SOD. Howbeit that mystical sign changes its first name, and is not afterward named by that name which it was first called, but is called a body. Wherefore the truth itself must now be called God, and not anymore a body.
ORTH. You appear ignorant to me: it is not only called a body, but also the bread of life: for so the Lord called it. Yea, and we also call this a divine body and a quickening body, and the Master’s body, and the Lord’s body, teaching, that it is no common body of every man, but the body of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is God and man: even Jesus Christ, yesterday and today, and the same forever.
Chapter 31:
Chrysostom and the Nature of the Eucharist
There is an extant Epistle in the Library of Florence (albeit not printed) from Chrysostom to Caesarius the Monk during his second banishment, written against Apollinaris and others who confounded the divinity and humanity of Christ. He states, “Christ is both God and man: God because he cannot suffer; Man, because of his passion and suffering: One son, one Lord, one and the selfsame doubtless possessing one dominion, and one power of the natures united (although they be not together of one substance) and each one of them being unmixed keeps an acknowledgement of his own property: for this cause that they be two things not confounded. For like as before the bread be sanctified, we name it bread, and the same being sanctified, by the divine grace by means of the priest is undoubtedly delivered from the name of bread, and is accounted worthy to be called the Lord’s body, although the nature of bread has remained in it, and is declared not to be two bodies but one body of the Son: even so this divine φύσις, that is to say, the nature of an overflowing body, hath made both these one Son and one person.”
Hesychius, in the 20th book upon Leviticus, the 8th Chapter, writes: “Therefore he commands that the flesh should be eaten with bread, to the intent we might understand the same to be called a mystery of him, because it is flesh and bread together.”
Gelasius, against Eutyches, wrote that in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the substance and nature of bread and wine do not cease to be. He makes a comparison of this Sacrament with Christ, in whom both the natures as well divine as human remain whole, even as in this Sacrament does the nature of bread and of the body of Christ.
Gregory, in the register, states: “While we take as well the sweet bread as the leavened bread, we are made one body of the Lord our Saviour.” Bertram, in his little book “De Corpore et Sanguine Domini,” says regarding the natures of the signs, that according to the substance of the creatures, what they were before consecration, they remain afterward.
Bernard, in his Sermon “De Coena Domini,” uses a similitude of a King, whereby any man receives either the faith of wedlock or the possession of some dignity: as it happens in the consecration of Bishops, where the King, the Crosier’s staff, or the labels of the Miter, are signs of things given and granted, and yet no vain signs. For the things which they signify are most certainly given. The very same thing I have shown to be done in Sacraments.
Chapter 32:
Confuting the Arguments for Transubstantiation
Now let us confute the arguments of these men whereby they endeavour to prove their Transubstantiation. As touching the first, we answer that Christ promised his flesh or his body or blood to be meat and drink, and that in the 6th of John: which he performs as often as we believe that he truly died for us. He also performed it when in the supper he instituted this Sacrament: For unto that spiritual eating, he added signs.
But specially they object, “This is my body”: about the truth of which saying stands the controversy: albeit only as touching the manner: for both they and we affirm the proposition to be true, and we contend only about the sense. They affirm the proposition to be plain, and we on the other side say, that Augustine in “De doctrina Christiana” teaches that we must not interpret one place in a way that contradicts many others, but so as it may agree with the rest. Neither must they always claim a plainness of the sense. Otherwise, when it is said, “Let us make man to our own image and likeness,” the heretics called Anthropomorphitae arise and infer that God has a body and a soul and other members as we see them to be framed in man.
You say that this similitude must be referred to the soul because through it man rules over other creatures as God does: but they say that these things are written of man, and that you vainly attribute to a part, namely to the soul, that which is pronounced of the whole. You again object that God is a spirit, and that a spirit has not flesh and bones, and so by other places of the Scriptures, you gather the sense of this one place. The Arians said that they had a plain sense of the place: “The Father is greater than I.” You restrain this to the nature of man because in other places, the divinity of Christ is declared unto you: as in the first of John and in the Epistle to the Romans the 9th Chapter: and in the 5th Chapter of John’s Epistle Christ says: “He that hath not a sword let him buy one.” Whereby he seems to stir up to revenge: but if you have respect to other places, you will perceive it is spoken figuratively.
