend into heaven is nothing else than to lay down the weak state and condition thereof, and to receive a supernatural. For St Luke, whom altogether we must rather believe than such subtle devices or
[2 de, Lat.: concerning. ] [3 So also ed. 1584: but ed. 1577, Whereunto: Quibus accedit,]
[Lat.] [6 Fet: fetched. ] [> So ed. 1584: but ed. 1577, constraineth us.] [6 Bullinger refers to the interpretation of Brentius and his]
[followers.]
rather follies, saith that the Lord was lifted up on high, and carried up into heaven from the sight of his disciples: moreover, that his body was received by a cloud; and that his disciples looked up into heaven after him, until they heard the angels say unto them, that he would return again in the very same manner altogether as they saw him depart away. But who knoweth not, that he shall come again in the clouds of heaven? Therefore heaven, into which the Lord ascended, is the name of a place, not of a state or condition. Also in the gospel he promiseth us a place with himself, saying: “1 I go to prepare you a place, I will come again, and take you unto me; that where I am, there you may be also.” Yea, he laid down all the conditions and infirmities of a mortal body in his resurrection; so that he had no need to lay them down at his ascension.
I suppose that there is none of the faithful that will deny, that the Lord instituted nothing to us in vain, or without some singular and special commodity to us. But when the Lord said in the gospel, that his flesh being corporally eaten availed nothing; where he speaketh of none other body than of that very same, whereof he spake in the words of the supper, to wit, which he gave for us; it followeth without all contradiction, that the Lord delivered nothing unto us in the supper but that would profit us. But he should have delivered that which would not have profited us, if he had given us his body to be eaten corporally. It is evident therefore, that it is very necessary the words of the supper should be expounded.
Hereunto belongeth the notable prophecy and manifest commandment of our Lord Jesus Christ, saying in the gospel: “Then if they shall say unto you, Lo, here 1s Christ, or there is Christ, do not believe. For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and they shall work great signs and wonders, so that if it were possible, the very elect shall be brought into error. Behold, I have told you before. If therefore they shall say unto you, Behold, where he is in the wilderness; go not forth. Behold, where he 1s in the innermost parts of the house,” (in the closets or coffers, I say; for this word, ἐν ταμείοις, signifieth the most secret and innermost parts of all the house, wherein we use to lay up those things which we would have safest kept, which in Dutch we
call Schryn, schloss, und ghalt,) “” do not believe. For like as the lightning goeth out of the east, and appeareth even unto the west, so shall the coming of the Son of man be.” But although this place is used to be expounded by many of the calamities of the Jews, yet that cannot be denied, which St Hierome also himself confesseth, that in the same likewise the destiny of all the world is prophesied of, even unto the end thereof’. Wherefore this place, which we have alleged, is concluded with the saying concerning Christ’s last coming into the world at the day of judgment. And moreover it cannot be denied, that the Lord doth absolutely condemn that doctrine that defendeth, that Christ remaineth or is present, in divers places of the world, in boxes or close places: which not only the books of the teachers of transubstantiation are seen to do, but also tabernacles which are erected unto Christ’s body? (which they call meat-tents), also chapels with famous temples and monasteries. In all and every one of these places, I say, they shew us Christ, saying, “Lo, here is Christ, and there is Christ; behold the bread of angels. Christ is wholly in all these sacrifices, and he is fully and wholly in every part of them, even in such sort as he was when he was born of the virgin Mary, and hung upon the cross.” Which thing they by and by confirm by miracles and wonders; they also set it forth with circumstance of words, saying, that so great mysteries are not to be inquired of, but simply to be believed; and that these things were wrought unspeakably and invisibly by the omnipotency of God. Neither did the Lord dissemble how much this error should increase. There shall be such plenty, such great numbers of people that receive this error, and running after Christ into the deserts and innermost places of the houses, that the very elect shall be in danger. But in the mean while, in so great
[1 —discipuli interrogant tria: quo tempore Jerusalem destruenda]
[sit; quo venturus Christus; quo consummatio seculi futura sit.—]
[Hieron. Comment. in Matth. xxiv. Lib. 1v. Opp. Tom. 1v. par. 1. col.]
[114 Par. 1704.] [2 que ubique locorum cernuntur, Lat. omitted: which are to be]
[seen in all places.] [3 ciboria, Lat. The tabernacle (called by modern writers the]
[eiborium) was a sort of turret or cabinet on the upper surface of the]
[altar, containing the pyz in which the consecrated hosts were reserved.]
[—Hart’s Eccles. Records, p. 230.] 29 [BULLINGER, 1V.]]
peril and danger of things what doth Christ teach his elect to do? Immediately he addeth: “Do not believe.” What, do not believe that Christ is here or there upon earth, in the wilderness, or in the innermost parts of the house, or even in the midst of the cities, or in the fields? He addeth moreover: “(ὁ not forth.” Follow not the multitude, which by distance of place seeketh for Christ, as if he were yet conversant upon the earth. Therefore now, if so be the whole world, and all the councils in the world, all the kings and princes, yea, if all the angels and saints, should command us to believe that Christ is here or there corporally, yet the commandment of our only Redeemer Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of wisdom!, by whom all things were made, who forbiddeth us to believe the same, ought to be of that authority among all the godly, that they may know that they must not believe as creatures command them, but as the Creator hath commanded them. Yea moreover, the Lord vouchsafeth in this very same place of the gospel to give us a reason of his doctrine. For why must we not believe that Christ is conversant or bodily present upon the earth, but invisibly? Because, like as the lightning goeth forth of the east and appeareth in the west, so shall the coming of the Son of man be. Which is as much as if he had said: The Son of God came once humbly into the earth, to redeem us through his humility and death on the cross; which thing being finished, he forsook the earth, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father: from thence he shall not return into these our regions but to judgment. But then shall he appear glorious, noble, to be seen of all men, as it were the most clear sun, yea, rather like a lightning, right terrible to all the wicked. And therefore there is no cause why, from the time of his ascension until his coming to judgment, we should look for him to come invisibly, and to remain with us corporally present. St Hierome, expounding the same place, saith: “This also must be said, that the second coming of our Saviour shall not be shewed in humility as before, but in glory. It were a foolish part therefore to seek him in a little corner, or in some secret place, who is the light of the whole world.”
[1 Rather, the wisdom of the Father.] (2 Hoc quoque dicendum, quod secundus Salvatoris adventus non]
[in humilitate, ut prius, sed in gloria demonstrandus est. Stultum est]
Thus far he. But lest I may seem to stay myself upon some human authority, I will rehearse that which St Paul teacheth us in his epistle to the Hebrews, saying: Christ appeared once before the end of the world, to put away sin by offering up of himself. And forasmuch as it is appointed to men once to die, and after this cometh the judgment: even so Christ, being once offered up to take away the sins of many, shall the second time be seen of them without sin, who look for him to their salvation.” Because therefore our Lord came once into the world he was once offered up, but he shall come again, or the second time, at the end of the world, truly he cometh not again every day into the world. And because he hath forbidden us to believe, if any man should shew him present here or there unto us in this world; 310 must needs follow, that he may be shewed present here or there, yea, in all places where the sacrament of thanksgiving is celebrated, if we will understand the words of the supper according to the letter; therefore it followeth without all contradiction, by conference of places, that the words of the Lord’s supper ought not to be expounded according to the letter..
