by Peter Martyr Vermigli
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.