We bring forth a similar similitude from Cyril in the 10th book, 13th chapter on John, where he says that wax being molten and mingled with other wax, so that of two is altogether made one, resembles what is done in receiving this Sacrament: that we should indeed be made one with Christ. The same he states in the 4th book and 17th chapter. If this similitude of wax between Christ and us has place without transubstantiation of our body, the same may be affirmed of Chrysostom’s similitude between wax and the signs or mysteries.
Our adversaries should be asked whether they want these similitudes to be alike in all respects. If they grant this, they must also take away the accidents from this Sacrament. For the wax applied to the fire is destroyed both as to the substance and the accidents. If they do not want the similitude to take place in this respect, it is free for us to understand all this concerning our cogitations of the mind and comprehension of faith. We confess that concerning the thing itself, the nature of bread and wine goes away, and our mind cleaves only to the things signified and to that which by the signs is offered to us: that is, to the body and blood of Christ.
Conclusion on Chrysostom’s Teachings
In considering Chrysostom, we see how truly those things apply which we spoke of regarding the Fathers. His use of hyperbolic language and vivid imagery serves to elevate the minds of the faithful from the material signs to the spiritual realities they signify, reinforcing the true presence and union with Christ in the Sacrament without necessitating the doctrine of Transubstantiation.
Chapter 37:
Augustine’s Position on the Eucharist
Augustine was later cited, saying upon the 33rd Psalm that Christ bore himself in his own hands, verily in the Last Supper when he distributed the Sacrament to his Apostles. We do not deny this. For what should prevent Christ from bearing his body in his own hands if by “body” you understand the Sacrament of his body? This is what Augustine adds at the end of this passage, “after a certain manner,” as if to say: He did not absolutely bear himself, but in a certain manner he is undoubtedly the very same whom we said him to be.
They oppose us with Augustine again, in the third book “De Trinitate,” where he says the bread is brought to this visible form by the hands of men, but it cannot be made so great a Sacrament without the invisible working of the Holy Ghost. It is much to be marveled at why these men acknowledge no other work of the Holy Ghost in this sacrament besides transubstantiation. Upon hearing the name of the Holy Ghost in this sacrament, they immediately infer transubstantiation, when these signs cannot be advanced or translated to the state and condition of Sacraments without God’s help: by the Lord’s institution, holy words, and the strength of the Holy Ghost. These holy things no longer possess our mind in an ordinary and common manner but by the effectual and most vehement force of the Spirit. By the same Holy Spirit’s strength and operation, our minds and souls are furthered to embrace the matter of the Sacraments.
Augustine on Worship and the Eucharist
Augustine, in his commentary on the 99th Psalm, inquires what manner of footstool is referred to in “Worship his footstool.” He concludes that the Scriptures say the earth is his footstool. But he asks, how shall we worship the earth? Is it not written: “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve?” And is it not commanded that we should not worship things in heaven, on earth, in the waters, or under the earth? Augustine finds that the flesh of Christ is justly worshipped because when he gave it to be eaten, none ate it without first worshipping it.
These words of Augustine do not contradict us because we do not deny that the flesh of Christ must be worshipped due to its conjunction with the divine nature. The contention is whether the same flesh lies hidden under the accidents, not whether it should be worshipped. They argue that if the flesh were not there in the Sacrament and bread were there, it would be idolatry. We respond that they fall into as great a peril; they ought to remove the accidents lest they be worshipped and transubstantiate the very cup itself.
In a Sacrament, we distinguish the signs from the things and give some honor to the signs, namely that they should be decently handled and not despised, for they are holy things dedicated to God. Concerning the things signified, the body and blood of Christ, we agree that they should be readily and cheerfully worshipped. Augustine says: “We do not sin in worshipping the flesh of Christ, but we sin in not worshipping it.” However, he advises that we should not cleave to the flesh of Christ but lift our minds to the divine nature, whereunto the flesh is joined by an indissoluble knot. Otherwise, he says, “the flesh profits nothing, but it is the spirit that quickens,” referring to John 6, which Augustine understands as touching the flesh of Christ, not of the carnal understanding as some will have it.
The Nature of Adoration
As for adoration, I will summarize briefly. In my exposition of the Epistle to the Corinthians, I explained that adoration consists in invocation and confession, both of the heart and mouth, and in thanksgiving. These acts are due both to God and to Christ wherever they show themselves to us. This occurs in three ways:
Internal Word: When a vehement thought of God or Christ, inspired by the Holy Spirit, enters our minds, worship follows naturally through confession, invocation, or thanksgiving.