I think herewith I have satisfied such as be not of contentious disposition; for undoubtedly their meaning is, that we should speak of the sacraments sacramentally, and that sacramental speeches ought to be expounded sacramentally. Besides that, we ought to believe nothing that is repugnant to the rule of belief. But by the miracles and omnipotency of God, brought forth and alleged in this place for the setting out and persuading of an evil matter, they do no good at all after so many and manifest arguments of truth. Miracles
are joined unto the word, as it were seals; which thing the Lord God himself testifieth in St Mark. If then they be repugnant to the word, and affirm that which the word altogether denieth, who will not perceive them to be of that itaque eum in parvo loco vel abscondito queerere, qui totius mundi lumen sit.— Hieron. Comment. in Matth. Lib. 1v. Opp. Tom. 1v. par. 1.
[col. 116.] [3 autem, Lat. omitted: but.] [4 intelligunt, Lat.: they understand. ] [> So also ed. 1584: but ed. 1577, omits by: miracula &ec. nihil]
[probant, Lat. ] 29—2]
kind of miracles, whercof the apostle speaketh in the second chapter of the second epistle to the Thessalonians, and whereof we have heard now that the Lord gave us warning in the gospel, that we should in no case believe them? The Lord can do all things, but therefore he doth not all things. The prophet saith: “Whatsoever the Lord would do, that he did, both in heaven and in earth.” Moreover, he will not do such things as are contrary to his word and his faith; therefore he cannot do that he will not do. Theodoretus, in his third dialogue intituled Polymorphus, saith: The Lord God will do nothing that is not in him of his own nature; but he can do whatever he will; but he will do such things as are fit and agreeing to his nature. Therefore sith God of his own nature is true, he cannot do that which is contrary to his word?” Other sound writers do add: Not that he cannot do all things, but that he will not do that which is contrary to his nature, and because it doth not become him to do against himself.
In the mean season I do expressly profess, that I condemain not or flatly am against all manner of Christ’s presence in the church,.and in the action also of the supper; for I am flat against that bodily presence of Christ in the bread, which the papists defend and enforce upon the church of God. But I confess and acknowledge with open mouth and sincere heart that spiritual, divine, and quickening presence of our Lord Christ, both in the supper and also out of the supper, whereby he continueth to pour himself into us, not by signs lacking life, but by his Holy Spirit, to make us partakers of all his good graces, to justify, quicken, nourish, sustain, and satisfy us: which presence we do also feel in ourselves through faith, by the which we are both sustained, nourished, and satisfied. For Christ is the head of his church, and we have fellowship with him. But how should a living body be without his head? How should we be partakers of Christ, if we should not feel him present, yea, living and working in us?
[1 See Vol. 1. page 91.] [2 Ἔραν. Οὐδὲν ἀδύνατον τῷ παντοδυνάμῳ Θεῷ. Ορθ. Aw τί; Ἔραν.]
[Επειδήπερ οὐ βούλεται. “Oph. Τοῦ δὴ χάριν οὐ βούλεται; Ἔραν. ‘Emed]
[τῆς φύσεως ἐκείνης τὸ ἁμαρτάνειν ἀλλότριον, &c.~—Theodoret. Dial. 11.]
[Impatibilis. Opp. Tom. 1v. p. 122. Par. 1642.]]
But of these matters we have also entreated more at large in place convenient.
Some there are, I know well enough, who otherwise are not injurious to the truth, which gainsay these things, crying out, that by this reason the manner of Christ’s presence in the supper is not fully enough expressed, especially since he himself also hath said elsewhere, Behold, I am with you continually unto the world’s end.” I, saith he, wholly, not my power or divinity, not my spirit, nor my strength. Moreover, it is a hazard lest we should seem to tear Christ in pieces, seeing that he cannot be wholly with us, unless he be present with us as well in body as in divinity. But we wonder what is in their heads. Do they not understand, that the Lord in that divine talk, spoken both in the very supper and also immediately after the supper, did beat upon nothing so much as that very same thing against which they set shoulder?; to wit, that Christ would be absent in body, but present in spirit; and that this presence would be more profitable to the church than his bodily presence? Do they not also understand, wherefore he took flesh, and was nailed on the cross; that is to say, what the effect and use is of Christ’s body, to wit, that the sacrifice of his body being once offered for us upon the earth, he might carry the same up into heaven, in token that both our bodies and souls after our death shall through his merit be also carried thither? Therefore, after that the Lord’s body had fulfilled on earth that which it came to fulfil, there is no cause why it should do anything else upon earth. Ile now sitteth, and ought to sit, at the right hand of the Father, that he may draw all us thither unto him. If there be any that doth not yet fully believe that which we say, let him read the doctrine of St Paul the apostle in the ninth and tenth chapters of his epistle to the Hebrews. Let him also read the fourteenth and sixteenth chapters of St John’s gospel. But if it be a pleasure to them to hale at the gable of contention? and to stick precisely as well to these words of the Lord, “1 am with you unto the world’s end,” as to these, “This is my body, This is my blood,” let them then expound to me these holy testimonies of the holy scripture. Paul saith that Christ dwelleth in our [3 See Decade 1v. Serm. 8.] [ impugnant, Lat.]
[> contentionis funem trahere, Lat.]
hearts, and that Christ liveth in him, and he in Christ. The Lord saith to the thief: This day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” And the evangelist saith of the Lord being dead: “They laid him into the sepulchre.” The scripture saith not, they laid flesh and bones into the sepulchre; but, they laid him into the sepulchre. The Lord said not to the thief, Thy soul shall be with my spirit, or soul, in paradise; but, “Verily I say unto thee, this day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” Neither doth St Paul say, that Christ’s Spirit and life doth live in him, or dwell in our hearts; but he saith simply, that Christ doth dwell in our hearts. But who is so foolish and given to contention, that for these words and places of the scripture will contend, that Christ’s divinity was buried with his body, that Christ’s body was with his soul that same day in paradise in which either of them departed this life, that Christ’s body together with his Spirit dwelleth in the hearts of the faithful, and liveth in Paul, and that Paul liveth in Christ’s flesh? All men do willingly admit the catholic sense of the catholic church, gathered out of the word of God, namely, that Christ in his Spirit is present in his church even to the world’s end, but absent in body; and that the thief’s soul was that day present in paradise with Christ’s soul, not with his body. So judgeth it also of the residue. But if any man mistrust mine interpretation, let him hear St Augustine in his treatise upon John, saying thus: “He speaketh of the presence of his body, when he saith, The poor you shall always have with you, but me shall you not have always.” For in respect of his majesty, of his providence, and of his unspeakable grace, is that fulfilled which he spake, Behold, I am with you always, even to the world’s end.’ But in respect of the flesh which the Word took upon it, in respect that he was born of the virgin, that he was taken by the Jews, that he was nailed to the cross, that he was taken down from the cross, that he was wound in a sheet, that he was laid into the sepulchre, that he was manifested in the resurrection, you shall not have me with you always.” And why so? Because he was conversant, as touching his bodily presence, forty days with his disciples; and they accompanying him, but not following him, he ascended into heaven, and is not here; for there he sitteth at the right hand of the Father: and he is here; for he is not gone hence in
respect of the presence of his majesty ’.” Thus far St Augustine.