Paul says: “Pray without ceasing.” The heretics called Euchites thought that we should apply ourselves to perpetual and close whispering prayers, when it is said elsewhere: “He that provideth not for his own, and especially for his household, renounces his faith, and is worse than an infidel.” And again: “Let all things be done in order.” And again: “He that laboureth not let him not eat.” The heretics called Chiliastae, or Millenarij, thought that they had a most plain word in the Apocalypse, the 20th Chapter, regarding a thousand years wherein Christ shall reign with his saints. The Sabellian heretics said: “There is no difference between the Father and the Son,” by reason of the place: “I and the Father are one,” Also Philip: “He that seeth me, seeth the Father,” and “As I am in the Father, so likewise the Father abides in me.” These things the heretics said were plain and made for them. The Ebionites affirmed Christ to be a mere creature, and they said that these words, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me,” could not otherwise be understood, seeing that God never forsakes Himself.
Because it is written in the 6th of John: “He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood shall not die at any time,” some have said that it follows that they who have lawfully communicated once cannot perish everlastingly. This error Augustine in “De Civitate Dei” manifestly refutes. The words of the Canticles of Solomon, if you receive them as they appear at first glance, are no other than verses of love or a wedding song. It is not appropriate, therefore, to always claim the perspicuity of words.
Christ said: “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear, and he that reads, let him understand.” It is not convenient to immediately seize the first sense, neglecting and not considering other places. Christ said to the Apostles, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees.” They immediately thought he spoke of bread, when he spoke concerning doctrine. He said also, “Lazarus our friend sleeps.” There the Apostles misunderstood him: “If he sleeps he shall be safe,” when he spoke of death. Again, the Lord said: “Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up again.” Neither did they understand that he meant his body. “He that shall keep my commandments, shall not die forever.” Here also the Jews thought that he spoke of common death. Grossly did Nicodemus misunderstand the new birth. No less did the woman of Samaria err concerning the water which Christ promised her. The Hebrews erred when Christ said to them: “That Abraham saw his day and rejoiced.”
Wherefore, let them not always say to us that this scripture, “This is my body,” is plain: for we will answer them: it is plain, as touching the signification of the words. But the sense of them is not plain, as in the like sentences it appears: “Christ is the Rock,” “Christ is the Lamb,” “You are the body of Christ,” “We who are many are one bread.” All these are the words of God, and we may pronounce that they are plain, that they are manifest: yet none of them infer Transubstantiation.
Chapter 33:
Understanding the Sacramental Language
Wherefore, there is no cause why perspicuity should be so much pretended. It behooves us, by other places and circumstances of the scripture, to regard well what is meant here. Thus, we will expound this proposition by scanning it more deeply. God intended to draw man unto Him by ample promises because He wanted to bless and make him happy. Because we have unbelieving hearts, He ensured many benefits appeared towards mankind to allure the same unto Him.
Therefore, He not only freely gave us all creatures but also delivered mankind from the destruction of the flood, despite our ill-deserving. He showed mercy to Abraham, granted success to Isaac’s lineage, and increased Jacob’s seed in Egypt. When they were oppressed, He delivered them, gave them a prosperous land, and exalted them to the dignity of a kingdom and priesthood. Yet, they were always unbelieving and minimally persuaded of God’s goodwill towards them. Due to their infidelity, He cast them into various captivities and later delivered them.
Finally, to leave no doubt about His goodness, He bestowed the greatest of all benefits upon us—His own Son endowed with man’s flesh, who died on the Cross for our salvation. This benefit was such that, as Paul said to the Romans, how could it be that He gave all things together with Him? And to ensure it was not forgotten, He had it renewed in our memory by the sacrament of the Eucharist, so we would recall by faith that Christ was delivered unto death for us and, in believing, we would eat His flesh and drink His blood. To make this more effectual, He added the tokens of bread and wine, which move us more earnestly than bare words.
The Bread of Life
When He says, “This is my body,” He meant no differently than when He promised in John 6, “I am the bread of life.” He spoke of Himself, as concerning the body and flesh delivered unto death. He intended these things to be our bread and meat, confirming and nourishing our minds, and through the mind, the body, and ultimately the whole man. Thus, in the Supper, Christ did nothing else but transpose the proposition: as He had said that His body and flesh are bread, so now He says (showing bread) that it is His body.
When He pronounced, “This is my body,” it was as if He said, “My body, received by faith, shall be unto you in the stead of bread, whereby you shall be spiritually fed.” The meaning is, “I give you bread to eat, and in the meantime, I set forth unto you my body which shall be fastened to the Cross, so that with a faithful memory and attentive mind, you may eat it spiritually with yourselves: as you with the body eat bread, so with the mind, you may feed upon my flesh.”
Figurative Language in Scripture
They argue that if we allow figures, heretics will pervert all things. On the contrary, unless we use figures, as shown in the cited examples, heretics have the upper hand. They will urge the proper sense, the sense that immediately offers itself. However, a figurative speech is often used in the scriptures. For instance, we read that “the seed is the word of God” and “the rock was Christ.” While some cavil and deny a figure here, claiming Paul referred to the spiritual rock, which they say is Christ verily and not figuratively, Augustine and Origen are on our side, plainly stating that the outward rock signified Christ.
