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.
Common Ground and Misunderstandings
Despite the differences in interpretation, it is crucial to recognize that both views seek to honour the significance of the Lord’s Supper. The emphasis on either the real presence or the symbolic nature of the elements should not overshadow the primary focus of remembering and proclaiming Christ’s death until he comes (1 Corinthians 11:26).
Luther and Zwingli, though seemingly at odds, both aimed to preserve the integrity of the sacrament. Luther’s concern was to prevent the reduction of the Eucharist to a mere symbol, while Zwingli was wary of any notion that might lead to a misunderstanding of Christ’s human nature and a return to superstitious practices.
In light of this, it is evident that much of the contention arose from a misunderstanding of each other’s intentions and the use of language. By examining these opinions with an open mind and a focus on their underlying intentions, we can better appreciate the theological richness they offer.
The Similitudes
Those men who so grossly join the body of Christ with the signs often bring two similitudes to better declare themselves. The first is, if you have a pot full of wine and pronounce, “This is wine,” you do not lie at all, seeing that you show the wine itself contained in the cup. In like manner, if you take a hot burning iron and, showing the fire, say, “This is fire,” you neither speak falsely nor absurdly: so, they say, must be understood the saying of the Lord, “This is my body.” They manifestly admit the figure Synecdoche. For seeing they show a subject compounded, it is not a true proposition unless it is touching one part of the thing shown.
Presence of Christ
Yet it must be known that these similitudes are not taken by them as though they thought that in every way they agree with the matter proposed. They contend that the body of Christ is present not locally, but definitively, which they understand to be when anything is not circumscribed with the measure of place but is said to be there because its nature or essence is then appointed to that place, or works therein. This does not agree with wine being in a cup, for that has its place where it is limited. Furthermore, these men would not say that the body of Christ is so in bread that it takes the name of the qualities or accidents thereof. For it cannot truly be named white, round, baked, or sodden, which nevertheless we perceive to happen to fire mixed with burning iron. For it so follows the fashion of the iron—the length, the breadth, and the depth thereof—that it may be named by the shapes and forms of the same.
The Real Conjunction
Whereby it plainly appears that this similitude in this opinion is not understood by these men as touching all the parts, but only that a true and real conjunction of the sacrament and the thing may be shown. This being granted, it follows that both the wicked and the godly receive the body of Christ. First, forsooth, that this conjunction is real, they think it is sufficiently proved by the words of the Lord. But the other, namely that the body of Christ is given even to the wicked, they see it necessarily follows. However, we have already shown the contrary, to wit, that these words of Christ do not necessarily drive us to this sense, and by effectual reasons, it has been proved that the wicked receive only the outward elements.
Figurative Speech in Scripture
These men also argue that if the words of scripture are understood figuratively, then it may easily be that many precepts should be overthrown. For Abraham might have said of circumcision when it was commanded, “It is a figurative speech, and I shall fulfil this commandment if I circumcise my heart and cut off the lusts and infections of the flesh.” Also, when the choice of meats was commanded, the Israelites might have said that the execution of that commandment might consist in the moral observation if they did not commit those sins which were signified by those unclean beasts. By that means, neither circumcision nor the choice of meats should have taken place.
Literal and Figurative Interpretation
However, it may plainly be proved that this is a weak argument because it is perceived by the letter itself and by the text that the same is no figurative speech. As for circumcision, it is appointed to be on the eighth day after the child’s birth, and it is added that the covenant of the Lord was to be borne in the flesh itself. By these words, it appears that true circumcision was commanded. In the choice of meats, the conditions of the living creatures, clean and unclean, are so expressly described and a purifying appointed as touching the offenders, that no place of doubting is left.