But if they yet proceed, not regarding all this that we have said, to urge that saying of the Lord out of Matthew, “Behold, 1, even I, I say, am, μεθ ὑμῶν, with you;” we will also object against them this saying of the Lord, and the same out of the gospel: “It is expedient for you that I (lo, here they have also this word “1} do depart:” we object also against them this testimony of the angels out of Luke: “This Jesus, which is taken up, ἀφ ὑμῶν, from you into heaven, &e.” They shall be at length constrained, whether they will or no, to reconcile such places as seem to be repugnant, and to admit the general understanding which we have alleged and defended hitherto.
Neither is there here any danger of dividing Christ; neither divide we Christ’s person with Nestorius, since we defend the propriety of both natures in Christ against the Eutychians. While Christ our Lord in body was yet conversant upon the earth, he himself witnesseth in the gospel, that nevertheless he was? also in the heavens. And indeed Christ, who was both God and man all at one time, was then in heaven, when he was crucified and conversant upon earth, although his body was not crucified in the heavens. But as Christ divided not himself, although, being in heaven, he was notwithstanding conversant and crucified in body upon earth, not in heaven; so neither do we divide Christ, who is both God and man,
[[ Pauperes semper habebitis vobiscum, me autem non semper ha-]
[bebitis. Accipiant et hoc boni, sed non sint solliciti: loquebatur enim]
[de praesentia corporis sui. Nam secundum majestatem suam, secun-]
[dum providentiam, secundum ineffabilem.. gratiam impletur quod]
[ab eo dictum est, Ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus usque ad]
[consummationem seculi. Secundum carnem vero quam Verbum as-]
[sumpsit, secundum id quod de virgine natus est, secundum id quod a]
[Judexis comprehensus est, quod ligno confixus, (Bullinger read, affixus)]
[quod de cruce depositus, quod linteis involutus, quod in sepulchro]
[conditus, quod in resurrectione manifestatus, non semper habebitis me]
[vobiscum. Quare? Quoniam conversatus est secundum corporis prae-]
[sentiam quadraginta diebus cum discipulis suis, et eis deducentibus]
[videndo, non sequendo, ascendit in ccelum; et non est hie, ibi enim]
[sedet ad dexteram Patris: et hic est, non enim recessit prasentia]
[majestatis.—Aug. in Evan. Joan. Tract. r. Opp. Tom. 1x. fol. 76. col. 3.]
[Par. 1531.] [2 fuisse aut esse, Lat.: was oris. See John iii. 13.]]
although we say he is present with us when we celebrate the supper, and that we communicate with him; yet nevertheless we affirm, that in his body he remaineth in heaven, where he sitteth at the right hand of the Father; and so let us keep ourselves within the compass of the scripture. Of this matter I have reasoned at large, where I have entreated of one person and of both natures in Christ unpermixed’.
Hitherto have I spoken of the natural meaning of the words of the Lord’s supper as briefly and plainly as possibly I could. Touching the place of Paul in the first to the Corinthians, chap. x. “The cup of blessing which we bless, &e.,” with such other texts which are alleged to prove bodily presence, I shall not need to use many words; for we have handled that place already once or twice.
It remaineth therefore that we examine and weigh what body. they deliver unto us touching the eating of Christ’s body, and also what the canonical scriptures do teach to be thought of that eating. What, say they, the Lord hath promised, the same most surely and fully he performeth. They add: But he promised that he would give us his true body and very blood to be eaten and drunken in the form of bread and wine unto everlasting life. They gather, Therefore he hath given his very body and blood to the faithful, under the form of bread and wine, for meat and drink to everlasting life: whereupon it must be eaten? corporally, as it is corporal. To the confirmation whereof they allege the Lord’s words, as they are written in the vi. chapter of John’s gospel. We answer: God most perfectly and fully performeth that which he hath promised. But we add, that he performeth not according to that 0€aNINg that we devise, but as his word truly importeth, We must therefore see first of all in what sense the Lord promised to give his flesh for bread, and his blood for drink to the faithful; and next, how we ought to eat? his flesh, and how to drink his blood. These things truly, which the Lord promiseth here, are well nigh? allegories and parables. The Lord promiseth that he will give us his flesh for bread or meat, and his blood for drink. But because meat and drink are ordained
[1 See Decade 1v. Serm. 6.] [2 talem omnino qualis est, Lat. omitted: every way so as it is.] [5 Rather, how we eat: quomodo edamus, Lat.] ν [ So also ed. 1584: but ed. 1577, all: prope omnia, Lat.] 8]
and given unto men to preserve their bodily life, and the Lord in the vi. chapter of John speaketh not of the life of the body but of the soul, there is a passage made from bodily things to spiritual things. When therefore the Lord promised, that he would give us his flesh for bread or meat and his blood for drink, what other thing did he promise us, than that he would give his body to the death, and shed his blood for the remission of sins? For by the death of Christ we are, as it were by meat, preserved and delivered from death. By Christ’s blood we are washed from sin, and our souls are as it were with drink spiritually drunken. Therefore the Lord speaketh nothing here of the bread of the Lord’s supper, neither doth he promise that at the supper he will make of bread his flesh, or that he would give his body in form of bread. Then let this mine exposition of Christ’s words, concerning the giving of Christ’s body or flesh in the form of bread, &ec. be false and feigned, unless I confirm the same by the words of Christ.
The Lord said in the gospel: Seek for the meat that perisheth not, but remaineth to life everlasting, which the Son of man shall give unto you.” A little after by interpretation he addeth: “And the bread which I will give unto you is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” I said that I would give you bread or meat, (for this word “bread” is, after the Hebrew manner, used by the Lord for meat and all manner of sustenance;) but saith he: This bread or this meat is my flesh, and therefore I promise to give you my flesh, when I promise to give you the bread of life. Here hast thou expressly to understand, that the Lord by bread did not mean bodily bread, or the bread of the supper. But how doth he promise to give his flesh for bread, that is to say, to be meat for us, or to quicken us? The Lord repeateth this word, I will give;” and saith, “Which I will give for the life of the world.” 1 will give it, that is to say, even to the death, that through my death I may quicken you. By dying therefore my flesh shall feed, that is to say, shall quicken. Thus much concerning the promise of his flesh for bread. Hereafter followeth of the eating thereof.
