PART ONE
Peter Martyr’s Prefaces
[3] TO THE CHRISTIAN READER
Two reasons have moved me to write about the Eucharist: the slanders of evil men and the desires of my friends. To slight the one would be a matter of discourtesy, to neglect the other a lack of faith, since it is clear that no small hindrance to the religion of God hangs on it. If my own cause alone were under discussion, I would easily have ignored it, because I do not count my own judgment so great as to think I should be moved by the slanders of adversaries and the empty rumors of enemies. I know it is the part of wisdom to ignore many things, especially of this sort, and I know that Christian charity endures all things, that it seeks not its own but the things that are of Jesus Christ.1 But it is Christ’s cause and not my own that is present here; not my name but the Word of God is being mocked. For the authority of the ministry is so joined to the Word of God that the danger extends to it also. We see how good and godly affairs, no matter how faithfully and wisely handled, proceed with little or no fruit if the one who treats them lacks authority, particularly if he is marred or disgraced by some reproach.
I will not speak of what their insolence has circulated about the disputation I had at Oxford last summer, and how they slandered me to all sorts of men—princes, nobles, commoners, in city and country. For they have done nothing in secret, but every corner, street, house, shop, and tavern still resounds with their lies and boastings and conquests. Nor do I doubt that these evil reports have even reached other lands.2 Here then was one reason to encourage me to set forth these disputations. Another, as I said at the beginning, is the requests of friends, which I have denied until now. This was as much because I knew there were enough books available on the matter to instruct every devout person sufficiently, as because no one knows my own actions better than myself. I judge them in such a way that I would not have them [4] prevent you (dear reader) from reading better books. But now these friends of mine are greatly disturbed by the false reports of wicked men, and have urged me so much that I yielded at last, acceding to the requests of some and being compelled by the authority of others. What could I refuse the most reverend archbishop of Canterbury, to whom I owe most of all? Or the king’s visitors, who not only were present at these disputations but also presided?3
Therefore I deliver this Disputation to you, along with a Treatise on the same matter for its clearer explanation. I have written them all in simple terms, and without style as it were, but faithfully. As to the Disputation, I compared my own with the examples of the opponent.4 After reading them diligently, I saw that important items had been omitted, and tried to restore them from their writings, within the limits of truth. On other points I saw that they had expanded their arguments and had handled them more precisely in writing than when speaking during the discussion; therefore I also expounded at greater length, though retaining the truth of the matter—but this seldom happened.
So far as I know, I have not changed anything that might wrong those who debated with me as to the effect, the chief points and substance of the arguments, and the rebuttals or answers. Indeed as often as I could, I made sure that the same words are set down that were used by either side when we debated, so far as my memory serves me or the notes of recorders gave me to understand.5 Whoever was present at our disputation will see for himself that no argument is omitted or added, and will understand that nowhere have I shied away from the sum and sense of what was said. If those who are contrary by nature complain that I have omitted or twisted anything, let them put it in writing and not deal with me by words which are worthless when spent so freely. Let them act through written reasons, which one may both read and ponder, so that this kind of debate will not be fruitless. For as Homer said, words are only wind; but what is put in writing cannot be so easily misrepresented.6 If they do so, I shall prepare myself to answer their writing, just as I was once bold in meeting them with living voice.
Meanwhile, farewell, and take this in good part.
DEDICATION TO THOMAS CRANMER7
[5] PETER MARTYR VERMIGLI, Florentine, Professor of Theology, sends greetings to the Reverend Lord, Dr. Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England, and his most respected Lord.
Esteemed prelate, those who publish books are accustomed by a public and very ancient practice to choose for themselves leading men in the state, to whose distinguished and famous names they dedicate their books; by that act they gain some remuneration and much profit. First (in their judgment), they gain for themselves a solid and strong defender against detractors and flatterers. Second, since they seek to have those of that rank confer many benefits on them, they try to declare by this sort of service (since they cannot do otherwise) what a warm and caring heart they have toward them. Besides, in the letter which they call a letter of dedication they usually celebrate not only their book’s patron by heaping up his praises, but as far as possible also explain clearly the argument they have undertaken to deal with and show its dignity and usefulness. Likewise, they insert some things which they think will help clarify and greatly commend it, so that it may be read more avidly by those who desire sound teaching, and that the less learned may understand more easily what is going to be said. Those who publish books, I admit, can dedicate them to powerful and famous men for many other reasons beyond these, but I have reviewed the more honorable ones and those which should move me so that I might offer this book of mine, such as it is, to your most reverend dignity.