External Word: When we read the holy scriptures or hear godly sermons, we are often stirred to invocation or other acts of worship.
Outward Signs: Christ and God reveal themselves through outward signs, such as the events on Mount Sinai, to Isaiah under the form of a king, in the Ark of the Covenant, and in the Sacraments. Worship is given in these instances.
Augustine advises that while we must not settle our minds on the flesh, we should approach the Godhead. Similarly, I advise that in worship, especially during the Eucharist, we must not dwell on the signs but worship in spirit and truth, focusing on Christ in heaven at the right hand of the Father.
Instruction and Practice of Adoration
Due to the entrenched error of transubstantiation, it is perhaps wise to refrain from outward worship, such as prostration or kneeling, until proper instruction can be given. Inward worship can be practiced without danger. Outward worship is not inherently evil, as many kneel devoutly upon hearing “And the Word was made flesh,” yet they do not worship the words but the things signified. Similarly, during the Eucharist, the signs should not be worshipped, but rather that which is signified by them. Nevertheless, in these times, outward adoration may not be suitable unless clarified frequently in sermons.
Chapter 38:
On the Worship of Images and Eucharistic Practices
Neither let any man take occasion from my sayings to conclude that it should be lawful to worship either images or pictures, because God and Christ sometimes seem to declare themselves effectively there. For we have the plain word: “Let us not make unto ourselves images for worship.” But regarding the words of the Holy Scripture and the Sacraments, nothing prevents us from adoring during their hearing or receiving because these things are instituted by the word, will, and commandment of God, to provoke us to the service of God, which consists in adoration.
One should not infer from this that the remnants of the Eucharist must be worshipped. For whatsoever strength the signs have, they have it by the Holy Ghost, by the words of the Lord, and by His institution, which things, without the use of the sacrament, are not extant. While we eat and drink, there is a promise. Wherefore, that opinion of consecration was not universal because, in the time of Hesychius (as he himself testifies upon Leviticus), the remnants of the Eucharist were burned. Origen also attests to this in the same book attributed to two authors. Clement, the Bishop of Rome, as evidenced by his decree (de Consecratione, distinct. 2), ordained that the remnants of this sacrament should be eaten by the ecclesiastical persons.
We do not deny that they were sometimes kept, but this was done without adoration and superstitious worship. They were given to children and women to be carried to the sick, as appears from the history of Eusebius Caesariensis and Jerome. I would not willingly say that receiving these remnants out of the holy congregation and beyond the rite appointed by the Lord was a just communion. However, I grant the sick might have it, provided they repeated the holy words and some faithful men communicated among themselves. For where many do not communicate, the nature of the sacrament is not retained. Christ said: “Take, eat, and drink.” The bread is broken, which pertains to distribution. Their canon includes many things, which, unless many communicate, are lies. Moreover, it is called a supper, a communion, a gathering together, which names do not align with private action. We never read of private masses among the old Fathers.
Honorius, the Bishop of Rome, decreed that the Eucharist should be kept and added that honor and reverence should be done to it when carried about. If this had been done before his time, such a decree would have been unnecessary. Briefly, we affirm that this sacrament, as stated before, has no force or efficacy except when exercised and received, similar to all other sacraments.
Chapter 39:
Hilary’s Arguments Against the Arians
Hilary is objected against us. He had great controversies with the Arians, who argued that the relationship between the Father and the Son was only a matter of will. Against these, Hilary said: “I demand of you whether between us and Christ there is a union by nature or by will?” The Arians referenced the place where Christ prayed that we might be one with Him as He is with the Father. In John 17, it is written: “Even as Thou, Father, art in me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in us.”
The heretics added that we have no union with Christ except by will, implying the same for the Son and the Father. Hilary needed to show that we are naturally united with Christ to conclude that the Son is naturally joined to the Father. His proof was that if the Word of God truly took on human nature, He naturally communicates in His flesh with us, and we remain in Him because He has our nature. Similarly, in the Lord’s Supper, if we truly receive His flesh, we participate naturally with Him, and He truly dwells in us. Thus, Hilary argued from the truth of the Sacraments, which we do not deny.
Hilary did not contend that the flesh of Christ is hidden under the accidents in this Sacrament; he only affirmed that we are truly joined to the flesh of Christ in communicating. Consider that the same father, just before these words about the Eucharist, said the same about Baptism: by it, we are joined to Christ and one another, not only in unity of will but also in unity of nature. This would imply Transubstantiation for Baptism if the same logic were applied.