Like as the holy scripture setteth down in every place, without trope or allegory, that we are made partakers of Christ’s death, or of his body which was given for the world
unto life, through faith; so also in this present place, by a trope or allegory, he biddeth us to eat and drink the flesh and blood of Christ unto everlasting life. Therefore to eat Christ’s flesh and drink his blood is nothing else but to believe that Christ’s body was given for us, and his blood shed for us to the remission of sins; and consequently, that we remain in Christ, and have Christ remaining in us. For the faith, whereof we spake, is not only an imagination or thought concerning things past and exceeding our capacity; but a most certain assurance, and a feeling of heavenly things received within us, to our great commodity. For therefore not only faith, but also the virtue and force of faith, is by the Lord signified in John by the allegory both of eating and drinking. Meat passeth not into the substance of our body without delight: so also by faith, through a great desire of the spirit, we are joined with Christ, that he may live in us, and we may live in Christ, and be partakers of all his good gifts. This is the spiritual eating of Christ, who never thought, no, not so much as once dreamed in this place, of the gross and bodily eating, which is indeed unprofitable. But forasmuch as the whole point of the controversy consisteth in these words of eating and drinking the flesh and blood of the Lord, they interpreting the same words bodily and we spiritually, it seemeth good to be shewed, that by the words of eating and drinking the Lord meant no other thing than to believe, and consequently to abide in Christ, and to have Christ abiding in us. We will therefore, by conference of places of the scripture, bring forth 1 six evident testimonies in confirmation of our assertion.
1. “Tam,” saith the Lord, “that bread of life: whoso cometh to me shall not hunger, and whoso believeth in me shall not thirst for ever.” But who will deny, that there is relation between to eat and not to hunger, to drink and not to thirst? Because therefore the Lord said, “He shall not hunger,” he should first have said, “Whoso eateth me:” but he rather used the word of coming, and said, Whoso cometh to me shall not hunger.” To eat therefore is to come, and to come is to eat. And what it is to come to him, he expoundeth immediately, saying: Whosoever hath heard from the Father, and hath learned, he it is that cometh to me;” that is to say, receiveth me, and believeth in me. For Paul also saith: Heb.xi. “Whosoever will come to God must believe.” These testi-
monies without contradiction do prove, that to eat is nothing else but to believe. Yet that followeth which is more manifest: “And whoso believeth in me shall never thirst.” And whoso drinketh shall not thirst!. Therefore “to drink,” he hath put for “to believe?” Therefore to drink is to believe; for faith satisfieth and pacifieth our minds. Here they have an answer that make this objection, Whether the Lord himself had not words whereby he might declare his mind, if so be by eating and drinking he had meant believing? They have, I say, an open testimony whereby he useth the one for the other.
Again, in the same treatise the Lord saith: “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life; and I will raise him at the latter day.” And again in the same treatise he saith: This is the will of him that sent me, that whosoever shall see the Son, and believe in him, may have everlasting life; and I will raise him at the latter day.” Lo, here thou hast again these words, to eat Christ’s flesh, to drink his blood, and to believe in Christ, all in one sense.
Again, the Lord saith: “I am the lively bread which came down from heaven.” And again he saith: “Verily I say unto you, he that believeth in me hath life everlasting. Whosoever shall eat of this bread shall live for ever.” Then to eat Christ, and to believe in Christ, are all one.
And again he saith: “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him,” Moreover, John in his canonical epistle saith: Whosoever shall confess,” that is to say, shall believe, “that Jesus is the Son of God, God abideth in him, and he in God.”
Again: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you can have no life in you.” And the same Lord saith also in the viii. chapter of John: “If you do not believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.” And again: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, whoso keepeth my sayings, he shall never see death.”
Again the Lord saith: “Like as the living Father hath sent me, and I live by means of the Father; so likewise, who-
[1 Rather, Whoso drinketh does not thirst: Qui bibit non sitit, Lat.] [2 Rather, therefore for, to drink, he has put, to believe: pro bibere]
[ergo reposuit credere, Lat. ]]
so eateth me shall also live by means of me.” And John in the v. chapter saith: Like as the Father hath light in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.” And likewise in his canonical epistle he saith: ‘ Whoso believeth in the Son of God hath a testimony in himself.” And, “Whoso hath the Son hath life.”
Unto these most evident testimonies of God we will now join the testimonies of men, which do say the very same, that to eat Christ is nothing else but to believe in Christ and to abide in Christ. St Augustine in his 25th treatise upon John, expounding these words of the Lord, saith: This is the work of God, that you should believe in him whom he sent:” as he left written: This is therefore to eat the meat that perisheth not, but which remaineth unto everlasting life. Why then dost thou prepare thy teeth and thy belly? Believe, and thou hast eaten” The same again, in his 26th treatise, saith: “ΤῸ believe in him, this is to eat the bread of life. Whoso believeth in him eateth invisibly and is filled, because he is born invisible.” And again in the same treatise he saith: “This is to eat that meat and drink that drink, to abide in Christ and to have Christ abiding in him; and by this means whoso abideth not in Christ, and in whom Christ doth not abide, doubtless, he neither eateth spiritually his flesh,” &c.> The same Augustine, Lib. de Doctrina Christiana, cap. 16, shewing when a figurative speech is to be
[1 So also ed. 1584: but ed. 1577, life.] [2 Hoc est opus Dei, ut credatis in eum quem misit ille. Hoc est]
[ergo manducare cibum, non qui perit, sed qui permanet in vitam]
[seternam. Ut quid paras dentes et ventrem? Crede, et manducasti.]
[—Aug. in Evang. Joan. Tract. xxv. Opp. Tom. ix. fol. 45. col. 2.]
[Par. 1531.) [3 Credere in eum hoc est manducare panem vivum. Qui credit]
[in eum, manducat, invisibiliter saginatur, quia invisibiliter renascitur.]
[εν.Hoc est manducare illam escam, et illum bibere potum, in Christo]
[manere et illum manentem in se habere. Ac per hoc qui non manet]
[in Christo, et in quo non manet Christus, proculdubio nec manducat]
[spiritaliter carnem ejus, nec bibit ejus sanguinem, licet carnaliter et]
[visibiliter premat dentibus sacramentum corporis et sanguinis Christi:]
[sed magis tante rei sacramentum ad judicium 5101 manducat et bibit,]
[quia immundus preesumpsit ad Christi accedere sacramenta, que ali-]
[quis non digne sumit, nisi qui mundus est. De quibus dicitur, Beati]
[mundi corde, quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt.—Id. in Evang. Joan.]
[Tract. xxvi. Opp. Tom. Ix. fol. 46. col. 3, et fol. 47. col. 4.]]
admitted and when not, saith: “If it be an enjoining speech, or forbidding some heinous offence or trespass, or commanding some profit or good deed to be done, it is not figurative. But if it seem to command some heinous offence or trespass, or to forbid some profit or good deed, then is it figurative. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you can have no life in you;’ this seemeth to command an heinous offence and trespass: therefore it is figurative, willing us to be partakers of the Lord’s passion, and sweetly and profitably to keep in memory, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for ust” Thus said Augustine, who doubtless set down not only his own meaning herein, but also the meaning of the whole catholic church which was at that time. Let our adversaries therefore take heed what they do, who will drive all the faithful to this wickedness and offence, to wit, that we should corporally eat Christ’s body.