We also have a rule of Augustine in “De Doctrina Christiana,” wherein he shows that unless an evil act is commanded, or some good work prohibited, the speech is to be taken without a figure. If this rule is applied to the choice of meats and to circumcision, it shows that the words of God must be absolutely understood. They say moreover that in the Prophets and histories, figures are easily admitted because in these the Holy Ghost deals after the manner of men and applies himself to their familiar speeches, that he may more earnestly express those things which are to be spoken. But in doctrine and precepts, we must not so judge: all things, they say, must be taken simply. This opinion of theirs is not firm or universal.
Figurative Speech in Doctrine
As for precepts, the Lord says: “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees,” where he manifestly uses a figure, such a figure that the apostles in that place misunderstood him. Moreover, in Matthew 7, he commanded that they should beware of false prophets, “for they will come to you,” he says, “in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” In this commandment, who does not perceive a figurative speech? In teaching doctrine, there is no doubt that figures and tropes are used. Paul says in the New Testament: “The rock was Christ,” and “We are one bread.” Of God, it is written that he is a consuming fire (πῦρ καταναλίσκον).
Chapter 47:
The Body of Christ and its Omnipresence
They affirm that the body of Christ may be everywhere, citing the words of Christ to Nicodemus in John 3: “No man ascends into heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man who is in heaven.” Behold, they say, the Son of Man, that is Christ, spoke to them concerning his human nature, and was also in heaven because the human nature cannot be separated from the divine. Therefore, what he affirms of one must also be spoken of the other.
However, it is answered that we will not divide these two natures from one another, yet it does not follow that what pertains to one should be given to the other. Indeed, we grant that the divinity of Christ is everywhere, but we will not attribute the same to his body and humanity. Augustine manifestly taught this to Dardanus. And what is brought out of the third chapter of John, Augustine interprets, must be understood that the Son of Man was in heaven concerning his divine nature. Neither did Chrysostom judge otherwise when he expounded this place. He affirmed that to be in heaven was not attributed to the Son of Man but in respect of his divine nature.
The Argument of the Natures
But how feeble an argument this is: These two natures are joined together; therefore, what is granted to one must be attributed also to the other. This may be shown by analogy: The body of the sun and the light thereof have between them a natural and excellent conjunction, yet the light does not extend itself to every place where the body really attains. In like manner, the body, our eyes, and sight are very much joined together, yet our sight attains to many things to which the eye of the body does not extend.
The Unique Nature of Christ’s Body
They argue that many things must be granted to the body of Christ beyond the common course and conditions of other bodies, for two reasons: partly because it is glorified, and partly because it has the Word joined with it. We confess that many things are to be given, but to be everywhere cannot fit it while preserving the nature of man’s body. If we were to grant this, it would bring ruin rather than renown to it, for then it would be extruded from its own nature. Moreover, even if we granted that the body of Christ could be in many places, it does not follow that God would deal so in this sacrament.
The Teacher Similitude
They endeavour to prove this corporal presence by the similitude of a teacher. A teacher, seeing he can extend his words to many hearers, communicates the concept of his mind to them, so they all understand him fully alike. So, they say, God deals in the words uttered at the sacrament. He folds his body in them so that by them he may be shown in all these signs and may be communicated to all that receive.
Comparison and Conclusion
But the comparison is far wide, and as we said before, words do not discover things or the concept of the mind unless by way of signification. It is to no purpose what they go about to prove afterward, that the body of Christ is everywhere, from the first chapter of Ephesians: “Christ is given to be the head of the body of the Church, which (as it is written in Greek) is the fullness of him that fills all in all things.”
The Apostle does not mean that the body of Christ fills all things and is everywhere as they infer. The verb or participle πληροῦντος (fulfilling) is doubtful in its signification, as it may be taken both actively and passively. If understood passively, according to Greek expositions, it means that Christ, the head of the Church, is filled concerning all things in all his members, not that he is accomplished in himself. He is sufficiently perfect and happy. However, that must be understood concerning the body and members. As to be the head is given to him, so likewise the Church is understood to be the fullness of Christ, for it fills and perfects his mystical body.
