A Treatise of the Lord’s Supper

by Peter Martyr Vermigli

Table of Contents

Introduction

Chapter 1: The Persuasion of Holy Scripture

Chapter 2: Propositions and Interpretations

Chapter 3: The Present Tense and Substance

Chapter 4: The Fathers and Councils

Chapter 5: The Consent of the Church & The Arguments from the Power of God and Miracles

Chapter 6: The Faith of the Church and Idolatry

Chapter 7: The Arguments Against Transubstantiation

Chapter 8: Scriptural Changes and Figures

Chapter 9: The Apostle and Bread

Chapter 10: Arguments from the Old Fathers and Sacraments

Chapter 11: The New and Old Sacraments

Chapter 12: Substance of Sacraments

Chapter 13: Baptism and Eucharist

Chapter 14: The Marcionites and Heresy

Chapter 15: The Nature of a Sacrament

Chapter 16: The Inexplicable Absurdities of Transubstantiation

Chapter 17: The Inconveniences of Transubstantiation

Chapter 18: The Joining of Christ's Body with the Signs

Chapter 19: Baptism and the Eucharist

Chapter 20: Spiritual Eating and the Sixth Chapter of John

Chapter 21: The Fellowship of Saints and Transubstantiation

Chapter 22: The Division of the Sacrament

Chapter 23: The Continuation of the Sacrament

Chapter 24: The Humility and Submission of Christ

Chapter 25: The Nature of the Sacrifice

Chapter 26: The Contradictions of Transubstantiation

Chapter 27: The Mystical Body

Chapter 28: The Role of Miracles

Chapter 29: The Testimonies of the Fathers

Chapter 30: The Mystical Distribution and Spiritual Food

Chapter 31: Chrysostom and the Nature of the Eucharist

Chapter 32: Confuting the Arguments for Transubstantiation

Chapter 33: Understanding the Sacramental Language

Chapter 34: Understanding Figurative Language in Sacramental Context

Chapter 35: The Dignity of Christ and the Substance of Bread

Chapter 36: Chrysostom's Teachings on the Sacrament

Chapter 37: Augustine's Position on the Eucharist

Chapter 38: On the Worship of Images and Eucharistic Practices

Chapter 39: Hilary's Arguments Against the Arians

Chapter 40: Examination of Theophylact

Chapter 41: The Unity and Substance of the Eucharist

Chapter 42: Cyril and the Council of Ephesus

Chapter 43: The Synod of Constance and Transubstantiation

Chapter 44: Argument of the Glorified Body and the Presence of Christ

Chapter 45: Argument from the Nature of Sacraments

Chapter 46: The Force and Efficacy of the Word of God

Chapter 47: The Body of Christ and its Omnipresence

Chapter 48: The Arguments Against the Gross Judgement

Chapter 49: Augustine's Teachings on the Presence of Christ

Chapter 50: Fulgentius on Christ's Presence

Chapter 51: The Third Opinion on Christ's Presence

Chapter 52: Evaluating the Opinions on Christ's Presence

Introduction

The contentions that have sprung up regarding the Sacrament of the Eucharist undoubtedly aim for us to understand the manner of the conjunction of the body and blood of the Lord with the signs of bread and wine, or, as others call them, with the sacramental forms. Because it is evident to all men that this Sacrament is called the Sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord, it is necessary that these things be, in some manner, contained in the sacrament. However, in our investigation, we will not recount all things alleged on both sides, lest that which is already obscure becomes more entangled, and lest the treatise grows infinitely long. Instead, the order and disposition of the doctrine shall be reduced into four principal points.

Firstly, we will treat of that conjunction, whereby it is commonly said that the bread and wine are transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ, which seems to be a full coupling together of the sacrament with the substance. Secondly, we will examine the other opinion, which holds that bread and wine, as touching their perfect and true natures, are retained in the sacrament: and so retained, they may have the true body and blood of Christ joined unto them (as they speak) naturally, corporally, and really. Thirdly, we shall consider the view that these things are not joined together in any other way than sacramentally, that is, by significance and representation. Lastly, we shall declare, out of the opinions pertaining to the second and third points, as much as may most seem to belong unto godliness in this treatise of the sacrament.

We will begin with the opinion of transubstantiation, partly because it is the grosser, further because it is the newer, and because the other two opinions jointly and without drift refute the same. The Master of the Sentences writes in the 4th Book in the 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th distinctions. To show it briefly, it is as follows: The Minister ordained hereunto, when he utters the words instituted by the Lord over due and meet matter, that is, bread and wine, provided he has the intent (as they speak) to do it, the substance of the bread and wine is turned into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, and is so converted that the accidents of that substance which is changed or destroyed remain without a subject. Nevertheless, some would have them cleave to the body of Christ which succeeded. But this is false, because, in very deed, the body of Christ has no such accidents. Others have endeavoured to make the air a subject for them as a natural foundation. Since this cannot possibly be proved, nearly all the proponents of this opinion agree that they hang in the air and remain without a subject. Further, they will that these accidents which are seen and felt signify unto us the true body of Christ, which they have covered and hidden in them.

Afterward, they proceed further and say that this body of Christ, lying hidden under these accidents, is a sign, as well of the very body of Christ, which hung upon the cross, as also of the mystical body, that is, of the fellowship of the elect and of men predestinate. Therefore, the Master of the Sentences says that here is something which is but only a sign (and that he appoints to be the visible forms): and that there is another thing that is both the substance and the sign: namely the body of Christ, which is hidden under the accidents: for that is a substance, if it is referred to the visible forms, and a sign, if you have respect to the mystical body. Another thing (he says) there is which you may in no wise call a sign, but a substance only, to wit, the mystical body: because it is so signified, as it is no more a sign of anything. Those things which are afterward mingled in the action of these mysteries are not (he says) matters of necessity, but only thanksgiving and prayers interlaced.

If you demand of them how so great a body may be contained in that little cake, they say that this is not by the manner of quantity, or locally, or as they speak definitely, but by the manner of substance, and, as they say, sacramentally. Neither do they count it absurd that in this sacrament are contained two bodies in one and the same place, because they are constrained thus to say: for between the accidents of bread there is a quantity and that doubtless a corporal quantity. Also, they do not dislike that one and the same body is truly in many places, and that a man of a just largeness and stature, as Christ was upon the cross, and as he shall come to judgment, is truly, but invisibly, contained not only in a small cake but also in the least part thereof. Many other things might be recounted regarding this opinion, but I intend that these shall be sufficient for our treatise. He that desires more may read the Master of the Sentences in the place which we cited, together with many interpreters of him. And of the change or transubstantiation, these arguments they bring.

Chapter 1:

The Persuasion of Holy Scripture

First, the holy scripture persuadeth it. For in the sixth of John, the Lord promised that He would give His flesh, not only for the life of the world, but also to be eaten. And He added: Unless a man shall eat my flesh and drink my blood, he shall not have life. He said moreover, that He is the bread from heaven, and that the living bread, whom the Father had given. Here He manifestly promised that He would give Himself to be eaten after the manner of bread: and that which He promised, He in good earnest performed, as the Evangelists testified was done in the last supper.

And that the same which is given is the Lord's body, Paul declareth, when he saith: He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Again, he eateth and drinketh his own damnation, because he discerneth not the Lord's body. But they say that the whole strength of the argument consisteth in those words wherein it is said: This is my body. Which they affirm to be manifest and needeth no expositions. And it behoveth (say they) that we should believe them, for the reverence that we owe unto the word of God.

For the Evangelists, as touching those words, have conspired together in one: namely, Matthew, Mark, and Luke: also Paul the Apostle, in the first Epistle to the Corinthians. And unless the thing were of great importance, and so to be taken absolutely as it soundeth, the Apostles would not with so great unity have consented one with another. But if it be lawful to shift off by tropes or figures, nothing (say they) will now be safe from heretics.

Chapter 2:

Propositions and Interpretations

Furthermore, the propositions of such a kind, as is this, "This is my body," must be understood as that the subject and the predicate do represent and signify all one thing, and be, as it is said in the schools, a proposition of one and the selfsame signification, unless there be found anything before or after in the joining together of the speech which may drive us to a trope or allegory, which in this place is not found.

Nay rather, if thou rightly look upon the words which follow, they revoke us to the plainness of the proposition: For it is said: Which is given for you. But it is manifest that the very body itself of Christ was given for us.

Moreover, those things which differ in nature and form, and by the logicians are commonly called Disparata, as a man, a horse, and a stone, be in that case as they can never be mutually verified one of another. For it will never be true, that a man is a stone, or else contrariwise. But that in this sense the body of Christ and bread are to be understood, no man doubteth. Wherefore it will never be true to say of bread, that it is the body of Christ. So that when the Lord pronounced, "This is my body," it must of necessity be that the substance of bread went away.

Chapter 3:

The Present Tense and Substance

It is added that Christ did not without consideration use the verb substantive of the present tense, so as He said: "This is my body." Doubtless He might have said: "This signifieth my body," "This representeth my body," "This is the figure of my body," or "the sign of my body:" or else thus: "This bread is my body." All these things, seeing He refused, the saying is absolutely to be understood, as He pronounced it.

Besides, if the substance of bread should remain, there should be two substances together at once, yea and those corporal substances: and they should one pierce another, which by the doctrine of transubstantiation is removed. Again there would be an imminent danger lest the people should fall into idolatry. For seeing the body of Christ must be worshipped, if bread remain there, that also should be worshipped. Neither doth it appear meet for the dignity of Christ's body, that it should after this manner be joined either unto bread or unto wine.

They argue also from the manner of a sacrifice. For if the body of Christ be offered by the minister, it behoveth that he have the same, and that he there stand in the sight of God, unless we will say, that he only offereth a thing signified and shadowed.

Chapter 4:

The Fathers and Councils

Afterward, they cry out that the fathers are wholly on their side. First, they cite Irenaeus, who saith in the fifth book: When the cup tempered and the bread broken, receive the word of God, it is become the Eucharist of the blood and body of Christ. In the fourth book, he spake in a manner the same thing. Also Tertullian in the fourth book saith, that Christ taking bread and distributing the same to His disciples, made it His body. And Origen upon Matthew the 26th chapter saith: This bread which God being the word confesseth to be His body, and the rest that followeth.

Cyprian in his sermon De Coena Domini: This common bread, being changed into flesh and blood, procureth life. And again in the same sermon: This bread, which the Lord delivered unto His disciples, being changed not in form but in nature, is by the omnipotency of the word made flesh. Ambrose in the fourth book De Sacramentis: It is bread before the words of the Sacraments; after consecration, it is of bread become the flesh of Christ. And many other like sayings he hath in his books of the sacraments.

And to the same purpose, Chrysostom in his 60th homily De Eucharistia, which is in the sixth tome, saith: This sacrament is like unto wax put unto the fire, where nothing of the substance remaineth but wholly becometh like the fire: so saith he, the bread and wine is spent with the substance of Christ's body. Augustine upon the prologue of the 23rd Psalm, saith that Christ bare Himself in His own hands, whenas in the supper He instituted the sacrament. And in the 98th Psalm expounding that sentence, Fall ye down before His footstool, affirmeth that the flesh of Christ must be worshipped in the sacrament: which would not be meet, if bread were yet remaining.

And in his third book De Trinitate, A sacrament (saith he) cannot be made, but by the power of the Holy Ghost working together with us. And Hilary in his eighth book De Trinitate, saith that Christ is in us by the truth of nature, and not by an argument of the will only: and he saith, that in the Lord's meat, we truly receive the word being flesh. Leo the Bishop of Rome in the tenth epistle to the clergy and people of Constantinople: We receiving the virtue of the heavenly meat, let us pass into His flesh which was made our flesh. They add that Damascenus is altogether on their side. Also Theophylact is brought in by them, who most plainly made mention of the changing of elements.

But as touching Anselm and Hugo de Sancto Victore, which were in the latter age, there is no doubt but that they warrant transubstantiation: and that therefore the fathers as well old as new, they say make of their side.

And they bring in Councils: namely the Council of Ephesus against Nestorius, where Cyril was president: and he hath many things of this matter and especially he saith, that we being made partakers of the holy body and precious blood of Christ, receive not common flesh, nor as it were the flesh of a man sanctified, but that which is the true sanctifying flesh, and that which is become proper to the word itself. And they cite the Council of Vercellensis under Leo the ninth, wherein Berengarius was condemned, of whose recantation there is mention in the decrees De Consecrat distinct. 2. and in the fourth book of Sentences. They cite also the Lateran Council at Rome, under Innocent the third, who mentioned transubstantiation in the decretals De summa trinitate, in the chapter Firmiter: and De celebratione Missarum in the chapter Cum Martha. Also in the Council of Constance, where Wycliffe was condemned, who denied this transubstantiation.

Chapter 5:

The Consent of the Church & The Arguments from the Power of God and Miracles

Further they cite for themselves, (as they say) the consent of the whole Church, wherewith Scotus was so greatly moved in his fourth book, as when transubstantiation might not firmly be showed by the scriptures and by reasons, yet he yieldeth unto it, lest he should be against the consent of the Church.

Furthermore, they draw a most large and far-fetched argument from the power of God, because He can do far greater things than these. And they bring in many miracles which were done for the testimony of the truth: as that this sacrament in the hands of Gregory, was by his prayer turned into a finger of flesh. Sometimes appeared therein a little child: and the sacrament, being pierced with small spears, yielded blood.

They speak many things also as touching the body of Christ glorified, (which Paul in the Epistle to the Corinthians calleth spiritual) to the intent they might show, that it was very lawful for Christ to deliver His body shadowed and covered with accidents. And they persuade that it is not simply put in the Greek, "This is my body," but the article is added, so as it is not said σώμα (body), but τὸ σῶμά μου (this my body). And the Greeks are wont to add articles when they will make the speech very proper and significant.

To these things they add: Christ promised to His Apostles: I will be with you until the end of the world, which must not only be understood as touching the divinity, because this also they knew well enough: but insomuch as they were sad for His corporal departure, He putteth them in comfort that He would also be with them in body. Furthermore, if transubstantiation should be taken away, and bread remain, seeing that cannot be the body of Christ, there will be left only a signification, and then the new sacraments should not have anything which would not be found in the old sacraments. For those also did signify Christ: yea rather if thou have respect to the outward show, they did more express Him than bread and wine. For there brute beasts were slain, and their bloodshed, which in bread and wine happeneth not.

Chapter 6:

The Faith of the Church and Idolatry

And it seemeth a marvel unto them, that seeing Christ promised in Peter, that the faith of the Church should not fail, and that the same is the most dear spouse of Christ, how it happeneth that He hath so long forsaken it in this idolatry, and hath not showed the truth of the thing against so great an abuse. They argue also, that if the substance of bread and wine being preserved, the truth of things cannot be present, as it is concluded, nothing shall be had more in the sacrament than in common meats and banquets. For there also the faithful will understand a signification of bread and wine, and so the dignity of sacraments shall perish. Lastly, they say, that the word of God must still retain its power and force which remaineth not, if transubstantiation be taken away.

Ambrose in his Treatise De Sacramentis saith, that by the operation of the word of God the bread and wine remain as they be, and yet be changed into another thing. Which words Algerius, a late writer, in the first book which he made of this sacrament, the seventh chapter, expoundeth that bread and wine remain as touching the accidents, but are changed into another or into a better thing as touching the substance.

Chapter 7:

The Arguments Against Transubstantiation

But now let us see by what arguments on the other part this opinion is overthrown. First, the holy scripture teacheth that there is bread, therefore it is not true that the substance thereof is converted into another thing. The Evangelists say, that Christ took bread, brake it, and gave it to His disciples. And Paul five times made mention of bread: Is not the bread which we break, the participation of the body of Christ? And, We be all one bread and one body, which do participate of one bread. Also, How often soever ye eat of this bread, ye shall show the Lord's death until His coming. Again, Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Lastly: Let a man try himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

These things, seeing they be plain and manifest, therefore if an angel from heaven shall preach otherwise, let him be accursed. Verily I might allege that which is oftentimes said as touching the breaking of bread, but because I see that it may be otherwise understood (as though it should be spoken of the unclean and common meat: as in Isaiah the 58th chapter: Break thy bread unto him that is hungry. And Jeremiah in his Lamentations the fourth chapter: The little children desired their bread, and there was no man that would break unto them.) therefore I omit it and will bring nothing but that which is firm.

And now seeing the places before cited be very plain, they ought simply to be taken. But some cavil that it is called bread by reason of the natures which be converted, and to speak after their manner, this name is given of the end from which they have their nature, and they bring the like places. When a serpent was made of the rod of Aaron, it devoured the serpents of the sorcerers, which they also made of their rods. It is said that the rod of Aaron devoured the serpents of the sorcerers. Further, in the holy scriptures, man is sundry times called earth, because his body was made thereof. Woman also was by Adam called bone of his bones, and flesh of his flesh, because she was framed thereof by God.

Chapter 8:

Scriptural Changes and Figures

But these things are vainly objected, because in the holy scriptures there is plain mention made of these changes: So then the necessity of the history and words drive us unto these figures, and therefore we admit them. Let these men in like manner show unto us in the holy scriptures, that this change was made: namely of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, and we will also grant them these figures, to wit, that the bread should not be called the same which it is now, but which it was before.

And thereunto belongeth that which they say: If a man would give me wine, which straightway would turn to vinegar, and I having that vinegar in a pot, I might fitly say: This is thy wine: not that it is then wine, but because it was wine before. But here the sense judgeth of changing the wine into vinegar, which happeneth not in the Eucharist, whereas neither the sense nor reason, nor yet the holy scripture driveth us to confess such a changing as the other is.

They object a place out of John in the second chapter: When the governor of the feast had tasted the water which was made wine: whereby they will show, that the wine newly brought forth by the miracle of Christ, doth still retain the name of water. But Christ said not simply, "Water," but, "Water which was made wine." But this declaration shall they not find in the holy scriptures, that bread is said to be turned into the body of Christ.

Chapter 9:

The Apostle and Bread

They fly also sometimes to the sixth chapter of John, so as they say, that the Apostle calleth bread in this place: not bread, that is, of wheat, or common bread, but the body of the Lord, which in the sixth chapter of John is called bread, where Christ said: I am the bread of life. But against them maketh that which Paul saith: The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? because it cannot agree with the body of Christ that it should be broken, seeing it is written: Thou shalt not break a bone of him.

But these so sharp-witted men, although they have found in the sixth chapter of John, that Christ called Himself bread, where I pray you shall they find that He called Himself wine? For so much as in this supper, the other sign is called wine: namely in those words of the Evangelist: I will not hereafter drink of the fruit of this vine. But there is no doubt but that vines bring not forth accidents, but wine. Further it is to no purpose which is spoken of the fathers with great consent, that the mystical body is betokened by the signs of this sacrament, because bread is made of many grains, and wine runneth together of many grapes, which things in accidents have no truth.

And of these men we marvel very much, who if at any time they hear us bring similitudes, as for example: The rock was Christ, The Lamb or beast for sacrifice is the Passover, Circumcision is the covenant: they cry that these allegories serve not for this place. And now these men heap up everywhere tropes and figures. They say also, that bread is here taken for all that which may be eaten, as Lehem in the Hebrew tongue is taken for all kinds of meat. But against them make the Evangelists which restrain this kind of meat unto bread. Others feign that bread signifieth accidents, and the form of bread, who, as the logicians term it, do Petere principium, and take as it were already granted that which is in controversy: namely that accidents be there without a subject: which thing they ought first to prove. Neither must miracles be heaped together without necessity.

Chapter 10:

Arguments from the Old Fathers and Sacraments

Another argument is that the old Fathers had the same sacraments which we have, and yet there was no need of transubstantiation. The rock, or the water flowing out of the rock, or manna, did not need to be transubstantiated, which might not then be done; therefore, neither is this required for our sacraments. The former proposition we have read in Paul, to wit, that the old fathers and we had one and the same meat. Our adversaries deny it, and would have our sacraments altogether and in many ways be distinguished from the mysteries of the old fathers, which we also grant, as well in respect of diverse signs, as also for the difference of times and certain other properties. But as touching the matter of the sacraments, which was received by the holy Patriarchs, we say that the meat was altogether the same, and the drink the same with the substance of our sacraments.

Augustine, unto Marcellinus, writeth of the difference of these sacraments, that unto a prudent man it may suffice that by some sacraments it was foreshowed when Christ should come, and that by others it ought to be showed when He was come: where Augustine seemeth to have only a regard to the difference of the time. And in his little book De Utilitate Verae Poenitentiae Agendae, he very plainly writeth, that the old fathers when they had manna did eat the very same thing that we do eat. For (saith he) they did eat the very same spiritual meat. What else is the very same, but because they did eat even that which we do? And because unto some man it might have seemed an unworthy thing that we have no more than the Jews had, he urgeth the testimony of Paul, unto whom (saith he) it was not enough to say that the old fathers had spiritual meat, but he would add that they had the very same: whereby we may understand that they in their manna did eat the very same thing that we do eat, therefore he added, the very same. Neither is it a let which some do say: that he spake of spiritual eating, to wit, that the Patriarchs believed in Christ to come. First, because these men are not able to confirm their fleshly eating of Christ: secondly, because the old fathers not only believed with their mind, but received a token of the thing believed, that is manna or water, therefore the thing did not stand only in faith: and the saying of Augustine standeth fast: that the meat of the fathers was not only spiritual but the same.

Chapter 11:

The New and Old Sacraments

It little also availeth if thou object, out of the same Augustine upon Psalm 73 in the prologue, the differences between the new and the old sacraments: which (as it seemeth) he maketh to be three. First, that the saviour is there promised, but here given. Afterward he saith, that our sacraments be easier, fewer, nobler, and happier: and lastly, that those were as things to play with in the hands of children: but that in ours there is something more profitable and substantial. These things as touching the first must be understood of the promise of Christ that should come: but notwithstanding that He in very deed had not as yet taken flesh upon Him, yet was He spiritually given for meat unto the fathers believing in the promise. But ours are said to give Christ: namely, because they testify that He is come, so as He must be looked for no more.