Who else could I have chosen beside yourself as my protector of the gospel truth and this sacrament of the Eucharist? Who is more holy and learned, more steadfast than you? Surely no one. In the patron of any cause what is needed above all is that he has both carefully studied and specially examined the matter he has undertaken to defend. How can anyone defend what he knows [aij-v] very little about? Secondly, skill, industry and a plan of action are required; without these we are sometimes likely to fail even in the best causes. Finally, the [7] situation demands that the patron have both complete faith in and a special commitment to the things for whose defense he provides a refuge. Sometimes we never carry to a happy conclusion what we undertake with either diffidence or a faint heart. But I know for certain that Your Excellency has such great expertise in this controversy that it would be difficult for anyone to find its equal in any other person. Indeed, there is not one of the Fathers that you have not carefully examined. There is no book by an author old or new in which with these eyes of mine I have not seen annotations in your own hand about all that pertains to this whole disputation. You yourself with intense labor have digested under the main headings the councils, canons, and papal decrees which pertain to this question so that, unless I had witnessed these things with my own eyes, I would never have given a ready belief to other people who related this.8
You have committed this sort of work, devotion, and labor not just to this question of the Eucharist; I have observed that you have also done the same regarding almost all other doctrines most subject to controversy in this age of ours. For this reason I need not have shown this little book of mine to you so that you might learn something new from it (since I rather have drawn the greater part of my teaching from your labors); rather, the only reason I send this writing of mine to Your Excellency is so that by your critique [censura] (for you are legally and rightly primate of all England) you might determine and note down in it whatever is seen to have dissented from a right and orthodox meaning. Also that you might protect, guard, and defend with your authority (which is such that it ought to enjoy the highest position) those things which you will have judged to be in accord with the divine letters and to agree well with the edicts of His Royal Majesty.9
I pass over in silence many reasons for which I needed a patronage as great as yours in this cause. You therefore have a good hold on the business, as I said. Your Excellency does not fall short of skill, planning, and industry in protecting what you have embraced. From this we can learn that most often, when harassed by adversaries both publicly and privately, you secured freedom from the thorny and intricate quibbles of the sophists for what you knew to be true through the marvelous [8] force of your learning, the sharpness of your talent and your dexterity of action. All godly persons know quite well that there is no lack of will—indeed you have a soul most attentive to defending sound and Christian doctrines. They have seen how you are aflame with such [aiii-r] zeal for establishing religion that you have incurred most bitter hostilities for this reason alone, and have passed by many pleasures of this life and undergone severe dangers.
Indeed, when I considered these things within myself and saw that I have performed some works of very strong defense,10 I sought refuge in the authority of your name, under which I might be protected from those who seem never to make an end of pulling down, lacerating, and mocking my name everywhere with impudent lies. Never would I have thought (unless I had been caught in the act) that there would be some people who would be so enraged11 and proceed with such sly tricks, deceitful arts, and bitter whips against a man who had merited no harm from them and who had injured none of them by word or deed. But let the cursed tongue of those rascals look out for itself because (as is said in the Psalms) the arrows of the warrior have been prepared against her, with glowing coals from the juniper tree.12 For just as the poisonous tongue bitterly scourges the innocent, so at last will the tongue of divine judgment dig deep and tear apart and wound with its sharp points. Just as the tongue tries to inflame everything and set afire with its painful words, so in the end it will be burnt in eternal flames.
Thus, eminent prelate, you have the reason that first moved me to decide to dedicate this slender writing of mine to Your Excellency. Therefore I now bring forward another reason for this decision of mine: Just as others (as I said at the outset) are led to dedicate their books to outstanding men, so I have been persuaded to offer this work of mine to you. For such are the kindness and humanity, the merits and generosity with which you have treated me that if I wished to give proper thanks for them and extol them as they deserve, I would have nothing else to say. However much I should proclaim them, the greatness of the subject would always surpass my eloquence. Therefore I decided it was better to say nothing rather than something unworthy and feeble. Everybody already knows how kindly you welcomed not just me but [9] many other foreigners of my sort, and treated those you received as warmly as possible.
I therefore cease treating these subjects any further, since they are well known. I know very well that my testimony about your piety, prudence, trustworthiness, and lofty virtues is not being waited for in this kingdom since they are all well attested to everybody. Plato said about Isocrates “He is someone to whom an understanding of philosophy is present by nature.”13 He thus indicated that the philosophy of Isocrates (which was usually acquired by teaching and study) came forth from nature. I then recognized that Your Excellency has been so adorned by both grace and the favor of Christ that, although we are all by nature [aiii-v] sons of wrath like everyone else, still your piety, theology, and the rest of your virtues can seem to be inborn naturally and ingrafted, so deep are the roots they have sunk into your soul. Hence often have I hoped and yearned for God to give me as great a benefit, so that as much as I possess might have a grateful heart toward Your Excellency, and that I might be able to progress as closely as possible to your virtues (which I admire in you as gifts from God).