Active and Passive Signification
If the signification is active, then it means that Christ is the head because he perfects all gifts and virtues in all his members. The sense is not that he, as man, is everywhere. This can be proved by the Scriptures. Christ openly confessed that Lazarus was dead when he was not there. If one contends that he did not have a glorified body, it does not affect the matter because he still had the Godhead joined with it.
To remove doubt, the Angel after the resurrection said to the women: “He is risen, he is not here.” Again: “He shall go before you into Galilee.” And again: “He was taken away from their eyes as he ascended into heaven.” Therefore, he does not fill all things nor is he everywhere.
Christ’s Ascension and Filling All Things
They also cite a place in the fourth chapter of Ephesians: “He that descended is the very same that ascended even above all heavens, that he might fill all things.” This place, notwithstanding, proves nothing and is expounded in two ways. First, that to fill all things is referred to what is prophesied and written of Christ. Wherefore a little before, he cited the scripture: “He ascended on high, he led captivity captive and gave gifts unto men.” If you refer it to places, you must understand this of the kinds of places, not of each place particularly, according to that sentence: “The Lord would have all men to be saved.” Thus, we say that Christ sometimes occupied the middle places, sometimes the higher places, and other times the lower places, as in the sepulchre.
Transubstantiation and Omnipresence
The Transubstantiators say that this does not belong to them because they do not claim that the body of Christ is everywhere, but only where the Sacrament is. Rather, it is against them. For if, as they judge, it is not repugnant to the body of Christ to be at one time in twenty or fifty places, it will not be repugnant to be in a hundred or a thousand places, and finally in all places. Thus, they make the body of Christ to be infinite. There is no cause to accuse the form of the argument, for Jerome used the same against John, Bishop of Jerusalem, to prove that our bodies after resurrection can remain without meat. Jerome said that Elias and Moses, by the power of God, could remain without meat for forty days, so man might also be sustained by the power of God for more days. If for longer time, it follows that forevermore if it be the will of God.
The Adoration of the Sacrament
Returning to those men, they see that upon such a near conjunction, it follows that the Sacrament may be adored. For if the Lord be corporally and really contained therein, who will not worship him? They teach that it is free for you to do it or not do it. For they say: although he is there, yet he is not there to be worshipped. If you receive him and eat him, it is enough. If you also worship him, you do not err. But we judge rather that in worshipping we should not turn our mind to the signs.
If any man, while the rite of the Sacrament is exercised, being well instructed in the mystery, shall turn his mind to the worshipping of Christ reigning in heaven, he does rightly and his bounden duty to worship Christ, who declares himself unto him. Neither is idolatry committed therein. Paul taught this in the first epistle to the Corinthians when he said: “If a man enters your congregation, if he is unlearned and a plain man, and hears you all speak together in tongues, doubtless he will say: They are mad, neither shall he be edified. But if he hears you prophesy and perceives that the secrets of his heart are opened, then he will fall down upon his face and worship God.” He will not worship men in such wise prophesying, but seeing the Lord revealed unto him, he will turn himself to the worshipping of God.
Chapter 48:
The Arguments Against the Gross Judgement
The reasons in brief, for which their gross judgement seems not to be true, are these:
This real and corporal presence brings no utility that we do not already receive by the spiritual presence. In John 6, the Lord promised eternal life to those who eat Him and that He would dwell in them and they in Him. What more is required beyond these promises?
Moreover, it might not be granted that we and the fathers of the old law had the same Sacraments because it was not possible for the old fathers to have obtained this real presence, as the Son of God had not yet taken upon Himself human flesh.
Furthermore, it would follow that both the godly and the wicked eat the body of Christ.
Again, besides that spiritual eating which we have in John 6, they bring in another carnal and corporal eating, which cannot be allowed, as this eating and that are all one, except that in the latter, signs are added for the confirmation of the thing.
Finally, it follows that when they attribute so much to words, they are in the same difficulty as the Transubstantiators when they say, “This is my body.” For they cannot express their meaning plainly without contradiction, as to how the words, while they are uttered, may be true if they do not admit a figure. They spread abroad the body of Christ so that it may be together in many places and everywhere.
