1 Corinthians 11:17-22
17. Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye
come together not for the better, but for the worse.
17. Hoc autem denuntians non laudo, quod non in melius, sed in peius
convenitis.
18. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear
that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
18. Primum enim, convenientibus vobis in Ecclesiam, audio dissidia
inter vos esse: et ex parte credo.
19. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are
approved may be made manifest among you.
19. Oportet enim haereses quoque esse in vobis, ut qui probe sunt,
manifesti fiant inter vos.
20. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not
to eat the Lord’s supper.
20. Convenientibus ergo vobis in unum, non est Dominicam coenamedere.
21. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper:
and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
21. Unusquisque enim propriam coenam praesumit edendo: atque hic
quidem esurit, ille autem ebrius est.
22. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise
ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to
you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
22. Numquid domos non habetis, ad edendum et bibendum, aut Ecclesiam
Dei contemnitis, et pudore afficitis eos qui non habent? Quid vobis dicam?
Laudabo vos in hoc? Non laudo.
His reproof of the fault previously noticed was but a mild and gentle
admonition, because the Corinthians sinned in ignorance, so that it was
proper that they should readily be forgiven. Paul, too, had praised them
in the outset, because they had faithfully kept his enactments. (1 Corinthians
11:2.) Now he begins to reprove them more sharply, because they offended
more grievously in some things, and not through ignorance.
17. But, in warning you as to this, I do not praise. For I translate
it in this way, because Paul appears to have made the participle and the
verb change places. I am also not satisfied with the interpretation of
Erasmus, who takes paragge>llein as meaning to command. The verb to warn
would suit better, but as to this I do not contend. There is an antithesis
between this clause and the beginning of this chapter. “While I have praised
you, do not think that it is unqualified commendation; for I have something
to find fault with, as it is worthy of severe reproof.” This, however,
in my opinion, does not refer exclusively to the Lord’s Supper, but also
to other faults of which he makes mention. Let this then be taken as a
general statement, that the Corinthians are reproved, because they came
together not for the better but for the worse. Particular effects of this
evil will be brought forward afterwards.
He finds fault with them, then, in the first place, because they come
not together for the better, — and secondly, that they come together for
the worse. The second, it is true, is the more serious, but even the first
is not to be endured, for if we consider what is transacted in the Church,
there ought never to be a coming together without some fruit. There the
doctrine of God is listened to, prayers are offered up, the Sacraments
are administered. The fruit of the Word is, when confidence in God and
fear of him are increased in us — when progress is made in holiness of
life — when we put off more and more the old man, (Colossians 3:9) — when
we advance in newness of life, etc. (Romans 6:4.) The Sacraments have a
tendency to exercise us in piety and love. The prayers, too, ought to be
of use for promoting all these purposes. In addition to this, the Lord
works efficaciously by his Spirit, because he wills not that his ordinances
should be vain. Hence if the sacred assemblies are of no benefit to us,
and we are not made better by them, it is our ingratitude that is to blame,
and therefore we deserve to be reproved. For the effect of our conduct
is, that those things, which, from their own nature, and from God’s appointment,
ought to have been salutary, become unprofitable.
Then follows the second fault — that they come together for the worse.
This is much more criminal, and yet it almost always follows the other,
for if we derive no advantage from God’s benefits, he employs this method
of punishing our carelessness — that we are made worse by them. It usually
happens, too, that negligence gives birth to many corruptions, especially
on this account, that those who do not observe the natural use of things
usually fall erelong into hurtful inventions.
18. When ye come together in the Church, I hear there are divisions.
Some take the words divisions and heresies, as referring to that disorder
(ajtaxi>an) of which he speaks soon afterwards. I consider them as having
a more extensive signification, and certainly it is not likely that he
would employ terms so improper and unsuitable for the purpose of exposing
that abuse. For as to their alleging that he has expressed himself in more
severe terms, with the view of exposing more fully the heinousness of the
offense, I would readily grant this, if the meaning corresponded. It is,
then, a reproof of a general kind — that they were not of one accord as
becomes Christians, but every one was so much taken up with his own interests,
that he was not prepared to accommodate himself to others. Hence arose
that abuse, as to which we shall see in a little — hence sprung ambition
and pride, so that every one exalted himself and despised others — hence
sprung carelessness as to edification — hence sprung profanation of the
gifts of God.
He says that he partly believes it, that they might not think that he
charged them all with this heinous crime, and might accordingly complain,
that they were groundlessly accused. In the meantime, however, he intimates
that this had been brought to him not by mere vague rumor, but by credible
information, such as he could not altogether discredit.
19. For there must be also heresies. He had previously spoken
of divisions. (1 Corinthians 11:18.) Now he uses the term heresies, with
the view of amplifying the more, as we may infer, too, from the word also,
for it is added for the sake of amplification. (prov au]xhsin.) It is well
known in what sense the ancients used those two terms, and what distinction
they made between Heretics and Schismatics. Heresy they made to consist
in disagreement as to doctrine, and schism, on the contrary, in alienation
of affection, as when any one withdrew from the Church from envy, or from
dislike of the pastors, or from ill nature. It is true, that the Church
cannot but be torn asunder by false doctrine, and thus heresy is the root
and origin of schism, and it is also true that envy or pride is the mother
of almost all heresies, but at the same time it is of advantage to distinguish
in this way between these two terms.