Further, it is certain that ours be fewer, and have a greater facility, and they signify with greater magnificence, because the words which are declared are more plain than they were in the Old Testament. Moreover, the felicity is greater, for we be free from the yoke of ceremonies, and we live in the last hour, being undoubtedly more nigh unto the kingdom of Christ. The Spirit also is now more plentiful, and the Church extendeth more largely than it did at that time: Wherefore many kings and prophets desired to see those things which you see. And the sacraments of the law were as things for pastime in the hands of children, because it behooved the age of the old fathers to be exercised like children under many ceremonies, sundry elements, and diverse sorts of instructions.

Chapter 12:

Substance of Sacraments

But it is not proved by all these things that the sacraments of the old fathers had not as touching the substance of a mystery, those things which our sacraments have. For Cyprian hath in the second book and third epistle: Our Lord Jesus Christ offered the same thing which Melchizedek offered, that is to say, bread and wine: to wit, His own body and blood. Augustine against Faustus, the 19th book, chapter 16: In what a doting error be they which think, that the signs and sacraments being changed, the things also be diverse. And in the same treatise in the 20th book, the 21st chapter: The flesh and blood of this sacrifice, before the coming of Christ was promised under oblations of likenesses. In the passion of Christ, it was given according to the truth itself: after the ascension of Christ, it is celebrated by a sacrament of remembrance. The same father in the 26th treatise upon John: Those sacraments were in signs differing [from ours] but in the matter which is signified they be equal. Straightway he saith: therefore there was the same meat, and the same drink, howbeit to them that understood and believed: but to them which understood it not, it was but only manna, and the other but only water, but to him that believed, it was the same thing that it is now. For then Christ was to come, now He is come: was to come, and is come be diverse words, but one and the same Christ.

Bertramus among the later men thus writeth: But that our fathers did eat the same spiritual meat, and drink the same spiritual drink, Saint Paul affirmeth. Perhaps thou demandest, which same? Even the very same which at this day, the faithful people do eat and drink in the Church. For we must not think that there is a difference seeing that He is one and the very same Christ, which with His flesh fed the people, and with His blood gave them drink when they were in the desert, in the cloud, and were baptized in the sea, and which now in the Church feedeth and giveth drink unto the believing people with the bread of His body and water of His blood. And straightway again the same father: A marvel doubtless incomprehensible and inestimable: He had not as yet taken the manhood upon Him: He had not as yet tasted of death, for the salvation of the world: He had not as yet redeemed us with His blood, and yet even now, our fathers in the desert did eat His body and drink His blood by a spiritual food and an invisible drink, as the Apostle beareth witness saying: The same spiritual meat. And again: For even He also which by His omnipotent power in the Church spiritually converteth the bread and wine into the flesh of His own body and into the water of His own blood: even He then invisibly wrought the manna which was given from heaven to be His own body, and the water which was poured from heaven to be His own blood.

Chapter 13:

Baptism and Eucharist

We see moreover in the sacrament of baptism, that the Holy Ghost and remission of sins is given: yet do we not say that these things lie hidden in the waters: yea and we put on Christ, yet doth not any man say, that water is transubstantiated. Christ (they say) is after one sort in the Eucharist, and after another sort in baptism. As touching the manner, I confess that in baptism Christ is given as a mediator, as a reconciler, and to speak more properly, as a regenerator: but in this, He is distributed unto us as a meat and nourishment.

Furthermore, with this their transubstantiation, they come near unto a figure of the Marcionites: for they say: It seems to be bread and is not: The very which thing Marcion affirmed of the flesh and body of Christ, that it was not true flesh, but that it only appeared to be flesh. Christ is no juggler, neither doth He delude our senses, but by the senses He proved the Resurrection. "Feel" (saith He) "and see, for a spirit hath no flesh and bones." The Apostles might have said: we feel and we see, it appeareth to be flesh and body, but it is not: and in vain had that proof been, whereby Christ proved that He was not a fantastical body, but that He had a true body. And that He had received His own proper body, and not another, He showed by the wounds of the nails, and by the gap that was in His side. Which argument of His, if place should be given to these juggling knacks, it would be of no force.

Yea, and the fathers argue from the properties and accidents of man's nature: to wit, that Christ was very man, because He hungered, slept, wondered, sorrowed, wept, and suffered: which arguments are of none effect, if by these accidents the substance be not truly showed, so as it should not be lawful to say: it is of the same fashion, it hath the same taste, the same colour which bread is wont to have, therefore it is very bread. For heretics will confess, that Christ hungered, slept, wondered, wept, and suffered, but when thou shalt thereof infer: therefore He was very man, they will deny the consequence. For they will say, that these properties might have place in Christ although the substance of them, namely, the nature of man be not present.

Chapter 14:

The Marcionites and Heresy

They say, as touching the argument of Marcion, that it may be, he took the occasion of his error out of the Gospel, where it is written of Christ that He walked dry foot upon the water, that He was lifted up into heaven, and that He escaped out of the hands of the Jews, so as they saw Him not, and yet that these things ought not to be taken out of the Gospel by reason of the danger of the Marcionites. Whereunto we answer, that in the Gospels it is described, that Christ once or twice did these miracles, but ye appoint that these things be perpetual. And that which is in the Scriptures, we ourselves have not feigned, therefore we ought not to be accused of giving occasion. Howbeit in those things which we have devised, which we do expound and teach as doctrine without the express word of God, we must beware lest we set open a window to heretics.

Chapter 15:

The Nature of a Sacrament

Furthermore, the nature of a sacrament is corrupted, of which Augustine upon John saith, "The word cometh unto the element, and it is made a sacrament." The nature thereof is, that it should be made of these two things: but as these men appoint the elements, that is, the bread and wine are taken away: And then Augustine ought not to have said: "The word cometh unto the element," but, "It taketh away the element." And while they remove the natures of the elements, the proportion of the signification perisheth. Wherefore the bread signifieth the body of Christ, because it nourisheth, strengtheneth, and sustaineth: which we cannot attribute unto accidents. It is also a signification of many grains gathered in one, which representeth the mystical body, and that cannot be attributed unto accidents. Wherefore Paul said: "We that are many, are one bread and one body, because we are partakers of one bread."

In baptism, water is said to be the fountain of regeneration, and because the substance thereof is preserved, that doth very well agree, for the accidents of water would not be convenient. And in taking away of the substance of bread and wine in the proposition, "This is my body," they abuse the verb substantive "Is," for it is transubstantiated, turned or changed from one to another. For while they utter those words of the Lord, the bread is not yet the body of Christ. Wherefore if they would understand "Is" in its own true signification, they should utter that which is false. Therefore among the schoolmen, some grant that the verb "Is" should be taken for, "To be made," "To be changed," or "turned."

Moreover, they attribute this power or efficacy unto those few words of the Lord, that so often as they be repeated, this changing is made, and yet have they not in the holy Scriptures any word thereof. And if a man should speak those words which Paul, Matthew, Mark, or Luke hath, they would think that there is no consecration: for they ascribe all the virtue unto the words of their own Canon. But we know that then the sacrament is, when we do those things which Christ did and commanded to be done: but He not only spake those words, but He also gave thanks, He brake the bread, He did eat, and He reached it unto others to eat. And whereas there be many things here, all do concur with the truth of the sacrament, neither must any of these things be intermitted.

I pass over that they be ignorant whether consecration be had in the words of Christ or in prayers. Further, they set themselves in great peril. For it may be that an ill sacrificer or false worker doth not speak the words, doth change or invert them. Moreover, seeing an intent (as they speak) of him that consecrateth is required: it might be, that he in doing of these things thinketh nothing at all of consecration, and perhaps that he is minded not to have it done.

Chapter 16:

The Inexplicable Absurdities of Transubstantiation

They fall into many absurdities, and those inexplicable: for therein they affirm that there may be a body, and that in infinite places together and at one very time. But they say that this is no hindrance unto them, because though the body of Christ be there, yet it is not by way of quantity. And this is to be wondered at: how they place a body and a quantity, and to be truly present, and yet not by way of quantity. And seeing they affirm Him to be truly present, and corporally, and carnally as they say, but not locally, who perceiveth not that these be arguments invented to deceive?

They object that this was given to the human body of Saint Ambrose, who being at Milan was present at Tours in the funerals of Saint Martin, and there was seen: Why (say they) shall not this which Ambrose had, be rather granted to the body of Christ? But they take as granted, which we grant not. For it might be that it was revealed unto Ambrose, and that it seemed unto him he was present at those funerals, and by the help of Angels he was perhaps represented in them and unto the sight of the people, but that his body was verily in both places together, we will not grant. Further, we might leave it to the author of the miracle recited, to consider whether it be true or no.

They oppose again as touching souls, that whereas they be creatures, yet each one of them is in the head, and in all the members of our body. But they deal very unwisely, which compare a spirit with a body, and that they would have to be given unto bodies which they may lawfully do unto a spirit. Christ said plainly: "A spirit hath no flesh and bones," whereby He put no small difference between them. Further, if we should grant that that is to be given unto the body which our soul hath, it followeth not that the body of Christ can be in diverse places, because our soul and the angels cannot be in diverse places at one and the same time: for they be creatures, and therefore of a power limited and definite.

Chapter 17:

The Inconveniences of Transubstantiation

There follow also many other inconveniences: because if the mice have gnawed these sacred hosts, they will say, that they eat accidents. And if they be filled and satisfied, this also shall be a work of accidents. And if it happen that a sacrificing priest, do utter those words over a great vessel of wine, and over a great chest full of bread, and that thou demand what filleth the vessel, what the chest, or what also filled the bellies of them which did eat and drink thereof: they would answer, accidents. And because those that eat, are sustained, some of them dare to say, that God createth in the bellies of the eaters and drinkers, either phlegm or some other humour, which may be converted into blood whereby they should be nourished.

But if that sacrament be burned, as it was done in the time of Hesychius (which thing he himself testifieth upon Leviticus, and the very same hath Origen upon the same book), undoubtedly ashes will remain, and by that means shall a substance be procreated out of accidents. In like manner, worms may arise of the bread consecrated, and there also they will say that substance is brought forth of accidents. Albeit, (as they be bold fellows,) some of them feign that the former matter is by miracle brought again, by reason whereof these things may happen. But if it be lawful after this manner to breed and feign miracles, every divine may escape as he will. For to every intricate matter he will apply a miracle, and so will he unwind himself out of all arguments which shall be objected against him.

These things they affirm not only by miracles, but also by subtle sophistical arguments. As Scotus, when he is urged in the uttering of those words: "This is my body," that he should tell us what is showed in the subject of the proposition, at length answereth, that there is demonstration made of some singular or particular thing of a more general substance, which together with that which is affirmed thereof doth show the same thing or (as the schoolmen said) is of the same supposition: neither do those things differ one from another which are signified by the subject and that which thereof is affirmed, except it be by a diverse manner of conceiving. See whereinto they rush and yet for all that they escape not. For it is not yet answered by them what is showed, when it is said, "This is my body." The Bishop of Rochester saith in these propositions, that when anything is changed into another thing, it is not absurd that that which was before should be showed: And so he admitteth, that in "This is my body" should be showed the bread which was before, and is changed into the body of Christ while those words be spoken. But then (say I) the proposition is not well framed: For it should have been said: "This is made my body," or, "This is turned into my body:" otherwise, being said, "This is my body," the speech is improper.

Chapter 18:

The Joining of Christ's Body with the Signs

They which say, that the body of Christ is really joined with the signs, the natures I mean of bread and wine being preserved, do thus argue against Transubstantiation: What dignity or privilege have accidents, that they can be joined with the body of Christ, which ought to be denied to the substance and nature of bread? And if the accidents can remain, why shall not also the substance of bread be retained? Yea rather, many of the fathers suppose, that this may be done. And thence they take a similitude, that the human and divine natures in Christ do verily remain, and so remain, as one passeth not into another: whose opinions we will bring in when time shall serve.

They fall also into another absurdity: for while they break the sacrament, we demand of them what they break there. Here they stagger and some have said, as testifieth the master of the sentences in the fourth book, that the essence or substance of the body of Christ is broken: but this opinion is by him confuted: because the body of Christ is immortal, and therefore it is not subject to these things, and to new chances. There were others which said that the same is no true breaking, but that it only appeareth to be, and so seemeth unto our senses. And this is also rejected, lest we should establish here a perpetual illusion. At length they say, that they be accidents which be broken. And when as they after a sort appoint a mathematical quantity, that is, a quantity separated from matter, which if it be divided, it is only done by the power of the mind and by the promptness of the understanding. These men also divide in very deed, so as the parts divided may most manifestly be seen.

In Jeremiah we read, "Let us cast wood upon his bread," which place is cited by Tertullian and Lactantius, and they interpret that this was spoken of putting the wood of the cross into the body of Christ: and they will that mention was made of bread, because through bread Christ was to give Himself unto us. And that which the Prophet speaketh, they will have to be a figure of the bread of the sacrament: which seeing these men take away, and only leave a figure unto us, they affirm a figure of a figure, so as no sound thing remaineth. The very same may be gathered by that which is oftentimes alleged by the fathers as concerning Melchizedek, who brought the bread and the wine, the figure whereof is not by these men observed, when they remove away the bread and the wine. And the same thing followeth as touching the shewbread.

Chapter 19:

Baptism and the Eucharist

Again, we will bring a reason taken from baptism. A little before, we argued from thence that for the truth of that sacrament it was not requisite that water should be transubstantiated: now we reason from the men themselves which be baptized, of whom the Scripture plainly saith that they lay away the old man, and are again begotten: and yet is there no transubstantiation imagined in them; nevertheless, generation is described to be a motion whereby a new substance is gotten. Wherefore it is no marvel that Nicodemus took offence at the words of the Lord, wherein it was showed him that he should be born again. For while he thought with himself that a new generation was preached unto man already brought forth and well in years, he stood in doubt. But if we interpret that generation to be new, and the nativity to be spiritual, why do we not vouchsafe to do the same in the Eucharist? And why do we not transfer all things unto spiritual eating?

I gladly join together these two sacraments, Baptism and the Eucharist, because Paul in the first Epistle to the Corinthians the twelfth chapter, knitteth them together, when he saith: "All we by one spirit are baptized into one body, and have been all made to drink with one spirit." Neither is it of any force, if thou shalt say, that we be baptized into one body, to wit, the mystical body, because from the mystical body Christ is not absent, seeing He is the head thereof. And elsewhere Paul most plainly saith that we in baptism put on Christ.

Chapter 20:

Spiritual Eating and the Sixth Chapter of John

We see moreover, that the holy writers bring out of the sixth chapter of John many things as touching the sacrament of the Eucharist. Yea rather, there is none of the fathers which in the interpreting of that chapter, writeth not plentifully of the Eucharist. Whereupon we conclude a reason after this manner: The things which be there spoken, either serve unto this sacrament or they serve not: if they belong not unto this, what need is there to write them, or by those places to dispute of the Eucharist? But if they have respect unto this, seeing there is only a spiritual eating, that is by faith, whereby is received the true body and blood of Christ, what need is there to bring in another new receiving, and to imagine a carnal eating, whereby the same thing should be received again?

For if we grant that there cometh some godly and faithful man, then these men shall be constrained to admit, that twice he doth receive the body of Christ: first by a spiritual eating through faith, afterward by their carnal eating which they have never proved. And thus thou seest that these men do stop up their own way, so as they cannot truly cite those testimonies which are upon the sixth chapter of John. And while they affirm transubstantiation, they are found to be in the same error that the Capernaites were. Even they also revolved in their mind I know not what corporal eating of the flesh of Christ, from which cogitation, Christ straightway revoked them, when He said: that His words were spirit and life: and that the flesh profiteth nothing. And He objected unto them the memory of His ascension into heaven, saying: "What if ye see the Son of Man ascend into heaven where He was at the first?" But these men say that they are not of the same mind that the Capernaites were: for say they: they thought that the flesh of Christ should be cut into pieces, and should be torn with the teeth, and therefore they utterly misliked thereof: but as touching the special imagination of the Capernaites, whatsoever it was they know not, but very like it is, that they thought carnally, therefore they were troubled with the mention made of ascending into heaven.

Christ's Presence and Transubstantiation

Hereunto it serveth, that Christ said unto His Apostles about the end of His life, that He would leave the world and would depart from them: which should not be true, if He were with us by transubstantiation as these men would. They have used to answer that Christ left the world as touching mortal conditions, and as touching familiarity and bodily conversation. These indeed are subtle shifts, but they serve not to the purpose. For when Christ spake these words, Philip answered: "Behold now thou speakest plainly, and without parables." Howbeit if it were so to be understood, the speech had been obscure and like a parable.

Further, if Christ remain with us so corporally in the Eucharist, He might by the same reason remain both in our hearts, and also in ourselves. Therefore He might still after His ascension rule the Church by His own self, and be present with His Apostles. But He saith that He would leave a vicar in His stead: namely the Holy Ghost, who had not been necessary, if whole Christ as touching divinity and humanity (as these men will) were present. For seeing the flesh and body of Him is by participation in each one of us (according to their doctrine) and that His godhead is present, He might deal by His own self without the Holy Ghost to be the prompter.

Mary the mother of the Lord, the most blessed virgin, when she had heard of the Angel, that the word of God should take flesh upon Him, and that she was chosen to conceive and bring forth the Son of God, she judged these to be strange and wonderful things, and demanded how these things should be, and so forth. But this translation of the bread into the body of Christ, seeing it is no less matter than is that mystery of His incarnation and nativity of the Virgin, it is a wonder that in the holy scriptures there is found neither admiration nor question demanded of that matter: and that in none of the writings of the Evangelists or Apostles, this belief of transubstantiation is commended unto us, being a thing of so great importance. Neither do we hearken unto some that say, in the sixth chapter of John there went a question before: because the answer that was there given of spiritual eating, they will now transfer unto this sacramental eating, which nevertheless they assign to be another than that was. For us therefore doth that question and answer serve, but it nothing at all profiteth these men, who feign another eating differing from that spiritual eating, to wit, this eating which we now have in hand.

Chapter 21:

The Fellowship of Saints and Transubstantiation

Other inconveniences and absurdities do follow the feigning of these things. For Christ said: "I will that where I am, there also my minister should be:" and He spake the same oftentimes to His Apostles. And in the Apocalypse we read of certain martyrs: "They follow Him wheresoever He shall go." Whereupon would be concluded, that in the Eucharist, not only should be affirmed transubstantiation into the body of Christ, but into all the Saints. Which if it displease them, let them leave Christ in heaven with His saints, otherwise they shall follow Him together for company.

But they say: We suffer Him also to be in heaven, visible and in His majesty and glory, but yet herein the sacrament we affirm Him to be invisible: and those things which be objected as touching the fellowship of the Saints and martyrs, they be true as touching Christ, according as He is visible in heaven in His glory and majesty. This answer leaneth upon a false ground: for it admitteth that one and the same body of Christ is in many places at once: which the fathers deny. It admitteth that Christ is with us as touching His body and flesh; whereas He said, that as touching these things, He would send another in His place, namely, the Holy Ghost.

Neither can they avoid it that Christ had two bodies, seeing in the supper when He had taken bread into His hands, if it had been transubstantiated into His body, yet He Himself had borne His own body with His body, and it should be necessary to grant both the body bearing and the body borne to be both one, when as nevertheless one and the same agent and patient in respect of one and the selfsame thing in one very time cannot be. And thus we see into what absurdities they cast themselves.

They are wont to bring Augustine upon the Psalms, who said that Christ bare Himself in His own hands. But if the place which is written upon the 73rd Psalm be considered, that He, after a sort, bare Himself in His own hands: that also do we grant, because He bare in His own hands the sacrament of His own body, and not properly and really His own body. Add that because Christ communicated with His Apostles, it followeth that He did eat His own self. But they have been accustomed to answer, that these things be exercises of our faith. But we reply, that we have sentences of the scripture, in which our faith may exercise itself far otherwise than in these which men have devised. We believe that the Son of God, is incarnate of the Virgin, that He was born, that He died for us, that He was raised up from the dead, and that He was taken up into heaven, and many of these kinds of things, wherein our faith doth abundantly enough exercise itself.

And seeing the sense toucheth not, the reason understandeth not, nor experience teacheth this transubstantiation, how shall it be known? I know, thou wilt say, by faith: but if we are to deal by faith, that without the word of God cannot be had, and thereof ye be utterly destitute.

Chapter 22:

The Division of the Sacrament

Furthermore, seeing Christ made this sacrament of two parts, namely, of the body and blood, thereby it sufficiently appears that the thing cannot be received by this transubstantiation, because these things in the real and carnal body of Christ are not divided. But they have a shift, and they say that it is contained in one of these parts alone or in two. Indeed, we hear them affirm this, but the words of the Scripture teach it not: but about the bread only there is mention made of the body, and about the cup only is the blood specified.

They answer as touching the bread, that by the power of the words transubstantiation is made into the body of Christ or into the flesh of Christ properly and by itself, and that the blood and the soul and divinity follow by concomitance. And in like manner do they speak of the cup, that by an efficacy of the words, first and properly there is a transubstantiation made into the blood, but by a concomitance or a kind of conjunction there is had both the body and the soul and the divinity. By this subtle reasoning, they make Christ less provident, as He that hath given no more unto the two parts than is severally contained in one of them.

And from this fancy has grown the practice that afterward they divided the sacrament, and in giving only one part unto the laity, they have persuaded them that they have even as much as if they received both parts. Add that by this feigned device, they set open a window unto many counterfeit opinions: because there is no opinion whereunto they by their concomitance may not tie infinite things. And it would follow, as we above said, that all the Saints are present in this sacrament, seeing they always follow Christ. But the only reason whereby we refute them, is this, that they teach what the scripture does not speak.