Neither is it of force if they say, “Not locally,” because although He is there, as Angels are said to be in a place, that is not fit for the creature as it is proved by Didymus, Basil, Augustine unto Dardanus, and by Cyril, which places can be found at the end of the first disputation against Tresham. The words of the scripture do not drive us to so gross and corporal a presence, and faith is of the word of God; wherefore faith ought not to embrace the same.
Teachings of the Fathers
Besides this, the fathers teach otherwise regarding the manner of the body in the Eucharist. Cyprian in his Sermon on the Lord’s Supper states: “Who unto this day createth, sanctifieth, and blesseth His most true and holy body, and divideth it unto the godly receivers.” The proper body of Christ is not created or sanctified by men, nor is it divided.
Chrysostom, upon Matthew 5 in the 11th homily of the unfinished work, says: “If therefore it is so dangerous to transfer unto private uses these vessels sanctified wherein is not contained the true body of Christ, but a mystery of His body.” He further explains how we must ascend into heaven when we communicate, if we would enjoy the body of Christ. This same father declares in Homily 24 on 1 Corinthians 10: “He commands us that with great concord and charity we come unto Him, and being made eagles in this life, we should fly unto the very heaven or rather above heaven. For where the dead carcass is, there also the eagles be.”
The carcass is the body of the Lord by reason of His death. Unless He had fallen, we would not have risen again. He calls us eagles to show that he who comes unto this body must mount on high, must have no community with the earth, and must not lay hold upon or be drawn unto inferior things but always fly aloft and look into the sun of righteousness and have a most ready eye of the mind: for this is a table of eagles and not of jays.
Ascending from Earth to Heaven
Again, the same father in Homily 83 on Matthew 26 says: “They were about to journey from Egypt into Palestine, and therefore they did wear the habit of a traveller: thou from the earth must ascend into heaven.” And in the third book De Sacerdotio, he states: “Do you think to dwell among mortal men, and to stay and be on the earth? And do you not rather think that you shall forthwith be translated into heaven? And in casting away all cogitation of the flesh, do you not with a single heart and pure mind consider those things that are in heaven?”
Chapter 49:
Augustine’s Teachings on the Presence of Christ
Augustine wrote to Boniface, maintaining a consistent order and sense in his teachings. He said: As Easter approaches, Christ died on this or the next day save one, and on Sunday: Christ rose again. Baptism is faith, and the Sacrament of the body of Christ is the body of Christ. In all these sayings, that which is absent is pronounced as present.
The same Father, upon the 54th Psalm, states: “The head is in heaven: and he said, ‘Why do you persecute me?’ We are with him in heaven by hope, and he is with us on earth by love.” In the 119th Epistle to Januarius, Augustine writes: “Wherefore, to that persecutor whom with his voice he slew, and translating him into his body after a sort has eaten, he sounded from heaven: ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?’”
Upon John, the 30th Treatise, Augustine asserts: “The Lord is above, but here also is the truth of the Lord: For the Lord’s body wherein he rose again ought to be in one place, but his truth is everywhere spread.” Again, upon John, the 50th Treatise: “For according to his Majesty, his providence, and his unspeakable and invisible grace, is fulfilled that which was spoken by him: ‘Behold I will be with you until the end of the world.’ But according to the flesh which the Word took upon it, which was born of the Virgin, taken hold of by the Jews, fastened to the tree, taken down from the cross, wrapped in clothes, buried in the sepulchre, and made manifest in the resurrection, ‘You shall not always have me with you.’”
Wherefore, after he had been conversant as touching his bodily presence for forty days with his disciples, leading them forth while they saw him but did not follow him, he ascended into heaven and is not here; for there he sits at the right hand of his Father, and is here; for he did not depart from the presence of his Majesty. We have Christ always. As touching the presence of the flesh, it was rightly said to the disciples: “Me you shall not have always.” For the Church had him but a few days as touching the presence of the flesh. Now it holds him by faith, not seeing him with the eyes.