When Christ said, “I have chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil,” Judas was not transubstantiated into a devil. Circumcision is written as, “My covenant shall be in your flesh,” whereas circumcision is a sign of the covenant. Genesis 33 shows Jacob building an altar called the mighty God of Israel. Moses, after the victory against Amalek, called the altar “Jehovah Nissi,” meaning God is my banner. Jeremiah mentions a city called “Jehovah Tsidkenu,” God our righteousness, as monuments of what they expressed in names.
Examples of Figurative Language
John the Baptist is written as “a burning and shining candle,” and Christ said, “He is Elias,” if you will receive it. Christ also said, “I am the vine, and ye are the branches,” and “I am the door.” He is described as “a stone set for a ruin and resurrection” in Deuteronomy, “the blood is the life,” meaning it signifies life. Joseph’s brother Judas said, “He is our flesh,” signifying kinship. Paul said, “Many are one bread,” which is figurative.
When Christ breathed on His disciples and said, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost,” the breath was not transubstantiated into the Holy Ghost. Genesis states, “My spirit shall not abide in man because he is flesh,” and John says, “The Word became flesh,” which uses the figure Synecdoche, representing the whole man under the name of flesh. On the Cross, Christ said, “Woman, behold thy son,” and to the disciple, “Behold thy mother,” establishing a new order and relationship.
It is said, “He is our peace,” meaning He is the cause of our peace, and “My words are spirit and life,” indicating they bring these things to believers. John said of Christ, “Behold the lamb of God,” yet His nature was not changed into that of a lamb. The scriptures often describe the words of the Lord as judgment, truth, and righteousness, which are signified and expressed within them.
Symbols in the Scriptures
In the Apocalypse, Christ says, “I am Alpha and Omega,” meaning the beginning and end of all things. Paul calls his Gospel “the power of God unto salvation,” meaning it is the instrument whereby God’s power is declared to the saved. The Gospel of the cross is foolishness to the ungodly, representing foolishness to them but the power and wisdom of God to the godly. The law is said to set before the Hebrews life and death, blessing and cursing, signifying the promises and threats expressed in it.
In Genesis, the seven kine and ears of corn represent seven years. Ahia the Prophet gave Jeroboam ten pieces of his torn mantle, symbolizing the kingdom of the ten tribes. Paul writes in the first Corinthians, “The woman ought to have on her head power,” referring to a covering symbolizing the husband’s power. In the second Corinthians, “God made Christ to be sin,” meaning He represented the flesh. Sacrifices for sins are called sin, and priests are said to eat the sins of the people, meaning they consume the sacrifices offered for sins.
In Ezekiel, “I will pour upon you pure water” signifies the Holy Ghost. Christ says, “He that drinks of this water,” referring to the Spirit. The Passover lamb is called the Passover, a monument and signification of the Angel passing over. Christ sought a place to eat the Passover with His apostles, referring to the consecrated items representing the passing over. Paul says, “Christ our Passover is offered,” meaning Christ himself represents our solemnity and passing over.
These examples illustrate that the body of Christ, which once suffered, is now commemorated and symbolized through the Eucharist, not to be crucified or have its blood shed again.
Chapter 34:
Understanding Figurative Language in Sacramental Context
And if they would expound these words of Christ rigorously, when He says, “This is my body which is given for you,” it would be necessary for them to say that the bread was to be crucified, or at the very least, Christ hidden under accidents, as they appoint in the Sacrament. For Christ, showing what He had in His hands, said that the same should be delivered and shed for them. But if they say it was indeed the same that was delivered, but not in the same manner or form, then they seek interpretations and shifts, and do not take the proposition simply. This is evident in the words, “is delivered” and “is shed.”
If, while we utter the words of consecration, they are understood as they sound, the body of Christ will be signified as being presently crucified, and His blood presently shed, or within a while to be shed. But they would have these words to be converted into the preterperfect tense, to understand that the body is delivered and that the blood is shed: and this is to deal figuratively when one tense is taken for another.
Whereas Paul said, “They which eat unworthily are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord,” and “they eat their own condemnation because they put no difference in the Lord’s body,” it means nothing without further explanation. Ambrose answers this while interpreting that place: “They shall be punished for the Lord’s death because He was slain for them who make no account of His benefit.” Therefore, he interprets them to be guilty of the Lord’s body, yet Transubstantiation is not required here.