Chrysostom also uses arguments from Sacraments. In the 83rd Homily on Matthew, he said that these signs of the Lord Jesus both bridle and silence the heretics. For they often ask, “How did Christ suffer?” We respond that if Christ did not have true flesh, these signs are in vain, rightly silencing the Manichees, Marcionites, and other such sects.
Leo and Emisenus
Regarding Leo the Bishop of Rome, there is no need for much concern. In the cited sentence, he affirms a mystical distribution and a spiritual sustenance, saying that we pass into the flesh of Christ as He took on our flesh. They also cite Emisenus, whose words are read in “De Consecratione,” distinct. 1. There, he says, “Touch with your mind, and with the hand of your heart, take hold of the body of Christ,” affirming that we eat the body of the Lord spiritually.
Further, he, like other fathers, urges our transformation into Christ, which, as we see, occurs without Transubstantiation. Some may wonder why we often oppose the transformation of ourselves against the transformation the fathers seem to affirm in the signs, imagining a greater union between Christ and the signs than between us and Christ. We argue that our point is stronger because it moves from the greater to the lesser by a negative. The union of Christ with communicants is greater than with the signs. If Transubstantiation is not required for us, it is even less required for the signs.
The joining of Christ to us is greater because the union with the signs was invented for our sake. Moreover, the words and spirit that consecrate the signs belong even more to men than to other things.
Chapter 40:
Examination of Theophylact
Of Theophylact, we note that he is a later writer, possibly from the time when many questions about Transubstantiation arose under Nicholas the Bishop of Rome, during the time of Lanfranc and Berengarius. Further, he was a man of no great judgment, as evidenced by his interpretation of John 3, where he criticised the Church of the Latins regarding the procession of the Holy Ghost from both the Father and the Son. Hence, we do not consider his authority to be so significant as to prejudice the truth. Nevertheless, we will examine his statements.
Theophylact affirms that bread is not merely a figure of the body of Christ in his treatise on Matthew. If he means it is not an empty or vain figure, we agree, as we do not endorse such a figure. We doubt not that this is his interpretation, for in his commentary on Mark, he says it is not just a figure. If he utterly denied it to be a figure, he would oppose the other fathers, who clearly affirm it is both a sign and a figure.
He states that the bread is transformed, changed, and transelementated. If he understands these terms sacramentally, we do not disagree, for bread and wine are sacraments that pass into elements of divine things, adopting a signifying form. However, Theophylact writes that the flesh and blood are not seen lest we should abhor them. If we take these words strictly, we counter with his own words on Mark, where he says the bread and wine are changed into the virtue of the body and blood of the Lord. If he says they are changed into the body and blood of the Lord, we interpret this to mean the signs adopt the virtue of the things, by which the sacraments hold as much as if the things themselves were present. The abhorrence is avoided if we say the signs are changed not into the thing but into the virtue.
Another statement by Theophylact on John 6 seems more forceful, where he writes: “Even as while Christ lived on earth, the bread was changed into His flesh by a natural process of nourishment, so this bread is changed into the body of Christ.” We acknowledge this comparison in general terms. We deny not that there is a sacramental change in this sacrament. However, if taken strictly, it implies that the accidents of the signs must not be retained in the sacrament, as they were not in Christ’s sustenance on earth.
Furthermore, in his commentary on John 6, Theophylact writes on the words: “He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood dwells in me, and I in him.” He says this happens as we are, after a sort, transelemented and mingled with Christ. Here, as with other fathers, he affirms a significant change in us into Christ, writing that we are transelemented into Him. This much about Theophylact suffices.
Examination of Later Theologians
Among later theologians, they cite Anselm, Hugo, and Richard of St. Victor. Since in their time the opinion of Transubstantiation was introduced, their writings reflect the prevailing views of the time. However, these newer opinions should not prejudice the ancient Church’s beliefs and the old fathers’ opinions.
Particular emphasis is placed on John of Damascus, who wrote extensively on this matter in the 4th book of “The Orthodox Faith,” chapter 14. John lived under Leo Isauricus, Emperor of Greece, approximately 120 years after Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome. By Gregory’s time, many superstitions and human inventions had accumulated in the Church, which worsened over time. It is no wonder that John of Damascus inclined towards many superstitions and errors.
John’s judgment in doctrinal matters and scriptural interpretation is questionable. He strongly favoured images, defending them fervently, even advocating their worship and honour. He esteemed the relics of saints highly, calling them fountains of God’s gifts and boldly stating that saints should be worshipped by faith, a claim that is intolerable since faith is due only to God and His word.