The same Father, upon the Epistle of John at the end, states: “Our Lord Jesus Christ ascended into heaven on the fortieth day. In this respect, he commended his body because it was to be left on earth in his members. He saw that many would honour him for ascending into heaven and perceived that their honouring is unprofitable if they tread down his members upon the earth. So that none might be deceived, nor when he worships the head in heaven, should he oppress the feet upon the earth, he told them where his members should be.”
When he was about to ascend, he spoke his last words: “After these words, he spoke no more upon the earth. The head, about to ascend into heaven, commended his members upon the earth and so departed. You shall not now find Christ speaking upon the earth. You find him speaking, however, in heaven and out of heaven itself. Why? Because the members were trodden upon the earth. To Paul the persecutor, he said, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? I ascended into heaven, but I lie still upon the earth. Here I sit at the right hand of the Father, there I still hunger, thirst, and am a stranger.’”
After what sort then did he commend his body upon the earth while ascending? When his disciples asked him: “Lord, if you will at this time be presented, when will you restore the kingdom of Israel?” He answered upon his departure: “It is not for you to know the time, which the Father has laid up in his own power: but you shall receive the power of the Holy Spirit coming upon you, and you shall be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem.” Behold in what respect he spreads out his body: “Behold, when he will not be trodden upon, you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and over all Judea and Samaria, and unto the ends of the earth.” Behold I lie which do ascend: For I ascend because I am the head; my body yet still lies. In what sort does it lie? Over the whole earth.
Unto Augustine, Cyril agrees, who writes in his commentary on John, book 6, chapter 14: “Here must we note that although Christ took away the presence of his body, as he promised he would be away from his disciples, yet in the majesty of his Godhead he is always present. ‘Behold, I am with you always, even until the end of the world.’”
The same father, in his ninth book on John, chapter 21, states: “Christ said that he would be with his disciples for a little while, not because he would utterly depart from them, for he is with us always, even until the end of the world, but because he would not live with them as he did before. The time was now at hand for him to go into heaven unto the Father. The faithful ought to believe that although he is absent from us in body, we and all things are governed by his power, and he is always present with all who love him.”
Therefore, he said: “Verily, verily I say unto you, that wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” Just as when he was on earth as a man, he also filled the heavens and did not leave the fellowship of the angels; now, being in the heavens, he does not fill the earth with his flesh but is with those who love him. It must be observed that although he is absent only according to the flesh, he is always present by the power of the Godhead. He said he would be a little while with his disciples, clearly naming himself so that none should dare to divide Christ into two sons.
Vigilius, in his first book against Eutychus, writes: “The Son of God, concerning his humanity, departed from us; concerning his Godhead, he says unto us: ‘Behold, I am with you until the end of the world.’” He continues: “Whom he left and from whom he departed in his humanity, he neither left nor forsook in his divinity. According to the form of a servant, which he took from us into heaven, he is absent from us; according to the form of God, with which he does not depart from us, he is present with us upon the earth. Yet, both present and absent, he is one and the same to us.”
In the fourth book, he writes: “If the Word and the flesh are of one nature, how is it that, seeing the Word is everywhere, the flesh also is not found everywhere? When he was on earth, he was not also in heaven, and now because he is in heaven, he is not on earth. It does not matter that we should expect Christ to come from heaven as touching the flesh itself, whom we believe to be with us on earth as concerning the Word.”
Therefore, as you will have it, either the Word is contained in a place with his flesh, or the flesh with the Word is everywhere. One nature does not receive a thing contrary or diverse in itself. It is a diverse and far unlike thing to be limited in a place and to be everywhere. Since the Word is everywhere, but the flesh is not, it appears that one and the same Christ is of both natures: he is everywhere according to his divine nature, and according to his human nature, he is contained in a place. He is created and has no beginning; he is subject to death and cannot die.