But let us see in what sense Paul employs them. I have already expressed
my disapprobation of those who explain. heresy as meaning the setting up
of a separate table, inasmuch as the rich did not partake of their Supper
along with the poor; for he had it in view to point out something more
hateful. But without mentioning the opinions of others, I take schism and
heresy here in the way of less and greater. Schisms, then, are either secret
grudges — when we do not see that agreement which ought to subsist among
the pious — when inclinations at variance with each other are at work —
when every one is mightily pleased with his own way, and finds fault with
everything that is done by others. Heresies are when the evil proceeds
to such a pitch that open hostility is discovered, and persons deliberately
divide themselves into opposite parties. Hence, in order that believers
might not feel discouraged on seeing the Corinthians torn with divisions,
the Apostle turns round this occasion of offense in an opposite direction,
intimating that the Lord does rather by such trials make proof of his people’s
constancy. A lovely consolation! “So far, says he, should we be from being
troubled, or cast down, when we do not see complete unity in the Church,
but on the contrary some threatenings of separation from want of proper
agreement, that even if sects should start up,we ought to remain firm and
constant. For in this way hypocrites are detected — in this way, on the
other hand, the sincerity of believers is tried. For as this gives occasion
for discovering the fickleness of those who were not rooted in the Lord’s
Word, and the wickedness of those who had assumed the appearance of good
men, so the good afford a more signal manifestation of their constancy
and sincerity.”
But observe what Paul says — there must be, for he intimates by this
expression, that this state of matters does not happen by chance, but by
the sure providence of God, because he has it in view to try his people,
as gold in the furnace, and if it is agreeable to the mind of God, it is,
consequently, expedient. At the same time, however, we must not enter into
thorny disputes, or rather into labyrinths as to a fatal necessity. We
know that there never will be a time when there will not be many reprobates.
We know that they are governed by the spirit of Satan, and are effectually
drawn away to what is evil. We know that Satan, in his activity, leaves
no stone unturned with the view of breaking up the unity of the Church.
From this — not from fate — comes that necessity of which Paul makes mention.
We know, also, that the Lord, by his admirable wisdom, turns Satan’s deadly
machinations so as to promote the salvation of believers. Hence comes that
design of which he speaks — that the good may shine forth more conspicuously;
for we ought not to ascribe this advantage to heresies, which, being evil,
can produce nothing but what is evil, but to God, who, by his infinite
goodness, changes the nature of things, so that those things are salutary
to the elect, which Satan had contrived for their ruin. As to Chrysostom’s
contending that the particle that (i]na) denotes not the cause, but the
event, it is of no great moment. For the cause is the secret counsel of
God, by which things that are evil are overruled in such a manner, as to
have a good issue. We know, in fine, that the wicked are impelled by Satan
in such a manner, that they both act and are acted upon with the consent
of their wills. Hence they are without excuse.
20. This is not to eat the Lord’s supper. He now reproves the
abuse that had crept in among the Corinthians as to the Lord’s Supper,
in respect of their mixing up profane banquets with the sacred and spiritual
feast, and that too with contempt of the poor. Paul says, that in this
way it is not the Lord’s supper that is partaken of — not that a single
abuse altogether set aside the sacred institution of Christ, and reduced
it to nothing, but that they polluted the sacrament by observing it in
a wrong way. For we are accustomed to say, in common conversation, that
a thing is not done at all, if it is not done aright. Now this was no trivial
abuse, as we shall afterwards see. If you understand the words is not as
meaning, is not allowable, the meaning will amount to the same thing —
that the Corinthians were not in a state of preparation for partaking of
the Lord’s supper, as being in so divided a state. What I stated a little
ago, however, is more simple — that he condemns that profane admixture,
which had nothing in it akin to the Lord’s Supper.
21. For every one of you taketh before others his own supper. It
is truly wonderful, and next to a miracle, that Satan could have accomplished
so much in so short a time. We are, however, admonished by this instance,
how much antiquity, without reason on its side, can effect, or, in other
words, how much influence a long continued custom has, while not sanctioned
by a single declaration of the word of God. This, having become customary,
was looked upon as lawful. Paul was then at hand to interfere. What then
must have been the state of matters after the death of the Apostles? With
what liberty Satan must have sported himself. Yet here is the great strength
of Papists: “The thing is ancient — it was done long ago — let it, therefore,
have the weight of a revelation from heaven.”