Those who receive unworthily are said not to put a difference, meaning they have no esteem for the Lord’s body: because the conjunction between the signs and the things signified is so great that the reproach of one redounds to the other. Paul similarly spoke when he said, “A man praying or prophesying with his head covered dishonours Christ,” implying that what is done to the man’s head, a sign of Christ, redounds to Christ.
Figurative Language and Scriptural Context
It is also important to consider that Paul wrote to the Corinthians, who were not entirely devoid of faith, but troubled with some infirmities. We do not claim that only these kinds of men receive the signs and not the body of Christ, but we affirm this of infidels, Epicureans, atheists, and strangers from the Church. Thus, it might rightly be said to them, not only regarding the signs but also regarding the matter of the sacrament, that they were guilty of the body and blood because they made no difference in the Lord’s body, receiving it without faith and not expressing it in their lives.
When Paul speaks of the sacramental action, that is, the eating and drinking, he mentions bread, saying, “He that eateth this bread.” But when he wants to emphasize the fault, he mentions the Lord’s body. In the entire treatise on this Sacrament, Paul mentions bread more often than the body of the Lord. He mentions bread five times and the body of the Lord only four times.
Figurative Interpretation of “This is My Body”
Now we must see what compels us to understand this phrase, “This is my body,” figuratively. First, consider that Christ was present at the supper, so there was no need for Him to show His body to His apostles—they saw Him. Further, how could He eat Himself really and corporally? That He communicated with His apostles is affirmed by the fathers and by Christ Himself in Matthew: “I will not hereafter drink of this fruit of the vine.”
Moreover, we consider the remembrance aspect, which indicates a figure. These men change the tenses; what is pronounced in the future or present tense regarding the delivery of the body and shedding of the blood, they interpret in the preterperfect tense. We also note that they cannot be without signs in their consecration because they understand the verb “is” as “it is changed,” “it is transubstantiated,” or “it is made.” Christ, instituting a sacrament, meant for the signs to be understood figuratively, according to the nature of a sacrament, which is a sign.
Further Considerations and Analogies
We also consider the ascension of Christ into heaven, the truth of the human nature He took upon Himself, and what is written in John when He said to the Capernaites: “My words are spirit and life, the flesh profits nothing,” meaning being carnally eaten; it is the spirit that quickens. Paul, who clearly names it bread, should also be considered. Despite these men insisting it is a figure, Paul testifies that the forefathers had the same sacrament that we have. Augustine asserts it was not enough to say they had spiritual meat and drink; he added, “the same.” The Apostle also mentions baptism, which they obtained in the sea and the cloud, showing that they had the same sacraments as us.
Analogy and Sacramental Unity
We also see that adjoining speeches are understood figuratively. For instance, “The bread which we break is the communion of the body of Christ,” and “This cup is the New Testament.” These things have been often rehearsed. It does not well agree with the body of Christ to be eaten. These considerations illustrate what should be said to the second argument, where they object that the sentence must not be understood figuratively unless something else compels it. They urge the phrase, “which shall be given for you,” insisting on a literal sense, but this is false as we change the tenses. We do not take it to be the body that was delivered, for that was visible and passable. The conditions of a corruptible body and the qualities of a glorified body cannot coexist in one substance simultaneously.
Addressing Different Natures
We will address another argument concerning things distinct or “disparate,” as the schoolmen call them, among which no mutual predication can exist. Things that are different, if an analogy or signification occurs, can be joined to form a proposition. This is seen when the Lord says, “The seed is the word of God,” and “I am the vine,” and when Paul says, “We are one bread,” and “The bread we break is the communion of the body of Christ,” and “This cup is the New Testament in my blood.” While Matthew and Mark may plainly say, “This is my blood of the New Testament,” we do not deny this but insist that the words Luke and Paul use must also be received. We assert that these sentences, despite differing words, are joined by analogy and signification.
Figurative Language and the Eucharist
In another argument, it was said that when Christ uttered, “This is my body,” He did not say, “This signifies my body,” or “This represents my body,” or “This bread is a figure or sign of my body.” Against these objections, we reply that Christ did not say His body lies hidden in those accidents without a subject, nor did He affirm that the substance of bread ceases to be or is changed or transubstantiated into His body.
Furthermore, I marvel that these things are objected, considering that among the Fathers, these interpretations are found. They often say that the body and blood of Christ are represented, signified, notified, and shown, and they call the signs of bread and wine a seal, a figure, a type, and an example of like form. There is no cause to cavil that they refer these signs or figures to the death and not to the body of Christ because the Fathers manifestly say that the body and blood are signified and that signs and figures are given of the body and blood of the Lord.