No more on these things, even though my will is reluctantly torn from this and the dignity of subject calls my pen back to it with great force.14 But it is better to spare your ears than to pursue these words with which I am almost forced to keep on extolling your praises. I know that you can find nothing so hard to bear as hearing about your gifts and virtues. Therefore, because I will be more safely engaged, I will go over with you somewhat more at length in a future place the argument which I have undertaken to treat. There it will be less dangerous, lest I give you offense, even though I know that I should always use brevity with Your Excellency in order to take account of the many and various tasks, as regards both the state and the church, by which you are preoccupied.
I have decided to explain certain matters in a few words,15 lest by keeping silent I might be held unwise, an innovator, a bold, rash and ungodly man; as though I robbed the sacrament of the Eucharist of its [10] honor and dignity, or thrust the holy Supper on the church without Christ, or encouraged such other things as tend to impiety and the neglect of religion. I should rather die, or be nothing at all, or suffer the greatest grief, than disseminate such doctrine. For my part, I attribute so much to this sacrament as to say that through its use the faithful obtain the greatest benefits to be hoped for from God in this life, if they themselves are not hindered through vice or faithlessness.
I hold that all people earnestly desire three sorts of good. First, to continue their life received at birth as long as possible. Second, they wish God to be reconciled to them, and gracious. For the wise live most miserably, knowing that they are never faultless, and that by divine justice a certain punishment is due for every fault, unless they have a sure expiation to hand. Last, the prudent wish to live with one another in justice and goodwill, in happiness and peace; for without these we live most miserably and unhappily. Such are in substance the things universally desired by all who act wisely. And the chief and principal point of these three is, that life may be sustained a long span of time, [aiv-r] which we obtain by a beneficial and wholesome kind of diet. We have this most clearly in the holy Supper. Just as the bread and wine (which feed the body) are given outwardly to the communicants, so is it truly granted to their minds that by faith they eat the body and blood of Christ, given for our redemption, so that the whole person, both inward and outward, is restored to the greatest happiness. This is the only way that Scripture allows and knows of eating the body and drinking the blood of the Lord, namely when we apprehend by a constant and firm faith that Jesus the Son of God our Savior and Lord gave his own body on the cross and shed his blood for us, and that he has so embraced us who are given to him by the Father, and so joined and incorporated us to himself, that he is our head, and we flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones, while he dwells in us and we in him. In this stands the whole power and reason of this meat and drink, to which our faith is stirred up and kindled by the threefold Word: sometimes inwardly, while the Holy Spirit, by his secret yet mighty power, clearly incites our souls to renew these things in ourselves, that they may be embraced with lively and willing faith; to the same end we are often moved by the help of God’s words, piercing us by outward sound or by writing; and finally, to provide every help for our infirmity, Christ added bread and wine in the Supper as signs. By his words and institution they become sacraments, that is instruments by which the [11] Holy Spirit excites faith in our minds, so that we may be spiritually yet truly fed and sustained by his body and blood.
What more could there be to lead the faithful to life than this kind of food? Do we not by such eating dwell in Christ and Christ in us? Can we ask for so great a good to be more clearly promised us than when he himself said, “Who eats me shall live by me?”16
Moreover, in John 6 the Lord taught this simple, unadorned, yet true and genuine, eating of his body and drinking of his blood. Afterward the Lord desired that this should be helped by means of the outward word and the sensation of bread and wine, when we come to the holy table. Therefore whoever does not reject a holy life (I mean life eternal and most happy), must he not cherish the Eucharist above all things? Will he not embrace it as a sweet pledge of his salvation? Will he not use it in the congregation of the saints as often as it is given? Indeed he will, if he ponders these matters earnestly within himself.
Next to life, [aiv-v] which all wish to lead happily, for the most part men desire to have God well pleased with them. If we are unsure of this, our mind is anxious, our thoughts troublesome, our conscience tormenting, creatures terrify us as avengers and harsh servants of God, nothing is quiet inside us or out, we fear both heaven and hell alike, showing the same hatred to God as to the devil, for the one we fear as an executioner and the other as a judge. In this condition the holy Scriptures help us, teaching that the heavenly Father is at peace with humankind by no other means than by the sacrifice of his only begotten Son. Through this sacrifice God has made an everlasting covenant with his people, has forgiven our sins, has adopted those who believe as his children, has committed them to his first begotten Son for salvation, and has incorporated them and made them heirs of his heavenly kingdom.
