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.
← 1. A Treatise of the Lord’s Supper, Part 1 · Contents · 3. A Treatise of the Lord’s Supper, Part 3 →