It is uncertain, however, what was the origin of this abuse, or what
was the occasion of its springing up so soon. Chrysostom is of opinion,
that it originated in the love-feasts, (ajpo< tw~n ajgapw~n) and that,
while the rich had been accustomed to bring with them from their houses
the means of feasting with the poor indiscriminately and in common, they
afterwards began to exclude the poor, and to guzzle over their delicacies
by themselves. And, certainly, it appears from Tertullian, that that custom
was a very ancient one. Now they gave the name of Agapae to those common
entertainments, which they contrived among themselves, as being tokens
of fraternal affection, and consisted of alms. Nor have I any doubt, that
it took its rise from sacrificial rites commonly observed both by Jews
and Gentiles. For I observe that Christians, for the most part, corrected
the faults connected with those rites, in such a manner, as to retain at
the same time some resemblance. Hence it is probable, that, on observing
that. both Jews and Gentiles added a feast to their sacrifice, as an appendage
to it, but that both of them sinned in respect of ambition, luxury, and
intemperance, they instituted a kind of banquet, which might accustom them
rather to sobriety and frugality, and might, at the same time, be in accordance
with a spiritual entertainment in respect of mutual fellowship. For in
it the poor were entertained at the expense of the rich, and the table
was open to all. But, whether they had from the very first fallen into
this profane abuse, or whether an institution, otherwise not so objectionable,
had in this way degenerated in process of time, Paul would have them in
no way mix up this spiritual banquet with common feasts. “This, indeed,
looks well — that the poor along with the rich partake in common of the
provisions that have been brought, and that the rich share of their abundance
along with the needy, but nothing ought to have such weight with us as
to lead us to profane the holy sacrament.”
And one is hungry. This was one evil in the case, that while
the rich indulged themselves sumptuously, they appeared, in a manner, to
reproach the poor for their poverty. The inequality he describes hyperbolically,
when he says, that some are drunken and others are hungry, for some had
the means of stuffing themselves well, while others had slender fare. Thus
the poor were exposed to the derision of the rich, or at least they were
exposed to shame. It was, therefore, an unseemly spectacle, and not in
accordance with the Lord’s supper.
22. Have ye not houses? From this we see that the Apostle was
utterly dissatisfied with this custom of feasting, even though the abuse
formerly mentioned had not existed.: For, though it seems allowable for
the whole Church to partake at one common table, yet this, on the other
hand, is wrong — to convert a sacred assembly to purposes foreign to its
nature. We know for what exercises a Church should assemble — to hear doctrine,
to pour forth prayers, and sing hymns to God, to observe the sacraments,
to make confession of their faith, and to engage in pious observances,
and other exercises of piety. If anything else is done there, it is out
of place. Every one has his own house appointed him for eating and drinking,
and hence that is an unseemly thing in a sacred assembly.
What shall I say to you? Having fitly stated the case, he now calls
them to consider, whether they are worthy to be praised, for they could
not defend an abuse that was so manifest. He presses them still further,
by asking — “What else could I do? Will you say that you are unjustly reproved?”
Some manuscripts connect the words in this with the verb that follows —
in this way: Shall I praise you? In this I do not praise you. The other
reading, however, is the more generally received among the Greeks, and
it suits better.
1 Corinthians 11:23-29
23. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered
unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took
bread:
23. Ego enim accepi a Domino, quod etiam tradidi vobis: quod Dominus
Iesus nocte qua traditus est, accepit panem:
24. And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat:
this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
24. Et gratiis actis, fregit, et dixit, Accipite, edite: hoc est
corpus meum quod pro vobis frangitur: hoc facite in mei memoriam.
25. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped,
saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as
ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
25. Similiter et calicem, postquam vum testamentum est in sanguine
meo: hoc facite, quotiescunque biberitis, in mei memoriam.
26. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do
shew the Lord’s death till he come.
26. Quotiescumque enim ederitis panem hunc, et biberitis hunc calicem,
mortem Domini annuntiabitis, donce veniat.
27. Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup
of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
27. Itaque quisquis ederit panem hunc, aut biberit calicem Domini indigne,
reus erit corporis et sanguinis Domini.
28. But let a man examine him self, and so let him eat of that bread,
and drink of that cup.
28. Probet autem homo se ipsum, et sic de pane illo edat, et de
calice bibat.
29. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh
damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
29. Qui enim ederit aut biberit indigne, iudicium sibi edit ac bibit,
non discernens corpus Domini.
Hitherto he has been exposing the abuse; now he proceeds to show what
is the proper method of rectifying it. For the institution of Christ is
a sure rule, so that if you turn aside from it but a very little, you are
out of the right course. Hence, as the Corinthians had deviated from this
rule, he calls them back to it. It is a passage that ought to be carefully
observed, as showing that there is no remedy for correcting and purging
out abuses, short of a return to God’s pure institution. Thus the Lord
himself — when he was discoursing respecting marriage, (Matthew 19:3,)
and the Scribes brought forward custom, and also the permission given by
Moses — simply brings forward his Father’s institution, as being an inviolable
law. When we do this at the present day, the Papists cry out, that we are
leaving nothing untouched. We openly demonstrate, that it is not in one
point merely that they have degenerated from our Lord’s first institution,
but that they have corrupted it in a thousand ways. Nothing is more manifest
than that their Mass is diametrically opposed to the sacred Supper of our
Lord. I go farther — we show in the plainest manner, that it is full of
wicked abominations: hence there is need of reformation. We demand — what
it appears Paul had recourse to — that our Lord’s institution be the common
rule, to which we agree on both sides to make our appeal. This they oppose
with all their might. Mark then the nature of the controversy at this day
in reference to the Lord’s Supper.
