Chapter 46: The Force and Efficacy of the Word of God
Their clarity does not stem, as our adversaries imagine, from a more manifest outward prefiguration but from the nature of the words spoken.
For our redemption, already performed, is declared with more excellent and plain words than the common people in the old Law understood it. And if the thing is more plainly expressed by words, an outward representation is not necessary.
Besides this, they wondered how it could be that the Church was in error for so long, and that it was no small error, if things are as we say. However, they should not marvel at this if they considered what Christ said about his last coming: "Do you think that when the Son of Man comes, he will find faith on the earth?" It is shown that the error will be so great that, if it were possible, even the very elect would be deceived. Let these men tell us what manner of Church Christ found at his first coming. Had not the Scribes and Pharisees, and also the Bishops, corrupted and infected all things with their traditions?
Yet we are not to think that the Church was utterly left in error. There were always some good men who were displeased with these things and opposed them. Just as in the first coming, there were Simeon, Anna the widow,
Joseph and Mary the virgin, Elizabeth, and John the Baptist, who were godly and of great understanding, and so the Church was not entirely forsaken. Likewise, in these latter times, the universal Church is not infected with these traditions of men.
They also say that in terms of signification, this very thing can be done by bread and wine in banquets, and therefore there is no reason to honor the Eucharist so greatly. This argument is very weak, as in common meals, there is no institution of the Lord, no sacrament, no words of the Lord heard, and no promise. Therefore, these things must not be compared.
Chapter 46:
The Force and Efficacy of the Word of God Lastly, an argument was presented from the force and efficacy of the word of God, as spoken by Ambrose and cited by Algerius in the first book, the seventh chapter. It is called a working word, as when by the bread and wine, which remain the same, are changed into another thing. We willingly accept
Ambrose's words, for we also affirm that bread and wine remain the same, not in the way the transubstantiators say, concerning accidents or forms, implying a change with the substance being cast away. Instead, we affirm that they are preserved in their proper natures, yet the change is made only by a sacramental grace.
We do not derogate from the strength of the Lord's words, but we do not think it fitting to attribute to them, as to some enchantment, that in whatever manner and place they are pronounced by the priest over bread and wine with the intention to consecrate, they shall immediately take effect.
Everything wholly depends on the institution of the Lord and the working of the Holy Spirit.
We need not be overly concerned with Algerius, for he was after the time of Berengarius and mentioned his recantation in his writing. Furthermore, his judgment is revealed by a certain argument. In the 21st chapter of the first book, intending to prove that both the godly and the wicked receive the body of Christ in the sacrament (which follows upon Transubstantiation), he offers this analogy: The outward word, that is, the spoken word, contains its proper sense for whoever hears it. If it comes to men of understanding, they hear with profit, for they understand what is spoken. If it comes to the unlearned and ignorant, it still carries its proper sense but without profit to the hearer because they do not understand it.
This man assumes in his argument that words carry a sense with them, yet he does not consider that the sense is not included or folded really in the
sound or form of the letters, but by signification only. If this is said about bread and wine in the sacraments, because they offer the body of Christ by signification, he shall be confuted by his analogy. This also proves that the wicked do not receive the body of the Lord, just as the ignorant, who when they hear Greek and Latin words, do not understand their meaning.
Therefore, no one could have said more for us. The same author asserts in the first chapter of the second book that the accidents in the sacrament do not indeed admit corruption or decay, but that it only seems so to us, which the Schoolmen themselves would not have said. For what else is this than to establish a perpetual illusion of the senses? Thus, we need not be overly concerned with him, although he endeavors by all means to fortify his
Transubstantiation.
The First Opinion Now we have made trial of the first opinion, and that extensively: for with its removal, many superstitions are taken away. Of the other two, we will not discuss so extensively, because whichever of the two is appointed, we do not greatly mind, as long as it is soundly understood. Now we will only speak of them, to the end that we may see what in both should be avoided and what should be received.
Wherefore, some there have been, who, while retaining the substance of bread and wine, and also the body and blood of the Lord, have, together with these signs yet remaining in their own nature, joined by a most firm knot the body and blood of the Lord. Yet not so, as I think, that of them being joined together should be made one substance: nevertheless, they have said that the body and blood of Christ are in the bread and wine, really, corporally, and naturally. Others have joined them together by signification only. The first opinion is attributed to Luther, the other to Zwingli.
Perspectives on the Sacrament However, I have heard men of credit say that Luther did not judge so grossly of this matter, and that Zwingli also did not believe so lightly of the sacraments. They say that Luther inclined towards hyperbolical speeches, which in some way exceed the truth, because he thought that Zwingli and others would make the sacraments to be bare and vain signs, whereas
Zwingli meant no such thing. But he also feared that Luther would affirm those things which both should derogate from the truth of the human nature and also include the body of Christ in bread, whereupon a greater superstition should yet be nourished. Therefore, he thought it fitting to report somewhat lightly of this sacrament, and thus there was stirred up a contention more than was fitting, which was a cause of great mischief.