Chapter 23:

The Continuation of the Sacrament

There is another false and absurd opinion that has followed this transubstantiation: in that they have thought that after the receiving of the sacraments, there remains still a sacrament, and that the bread or show of bread does really and verily contain in it the body of Christ. That this is false we will show by other sacraments, where the whole consists in action, which being taken away, it is no more a sacrament.

It appears in baptism that when a man is dipped or sprinkled with water by the words of the Lord, then it ceases to be a sacrament, the very same thing was in circumcision: for that sacrament also consisted in action. Neither will I disdain to take those which are called sacraments by them, as is confirmation, extreme unction, penance, and other such like: all of which we see have place in action only. But they are wont to say that this sacrament of the Eucharist must be excepted. But how logically our adversaries speak this, it may be easily perceived. When all the parts of the induction are granted, and there is only an instance put of the thing in controversy, who sees not that it is lewdly done, and only to dally with the argument, for that is after a sort to grant the premises, and to deny the conclusion?

The Hindrance of Transubstantiation

By reason of these strange wonders of this metamorphosis, we are hindered from the end, which is chiefest, and is commended unto us by Christ in the holy scriptures: namely, the remembrance of Christ and His death. For here all the mind and meaning of these men is occupied in believing of transubstantiation; yea thou mayest see some sacrificers, who when they are come to the Communion, only urge and thrust this upon us to be believed, passing over other things more necessary.

And by the means of this feigned device, the Communion is less frequented, because men being persuaded in that, began to think with themselves: If Christ be there corporally and carnally covered with accidents, surely we will go unto the temple: we will see, we will worship, we will call upon, we will light candles, and such other like things, whereby they thought they might gratify Christ. Which if they had not thought, but had judged, as true it is, that it is only a sacrament, they would thereby have understood that they should have no commodity unless they had communicated, and their minds would have been more stirred up unto the Communion, which is truly to satisfy the institution of Christ.

Chapter 24:

The Humility and Submission of Christ

Moreover, we ought to call to mind that the time of humility and submission of Christ is passed away, and that He now reigns in heaven, and that He has a name which is above every name. Wherefore then should it be requisite by transubstantiation to send Him down again communicated as touching the body into our jaws and bellies? I know that they say He is not hurt, He draws no uncleanness. I will grant it, but yet it is not very decent that, as they say, He should be detained under those accidents so long as they remain sound. When these things shall be dissolved, they say that the body of Christ flies away. Whereby it comes to pass that they daily and especially until noontide constrain Him perpetually to depart and fly away. But they say, that we must let these cogitations pass, and yet they themselves by their carnal transubstantiation do suggest the same.

If they might be brought to understand that we should do all things there spiritually, there would be no such cogitation. And while they appoint His natural and carnal body to be present, do they do it with the intent that He should penetrate our soul? Or else that He may convey Himself into our body? Into the soul they cannot say; because nothing is there taken carnally or corporally. But if they would have that the body should be penetrated by Him, we demand why He will do this unto it? They will answer, to the intent that man may be sanctified. But it is meet that sanctification should begin at the soul, not at the body. They say that a certain power and efficacy is imprinted by the water, and that the soul is made the better, and the body also confirmed. But if we speak of the power, it is not of necessity that this should be by transubstantiation, seeing it may have it without the same.

Chapter 25:

The Nature of the Sacrifice

The ancient Fathers, when they taught the nature of this Sacrament, said that an unbloody sacrifice is here sacrificed, which will not well agree if we should determine that there is true and corporal blood. Neither does it suffice that they say: it is an unbloody sacrifice, because Christ is not here slain, nor yet His blood violently drawn forth. For although these things are not done, yet without blood (according to the gross imagination of these men) the thing is not done. Wherefore it appears that the Fathers so spoke, because they would only have a memory here of the true sacrifice, and a spiritual receiving thereof, which is done by faith. Moreover, they are wont to say that the body and blood of Christ is shadowed and covered with the accidents of bread and wine, lest we should seem to eat raw flesh and to drink blood. But I do not think that these men will say, however they paint and color the matter, if their transubstantiation be true, that we do eat raw flesh: insomuch as no reason is brought either by them or by the scriptures that it should be sodden. And yet it is written of the Paschal lamb, which was a figure of this sacrament, that nothing thereof should be eaten raw.

Furthermore, we see that Christ in the Eucharist instituted a sacrament, whereby it comes to pass that all things are done there sacramentally. Neither is it required, that in Sacraments more should be given or desired than the reason of a Sacrament shall require. Further, if we weigh what Christ did in that last supper, we may easily perceive the thing; it is proved, that He gave His own body. If we demand further, what manner of one He gave, they cannot determine with themselves.

Some seem to say that He gave such as He had, namely a passable and mortal body. However, such a body with those conditions which it then had, might not carnally, as these men dream, be contained in small pieces of bread. But others, who think themselves wiser, say that Christ in Himself had a body mortal and passable: but that in bread He gave a glorified and spiritual body. Then does that make against them, which we read in the words of the Lord: "This is my body which is given for you, and my blood which shall be shed for you": where He plainly extends His speech both unto the body which He then had, and unto the blood which He at the same hour possessed. For these glorified and impassible things He received not until the resurrection was past.

Chapter 26:

The Contradictions of Transubstantiation

We argue, the conditions of the body passable and glorified are contrary one to another, so as they cannot both together at one time be in one subject. Whereupon it follows that if ye will have them put into the body of Christ at one very time, ye make Christ's body to be twain. Experience and the histories teach us, that we must not allow of transubstantiation, because they write that Victor the Pope of Rome died by drinking of poison out of the chalice. And Henry the Emperor was poisoned by taking of bread in the Eucharist. If all things are there transubstantiated, and that only accidents are remaining, how may these things be?

We know that every one of the Sacraments (as the adversaries themselves speak) consist of matter and form. The matter, they say, is the signs or elements, but the form they say is that which is added by the word. But that which is compounded of the two, must not cast away the one, so as nothing thereof should remain but accidents: otherwise the nature of composition and conjunction would not be kept. Therefore it is concluded that the substances of bread and wine do remain. And before they are aware, the body of Christ is by them deprived of quantity, place, and distance of parts, so as His whole body is constrained to be in the least piece thereof.

Chapter 27:

The Mystical Body

This Sacrament is not only called the Sacrament of the body of Christ our Savior, but also of the mystical body: wherefore Paul in the first Epistle to the Corinthians said: "Ye be the body of Christ": and again, "We that are many, be one bread and one body, which be partakers of one bread." And Augustine in his 22nd book De Civitate Dei, the 10th Chapter, saith that Christians do not offer sacrifice unto Martyrs. The sacrifice undoubtedly is the body of Christ, which is not offered unto Martyrs, because they themselves be the same, to wit, the body of Christ. Wherefore seeing this Sacrament is of both the bodies, even as they appoint not that the bread should be transubstantiated into the body mystical: so it may not be required that it should be truly and properly converted into the body of the Lord, seeing it is declared to be the Sacrament as well of the one as of the other.

And of this opinion it would follow, that as well the faithful as the unfaithful do receive the body of the Lord, which I have elsewhere disproved by two reasons. First, that seeing the body of Christ is not plucked away from the spirit of Christ, it would follow that the wicked should receive the spirit of Christ. Secondly, seeing infidels be dead as touching the inward man, they altogether want the instrument whereby they should receive spiritual things. And Augustine plainly said: that none do eat the body of Christ, but they which be of His body. And Jerome in the fourth book upon Jeremiah the 22nd Chapter: And whereas he infers: They shall not eat and drink, he understands the body and blood of our Savior. And he spoke of the Heretics. And the same Father upon Isaiah the 66th Chapter: While they be not holy in body and in spirit, neither do they eat the flesh of Jesus nor do drink His blood. And many such like places are had out of the Fathers.

Chapter 28:

The Role of Miracles

And whereas here they so very often pretend unto us many miracles, we must not so easily give credit, because miracles are not wont to be brought in, unless it be in respect that they be strange and wonderful things, by whose unaccustomed happening, a weight may be added unto the word of God. For then men be stricken with admiration, and may be easily led to embrace the doctrine of Christ. But here is no visible thing changed, and there is nothing that can stir up men to admiration, wherefore they seem in vain to crave help of miracles. The Virgin indeed conceived of the Holy Ghost, but this she sensibly perceived to be done. And if any at any time have been converted unto Christ, they perceived that their mind and their life was changed from the former conversation. But here is nothing perceived of these miracles which they imagine. Only they are talked of, but can be proved by no reason, or experience, or scripture.

Unto these things that have been already said, add, that the breaking of bread is after the same manner unto the death and passion of Christ, as bread is unto the body. But breaking, as they themselves also affirm, is a Sacrament and sign of the passion of Christ, and yet for all that it is not so to be transubstantiated, as it makes the same to be truly and really present: therefore neither shall the bread be so changed into the body, as it may make the same to be present really. And then forasmuch as this opinion has nothing else but contention of words and inexplicable difficulties, it furthers not unto godliness.

Chapter 29:

The Testimonies of the Fathers

But now let us consider the Fathers and whether they judge so or not. Irenaeus, against the Valentinian heretics, says: "The earthly bread, when it has received that faculty from the word of God, it is no more common bread, but is made the Eucharist, which consists of two things, to wit, earthly and heavenly." First of all, he does not deny the Eucharist to be bread, except thou make it common bread. Afterward, he says that it consists of two things, whereof one is terrestrial as bread, the other celestial, as the body of Christ. And as on the one part is retained the truth, to wit, as touching the body of the Lord, so on the other part it is to be preserved, namely as touching bread. And he adds by a similitude: even so our bodies receiving the same are no more corruptible.

Tertullian, in his first book against Marcion, says that God did not cast away bread, being His creature, seeing in it He represented His body. And in the fourth book against the same Marcion, He received bread and distributed it to His disciples, making the same to be His body, saying, "This is my body," that is, a figure of my body. But a figure it should not be, unless it were a body of the truth.

Origen, upon the book of Numbers, Homily 16, says: "We are said to drink the blood of Christ, not only by the rite of the Sacraments, but also when we receive His word." The very same thing Jerome also wrote sometimes upon Ecclesiastes, the third chapter. The same Origen, upon Matthew the 26th chapter: "This bread which God, being the Word, confesses to be His body, is a nourishing word of souls." Upon Leviticus, the 7th Homily: "For there is in the Gospel also a letter that kills, and not in the Old Testament only. For if according to the letter, thou follow that which is said: 'Unless ye shall eat my flesh,' and so forth." And in the same book, Homily 9: "Do not thou stand in doubt in the blood of the flesh, but learn rather the blood of the Word, and hear Him speaking unto thee. For this is my blood which is shed for you." Origen, upon Matthew the 15th chapter: "The bread sanctified as touching that which it has material passes into the belly and is cast out into the draught." And straightway after: "Not the matter of the bread but the word spoken over the same is it that profiteth, yet not him that unworthily eateth it unto the Lord." The same father, against Celsus, the 8th book: "When as we have given thanks for the benefits bestowed upon us, we eat the loaves that be offered."

Cyprian

Cyprian, in the sixth Epistle of the first book unto Magnus, says: "The Lord calls His body bread, which is kneaded together by the uniting of many grains, and He calls His blood wine that is pressed out of clusters and many grapes." And when he interprets the Lord's Prayer, he calls the body of the Lord, bread. And in his sermon De Coena Domini, he says that we do not sharpen the teeth, but only break and eat that bread with a sincere faith. And in his sermon De Chrismate, he says manifestly that sacraments have names of those things which they signify. These two sayings it seems that Augustine borrowed from him, the latter in his Epistle to Boniface. But when he says the other, "Why preparest thou thy teeth or belly? Believe and thou hast eaten," that he has in the 25th treatise upon John. But the same Cyprian, in the third Epistle and second book unto Caecilius: "In wine," he says, "is showed the blood of the Lord." And against the Aquarii he says, "The blood of Christ cannot seem to be present in the cup, if the wine cease to be therein," which by these men's transubstantiation does come to pass. And in his sermon De Coena Domini, he writes that the signs are changed into the body of Christ, but so as he takes a similitude of Christ Himself in whom the human nature appeared, and the divine nature lay hidden. By which similitude thou seest that he would that as in Christ remained the two natures, so they are preserved in this sacrament. And Cyprian, in his third Epistle and second book: "By this reason, neither can the body of the Lord be in meal alone or in water alone, unless both of them shall be united and coupled together, and made firm into a lump of one loaf, whereby also in the sacrament itself our people is said to be united."

Athanasius, expounding those words, "If any man shall speak a word against the Son of man, it is forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world nor yet in the world to come," writes: "And how great a body should be needful unto this, that the world should eat of it?" But he infers that the thing must be understood spiritually, and that therefore the Lord in that place against the Capernaites made mention of His ascension. Basil, in his Liturgy, calls bread an example of the like form of the body of Christ, and that after the words of consecration. Dionysius, De Hierarchia Ecclesiastica, the third chapter: "The Bishop openeth the bread hidden and undivided, and cutteth it into morsels."

Ambrose, Jerome, and Chrysostom

Ambrose, in his exposition of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, when he speaks of doing this in remembrance of Christ and His death, says that we, in eating and drinking of the flesh and blood of Christ, do signify the things that are offered. And again, about the same place he says: "That we take it into the mystical cup for a figure of Christ's blood." And in the fourth book, the fourth chapter, where he puts a changing of the signs, he treats also of our changing into Christ: and yet it is not affirmed that they which receive the Sacrament are transubstantiated. And the same Father, in the same fourth book De Sacramentis, the fourth chapter: "This we add moreover: How can it be that which is bread should by consecration be the body of Christ?" And straightway: "If there be so great a strength in the word of the Lord, as things should begin to be which were not, how much rather is the word so effectuous, that the things which were may remain, and yet be changed into another thing?"

Jerome, upon Matthew, says plainly that in bread and wine are represented the body and blood of the Lord. Chrysostom, upon the later Epistle unto the Corinthians, says that not only that which is set before us upon the table is the body of Christ, but also the poor people unto whom we are bound to do good: because even he that says, "This is my body," said also by His word, that He receives alms and is needy in the poor. In his eleventh homily upon Matthew in his work which is called imperfect: he says that in the holy vessels there is not the body of Christ and the blood of Christ, but a mystery of the body and blood of Christ. Also upon the twelfth chapter of the second Epistle to the Corinthians, the 27th homily: Even as Christ, both in the bread and in the cup, said, "Do this in the remembrance of me." The same father, upon the 22nd Psalm, upon these words, "Thou hast prepared a table in my sight." As it is showed unto us that there is every day in the sacrament bread and wine according to the order of Melchizedek, unto the similitude of the body and blood of Christ. Emisenus, whom they cite De Consecratione distinct. 2, and he seems to put a change of the signs: even the selfsame man makes mention of our changing into Christ.

Augustine's Testimonies on the Eucharist

Augustine has many testimonies on this matter. Upon the 82nd Psalm, he says: "This that ye see, ye shall not eat, neither shall ye drink this blood which they will pour out: it is a mystery that I speak unto you, which if it be spiritually understood, it will quicken you." In De Trinitate, the third book and tenth chapter: "The bread for this purpose made, is eaten up in receiving of the sacrament." There is no cause why the Bishop of Rochester should attempt to apply this saying to the Shewbread. We have shown elsewhere by various arguments that his interpretation is incorrect.

First, if thou follow the plain sense and that which offers itself at first view and which the words suggest, thou shalt manifestly perceive that the speech is of the Eucharist. Erasmus, in the books of Augustine which he edited, wrote in the margin "Eucharist." Further, a little after in the same chapter, while he treats of the same thing, he makes such evident mention of the Eucharist that even the adversary cannot deny it. Of the same Eucharist, he had written before in the fourth chapter of that book when he began the same treatise.

Add herewithal: that expressly in these words which we have in hand, it is plainly called a sacrament. If he had meant it to be understood generally, it would have been no less applicable to those things that he had reckoned before, namely unto the brazen serpent and to the stone erected by Jacob, than unto the Shewbread. But in those words, he did not use this word sacrament, which afterward (that we may understand he speaks of the Eucharist) he would not suppress. Lastly, he says: "The bread made for this purpose is eaten up in the sacrament," which does not agree with the Shewbread, for that was not made to this end, that it should be eaten, but that they, being set upon the table, should remain before the Lord. Therefore they are called in the Hebrew Panim. It came to pass that without regard, they were eaten, lest they should putrefy before the Lord. Therefore, they were changed every week. When it had been once dedicated unto God, it was given the honor of being eaten by the priests. But the bread of our Eucharist was verily made for the purpose of being eaten in receiving of the sacrament.

Moreover, Augustine says in the present tense: "It is eaten," and not "It was eaten," which it would have to be if he had spoken of a figure and ceremony of the Old Testament. In De Fide ad Petrum, the 19th chapter, he calls it a sacrament of bread and wine. As touching the memory and death of Christ, he abundantly instructed Peter in the faith, but of this transubstantiation which these men so greatly urge at this day, he speaks not one word. Against Faustus in the 20th book and the 21st chapter, he says that the flesh and blood of Christ was promised to us in the Old Testament under the similitude of sacrificed beasts; upon the cross, it was given in very deed; but in the sacrament, it was celebrated by a memorial. In the 21st book De Civitate Dei, the 25th chapter, he plainly affirms that the wicked do not eat the matter of the sacrament, that is, the body of Christ. For he is not to be accounted (saith he) to eat the body of Christ, who is not in the body of Christ. And he, in whom Christ abideth not, neither does he abide in Christ. And similar words he has in the 20th treatise upon John: but in the 30th treatise, he says: that the body of Christ is in some certain place in heaven, but that His truth is everywhere spread, which he therefore speaks because truth is spiritual and is always present with the faithful. And communicants, wherever they be, do confess Christ and believe that He had a true body, not a feigned body as the heretics thought.

Against Adamantius the Manichee, the 12th chapter, he writes: "The Lord doubted not to say, This is my body, when as yet He gave a sign of His body." Neither does it matter if thou say: He gave both the sign and the thing signified, for Augustine did not intend this, but he would show that the saying is figurative, and like unto another which he quotes from Deuteronomy: "The blood is the life." Therefore, he said: "The Lord doubted not," because in tropes or figures we dare do something. In his third book of Christian doctrine, the 16th chapter, he showed that it was a figurative kind of speech which we have in the sixth chapter of John: "Unless ye shall eat the flesh of the Son of Man," etc., because a wicked thing seems to be commanded. For it is more heinous to eat the flesh of man than to kill him, and to drink blood than to shed it. Therefore (saith he) it is a commanding figure, namely, that we should sweetly and profitably lay up in memory the flesh of Christ that was crucified and wounded for us. In an epistle unto Boniface, he said most plainly, that sacraments take their name from those things whereof they should be sacraments: and he expressed by name the sacrament of the body of Christ. And he adds that the sacrament of the blood of Christ is the blood of Christ. And all this he wrote to show that baptism is the sacrament of faith, and that therefore it may be said that it is faith, and that young children being baptized have faith, because they receive this sacrament.

And lest any should say that these be signs substantially (as these men speak) of the thing present, let them consider the similitudes which these men have alleged: to wit, that we say, when we are near unto Easter, that tomorrow or the next day after shall be the Passion of the Lord, and upon Sunday the Lord rose again, when as yet these things are not now present but were done long before. Further, he here affirms that the baptism of young children is faith; which nevertheless young children presently have not. Yea, and the same father, as we have it De Consecratione distinct. 2 in the Chapter Interrogo vos, saith that it is as sinful a negligence to suffer the word which is preached to slip out of our minds, as it is for a part of the sacrament to fall upon the earth. If this were granted, this transubstantiation would take but small place. For it would seem to be far more absurd that the body itself of Christ should fall or be trodden underfoot than if any part of the holy words should be heard with small regard.

Moreover, upon the 8th Psalm, he says that Christ admitted Judas in the supper when He commended unto us the figure of His body. They are accustomed to say that the figure or sign in this sacrament, which is the body of Christ, being hidden with accidents, is His own dead and unbloody body as He hung upon the cross, and that the blood hidden under the accidents of wine is the figure of the blood shed upon the altar of the cross. But who perceives not that the devices of these men are vain? For there ought to be put a sign and figure which is sensible and more known than the thing signified. Therefore, the Master of the Sentences out of Augustine defined a sacrament to be a visible sign of an invisible grace. But the body of Christ being hidden under accidents, as they affirm, is no less obscure than that which hung upon the cross; yea, and if I may say the truth, more unknown and obscure than the thing signified. Which is against the nature of a sign and figure. For more easily is the body known and considered by us how it hung upon the cross, than as they make it in the Eucharist.

Chapter 30:

Mystical Distribution and Spiritual Food

Leo the Pope, in an Epistle to the Clergy and people of Constantinople, wrote that this is a mystical distribution, a spiritual food, and a heavenly virtue: "That here we receive it, to the intent we may be made the flesh of Christ, who for our sakes took our flesh upon him." Cyril, in the fourth book and fourteenth chapter upon John, says: "On this wise he gave unto the believing disciples pieces of bread, saying: Take ye." The same Father, in an Epistle to Calosyrius, writes: "Wherefore it became him after a sort to be united unto our bodies, by his holy flesh, and by his precious blood, which we receive in the lively blessing in bread and wine."