23. I received from the Lord. In these words he intimates, that
there is no authority that is of any avail in the Church, but that of the
Lord alone. “I have not delivered to you an invention of my own: I had
not, when I came to you, contrived a new kind of Supper, according to my
own humor, but have Christ as my authority, from whom I received what I
have delivered unto you, in the way of handing it over.” Return, then,
to the original source. Thus, bidding adieu to human laws, the authority
of Christ will be maintained in its stability.
That night in which he was betrayed. This circumstance as to
time instructs us as to the design of the sacrament — that the benefit
of Christ’s death may be ratified in us. For the Lord might have some time
previously committed to the Apostles this covenant-seal, but he waited
until the time of his oblation, that the Apostles might see soon after
accomplished in reality in his body, what he had represented to them in
the bread and the wine. Should any one infer from this,. that the Supper
ought, therefore, to be celebrated at night and after a bodily repast,
I answer, that, in what our Lord did, we must consider what there is that
he would have to be done by us. It is certain, that he did not mean to
institute a kind of nightly festival, like that in honor of Ceres, and
farther, that it was not his design to invite his people to come to this
spiritual banquet with a well-filled stomach. Such actions of Christ as
are not intended for our imitation, should not be reckoned as belonging
to his institution. In this way, there is no difficulty in setting aside
that subtilty of Papists, by which they shift off what I have already stated
as to the duty of maintaining and preserving Christ’s institution in its
simplicity. “We will, therefore,” say they, “not receive the Lord’s Supper
except at night, and we will therefore take it — not when fasting, but
after having dined.” All this, I say, is mere trifling; for it is easy
to distinguish what our Lord did, in order that we might imitate it, or
rather what he did with the view of commanding us to do the like.
24. Having given thanks. Paul observes elsewhere, that every
gift that we receive from the hand of God
is sanctified to us by the word and prayer. (1 Timothy 4:5.)
Accordingly, we nowhere read that the Lord tasted bread along with his
disciples, but there is mention made of his giving thanks, (John 6:23,)
by which example he has assuredly instructed us to do the like. This giving
of thanks, however, has a reference to something higher, for Christ gives
thanks to the Father for his mercy towards the human race, and the inestimable
benefit of redemption; and he invites us, by his example, to raise up our
minds as often as we approach the sacred table, to an acknowledgment of
the boundless love of God towards us, and to have our minds kindled up
to true gratitude.
Take, eat, this is my body. As Paul designed here to instruct
us in a few words as to the right use of the sacrament, it is our duty
to consider attentively what he sets before us, and allow nothing to pass
unobserved, inasmuch as he says nothing but what is exceedingly necessary
to be known, and worthy of the closest attention. In the first place, we
must take notice, that Christ here distributes the bread among the Apostles,
that all may partake of it in common, and thus every one may receive his
portion, that there may be an equal participation among all. Accordingly,
when there is not a table in common prepared for all the pious — where
they are not invited to the breaking of bread in common, and where, in
fine, believers do not mutually participate, it is to no purpose that the
name of the Lord’s Supper is laid claim to.
But for what purpose are the people called to mass, unless it be that
they may come away empty from an unmeaning show? It has, therefore, nothing
in unison with the supper. Hence, too, we infer that Christ’s promise is
no more applicable to the mass than to the feast of the Salii; for when
Christ promises that he will give us his body, he at the same time commands
us to take and eat of the bread. Hence, unless we obey this command, it
is to no purpose that we glory in his promise. To explain this more familiarly
in other words — the promise is annexed to the commandment in a conditional
way, as it were: hence it has its accomplishment only if the condition
also is accomplished. For example, it is written, Call upon me; I will
answer thee. (Psalm 1:15.) It is our part to obey the command of God, that
he may accomplish for us what he promises; otherwise we shut ourselves
out from the accomplishment of it.
What do Papists do? They neglect participation, and consecrate the bread
for a totally different purpose, and in the meantime they boast that they
have the Lord’s body. While, by a wicked divorce, they
put asunder those things which Christ has joined together,
(Matthew 19:6,)
it is manifest that their boasting is vain. Hence, whenever they bring
forward the clause — This is my body, we must retort upon them the one
that immediately precedes it — Take and eat. For the meaning of the words
is: “By participating in the breaking of bread, according to the order
and observance which I have prescribed, you shall be participants also
in my body.” Hence, when an individual eats of it by himself, the promise
in that case goes for nothing. Besides, we are taught in these words what
the Lord would have us do. Take, says he. Hence those that offer a sacrifice
to God have some other than Christ as their authority, for we are not instructed
in these words to perform a sacrifice.
But what do Papists say as to their mass? At first they were so impudent
as to maintain, that it was truly and properly called a sacrifice. Now,
however, they admit that it is indeed a commemorative sacrifice, but in
such a way, that the benefit of redemption is, through means of their daily
oblation, applied to the living and the dead. However that may be, they
present the appearance of a sacrifice. In the first place, there is rashness
in this, as being without any command from Christ; but there is a still
more serious error involved in it — that, while Christ appointed the Supper
for this purpose, that we might take and eat, they pervert it to a totally
different use.