He concludes: “This is the Catholic faith and confession, which the Apostles have taught, the Martyrs have confirmed, and the faithful do to this day keep.”
Chapter 50:
Fulgentius on Christ’s Presence
Moreover, Fulgentius, writing to Thrasimundus the King in the second book, states: “One and the same man, local as a man, who is God immense as the Father, one and the same, according to human substance, absent from heaven when he was on earth, and forsaking the earth when he ascended into heaven. But as touching the divine and immense substance, he neither left heaven when he descended from heaven, nor forsook the earth when he ascended into heaven.”
This appears certainly by the assured word of the Lord himself, who, to show that his humanity was local, said to his disciples, “I ascend to your Father and my Father, to my God and your God.” Of Lazarus also, when he said, “Lazarus is dead,” he added, “I am glad for your sakes that you may believe because I was not there.” He undoubtedly showed the infinite greatness of his divinity to his apostles, saying, “Behold, I am with you even to the end of the world.” How does he ascend into heaven, but because he is in a place as very man? Or how is he present with his faithful, except because he is one immense and very God?
The same father, in the third book, writes: “The very same and inseparable Christ, as touching his flesh only, rose out of the sepulchre. The very same and inseparable Christ, according to the whole man which he received, forsaking the earth locally, ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God. According to the same man, he shall come to judge the quick and the dead and to crown the faithful and godly.”
Lastly, Bernard, in his 33rd Sermon on the Canticles, states: “I also have the Word, but in the flesh, and before me is set the truth, albeit in a Sacrament. The Angel is fattened, but yet with the fatness of corn, and is now filled with grain. In the meantime, it behoves me to be content with the bark of the Sacrament, with the bran of the flesh, with the chaff of the letter, with the covering of faith. These things are such that, being tasted, bring death if they have not received some seasoning of the first fruits of the Spirit. Death is altogether in the pot for me unless it is sweetened by the little meal of the Prophet. But certainly, however abundant these things grow, the book of the Sacrament and the fat of the wheat, faith and hope, memory and presence, eternity and time, the visage and a glass, the Image of God and the form of a servant, are not received with equal pleasantness. Truly, in all these things, faith is rich to me and understanding poor.”
“And is the savour of faith and understanding all one, when this tends towards merit and that towards reward? You see that there is as much difference between the meats as between the places. And even as the heavens are exalted from the earth, so are the inhabitants therein. Here you plainly see that Bernard makes an antithesis or contrary comparison between the remembrance and presence of a thing, and speaks of many other things which serve much to what we have in hand. But let us return to the adversaries: they have fathers to oppose against us. They have Irenaeus, who says that the Eucharist consists of two things: the one earthly and the other heavenly, which Gelasius also supposes.”
“However, these things conclude not unless you understand the whole Sacrament so that you make it one thing consisting of the sign and the thing signified. Then we grant that it stands of two parts. But if afterward you appoint such a great conjunction between the bread and the body of Christ as is between the divine and human natures in Christ, that should in no wise be granted, because it would be necessary that of bread and of the body of Christ should be made one substance, that is, one subject, so that they might never be sundered one from another, which is most absurd.”
“From the other fathers, they object in a manner the very same which the Transubstantiators cited before.”
Chapter 51:
The Third Opinion on Christ’s Presence
Now let us see what those who embrace the third opinion say against these men. First, they do not accept the notion that the body of Christ can be scattered so as to be everywhere, because it is against the property of human nature. Augustine to Dardanus writes most plainly against this. Furthermore, they contend that the eating mentioned in John 6 and this later eating is altogether one, except that in this are added signs. They prove this by the argument that John, when he mentioned this eating at the end of his Gospel, did not speak of the institution of the Sacrament as the other Evangelists did, for he had sufficiently taught it before. And the sum of doctrine which they omitted, John in chapter 6 fulfilled.