To demonstrate the truth of this, among many places of the Fathers, we will set forth these few. Augustine, in “De Catechizandis Rudibus,” speaks of the Sacrament, saying there are visible seals of divine things, but the invisible things are honoured in them. In “De Civitate Dei,” Book 10, Chapter 5, he states: “The visible sacrifice is a sacrament of the invisible sacrifice, that is, a holy sign.” Jerome, in his commentary on Matthew 26, notes that Melchizedek, the priest of the high God, offered bread and wine as a prefiguration, representing the truth of Christ’s body and blood.
Bertram, in his book “De Corpore et Sanguine Domini,” says that the bread called the body of Christ and the cup called the blood of Christ are figures because they are mysteries. Tertullian, in his fourth book against Marcion, explains that Christ, having received bread and distributed it to His disciples, made it His body, saying, “This is my body,” meaning “a figure of my body.” Cyprian, in his second epistle, says: “We see that in the water the people are understood, and in the wine, the blood of Christ is shown.” Ambrose, in “De Mysteriis,” notes that before the blessing of the heavenly words, another kind is named, but after consecration, the body of Christ is signified.
Sacramental Understanding and Patristic Testimony
Ambrose, in “De Sacramentis,” Book 4, Chapter 5, writes: “Do this oblation for us, being recorded in writing as a reasonable and acceptable oblation, because it is the figure of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.” He further comments on 1 Corinthians 11 that in eating and drinking, we signify the flesh and blood offered for us. Bernard, in his sermon “De Coena Domini,” says the Lord provided to adorn His people with grace, giving invisible grace through a visible sign.
Chrysostom, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 10, asks, “What signifies bread? The body of Christ. And what do they become who receive it? The body of Christ.” Basil, in his Liturgy, calls it an example of like form. Augustine, in “De Trinitate,” Book 3, Chapter 4, states: “The Apostle might signify the Lord Jesus Christ by the tongue, by an epistle, or by a sacrament of His body and blood.”
Augustine, against Adamantus, asserts: “The Lord doubted not to say, ‘This is my body,’ when He gave a sign of His body.” In his commentary on Psalm 3, he notes that Judas was admitted to the feast where Christ delivered the figure of His body and blood. Against Maximinus, in Book 3, Chapter 22, he says: “In the sacraments, we consider not what they are, but what they show, because they are signs of things which being one thing signify another.”
Adoration and the Nature of Sacraments
They argue regarding adoration that if bread remained, it should be adored in the Sacrament. It is surprising that these men are so mindful of true adoration when pictures and images are worshipped among them. They claim not to worship these things, but what they represent. If so, why not grant the same of bread if it remains—that it should not be worshipped, but what it signifies?
Why do they not similarly remove accidents, lest they be worshipped? Perhaps they excuse themselves by saying that no one will worship accidents. However, we know that pictures and figures in temples are accidents before which men bow. If they worshipped the substances of wood or stone, they would have objects to worship everywhere. Moreover, simple men cannot distinguish between accidents and substance.
This argument, often proposed by the Schoolmen, seems light. They also argue that without Transubstantiation, two natures or bodily substances would be in one place. It is ironic that these men, who violate natural laws by claiming accidents hang without a subject, fear violating nature by having two substances in one place. When they affirm accidents remain, a body with quantity and place is hidden under accidents. Thus, they grant two quantities and bodies together, which our opinion avoids.
Chapter 35:
The Dignity of Christ and the Substance of Bread
They said, moreover, that it does not accord with the dignity of Christ for His body to be joined to the substance of bread; which is a very vain assertion. It is not affirmed that the body of Christ and the nature of bread make one subject, as the divine nature and human nature do in Christ. Neither do we see what greater dignity there is in the accidents than in the bread, such that if the body of Christ is assigned to them, it might not as well remain with the substance of bread.
Seeing that the divine nature is said to be even in hell without diminishing its worthiness, and that this body (as they judge) is delivered to be eaten truly and substantially even by the wicked, who are most impure and unworthy of it, why do they fear only in respect of dignity to join the body and blood of the Lord to bread and wine, especially when there must be a conjunction of the signification?
The Sacrifice in the Mass
They also considered the sacrifice, saying that the body and blood of the Lord are offered in Masses. If this alteration is not made, we shall offer nothing but the thing signified and shadowed. Cyprian answers this for us, stating to Coecilius in his 3rd Epistle, 2nd Book, that it is the Passion of the Lord which we offer. Who does not know that the Passion of Christ is not present in the hands of the sacrificer, as it is a past event? A memorial is made of it, and thanks are given to God for it. But all they pretend in this argument is a feigned device, imagining that the Son of God Himself is properly and truly offered by the priest to the Father. The error in this is significant, but this is not the place to declare it fully.