Furthermore, hereunto is to be added that which by reason of the perspicuity and plainness thereof doth almost surpass all that we have alleged before, which the Lord himself answered to those that wondered or rather murmured, saying: “How can he give us that his flesh to eat?” after that he had declared the sum of the true faith. ‘ Doth this offend you, saith he, that I said I would give you bread which came from heaven, even my flesh, to be meat to all believers?” I suppose that offence shall take no just place, when you shall see me ascend into heaven, from whence I came down unto you, and where I was with my Father before all beginning. Then shall ye perceive by my divine ascension that I am the heavenly bread, the natural Son of God, and the life of the world: ye shall perceive, moreover, that my flesh is not to be eaten bodily, and to be consumed and torn in morsels, but is carried up into heaven for a pledge of the salvation of mankind. And shortly after this he saith further: “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh availeth nothing.” And yet more manifestly he speaketh: “The words which I speak unto you are spirit and life.” Certain it is that Christ’s flesh availeth very much, and is more profitable to the world than any tongue, yea, the most eloquent, can express. Yea, the Lord hath warned us beforehand, that we shall have no life unless we eat his flesh. Then
[4 See quotation above, page 289, note 2.]
doth the Lord deny that his flesh availeth us anything at all, if so be it be eaten as the Capernaites understood, that is to say, bodily. For being bodily eaten it availeth nothing, but being spiritually eaten it quickeneth: and the Lord hath plainly professed, that he spake of the spiritual eating, in which consisteth life.
These things being declared and confirmed after this manner, we gather such things into a short summary, wherein we think sufficient answer is made unto our adversaries’ objection. The proposition is true, which holdeth, that the Lord doth certainly perform that which he hath promised. But the second proposition is false, which saith, that the Lord by his words in the sixth chapter of John by bread meant the material bread of the sacrament, and that he promised that he would convert the same into his flesh. For by bread he meant not the material bread of the sacrament, but meat to live withal, according to the propriety of the Hebrew tongue; yea, his very flesh, which was delivered to the death, to be meat, I say, that we might live through Christ’s death. Thus therefore should the argument have been framed: That which God promiseth he performeth: but he promiseth that he will give us his flesh for bread, that is to say, to be meat and life for us: therefore hath he given his flesh to be meat, that is to say, he hath given over himself to the death, that by his death we might live. Which being so, surely the meat whereof the Lord speaketh is no bodily meat, although the Lord himself have a true, human, and natural body, of like substance to ours, but spiritual: not that the flesh is converted into the spirit, but for that it ought to be received spiritually, not bodily. But it is eaten spiritually, by faith, not with the bodily mouth. For as chewing or eating maketh us partakers of the meat, so are we made partakers of the body and the blood of Christ through faith.
But thou wilt say: How cometh it to pass, that seeing ε ae bread, whereof mention is made in the vi. chapter of John, doth 10 the not signify the bread of the supper, that almost all the doctors, interpreters, and ministers of the church, do apply these words to the Lord’s supper? I answer, That these words of the Lord may be applied to the matter of the Lord’s supper for other causes, although the bread signify not the bread of the sacrament. Yea, I confess that these words of the Lord, of the
eating his flesh and drinking his blood, do bring great light to the matter of the Lord’s supper. St Augustine, Lib. de Consensu Evangelistarum tertio, capite primo, saith: “John said nothing in this place (John the xiii.) of the body and blood of the Lord, but plainly witnesseth, that the Lord hath spoken more at large thereof in another place.” This much saith he, speaking undoubtedly of the vi. of John. Since therefore it is one and the self-same? body of our Lord, whereof he speaketh in both places, in the vi. of St John and the xxvi. of Matthew; and the self-same is said in both places to have been delivered to the death for us, or for our life; and likewise, because there is but one means to be partaker of Christ, which is, by faith in his body which was delivered and his blood shed; and finally, because it is the catholic or universal and undoubted doctrine, that Christ’s flesh being bodily eaten availeth nothing: surely the things before written in the vi. chapter of John are agreeable and do fully open the matter of the Lord’s supper. And to the intent that this yet may be the better understood, I will recite what testimonies have been always alleged in the church out of the holy scriptures concerning the two kinds of eating of Christ. Christ’s body is eaten and his blood drunken spiritually; it is also eaten and drunken sacramentally. The spiritual manner [is] accomplished by faith, whereby being united to Christ, we be made partakers of all his goodness. The sacramental manner is only performed in celebrating the Lord’s supper. The spiritual eating is perpetual unto the godly, because faith is to them perpetual. They communicate with Christ both without the supper and in the supper; and by it they do more increase and continue their new beginnings, as we have also shewed before: and now, by adjoining of the holy action, all things are done more manifestly and plainly. As for the unbelievers and hypocrites, with their captain Judas, they never communicate with Christ, neither before the supper, nor in the supper, nor after the supper, inasmuch as they continue [1 Joannes de corpore et sanguine Domini hoe loco nihil dixit, sed plane alibi multo uberius hinc Dominum locutum esse testatur.—Aug. de Cons. Evang. Lib. m1. cap. 1. Opp. Tom. 1v. fol. 100. col. 3. Par. ἘΞ also ed. 1584: but ed. 1577, flesh and the same, &ec.: una 1531.
[atque eadem caro et idem corpus, &c., Lat.]]
in their unbelief; but they [partake’] of the Lord’s sacraments to their own judgment and condemnation.
I know here what some do teach, and how they devise a ~ certain third kind of eating Christ, which is neither spiritual nor yet sacramental, but altogether compounded of sacramental and corporal. For they hold opinion also, that the true and natural body of Christ is received bodily by the unbelievers in the forms of the sacrament. Howbeit, it shall easily appear by certain sound arguments of the scripture, that this is but a device of man; which arguments we will apply to the traitor Judas, that by this one example all the godly? may learn what they eat and drink at the Lord’s supper; for that, the judgment which is made of the head being revealed unto us, it shall be easier for us to pronounce of the members.
Some truly do make a doubt, whether Judas were present at the supper, when the Lord distributed the holy mysteries; among whom is St Hilary. Howbeit, the evangelical history saith plainly, that the Lord sat down to meat with the twelve; yea, Luke so handled his narration, that we cannot doubt but that Judas did communicate of the mysteries with the rest of the apostles; which St Augustine also avoucheth, Libro de Consensu Evangelistarum tertio, capitulo primo; and likewise in the 62. treatise upon John5, and upon the x. Psalm, and in his 163. epistle’. Yea, moreover, Aquinas also, answering in this point to St Hilary, approveth the same with yg, Parte tertia Queesti. 81. Art. 28 Now therefore [it] being manifest, that Judas was at supper with the rest of the apostles, it seemeth needful that it were known, what he received of the Lord. He received the sacrament of Christ’s body, as the other disciples did; but because he had not faith,
[1 All the editions omit this word: participant, Lat.] [2 An error in all the editions for, “the ungodly:” impii, Lat.] [3 Post que Judas proditor indicatur, sine quo pascha conficitur:]
[dignus enim seternorum sacramentorum communione non fuerat.—]
[Hilar. Comment. in Matth. cap. 30. Opp. col. 740. Par. 1693. ] [4 Aug. Opp. Tom. 1v. fol. 100. col. 4. Par. 1531.] [5 Opp. Tom. 1x. fol. 84. col. 1.] [6 Opp. Tom. vim. fol. 16. col. 1.] ἢ [7 Opp. Tom. 11. fol. 143. col. 3.] x [ Aquinas, Summa Theol. par. 111. quest. 81. art. 2. p. 186. Col. X]
[Agrip. 1622.]]