There is no reason, they say, why anyone should argue that communion is superfluous because in often communicating we celebrate the memory of the Lord, give thanks, and our minds are stirred with the likeness of those things represented. Neither are these dumb signs, but speaking signs. Furthermore, a certain private token is present, whereby Christians demonstrate their unity with one another and with Christ. Moreover, they profess their faith regarding the body of Christ nailed upon the cross and his blood shed for our salvation. It is not enough to believe with the heart, but confession must also be made with the mouth, and not only with the mouth but with outward actions.
They do not admit, as these men say, that the wicked also receive the body of Christ, for sense and reason do not attain to it. Therefore, it remains that he is received by faith, and those who lack faith can have nothing but the signs. Paul writes: “He that eats the bread unworthily,” and he does not say, “He that eats the body unworthily.”
Furthermore, they wonder at those who follow the contrary opinion that attribute the remission of sins to the corporal eating of Christ, as this admits Opus operatum, that is, merit, in respect of the very act of working. Remission of sins is not obtained otherwise than by faith. They adhere to Paul’s words when the Lord commands this to be done in remembrance of him and that his death should be shown, which they believe indicates the absence of the body of Christ. However, it is elsewhere shown that this argument is not very firm unless they mean that the body of Christ is really, corporally, and naturally present. Otherwise, when it is received by faith, it is not understood to be altogether absent, although he remains in heaven in nature and substance. He is spiritually eaten and truly joined with us.
They cite the fathers, who plainly pronounce that the type, the sign, and the figure here are the body of Christ. They bring in two analogies. One is of a friend, whose friend being absent bodily is said to be present when thought of. The other analogy is of mirrors surrounding a person, whose face and countenance are multiplied throughout all the mirrors, although he does not move from his place. These are analogies, but yet too cold to fully agree with this mystery. For a friend comprehended in thought does not change the one thinking of him, nor does he nourish his mind or restore his flesh to be capable of resurrection. The analogy of mirrors is also a very weak shadow and cannot be compared to the conjunction we have with Christ. The presence we confess of the Spirit of Christ has the power of the Holy Ghost joined with it, which closely binds us to him. Yet these analogies are not to be utterly refused since they can, in some way, lead us to the truth of the matter, as long as they do not make the things equal. They show how this receiving may be with faith and with the mind.
They mention two conjunctions with Christ: one is that by faith we apprehend his body was nailed to the cross and his blood shed for our salvation. The other is that the Son of God himself took our very nature upon him, creating a natural conjunction between us and Christ, as mentioned in Hebrews 2. But there is a third conjunction, which we enter into with Christ in spiritually eating of him, which they do not often speak of, although they do not entirely overlook it. This will be discussed later.
If these men are asked whether Christ is present at the Lord’s Supper, they answer that he is present. However, they speak by the figure Synecdoche because the one part of Christ, that is, his Godhead, is truly present. In expounding the Lord’s words, “This is my body,” they use the figure Metonymy, meaning the name of the sign for the thing signified. They grant that Christ himself is present in this manner, like the sun which keeps itself within its own circle and yet is said to be present with the world, governing it with motion and light.
How thoroughly faith can make a thing present is explained from the Epistle to the Galatians, where Paul said that Christ was described before their eyes and crucified among them.
Chapter 52:
Evaluating the Opinions on Christ’s Presence
Now remains that we show our judgement among these opinions, discerning what must be avoided and what must be received. It is not my intention to reprove either Luther or Zwingli, who were singular and very excellent men. Regarding Zwingli, I know for certain that in his books he affirms the signs in this sacrament are not vain or futile, as we have previously declared. Additionally, it has been reported to me by all those who have conferred with Luther that he indeed considers the body of Christ and the signs to be united only in a sacramental conjunction. How the contention between them has grown and become inflamed is not the matter to discuss now.