Now, we will allege Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus: he lived in the time of Cyril and was present at the Synods of Ephesus and Chalcedon. He was accounted most learned and eloquent. During the Synod of Ephesus, when there was a dissension between John the Patriarch of Antioch and Cyril the Patriarch of Alexandria, Theodoret sided with the Patriarch of Antioch. However, the matter was resolved, and at the Synod of Chalcedon, Theodoret was recognised as a very learned man and a holy member of the Church of Christ. In his books, he specifically opposed Nestorius and addressed him by name. The book was printed at Rome. The Papists noticed that he was clearly against Transubstantiation, and they excused him for two reasons. First, because the Church had not yet pronounced on that matter, as though we should seek what the Pope and his Cardinals decreed either at Constance or in the Synod where Berengarius was condemned, and not rather what had been preached and believed in the old Church. Further, they said that this man, in writing against Heretics, when he discussed these mysteries, leaned too much to the other side, thus opposing Transubstantiation to more easily refute the adversaries. But how vain an excuse this is can be seen in the writer's discourse, where it is evident that not one word escaped him and that the whole argument and strength thereof are drawn from the nature of a sacrament. If Transubstantiation were mingled with it, nothing could be concluded. Rather, the Heretics would prevail. They add that he, in the same book, sometimes speaks more reverently of the Eucharist. But considering all things, he speaks nowhere so reverently that he opposes our opinion, which we have now affirmed.

Theodoret disputes against those who denied that Christ had a true body and claimed that His body at the time of His Ascension was wholly turned into the divine nature. First, he quotes the prophecy of the Patriarch Jacob to prepare an argument from the sacraments. The words are these:

ORTH. Do you know that God called bread His own body?

SOD. I know it.

ORTH. And again, that at another time His flesh was called Corn?

SOD. This also I know: for I have heard Him say, "The hour comes wherein the Son of Man shall be glorified: and unless the grain of Corn is cast into the earth and dies, it remains alone, but if it is dead, it will bring forth much fruit."

ORTH. He undoubtedly, in the delivery of the mysteries, called bread His body, and the Cup mixed, His blood.

SOD. So indeed He named it.

ORTH. But it might also according to nature be called a body, yea even His own body and blood.

SOD. It is granted.

ORTH. Yes, indeed our Saviour Himself changed the names; and to the body, He gave the name of the sign, and to the sign the name of the body. After the same manner also, when He said that He Himself is the vine, He called His blood the sign.

SOD. This indeed is true: but I would also learn the cause of the changing of the names.

ORTH. The end why it is so called is manifest unto those who are instructed in Religion. For He would that they who are partakers of those divine mysteries, should not regard the nature of those things which are seen, but by the changing of names they should believe that transmutation which is done by grace. For He that called His own natural body Corn, and bread, and also called Himself a vine; even He Himself also honored those things which seem to be signs, with the name of His body and blood: not, forsooth, changing nature itself, but unto nature adding grace.

SOD. Truly the mystical things are spoken mystically, and those things which are not known unto all men are made clear and manifest.

ORTH. Wherefore, seeing He confesses that the robe and garment is by the Patriarch called the Lord's body, and that we have entered into the talk of divine mysteries, tell me in very deed, whose sign and figure do you think that most holy meat to be? Was it the sign of the very divinity of Christ, or else of His own body and blood?

SOD. Doubtless even of those things whereof also they received their names.

ORTH. Do you mean, of the body and blood?

SOD. So I mean.

ORTH. You have truly spoken: For the Lord, taking the sign, says not: This is My divinity, but, This is My body: And again, This is My blood. And in another place: But the bread which I will give for the life of the world.

SOD. Indeed all these things are true, for they are the words of God.

ORTH. Certainly if these things are true, the Lord had a body indeed.

SOD. But I say that He is without a body.

ORTH. But you confess that He had a body.

Out of the second dialogue, we have these words:

SOD. We must doubtless (according to the proverb) remove every stone that we may attain unto the truth, especially in setting forth the doctrine of God.

ORTH. Show me then: whereof the signs (which are offered unto God by the ministers of holy things) are mystical signs.

SOD. Of the body and blood of the Lord.

ORTH. Of the true body or not?

SOD. Of the true body.

ORTH. Very well said: for they must be a principal pattern of the image. For the painters do follow nature, and they paint the images of those things that are seen.

SOD. You say true.

ORTH. If then those divine mysteries are examples of a body being, then is the Lord's body now also a body, and is not changed into the nature of divinity, but is replenished with divine glory.

SOD. In good time have you moved this speech of divine mysteries: for thereby will I show you a changing of the Lord's body into another nature: answer therefore unto my questions.

ORTH. I will answer.

SOD. What do you call that gift which is offered before the priest's invocation?

ORTH. We must not speak openly: For it is very likely that some here present are not yet thoroughly instructed.

SOD. This is a diffuse answer.

ORTH. Look what seed it was, such meat it is.

SOD. But how do we name the other sign?

ORTH. This name also is common, betokening a figure of the cup.

SOD. How do you call those things after sanctification?

ORTH. The body of Christ, and the blood of Christ.

SOD. And do you believe that you receive the body and blood of Christ?

ORTH. Yea verily, I believe it.

SOD. Therefore even as the signs of the body and blood of the Lord are one thing undoubtedly before the invocation of the priest, but after the very invocation are changed from one to another, and become other things: so likewise the body of the Lord, after it is received, is changed into divine substance.

ORTH. You are caught in the same nets which you have laid. For those mystical signs, after sanctification, do not change their own proper nature: for they indeed remain in their former substance, both in figure and form, and are even so seen and handled as before. And the things that are done, are understood and believed and honored, as though they were such as they are believed to be. Compare therefore the image with the principal figure, and you shall see the similitude. For a figure must agree with the truth. For that very body itself has its first figure, and form, and circumscription, and (to speak plainly) the very substance also of a body. But after the resurrection, it became immortal, and it is accounted worthy of the seat which is at the right hand of God, and is worshipped by all creatures, as a body being of the Lord's own nature.

SOD. Howbeit that mystical sign changes its first name, and is not afterward named by that name which it was first called, but is called a body. Wherefore the truth itself must now be called God, and not anymore a body.

ORTH. You appear ignorant to me: it is not only called a body, but also the bread of life: for so the Lord called it. Yea, and we also call this a divine body and a quickening body, and the Master's body, and the Lord's body, teaching, that it is no common body of every man, but the body of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is God and man: even Jesus Christ, yesterday and today, and the same forever.

Chapter 31:

Chrysostom and the Nature of the Eucharist

There is an extant Epistle in the Library of Florence (albeit not printed) from Chrysostom to Caesarius the Monk during his second banishment, written against Apollinaris and others who confounded the divinity and humanity of Christ. He states, "Christ is both God and man: God because he cannot suffer; Man, because of his passion and suffering: One son, one Lord, one and the selfsame doubtless possessing one dominion, and one power of the natures united (although they be not together of one substance) and each one of them being unmixed keeps an acknowledgement of his own property: for this cause that they be two things not confounded. For like as before the bread be sanctified, we name it bread, and the same being sanctified, by the divine grace by means of the priest is undoubtedly delivered from the name of bread, and is accounted worthy to be called the Lord's body, although the nature of bread has remained in it, and is declared not to be two bodies but one body of the Son: even so this divine φύσις, that is to say, the nature of an overflowing body, hath made both these one Son and one person."

Hesychius, in the 20th book upon Leviticus, the 8th Chapter, writes: "Therefore he commands that the flesh should be eaten with bread, to the intent we might understand the same to be called a mystery of him, because it is flesh and bread together."

Gelasius, against Eutyches, wrote that in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the substance and nature of bread and wine do not cease to be. He makes a comparison of this Sacrament with Christ, in whom both the natures as well divine as human remain whole, even as in this Sacrament does the nature of bread and of the body of Christ.

Gregory, in the register, states: "While we take as well the sweet bread as the leavened bread, we are made one body of the Lord our Saviour." Bertram, in his little book "De Corpore et Sanguine Domini," says regarding the natures of the signs, that according to the substance of the creatures, what they were before consecration, they remain afterward.

Bernard, in his Sermon "De Coena Domini," uses a similitude of a King, whereby any man receives either the faith of wedlock or the possession of some dignity: as it happens in the consecration of Bishops, where the King, the Crosier's staff, or the labels of the Miter, are signs of things given and granted, and yet no vain signs. For the things which they signify are most certainly given. The very same thing I have shown to be done in Sacraments.

Chapter 32:

Confuting the Arguments for Transubstantiation

Now let us confute the arguments of these men whereby they endeavour to prove their Transubstantiation. As touching the first, we answer that Christ promised his flesh or his body or blood to be meat and drink, and that in the 6th of John: which he performs as often as we believe that he truly died for us. He also performed it when in the supper he instituted this Sacrament: For unto that spiritual eating, he added signs.

But specially they object, "This is my body": about the truth of which saying stands the controversy: albeit only as touching the manner: for both they and we affirm the proposition to be true, and we contend only about the sense. They affirm the proposition to be plain, and we on the other side say, that Augustine in "De doctrina Christiana" teaches that we must not interpret one place in a way that contradicts many others, but so as it may agree with the rest. Neither must they always claim a plainness of the sense. Otherwise, when it is said, "Let us make man to our own image and likeness," the heretics called Anthropomorphitae arise and infer that God has a body and a soul and other members as we see them to be framed in man.

You say that this similitude must be referred to the soul because through it man rules over other creatures as God does: but they say that these things are written of man, and that you vainly attribute to a part, namely to the soul, that which is pronounced of the whole. You again object that God is a spirit, and that a spirit has not flesh and bones, and so by other places of the Scriptures, you gather the sense of this one place. The Arians said that they had a plain sense of the place: "The Father is greater than I." You restrain this to the nature of man because in other places, the divinity of Christ is declared unto you: as in the first of John and in the Epistle to the Romans the 9th Chapter: and in the 5th Chapter of John's Epistle Christ says: "He that hath not a sword let him buy one." Whereby he seems to stir up to revenge: but if you have respect to other places, you will perceive it is spoken figuratively.

Paul says: "Pray without ceasing." The heretics called Euchites thought that we should apply ourselves to perpetual and close whispering prayers, when it is said elsewhere: "He that provideth not for his own, and especially for his household, renounces his faith, and is worse than an infidel." And again: "Let all things be done in order." And again: "He that laboureth not let him not eat." The heretics called Chiliastae, or Millenarij, thought that they had a most plain word in the Apocalypse, the 20th Chapter, regarding a thousand years wherein Christ shall reign with his saints. The Sabellian heretics said: "There is no difference between the Father and the Son," by reason of the place: "I and the Father are one," Also Philip: "He that seeth me, seeth the Father," and "As I am in the Father, so likewise the Father abides in me." These things the heretics said were plain and made for them. The Ebionites affirmed Christ to be a mere creature, and they said that these words, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me," could not otherwise be understood, seeing that God never forsakes Himself.

Because it is written in the 6th of John: "He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood shall not die at any time," some have said that it follows that they who have lawfully communicated once cannot perish everlastingly. This error Augustine in "De Civitate Dei" manifestly refutes. The words of the Canticles of Solomon, if you receive them as they appear at first glance, are no other than verses of love or a wedding song. It is not appropriate, therefore, to always claim the perspicuity of words.

Christ said: "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear, and he that reads, let him understand." It is not convenient to immediately seize the first sense, neglecting and not considering other places. Christ said to the Apostles, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees." They immediately thought he spoke of bread, when he spoke concerning doctrine. He said also, "Lazarus our friend sleeps." There the Apostles misunderstood him: "If he sleeps he shall be safe," when he spoke of death. Again, the Lord said: "Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up again." Neither did they understand that he meant his body. "He that shall keep my commandments, shall not die forever." Here also the Jews thought that he spoke of common death. Grossly did Nicodemus misunderstand the new birth. No less did the woman of Samaria err concerning the water which Christ promised her. The Hebrews erred when Christ said to them: "That Abraham saw his day and rejoiced."

Wherefore, let them not always say to us that this scripture, "This is my body," is plain: for we will answer them: it is plain, as touching the signification of the words. But the sense of them is not plain, as in the like sentences it appears: "Christ is the Rock," "Christ is the Lamb," "You are the body of Christ," "We who are many are one bread." All these are the words of God, and we may pronounce that they are plain, that they are manifest: yet none of them infer Transubstantiation.

Chapter 33:

Understanding the Sacramental Language

Wherefore, there is no cause why perspicuity should be so much pretended. It behooves us, by other places and circumstances of the scripture, to regard well what is meant here. Thus, we will expound this proposition by scanning it more deeply. God intended to draw man unto Him by ample promises because He wanted to bless and make him happy. Because we have unbelieving hearts, He ensured many benefits appeared towards mankind to allure the same unto Him.

Therefore, He not only freely gave us all creatures but also delivered mankind from the destruction of the flood, despite our ill-deserving. He showed mercy to Abraham, granted success to Isaac's lineage, and increased Jacob's seed in Egypt. When they were oppressed, He delivered them, gave them a prosperous land, and exalted them to the dignity of a kingdom and priesthood. Yet, they were always unbelieving and minimally persuaded of God's goodwill towards them. Due to their infidelity, He cast them into various captivities and later delivered them.

Finally, to leave no doubt about His goodness, He bestowed the greatest of all benefits upon us—His own Son endowed with man's flesh, who died on the Cross for our salvation. This benefit was such that, as Paul said to the Romans, how could it be that He gave all things together with Him? And to ensure it was not forgotten, He had it renewed in our memory by the sacrament of the Eucharist, so we would recall by faith that Christ was delivered unto death for us and, in believing, we would eat His flesh and drink His blood. To make this more effectual, He added the tokens of bread and wine, which move us more earnestly than bare words.

The Bread of Life

When He says, "This is my body," He meant no differently than when He promised in John 6, "I am the bread of life." He spoke of Himself, as concerning the body and flesh delivered unto death. He intended these things to be our bread and meat, confirming and nourishing our minds, and through the mind, the body, and ultimately the whole man. Thus, in the Supper, Christ did nothing else but transpose the proposition: as He had said that His body and flesh are bread, so now He says (showing bread) that it is His body.

When He pronounced, "This is my body," it was as if He said, "My body, received by faith, shall be unto you in the stead of bread, whereby you shall be spiritually fed." The meaning is, "I give you bread to eat, and in the meantime, I set forth unto you my body which shall be fastened to the Cross, so that with a faithful memory and attentive mind, you may eat it spiritually with yourselves: as you with the body eat bread, so with the mind, you may feed upon my flesh."

Figurative Language in Scripture

They argue that if we allow figures, heretics will pervert all things. On the contrary, unless we use figures, as shown in the cited examples, heretics have the upper hand. They will urge the proper sense, the sense that immediately offers itself. However, a figurative speech is often used in the scriptures. For instance, we read that "the seed is the word of God" and "the rock was Christ." While some cavil and deny a figure here, claiming Paul referred to the spiritual rock, which they say is Christ verily and not figuratively, Augustine and Origen are on our side, plainly stating that the outward rock signified Christ.

When Christ said, "I have chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil," Judas was not transubstantiated into a devil. Circumcision is written as, "My covenant shall be in your flesh," whereas circumcision is a sign of the covenant. Genesis 33 shows Jacob building an altar called the mighty God of Israel. Moses, after the victory against Amalek, called the altar "Jehovah Nissi," meaning God is my banner. Jeremiah mentions a city called "Jehovah Tsidkenu," God our righteousness, as monuments of what they expressed in names.

Examples of Figurative Language

John the Baptist is written as "a burning and shining candle," and Christ said, "He is Elias," if you will receive it. Christ also said, "I am the vine, and ye are the branches," and "I am the door." He is described as "a stone set for a ruin and resurrection" in Deuteronomy, "the blood is the life," meaning it signifies life. Joseph's brother Judas said, "He is our flesh," signifying kinship. Paul said, "Many are one bread," which is figurative.

When Christ breathed on His disciples and said, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost," the breath was not transubstantiated into the Holy Ghost. Genesis states, "My spirit shall not abide in man because he is flesh," and John says, "The Word became flesh," which uses the figure Synecdoche, representing the whole man under the name of flesh. On the Cross, Christ said, "Woman, behold thy son," and to the disciple, "Behold thy mother," establishing a new order and relationship.

It is said, "He is our peace," meaning He is the cause of our peace, and "My words are spirit and life," indicating they bring these things to believers. John said of Christ, "Behold the lamb of God," yet His nature was not changed into that of a lamb. The scriptures often describe the words of the Lord as judgment, truth, and righteousness, which are signified and expressed within them.

Symbols in the Scriptures

In the Apocalypse, Christ says, "I am Alpha and Omega," meaning the beginning and end of all things. Paul calls his Gospel "the power of God unto salvation," meaning it is the instrument whereby God's power is declared to the saved. The Gospel of the cross is foolishness to the ungodly, representing foolishness to them but the power and wisdom of God to the godly. The law is said to set before the Hebrews life and death, blessing and cursing, signifying the promises and threats expressed in it.

In Genesis, the seven kine and ears of corn represent seven years. Ahia the Prophet gave Jeroboam ten pieces of his torn mantle, symbolizing the kingdom of the ten tribes. Paul writes in the first Corinthians, "The woman ought to have on her head power," referring to a covering symbolizing the husband's power. In the second Corinthians, "God made Christ to be sin," meaning He represented the flesh. Sacrifices for sins are called sin, and priests are said to eat the sins of the people, meaning they consume the sacrifices offered for sins.

In Ezekiel, "I will pour upon you pure water" signifies the Holy Ghost. Christ says, "He that drinks of this water," referring to the Spirit. The Passover lamb is called the Passover, a monument and signification of the Angel passing over. Christ sought a place to eat the Passover with His apostles, referring to the consecrated items representing the passing over. Paul says, "Christ our Passover is offered," meaning Christ himself represents our solemnity and passing over.

These examples illustrate that the body of Christ, which once suffered, is now commemorated and symbolized through the Eucharist, not to be crucified or have its blood shed again.

Chapter 34:

Understanding Figurative Language in Sacramental Context

And if they would expound these words of Christ rigorously, when He says, "This is my body which is given for you," it would be necessary for them to say that the bread was to be crucified, or at the very least, Christ hidden under accidents, as they appoint in the Sacrament. For Christ, showing what He had in His hands, said that the same should be delivered and shed for them. But if they say it was indeed the same that was delivered, but not in the same manner or form, then they seek interpretations and shifts, and do not take the proposition simply. This is evident in the words, "is delivered" and "is shed."

If, while we utter the words of consecration, they are understood as they sound, the body of Christ will be signified as being presently crucified, and His blood presently shed, or within a while to be shed. But they would have these words to be converted into the preterperfect tense, to understand that the body is delivered and that the blood is shed: and this is to deal figuratively when one tense is taken for another.

Whereas Paul said, "They which eat unworthily are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord," and "they eat their own condemnation because they put no difference in the Lord's body," it means nothing without further explanation. Ambrose answers this while interpreting that place: "They shall be punished for the Lord's death because He was slain for them who make no account of His benefit." Therefore, he interprets them to be guilty of the Lord's body, yet Transubstantiation is not required here.

Those who receive unworthily are said not to put a difference, meaning they have no esteem for the Lord's body: because the conjunction between the signs and the things signified is so great that the reproach of one redounds to the other. Paul similarly spoke when he said, "A man praying or prophesying with his head covered dishonours Christ," implying that what is done to the man's head, a sign of Christ, redounds to Christ.

Figurative Language and Scriptural Context

It is also important to consider that Paul wrote to the Corinthians, who were not entirely devoid of faith, but troubled with some infirmities. We do not claim that only these kinds of men receive the signs and not the body of Christ, but we affirm this of infidels, Epicureans, atheists, and strangers from the Church. Thus, it might rightly be said to them, not only regarding the signs but also regarding the matter of the sacrament, that they were guilty of the body and blood because they made no difference in the Lord's body, receiving it without faith and not expressing it in their lives.

When Paul speaks of the sacramental action, that is, the eating and drinking, he mentions bread, saying, "He that eateth this bread." But when he wants to emphasize the fault, he mentions the Lord's body. In the entire treatise on this Sacrament, Paul mentions bread more often than the body of the Lord. He mentions bread five times and the body of the Lord only four times.

Figurative Interpretation of "This is My Body"

Now we must see what compels us to understand this phrase, "This is my body," figuratively. First, consider that Christ was present at the supper, so there was no need for Him to show His body to His apostles—they saw Him. Further, how could He eat Himself really and corporally? That He communicated with His apostles is affirmed by the fathers and by Christ Himself in Matthew: "I will not hereafter drink of this fruit of the vine."

Moreover, we consider the remembrance aspect, which indicates a figure. These men change the tenses; what is pronounced in the future or present tense regarding the delivery of the body and shedding of the blood, they interpret in the preterperfect tense. We also note that they cannot be without signs in their consecration because they understand the verb "is" as "it is changed," "it is transubstantiated," or "it is made." Christ, instituting a sacrament, meant for the signs to be understood figuratively, according to the nature of a sacrament, which is a sign.

Further Considerations and Analogies

We also consider the ascension of Christ into heaven, the truth of the human nature He took upon Himself, and what is written in John when He said to the Capernaites: "My words are spirit and life, the flesh profits nothing," meaning being carnally eaten; it is the spirit that quickens. Paul, who clearly names it bread, should also be considered. Despite these men insisting it is a figure, Paul testifies that the forefathers had the same sacrament that we have. Augustine asserts it was not enough to say they had spiritual meat and drink; he added, "the same." The Apostle also mentions baptism, which they obtained in the sea and the cloud, showing that they had the same sacraments as us.

Analogy and Sacramental Unity

We also see that adjoining speeches are understood figuratively. For instance, "The bread which we break is the communion of the body of Christ," and "This cup is the New Testament." These things have been often rehearsed. It does not well agree with the body of Christ to be eaten. These considerations illustrate what should be said to the second argument, where they object that the sentence must not be understood figuratively unless something else compels it. They urge the phrase, "which shall be given for you," insisting on a literal sense, but this is false as we change the tenses. We do not take it to be the body that was delivered, for that was visible and passable. The conditions of a corruptible body and the qualities of a glorified body cannot coexist in one substance simultaneously.