as the other had, he partaked not of Christ, neither did he eat and drink the Lord’s body and blood. For as many as eat the Lord’s body and drink his blood, do not hunger nor thirst; for they dwell in Christ, and Christ in them; they are Christ’s members; and they never die. The contrary altogether appeareth in Judas and all his fellows. Wherefore the unbelievers do neither eat the Lord’s body nor drink his blood. Moreover, it is out of all doubt, that there is no agreement between Christ and Belial; for this hath the apostle pronounced out of the general consent of the scriptures. But Judas is by Christ himself called Satan; therefore Judas did not communicate with Christ. Now if we will contend absolutely, that Judas did eat the Lord’s body; truly we shall be constrained wickedly to affirm, that it is not only an unprofitable, but also an hurtful meat; howbeit, godliness teacheth us, that Christ is a wholesome meat always to all them that eat him truly. St Augustine also denieth that Judas did eat the Lord’s body or drink his blood. In the 59th Treatise upon St John, The apostles,” saith he, “did eat the bread which was the Lord, but Judas did eat the Lord’s bread against the Lord. They did eat life, but he punishment?” Again in the 26th treatise: “Whoso dwelleth not in Christ nor Christ in him, doubtless he neither eateth his flesh spiritually, nor drinketh his blood: although carnally and visibly he break in his teeth the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ; but Le rather eateth and drinketh the sacrament of so great a matter to his condemnation, το. The like also, and almost plainer, doth he write in the 21st book and 25th chapter, De Civitate Dei. Against these they object the authority of Paul, saying, That they which eat unworthily are not guilty of the bread and cup which they have eaten and drunken of, but of the Lord’s body and blood; and also, that they do eat and drink their own damnation, for that they make no difference of the Lord’s body: whereby it followeth necessarily, that they have
[9 Ili manducabant panem Dominum; ille panem Domini contra]
[Dominum. Illi vitam, ille peenam.—Aug. in Evang. Joan. Lix. Opp.]
[Tom. 1x. fol. 82. col. 4.] [10 See quotation above, page 460, note 3.] [1 Non dicendum eum manducare corpus Christi, qui in corpore]
[Christi non est.—Aug. de Civit. Dei, Lib. xx1. cap. 25. Opp. Tom. v.]
[fol. 292. col. 4.] 30 [BULLINGER, 1V.]]
eaten and drunken the Lord’s body unworthily, and not only the sacraments of the body and blood of Christ. We answer, that Paul saith thus in plain words: Whosoever eateth of this bread and drinketh of the Lord’s cup, &e.” Mark this: he saith, “Whoso eateth this bread and drinketh of this cup unworthily;” he saith not, Whoso eateth the flesh and drinketh the blood unworthily. For they which eat the Lord are not without faith, and Christ dwelleth in them and un- they in him. If thou yet marvel, how the unbelievers can be oiilty of the Lord’s body and blood, being eaten but sacramentally; learn this out of other places of the scripture. The Lord saith in John: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that recelveth whomsoever I shall send, receiveth me; and whoso receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me.” Wherefore, whoso receiveth not an apostle, trespasseth not against the apostle, but against God himself, although in the meanwhile he hath not seen God, nor will not seem to have repelled him. We read, how the Judge will say to them that are on his left hand: “Depart from me, you wicked, into everlasting fire: for I was hungry, and you gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink, ὅσο. But hearken now, how the reprobate will make exceptions against this sentence of the Judge. Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty, and ministered not unto thee?” Then hear again what the Judge will answer: “Verily I say unto you, in that ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.” Wherefore, like as he that sinneth against a minister or a beggar, sinneth against Christ himself, although in the meanwhile he hath not hurt Christ’s person in any point; so is he also guilty of the body and blood of Christ, whosoever receiveth the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ unworthily, although in the mean season he have not received the very body and blood of the Lord. Paul saith in another place, that revolters do crucify again unto themselves the Son of God. He also denicth in another place by all manner of means, that it is possible for Christ to be crucified or to die any more. Therefore Christ cannot be crucified again by the apostates or revolters; howbeit their shameful falling away from him is so esteemed of, as if they had crucified the Son of God. Although, therefore, the wicked do not eat the Lord’s very body nor drink his blood, nevertheless they are
guilty of betraying the Lord’s body and blood as far as in them lieth. If a rebel tread under his foot the seal or letters of the prince or magistrate, although he touch not the magistrate himself nor tread him under his foot, yet is he said to have trodden the magistrate under his foot; and is accused not for hurting the seal or defiling the letters, but he is charged of treason, and accused for treading the prince under his fee”. What marvel, then, if we hear it said, that they which do eat the Lord’s bread unworthily, are guilty of the body and blood of Christ? For the bread and the mystical cup are a sacrament and seal of it.: Hitherto have we disputed of the eating of the body of Christ, and of drinking of his blood, handling every one point thereof with as much brevity as we could. Now we go to knit up the other ends of the Lord’s supper, being placed in the description of the supper. We said, that the supper was instituted by the Lord, that it might represent visibly the gifts of God unto the church, and lay them forth before the eyes of all men. But we have learned by the whole discourse of this matter, that Christ himself is a most full and rich treasure of all the gifts of God; as namely from whom, being delivered for us unto death, we have all things belonging to life, remission of sins and life everlasting. Since these things be invisible and gotten by faith, they be also visibly, that is to say, by sacraments, represented almost unto all the senses, to the sight, to hearing, to tasting, and to feeling; to the intent, that man, being wholly therewith moved both in body and soul, may celebrate this most comfortable mystery with great rejoicing in heart. Hereunto now appertaineth that analogy, whereof I have spoken before in the seventh sermon of this decade!, whereby I would have these things to be better learned.
Furthermore, we have said, that the supper was instituted of the Lord, that he might visibly gather together into one body all his members, which were in a manner dispersed throughout all parts of the world. Whereupon we have said, that the holy men somewhere else did call the supper a league or confederacy. We are knit invisibly with Christ and all his members by unity of faith and participation of one Spirit; but in the supper we are joined together even by a visible
[1 See above, page 328.] [2 Rather, otherwise: alioqui, Lat.] 30—2]
conjunction. For now not by words, but by deeds also, but by mystery, but by sacrament, we are very nearly knit and joined tegether, opening and declaring to all men, by celebrating the supper, that we are also of the number of them that believe that they are redeemed by Christ, and that they are Christ’s members and people. But we bind ourselves together unto Christ and the church, both that we will keep the sincere faith, and promising that we will use good deeds and charity towards all men. Look for more touching this matter in the seventh sermon of this decade!. Hereupon truly did St Paul prove, that it was not lawful for them which receive together at the Lord’s table to eat of meat offered to idols, and to take part of profane sacrifices. Which thing if at this day many would rightly weigh and consider, they would not seem to be seen so busy in strange and foreign sacrifices.