Setting these men aside, who are never sufficiently praised, we will address the opinions as they are set down and urged on both sides. In the first opinion, I do not support the gross knitting together of the body of Christ with bread, as if it were naturally, corporally, and really comprehended therein. The holy Scripture does not drive us to such an affirmation. To multiply and increase so many miracles without its testimony is not to act like a divine. Moreover, such a presence is not necessary and is of no moment to our salvation. I also reject the idea that the wicked receive the body of Christ. Whatever the Lord instituted was for our health, and a fleshly and corporal eating does not aid the salvation of the wicked. Therefore, Christ appointed no such eating. Whatever the wicked eat corporally, it should not be said that they eat the body of Christ, unless you attribute the name of the thing to the sign and seal.
Further, we will not grant that the body of Christ is everywhere or spread over many places, as this contradicts human nature. Similarly, there should be no distinction between the spiritual eating in John 6 and that which the Lord instituted at the last supper, except that he added a seal to the doctrine and promise he had first taught. Their doubtful statements about adoration should not be admitted. We have taught plainly and manifestly what we must judge about that matter. Thus, concerning this opinion, I think it is good to remove the points I have now recited.
In the other opinion, I find it unsatisfactory that they seldom mention a sacramental change of the bread and wine, which is nevertheless significant. The Fathers, wherever they seem to favour transubstantiation, have regard to this change. The holy Scriptures do not scorn it. For Paul, in handling the Sacrament, does not simply name it “the cup” but “the cup of the Lord.” Furthermore, in the Old Testament, things offered are not only called holy but “holy of holies,” that is, in the Hebrew phrase, “most holy.” Therefore, there is no reason to say this change is of light importance, seeing it is of great moment.
If they claim to avoid this emphasis to prevent over-attachment to signs, we respond that a remedy can easily be had through teaching that Christ, while we communicate, is joined to us in an excellent conjunction. He dwells in us, and we in him. He is also joined with words by signification, and thirdly by signs and signification, which conjunction, however, is less than that which pertains to words. Indeed, from the former, the conjunction by words, the signs take their sacramental signification. If these things are rightly taught, there will be no danger. I concede that the proponents of this opinion have sometimes treated this sacramental change, yet only seldom.
Furthermore, they have not always applied the efficacy that is due unto it, for these are not made common signs but such as may mightily and effectually stir up the mind. They will say that this attributes too much to the elements of this world. We answer that these things are not attributed to those elements for their own sake but because of the institution of the Lord, the power of the Holy Ghost, and the plainness of the words.
If they shall demand, “How may I know that the Holy Ghost works here?” it may be easily answered: because it is already ordained that this is a spiritual eating. But how shall we eat spiritually without the Holy Ghost? As for the institution of the Lord, there is no doubt, and of the efficacy of the word, the Scriptures speak everywhere. Paul says that the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation, namely that God will declare his power by this instrument. What else is the Eucharist than the Gospel or visible word? Also, Paul says that faith is by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Not that the word makes us believe, for it is the Spirit by whom we believe, but he uses the instrument of words and also of sacraments, which are the sensible words of God.
Who does not know that the creatures are sanctified by the word of God as it is in the Epistle to Timothy? This must be rightly understood. It is the Holy Ghost who in very deed sanctifies. However, he does this by the instrument of both the word and sacraments. Therefore, this changing must not be taken from bread and wine, whereby they are made effectual signs of the body and blood of Christ, by which the Spirit of the Lord works mightily in us so that we are endowed with faith and godliness. We do not speak here of an efficacy that binds our salvation to the things of this world.
Neither should anyone cry out that, seeing this receiving is had by faith, the communicants gain nothing because, if they are faithful, they already have Christ joined unto them. It may be easily answered: indeed he is joined unto them, but he is every day more nearly joined unto us, and while we communicate he is more and more united unto us. Moreover, this comes to pass so that we should satisfy the commandment of the Lord, who commanded that we should eat and drink this Sacrament. Otherwise, you would say the very same of Baptism. For when a man believes, he is straightway justified and has remission of sins, and yet he is not in vain baptized.
← 4. A Treatise of the Lord’s Supper, Part 4 · Contents · 6. A Treatise of the Lord’s Supper, Part 6 →