Addressing Different Natures

We will address another argument concerning things distinct or "disparate," as the schoolmen call them, among which no mutual predication can exist. Things that are different, if an analogy or signification occurs, can be joined to form a proposition. This is seen when the Lord says, "The seed is the word of God," and "I am the vine," and when Paul says, "We are one bread," and "The bread we break is the communion of the body of Christ," and "This cup is the New Testament in my blood." While Matthew and Mark may plainly say, "This is my blood of the New Testament," we do not deny this but insist that the words Luke and Paul use must also be received. We assert that these sentences, despite differing words, are joined by analogy and signification.

Figurative Language and the Eucharist

In another argument, it was said that when Christ uttered, "This is my body," He did not say, "This signifies my body," or "This represents my body," or "This bread is a figure or sign of my body." Against these objections, we reply that Christ did not say His body lies hidden in those accidents without a subject, nor did He affirm that the substance of bread ceases to be or is changed or transubstantiated into His body.

Furthermore, I marvel that these things are objected, considering that among the Fathers, these interpretations are found. They often say that the body and blood of Christ are represented, signified, notified, and shown, and they call the signs of bread and wine a seal, a figure, a type, and an example of like form. There is no cause to cavil that they refer these signs or figures to the death and not to the body of Christ because the Fathers manifestly say that the body and blood are signified and that signs and figures are given of the body and blood of the Lord.

To demonstrate the truth of this, among many places of the Fathers, we will set forth these few. Augustine, in "De Catechizandis Rudibus," speaks of the Sacrament, saying there are visible seals of divine things, but the invisible things are honoured in them. In "De Civitate Dei," Book 10, Chapter 5, he states: "The visible sacrifice is a sacrament of the invisible sacrifice, that is, a holy sign." Jerome, in his commentary on Matthew 26, notes that Melchizedek, the priest of the high God, offered bread and wine as a prefiguration, representing the truth of Christ's body and blood.

Bertram, in his book "De Corpore et Sanguine Domini," says that the bread called the body of Christ and the cup called the blood of Christ are figures because they are mysteries. Tertullian, in his fourth book against Marcion, explains that Christ, having received bread and distributed it to His disciples, made it His body, saying, "This is my body," meaning "a figure of my body." Cyprian, in his second epistle, says: "We see that in the water the people are understood, and in the wine, the blood of Christ is shown." Ambrose, in "De Mysteriis," notes that before the blessing of the heavenly words, another kind is named, but after consecration, the body of Christ is signified.

Sacramental Understanding and Patristic Testimony

Ambrose, in "De Sacramentis," Book 4, Chapter 5, writes: "Do this oblation for us, being recorded in writing as a reasonable and acceptable oblation, because it is the figure of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ." He further comments on 1 Corinthians 11 that in eating and drinking, we signify the flesh and blood offered for us. Bernard, in his sermon "De Coena Domini," says the Lord provided to adorn His people with grace, giving invisible grace through a visible sign.

Chrysostom, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 10, asks, "What signifies bread? The body of Christ. And what do they become who receive it? The body of Christ." Basil, in his Liturgy, calls it an example of like form. Augustine, in "De Trinitate," Book 3, Chapter 4, states: "The Apostle might signify the Lord Jesus Christ by the tongue, by an epistle, or by a sacrament of His body and blood."

Augustine, against Adamantus, asserts: "The Lord doubted not to say, 'This is my body,' when He gave a sign of His body." In his commentary on Psalm 3, he notes that Judas was admitted to the feast where Christ delivered the figure of His body and blood. Against Maximinus, in Book 3, Chapter 22, he says: "In the sacraments, we consider not what they are, but what they show, because they are signs of things which being one thing signify another."

Adoration and the Nature of Sacraments

They argue regarding adoration that if bread remained, it should be adored in the Sacrament. It is surprising that these men are so mindful of true adoration when pictures and images are worshipped among them. They claim not to worship these things, but what they represent. If so, why not grant the same of bread if it remains—that it should not be worshipped, but what it signifies?

Why do they not similarly remove accidents, lest they be worshipped? Perhaps they excuse themselves by saying that no one will worship accidents. However, we know that pictures and figures in temples are accidents before which men bow. If they worshipped the substances of wood or stone, they would have objects to worship everywhere. Moreover, simple men cannot distinguish between accidents and substance.

This argument, often proposed by the Schoolmen, seems light. They also argue that without Transubstantiation, two natures or bodily substances would be in one place. It is ironic that these men, who violate natural laws by claiming accidents hang without a subject, fear violating nature by having two substances in one place. When they affirm accidents remain, a body with quantity and place is hidden under accidents. Thus, they grant two quantities and bodies together, which our opinion avoids.

Chapter 35:

The Dignity of Christ and the Substance of Bread

They said, moreover, that it does not accord with the dignity of Christ for His body to be joined to the substance of bread; which is a very vain assertion. It is not affirmed that the body of Christ and the nature of bread make one subject, as the divine nature and human nature do in Christ. Neither do we see what greater dignity there is in the accidents than in the bread, such that if the body of Christ is assigned to them, it might not as well remain with the substance of bread.

Seeing that the divine nature is said to be even in hell without diminishing its worthiness, and that this body (as they judge) is delivered to be eaten truly and substantially even by the wicked, who are most impure and unworthy of it, why do they fear only in respect of dignity to join the body and blood of the Lord to bread and wine, especially when there must be a conjunction of the signification?

The Sacrifice in the Mass

They also considered the sacrifice, saying that the body and blood of the Lord are offered in Masses. If this alteration is not made, we shall offer nothing but the thing signified and shadowed. Cyprian answers this for us, stating to Coecilius in his 3rd Epistle, 2nd Book, that it is the Passion of the Lord which we offer. Who does not know that the Passion of Christ is not present in the hands of the sacrificer, as it is a past event? A memorial is made of it, and thanks are given to God for it. But all they pretend in this argument is a feigned device, imagining that the Son of God Himself is properly and truly offered by the priest to the Father. The error in this is significant, but this is not the place to declare it fully.

Understanding the Fathers

Now we must show that the opinions of the Fathers, which seem to be against our purpose, do not actually contradict us. Before explaining them, I will present certain rules for understanding the Fathers, as they speak most loftily and earnestly on this matter of the Sacrament.

1. Signs and Things Signified: The holy Scripture often attributes what pertains to the signs to the things signified, and vice versa. The Fathers use the same manner, so one must discern whether they are discussing the signs or the things signified. Augustine to Boniface explains that in sacraments, names are changed.

2. Spiritual Food: If you consider what is spoken before and after, you will always find that the Fathers testify that this food is spiritual and not meat for the throat, belly, or teeth.

3. Carnal and Spiritual Communion: When the Fathers say we communicate with Christ carnally, they mean that our bodies are nourished in the Eucharist in a manner akin to how the Son of God took part in our flesh by His incarnation. We abide in Him and He in us through faith and the sacraments. This communion is spiritual, adding the spirit to our flesh, making it capable of immortality and resurrection. Thus, our body is fed in the Eucharist by signs and renewed to everlasting life.

4. Consecration: Among the Fathers, consecration means dedicating something common to a holy use. There is no cause to assume transubstantiation when we encounter the term consecration in the Fathers. There is some alteration in that things are now sacraments, signifying by the Holy Spirit's power that we must offer and exhibit the body and blood of the Lord in mind and faith.

5. Capernaites' Misunderstanding: There is no difference in substance between us and the Capernaites, who thought they would eat the very body and flesh of Christ. The difference lies in the manner of eating; they thought it would be carnal, while we teach it is spiritual.

6. Language of the Fathers: When the Fathers say the body of Christ is contained in these mysteries, they mean it is betokened, shown, declared, and signified.

Figurative Language in Sacramental Theology

When you hear the Fathers say that bread and wine are no more in the sacrament, understand this as concerning the faithful, who must not think of the bread or wine but lift their minds to the invisible things represented. Thus, the phrase "Lift up your hearts" is used to direct the mind away from the signs to the things offered.

Scripture uses similar figures. Paul says, "Our wrestling is not against flesh and blood," yet acknowledges flesh and blood can grieve the soul. He means the primary contention is spiritual. Similarly, when Paul writes that in Christ there is neither male nor female, he does not mean these distinctions are removed from the Church but that they do not affect regeneration, forgiveness of sins, and life everlasting.

The Fathers' statements about the nature of signs not remaining must be understood in the same way, not as a change in substance but as a direction for our faith and thoughts. Faith makes things present spiritually, not materially. Thus, the Apostle said Christ was crucified before the eyes of the Galatians and that Abraham saw the day of the Lord.

The Use of Figures by the Fathers

Lastly, if you ask why the Fathers used such figures and strong language, we say it is to follow Scripture's phraseology and to deeply impress upon the minds of men that the signification of sacraments is not trivial. The things represented are given and imprinted in our minds by the Holy Spirit, leading to many gifts and graces, especially a secret and unspeakable union with Christ, making us truly one with Him.

The Consecration of Bread and the Argument Against Transubstantiation

The first objection was from Irenaeus, who said that the earthly bread, being consecrated, is not common bread but has become the Eucharist. We willingly admit this, affirming that it is no longer common bread but holy and has become the Eucharist. However, what follows supports our position. He writes that the Eucharist consists of two things: heavenly and earthly, and does not mention the accidents of an earthly thing. He adds: "Even so, our bodies, receiving the Eucharist, are not corruptible, having the hope of the Resurrection." If such a change in our bodies is set forth by him, equal to the change of the bread (for he says: just as that bread is no longer common bread, so our bodies are no longer corruptible), what need is there for Transubstantiation, seeing he makes these changes equal in both?

Testimonies of Early Church Fathers

Next, Tertullian was cited, and he expounds on his own statement. He not only says: "The Lord, having received the bread, made it His body when He said, 'This is my body,'" but he added: "That is, a sign of my body." They also cited Origen, who wrote that the Lord confessed the bread to be His body. We do not deny this, but the contention is about the manner in which it becomes the body of the Lord. Origen himself elsewhere teaches that this bread is called the nourishing word of the soul and that we must not cling to the blood of the flesh but to the blood of the word.

Cyprian seems to speak more harshly, saying that this bread is changed not in shape but in nature. However, we must consider what he wrote to Coecilius, that with the wine, the blood of the Lord is shown, and if the wine ceases to be in the cup, it cannot appear that the blood of the Lord is there. When he speaks of changing, we agree, admitting a sacramental change. We confess that the nature and substance of bread and wine are changed into the sacraments of the body and blood of the Lord. As the substance of bread nourishes, so does the body of Christ nourish our soul, fostering and renewing it. Both we and our adversaries agree that the form, or appearance, of bread is not changed, but the substance is. They claim a change by removing the nature of bread, while we affirm a sacramental change. Cyprian himself argues against our adversaries, for they remove the substance of bread, whereas we say it is changed into a sacrament of Christ's body.

The Nature of Sacramental Change

Ambrose is also cited, especially in his books De Sacramentis, which some believe are not his works. The Bishop of Rochester insists we must credit Augustine, who ascribes these books to Ambrose. However, I have read the prologue on the Books of Christian Doctrine many times and have not found what he claims. Although Augustine cites Ambrose De Sacramento Regenerationis vel de Philosophia, not De Mysterijs vel de Sacramentis, I do not dispute it. Assuming these are Ambrose's books, they do not entirely disagree with us. Ambrose frequently mentions signifying, calling the sacraments the body of Christ, which we do not deny. When he mentions changing or conversion, these must be understood as sacramental changes.

Chapter 36:

Chrysostom's Teachings on the Sacrament

Chrysostom is cited, using the analogy of wax melted by fire, to suggest the substance of the mysteries is consumed by the substance of Christ's body. Yet, in Homily 83 on Matthew, Chrysostom says: "Many say they desire to see the form of Christ, but He gives Himself to be seen, touched, and handled in the sacrament." This clearly attributes to the sacramental matter what belongs to the signs. Chrysostom states that we are made one with Christ, not only by faith but also in deed. This signifies a true, though not physical, union with Christ, whereby our bodies are renewed and we become members of the Lord.

In Homily 60 to the people of Antioch, he says we should not think that the priest's hand reaches the sacrament, but that Christ's hand delivers it. This directs the minds of communicants from the outward signs to divine and heavenly things. When Chrysostom uses hyperbolic language, such as saying our tongues are made bloody with Christ's blood, it must be understood figuratively, as our faith grasps the spiritual reality.

The Fathers' statements must be interpreted in the context of their intent to elevate the mind to the spiritual truths signified by the sacraments. They speak in lofty terms to impress the importance and reality of the spiritual union with Christ, facilitated by the Holy Spirit through the sacraments. Thus, the true essence of the sacraments is grasped by faith, not by a physical change in the elements.

Ambrose and the Books of Sacraments

They object to Ambrose, particularly in his books De Sacramentis, which some believe are not his works. The Bishop of Rochester strongly contests this, insisting we must credit Augustine, who attributes these books to Ambrose. He openly testifies that Ambrose wrote the books De Sacramentis, citing the prologue to the Books of Christian Doctrine. Although I have read the prologue many times without finding what the Bishop claims, I acknowledge that Augustine, against Julian the Pelagian, cites Ambrose De Sacramento Regenerationis vel de Philosophia, but not these Books De Mysterijs vel de Sacramentis. Even if these books are Ambrose's, they do not entirely disagree with us. Ambrose often mentions signifying, asserting that these sacraments are called the body of Christ, which we do not deny. When he mentions changing or conversion, it must be understood as sacramental changing.

In his Treatise De Officijs the 4th book, 48th Chapter, Ambrose says: "Here is the shadow, here is the Image, there is the truth: A shadow in the Law, an Image in the Gospel, the truth in the heavenly places. Before, a Lamb was offered, a Calf was offered: now Christ is offered, but he is offered as a man, as it were receiving passion, but he offers himself as a priest, that he may forgive our sins; here, in an Image, there in truth: where as an advocate with the father, he makes intercession for us." Upon the first Epistle to the Corinthians, as we have already cited, he says: "In eating and drinking we signify the flesh and blood of Christ which are offered." When he speaks of the blood, he says, that we receive a figure thereof, that is, the mystical Cup. Again, in the 4th book and 4th Chapter of De Sacramentis, he affirmatively states our changing into Christ, which we have noted in other Fathers as well.

Chrysostom's Similitude of Wax and Transubstantiation

Now we consider Chrysostom. They allege his similitude of wax, which, being put into the fire, is destroyed as to its substance, so that nothing remains. So, he says, you may think that the mysteries are consumed by the substance of Christ's body. What, they ask, can be more manifest for Transubstantiation? But here, I think it good to examine Chrysostom himself, whereby you may plainly perceive how rightly those things are noted, whereof we spoke before, regarding the sayings of the Fathers.

In the 83rd Homily on Matthew, Chrysostom says: "Many say that they would, and do covet to see the form and shape of Christ, also to behold his garments and shoes. But he giveth himself unto thee, not only that thou mayest see him but also that thou mayest touch him." Do we not here understand that he attributes to the matter of the sacrament that which belongs to the signs: namely, that the body of Christ may be touched and seen, which is true only concerning the signs?

Again, in the same Homily, he says: "He reduceth us, as I may say, into one lump together with him, and that not only by faith, but he maketh us indeed his body." And the same he wrote in the 60th Homily and in the 61st to the people of Antioch: "That we, not only by faith and love, but also in very deed, are made and mixed with the body of Christ." If this is so, and we are not transubstantiated, yet are so nearly joined with Christ, what need is there for the bread to be transubstantiated to become the body of Christ?

Understanding the True Union with Christ

There might arise a doubt, as though Chrysostom contradicts us who affirm this receiving by faith: seeing he says that we, not only by faith but indeed, are mingled with him and changed into him. But here it must be understood that, although we have said that the body of Christ and his blood are eaten and drunk by faith, yet after this receiving by faith, there follows not a feigned but a true conjunction between us and Christ. Not only is our mind united with him, but also our body and flesh are renewed, and we are truly made the members of the Lord, receiving him as our head, from whom we perpetually draw both spirit and life. This is what Chrysostom means when he says that we are indeed joined with Christ.

Again, in the same Homily on Matthew, he says that these are signs of the Lord Jesus, whereby we stop the mouths of the heretics who demand how Christ suffered. For if he had not had true flesh and had truly suffered, these signs would be in vain. In the same Homily, he says that our tongue is made bloody in receiving the Sacraments. And lest you should cavil that the bloodiness, together with the wine or the accidents of the wine, as they term it, should be understood as invisible, in the 60th Homily to the people of Antioch, he writes that our tongue waxes red with this blood: where every man may see that it is hyperbole or an excessive speech.

Hyperbole and the Nature of Sacramental Language

In Encaeniis, Chrysostom says that the blood in the cup is drawn out of the side of the Lord, which cannot be believed literally, seeing the side of the Lord is not open today, and from there, the blood is not drawn. He writes moreover in the same Homily: "Dost thou see the bread or the wine?" He answers: "God forbid." Certainly, if he should here ask the senses, they would answer that it is not true that he saith. For by the judgment of our senses, the bread and the wine are present, but he speaks truly when he adds: "Think not so, because in respect of our judgment, bread and wine do cease to be there."

Chrysostom further writes: "Think not thou that thou receivest of man the body of Christ, but of the Seraphim that is present, and with a pair of tongs he delivereth unto thee a fiery coal." Here, I think not that they would have the minister or pastor to be transubstantiated who delivers the Sacraments unto us. And he added: "Let us run together to suck forth the blood which floweth out of the side of the Lord." These things the Schoolmen themselves dare not speak. They write that the bread and wine are changed into the substance of the body and blood, yet not so as to the true substance of the body of Christ anything either comes or departs away.

The Role of Faith in Receiving the Sacrament

In the 61st Homily to the people of Antioch, he says that Christ not only gave himself to us to be seen, but also to be touched and felt, upon whose flesh we fasten our teeth. In which place you see that what pertains to the signs is attributed to the thing signified by the Sacraments. For our tooth reaches not unto the substance of the body of Christ, but only unto the bread and signs and Sacraments. The same father in the 60th Homily to the people of Antioch says that we ought not to think that the hand of the priest reaches the Sacrament but must judge that the hand of Christ stretched forth delivers the same. He also says that Christ himself executes the office of baptising.

In the 61st Homily, he admonishes that we should consider that in this Sacrament we leave Christ sitting in heaven, who is worshipped by the Angels. By all this, it is plain that Chrysostom provided by all means to call forth the minds of the communicants from the grosser sort of signs and outward tokens to the meditation of divine and heavenly things. It is a wonder that these men, who so diligently examine places of the Fathers, do not bring forth what is in the 61st Homily to the people of Antioch: that they are both impudent and obstinate who stand by at the administration of the Sacraments and do not communicate, wherein he affirms that they do manifest injury unto Christ.

Hyperbolic Language and Sacramental Significance

Lest we should swerve from the argument, namely in the Homily in Encaeniis, regarding the wax which in the fire runs all abroad: we answer that Chrysostom often uses the verb "Think thou," indicating that these things must be understood concerning our faith and cogitation. In communicating, we comprehend not bread and wine by themselves, but seek the things which are signified and joined hereunto.

We bring forth a similar similitude from Cyril in the 10th book, 13th chapter on John, where he says that wax being molten and mingled with other wax, so that of two is altogether made one, resembles what is done in receiving this Sacrament: that we should indeed be made one with Christ. The same he states in the 4th book and 17th chapter. If this similitude of wax between Christ and us has place without transubstantiation of our body, the same may be affirmed of Chrysostom's similitude between wax and the signs or mysteries.

Our adversaries should be asked whether they want these similitudes to be alike in all respects. If they grant this, they must also take away the accidents from this Sacrament. For the wax applied to the fire is destroyed both as to the substance and the accidents. If they do not want the similitude to take place in this respect, it is free for us to understand all this concerning our cogitations of the mind and comprehension of faith. We confess that concerning the thing itself, the nature of bread and wine goes away, and our mind cleaves only to the things signified and to that which by the signs is offered to us: that is, to the body and blood of Christ.

Conclusion on Chrysostom's Teachings

In considering Chrysostom, we see how truly those things apply which we spoke of regarding the Fathers. His use of hyperbolic language and vivid imagery serves to elevate the minds of the faithful from the material signs to the spiritual realities they signify, reinforcing the true presence and union with Christ in the Sacrament without necessitating the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

Chapter 37:

Augustine's Position on the Eucharist

Augustine was later cited, saying upon the 33rd Psalm that Christ bore himself in his own hands, verily in the Last Supper when he distributed the Sacrament to his Apostles. We do not deny this. For what should prevent Christ from bearing his body in his own hands if by "body" you understand the Sacrament of his body? This is what Augustine adds at the end of this passage, "after a certain manner," as if to say: He did not absolutely bear himself, but in a certain manner he is undoubtedly the very same whom we said him to be.

They oppose us with Augustine again, in the third book "De Trinitate," where he says the bread is brought to this visible form by the hands of men, but it cannot be made so great a Sacrament without the invisible working of the Holy Ghost. It is much to be marveled at why these men acknowledge no other work of the Holy Ghost in this sacrament besides transubstantiation. Upon hearing the name of the Holy Ghost in this sacrament, they immediately infer transubstantiation, when these signs cannot be advanced or translated to the state and condition of Sacraments without God's help: by the Lord's institution, holy words, and the strength of the Holy Ghost. These holy things no longer possess our mind in an ordinary and common manner but by the effectual and most vehement force of the Spirit. By the same Holy Spirit's strength and operation, our minds and souls are furthered to embrace the matter of the Sacraments.

Augustine on Worship and the Eucharist

Augustine, in his commentary on the 99th Psalm, inquires what manner of footstool is referred to in "Worship his footstool." He concludes that the Scriptures say the earth is his footstool. But he asks, how shall we worship the earth? Is it not written: "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve?" And is it not commanded that we should not worship things in heaven, on earth, in the waters, or under the earth? Augustine finds that the flesh of Christ is justly worshipped because when he gave it to be eaten, none ate it without first worshipping it.