We said also, that the Lord instituted the supper, that thereby he might keep his death in memory, so that it should never be blotted out with oblivion. For Christ’s death is the summary of all God’s benefits. He would have us therefore to keep in memory the benefit of his incarnation, passion, redemption, and of his love. And although the remembrance of a thing that is past be celebrated, to wit, of his death, yet the same belongeth greatly unto us, and quickeneth us. Neither must we think that this is the least end; for there is none so diligently expressed as this is. For the Lord repeateth this saying: “Do this in remembrance of me.” But that holy rite or holy action, being joined with the word or with the preaching of Christ’s death and the redemption of mankind, how marvellously doth it renew from time to time that benefit, and suffereth it not to be forgotten!
Last of all we said, that the supper was ordained of the Lord, that thereby we might be admonished of our duty, praise and thanksgiving. [0 is our duty to be sincere in the faith of Christ, and to embrace all our brethren with christian charity for the Lord’s sake, and to beware that we defile not our bodies with the filth of the world, since we be cleansed with the blood of Christ. Paul the apostle saith: “So often as ye shall eat of this bread, and drink of the Lord’s cup, declare the Lord’s death until he come.” But to declare the Lord’s death is to praise the goodness of God, and to give
[1 See above, page 333.]
thanks for our redemption obtained through his death; for the apostle Peter saith: “Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a people set at liberty? that ye should shew forth virtues of him that hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.” Dut hereof we have spoken also in another place?.
Thus much I thought good in few words to repeat touching the ends of the supper, which every godly man being instructed by the Holy Ghost doth diligently consider. 1 would now let you go, dearly beloved brethren, but that I see it will be a common commodity to teach in few words, how every one should prepare himself to the Lord’s supper, that he come not to it unworthily. But it were not lost labour first of all to search out, who do worthily or unworthily eat and drink of the Lord’s bread and cup. There is no man that can deny, that there are degrees in our worthiness and unworthiness, if he rightly examine the judgments of God, and, looking narrowly into the nature of our religion, is able to give judgment thereof. The chiefest degree of unworthiness 15, to come to the holy mysteries of faith without faith. He cometh worthily, that cometh with faith; unworthily, he that cometh without faith. Such are said to be works worthy of repentance in the gospel, as are penitent works, or seemly for such as profess repentance. But what is more beseeming, more meet and just, than that he who is to celebrate the Lord’s supper do believe that he is redeemed by Christ’s death, who was offered up as a price for the whole world, and that for that cause is desirous to give thanks to Christ his Redeemer? Contrariwise, what is more unseemly and unjust, than to receive that pledge of Christ’s body, and in the meanwhile to have no communion or fellowship with Christ; to come to thanksgiving, and yet not to give thanks from the bottom of his heart? For what uniteth us to Christ, or what maketh us partakers of all his benefits, and therewith also to be thankful, but faith? What doth separate us from Christ, and spoileth us of all his gifts, and maketh us most loathsome, but unbelief? Therefore faith or unbelief maketh us partakers of the Lord’s table worthily or unworthily. Paul the apostle, in the
[2 populus acquisitionis, Lat. [3 See Vol. πι. p. 288.] [ Rather, for such as are penitent, or for the profession of repent-]
[ance: peenitentes vel peenitentiam professam decentia, Lat.]]
Acts, saith to the Jews, who through unbelief did reject or set αὖ nought the preaching of the gospel: “The word of God ought first to be preached unto you; but because you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn unto the Gentiles.” How did the Jews pronounce against themselves, that they were unworthy of everlasting life, and like judges gave sentence against themselves? In setting themselves against God’s word through unbelief, neither apprehending Christ by faith, who is the life and righteousness of the world. Wherefore the chief and greatest portion of our worthiness and unworthiness is and consisteth in faith or unbelief. St Peter witnesseth, that our hearts are purified by faith: true faith therefore is the cleanness of Christians. Whereupon St Augustine saith: “The unbeliever eateth not the flesh of Christ spiritually, but rather eateth and drinketh the sacrament of so great a thing to his own condemnation; because being unclean he hath presumed to come to Christ’s sacraments; which no man receiveth worthily but he that is clean: of whom it is said, Blessed be the clean in heart; for they shall see God,” &e.1”
Moreover, they eat and drink of the Lord’s supper unworthily, who, although they be not destitute of faith, yet by their abusing of it do pervert the right institution of the Lord. Such seemeth to have been the error of the church of Corinth, which mingled the private and profane with the ecclesiastical and mystical banquet, and did put no difference between the Lord’s bread, which is called Christ’s body, and common meat. For Paul saith: “Whoso eateth and drinketh unworthily, he eateth and drinketh his own damnation, making ας NO difference of the Lord’s body.” Therefore, to make no difference of the Lord’s body, is unworthily to eat the Lord’s bread and to drink of his cup. For this word διακρίνειν, to judge or to make a difference, is to weigh and consider of a matter exactly with judgment to the uttermost of a man’s power, to judge of it, and make a difference? between that and all other things. Furthermore, the Lord’s body is not only that spiritual body of the Lord, to wit, the church of the faithful, but that very body which the Lord took of the virgin, and offered up for our redemption, and that now sitteth at the
[1 See quotation above, page 460, note 3.] [2 ita ut decet, Lat. omitted: as is proper.]]
richt hand of the Father. To be short, the bread of the sacrament in the supper is the Lord’s body; it is, I say, the sacrament of the true body which was given for us. Whosoever, therefore, putteth no difference between this, the Lord’s mystical bread, and profane meat, but cometh to Christ’s table as he would to a table of common and gross meat, and acknowledgeth not that this heavenly meat differcth far from other human meat, neither cometh after that sort as the Lord hath instituted, but followeth his own reason; surely he maketh no difference of the Lord’s body, but eateth and drinketh his own damnation. Paul again expoundeth himself, saying: “Therefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another, that ye meet not to condemnation.” Whoso therefore preventeth the public supper by eating his own private supper, that is to say, whoso suppeth not as the Lord hath appointed, the same eateth and drinketh unworthily. For before, unworthy eaters and drinkers are said to eat and drink their own damnation; and here, they are said to meet together to their condemnation that make haste to the supper, not tarrying for their brethren; and they make no difference of the Lord’s body. St Augustine in his 62nd treatise upon John saith: “The apostle speaketh of those which received the Lord’s body without difference and carelessly, as if it had been any other kind of meat whatsoever. Here therefore, if he be reproved which maketh no difference of the Lord’s body, that is to say, doth not discern the Lord’s body from other meats, how then should not Judas be damned, who came to the Lord’s table feigning that he was a friend, but was an enemy 4” &c.? How much more grievously do they seem to sin at this day, who, perverting the lawful and first use that was instituted by the Lord, do stablish their own abuse with great contention, yea, and grievously persecute them that cry out against it and will not receive it!