John wrote a sermon on Purgatory, claiming that Emperor Trajan, an idolater and persecutor of martyrs, was delivered from hell’s pains by Gregory’s prayers. He also recounted a fable of Macarius speaking with a dead man’s skull, learning that during Mass, the souls in torment experienced some relief. These tales filled his sermon.
John’s attempt to prove the Resurrection from Genesis, interpreting God’s command to Noah about not eating flesh with blood as a reference to the Resurrection, showed a lack of understanding of Exodus law, where God commanded the ox that kills a man to be slain. In “De Virginitate,” he argued that if Adam had not sinned, humans would not need marriage for procreation, suggesting an alternative means of multiplication, an idea not found among school divines.
John misunderstood Basil, interpreting “bread and wine are ἀντίτυπα,” patterns or examples of Christ’s body, as referring to them before consecration. This is absurd, as before consecration, they are common food. If they signified Christ’s body and blood beforehand, they would already be sacraments before the Lord’s words. Furthermore, in the Greek Mass, prayers for the bread to become the body and blood of Christ follow the consecration. Similarly, in our Canon, the bread is named after consecration.
But now we must examine his arguments. The first is taken from the power of God. He argues that since God was able by His word to make heaven and earth, to bring forth plants, beasts, birds, and fishes, why can He not make His own body from bread? This argument is most weak. The dispute is not about God’s power, for we do not deny that God can turn bread into flesh, but rather whether He wills to do it. Another argument is derived from the speech of Christ. He asserts that Christ did not say, “This is a figure or sign of my body,” but pronounced it to be the Lord’s own body. We have already addressed this argument. If he denies the sacrament is a figure of the Lord’s body absolutely, he contradicts almost all the fathers who acknowledge it as a figure. If he means it is not merely a figure, a void or empty sign, we agree.
He further asserts that the bread of the communion is no simple bread but has the Godhead joined with it. We willingly accept this, for we do not say it is common or simple bread, but that it is now sanctified and turned into the nature of a sacrament. It can be said that the Godhead is joined to it because the Holy Ghost uses it as an instrument for our salvation. He compares it to Baptism, where God condescends to our customs and joins His grace and Spirit to water and oil. Similarly, He joins His Godhead to bread and wine in the sacrament. If Theophylact followed the transubstantiators, he would extinguish the natures of bread and wine, but he implies that their natures remain, just as water remains in Baptism.
He says God condescended to our custom so that through things usual and agreeable to nature, we may attain to that which is above nature, touching on our transformation into Christ. He acknowledges the sacramental change but implies the nature of the bread remains. He uses words like “changed,” “consumed,” and “become the body of Christ,” which, if understood sacramentally, do not contradict us. The sacrament is made of common bread supernaturally, just as the water of regeneration in Baptism is used supernaturally.
If you demand of him the manner of this transmutation into the body of Christ, he admits it is not easy to express how, in natural nourishment, bread is changed into our flesh. We discussed this earlier with Theophylact. If the comparison is taken generally and applied to sacramental changing, it suffices. But if you compare it specifically to natural sustenance converted into flesh, you must not only give up the nature of bread but also the accidents.
Chapter 41:
The Unity and Substance of the Eucharist
He adds that the bread is made the body of Christ, and wine and water His blood, yet they are not two but one. If he refers to “one” as the cup and bread being one sacrament, we do not dispute this, because in this action, as in one sacrament, Christ is given to us as sustenance. Although the Church, in receiving both parts of this sacrament, does not hesitate to speak of “sacraments” in the plural. In the Collects of the Mass, after communion, you often read: “The sacraments which we have received,” and similar phrases. However, if they claim that the bread and the body of Christ are one and not two after consecration due to transubstantiation, we oppose this with the words of Irenaeus, who writes that the Eucharist consists of two things: one earthly and one heavenly. Also, Gelasius the Pope argues from the conjunction of bread with the body of Christ, with both natures remaining whole, that the human and divine natures in Christ are joined in one, each remaining whole and inviolate.
He further asserts that this sacrament is not cast into the draught. This statement aligns with the transubstantiators’ view, for they claim that nothing in the Eucharist besides the accidents and the nature of Christ’s body can be cast into the draught. However, I counter this with a clear passage from Origen on Matthew 15, where he interprets the words, “That which goes into the mouth does not defile a man.” He states that if it does not defile, neither does it sanctify. But what shall we say of the Lord’s bread? Does it neither sanctify nor defile? He answers that if anything seems impure, it does not defile us unless it is through an evil conscience. Similarly, that which is seen and called holy does not sanctify us unless righteousness and integrity of life accompany it. For if the bread had the power to sanctify by its nature, there would not have been so many weak and feeble and so many who slept among the Corinthians.
