We do not derogate from the strength of the Lord’s words, but we do not think it fitting to attribute to them, as to some enchantment, that in whatever manner and place they are pronounced by the priest over bread and wine with the intention to consecrate, they shall immediately take effect. Everything wholly depends on the institution of the Lord and the working of the Holy Spirit.
We need not be overly concerned with Algerius, for he was after the time of Berengarius and mentioned his recantation in his writing. Furthermore, his judgment is revealed by a certain argument. In the 21st chapter of the first book, intending to prove that both the godly and the wicked receive the body of Christ in the sacrament (which follows upon Transubstantiation), he offers this analogy: The outward word, that is, the spoken word, contains its proper sense for whoever hears it. If it comes to men of understanding, they hear with profit, for they understand what is spoken. If it comes to the unlearned and ignorant, it still carries its proper sense but without profit to the hearer because they do not understand it.
This man assumes in his argument that words carry a sense with them, yet he does not consider that the sense is not included or folded really in the sound or form of the letters, but by signification only. If this is said about bread and wine in the sacraments, because they offer the body of Christ by signification, he shall be confuted by his analogy. This also proves that the wicked do not receive the body of the Lord, just as the ignorant, who when they hear Greek and Latin words, do not understand their meaning.
Therefore, no one could have said more for us. The same author asserts in the first chapter of the second book that the accidents in the sacrament do not indeed admit corruption or decay, but that it only seems so to us, which the Schoolmen themselves would not have said. For what else is this than to establish a perpetual illusion of the senses? Thus, we need not be overly concerned with him, although he endeavors by all means to fortify his Transubstantiation.
The First Opinion
Now we have made trial of the first opinion, and that extensively: for with its removal, many superstitions are taken away. Of the other two, we will not discuss so extensively, because whichever of the two is appointed, we do not greatly mind, as long as it is soundly understood. Now we will only speak of them, to the end that we may see what in both should be avoided and what should be received.
Wherefore, some there have been, who, while retaining the substance of bread and wine, and also the body and blood of the Lord, have, together with these signs yet remaining in their own nature, joined by a most firm knot the body and blood of the Lord. Yet not so, as I think, that of them being joined together should be made one substance: nevertheless, they have said that the body and blood of Christ are in the bread and wine, really, corporally, and naturally. Others have joined them together by signification only. The first opinion is attributed to Luther, the other to Zwingli.
Perspectives on the Sacrament
However, I have heard men of credit say that Luther did not judge so grossly of this matter, and that Zwingli also did not believe so lightly of the sacraments. They say that Luther inclined towards hyperbolical speeches, which in some way exceed the truth, because he thought that Zwingli and others would make the sacraments to be bare and vain signs, whereas Zwingli meant no such thing. But he also feared that Luther would affirm those things which both should derogate from the truth of the human nature and also include the body of Christ in bread, whereupon a greater superstition should yet be nourished. Therefore, he thought it fitting to report somewhat lightly of this sacrament, and thus there was stirred up a contention more than was fitting, which was a cause of great mischief.
The Core of the Contention
In very deed, the contention was rather about words than about the matter. Wherefore, we will remove the handling of these two opinions from the persons: for we affirm not that either Zwingli or Luther were of that mind, but only we will examine the opinions as they are carried about.
Examining the Opinions
Now, there are some who believe that the bread and wine are merely symbols and do not contain the actual body and blood of Christ. They hold that the sacraments are to be understood spiritually and not physically. This view, often associated with Zwingli, emphasizes the memorial aspect of the Lord’s Supper, where the bread and wine are seen as reminders of Christ’s sacrifice rather than his literal body and blood.
On the other hand, there are those who hold to a more literal interpretation, believing that the bread and wine are transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ. This view, often linked with Luther, is known as consubstantiation, where Christ’s body and blood are present “in, with, and under” the forms of bread and wine. This interpretation maintains that there is a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, though not in the same manner as the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, which asserts a complete change of substance.