Now in receiving the sacrament of the Eucharist, the memory of the Lord’s death and of the whole mystery of our redemption through the incarnate Word of God is reopened, the acknowledgment of God’s testament is renewed, and the blessed communion of Christ and remission of sins through his sacrifice given on the altar of the cross is offered. So in this sacrament, if received rightly and with faith, not by any power of the work [vi operis] but by the free benefit of Christ which we apprehend in believing, we acknowledge that our sins are forgiven, [12] the covenant between God and ourselves confirmed, and God’s very Son, who possesses life in himself through the Father, is received in such a way that whoever partakes of his flesh and blood in true faith lives through him, so that the heavenly inheritance is possessed by the faithful, as far as the state of this life permits.
Therefore we claim not only life, but a life safe and calm in face of divine wrath. What joy and delights and honest pleasures are lacking to us who have God merciful and favorable towards us, and the Son of God dwelling in us? None of them whatever, if we seek those things that are true and solid, not fantasies and shadows. In the institution of this sacrament, when he gave his body and blood to be eaten and drunk by faith, Christ referred to the sustenance and nourishment of life through faith. For in the Gospel of Luke he said, “Do this in remembrance of me.” Paul expressed this more plainly, saying: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you declare the Lord’s death till he come.” Finally, it is said by both Luke and Paul, “This cup is the new testament through my blood [ti-r] which shall be shed for you.”17 Therefore, in regard to reconciliation with God, the forgiveness of sins, and the confirmation of the testament, I have imagined nothing, devised nothing, invented nothing which is not from holy Scripture.
Lastly, because man is not made for solitude, but desires social and civil life; therefore when once convinced that he has the gracious divine will through Christ, and that through him his sins are forgiven, nothing else is required for his perfect and absolute life while he abides here, except to live with others (called in Scripture neighbors) not only in harmony but with the greatest justice and charity. Now this sacrament teaches us this most effectively and earnestly. For in the mysteries we become sharers in one table [homotrapezoi]:18 What else should we have in mind than that we are one body, members one of another under Christ our head? And one bread, united among ourselves just as almost innumerable grains of wheat coalesce in that bread which we take?19 Those who are not persuaded by such reasons to maintain mutual concord and charity among brethren have without doubt hardened their hearts like stone and iron, and will be considered more savage and brutish than tigers and the cruelest beasts. For, knowing that the Son of God gave his life for his enemies, they themselves are [13] not moved to do good, so far as they are able, to their brothers and neighbors for whom Christ died.
If a secular table reconciles men to one another when they meet together, why should not the table of Christ effect this the more? Since the wildest beasts are tamed by food, why are men not made gentle by this heavenly food? If treaties and covenants are usually sealed by food and drink, why do not the children of God establish peace and friendship among themselves by communicating together?
We are directed to such things by this divine rite, and by the word of holy Scripture recited in it. In view of our obstinacy, opposed as we are to just, honest, and holy things, even if the admonition seem feeble or ineffectual, yet on condition that faith is not absent, the power of the Holy Spirit seizes our hearts by the sacraments and words of God. This always stimulates harmony, peace, and mutual love, so that while we communicate together not only do we use an outward occasion, but our minds also experience the inward moving of divine inspiration. So you see, most great leader [amplissime Praesul], what notable and excellent goods which I show are given us through the Eucharist. Let those who would scourge Martyr20 complain as much as they please that I violate the sacrament [ti-v] of the Lord’s Supper. Let them step forward and demonstrate what they have accomplished more than I by their transubstantiations, their marvels and wonders [teratologiais], what more solid fruit and genuine profit they have brought by this sacrament either to communicants or to churches. Will they speak of the benefit of our dwelling in Christ and Christ in us? So will I. Will they speak of obtaining a holy life and heavenly blessedness? I propose that too. Will they speak of receiving the body and blood of Christ? No less do I, yet such as is had by faith and the soul. Will they object to the remission of sins, the confirmation of the covenant, the remembrance of the cross and Christ’s death that is effected? I think not, for I have often taught all of this to large gatherings. Will they oppose the incorporation, so to speak, which in communicating we obtain by faith, both with Christ and among ourselves his members? They cannot, for this also have I constantly emphasized. What then do they say, since besides these nothing else is taught about the Eucharist in Scripture? I know what they will say now: You take away transubstantiation—corporeal, carnal, real, and substantial presence—this we deplore, this we [14] affirm more fully than you; in this we dissent from you. I hear them quite well, but have decided to make no reply just now, because transubstantiation is an empty thing, and because I have dealt with it enough in both the Disputation and the Treatise prefixed to it.
Now concerning Christ’s body, which I deny to be present—as you complain so much—I wish to say something openly to explain myself.21 If I should ask you why one should assert such a presence as you imagine for yourself, I think you will answer: In order that the body and blood of Christ may be joined to us. But since the whole work of this union is heavenly and spiritual, this presence of yours so zealously argued, relating to locality, is not required at all. What need is there either of physical contact or of nearness of places? Tell me this: since holy Scripture declares not only that we are united with Christ but also that we are members together with our brethren, being made one body, will you not agree that the faithful in Spain, Italy, Germany, and France are so joined with us as to be (as Paul says) members together with us?22 I know you will not deny that. Therefore if [tij-r] separation of places and physical contact, which are impossibilities, do not hinder this unity by which we are joined together in one through Christ, why do you deny that we are truly joined to him without any real and corporeal presence? And if you do not deny it, why do you insist on promoting such a presence?