The Core of the Contention In very deed, the contention was rather about words than about the matter.
Wherefore, we will remove the handling of these two opinions from the persons: for we affirm not that either Zwingli or Luther were of that mind, but only we will examine the opinions as they are carried about.
Examining the Opinions Now, there are some who believe that the bread and wine are merely symbols and do not contain the actual body and blood of Christ. They hold that the sacraments are to be understood spiritually and not physically. This view, often associated with Zwingli, emphasizes the memorial aspect of the Lord's Supper, where the bread and wine are seen as reminders of Christ's sacrifice rather than his literal body and blood.
On the other hand, there are those who hold to a more literal interpretation, believing that the bread and wine are transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ. This view, often linked with Luther, is known as consubstantiation, where Christ's body and blood are present "in, with, and under" the forms of bread and wine. This interpretation maintains that there is a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, though not in the same manner as the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, which asserts a complete change of substance.
Common Ground and Misunderstandings Despite the differences in interpretation, it is crucial to recognize that both views seek to honour the significance of the Lord's Supper. The emphasis on either the real presence or the symbolic nature of the elements should not overshadow the primary focus of remembering and proclaiming Christ's death until he comes (1 Corinthians 11:26).
Luther and Zwingli, though seemingly at odds, both aimed to preserve the integrity of the sacrament. Luther's concern was to prevent the reduction of the Eucharist to a mere symbol, while Zwingli was wary of any notion that might lead to a misunderstanding of Christ's human nature and a return to superstitious practices.
In light of this, it is evident that much of the contention arose from a misunderstanding of each other's intentions and the use of language. By examining these opinions with an open mind and a focus on their underlying intentions, we can better appreciate the theological richness they offer.
The Similitudes
Those men who so grossly join the body of Christ with the signs often bring two similitudes to better declare themselves. The first is, if you have a pot full of wine and pronounce, "This is wine," you do not lie at all, seeing that you show the wine itself contained in the cup. In like manner, if you take a hot burning iron and, showing the fire, say, "This is fire," you neither speak falsely nor absurdly: so, they say, must be understood the saying of the Lord, "This is my body." They manifestly admit the figure Synecdoche. For seeing they show a subject compounded, it is not a true proposition unless it is touching one part of the thing shown.
Presence of Christ Yet it must be known that these similitudes are not taken by them as though they thought that in every way they agree with the matter proposed. They contend that the body of Christ is present not locally, but definitively, which they understand to be when anything is not circumscribed with the measure of place but is said to be there because its nature or essence is then appointed to that place, or works therein. This does not agree with wine being in a cup, for that has its place where it is limited. Furthermore, these men would not say that the body of Christ is so in bread that it takes the name of the qualities or accidents thereof. For it cannot truly be named white, round, baked, or sodden, which nevertheless we perceive to happen to fire mixed with burning iron. For it so follows the fashion of the iron— the length, the breadth, and the depth thereof—that it may be named by the shapes and forms of the same.
The Real Conjunction Whereby it plainly appears that this similitude in this opinion is not understood by these men as touching all the parts, but only that a true and real conjunction of the sacrament and the thing may be shown. This being
granted, it follows that both the wicked and the godly receive the body of Christ. First, forsooth, that this conjunction is real, they think it is sufficiently proved by the words of the Lord. But the other, namely that the body of Christ is given even to the wicked, they see it necessarily follows.
However, we have already shown the contrary, to wit, that these words of Christ do not necessarily drive us to this sense, and by effectual reasons, it has been proved that the wicked receive only the outward elements.
Figurative Speech in Scripture These men also argue that if the words of scripture are understood figuratively, then it may easily be that many precepts should be overthrown.
For Abraham might have said of circumcision when it was commanded, "It is a figurative speech, and I shall fulfil this commandment if I circumcise my heart and cut off the lusts and infections of the flesh." Also, when the choice of meats was commanded, the Israelites might have said that the execution of that commandment might consist in the moral observation if they did not commit those sins which were signified by those unclean beasts. By that means, neither circumcision nor the choice of meats should have taken place.
Literal and Figurative Interpretation However, it may plainly be proved that this is a weak argument because it is perceived by the letter itself and by the text that the same is no figurative speech. As for circumcision, it is appointed to be on the eighth day after the child's birth, and it is added that the covenant of the Lord was to be borne in the flesh itself. By these words, it appears that true circumcision was commanded. In the choice of meats, the conditions of the living creatures, clean and unclean, are so expressly described and a purifying appointed as touching the offenders, that no place of doubting is left.