Therefore, the material part of the Lord’s bread passes into the belly and is cast into the draught. But whatever comes by prayer and by the word of the Lord profits the soul according to the measure of faith. Thus, the matter itself is not profitable, but the word added to it profits the soul. To clarify, Origen explicitly states that these things concern the mystical body of Christ. No one will object that Origen sometimes erred in doctrine, as Jerome, Epiphanius, and the ancient fathers, who diligently examined his errors, never mentioned any false judgment regarding the Eucharist. They would have addressed this if he had transgressed in such a significant matter.
In the same passage, Origen plainly adds that the wicked do not eat the body of Christ, because it is a life-giving body, and he who eats it dwells in Him. Therefore, against John Damascene, who is a later and less renowned writer, let Origen be opposed—a most ancient father of great renown.
Chapter 42:
Cyril and the Council of Ephesus
After these matters, it was objected what Cyril, in the name of the Council of Ephesus, wrote to Nestorius, the Bishop of Constantinople. At that time, there was a disputation against him, who affirmed that the human person in Christ was altogether separate and distinct from the person of the Son of God, so that there should be no other manner of conjunction except in dignity. Against him, the argument was from the nature of Sacraments. If the flesh of Christ is so severed from the person of God, it follows that it is no quickening flesh. If we grant the flesh of Christ to be in the Sacraments, we should eat the flesh of man, albeit sanctified and excellent, but it would not give us eternal life according to the promise.
This is the scope of those disputations. The Fathers did not contend, nor did they attempt to prove that the flesh of Christ lies hidden in the bread, but they wanted us to eat the same in a Sacrament, and truly so, to eat such flesh as will give us eternal life. We do not deny this if it is understood that the eating pertains to the soul and to faith. We grant that in a Sacrament, the flesh of Christ is eaten spiritually but truly. We do not fabricate a flesh severed and divided from the divine person of the Word.
They object against us the Council of Rome or the Vercellentian Council, wherein Berengarius was condemned and compelled to recant. As for these councils, since their Acts are not extant, we cannot answer much. Therefore, it is profitable to weigh the recantation prescribed to Berengarius by Pope Nicholas in the Council. By examining this, we can judge the credibility of the Council and the rationality of those who had the chief rule in it.
In the decrees “De Consecratione,” the second distinction in the Chapter “Ego Berengarius,” his recantation is described. He was compelled to confess that the body of Christ is sensibly handled with the hands of the priests, broken, and rent with the teeth. Let every wise man judge how well these claims align with the glorified body of Christ and with that Sacrament. The Glosser upon the decrees, a man otherwise of gross understanding, could not help but see such an absurdity. Therefore, he says these things must be very advisedly and rightly understood. If not, he warns, one may fall into a greater error than that with which Berengarius was infected. He saw that it was not convenient to say that the body of Christ is sensibly felt in the Sacrament, or that it is broken or rent with the teeth.
The Master of the Sentences, in the fourth book, attempted to remedy this issue, stating that these things must be attributed not to the body of Christ but to the signs, which they affirm to be accidents. Thus, he used a figure whereby what belongs to the signs is attributed to the thing. If we use this figure in due time, interpreting the Fathers’ sayings when they speak magnificently of this Sacrament to the people, our adversaries claim we corrupt and falsify their writings. Nevertheless, they themselves resort to the same interpretation, using a figure where it ought least to be, namely in declaring an opinion and framing a recantation, which ought to be the clearest and most plain of all.
So, we disregard this council, seeing that they dealt so clumsily.
Chapter 43:
The Synod of Constance and Transubstantiation
They also object to the Synod of Constance, wherein Wycliffe was condemned, and where John Hus and Jerome of Prague were burned for various articles, but especially for holding against Transubstantiation, which was ordained there by a full decree. Doubtless, we cannot choose but call this council treacherous, seeing it found the means to slay those two men, who came under safe conduct. This also the Emperor took grievously, for he, among others, had given his word. Otherwise, the Bohemians would never have allowed those men to go to that Council.
Insofar as they decreed touching Transubstantiation, it is an argument that the same is a new opinion. It is of no force when many say it was confirmed by a decree but not first invented because, under Nicholas the Roman Bishop in the Vercellentian and Roman Synod, it was manifestly enough declared. We grant indeed that this opinion broke out after a sort and was obtruded before the Council of Constance. However, because it was not fully received and faced many contradictions, they judged it necessary to establish the same again, and that tyrannically, by fire and cruel threatenings.