Understanding the Fathers
Now we must show that the opinions of the Fathers, which seem to be against our purpose, do not actually contradict us. Before explaining them, I will present certain rules for understanding the Fathers, as they speak most loftily and earnestly on this matter of the Sacrament.
Signs and Things Signified: The holy Scripture often attributes what pertains to the signs to the things signified, and vice versa. The Fathers use the same manner, so one must discern whether they are discussing the signs or the things signified. Augustine to Boniface explains that in sacraments, names are changed.
Spiritual Food: If you consider what is spoken before and after, you will always find that the Fathers testify that this food is spiritual and not meat for the throat, belly, or teeth.
Carnal and Spiritual Communion: When the Fathers say we communicate with Christ carnally, they mean that our bodies are nourished in the Eucharist in a manner akin to how the Son of God took part in our flesh by His incarnation. We abide in Him and He in us through faith and the sacraments. This communion is spiritual, adding the spirit to our flesh, making it capable of immortality and resurrection. Thus, our body is fed in the Eucharist by signs and renewed to everlasting life.
Consecration: Among the Fathers, consecration means dedicating something common to a holy use. There is no cause to assume transubstantiation when we encounter the term consecration in the Fathers. There is some alteration in that things are now sacraments, signifying by the Holy Spirit’s power that we must offer and exhibit the body and blood of the Lord in mind and faith.
Capernaites’ Misunderstanding: There is no difference in substance between us and the Capernaites, who thought they would eat the very body and flesh of Christ. The difference lies in the manner of eating; they thought it would be carnal, while we teach it is spiritual.
Language of the Fathers: When the Fathers say the body of Christ is contained in these mysteries, they mean it is betokened, shown, declared, and signified.
Figurative Language in Sacramental Theology
When you hear the Fathers say that bread and wine are no more in the sacrament, understand this as concerning the faithful, who must not think of the bread or wine but lift their minds to the invisible things represented. Thus, the phrase “Lift up your hearts” is used to direct the mind away from the signs to the things offered.
Scripture uses similar figures. Paul says, “Our wrestling is not against flesh and blood,” yet acknowledges flesh and blood can grieve the soul. He means the primary contention is spiritual. Similarly, when Paul writes that in Christ there is neither male nor female, he does not mean these distinctions are removed from the Church but that they do not affect regeneration, forgiveness of sins, and life everlasting.
The Fathers’ statements about the nature of signs not remaining must be understood in the same way, not as a change in substance but as a direction for our faith and thoughts. Faith makes things present spiritually, not materially. Thus, the Apostle said Christ was crucified before the eyes of the Galatians and that Abraham saw the day of the Lord.
The Use of Figures by the Fathers
Lastly, if you ask why the Fathers used such figures and strong language, we say it is to follow Scripture’s phraseology and to deeply impress upon the minds of men that the signification of sacraments is not trivial. The things represented are given and imprinted in our minds by the Holy Spirit, leading to many gifts and graces, especially a secret and unspeakable union with Christ, making us truly one with Him.
The Consecration of Bread and the Argument Against Transubstantiation
The first objection was from Irenaeus, who said that the earthly bread, being consecrated, is not common bread but has become the Eucharist. We willingly admit this, affirming that it is no longer common bread but holy and has become the Eucharist. However, what follows supports our position. He writes that the Eucharist consists of two things: heavenly and earthly, and does not mention the accidents of an earthly thing. He adds: “Even so, our bodies, receiving the Eucharist, are not corruptible, having the hope of the Resurrection.” If such a change in our bodies is set forth by him, equal to the change of the bread (for he says: just as that bread is no longer common bread, so our bodies are no longer corruptible), what need is there for Transubstantiation, seeing he makes these changes equal in both?
Testimonies of Early Church Fathers
Next, Tertullian was cited, and he expounds on his own statement. He not only says: “The Lord, having received the bread, made it His body when He said, ‘This is my body,’” but he added: “That is, a sign of my body.” They also cited Origen, who wrote that the Lord confessed the bread to be His body. We do not deny this, but the contention is about the manner in which it becomes the body of the Lord. Origen himself elsewhere teaches that this bread is called the nourishing word of the soul and that we must not cling to the blood of the flesh but to the blood of the word.