To use a plainer and more expressive simile: as you know, in holy Scripture, man and wife both are and are called one flesh. For Adam, or God through Adam, said: “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; for this cause a man shall leave father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.”23 So appropriate is this likeness to the matter at hand that in Ephesians Paul takes the Church as the body of Christ in the same manner as the wife is the bone and flesh of her husband.24 If it sometimes happens that a man stays in London while his wife remains at Cambridge or Oxford, this union of flesh between husband and wife is not prevented. Their separation and [15] lack of physical contact which cannot then exist shows only that wife and husband themselves remain one and the same flesh.
Thus in order to enter into union with Christ, there is no need for you to attempt to tie his body and blood, or as you say to hide them, under the appearance [sub speciebus] of bread and wine. We are truly joined to Christ without these wonders. Apart from such fancied devices, the Eucharist is a whole and perfect sacrament; nor are Christ’s words diminished without these delusions when he said “This is my body,” delivering bread to his apostles, as the following Treatise will declare more fully. Thus in order to establish and confirm all these things, the church needs no corporeal or substantial presence of the body of Christ.
Yet I would not have it thought, on account of these similes I bring, that I regard lightly or depreciate the union we have and daily enter into with Christ. For I well know that in order to demonstrate its closeness, Scripture is accustomed to declare that we are not only endowed with the Spirit, merit, and intercession of Jesus, and act and live by his inspiration and Spirit, but also that he himself is with us and dwells in our hearts by faith: he is our head, he dwells in us and we in him, we are born again in him, his flesh is both given and received to be eaten and drunk. But I understand statements of this kind to be metaphorical, since proper speech cannot easily be found for these things—words signify this or that as they are appointed to serve human ends. Therefore when it comes to heavenly and divine things, the natural man who does not understand such great secrets, cannot as much as name them.25
[tij-v] In this way the Holy Spirit attends to our weakness: having granted us light and understanding beyond our nature, he also humbled himself to these metaphors, namely abiding, dwelling, eating, and drinking, so that in a certain sense he may make known to us this divine and heavenly union which we have with Christ. Since these forms of speech consist of two things, the highest efficacy and a significance not proper but transferred, they must not be interpreted rashly but with prudent and spiritual caution. This is observed if we do not extend their sense more than is fitting nor attribute too much to them, especially when applied to sacraments. The hyperboles of the Fathers [16] and contempt of Anabaptists greatly confused the sacraments (particularly this one with which we are dealing). The latter judge it only a token of mutual love, a cold and bare sign of Christ’s death; the former attribute everything divine to it, by which they step arrogantly into dreadful idolatry.
The median position we hold can be retained in no other way than by interpreting the phrases we have mentioned according to the analogy or convenience of holy Scripture. This requires us not to tear asunder the hypostatic union of Christ (as they call it), on account of which the properties of the two natures, divine and human, communicate with each other; yet also to distinguish with sound understanding exactly what we have communicated by alternation of the properties [idiômatôn], so that the divinity is not made subject to human infirmities, nor the humanity so deified that it leave the bounds of its own nature and be destroyed.26 Therefore by a spiritual wisdom, such as only holy Scripture provides, we must discern what is agreeable to Christ in respect of one nature and the other. In this regard, the presence of the body of Christ which I remove from the Eucharist is that by which it is everywhere diffused, or else in many places at once, so that it frees itself from the quantity and limitation necessary to a human body.
Thus if by presence someone understands the perception of faith by which we ourselves ascend to heaven, by mind and spirit embracing Christ in his majesty and glory, I willingly consent to him. But I totally reject their opinion who contend that the body is enclosed and covered in the bread and wine, and affirm [tiij-r] that it is under their forms [sub species], so that they should worship and adore him there; in brief, they have set up an idol. This is the head, origin, and source of all contention; here in general the state of all the present controversy rests. Therefore if we do not resolve this point sincerely, well, and clearly, our adversaries will continue to have some means of making a fair show of maintaining and defending their superstitions and idolatries (which they force on the church) through sophistical arguments decked out with painted face.
