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.