This is my body. I shall not recount the unhappy contests that
have tried the Church in our times as to the meaning of these words. Nay
rather, would to God that we could bury the remembrance of them in perpetual
oblivion! I shall state, first of all, sincerely and without disguise,
and then farther, I shall state freely (as I am wont to do) what my views
are. Christ calls the bread his body; for I set aside, without any disputation,
that absurd contrivance, that our Lord did not exhibit the bread to the
Apostles, but his body, which they beheld with their eyes, for it immediately
follows — This cup is the New Testament in my blood. Let us regard it then
as beyond all controversy that Christ is here speaking of the bread. Now
the question is — “In what sense?” That we may elicit the true meaning,
we must hold that the expression is figurative; for, assuredly, to deny
this is exceedingly dishonest. Why then is the term body applied to the
bread? All, I think, will allow that it is for the same reason that John
calls the Holy Spirit a dove. (John 1:32.) Thus far we are agreed. Now
the reason why the Spirit was so called was this — that he had appeared
in the form of a dove. Hence the name of the Spirit is transferred to the
visible sign. Why should we not maintain that there is here a similar instance
of metonymy, and that the term body is applied to the bread, as being the
sign and symbol of it? If any are of a different opinion they will forgive
me; but it appears to me to be an evidence of a contentious spirit, to
dispute pertinaciously on this point. I lay it down, then, as a settled
point, that there is here a sacramental form of expression, in which the
Lord gives to the sign the name of the thing signified.
We must now proceed farther, and inquire as to the reason of the metonymy.
Here I reply, that the name of the thing signified is not applied to the
sign simply as being a representation of it, but rather as being a symbol
of it, by which the reality is presented to us. For I do not allow the
force of those comparisons which some borrow from profane or earthly things;
for there is a material difference between them and the sacraments of our
Lord. The statue of Hercules is called Hercules, but what have we there
but a bare, empty representation? On the other hand the Spirit is called
a dove, as being a sure pledge of the invisible presence of the Spirit.
Hence the bread is Christ’s body, because it assuredly testifies, that
the body which it represents is held forth to us, or because the Lord,
by holding out to us that symbol, gives us at the same time his own body;
for Christ is not a deceiver, to mock us with empty representations. Hence
it is regarded by me as beyond all controversy, that the reality is here
conjoined with the sign; or, in other words, that we do not less truly
become participants in Christ’s body in respect of spiritual efficacy,
than we partake of the bread.
We must now discuss the manner. Papists hold forth to us their system
of transubstantiation: they allege that, when the act of consecration has
been gone through, the substance of the bread no longer exists, and that
nothing remains but the accidents. To this contrivance we oppose — not
merely the plain words of Scripture, but the very nature of the sacraments.
For what is the meaning of the supper, if there is no correspondence between
the visible sign and the spiritual reality? They would have the sign to
be a false and delusive appearance of bread. What then will the thing signified
be, but a mere imagination? Hence, if there must be a correspondence between
the sign and its reality, it is necessary that the bread be real — not
imaginary — to represent Christ’s real body. Besides, Christ’s body is
here given us not simply, but as food. Now it is not by any means the color
of the bread that nourishes us, but the substance. In fine, if we would
have reality in the thing itself, there must be no deception in the sign.
Rejecting then the dream of Papists, let us see in what manner Christ’s
body is given to us. Some explain, that it is given to us, when we are
made partakers of all the blessings which Christ has procured for us in
his body — when, I say, we by faith embrace Christ as crucified for us,
and raised up from the dead, and in this way are effectually made partakers
of all his benefits. As for those who are of this opinion, I have no objection
to their holding such a view. As for myself, I acknowledge, that it is
only when we obtain Christ himself, that we come to partake of Christ’s
benefits. He is, however, obtained, I affirm, not only when we believe
that he was made an offering for us, but when he dwells in us — when he
is one with us — when we are members of his flesh, (Ephesians 5:30,) —
when, in fine, we are incorporated with him (so to speak) into one life
and substance. Besides, I attend to the import of the words, for Christ
does not simply present to us the benefit of his death and resurrection,
but the very body in which he suffered and rose again. I conclude, that
Christ’s body is really, (as the common expression is,) — that is, truly
given to us in the Supper, to be wholesome food for our souls. I use the
common form of expression, but my meaning is, that our souls are nourished
by the substance of the body, that we may truly be made one with him, or,
what amounts to the same thing, that a life-giving virtue from Christ’s
flesh is poured into us by the Spirit, though it is at a great distance
from us, and is not mixed with us.
There now remains but one difficulty — how is it possible that his body,
which is in heaven, is given to us here upon earth? Some imagine that Christ’s
body is infinite, and is not confined to any one space, but fills heaven
and earth, (Jeremiah 23:24,) like his Divine essence. This fancy is too
absurd to require refutation. The Schoolmen dispute with more refinement
as to his glorious body. Their whole doctrine, however, reduces itself
to this — that Christ is to be sought after in the bread, as if he were
included in it. Hence it comes, that the minds of men behold the bread
with wonderment, and adore it in place of Christ. Should any one ask them
whether they adore the bread, or the appearance of it, they will confidently
agree that they do not, but, in the mean time, when about to adore Christ,
they turn to the bread. They turn, I say, not merely with their eyes, and
their whole body, but even with the thoughts of the heart. Now what is
this but unmixed idolatry? But that participation in the body of Christ,
which, I affirm, is presented to us in the Supper, does not require a local
presence, nor the descent of Christ, nor infinite extension, nor anything
of that nature, for the Supper being a heavenly action, there is no absurdity
in saying, that Christ, while remaining in heaven, is received by us. For
as to his communicating himself to us, that is effected through the secret
virtue of his Holy Spirit, which can not merely bring together, but join
in one, things that are separated by distance of place, and far remote.