Cyprian seems to speak more harshly, saying that this bread is changed not in shape but in nature. However, we must consider what he wrote to Coecilius, that with the wine, the blood of the Lord is shown, and if the wine ceases to be in the cup, it cannot appear that the blood of the Lord is there. When he speaks of changing, we agree, admitting a sacramental change. We confess that the nature and substance of bread and wine are changed into the sacraments of the body and blood of the Lord. As the substance of bread nourishes, so does the body of Christ nourish our soul, fostering and renewing it. Both we and our adversaries agree that the form, or appearance, of bread is not changed, but the substance is. They claim a change by removing the nature of bread, while we affirm a sacramental change. Cyprian himself argues against our adversaries, for they remove the substance of bread, whereas we say it is changed into a sacrament of Christ’s body.
The Nature of Sacramental Change
Ambrose is also cited, especially in his books De Sacramentis , which some believe are not his works. The Bishop of Rochester insists we must credit Augustine, who ascribes these books to Ambrose. However, I have read the prologue on the Books of Christian Doctrine many times and have not found what he claims. Although Augustine cites Ambrose De Sacramento Regenerationis vel de Philosophia , not De Mysterijs vel de Sacramentis , I do not dispute it. Assuming these are Ambrose’s books, they do not entirely disagree with us. Ambrose frequently mentions signifying, calling the sacraments the body of Christ, which we do not deny. When he mentions changing or conversion, these must be understood as sacramental changes.
Chapter 36:
Chrysostom’s Teachings on the Sacrament
Chrysostom is cited, using the analogy of wax melted by fire, to suggest the substance of the mysteries is consumed by the substance of Christ’s body. Yet, in Homily 83 on Matthew, Chrysostom says: “Many say they desire to see the form of Christ, but He gives Himself to be seen, touched, and handled in the sacrament.” This clearly attributes to the sacramental matter what belongs to the signs. Chrysostom states that we are made one with Christ, not only by faith but also in deed. This signifies a true, though not physical, union with Christ, whereby our bodies are renewed and we become members of the Lord.
In Homily 60 to the people of Antioch, he says we should not think that the priest’s hand reaches the sacrament, but that Christ’s hand delivers it. This directs the minds of communicants from the outward signs to divine and heavenly things. When Chrysostom uses hyperbolic language, such as saying our tongues are made bloody with Christ’s blood, it must be understood figuratively, as our faith grasps the spiritual reality.
The Fathers’ statements must be interpreted in the context of their intent to elevate the mind to the spiritual truths signified by the sacraments. They speak in lofty terms to impress the importance and reality of the spiritual union with Christ, facilitated by the Holy Spirit through the sacraments. Thus, the true essence of the sacraments is grasped by faith, not by a physical change in the elements.
Ambrose and the Books of Sacraments
They object to Ambrose, particularly in his books De Sacramentis , which some believe are not his works. The Bishop of Rochester strongly contests this, insisting we must credit Augustine, who attributes these books to Ambrose. He openly testifies that Ambrose wrote the books De Sacramentis , citing the prologue to the Books of Christian Doctrine. Although I have read the prologue many times without finding what the Bishop claims, I acknowledge that Augustine, against Julian the Pelagian, cites Ambrose De Sacramento Regenerationis vel de Philosophia , but not these Books De Mysterijs vel de Sacramentis . Even if these books are Ambrose’s, they do not entirely disagree with us. Ambrose often mentions signifying, asserting that these sacraments are called the body of Christ, which we do not deny. When he mentions changing or conversion, it must be understood as sacramental changing.
In his Treatise De Officijs the 4th book, 48th Chapter, Ambrose says: “Here is the shadow, here is the Image, there is the truth: A shadow in the Law, an Image in the Gospel, the truth in the heavenly places. Before, a Lamb was offered, a Calf was offered: now Christ is offered, but he is offered as a man, as it were receiving passion, but he offers himself as a priest, that he may forgive our sins; here, in an Image, there in truth: where as an advocate with the father, he makes intercession for us.” Upon the first Epistle to the Corinthians, as we have already cited, he says: “In eating and drinking we signify the flesh and blood of Christ which are offered.” When he speaks of the blood, he says, that we receive a figure thereof, that is, the mystical Cup. Again, in the 4th book and 4th Chapter of De Sacramentis , he affirmatively states our changing into Christ, which we have noted in other Fathers as well.
Chrysostom’s Similitude of Wax and Transubstantiation
Now we consider Chrysostom. They allege his similitude of wax, which, being put into the fire, is destroyed as to its substance, so that nothing remains. So, he says, you may think that the mysteries are consumed by the substance of Christ’s body. What, they ask, can be more manifest for Transubstantiation? But here, I think it good to examine Chrysostom himself, whereby you may plainly perceive how rightly those things are noted, whereof we spoke before, regarding the sayings of the Fathers.