Against this Council, we object to the general and universal Council of Florence, held under Eugenius, Bishop of Rome, the fourth of that name, who was present there. Also present were the Emperor of Greece, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and many Bishops of the East. In this Council, the Greek Church was joined with the Latin, and they agreed on the dissension about the Holy Ghost. We may see in the Acts of that Council, that after agreement was made between those of the East and the West about certain articles, the Pope wanted to proceed further and have them entreat about Transubstantiation, and to receive it according to the opinion of the Western Church.
The Greeks resisted and would not deal in that matter, nor could they be driven by any reasons to consent to it. When writings of union were to be drawn and published, they ensured that no mention would be made of that matter. This was observed, as evident in a Bull of Eugenius, which begins: “Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad,” wherein he rejoices with Christendom for the good fortune that the Greek and Latin Churches were once again joined together.
If this Transubstantiation had been of such great importance, the Roman Church would never have been joined with the Greek Church, which did not receive it. For at this day, they say that it is a pestilent heresy not to admit the same. But it is not credible that the Latin Church would then join itself with heretics and be partakers with them.
This also dissolves the argument they brought regarding the universal consent of the Church. It is not true that all Churches agreed together on this; for that ancient Church, which existed in the time of the Fathers, as we have shown, never dreamed of any such thing. Again, the Eastern and Greek Churches were of the same judgment as we are.
Moreover, in their arguments, they add exceedingly great praises of the power of God to bring men to believe in such a great miracle. But it is a most feeble kind of reasoning. That which they ought to have shown, they have never proved—namely, that God’s will is to do this and that the holy scriptures promise us this. For what they allege, “This is my body,” is in controversy and may have another sense. Therefore, the argument is weak, and we will show its feebleness by a certain example.
The Lord said to Nicodemus that none can enter into the kingdom of heaven unless he is born anew. Nicodemus began to ask, “How can a man of ripe age, or else an old man, enter the second time into his mother’s womb?” It might have been said to him: Christ has now affirmed that it shall be so; why do you doubt the power of God, whereby all things are created? By it, you may undoubtedly be born again out of your mother’s womb. However, Christ did not say this. Instead, He declared that all this should be done by spiritual regeneration. Although He mentioned water, which pertains to baptism, He most plainly taught that we should be born again by the Spirit.
So, we see it come to pass in this place. Christ commanded that we should eat His flesh. In receiving bread, He said: “This is my body.” The transubstantiators say: It cannot be that the body of the Lord should be together with bread; therefore, the nature thereof must be transubstantiated into the body of Christ. They will persuade that this is done by the power of God. But in the meantime, they object that they alone do not say this: for Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Cyril, when they dispute this change, send us to the power of God and extol it with wonderful praises.
We answer that the Fathers speak well. Indeed, it belongs to the power of God to change bread and wine so that the sacraments should be such as they were not before. It is not a work of nature that they should so mightily and effectually signify, offer, and exhibit the body and blood of the Lord, which must be apprehended with our minds and faith. Therefore, the Holy Ghost is the chief in this business, and the institution of the Lord is of great force. The words uttered by divine inspiration and now repeated profit greatly. Moreover, while we communicate, there is a change or conversion of us into Christ, which far exceeds the power of nature.
But now, seeing the supernatural power of God is required for all these things, they apply the same to transubstantiation. It is as if we should argue from the more universal to the more particular affirmatively, which is not lawful. Moreover, baptism requires the same power, as it is not the work of nature that water should become the fountain of regeneration. But some take issue with comparing baptism to the Eucharist. Although they cannot deny that Christ is also present in baptism and given to us (for it is written: “So many of you as are baptized have put on Christ”), they say: Christ is better and after a more excellent manner in the Eucharist than in baptism; therefore, the bread is transubstantiated, and it is not necessary that the water should be changed.
We answer that we need not strive much over which sacrament Christ is more excellent, as long as it is granted that He is in both. Just as He may be in one, with the substance of the elements preserved, so may He be in the other. But if you will contend about their worthiness, the excellence of baptism may be shown by effective reasons. It is more to be begotten than to be nourished. Furthermore, baptism was made famous by many miracles. The heavens were opened, the voice of the Father was heard, and the Holy Ghost was seen in the likeness of a dove—things which did not happen in the institution of the Eucharist. We speak not to abase this sacrament, for it is most worthy and should be exceedingly honored, but to answer the objection about the power of God.
We have already shown before, out of Augustine’s “De Trinitate,” Book 3, Chapter 10, that we must not allow such exceedingly great miracles as these men bring. This also appears if you rehearse the verses of Gregory Nazianzen, wherein he comprehended all the miracles of Christ. He made no mention of these miracles, which, if believed, are singular and without comparison. Augustine also, while comprising the marvels of the holy scripture in his book of miracles, does not mention transubstantiation. Therefore, it appears that we must not use an argument drawn from the power of God for this opinion, which we deny not; rather, we affirm that this sacrament requires it.