But, in order that we may be capable of this participation, we must
rise heavenward. Here, therefore, faith must be our resource, when all
the bodily senses have failed. When I speak of faith, I do not mean any
sort of opinion, resting on human contrivances, as many, boasting of faith
on all occasions, run grievously wild on this point. What then? You see
bread — nothing more — but you learn that it is a symbol of Christ’s body.
Do not doubt that the Lord accomplishes what his words intimate — that
the body, which thou dost not at all behold, is given to thee, as a spiritual
repast. It seems incredible, that we should be nourished by Christ’s flesh,
which is at so great a distance from us. Let us bear in mind, that it is
a secret and wonderful work of the Holy Spirit, which it were criminal
to measure by the standard of our understanding. “In the meantime, however,
drive away gross imaginations, which would keep thee from looking beyond
the bread. Leave to Christ the true nature of flesh, and do not, by a mistaken
apprehension, extend his body over heaven and earth: do not divide him
into different parts by thy fancies, and do not adore him in this place
and that, according to thy carnal apprehension. Allow him to remain in
his heavenly glory, and aspire thou thither, that he may thence communicate
himself to thee.” These few things will satisfy those that are sound and
modest. As for the curious, I would have them look somewhere else for the
means of satisfying their appetite.
Which is broken for you. Some explain this as referring to the
distribution of the bread, because it was necessary that Christ’s body
should remain entire, as it had been predicted, (Exodus 12:46,) A bone
of him shall not be broken. As for myself — while I acknowledge that Paul
makes an allusion to the breaking of bread, yet I understand the word broken
as used here for sacrificed — not, indeed, with strict propriety, but at
the same time without any absurdity. For although no bone was broken, yet
the body itself having been subjected, first of all, to so many tortures
and inflictions, and afterwards to the punishment of death in the most
cruel form, cannot be said to have been uninjured. This is what Paul means
by its being broken. This, however, is the second clause of the promise,
which ought not to be passed over slightly. For the Lord does not present
his body to us simply, and without any additional consideration, but as
having been sacrificed for us. The first clause, then, intimates, that
the body is presented to us: this second clause teaches us, what advantage
we derive from it — that we are partakers of redemption, and the benefit
of his sacrifice is applied to us. Hence the Supper is a mirror which represents
to us Christ crucified, so that no one can profitably and advantageously
receive the supper, but the man who embraces Christ crucified.
Do this in remembrance of me. Hence the Supper is a memorial,
(mnhmo>sunon) appointed as a help to our weakness; for if we were sufficiently
mindful of the death of Christ, this help would be unnecessary. This is
common to all sacraments, for they are helps to our weakness. What is the
nature of that remembrance which Christ would have us cherish with regard
to him, we shall hear presently. As to the inference, however, which some
draw from this — that Christ is not present in the Supper, because a remembrance
applies to something that is absent; the answer is easy — that Christ is
absent from it in the sense in which the Supper is a commemoration. For
Christ is not visibly present, and is not beheld with our eyes, as the
symbols are which excite our remembrance by representing him. In short,
in order that he may be present with us, he does not change his place,
but communicates to us from heaven the virtue of his flesh, as though it
were present.
25. The cup, when he had supped. The Apostle seems to intimate,
that there was some interval of time between the distribution of the bread
and that of the cup, and it does not quite appear from the Evangelists
whether the whole of the transaction was continuous. This, however, is
of no great moment, for it may be that the Lord delivered in the meantime
some address, after distributing the bread, and before giving the cup.
As, however, he did or said nothing that was not in harmony with the sacrament,
we need not say that the administration of it was disturbed or interrupted.
I would not, however, render it as Erasmus does — supper, being ended,
for, in a matter of so great importance, ambiguity ought to be avoided.
This cup is the New Testament. What is affirmed as to the cup,
is applicable also to the bread; and thus, by this form of expression,
he intimates what he had before stated more briefly — that the bread is
the body. For it is so to us, that it may be a testament in his body, that
is, a covenant, which has been once confirmed by the offering up of his
body, and is now confirmed by eating, when believers feast upon that sacrifice.
Accordingly, while Paul and Luke use the words — testament in the blood,
Matthew and Mark employ the expression — blood of the testament, which
amounts to the same thing. For the blood was poured out to reconcile us
to God, and now we drink of it in a spiritual sense, that we may be partakers
of reconciliation. Hence, in the Supper, we have both a covenant, and a
confirmatory pledge of the covenant.