In the 83rd Homily on Matthew, Chrysostom says: “Many say that they would, and do covet to see the form and shape of Christ, also to behold his garments and shoes. But he giveth himself unto thee, not only that thou mayest see him but also that thou mayest touch him.” Do we not here understand that he attributes to the matter of the sacrament that which belongs to the signs: namely, that the body of Christ may be touched and seen, which is true only concerning the signs?
Again, in the same Homily, he says: “He reduceth us, as I may say, into one lump together with him, and that not only by faith, but he maketh us indeed his body.” And the same he wrote in the 60th Homily and in the 61st to the people of Antioch: “That we, not only by faith and love, but also in very deed, are made and mixed with the body of Christ.” If this is so, and we are not transubstantiated, yet are so nearly joined with Christ, what need is there for the bread to be transubstantiated to become the body of Christ?
Understanding the True Union with Christ
There might arise a doubt, as though Chrysostom contradicts us who affirm this receiving by faith: seeing he says that we, not only by faith but indeed, are mingled with him and changed into him. But here it must be understood that, although we have said that the body of Christ and his blood are eaten and drunk by faith, yet after this receiving by faith, there follows not a feigned but a true conjunction between us and Christ. Not only is our mind united with him, but also our body and flesh are renewed, and we are truly made the members of the Lord, receiving him as our head, from whom we perpetually draw both spirit and life. This is what Chrysostom means when he says that we are indeed joined with Christ.
Again, in the same Homily on Matthew, he says that these are signs of the Lord Jesus, whereby we stop the mouths of the heretics who demand how Christ suffered. For if he had not had true flesh and had truly suffered, these signs would be in vain. In the same Homily, he says that our tongue is made bloody in receiving the Sacraments. And lest you should cavil that the bloodiness, together with the wine or the accidents of the wine, as they term it, should be understood as invisible, in the 60th Homily to the people of Antioch, he writes that our tongue waxes red with this blood: where every man may see that it is hyperbole or an excessive speech.
Hyperbole and the Nature of Sacramental Language
In Encaeniis, Chrysostom says that the blood in the cup is drawn out of the side of the Lord, which cannot be believed literally, seeing the side of the Lord is not open today, and from there, the blood is not drawn. He writes moreover in the same Homily: “Dost thou see the bread or the wine?” He answers: “God forbid.” Certainly, if he should here ask the senses, they would answer that it is not true that he saith. For by the judgment of our senses, the bread and the wine are present, but he speaks truly when he adds: “Think not so, because in respect of our judgment, bread and wine do cease to be there.”
Chrysostom further writes: “Think not thou that thou receivest of man the body of Christ, but of the Seraphim that is present, and with a pair of tongs he delivereth unto thee a fiery coal.” Here, I think not that they would have the minister or pastor to be transubstantiated who delivers the Sacraments unto us. And he added: “Let us run together to suck forth the blood which floweth out of the side of the Lord.” These things the Schoolmen themselves dare not speak. They write that the bread and wine are changed into the substance of the body and blood, yet not so as to the true substance of the body of Christ anything either comes or departs away.
The Role of Faith in Receiving the Sacrament
In the 61st Homily to the people of Antioch, he says that Christ not only gave himself to us to be seen, but also to be touched and felt, upon whose flesh we fasten our teeth. In which place you see that what pertains to the signs is attributed to the thing signified by the Sacraments. For our tooth reaches not unto the substance of the body of Christ, but only unto the bread and signs and Sacraments. The same father in the 60th Homily to the people of Antioch says that we ought not to think that the hand of the priest reaches the Sacrament but must judge that the hand of Christ stretched forth delivers the same. He also says that Christ himself executes the office of baptising.
In the 61st Homily, he admonishes that we should consider that in this Sacrament we leave Christ sitting in heaven, who is worshipped by the Angels. By all this, it is plain that Chrysostom provided by all means to call forth the minds of the communicants from the grosser sort of signs and outward tokens to the meditation of divine and heavenly things. It is a wonder that these men, who so diligently examine places of the Fathers, do not bring forth what is in the 61st Homily to the people of Antioch: that they are both impudent and obstinate who stand by at the administration of the Sacraments and do not communicate, wherein he affirms that they do manifest injury unto Christ.
Hyperbolic Language and Sacramental Significance
Lest we should swerve from the argument, namely in the Homily in Encaeniis, regarding the wax which in the fire runs all abroad: we answer that Chrysostom often uses the verb “Think thou,” indicating that these things must be understood concerning our faith and cogitation. In communicating, we comprehend not bread and wine by themselves, but seek the things which are signified and joined hereunto.
← 2. A Treatise of the Lord’s Supper, Part 2 · Contents · 4. A Treatise of the Lord’s Supper, Part 4 →