These words of Augustine do not contradict us because we do not deny that the flesh of Christ must be worshipped due to its conjunction with the divine nature. The contention is whether the same flesh lies hidden under the accidents, not whether it should be worshipped. They argue that if the flesh were not there in the Sacrament and bread were there, it would be idolatry. We respond that they fall into as great a peril; they ought to remove the accidents lest they be worshipped and transubstantiate the very cup itself.

In a Sacrament, we distinguish the signs from the things and give some honor to the signs, namely that they should be decently handled and not despised, for they are holy things dedicated to God. Concerning the things signified, the body and blood of Christ, we agree that they should be readily and cheerfully worshipped. Augustine says: "We do not sin in worshipping the flesh of Christ, but we sin in not worshipping it." However, he advises that we should not cleave to the flesh of Christ but lift our minds to the divine nature, whereunto the flesh is joined by an indissoluble knot. Otherwise, he says, "the flesh profits nothing, but it is the spirit that quickens," referring to John 6, which Augustine understands as touching the flesh of Christ, not of the carnal understanding as some will have it.

The Nature of Adoration

As for adoration, I will summarize briefly. In my exposition of the Epistle to the Corinthians, I explained that adoration consists in invocation and confession, both of the heart and mouth, and in thanksgiving. These acts are due both to God and to Christ wherever they show themselves to us. This occurs in three ways:

1. Internal Word: When a vehement thought of God or Christ, inspired by the Holy Spirit, enters our minds, worship follows naturally through confession, invocation, or thanksgiving.

2. External Word: When we read the holy scriptures or hear godly sermons, we are often stirred to invocation or other acts of worship.

3. Outward Signs: Christ and God reveal themselves through outward signs, such as the events on Mount Sinai, to Isaiah under the form of a king, in the Ark of the Covenant, and in the Sacraments. Worship is given in these instances.

Augustine advises that while we must not settle our minds on the flesh, we should approach the Godhead. Similarly, I advise that in worship, especially during the Eucharist, we must not dwell on the signs but worship in spirit and truth, focusing on Christ in heaven at the right hand of the Father.

Instruction and Practice of Adoration

Due to the entrenched error of transubstantiation, it is perhaps wise to refrain from outward worship, such as prostration or kneeling, until proper instruction can be given. Inward worship can be practiced without danger. Outward worship is not inherently evil, as many kneel devoutly upon hearing "And the Word was made flesh," yet they do not worship the words but the things signified. Similarly, during the Eucharist, the signs should not be worshipped, but rather that which is signified by them. Nevertheless, in these times, outward adoration may not be suitable unless clarified frequently in sermons.

Chapter 38:

On the Worship of Images and Eucharistic Practices

Neither let any man take occasion from my sayings to conclude that it should be lawful to worship either images or pictures, because God and Christ sometimes seem to declare themselves effectively there. For we have the plain word: "Let us not make unto ourselves images for worship." But regarding the words of the Holy Scripture and the Sacraments, nothing prevents us from adoring during their hearing or receiving because these things are instituted by the word, will, and commandment of God, to provoke us to the service of God, which consists in adoration.

One should not infer from this that the remnants of the Eucharist must be worshipped. For whatsoever strength the signs have, they have it by the Holy Ghost, by the words of the Lord, and by His institution, which things, without the use of the sacrament, are not extant. While we eat and drink, there is a promise. Wherefore, that opinion of consecration was not universal because, in the time of Hesychius (as he himself testifies upon Leviticus), the remnants of the Eucharist were burned. Origen also attests to this in the same book attributed to two authors. Clement, the Bishop of Rome, as evidenced by his decree (de Consecratione, distinct. 2), ordained that the remnants of this sacrament should be eaten by the ecclesiastical persons.

We do not deny that they were sometimes kept, but this was done without adoration and superstitious worship. They were given to children and women to be carried to the sick, as appears from the history of Eusebius Caesariensis and Jerome. I would not willingly say that receiving these remnants out of the holy congregation and beyond the rite appointed by the Lord was a just communion. However, I grant the sick might have it, provided they repeated the holy words and some faithful men communicated among themselves. For where many do not communicate, the nature of the sacrament is not retained. Christ said: "Take, eat, and drink." The bread is broken, which pertains to distribution. Their canon includes many things, which, unless many communicate, are lies. Moreover, it is called a supper, a communion, a gathering together, which names do not align with private action. We never read of private masses among the old Fathers.

Honorius, the Bishop of Rome, decreed that the Eucharist should be kept and added that honor and reverence should be done to it when carried about. If this had been done before his time, such a decree would have been unnecessary. Briefly, we affirm that this sacrament, as stated before, has no force or efficacy except when exercised and received, similar to all other sacraments.

Chapter 39:

Hilary's Arguments Against the Arians

Hilary is objected against us. He had great controversies with the Arians, who argued that the relationship between the Father and the Son was only a matter of will. Against these, Hilary said: "I demand of you whether between us and Christ there is a union by nature or by will?" The Arians referenced the place where Christ prayed that we might be one with Him as He is with the Father. In John 17, it is written: "Even as Thou, Father, art in me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in us."

The heretics added that we have no union with Christ except by will, implying the same for the Son and the Father. Hilary needed to show that we are naturally united with Christ to conclude that the Son is naturally joined to the Father. His proof was that if the Word of God truly took on human nature, He naturally communicates in His flesh with us, and we remain in Him because He has our nature. Similarly, in the Lord's Supper, if we truly receive His flesh, we participate naturally with Him, and He truly dwells in us. Thus, Hilary argued from the truth of the Sacraments, which we do not deny.

Hilary did not contend that the flesh of Christ is hidden under the accidents in this Sacrament; he only affirmed that we are truly joined to the flesh of Christ in communicating. Consider that the same father, just before these words about the Eucharist, said the same about Baptism: by it, we are joined to Christ and one another, not only in unity of will but also in unity of nature. This would imply Transubstantiation for Baptism if the same logic were applied.

Chrysostom also uses arguments from Sacraments. In the 83rd Homily on Matthew, he said that these signs of the Lord Jesus both bridle and silence the heretics. For they often ask, "How did Christ suffer?" We respond that if Christ did not have true flesh, these signs are in vain, rightly silencing the Manichees, Marcionites, and other such sects.

Leo and Emisenus

Regarding Leo the Bishop of Rome, there is no need for much concern. In the cited sentence, he affirms a mystical distribution and a spiritual sustenance, saying that we pass into the flesh of Christ as He took on our flesh. They also cite Emisenus, whose words are read in "De Consecratione," distinct. 1. There, he says, "Touch with your mind, and with the hand of your heart, take hold of the body of Christ," affirming that we eat the body of the Lord spiritually.

Further, he, like other fathers, urges our transformation into Christ, which, as we see, occurs without Transubstantiation. Some may wonder why we often oppose the transformation of ourselves against the transformation the fathers seem to affirm in the signs, imagining a greater union between Christ and the signs than between us and Christ. We argue that our point is stronger because it moves from the greater to the lesser by a negative. The union of Christ with communicants is greater than with the signs. If Transubstantiation is not required for us, it is even less required for the signs.

The joining of Christ to us is greater because the union with the signs was invented for our sake. Moreover, the words and spirit that consecrate the signs belong even more to men than to other things.

Chapter 40:

Examination of Theophylact

Of Theophylact, we note that he is a later writer, possibly from the time when many questions about Transubstantiation arose under Nicholas the Bishop of Rome, during the time of Lanfranc and Berengarius. Further, he was a man of no great judgment, as evidenced by his interpretation of John 3, where he criticised the Church of the Latins regarding the procession of the Holy Ghost from both the Father and the Son. Hence, we do not consider his authority to be so significant as to prejudice the truth. Nevertheless, we will examine his statements.

Theophylact affirms that bread is not merely a figure of the body of Christ in his treatise on Matthew. If he means it is not an empty or vain figure, we agree, as we do not endorse such a figure. We doubt not that this is his interpretation, for in his commentary on Mark, he says it is not just a figure. If he utterly denied it to be a figure, he would oppose the other fathers, who clearly affirm it is both a sign and a figure.

He states that the bread is transformed, changed, and transelementated. If he understands these terms sacramentally, we do not disagree, for bread and wine are sacraments that pass into elements of divine things, adopting a signifying form. However, Theophylact writes that the flesh and blood are not seen lest we should abhor them. If we take these words strictly, we counter with his own words on Mark, where he says the bread and wine are changed into the virtue of the body and blood of the Lord. If he says they are changed into the body and blood of the Lord, we interpret this to mean the signs adopt the virtue of the things, by which the sacraments hold as much as if the things themselves were present. The abhorrence is avoided if we say the signs are changed not into the thing but into the virtue.

Another statement by Theophylact on John 6 seems more forceful, where he writes: "Even as while Christ lived on earth, the bread was changed into His flesh by a natural process of nourishment, so this bread is changed into the body of Christ." We acknowledge this comparison in general terms. We deny not that there is a sacramental change in this sacrament. However, if taken strictly, it implies that the accidents of the signs must not be retained in the sacrament, as they were not in Christ's sustenance on earth.

Furthermore, in his commentary on John 6, Theophylact writes on the words: "He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood dwells in me, and I in him." He says this happens as we are, after a sort, transelemented and mingled with Christ. Here, as with other fathers, he affirms a significant change in us into Christ, writing that we are transelemented into Him. This much about Theophylact suffices.

Examination of Later Theologians

Among later theologians, they cite Anselm, Hugo, and Richard of St. Victor. Since in their time the opinion of Transubstantiation was introduced, their writings reflect the prevailing views of the time. However, these newer opinions should not prejudice the ancient Church's beliefs and the old fathers' opinions.

Particular emphasis is placed on John of Damascus, who wrote extensively on this matter in the 4th book of "The Orthodox Faith," chapter 14. John lived under Leo Isauricus, Emperor of Greece, approximately 120 years after Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome. By Gregory's time, many superstitions and human inventions had accumulated in the Church, which worsened over time. It is no wonder that John of Damascus inclined towards many superstitions and errors.

John's judgment in doctrinal matters and scriptural interpretation is questionable. He strongly favoured images, defending them fervently, even advocating their worship and honour. He esteemed the relics of saints highly, calling them fountains of God's gifts and boldly stating that saints should be worshipped by faith, a claim that is intolerable since faith is due only to God and His word.

John wrote a sermon on Purgatory, claiming that Emperor Trajan, an idolater and persecutor of martyrs, was delivered from hell's pains by Gregory's prayers. He also recounted a fable of Macarius speaking with a dead man's skull, learning that during Mass, the souls in torment experienced some relief. These tales filled his sermon.

John's attempt to prove the Resurrection from Genesis, interpreting God's command to Noah about not eating flesh with blood as a reference to the Resurrection, showed a lack of understanding of Exodus law, where God commanded the ox that kills a man to be slain. In "De Virginitate," he argued that if Adam had not sinned, humans would not need marriage for procreation, suggesting an alternative means of multiplication, an idea not found among school divines.

John misunderstood Basil, interpreting "bread and wine are ἀντίτυπα," patterns or examples of Christ's body, as referring to them before consecration. This is absurd, as before consecration, they are common food. If they signified Christ's body and blood beforehand, they would already be sacraments before the Lord's words. Furthermore, in the Greek Mass, prayers for the bread to become the body and blood of Christ follow the consecration. Similarly, in our Canon, the bread is named after consecration.

But now we must examine his arguments. The first is taken from the power of God. He argues that since God was able by His word to make heaven and earth, to bring forth plants, beasts, birds, and fishes, why can He not make His own body from bread? This argument is most weak. The dispute is not about God's power, for we do not deny that God can turn bread into flesh, but rather whether He wills to do it. Another argument is derived from the speech of Christ. He asserts that Christ did not say, "This is a figure or sign of my body," but pronounced it to be the Lord's own body. We have already addressed this argument. If he denies the sacrament is a figure of the Lord's body absolutely, he contradicts almost all the fathers who acknowledge it as a figure. If he means it is not merely a figure, a void or empty sign, we agree.

He further asserts that the bread of the communion is no simple bread but has the Godhead joined with it. We willingly accept this, for we do not say it is common or simple bread, but that it is now sanctified and turned into the nature of a sacrament. It can be said that the Godhead is joined to it because the Holy Ghost uses it as an instrument for our salvation. He compares it to Baptism, where God condescends to our customs and joins His grace and Spirit to water and oil. Similarly, He joins His Godhead to bread and wine in the sacrament. If Theophylact followed the transubstantiators, he would extinguish the natures of bread and wine, but he implies that their natures remain, just as water remains in Baptism.

He says God condescended to our custom so that through things usual and agreeable to nature, we may attain to that which is above nature, touching on our transformation into Christ. He acknowledges the sacramental change but implies the nature of the bread remains. He uses words like "changed," "consumed," and "become the body of Christ," which, if understood sacramentally, do not contradict us. The sacrament is made of common bread supernaturally, just as the water of regeneration in Baptism is used supernaturally.

If you demand of him the manner of this transmutation into the body of Christ, he admits it is not easy to express how, in natural nourishment, bread is changed into our flesh. We discussed this earlier with Theophylact. If the comparison is taken generally and applied to sacramental changing, it suffices. But if you compare it specifically to natural sustenance converted into flesh, you must not only give up the nature of bread but also the accidents.

Chapter 41:

The Unity and Substance of the Eucharist

He adds that the bread is made the body of Christ, and wine and water His blood, yet they are not two but one. If he refers to "one" as the cup and bread being one sacrament, we do not dispute this, because in this action, as in one sacrament, Christ is given to us as sustenance. Although the Church, in receiving both parts of this sacrament, does not hesitate to speak of "sacraments" in the plural. In the Collects of the Mass, after communion, you often read: "The sacraments which we have received," and similar phrases. However, if they claim that the bread and the body of Christ are one and not two after consecration due to transubstantiation, we oppose this with the words of Irenaeus, who writes that the Eucharist consists of two things: one earthly and one heavenly. Also, Gelasius the Pope argues from the conjunction of bread with the body of Christ, with both natures remaining whole, that the human and divine natures in Christ are joined in one, each remaining whole and inviolate.

He further asserts that this sacrament is not cast into the draught. This statement aligns with the transubstantiators' view, for they claim that nothing in the Eucharist besides the accidents and the nature of Christ's body can be cast into the draught. However, I counter this with a clear passage from Origen on Matthew 15, where he interprets the words, "That which goes into the mouth does not defile a man." He states that if it does not defile, neither does it sanctify. But what shall we say of the Lord's bread? Does it neither sanctify nor defile? He answers that if anything seems impure, it does not defile us unless it is through an evil conscience. Similarly, that which is seen and called holy does not sanctify us unless righteousness and integrity of life accompany it. For if the bread had the power to sanctify by its nature, there would not have been so many weak and feeble and so many who slept among the Corinthians.

Therefore, the material part of the Lord's bread passes into the belly and is cast into the draught. But whatever comes by prayer and by the word of the Lord profits the soul according to the measure of faith. Thus, the matter itself is not profitable, but the word added to it profits the soul. To clarify, Origen explicitly states that these things concern the mystical body of Christ. No one will object that Origen sometimes erred in doctrine, as Jerome, Epiphanius, and the ancient fathers, who diligently examined his errors, never mentioned any false judgment regarding the Eucharist. They would have addressed this if he had transgressed in such a significant matter.

In the same passage, Origen plainly adds that the wicked do not eat the body of Christ, because it is a life-giving body, and he who eats it dwells in Him. Therefore, against John Damascene, who is a later and less renowned writer, let Origen be opposed—a most ancient father of great renown.

Chapter 42:

Cyril and the Council of Ephesus

After these matters, it was objected what Cyril, in the name of the Council of Ephesus, wrote to Nestorius, the Bishop of Constantinople. At that time, there was a disputation against him, who affirmed that the human person in Christ was altogether separate and distinct from the person of the Son of God, so that there should be no other manner of conjunction except in dignity. Against him, the argument was from the nature of Sacraments. If the flesh of Christ is so severed from the person of God, it follows that it is no quickening flesh. If we grant the flesh of Christ to be in the Sacraments, we should eat the flesh of man, albeit sanctified and excellent, but it would not give us eternal life according to the promise.

This is the scope of those disputations. The Fathers did not contend, nor did they attempt to prove that the flesh of Christ lies hidden in the bread, but they wanted us to eat the same in a Sacrament, and truly so, to eat such flesh as will give us eternal life. We do not deny this if it is understood that the eating pertains to the soul and to faith. We grant that in a Sacrament, the flesh of Christ is eaten spiritually but truly. We do not fabricate a flesh severed and divided from the divine person of the Word.

They object against us the Council of Rome or the Vercellentian Council, wherein Berengarius was condemned and compelled to recant. As for these councils, since their Acts are not extant, we cannot answer much. Therefore, it is profitable to weigh the recantation prescribed to Berengarius by Pope Nicholas in the Council. By examining this, we can judge the credibility of the Council and the rationality of those who had the chief rule in it.

In the decrees "De Consecratione," the second distinction in the Chapter "Ego Berengarius," his recantation is described. He was compelled to confess that the body of Christ is sensibly handled with the hands of the priests, broken, and rent with the teeth. Let every wise man judge how well these claims align with the glorified body of Christ and with that Sacrament. The Glosser upon the decrees, a man otherwise of gross understanding, could not help but see such an absurdity. Therefore, he says these things must be very advisedly and rightly understood. If not, he warns, one may fall into a greater error than that with which Berengarius was infected. He saw that it was not convenient to say that the body of Christ is sensibly felt in the Sacrament, or that it is broken or rent with the teeth.

The Master of the Sentences, in the fourth book, attempted to remedy this issue, stating that these things must be attributed not to the body of Christ but to the signs, which they affirm to be accidents. Thus, he used a figure whereby what belongs to the signs is attributed to the thing. If we use this figure in due time, interpreting the Fathers' sayings when they speak magnificently of this Sacrament to the people, our adversaries claim we corrupt and falsify their writings. Nevertheless, they themselves resort to the same interpretation, using a figure where it ought least to be, namely in declaring an opinion and framing a recantation, which ought to be the clearest and most plain of all.

So, we disregard this council, seeing that they dealt so clumsily.

Chapter 43:

The Synod of Constance and Transubstantiation

They also object to the Synod of Constance, wherein Wycliffe was condemned, and where John Hus and Jerome of Prague were burned for various articles, but especially for holding against Transubstantiation, which was ordained there by a full decree. Doubtless, we cannot choose but call this council treacherous, seeing it found the means to slay those two men, who came under safe conduct. This also the Emperor took grievously, for he, among others, had given his word. Otherwise, the Bohemians would never have allowed those men to go to that Council.

Insofar as they decreed touching Transubstantiation, it is an argument that the same is a new opinion. It is of no force when many say it was confirmed by a decree but not first invented because, under Nicholas the Roman Bishop in the Vercellentian and Roman Synod, it was manifestly enough declared. We grant indeed that this opinion broke out after a sort and was obtruded before the Council of Constance. However, because it was not fully received and faced many contradictions, they judged it necessary to establish the same again, and that tyrannically, by fire and cruel threatenings.

Against this Council, we object to the general and universal Council of Florence, held under Eugenius, Bishop of Rome, the fourth of that name, who was present there. Also present were the Emperor of Greece, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and many Bishops of the East. In this Council, the Greek Church was joined with the Latin, and they agreed on the dissension about the Holy Ghost. We may see in the Acts of that Council, that after agreement was made between those of the East and the West about certain articles, the Pope wanted to proceed further and have them entreat about Transubstantiation, and to receive it according to the opinion of the Western Church.

The Greeks resisted and would not deal in that matter, nor could they be driven by any reasons to consent to it. When writings of union were to be drawn and published, they ensured that no mention would be made of that matter. This was observed, as evident in a Bull of Eugenius, which begins: "Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad," wherein he rejoices with Christendom for the good fortune that the Greek and Latin Churches were once again joined together.

If this Transubstantiation had been of such great importance, the Roman Church would never have been joined with the Greek Church, which did not receive it. For at this day, they say that it is a pestilent heresy not to admit the same. But it is not credible that the Latin Church would then join itself with heretics and be partakers with them.

This also dissolves the argument they brought regarding the universal consent of the Church. It is not true that all Churches agreed together on this; for that ancient Church, which existed in the time of the Fathers, as we have shown, never dreamed of any such thing. Again, the Eastern and Greek Churches were of the same judgment as we are.

Moreover, in their arguments, they add exceedingly great praises of the power of God to bring men to believe in such a great miracle. But it is a most feeble kind of reasoning. That which they ought to have shown, they have never proved—namely, that God's will is to do this and that the holy scriptures promise us this. For what they allege, "This is my body," is in controversy and may have another sense. Therefore, the argument is weak, and we will show its feebleness by a certain example.

The Lord said to Nicodemus that none can enter into the kingdom of heaven unless he is born anew. Nicodemus began to ask, "How can a man of ripe age, or else an old man, enter the second time into his mother's womb?" It might have been said to him: Christ has now affirmed that it shall be so; why do you doubt the power of God, whereby all things are created? By it, you may undoubtedly be born again out of your mother's womb. However, Christ did not say this. Instead, He declared that all this should be done by spiritual regeneration. Although He mentioned water, which pertains to baptism, He most plainly taught that we should be born again by the Spirit.

So, we see it come to pass in this place. Christ commanded that we should eat His flesh. In receiving bread, He said: "This is my body." The transubstantiators say: It cannot be that the body of the Lord should be together with bread; therefore, the nature thereof must be transubstantiated into the body of Christ. They will persuade that this is done by the power of God. But in the meantime, they object that they alone do not say this: for Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Cyril, when they dispute this change, send us to the power of God and extol it with wonderful praises.

We answer that the Fathers speak well. Indeed, it belongs to the power of God to change bread and wine so that the sacraments should be such as they were not before. It is not a work of nature that they should so mightily and effectually signify, offer, and exhibit the body and blood of the Lord, which must be apprehended with our minds and faith. Therefore, the Holy Ghost is the chief in this business, and the institution of the Lord is of great force. The words uttered by divine inspiration and now repeated profit greatly. Moreover, while we communicate, there is a change or conversion of us into Christ, which far exceeds the power of nature.