Examination of Miracles and Transubstantiation
Next, they objected that their opinion was confirmed by many wonders and miracles, which are read in Cyprian, in the life of Gregory, and among many other writers. We answer that miracles might be done concerning the Eucharist for three causes. Firstly, to keep back wicked and unworthy men from such a worthy Sacrament. This kind of miracle we allow, for the Apostle writes that among the Corinthians, many were feeble and weak, and that many were asleep because they communicated unworthily. I believe those men mentioned by Cyprian must be brought into this category.
Secondly, another kind of miracle is sometimes brought in to set forth the excellency of this Sacrament, so that its dignity and greatness might be expressed. These miracles we also reject not, for we know that baptism was often adorned with many miracles.
Thirdly, there may be miracles for confirming this opinion or rather error concerning Transubstantiation. This manner of miracle is what our adversaries allege against us. But miracles of this sort must be utterly rejected. We are admonished by the law that whenever a prophet tries to draw men to idolatry and superstitions, even if he gains credibility through miracles, we must not believe him. Rather, the Lord would have him stoned. We know moreover that Antichrist shall come, and that he shall be famous for signs and wonders. We are not ignorant that in the time of Moses, the sorcerers stood before Pharaoh and performed wonders against the word of God.
We read in Irenaeus’s first book about one Mark, a deceiver and heretic, who in the sacrament of the Eucharist did wonderfully beguile the simple. He changed the colour of the wine to appear as blood, and by his enchantment, he so increased a little wine that the whole cup was filled and ran over. When there was a larger cup of more capacity, that too was filled to the top without the addition of more liquid. Who would say that through these miracles, his heresy should be approved?
If we mention the pagans, we read that rivers of blood flowed from the earth, and that blood sprang from Jupiter’s thumb. Titus Livius says that it rained flesh in Rome. Quintus Curtius states that in Tyre, when it was besieged by Alexander the Great, bread openly sweated blood. It is also said that Apollonius of Tyana, when he was in council before Domitian the Emperor, suddenly vanished and was no more found. The pagans have countless stories to confirm their idol worship.
Therefore, we wholly reject these miracles, which these men claim serve to establish the superstition of transubstantiation. We are not to make much account of what they bring forth as a miracle wrought by Gregory, Bishop of Rome. It is written in his life that the bread of the Lord, or if you prefer, the Sacrament of the Eucharist, was turned into a finger of flesh. If this was done for the two causes we allow, we are not much concerned. However, that life of Gregory is not highly credible. Vincentius writes that it was described a hundred years after Gregory’s death by John, a Deacon of Rome, and sent to a certain Emperor of Germany.
Even if it were true, as our adversaries would conclude that through the token of a fleshy finger, the flesh of Christ lies corporally hidden under accidents, one might by this kind of miracle conclude that under sacramental forms are contained ashes and coals. This is because the holy bread was once converted into these in the time of Cyprian, as he himself writes. I think the legerdemain of deceitful men, often used to feign miracles, is not unknown.
Chapter 44:
Argument of the Glorified Body and the Presence of Christ
In another argument, they heavily emphasised the dignity of the glorified body of Christ, which after the resurrection is called spiritual. This we do not deny, yet we caution, as Augustine mentions in an epistle to Consentius, that such a body is not so spiritual that it passes into the nature of a spirit. For Paul also refers to the body as a natural body, which must not be understood as though the body transitions into the nature of the soul. Again, the same Father in his 13th book De Civitate Dei , chapter 20, writes: “The soul, while it obeys the flesh, is called carnal, not because it transitions into the nature of flesh. Similarly, the body is called spiritual, not because it takes on the nature of a spirit, but because it will be wholly subject to fulfilling the will thereof.”
Jerome, in an epistle to Pamachius, which was an apology against John, Bishop of Jerusalem (who attributed to the souls of those who rise again an elementary or airy body that should not be subject to feeling or feeding), contended by all means that Christ, after his resurrection, had a most true body, and undoubtedly a visible one. He preempts an objection: if in such a way it were visible and the same body, why was it not known when he showed himself as a stranger? He answers: “because their eyes were held that they might not know him.” As if to say, that which belongs to the nature of a body was both visible and could be known, but there was an impediment in their eyes, which were held so they could not discern.