To cover the whole matter in few words, I heartily affirm these two things. One, that this sacrament of the holy Supper is nothing [17] without use.27 How true this is other sacraments testify. The other point is that when we make use of it we grasp Christ’s body and blood by faith alone. Those who teach otherwise speak what they do not understand themselves, nor are they understood by others; they fling themselves by choice into obscurities and labyrinths where the Scriptures do not lead. And this is the basis, the strength and foundation of the opinion I have declared, namely that it belongs properly only to the divine nature to be by substance everywhere and to fill all things; while conversely the state and condition of human nature is to be contained in a definite place, measurable and spatial, unable to spread itself over many places or everywhere at the same time. Our senses witness to this fact, confirmed by human reason, nor does any divine Scripture prove it to be otherwise; the Fathers asserted it in many places. If this is reversed and the opposite taught, as many do, we derive no profit, since we already have as much when we hold our opinion, just expressed.28
Let those who cry against me that I teach a reception of the Lord’s Supper without Christ, that is without his body and blood, take this for an answer: If they desire the presence of the body of Christ as an apprehension through faith, offered to us by signification of words and signs and exhibited by the Lord’s kindness, I gladly and willingly admit it, as I have said. For just as light, color, sound, and so on can exist in a remote place yet are said to be present to our senses while we perceive them, so the body of Christ may be termed present, in this meaning of presence, because we grasp it by faith. And if this is understood with right and sound judgment in the way we have explained, one may say that the body of Christ is much more present to those who believe, than are those qualities which are distant in place yet received by the senses. For apprehension by faith is more certain; more firmly [tiij-v] do we adhere to what we believe than do the senses or reason to what they comprehend by its natural power.
I may seem to have expressed my opinion sufficiently about this presence of the body of Christ, unless Your Excellency wonders (being of keen judgment, and loving purity and simplicity of speech, especially in theological matters) why, in the questions of these disputations I used the words really, substantially, bodily, and carnally [18] [realiter, substantialiter, corporaliter et carnaliter], since they are foreign words, entirely alien to the phraseology of holy Scripture. I thought so too, Reverend Bishop, and had I been allowed to speak my own will would have abstained completely from them, as being strange and even barbarous and ambiguous.29 But I am forced to use them partly by the familiar usage of the schools, and partly by the insistence of the adversaries. In order to hinder me even more, as they thought, the latter flaunted me before the people and baser kind of priests, as though I overthrew the foundation of the sacrament of the Eucharist. By these grosser words they zealously affirmed the presence of Christ under the species, as they say, of bread and wine. They also broadcast as effectively as they could the charge that I denied them quite heretically. Meanwhile those who happened to be present and favored my doctrine and opinion, took its defense on themselves; and since the argument between us and our opponents repeatedly arose over these very words, they urged me to set forth at once, fully and clearly, my opinion as to what is necessary concerning the presence of the body of Christ, in terms of the meaning of these words.
This happened since I sometimes used these adverbs in class. Therefore these little flowers regard the scholastic theologians as the best authors, for they used these terms (however barbaric) as appropriate and most suitable to give precise expression [emphatikôteros]. But lest we remain in doubt, it is best to declare my understanding of them. When I deny that the body of Christ is present locally, substantially, bodily, and carnally, it must not be inferred that we eat Christ’s body falsely, in pretense or imagination [ficte, simulate seu phantastice]. For if they understand by these words the reality of the thing itself, I will not deny that the body of Christ is truly received by us. What we comprehend by faith must not be considered false or feigned, counterfeit or a phantom. Otherwise, [tiv-r] Christ’s death and resurrection in which we believe would be pretense and fantasy, since they are past and not now present. Moreover, in times past the fathers who received Christ and had the same meat and spiritual drink that we enjoy, would be judged to have had them falsely, through illusion and deceit; for they could not possess his body and blood “really and corporeally” present with them, since the Son of God had not yet assumed them, but ate [19] and drank by faith. All this would be most absurd, since faith is nothing less than a sure power and faculty granted our minds by God, by which we assent to things quite true and certain; therefore faith cannot grasp things that are false or spurious.
If they contend by these expressions, as they do indeed, that the body of Christ is extended in many different places at once, I deny this meaning and stand against them, and would have my readers know that I reject it completely. I also add that, to anyone of sound judgment, these words “bodily” and “carnally” signify receiving by the senses; since the body of Christ is received neither by sense nor by reason, I refuse those words more readily. Thus it happened that when I was to reach an agreement with the opponents about these questions, I offered only these two words, “bodily” and “carnally,” in which mode I denied Christ’s body and blood to be present. As I have indicated, I was constrained to use them, not willingly or gladly. In fact when we were at last ready to dispute and to expound the questions, the antagonists feared that I might hide some subtlety or device in the adverbs “corporeally” and “carnally”; and to set forth the matter more plainly, as they thought, they wished to add two more adverbs, “really” and “substantially.”
