04 - Of the Words of the Supper

Chapter IIII Of the words of the Supper

Seeing all things are so as I have before showed, my opinion is that the words of the Lord’s Supper cannot be well understood and declared without some trope: first, regarding the cup it is manifest both by the Evangelists and by the Apostle Paul; then, regarding the Bread it is also manifest because where as Christ said, "This [that is, the bread which I have broken] is my body, and the Apostle expounding is says, "The Bread which we break is the Communion of the body of the Lord." Thirdly, according to the rule of St. Augustine in his third Book of the institution of a Christian man, chapter 16. Because when we are commanded to eat the flesh of Christ, if we take the word of eating properly, it seems we are commanded to do a heinous deed, therefore the speech of Christ concerning the eating of his flesh is to be understood figuratively. Moreover, because if you shall understand the words without a trope, it will follow that the Bread of Christ was indeed delivered up for us and the blood shed for the remission f our sins. Lastly because Luther himself upon the fifth chapter of Isaiah says that in the words of the Supper there is a synecdoche with whom in the point Bucer always agrees. Therefore, albeit each word in that speech ("This is my body") is to be taken in its proper signification so that the true and essential body of Christ is attributed to the Bread (as indeed it is attributed), yet in the speech as a whole there must needs be some trope seeing that the bread which is given to us and was not crucified cannot properly be said to be the body of Christ which was delivered up for us. So then, the controversy is only concerning the kind of trope by which the Bread is called the body of Christ (I call it that true body which was truly delivered up for us). And I think this controversy is not of so great worth that for it the peace of the Church ought to be troubled or that he who says it is a synecdoche ought to condemn him that says it is a metonymy. And contrariwise, he that says it is a metonymy ought not condemn him who says it is a synecdoche so that both part agree in this: that it is the true and natural body of Christ as the Evangelists and the Apostle plainly teach, that it is spoken of the true bread and so that the Articles of faith are kept on both sides in their plain meaning, pure and uncorrupt. That meaning being that the natural body of Christ is one, is finite, is human, is in heaven, does no more die, is not consumed and is not broken. And yet indeed, as the Scriptures teach it is offered unto all, it is communicated to all the faithful but in a mystery and after a spiritual manner: even as the faithful themselves grow up into one body and are incorporated with their head Christ and with the whole Catholic Church, not after a Carnal, but after a Spiritual manner. And therefore (just as in the Spiritual and Mystical fellowship between Christ and the Church wicked hypocrites have no part, seeing that they lack faith, but are only in the outward and visible society), so I believe that those hypocrites are partakers not of the true and natural and truly heavenly flesh and blood of Christ but only of the external and outward signs, which are also designated by the name of the flesh and blood of Christ, even by Christ himself. Wherefore, whereas the Apostle says, "They who eat in an unworthy manner are guilty of the body of the Lord," (if we understand this to be said of the wicked, which certainly and not without a cause Bucer denies,) I interpret it in the sense wherein the same Apostle says unto the Hebrews that some tread underfoot the Son of God and account the blood of the Testament a profane thing; to wit, not because they actually do eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood, although doing it unworthily, but rather because when they reject by their ungodliness the body and blood, when the Bread and Wine are offered, they drink and eat the Bread and Wine unworthily. This thing, good Christian, assure yourself of: that I am not so wicked as to doubt the truth of Christ’s words in the Supper as some too impudently accuse me of; neither that I dispute of the simple understanding of every word in this proposition: "This is my body." For by the word, "This," I believe that the Bread is declared. Additionally, Paul also interprets the text to teach this in 1Co 10:1-33 and 11. The word "is" does not signify anything else than to be. And I take the word "body" to be the true body of Christ, as Christ himself interprets when he adds, "Which is given for you." And therefore there is no controversy among us whether in the lawful use of the Supper the Bread is truly the body of Christ; we only dispute of the manner by which the Bread is the body of Christ. And moreover, neither of us call into question that the bread is after that manner the body of Christ after which Christ would then have it and will now have it to be, for it must be according to his will. And whereas in the words of the Supper the will of Christ is not expressed concerning the manner, I think it is to be gathered out of similar places, to wit, sacramental kind of speeches. Moreover, this foundation being laid, that Christ did not then desire and does not now desire that the bread should be his body according to any of the manners of those men who take away the truth of his true human body or else disagree from the analogy of faith from his simple meaning. So the manner of Christ’s being in the sacrament by Transubstantiation is excluded because (1) in the Sacrament of Baptism the substance of the water is not changed (2) and also because straight away many bodies here upon the earth would be feigned upon Christ, besides that body which he has in heaven and (3) lastly because the substance of bread neither before nor after the conversion was delivered to death for us. I add, moreover, that St. Mark believed that the substance of wine was in the belly of the Apostles when he said, "This is the blood." The manner also of Consubstantiation is excluded both because they argue that neither in the water of Baptism is the body of Christ locally included (whereby we are washed from our sins) and also because it takes away the nature of the true human body and diametrically opposes the article of the ascension into heaven and of the sitting at the right hand. For the same causes that manner also is to be taken away which is like unto this, which is imagined by a real and local adherence or conjunction; not to say that not one word can be read for the proof of this that after some of these three manners Christ would have the bread to be his body.

After what manner then is it probable that Christ would have the bread to be his body? Verily, after this manner, as all other Sacraments are said to be that thing whereof they are Sacraments, to wit, by a Sacramental and so a Mystical union. For that which we call a Sacrament, the Greeks call a mystery. Wherefore, this speech is usual with the Fathers, that the bread is the body of Christ, even the present body, and that it is eaten n a mystery. Now a mystery is said to be when visible things lead us to the true understanding and receiving of invisible things, and earthly things of heavenly things, corporeal things of spiritual things. In which sense the Apostle to the Ephesians calls the carnal marriage of Adam and Eve a great mystery because of the spiritual marriage which is contracted between Christ and his Church and to which that other marriage leads us. But carnal men destitute of the spirit of God and of faith cannot be brought by earthly things unto heavenly things or by the participation of those earthly things unto the communion of these heavenly things seeing that they cannot so much as understand them as the Apostle says. Which is the cause why I judge and believe that the flesh and blood of Christ, being heavenly and spiritual things, cannot in deed and truth be received of wicked men; no, not by the mouth of their body, which also was Bucer’s opinion. Therefore he said that the body of Christ was both present and eaten of us in the Supper not after any worldly manner, but only after a spiritual and heavenly manner. Concerning which, what else does it mean to say that it is eaten of us by the spirit of Christ? For by Christ heavenly things are joined unto earthly things and by him they are received by them. And this is my belief and judgment for the meaning of the words of the Supper which I will constantly hold till a better, a truer and a more agreeable one to the Scriptures shall by other men be offered and plainly proved to me.

Ille non edit corpus Christi qui non est de corpore Christi. – Augustine.

"He cannot eat the body of Christ that is not of the body of Christ."

Accipe, panis est, non venenum: mala res non est, sed malus accipit. – Idem.