I shall speak in the Epistle to the Hebrews, if the Lord shall allow
me opportunity, as to the word testament. It is well known, however, that
sacraments receive that name, from being testimonies to us of the divine
will, to confirm it in our minds. For as a covenant is entered into among
men with solemn rites, so it is in the same manner that the Lord deals
with us. Nor is it without strict propriety that this term is employed;
for in consequence of the connection between the word and the sign, the
covenant of the Lord is really included in the sacraments, and the term
covenant has a reference or relation to us. This will be of no small importance
for understanding the nature of the sacraments; for if they are covenants,
then they contain promises, by which consciences may be roused up to an
assurance of salvation. Hence it follows, that they are not merely outward
signs of profession before men, but are inwardly, too, helps to faith.
This do, as often as ye drink. Christ, then, has appointed a two-fold
sign in the Supper.
What God hath joined together let not man put asunder.
(Matthew 19:6.)
To distribute, therefore, the bread without the cup, is to man Christ’s
institution. For we hear Christ’s words. As he commands us to eat of the
bread, so he commands us to drink of the cup. To obey the one half of the
command and neglect the other half — what is this but to make sport of
his commandment? And to keep back the people from that cup, which Christ
sets before all, after first drinking of it, as is done under the tyranny
of the Pope — who can deny that this is diabolical presumption? As to the
cavil that they bring forward — that Christ spoke merely to the Apostles,
and not to the common people — it is exceedingly childish, and is easily
refuted from this passage — for Paul here addresses himself to men and
women indiscriminately, and to the whole body of the Church. He declares
that he
had delivered this to them agreeably to the commandment
of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 11:23.)
By what spirit will those pretend to be actuated, who have dared to
set aside this ordinance? Yet even at this day this gross abuse is obstinately
defended; and what occasion is there for wonder, if they endeavor impudently
to excuse, by words and writings, what they so cruelly maintain by fire
and sword?
26. For as often as ye shall eat. Paul now adds what kind of
remembrance ought to be cherished — that is, with thanksgiving. not that
the remembrance consists wholly in confession with the mouth; for the chief
thing is, that the efficacy of Christ’s death be scaled in our consciences;
but this knowledge should stir us up to a confession in respect of praise,
so as to declare before men what we feel inwardly before God. The Supper
then is (so to speak)a kind of memorial, which must always remain in the
Church, until the last coming of Christ; and it has been appointed for
this purpose, that Christ may put us in mind of the benefit of his death,
and that we may recognize it before men. Hence it has the name of the Eucharist.
If, therefore, you would celebrate the Supper aright, you must bear in
mind, that a profession of your faith is required from you. Hence we see
how shamelessly those mock God, who boast that they have in the mass something
of the nature of the Supper. For what is the mass? They confess (for I
am not speaking of Papists, but of the pretended followers of Nicodemus)
that it is full of abominable superstitions. By outward gesture they give
a pretended approval of them. What kind of showing forth of the death of
Christ is this? Do they not rather renounce it?
Until he come. As we always need a help of this kind, so long
as we are in this world, Paul intimates that this commemoration has been
given us in charge, until Christ come to judgment. For as he is not present
with us in a visible form, it is necessary for us to have some symbol of
his presence, by which our minds may exercise themselves.
27. Therefore he who shall eat this bread unworthily. If the
Lord requires gratitude from us in the receiving of this sacrament — if
he would have us acknowledge his grace with the heart, and publish it with
the mouth — that man will not go unpunished, who has put insult upon him
rather than honor; for the Lord will not allow his commandment to be despised.
Now, if we would catch the meaning of this declaration, we must know what
it is to eat unworthily. Some restrict it to the Corinthians, and the abuse
that had crept in among them, but I am of opinion that Paul here, according
to his usual manner, passed on from the particular case to a general statement,
or from one instance to an entire class. There was one fault that prevailed
among the Corinthians. He takes occasion from this to speak of every kind
of faulty administration or reception of the Supper. “God,” says he, “will
not allow this sacrament to be profaned without punishing it severely.”
To eat unworthily, then, is to pervert the pure and right use of it
by our abuse of it. Hence there are various degrees of this unworthiness,
so to speak; and some offend more grievously, others less so. Some fornicator,
perhaps, or perjurer, or drunkard, or cheat, (1 Corinthians 5:11,) intrudes
himself without repentance. As such downright contempt is a token of wanton
insult against Christ, there can be no doubt that such a person, whoever
he is, receives the Supper to his own destruction. Another, perhaps, will
come forward, who is not addicted to any open or flagrant vice, but at
the same time not so prepared in heart as became him. As this carelessness
or negligence is a sign of irreverence, it is also deserving of punishment
from God. As, then, there are various degrees of unworthy participation,
so the Lord punishes some more slightly; on others he inflicts severer
punishment.
Now this passage gave rise to a question, which some afterwards agitated
with too much keenness — whether the unworthy really partake of the Lord’s
body? For some were led, by the heat of controversy, so far as to say,
that it was received indiscriminately by the good and the bad; and many
at this day maintain pertinaciously, and most clamorously, that in the
first Supper Peter received no more than Judas. It is, indeed, with reluctance,
that I dispute keenly with any one on this point, which is (in my opinion)
not an essential one; but as others allow themselves, without reason, to
pronounce, with a magisterial air, whatever may seem good to them, and
to launch out thunderbolts upon every one that mutters anything to the
contrary, we will be excused, if we calmly adduce reasons in support of
what we reckon to be true.