Any offense committed in this respect; therefore, is not my choice but the fault of others. To this I have as my witness the Reverend Dr. Cox, His Royal Majesty’s teacher, and chancellor of the University of Oxford. This is not the place to speak of his wisdom, learning, and piety; yet they are so notable in him as to be known far and wide, in college and church and court. When my opponents cavilled about the questions, as I stated, he was not only present but because of his office was moderator of the Disputation. The Reverend Lord Visitors also knew this, being excellent men and well adorned with all kinds of virtues; [tiv-v] before them the adversaries debated with me most hotly regarding the ambiguity which they suspected in the proposed questions. The only way there could be agreement between us was for me to grant that “corporeally and carnally” should be taken for the same as “really and substantially.”
I wished to write to you, Reverend Lordship, about this at greater length, since I think that many are offended by these words. I understand that some—excellent men in godliness and learning—would not willingly have allowed them. Perhaps they will be more friendly toward me when they understand why I used them, as well as in what sense I [20] affirm or deny the body and blood of the Lord to be present in the Supper.30 In order to make this clear again in the fewest words, I declare that they are truly given and offered to us, by both words and symbols, which signify them powerfully and most effectively. We truly receive in communicating when with full and solid assent of faith we grasp those things offered by the signification of words and signs. It follows that we are most closely joined to Christ; and whom we have obtained in baptism by the benefit of regeneration, him we put on still more and more by the sacrament of food, since nature provides that we are nourished by the same things of which we consist. If we wish to be saved, we should always take care that Christ dwell in us and we in him, until we are wholly converted into him, and so changed that nothing of ours remains, of inborn death I mean, or corruption and sin.
Now it remains for me, most excellent leader [Praesul], to ask pardon for two faults in writing which I freely admit. One is, it often happens in this Treatise that the same thing is repeated two or three times. This upsets those who are wise and learned, who without prodding see many things for themselves, and consider it superfluous to have everything set forth for them, unwillingly suffering the repetition of the same matter. Yet we should remember that although this is a bore to the learned, at times repetition and double treatment are not without profit. For in this unhappy time, the notion of transubstantiation and the bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist has lodged so deeply in men’s minds, and is taken so seriously by them [tv-r] and held so dear, that they are greatly disturbed, and their minds distracted from hearing our arguments and truth to believe otherwise. Just as one or two calls are not enough to awaken those who are fast asleep, so to state the fact once is not sufficient to recall these men from their former error. Therefore I shall think a great deal is accomplished if I do much with this superstitious sort of folk by repeating the same thing. So may charity towards the wayward persuade learned and sound readers not to be put out on this point.
I further ask your forgiveness for my rough and unskilled writing. Unhappily from my youth I was not trained sufficiently in the fine arts (as happens to the young at times through the fault of teachers); now it is difficult for me to speak and write plainly, simply, and easily. In this [21] regard, people should recall, along with Your Excellency, that all those into whose hands such things come will not be required to do everything. Indeed I offer what I can, nor had I wished to dull your learned ears by my nightlong studies. But the result is that this situation is not made by myself alone, but forced on me by the corruption of the spiteful. So I submit to Your Excellency, through that kindness by which you are used to foster both literature and religion, that you will deign to accept what I offer with a good spirit. What may be seen in them that is of less worth, frankly condemn; on the contrary, what you discover to be orthodox and sound, note with your firm authority and good favor. May Almighty God keep Your Excellency in safety for many years, along with the king and the church. Amen.
ENDNOTES
1 1 Cor. 13:5, 7.
2 Those who influenced “other lands” include William Tresham, through his account of the Disputation, and Richard Smith in person; see “Response and Critique,” (introduction, p. xxx above).
3 See introduction, n. 49, for the royal visitors.
4 Both Tresham and Chedsey published accounts: see introduction, above.
5 John Jewel was Martyr’s notary.
6 A variant of the Latin saying “Verba volant, scripta manent,” probably not Homeric in origin.
7 Fol. aij–r; LC and CP omit the first pages (which are no doubt excessive in their praise) and begin at the middle of aiii-v: “I have decided…”; see 9 below. The also omit the final paragraph.
8 On first arriving at Lambeth, Martyr had seen Cranmer’s personal florilegium De Re Sacramentaria; see CRA, 2:291, and “Response and Critique,” xxx above.
9 See introduction, n. 34, above, for the matter of royal permission for public discussion of the Eucharist.
10 Hyperaspisou, as corrected in ERR.
11 Reading saevirent for sevirent.
12 Ps. 120:4.
13 The quotation is in the original Greek, from Phaedrus 279a–b. Jowett has: “For he has an element of philosophy in his nature”; Dialogues of Plato, trans. B. Jowett (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1924) 1.489.