Furthermore, since by experience we find every day
[3 przoccupat, Lat. ] [ De his erat sermo, cum hoc apostolus diceret, qui Domini corpus]
[velut alium cibum quemlibet indiscrete negligenterque sumebant.]
[Hic ergo si corripitur, qui non dijudicat, id est, non discernit a ceteris]
[cibis Dominicum corpus, quomodo non damnatur, qui ad ejus mensam]
[fingens amicum accedit inimicus >—Aug. in Evang. Joan. Tract. LXIL]
[1 Opp. Tom, 1x. fol. 83. col. 4. Par. 1531.]]
that there are many things wanting unto our faith, by means whereof divers vices spring up among us, whereof our unworthiness is the lightest or least of all!, which the Lord of his grace may easily wash away, and almost wipeth away by sending his cross upon us, not imputing such infirmities to us to our condemnation. For the apostle in another place saith, that “there is no condemnation for them which are graffed into Christ Jesus, and walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”
Neither with equal punishment doth our most just Lord those -. ves punish these sundry sorts of unworthiness. Let us therefore see what the blessed apostle teacheth us concerning the punishment of those that eat unworthily. Therefore he saith: “Whoso eateth this bread, or drinketh of the Lord’s cup unworthily, the same shall be guilty of the Lord’s body and blood.” By which words verily he meaneth that chief and most foul unworthiness of all other, to wit, unbelief. For he is guilty of the Lord’s body and blood, to whom the fault of the Lord’s death is imputed, that is to say, to whom Christ’s death becometh death, and not life: as it also happened unto them, who through unbelief and wickedness did crucify Christ; for unto them Christ’s blood seemed profane, as it had been the blood of some beast, murderer, or wicked person, as being worthily shed for his offences. And, I pray you, what else doth he think than that Christ’s blood is profane, who believeth not that the same was shed for the sins of the world? And yet he dareth take part of the Lord’s supper, that he may worthily be said to be guilty of the Lord’s body and blood. It is a very great offence, to eat the Lord’s bread and to drink of his cup unworthily, through unbelief: which thing by the example of Judas is laid before our eyes. He believed not in the Lord Jesus, yea, he invented how to deliver him into the hands of thieves and murderers; yet nevertheless he sat down to meat and took part of the Lord’s supper: therefore in the end the devil worthily challenged him wholly unto him. For St John witnesseth, that about
[1 Rather, whence proceeds our unworthiness, yet it is the lightest]
[of all; (—that is, of all kinds of unworthiness) being such as the]
[Lord of his grace easily washes away, &c. The Latin original is]
[obscure; but this is evidently Bullinger’s meaning. Haller in his]
[German version understands the sentence in the same manner.]
the end of the supper the devil entered into Judas: not that he was not in him before that he came to the supper, (for he had begun before to dwell in him, and to stir him forward;) but for that, after so many admonitions of our Lord Christ, and after that, he had profaned the mysteries of Christ, and as it were trodden them under foot, he wholly entered into him, and fully possessed him.
The same apostle Paul threateneth damnation to them that make no difference of the Lord’s body, who are placed, as it were, in another degree of unworthiness, saying: “For whoso eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh his own damnation.” The reason hereof he setteth down in this sentence, to wit, why we ought not rashly and carelessly to come to the Lord’s table, for that we approach then to our condemnation. But condemnation or judgment is the pain or punishment which the Lord layeth upon his faithful people when they sin, not in another world truly, as he doth upon the unbelievers, but in this world. For it followeth in the words of the apostle, which ministereth unto us the same sense: ‘ For this cause many are weak and feeble among you, and many sleep. For if we had judged ourselves, we should not have been judged. But when we are judged, we are corrected by the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.” The apostle plainly distinguisheth between the unworthy eaters that are subject to God’s correction, and worldly men, that is to say, unbelievers, whose punishment the Lord deferreth to that other world. But upon his faithful people, who yet offend through negligence, and come to the supper not sufficiently instructed, he layeth divers and sundry afflictions, as pestilence, famine, sickness, and such like, to shake off their drowsiness. For it followeth: “If we had judged ourselves,” that is, if we ourselves had restrained our vices, and separated ourselves from evil, “we had not been judged,” that is to say, punished and corrected. For immediately he addeth: “But when we are judged, we are chastised of the Lord.” To be judged therefore is to be chastised. But hereby we learn, from whence there do flow so many mischiefs into the church, to wit, by the unworthy use of the Lord’s supper. i But some man will answer here, If the matter be so, it were better wholly to abstain from the Lord’s supper. But
the if any abstain wholly, he also thereby sinneth against the Lord, and that grievously. For he setteth at nought the Lord’s commandment, who saith, “Do this;” yea, he setteth at nought both the Lord’s death and all the gifts of God. Wherefore he hath not escaped danger, who hath omitted to celebrate the supper: which thing also we have said before. Thou must go another way to work, if thou desire to avoid both danger and sin. Hear the counsel of Paul, very compendiously saying: “Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.” And we must mark, that in this examination he sendeth no man to another, but every man to himself. The papists bid thee, “Go to an auricular confessor,” there to confess thyself, to receive absolution, and to make satisfaction for thy sins according to the form that is commanded thee; and so they bid thee, as sufficiently cleansed, to go to the Lord’s table. But Paul, the doctor of the Gentiles and the vessel of election, speaketh not a word of those things, but saith simply: “Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.” For like as God is the searcher of the hearts, and requireth the affection of the mind, and hateth hypocrisy; so none knoweth what is in the heart of man, or what affections we bear to God-ward, but we ourselves do. Therefore he willeth us ourselves to examine everything in ourselves; that is to say, he willeth every man to descend into himself, and to examine himself. This examination cannot be made without faith and the light of God’s word. But the faithful man, having the light of God’s word shining before him, and faith extending! her force and power, inquireth of himself, whether he doth acknowledge all his sins which he hath manifoldly committed against God, and whether he be sorry for them being committed; and whether with sincere faith of heart he believe that Christ hath washed away and forgiven all his sins; and whether he confess freely with his mouth, as he believeth in his heart, that life and salvation consisteth in Jesus Christ only, and in none other; and whether he have determined with himself to die in this confession; and whether he mean diligently and earnestly to apply himself to innocency and holiness of life; and whether he be ready to love and help all the members of Christ’s body, of whom he is also a
[1 exerente, Lat.: putting forth.]
member, and be ready to spend his life for them, according to the example of Christ; and whether he have remitted or pardoned all anger and enmity; and whether he be desirous to call to mind Christ’s passion and the whole mystery of our redemption, and to give thanks to God for our redemption, and for all other gifts of God already received and to be received. This is the right examining, which agreeth with the receiving of the mystical supper; and when we have done so, we may, in humbleness and fear of the Lord and with gladness2, approach to the supper of our Lord Christ.
← 71. Decade 5, Sermon 9, Part 1 · Contents · 73. Decade 5, Sermon 9, Part 3 →