But now, seeing the supernatural power of God is required for all these things, they apply the same to transubstantiation. It is as if we should argue from the more universal to the more particular affirmatively, which is not lawful. Moreover, baptism requires the same power, as it is not the work of nature that water should become the fountain of regeneration. But some take issue with comparing baptism to the Eucharist. Although they cannot deny that Christ is also present in baptism and given to us (for it is written: "So many of you as are baptized have put on Christ"), they say: Christ is better and after a more excellent manner in the Eucharist than in baptism; therefore, the bread is transubstantiated, and it is not necessary that the water should be changed.

We answer that we need not strive much over which sacrament Christ is more excellent, as long as it is granted that He is in both. Just as He may be in one, with the substance of the elements preserved, so may He be in the other. But if you will contend about their worthiness, the excellence of baptism may be shown by effective reasons. It is more to be begotten than to be nourished. Furthermore, baptism was made famous by many miracles. The heavens were opened, the voice of the Father was heard, and the Holy Ghost was seen in the likeness of a dove—things which did not happen in the institution of the Eucharist. We speak not to abase this sacrament, for it is most worthy and should be exceedingly honored, but to answer the objection about the power of God.

We have already shown before, out of Augustine's "De Trinitate," Book 3, Chapter 10, that we must not allow such exceedingly great miracles as these men bring. This also appears if you rehearse the verses of Gregory Nazianzen, wherein he comprehended all the miracles of Christ. He made no mention of these miracles, which, if believed, are singular and without comparison. Augustine also, while comprising the marvels of the holy scripture in his book of miracles, does not mention transubstantiation. Therefore, it appears that we must not use an argument drawn from the power of God for this opinion, which we deny not; rather, we affirm that this sacrament requires it.

Examination of Miracles and Transubstantiation

Next, they objected that their opinion was confirmed by many wonders and miracles, which are read in Cyprian, in the life of Gregory, and among many other writers. We answer that miracles might be done concerning the Eucharist for three causes. Firstly, to keep back wicked and unworthy men from such a worthy Sacrament. This kind of miracle we allow, for the Apostle writes that among the Corinthians, many were feeble and weak, and that many were asleep because they communicated unworthily. I believe those men mentioned by Cyprian must be brought into this category.

Secondly, another kind of miracle is sometimes brought in to set forth the excellency of this Sacrament, so that its dignity and greatness might be expressed. These miracles we also reject not, for we know that baptism was often adorned with many miracles.

Thirdly, there may be miracles for confirming this opinion or rather error concerning Transubstantiation. This manner of miracle is what our adversaries allege against us. But miracles of this sort must be utterly rejected. We are admonished by the law that whenever a prophet tries to draw men to idolatry and superstitions, even if he gains credibility through miracles, we must not believe him. Rather, the Lord would have him stoned. We know moreover that Antichrist shall come, and that he shall be famous for signs and wonders. We are not ignorant that in the time of Moses, the sorcerers stood before Pharaoh and performed wonders against the word of God.

We read in Irenaeus's first book about one Mark, a deceiver and heretic, who in the sacrament of the Eucharist did wonderfully beguile the simple. He changed the colour of the wine to appear as blood, and by his enchantment, he so increased a little wine that the whole cup was filled and ran over. When there was a larger cup of more capacity, that too was filled to the top without the addition of more liquid. Who would say that through these miracles, his heresy should be approved?

If we mention the pagans, we read that rivers of blood flowed from the earth, and that blood sprang from Jupiter’s thumb. Titus Livius says that it rained flesh in Rome. Quintus Curtius states that in Tyre, when it was besieged by Alexander the Great, bread openly sweated blood. It is also said that Apollonius of Tyana, when he was in council before Domitian the Emperor, suddenly vanished and was no more found. The pagans have countless stories to confirm their idol worship.

Therefore, we wholly reject these miracles, which these men claim serve to establish the superstition of transubstantiation. We are not to make much account of what they bring forth as a miracle wrought by Gregory, Bishop of Rome. It is written in his life that the bread of the Lord, or if you prefer, the Sacrament of the Eucharist, was turned into a finger of flesh. If this was done for the two causes we allow, we are not much concerned. However, that life of Gregory is not highly credible. Vincentius writes that it was described a hundred years after Gregory’s death by John, a Deacon of Rome, and sent to a certain Emperor of Germany.

Even if it were true, as our adversaries would conclude that through the token of a fleshy finger, the flesh of Christ lies corporally hidden under accidents, one might by this kind of miracle conclude that under sacramental forms are contained ashes and coals. This is because the holy bread was once converted into these in the time of Cyprian, as he himself writes. I think the legerdemain of deceitful men, often used to feign miracles, is not unknown.

Chapter 44:

Argument of the Glorified Body and the Presence of Christ

In another argument, they heavily emphasised the dignity of the glorified body of Christ, which after the resurrection is called spiritual. This we do not deny, yet we caution, as Augustine mentions in an epistle to Consentius, that such a body is not so spiritual that it passes into the nature of a spirit. For Paul also refers to the body as a natural body, which must not be understood as though the body transitions into the nature of the soul. Again, the same Father in his 13th book De Civitate Dei, chapter 20, writes: "The soul, while it obeys the flesh, is called carnal, not because it transitions into the nature of flesh. Similarly, the body is called spiritual, not because it takes on the nature of a spirit, but because it will be wholly subject to fulfilling the will thereof."

Jerome, in an epistle to Pamachius, which was an apology against John, Bishop of Jerusalem (who attributed to the souls of those who rise again an elementary or airy body that should not be subject to feeling or feeding), contended by all means that Christ, after his resurrection, had a most true body, and undoubtedly a visible one. He preempts an objection: if in such a way it were visible and the same body, why was it not known when he showed himself as a stranger? He answers: "because their eyes were held that they might not know him." As if to say, that which belongs to the nature of a body was both visible and could be known, but there was an impediment in their eyes, which were held so they could not discern.

Seeing, therefore, that Christ after his resurrection had a true body bound to measure and place, there is no cause to deprive it of these properties and confine it into the narrow confines of a small piece of bread, as though it were wholly contained therein, regardless of its size. But even if it is granted that this may be done by the power of God, can it straightaway be concluded that it is done? The argument, as we showed before, is weak.

They also argued from the Greek article, seeing Christ said, "Τούτό ἐστι τὸ σῶμά μου" (This is my body), as though the article has the strength to draw the proposition to its proper sense and does not permit a figurative meaning. These men are deceived, for the Greek article does not always have such strength. This is clearly seen in the 8th chapter of the Gospel of Luke, where Christ expounded the parable he had uttered of the sower of the seed. He said, "Τὸ σπέρμα ἐστὶν ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ" (The seed is the word of God), where the Greek article is also used with "the word of God." Yet, this speech does not mean that the word of God is bound, as though it should properly, really, and corporally be in the seed sown into the earth. It is said to be contained therein by the power and property of the signification, which is how we understand the words of the Lord when he says: "This is my body." For we say that it is not pronounced of the bread of the Lord's body unless by signification.

Moreover, there was an argument taken from the promise of Christ, where he said: "I will be with you until the end of the world." This is no hindrance to our opinion, for we confess that Christ is present with us by his divine nature, by grace, and by many gifts which his spirit brings unto us. Furthermore, if we desire his blood and flesh, we may also comprehend them in this sacrament by faith and may spiritually eat them, leading to a true, yet secret and unspeakable conjunction of us with Christ when we are changed into him.

Chapter 45:

Argument from the Nature of Sacraments

Then afterward, it was proposed that if the matter is as we say, it will follow that our sacraments have no more than had the sacraments of the old Law, seeing that in them also Christ was signified. Indeed, perhaps, if we consider the nature of signs, the thing was more fully shadowed there than it is in our sacraments, which are altogether unbloody. In the sacrifices of the old fathers, the slaughter was plainly seen, and the blood shed there did more clearly depict the Lord's death and place it before our eyes than our bread and wine do.

We answer that regarding the substance, our sacraments are the same as those of the old fathers. The same thing is given in both, although the signs are different. This is testified by Paul in the first Epistle to the Corinthians. Nevertheless, our sacraments have many prerogatives over the sacraments of the old law. They are firm and no longer to be changed until the end of the world; they show not the thing that is to be done, but the thing that is already done. They are clearer and pertain to a more extensive and greater number of people. Because they are clearer, they stir up greater faith, and thereby a greater measure of the spirit follows.

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.

We also have a rule of Augustine in "De Doctrina Christiana," wherein he shows that unless an evil act is commanded, or some good work prohibited, the speech is to be taken without a figure. If this rule is applied to the choice of meats and to circumcision, it shows that the words of God must be absolutely understood. They say moreover that in the Prophets and histories, figures are easily admitted because in these the Holy Ghost deals after the manner of men and applies himself to their familiar speeches, that he may more earnestly express those things which are to be spoken. But in doctrine and precepts, we must not so judge: all things, they say, must be taken simply. This opinion of theirs is not firm or universal.

Figurative Speech in Doctrine

As for precepts, the Lord says: "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees," where he manifestly uses a figure, such a figure that the apostles in that place misunderstood him. Moreover, in Matthew 7, he commanded that they should beware of false prophets, "for they will come to you," he says, "in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." In this commandment, who does not perceive a figurative speech? In teaching doctrine, there is no doubt that figures and tropes are used. Paul says in the New Testament: "The rock was Christ," and "We are one bread." Of God, it is written that he is a consuming fire (πῦρ καταναλίσκον).

Chapter 47:

The Body of Christ and its Omnipresence

They affirm that the body of Christ may be everywhere, citing the words of Christ to Nicodemus in John 3: "No man ascends into heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man who is in heaven." Behold, they say, the Son of Man, that is Christ, spoke to them concerning his human nature, and was also in heaven because the human nature cannot be separated from the divine. Therefore, what he affirms of one must also be spoken of the other.

However, it is answered that we will not divide these two natures from one another, yet it does not follow that what pertains to one should be given to the other. Indeed, we grant that the divinity of Christ is everywhere, but we will not attribute the same to his body and humanity. Augustine manifestly taught this to Dardanus. And what is brought out of the third chapter of John, Augustine interprets, must be understood that the Son of Man was in heaven concerning his divine nature. Neither did Chrysostom judge otherwise when he expounded this place. He affirmed that to be in heaven was not attributed to the Son of Man but in respect of his divine nature.

The Argument of the Natures

But how feeble an argument this is: These two natures are joined together; therefore, what is granted to one must be attributed also to the other. This may be shown by analogy: The body of the sun and the light thereof have between them a natural and excellent conjunction, yet the light does not extend itself to every place where the body really attains. In like manner, the body, our eyes, and sight are very much joined together, yet our sight attains to many things to which the eye of the body does not extend.

The Unique Nature of Christ's Body

They argue that many things must be granted to the body of Christ beyond the common course and conditions of other bodies, for two reasons: partly because it is glorified, and partly because it has the Word joined with it. We confess that many things are to be given, but to be everywhere cannot fit it while preserving the nature of man's body. If we were to grant this, it would bring ruin rather than renown to it, for then it would be extruded from its own nature. Moreover, even if we granted that the body of Christ could be in many places, it does not follow that God would deal so in this sacrament.

The Teacher Similitude

They endeavour to prove this corporal presence by the similitude of a teacher. A teacher, seeing he can extend his words to many hearers, communicates the concept of his mind to them, so they all understand him fully alike. So, they say, God deals in the words uttered at the sacrament. He folds his body in them so that by them he may be shown in all these signs and may be communicated to all that receive.

Comparison and Conclusion

But the comparison is far wide, and as we said before, words do not discover things or the concept of the mind unless by way of signification. It is to no purpose what they go about to prove afterward, that the body of Christ is everywhere, from the first chapter of Ephesians: "Christ is given to be the head of the body of the Church, which (as it is written in Greek) is the fullness of him that fills all in all things."

The Apostle does not mean that the body of Christ fills all things and is everywhere as they infer. The verb or participle πληροῦντος (fulfilling) is doubtful in its signification, as it may be taken both actively and passively. If understood passively, according to Greek expositions, it means that Christ, the head of the Church, is filled concerning all things in all his members, not that he is accomplished in himself. He is sufficiently perfect and happy. However, that must be understood concerning the body and members. As to be the head is given to him, so likewise the Church is understood to be the fullness of Christ, for it fills and perfects his mystical body.

Active and Passive Signification

If the signification is active, then it means that Christ is the head because he perfects all gifts and virtues in all his members. The sense is not that he, as man, is everywhere. This can be proved by the Scriptures. Christ openly confessed that Lazarus was dead when he was not there. If one contends that he did not have a glorified body, it does not affect the matter because he still had the Godhead joined with it.

To remove doubt, the Angel after the resurrection said to the women: "He is risen, he is not here." Again: "He shall go before you into Galilee." And again: "He was taken away from their eyes as he ascended into heaven." Therefore, he does not fill all things nor is he everywhere.

Christ's Ascension and Filling All Things

They also cite a place in the fourth chapter of Ephesians: "He that descended is the very same that ascended even above all heavens, that he might fill all things." This place, notwithstanding, proves nothing and is expounded in two ways. First, that to fill all things is referred to what is prophesied and written of Christ. Wherefore a little before, he cited the scripture: "He ascended on high, he led captivity captive and gave gifts unto men." If you refer it to places, you must understand this of the kinds of places, not of each place particularly, according to that sentence: "The Lord would have all men to be saved." Thus, we say that Christ sometimes occupied the middle places, sometimes the higher places, and other times the lower places, as in the sepulchre.

Transubstantiation and Omnipresence

The Transubstantiators say that this does not belong to them because they do not claim that the body of Christ is everywhere, but only where the Sacrament is. Rather, it is against them. For if, as they judge, it is not repugnant to the body of Christ to be at one time in twenty or fifty places, it will not be repugnant to be in a hundred or a thousand places, and finally in all places. Thus, they make the body of Christ to be infinite. There is no cause to accuse the form of the argument, for Jerome used the same against John, Bishop of Jerusalem, to prove that our bodies after resurrection can remain without meat. Jerome said that Elias and Moses, by the power of God, could remain without meat for forty days, so man might also be sustained by the power of God for more days. If for longer time, it follows that forevermore if it be the will of God.

The Adoration of the Sacrament

Returning to those men, they see that upon such a near conjunction, it follows that the Sacrament may be adored. For if the Lord be corporally and really contained therein, who will not worship him? They teach that it is free for you to do it or not do it. For they say: although he is there, yet he is not there to be worshipped. If you receive him and eat him, it is enough. If you also worship him, you do not err. But we judge rather that in worshipping we should not turn our mind to the signs.

If any man, while the rite of the Sacrament is exercised, being well instructed in the mystery, shall turn his mind to the worshipping of Christ reigning in heaven, he does rightly and his bounden duty to worship Christ, who declares himself unto him. Neither is idolatry committed therein. Paul taught this in the first epistle to the Corinthians when he said: "If a man enters your congregation, if he is unlearned and a plain man, and hears you all speak together in tongues, doubtless he will say: They are mad, neither shall he be edified. But if he hears you prophesy and perceives that the secrets of his heart are opened, then he will fall down upon his face and worship God." He will not worship men in such wise prophesying, but seeing the Lord revealed unto him, he will turn himself to the worshipping of God.

Chapter 48:

The Arguments Against the Gross Judgement

The reasons in brief, for which their gross judgement seems not to be true, are these:

1. This real and corporal presence brings no utility that we do not already receive by the spiritual presence. In John 6, the Lord promised eternal life to those who eat Him and that He would dwell in them and they in Him. What more is required beyond these promises?

2. Moreover, it might not be granted that we and the fathers of the old law had the same Sacraments because it was not possible for the old fathers to have obtained this real presence, as the Son of God had not yet taken upon Himself human flesh.

3. Furthermore, it would follow that both the godly and the wicked eat the body of Christ.

4. Again, besides that spiritual eating which we have in John 6, they bring in another carnal and corporal eating, which cannot be allowed, as this eating and that are all one, except that in the latter, signs are added for the confirmation of the thing.

5. Finally, it follows that when they attribute so much to words, they are in the same difficulty as the Transubstantiators when they say, "This is my body." For they cannot express their meaning plainly without contradiction, as to how the words, while they are uttered, may be true if they do not admit a figure. They spread abroad the body of Christ so that it may be together in many places and everywhere.

6. Neither is it of force if they say, "Not locally," because although He is there, as Angels are said to be in a place, that is not fit for the creature as it is proved by Didymus, Basil, Augustine unto Dardanus, and by Cyril, which places can be found at the end of the first disputation against Tresham. The words of the scripture do not drive us to so gross and corporal a presence, and faith is of the word of God; wherefore faith ought not to embrace the same.

Teachings of the Fathers

Besides this, the fathers teach otherwise regarding the manner of the body in the Eucharist. Cyprian in his Sermon on the Lord's Supper states: "Who unto this day createth, sanctifieth, and blesseth His most true and holy body, and divideth it unto the godly receivers." The proper body of Christ is not created or sanctified by men, nor is it divided.

Chrysostom, upon Matthew 5 in the 11th homily of the unfinished work, says: "If therefore it is so dangerous to transfer unto private uses these vessels sanctified wherein is not contained the true body of Christ, but a mystery of His body." He further explains how we must ascend into heaven when we communicate, if we would enjoy the body of Christ. This same father declares in Homily 24 on 1 Corinthians 10: "He commands us that with great concord and charity we come unto Him, and being made eagles in this life, we should fly unto the very heaven or rather above heaven. For where the dead carcass is, there also the eagles be."

The carcass is the body of the Lord by reason of His death. Unless He had fallen, we would not have risen again. He calls us eagles to show that he who comes unto this body must mount on high, must have no community with the earth, and must not lay hold upon or be drawn unto inferior things but always fly aloft and look into the sun of righteousness and have a most ready eye of the mind: for this is a table of eagles and not of jays.

Ascending from Earth to Heaven

Again, the same father in Homily 83 on Matthew 26 says: "They were about to journey from Egypt into Palestine, and therefore they did wear the habit of a traveller: thou from the earth must ascend into heaven." And in the third book De Sacerdotio, he states: "Do you think to dwell among mortal men, and to stay and be on the earth? And do you not rather think that you shall forthwith be translated into heaven? And in casting away all cogitation of the flesh, do you not with a single heart and pure mind consider those things that are in heaven?"

Chapter 49:

Augustine's Teachings on the Presence of Christ

Augustine wrote to Boniface, maintaining a consistent order and sense in his teachings. He said: As Easter approaches, Christ died on this or the next day save one, and on Sunday: Christ rose again. Baptism is faith, and the Sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ. In all these sayings, that which is absent is pronounced as present.

The Presence of Christ's Body

The same Father, upon the 54th Psalm, states: "The head is in heaven: and he said, 'Why do you persecute me?' We are with him in heaven by hope, and he is with us on earth by love." In the 119th Epistle to Januarius, Augustine writes: "Wherefore, to that persecutor whom with his voice he slew, and translating him into his body after a sort has eaten, he sounded from heaven: 'Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?'"

The Majesty and Truth of Christ

Upon John, the 30th Treatise, Augustine asserts: "The Lord is above, but here also is the truth of the Lord: For the Lord's body wherein he rose again ought to be in one place, but his truth is everywhere spread." Again, upon John, the 50th Treatise: "For according to his Majesty, his providence, and his unspeakable and invisible grace, is fulfilled that which was spoken by him: 'Behold I will be with you until the end of the world.' But according to the flesh which the Word took upon it, which was born of the Virgin, taken hold of by the Jews, fastened to the tree, taken down from the cross, wrapped in clothes, buried in the sepulchre, and made manifest in the resurrection, 'You shall not always have me with you.'"

The Ascension and Presence

Wherefore, after he had been conversant as touching his bodily presence for forty days with his disciples, leading them forth while they saw him but did not follow him, he ascended into heaven and is not here; for there he sits at the right hand of his Father, and is here; for he did not depart from the presence of his Majesty. We have Christ always. As touching the presence of the flesh, it was rightly said to the disciples: "Me you shall not have always." For the Church had him but a few days as touching the presence of the flesh. Now it holds him by faith, not seeing him with the eyes.

The Continuation of Christ's Presence

The same Father, upon the Epistle of John at the end, states: "Our Lord Jesus Christ ascended into heaven on the fortieth day. In this respect, he commended his body because it was to be left on earth in his members. He saw that many would honour him for ascending into heaven and perceived that their honouring is unprofitable if they tread down his members upon the earth. So that none might be deceived, nor when he worships the head in heaven, should he oppress the feet upon the earth, he told them where his members should be."

Christ's Final Words and Mission

When he was about to ascend, he spoke his last words: "After these words, he spoke no more upon the earth. The head, about to ascend into heaven, commended his members upon the earth and so departed. You shall not now find Christ speaking upon the earth. You find him speaking, however, in heaven and out of heaven itself. Why? Because the members were trodden upon the earth. To Paul the persecutor, he said, 'Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? I ascended into heaven, but I lie still upon the earth. Here I sit at the right hand of the Father, there I still hunger, thirst, and am a stranger.'"

Christ's Body on Earth

After what sort then did he commend his body upon the earth while ascending? When his disciples asked him: "Lord, if you will at this time be presented, when will you restore the kingdom of Israel?" He answered upon his departure: "It is not for you to know the time, which the Father has laid up in his own power: but you shall receive the power of the Holy Spirit coming upon you, and you shall be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem." Behold in what respect he spreads out his body: "Behold, when he will not be trodden upon, you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and over all Judea and Samaria, and unto the ends of the earth." Behold I lie which do ascend: For I ascend because I am the head; my body yet still lies. In what sort does it lie? Over the whole earth.