Seeing, therefore, that Christ after his resurrection had a true body bound to measure and place, there is no cause to deprive it of these properties and confine it into the narrow confines of a small piece of bread, as though it were wholly contained therein, regardless of its size. But even if it is granted that this may be done by the power of God, can it straightaway be concluded that it is done? The argument, as we showed before, is weak.
They also argued from the Greek article, seeing Christ said, “Τούτό ἐστι τὸ σῶμά μου” (This is my body), as though the article has the strength to draw the proposition to its proper sense and does not permit a figurative meaning. These men are deceived, for the Greek article does not always have such strength. This is clearly seen in the 8th chapter of the Gospel of Luke, where Christ expounded the parable he had uttered of the sower of the seed. He said, “Τὸ σπέρμα ἐστὶν ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ” (The seed is the word of God), where the Greek article is also used with “the word of God.” Yet, this speech does not mean that the word of God is bound, as though it should properly, really, and corporally be in the seed sown into the earth. It is said to be contained therein by the power and property of the signification, which is how we understand the words of the Lord when he says: “This is my body.” For we say that it is not pronounced of the bread of the Lord’s body unless by signification.
Moreover, there was an argument taken from the promise of Christ, where he said: “I will be with you until the end of the world.” This is no hindrance to our opinion, for we confess that Christ is present with us by his divine nature, by grace, and by many gifts which his spirit brings unto us. Furthermore, if we desire his blood and flesh, we may also comprehend them in this sacrament by faith and may spiritually eat them, leading to a true, yet secret and unspeakable conjunction of us with Christ when we are changed into him.
Chapter 45:
Argument from the Nature of Sacraments
Then afterward, it was proposed that if the matter is as we say, it will follow that our sacraments have no more than had the sacraments of the old Law, seeing that in them also Christ was signified. Indeed, perhaps, if we consider the nature of signs, the thing was more fully shadowed there than it is in our sacraments, which are altogether unbloody. In the sacrifices of the old fathers, the slaughter was plainly seen, and the blood shed there did more clearly depict the Lord’s death and place it before our eyes than our bread and wine do.
We answer that regarding the substance, our sacraments are the same as those of the old fathers. The same thing is given in both, although the signs are different. This is testified by Paul in the first Epistle to the Corinthians. Nevertheless, our sacraments have many prerogatives over the sacraments of the old law. They are firm and no longer to be changed until the end of the world; they show not the thing that is to be done, but the thing that is already done. They are clearer and pertain to a more extensive and greater number of people. Because they are clearer, they stir up greater faith, and thereby a greater measure of the spirit follows.
Their clarity does not stem, as our adversaries imagine, from a more manifest outward prefiguration but from the nature of the words spoken. For our redemption, already performed, is declared with more excellent and plain words than the common people in the old Law understood it. And if the thing is more plainly expressed by words, an outward representation is not necessary.
Besides this, they wondered how it could be that the Church was in error for so long, and that it was no small error, if things are as we say. However, they should not marvel at this if they considered what Christ said about his last coming: “Do you think that when the Son of Man comes, he will find faith on the earth?” It is shown that the error will be so great that, if it were possible, even the very elect would be deceived. Let these men tell us what manner of Church Christ found at his first coming. Had not the Scribes and Pharisees, and also the Bishops, corrupted and infected all things with their traditions?
Yet we are not to think that the Church was utterly left in error. There were always some good men who were displeased with these things and opposed them. Just as in the first coming, there were Simeon, Anna the widow, Joseph and Mary the virgin, Elizabeth, and John the Baptist, who were godly and of great understanding, and so the Church was not entirely forsaken. Likewise, in these latter times, the universal Church is not infected with these traditions of men.
They also say that in terms of signification, this very thing can be done by bread and wine in banquets, and therefore there is no reason to honor the Eucharist so greatly. This argument is very weak, as in common meals, there is no institution of the Lord, no sacrament, no words of the Lord heard, and no promise. Therefore, these things must not be compared.
Chapter 46:
The Force and Efficacy of the Word of God
Lastly, an argument was presented from the force and efficacy of the word of God, as spoken by Ambrose and cited by Algerius in the first book, the seventh chapter. It is called a working word, as when by the bread and wine, which remain the same, are changed into another thing. We willingly accept Ambrose’s words, for we also affirm that bread and wine remain the same, not in the way the transubstantiators say, concerning accidents or forms, implying a change with the substance being cast away. Instead, we affirm that they are preserved in their proper natures, yet the change is made only by a sacramental grace.
← 3. A Treatise of the Lord’s Supper, Part 3 · Contents · 5. A Treatise of the Lord’s Supper, Part 5 →