I hold it, then, as a settled point, and will not allow myself to be
driven from it, that Christ cannot be disjoined from his Spirit. Hence
I maintain, that his body is not received as dead, or even inactive, disjoined
from the grace and power of his Spirit. I shall not occupy much time in
proving this statement. Now in what way could the man who is altogether
destitute of a living faith and repentance, having nothing of the Spirit
of Christ, receive Christ himself? Nay more, as he is entirely under the
influence of Satan and sin, how will he be capable of receiving Christ?
While, therefore, I acknowledge that there are some who receive Christ
truly in the Supper, and yet at the same time unworthily, as is the case
with many weak persons, yet I do not admit, that those who bring with them
a mere historical faith, without a lively feeling of repentance and faith,
receive anything but the sign. For I cannot endure to maim Christ, and
I shudder at the absurdity of affirming that he gives himself to be eaten
by the wicked in a lifeless state, as it were. Nor does Augustine mean
anything else when he says, that the wicked receive Christ merely in the
sacrament, which he expresses more clearly elsewhere, when he says that
the other Apostles ate the bread — the Lord; but Judas only the bread of
the Lord.
But here it is objected, that the efficacy of the sacraments does not
depend upon the worthiness of men, and that nothing is taken away from
the promises of God, or falls to the ground, through the wickedness of
men. This I acknowledge, and accordingly I add in express terms, that Christ’s
body is presented to the wicked no less than to the good, and this is enough
so far as concerns the efficacy of the sacrament and the faithfulness of
God. For God does not there represent in a delusive manner, to the wicked,
the body of his Son, but presents it in reality; nor is the bread a bare
sign to them, but a faithful pledge. As to their rejection of it, that
does not impair or alter anything as to the nature of the sacrament.
It remains, that we give a reply to the statement of Paul in this passage.
“Paul represents the unworthy as guilty, inasmuch as they do not discern
the Lord’s body: it follows, that they receive his body.” I deny the inference;
for though they reject it, yet as they profane it and treat it with dishonor
when it is presented to them, they are deservedly held guilty; for they
do, as it were, cast it upon the ground, and trample it under their feet.
Is such sacrilege trivial? Thus I see no difficulty in Paul’s words, provided
you keep in view what God presents and holds out to the wicked — not what
they receive.
28. But let a man examine himself. An exhortation drawn from
the foregoing threatening. “If those that eat unworthily are guilty of
the body and blood of the Lord, then let no man approach who is not properly
and duly prepared. Let every one, therefore, take heed to himself, that
he may not fall into this sacrilege through idleness or carelessness.”
But now it is asked, what sort of examination, that ought to be to which
Paul exhorts us. Papists make it consist in auricular confession. They
order all that are to receive the Supper, to examine their life carefully
and anxiously, that they may unburden all their sins in the ear of the
priest. Such is their preparation! I maintain, however, that this holy
examination of which Paul speaks, is widely different from torture. Those
persons, after having tortured themselves with reflection for a few hours,
and making the priest — such as he is — privy to their vileness, imagine
that they have done their duty. It is an examination of another sort that
Paul here requires — one of such a kind as may accord with the legitimate
use of the sacred Supper.
You see here a method that is most easily apprehended. If you would
wish to use aright the benefit afforded by Christ, bring faith and repentance.
As to these two things, therefore, the trial must be made, if you would
come duly prepared. Under repentance I include love; for the man who has
learned to renounce himself, that he may give himself up wholly to Christ
and his service, will also, without doubt, carefully maintain that unity
which Christ has enjoined. At the same time, it is not a perfect faith
or repentance that is required, as some, by urging beyond due bounds, a
perfection that can nowhere be found, would shut out for ever from the
Supper every individual of mankind. If, however, thou aspirest after the
righteousness of God with the earnest desire of thy mind, and, trembled
under a view of thy misery, dost wholly lean upon Christ’s grace, and rest
upon it, know that thou art a worthy guest to approach the table — worthy
I mean in this respect, that the Lord does not exclude thee, though in
another point of view there is something in thee that is not as it ought
to be. For faith, when it is but begun, makes those worthy who were unworthy.
29. He who shall eat unworthily, eateth judgment to himself. He
had previously pointed out in express terms the heinousness of the crime,
when he said that those who should eat unworthily would be guilty of the
body and blood of the Lord. Now he alarms them, by denouncing punishment;
for there are many that are not affected with the sin itself; unless they
are struck down by the judgment of God. This, then, he does, when he declares
that this food, otherwise health-giving, will turn out to their destruction,
and will be converted into poison to those that eat unworthily.
He adds the reasons because they distinguish not the Lord’s body, that
is, as a sacred thing from a profane. “They handle the sacred body of Christ
with unwashed hands, (Mark 7:2,) nay more, as if it were a thing of nought,
they consider not how great is the value of it. They will therefore pay
the penalty of so dreadful a profanation.” Let my readers keep in mind
what I stated a little ago, that the body is presented to them, though
their unworthiness deprives them of a participation in it.