Augustine and Cyril on Christ's Presence

Unto Augustine, Cyril agrees, who writes in his commentary on John, book 6, chapter 14: "Here must we note that although Christ took away the presence of his body, as he promised he would be away from his disciples, yet in the majesty of his Godhead he is always present. 'Behold, I am with you always, even until the end of the world.'"

The same father, in his ninth book on John, chapter 21, states: "Christ said that he would be with his disciples for a little while, not because he would utterly depart from them, for he is with us always, even until the end of the world, but because he would not live with them as he did before. The time was now at hand for him to go into heaven unto the Father. The faithful ought to believe that although he is absent from us in body, we and all things are governed by his power, and he is always present with all who love him."

Christ's Presence and the Godhead

Therefore, he said: "Verily, verily I say unto you, that wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Just as when he was on earth as a man, he also filled the heavens and did not leave the fellowship of the angels; now, being in the heavens, he does not fill the earth with his flesh but is with those who love him. It must be observed that although he is absent only according to the flesh, he is always present by the power of the Godhead. He said he would be a little while with his disciples, clearly naming himself so that none should dare to divide Christ into two sons.

Vigilius on Christ's Humanity and Divinity

Vigilius, in his first book against Eutychus, writes: "The Son of God, concerning his humanity, departed from us; concerning his Godhead, he says unto us: 'Behold, I am with you until the end of the world.'" He continues: "Whom he left and from whom he departed in his humanity, he neither left nor forsook in his divinity. According to the form of a servant, which he took from us into heaven, he is absent from us; according to the form of God, with which he does not depart from us, he is present with us upon the earth. Yet, both present and absent, he is one and the same to us."

The Dual Nature of Christ

In the fourth book, he writes: "If the Word and the flesh are of one nature, how is it that, seeing the Word is everywhere, the flesh also is not found everywhere? When he was on earth, he was not also in heaven, and now because he is in heaven, he is not on earth. It does not matter that we should expect Christ to come from heaven as touching the flesh itself, whom we believe to be with us on earth as concerning the Word."

Therefore, as you will have it, either the Word is contained in a place with his flesh, or the flesh with the Word is everywhere. One nature does not receive a thing contrary or diverse in itself. It is a diverse and far unlike thing to be limited in a place and to be everywhere. Since the Word is everywhere, but the flesh is not, it appears that one and the same Christ is of both natures: he is everywhere according to his divine nature, and according to his human nature, he is contained in a place. He is created and has no beginning; he is subject to death and cannot die.

He concludes: "This is the Catholic faith and confession, which the Apostles have taught, the Martyrs have confirmed, and the faithful do to this day keep."

Chapter 50:

Fulgentius on Christ's Presence

Moreover, Fulgentius, writing to Thrasimundus the King in the second book, states: "One and the same man, local as a man, who is God immense as the Father, one and the same, according to human substance, absent from heaven when he was on earth, and forsaking the earth when he ascended into heaven. But as touching the divine and immense substance, he neither left heaven when he descended from heaven, nor forsook the earth when he ascended into heaven."

This appears certainly by the assured word of the Lord himself, who, to show that his humanity was local, said to his disciples, "I ascend to your Father and my Father, to my God and your God." Of Lazarus also, when he said, "Lazarus is dead," he added, "I am glad for your sakes that you may believe because I was not there." He undoubtedly showed the infinite greatness of his divinity to his apostles, saying, "Behold, I am with you even to the end of the world." How does he ascend into heaven, but because he is in a place as very man? Or how is he present with his faithful, except because he is one immense and very God?

Fulgentius on the Nature of Christ

The same father, in the third book, writes: "The very same and inseparable Christ, as touching his flesh only, rose out of the sepulchre. The very same and inseparable Christ, according to the whole man which he received, forsaking the earth locally, ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God. According to the same man, he shall come to judge the quick and the dead and to crown the faithful and godly."

Bernard on the Sacrament

Lastly, Bernard, in his 33rd Sermon on the Canticles, states: "I also have the Word, but in the flesh, and before me is set the truth, albeit in a Sacrament. The Angel is fattened, but yet with the fatness of corn, and is now filled with grain. In the meantime, it behoves me to be content with the bark of the Sacrament, with the bran of the flesh, with the chaff of the letter, with the covering of faith. These things are such that, being tasted, bring death if they have not received some seasoning of the first fruits of the Spirit. Death is altogether in the pot for me unless it is sweetened by the little meal of the Prophet. But certainly, however abundant these things grow, the book of the Sacrament and the fat of the wheat, faith and hope, memory and presence, eternity and time, the visage and a glass, the Image of God and the form of a servant, are not received with equal pleasantness. Truly, in all these things, faith is rich to me and understanding poor."

The Contrast Between Faith and Understanding

"And is the savour of faith and understanding all one, when this tends towards merit and that towards reward? You see that there is as much difference between the meats as between the places. And even as the heavens are exalted from the earth, so are the inhabitants therein. Here you plainly see that Bernard makes an antithesis or contrary comparison between the remembrance and presence of a thing, and speaks of many other things which serve much to what we have in hand. But let us return to the adversaries: they have fathers to oppose against us. They have Irenaeus, who says that the Eucharist consists of two things: the one earthly and the other heavenly, which Gelasius also supposes."

The Conjunction in the Eucharist

"However, these things conclude not unless you understand the whole Sacrament so that you make it one thing consisting of the sign and the thing signified. Then we grant that it stands of two parts. But if afterward you appoint such a great conjunction between the bread and the body of Christ as is between the divine and human natures in Christ, that should in no wise be granted, because it would be necessary that of bread and of the body of Christ should be made one substance, that is, one subject, so that they might never be sundered one from another, which is most absurd."

"From the other fathers, they object in a manner the very same which the Transubstantiators cited before."

Chapter 51:

The Third Opinion on Christ's Presence

Now let us see what those who embrace the third opinion say against these men. First, they do not accept the notion that the body of Christ can be scattered so as to be everywhere, because it is against the property of human nature. Augustine to Dardanus writes most plainly against this. Furthermore, they contend that the eating mentioned in John 6 and this later eating is altogether one, except that in this are added signs. They prove this by the argument that John, when he mentioned this eating at the end of his Gospel, did not speak of the institution of the Sacrament as the other Evangelists did, for he had sufficiently taught it before. And the sum of doctrine which they omitted, John in chapter 6 fulfilled.

The Purpose of Communion

There is no reason, they say, why anyone should argue that communion is superfluous because in often communicating we celebrate the memory of the Lord, give thanks, and our minds are stirred with the likeness of those things represented. Neither are these dumb signs, but speaking signs. Furthermore, a certain private token is present, whereby Christians demonstrate their unity with one another and with Christ. Moreover, they profess their faith regarding the body of Christ nailed upon the cross and his blood shed for our salvation. It is not enough to believe with the heart, but confession must also be made with the mouth, and not only with the mouth but with outward actions.

The Wicked and the Sacrament

They do not admit, as these men say, that the wicked also receive the body of Christ, for sense and reason do not attain to it. Therefore, it remains that he is received by faith, and those who lack faith can have nothing but the signs. Paul writes: "He that eats the bread unworthily," and he does not say, "He that eats the body unworthily."

Remission of Sins and the Lord's Supper

Furthermore, they wonder at those who follow the contrary opinion that attribute the remission of sins to the corporal eating of Christ, as this admits Opus operatum, that is, merit, in respect of the very act of working. Remission of sins is not obtained otherwise than by faith. They adhere to Paul's words when the Lord commands this to be done in remembrance of him and that his death should be shown, which they believe indicates the absence of the body of Christ. However, it is elsewhere shown that this argument is not very firm unless they mean that the body of Christ is really, corporally, and naturally present. Otherwise, when it is received by faith, it is not understood to be altogether absent, although he remains in heaven in nature and substance. He is spiritually eaten and truly joined with us.

The Fathers' Testimony

They cite the fathers, who plainly pronounce that the type, the sign, and the figure here are the body of Christ. They bring in two analogies. One is of a friend, whose friend being absent bodily is said to be present when thought of. The other analogy is of mirrors surrounding a person, whose face and countenance are multiplied throughout all the mirrors, although he does not move from his place. These are analogies, but yet too cold to fully agree with this mystery. For a friend comprehended in thought does not change the one thinking of him, nor does he nourish his mind or restore his flesh to be capable of resurrection. The analogy of mirrors is also a very weak shadow and cannot be compared to the conjunction we have with Christ. The presence we confess of the Spirit of Christ has the power of the Holy Ghost joined with it, which closely binds us to him. Yet these analogies are not to be utterly refused since they can, in some way, lead us to the truth of the matter, as long as they do not make the things equal. They show how this receiving may be with faith and with the mind.

Conjunctions with Christ

They mention two conjunctions with Christ: one is that by faith we apprehend his body was nailed to the cross and his blood shed for our salvation. The other is that the Son of God himself took our very nature upon him, creating a natural conjunction between us and Christ, as mentioned in Hebrews 2. But there is a third conjunction, which we enter into with Christ in spiritually eating of him, which they do not often speak of, although they do not entirely overlook it. This will be discussed later.

Christ's Presence in the Lord's Supper

If these men are asked whether Christ is present at the Lord's Supper, they answer that he is present. However, they speak by the figure Synecdoche because the one part of Christ, that is, his Godhead, is truly present. In expounding the Lord's words, "This is my body," they use the figure Metonymy, meaning the name of the sign for the thing signified. They grant that Christ himself is present in this manner, like the sun which keeps itself within its own circle and yet is said to be present with the world, governing it with motion and light.

Faith's Role in Presence

How thoroughly faith can make a thing present is explained from the Epistle to the Galatians, where Paul said that Christ was described before their eyes and crucified among them.

Chapter 52:

Evaluating the Opinions on Christ's Presence

Now remains that we show our judgement among these opinions, discerning what must be avoided and what must be received. It is not my intention to reprove either Luther or Zwingli, who were singular and very excellent men. Regarding Zwingli, I know for certain that in his books he affirms the signs in this sacrament are not vain or futile, as we have previously declared. Additionally, it has been reported to me by all those who have conferred with Luther that he indeed considers the body of Christ and the signs to be united only in a sacramental conjunction. How the contention between them has grown and become inflamed is not the matter to discuss now.

Dissecting the First Opinion

Setting these men aside, who are never sufficiently praised, we will address the opinions as they are set down and urged on both sides. In the first opinion, I do not support the gross knitting together of the body of Christ with bread, as if it were naturally, corporally, and really comprehended therein. The holy Scripture does not drive us to such an affirmation. To multiply and increase so many miracles without its testimony is not to act like a divine. Moreover, such a presence is not necessary and is of no moment to our salvation. I also reject the idea that the wicked receive the body of Christ. Whatever the Lord instituted was for our health, and a fleshly and corporal eating does not aid the salvation of the wicked. Therefore, Christ appointed no such eating. Whatever the wicked eat corporally, it should not be said that they eat the body of Christ, unless you attribute the name of the thing to the sign and seal.

The Body of Christ and Omnipresence

Further, we will not grant that the body of Christ is everywhere or spread over many places, as this contradicts human nature. Similarly, there should be no distinction between the spiritual eating in John 6 and that which the Lord instituted at the last supper, except that he added a seal to the doctrine and promise he had first taught. Their doubtful statements about adoration should not be admitted. We have taught plainly and manifestly what we must judge about that matter. Thus, concerning this opinion, I think it is good to remove the points I have now recited.

Addressing the Second Opinion

In the other opinion, I find it unsatisfactory that they seldom mention a sacramental change of the bread and wine, which is nevertheless significant. The Fathers, wherever they seem to favour transubstantiation, have regard to this change. The holy Scriptures do not scorn it. For Paul, in handling the Sacrament, does not simply name it "the cup" but "the cup of the Lord." Furthermore, in the Old Testament, things offered are not only called holy but "holy of holies," that is, in the Hebrew phrase, "most holy." Therefore, there is no reason to say this change is of light importance, seeing it is of great moment.

Misunderstanding and Remedy

If they claim to avoid this emphasis to prevent over-attachment to signs, we respond that a remedy can easily be had through teaching that Christ, while we communicate, is joined to us in an excellent conjunction. He dwells in us, and we in him. He is also joined with words by signification, and thirdly by signs and signification, which conjunction, however, is less than that which pertains to words. Indeed, from the former, the conjunction by words, the signs take their sacramental signification. If these things are rightly taught, there will be no danger. I concede that the proponents of this opinion have sometimes treated this sacramental change, yet only seldom.

The Efficacy of the Sacrament

Furthermore, they have not always applied the efficacy that is due unto it, for these are not made common signs but such as may mightily and effectually stir up the mind. They will say that this attributes too much to the elements of this world. We answer that these things are not attributed to those elements for their own sake but because of the institution of the Lord, the power of the Holy Ghost, and the plainness of the words.

If they shall demand, "How may I know that the Holy Ghost works here?" it may be easily answered: because it is already ordained that this is a spiritual eating. But how shall we eat spiritually without the Holy Ghost? As for the institution of the Lord, there is no doubt, and of the efficacy of the word, the Scriptures speak everywhere. Paul says that the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation, namely that God will declare his power by this instrument. What else is the Eucharist than the Gospel or visible word? Also, Paul says that faith is by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Not that the word makes us believe, for it is the Spirit by whom we believe, but he uses the instrument of words and also of sacraments, which are the sensible words of God.

The Role of the Word and Sacraments

Who does not know that the creatures are sanctified by the word of God as it is in the Epistle to Timothy? This must be rightly understood. It is the Holy Ghost who in very deed sanctifies. However, he does this by the instrument of both the word and sacraments. Therefore, this changing must not be taken from bread and wine, whereby they are made effectual signs of the body and blood of Christ, by which the Spirit of the Lord works mightily in us so that we are endowed with faith and godliness. We do not speak here of an efficacy that binds our salvation to the things of this world.

Spiritual Communion

Neither should anyone cry out that, seeing this receiving is had by faith, the communicants gain nothing because, if they are faithful, they already have Christ joined unto them. It may be easily answered: indeed he is joined unto them, but he is every day more nearly joined unto us, and while we communicate he is more and more united unto us. Moreover, this comes to pass so that we should satisfy the commandment of the Lord, who commanded that we should eat and drink this Sacrament. Otherwise, you would say the very same of Baptism. For when a man believes, he is straightway justified and has remission of sins, and yet he is not in vain baptized.

The Measure of Faith

If you ask whether this efficacy of the Eucharist is towards all men alike, I answer, No, but according to the state and measure of the faith of the communicants. As Origen said upon the 15th chapter of Matthew, the matter of this Sacrament profits not but by the word and by supplication; it may help our minds according to the quantity and proportion of faith.

Incorporation into Christ

Another thing I would often remind these men is that by Communion, we are incorporated into Christ. This word is not new but is in Paul to the Ephesians, who says that the Gentiles are made coheirs and of the same body, which in Greek is called σύσσωμος (syssōmos). Although we affirm that the apprehension or holding fast of the body of Christ is done by faith, yet upon this fast holding follows an effect, even a true conjunction with Christ, not a feigned or imagined one. This first belongs to the soul and then redounds to the body.

The Metaphor of Head and Body

The same is commended to us in the holy Scriptures by Paul under a metaphor of the head and body when he calls us members of one and the same body under Christ the head, and under the state of marriage, wherein two are made one flesh. Cyril expresses this by bringing in a similitude of molten wax, which, mingled with other wax, makes one: thus he would have us joined with Christ. To this purpose are the words to the Ephesians, where we are said to be flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones. These words, if you look at them at first view, might seem to say that the Son of God is of our flesh and bones because he assumed flesh of mankind. However, Paul did not understand mere flesh but flesh clean from sin, capable of resurrection and immortality. The faithful have not this of themselves, nor did they draw it from Adam; they claim it by Christ because they are incorporated into him by the sacraments and by faith.

Spiritual Touching

A certain entrance of Christ into us and a spiritual touching happens. Paul weighed this when he said to the Galatians, "But now it is not I that live, but Christ lives in me." There is no need in these respects to draw Christ out of heaven or to disperse his body into infinite places, for all that we teach is spiritual, yet not a feigned thing. Imagined sights, idols, or feigned things do not nourish the mind, as we are certain is done here. We have said and confirm that these signs signify, offer, and most truly exhibit the body of Christ, although spiritually, that is, to be eaten with the mind, not with the mouth of the body.

The Sacraments of the Old Law

If you ask how the Fathers of the old law could have the same in their sacraments that we have, it is easy to answer, seeing we have affirmed that in this Sacrament the thing is used spiritually, not corporally. In the Apocalypse, we read that the Lamb was slain from the beginning of the world. They waited for things to come; we celebrate the memory of them already done.

Spiritual Eating and Presence

Lastly, we have shown that great heed must be taken lest what we speak of spiritual eating be understood as though it destroys the truth of his presence. Augustine said upon the 54th Psalm that the body of the Lord is in a certain place in heaven, but that the truth of the Lord's body is everywhere. Wherever the faithful are, they apprehend that Christ had a true body given for us, and so they do eat him by faith.

Affirmation of Sacramental Truth

Wherefore, I have now spoken in this sacramental matter that which, in my judgement, ought to be affirmed, being according to the Scriptures, which I would have the godly reader consider well and take in good part. May God in his goodness grant that at length the Church of Christ may obtain both truth and peace regarding this sacrament. These two things I wish for because I see that the Eucharist, which we discuss, has been so overwhelmed, buried, and defaced with lies, crafty devices, and superstitions, that it might rather be judged any other thing than that which the Lord instituted at the Last Supper.

The Devil's Deception

To prevent it from being easily cleansed, the Devil, the most grievous enemy of all peace and truth, has sown so many opinions, contentions, disagreements, heresies, and controversies (though, thankfully, without bloodshed) that scarcely any consent worthy of Christians can be hoped for, by human reason. But we suffer these things (alas) not without cause. We have committed a double injury unto this Sacrament: partly by erecting an execrable idol in place of a notable and singular gift of Christ, and partly by abusing these most holy mysteries without sincerity of faith, with consciences defiled by grievous sins, and without sufficient self-examination.

A Prayer for Restoration

I beseech the Lord to take pity on this great calamity and vouchsafe to restore unto his Church a reformed Eucharist and the right use of the same, through our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

References for Further Reading

- Look to the Exhortation to the Supper of the Lord.

- Also, see his Confession and opinion touching this whole matter.

- Item: the disputations with Tressham, etc., at the end of these Commonplaces.

The end of the Treatise on the Eucharist.

-----

MONERGISM BOOKS

A Treatise of the Lord's Supper by Peter Martyr Vermigli, Copyright © 2024

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. By downloading this eBook, you have been granted the non-exclusive, non-transferable right to access and read the text of this e-book on-screen. No part of this text may be reproduced, transmitted, downloaded, decompiled, reverse engineered, or stored in or introduced into any information storage and retrieval system, in any form or by any means, whether electronic or mechanical, now known or hereinafter invented, without the express written permission of Monergism Books.

ePub, .mobi & .pdf Editions June 2024. Requests for information should be addressed to: Monergism Books, PO Box 491, West Linn Or 97068.

Table of Contents

Introduction

Chapter 1: The Persuasion of Holy Scripture

Chapter 2: Propositions and Interpretations

Chapter 3: The Present Tense and Substance

Chapter 4: The Fathers and Councils

Chapter 5: The Consent of the Church & The Arguments from the Power of God and Miracles

Chapter 6: The Faith of the Church and Idolatry

Chapter 7: The Arguments Against Transubstantiation

Chapter 8: Scriptural Changes and Figures

Chapter 9: The Apostle and Bread

Chapter 10: Arguments from the Old Fathers and Sacraments

Chapter 11: The New and Old Sacraments

Chapter 12: Substance of Sacraments

Chapter 13: Baptism and Eucharist

Chapter 14: The Marcionites and Heresy

Chapter 15: The Nature of a Sacrament

Chapter 16: The Inexplicable Absurdities of Transubstantiation

Chapter 17: The Inconveniences of Transubstantiation

Chapter 18: The Joining of Christ's Body with the Signs

Chapter 19: Baptism and the Eucharist

Chapter 20: Spiritual Eating and the Sixth Chapter of John

Chapter 21: The Fellowship of Saints and Transubstantiation

Chapter 22: The Division of the Sacrament

Chapter 23: The Continuation of the Sacrament

Chapter 24: The Humility and Submission of Christ

Chapter 25: The Nature of the Sacrifice

Chapter 26: The Contradictions of Transubstantiation

Chapter 27: The Mystical Body

Chapter 28: The Role of Miracles

Chapter 29: The Testimonies of the Fathers

Chapter 30: The Mystical Distribution and Spiritual Food

Chapter 31: Chrysostom and the Nature of the Eucharist

Chapter 32: Confuting the Arguments for Transubstantiation

Chapter 33: Understanding the Sacramental Language

Chapter 34: Understanding Figurative Language in Sacramental Context

Chapter 35: The Dignity of Christ and the Substance of Bread

Chapter 36: Chrysostom's Teachings on the Sacrament

Chapter 37: Augustine's Position on the Eucharist

Chapter 38: On the Worship of Images and Eucharistic Practices

Chapter 39: Hilary's Arguments Against the Arians

Chapter 40: Examination of Theophylact

Chapter 41: The Unity and Substance of the Eucharist

Chapter 42: Cyril and the Council of Ephesus

Chapter 43: The Synod of Constance and Transubstantiation

Chapter 44: Argument of the Glorified Body and the Presence of Christ

Chapter 45: Argument from the Nature of Sacraments

Chapter 46: The Force and Efficacy of the Word of God

Chapter 47: The Body of Christ and its Omnipresence

Chapter 48: The Arguments Against the Gross Judgement

Chapter 49: Augustine's Teachings on the Presence of Christ

Chapter 50: Fulgentius on Christ's Presence

Chapter 51: The Third Opinion on Christ's Presence

Chapter 52: Evaluating the Opinions on Christ's Presence