![Cornelius Henrici Hoen (c. 1440–1524), also known as Honius, was born in the city of The Hague in the mid-fifteenth century, amidst that period of manifold tumults which, under the wise providence of God, ushered in the dawn of the Reformation. Of Dutch parentage, Hoen was reared in the traditions of the Holy Catholic Church and was distinguished from his youth for a singular devotion to learning. He pursued his studies at the renowned University of Leuven, wherein he attained knowledge in the liberal arts and jurisprudence, becoming a jurist of repute in his native city. Though Hoen held no ecclesiastical office, he was, by the testimony of his contemporaries, steadfast in faith, yet not unmindful of the necessity for reform and the restoration of pure doctrine. It was the holy sacrament of the Eucharist which engaged his particular attention. In his treatise, Epistola de Sacramento Eucharistiae, published posthumously, Hoen maintained—contrary to the decrees of the Lateran and prevailing Scholastic opinion—that the sacred words of Christ, “Hoc est corpus meum,” ought rather to be interpreted symbolically than literally. Thus, he contended that the elements signify, rather than become, the body and blood of Christ, a doctrine which would later find favor among the Sacramentarians and Swiss reformers. Although he remained within the communion of the Roman Church until his death in 1524, Hoen’s teachings were deemed suspect and sowed seeds that would bear fruit in subsequent controversies concerning the nature of the Lord’s Supper. His life and writings bear witness to the earnest search after truth characteristic of the era, and his influence persists in the annals of the church’s disputations on the sacraments. [Painting is not him]](attachment:ed75233a-bebc-4550-86d8-34bed0c61a42:image.png)
[Epistola Christiana admodum ab annis quatuor ad quendam, apud quem omne iudicium sacrae scripturae fuit, ex Bathavis missa, sed spreta, longe aliter tractans coenam dominicam quam hactenus tractata est; (Straßburg: Knobloch, ca. 1525; München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Polem. 866. Latin. 7 Bl)]
Cornelius Henrici Hoen (c. 1440–1524), also known as Honius, was born in the city of The Hague in the mid-fifteenth century, amidst that period of manifold tumults which, under the wise providence of God, ushered in the dawn of the Reformation. Of Dutch parentage, Hoen was reared in the traditions of the Holy Catholic Church and was distinguished from his youth for a singular devotion to learning. He pursued his studies at the renowned University of Leuven, wherein he attained knowledge in the liberal arts and jurisprudence, becoming a jurist of repute in his native city. Though Hoen held no ecclesiastical office, he was, by the testimony of his contemporaries, steadfast in faith, yet not unmindful of the necessity for reform and the restoration of pure doctrine. It was the holy sacrament of the Eucharist which engaged his particular attention. In his treatise, Epistola de Sacramento Eucharistiae, published posthumously, Hoen maintained—contrary to the decrees of the Lateran and prevailing Scholastic opinion—that the sacred words of Christ, “Hoc est corpus meum,” ought rather to be interpreted symbolically than literally. Thus, he contended that the elements signify, rather than become, the body and blood of Christ, a doctrine which would later find favor among the Sacramentarians and Swiss reformers. Although he remained within the communion of the Roman Church until his death in 1524, Hoen’s teachings were deemed suspect and sowed seeds that would bear fruit in subsequent controversies concerning the nature of the Lord’s Supper. His life and writings bear witness to the earnest search after truth characteristic of the era, and his influence persists in the annals of the church’s disputations on the sacraments. [Painting is not him]
Table of Contents:
<aside>
</aside>
Our LORD JESUS Christ, having frequently promised the remission of sins to His followers, and desiring in the last supper to confirm the minds of His own, added a pledge to His promise so that they might not waver in any way. Just as a bridegroom who desires to make his bride certain, lest she doubt in any way, gives her a ring saying, “Accept myself as given to you,” and she, receiving the ring, believes the bridegroom to be hers, and turns her mind away from all other lovers, thinking how she might please her husband. Similarly, one taking the Eucharist, the pledge of her bridegroom who testifies that He gives Himself, ought firmly to believe that Christ is now hers, handed over for her, and that His blood was shed for her. Wherefore she will turn her mind from all things which she previously loved and will cleave to Christ alone, seeking always what is pleasing to Him. For herself she will be concerned with nothing more, but will cast all care upon Christ, whom she believes to be hers, and Him alone to be abundantly sufficient for all things. This is to truly eat Christ and drink His blood, as the Savior says in John 6: “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him.” But those who take the Eucharist without this lively faith seem to eat the manna of the Jews rather than Christ.
However, the Roman scholastics have not remembered this most lively faith, but have diligently taught another kind of dead faith, thinking it sufficient when they said that the bread after consecration is the true body of Christ. And they have taught many subtle things about the manner in which this happens, though these are proved by no scriptures.
But since that faith is historical, it is clear that it cannot justify. Let us see whether it might not be rashly accepted and condemned. For we see through this that the consecrated bread is adored and honored in every way as God; if it is not God, I ask how far do we differ from those heathens who worshipped wood and stone? For they thought that divinity dwelt in them, which was not the case, nor would they have wished to worship stones unless they had first rashly believed them to be gods.
But someone will say, “We have the word of God saying, ‘This is my body.’” It is true, you have the word of the Lord. And similarly you had what made for Roman tyranny, namely, “Whatsoever thou shalt bind, etc.” But that, when more diligently examined, was found to do nothing for tyranny. Wherefore let us also discuss the present matter, lest it happen to us who follow blind leaders to fall together with them into a pit. For the Lord has forbidden believing those who say, “Here or there is Christ.” Therefore I ought not to believe those saying Christ is in the bread, otherwise I could not excuse myself as deceived, having refused to hear Christ who warned beforehand. For these are now those perilous times in which He predicted this would happen. Nor did the Apostles speak thus about this sacrament: they broke bread, they called it bread, they were all silent about this Roman faith.
Nor does Paul contradict this in 1 Corinthians 10, who although he says, “Is not the bread which we break a participation in the body of the Lord?” nevertheless does not say, “The bread is the body of the Lord,” so that in that place it is almost manifest that “is” is to be explained as “signifies.” This is more evidently clear from the comparison which he makes between our bread and things sacrificed to idols, which he acknowledges are not changed in reality, yet he says they are or signify a certain communion with the devil, to whom they are sacrificed. For this reason he teaches that we should abstain from them unless they are taken without discrimination.
And concerning this matter, in the times of Thomas Aquinas, there were those who said Christ is in the bread, but as in a sign (which others said is sacramentally only, not corporally). Although Thomas rejects this opinion as heretical, and the Romans adhere to his words as to an oracle, nevertheless they cannot resolve the words of Christ saying, “If anyone says to you, ‘Lo, here is Christ,’ do not believe it.” To which also the word of Paul in the aforementioned passage seems to point, where he says, “The same spiritual food was eaten by the fathers in the desert with us.”
But first let us see on what foundations the Romans fortify their doctrine, a matter so singular and wonderful that nothing similar is found in the scriptures. We read that Christ was incarnate, but only once, and this in the womb of the virgin. But that this would happen was predicted by many oracles of the prophets, shown by Christ’s life, death, and conversation, and preached by the Apostles. But that Christ is daily “enpanated” (if I may speak thus) in the hands of any sacrificing priest has neither been predicted by the prophets nor preached by the Apostles. It is founded on that one saying of Christ: “This is my body; do this in remembrance of me.”