14 Reading revocet for reuccet.
15 Both R. Masson and A. Marten, editors of the commonplace books (LC and CP), begin at this point.
16 John 6:51.
17 Luke 22:19–20; 1 Cor. 11: 25–26.
18 Italics signify transliteration of Greek words.
19 Cf. Cyprian, §24; see also 49, n. 103, below.
20 Reading Martyromastiges: apparently a Greek neologism of Martyr’s.
21 See introduction, “Response and Critique,” xxx, for Basil Hall’s interpretation of this passage as addressed to Cranmer. I take it rather as clearly continuing his rhetorical device of addressing the “adversaries” of the preceding paragraphs.
22 1 Cor. 10:17.
23 Gen. 2:23–24.
24 Eph. 5:21ff.
25 For Martyr’s doctrine of natural knowledge of God, see PW 18–20 (“Nature and Grace” §§1–2) and PW 138–40 (“Visions” §§1–2)
26 For an exposition of the communicatio idiomatum see DIAL, 50 –51, 102–4, and VWG, 103–4 , 190 ff.
27 For the Reformed principle nulla sacramentum extra usum see §§19 and 51, and EW, 66.
28 For arguments against ubiquity see DIAL, passim.
29 See introduction, “The Academic Debate,” xxv ff., for the circumstances surrounding the choice of terms.
30 Martin Bucer is chief among the men who “excelled in godliness and learning” that objected to Martyr’s terminology. See introduction, “Response and Critique,” and VWG, 273 ff., for his influence on Martyr, resulting in the tone of the preface.
[22] Treatise
On the Sacrament of the Eucharist
1. The controversies arising from the sacrament of the Eucharist doubtless have as their goal how to understand the mode of union of the Lord’s body and blood with the symbols of bread and wine or, as others call them, the sacramental species.1 Since it is clear to all that this is called the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord, it follows that they are somehow contained in this sacrament. But in our investigation we will not consider everything proposed on both sides, lest what is obscure enough in itself become more involved, and the treatise expand to infinity. Rather, the order and disposition of the doctrine will be reduced to four heads.
First we shall deal with that union through which, as they generally state, the bread and wine are transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ; this seems to be a complete joining [summa copulatio] of the sacrament with the reality.2 Next we shall examine another opinion, which holds that the bread and wine are retained in the sacrament in their complete and true nature, so as to have the true body and blood of Christ joined to them naturally, corporeally, and really (as they put it).3 Thirdly we shall consider what still others say, that they are joined together in no other way than sacramentally; this is by signification and representation.4 Finally the investigation will proceed to draw from the opinions of the second and third points whatever seems to make for true religion in this matter of the sacrament.5
[23] TRANSUBSTANTIATION6
2. It is best to begin with the opinion of transubstantiation, since it is both grosser and more recent, and since the other two views refute it with equal enthusiasm. The Master of the Sentences writes of it in the fourth book, distinctions 8, 9, 10, and 11.7 We may summarize as follows. When the minister ordained for this purpose utters the words instituted by the Lord over the proper and appointed material, that is, bread and wine, providing he has an intention (as they call it) to do this, the substance of bread and wine is converted into the substance of the body and blood of Christ, and so converted that the accidents of the changed or destroyed substance remain apart from a subject, although some would have it that they are supported by the subsequent body of Christ. But this is false, because the body of Christ is not really endowed with such accidents. Others try to make a natural foundation out of air. But since this cannot be proved, almost all who sponsor this opinion agree they are left hanging in air, and remain without a subject.
They want these accidents that are seen and felt to signify the true body of Christ, which they carry within them veiled and hidden. From here they proceed by saying that this body of Christ lying hidden under accidents is a sign of the very body of Christ that hung on the cross, and of the mystical body, that is, the society of the elect and the predestined. Thus the Master of the Sentences states that only a sign is here, which he takes to be the visible forms, and something else which is both substance [res] and sign, namely the body of Christ hidden under accidents. For it is substance if you refer to the visible form, and sign if you regard the mystical body. According to him, the mystical body is something else you should not call sign but substance, since it is signified in such a way that it no longer exists as the sign of anything. The things afterwards joined in the action of these mysteries are not, he says, necessities like the giving of thanks or the various prayers.8
If you ask them how so great a body can be contained in so little bread, they say that it is not by way of quantity or locally, or “within limits” [definite], but by way of substance, or “sacramentally.” Nor do [24] they consider it absurd that in this sacrament two bodies are contained in the same place, because they are forced to it, since a quantity or bodily measure obtains between the accidents of bread. They do not shrink from a body that exists truly in many places, and concede that a man of full stature and height such as Christ was on the cross or as he will come to judge, is contained truly but invisibly not only in a little bread, but even in its smallest part. Many other things about this opinion could be reported, but I consider this sufficient for our Treatise. Whoever wishes more may consult the Master of the Sentences in the passage cited, with his innumerable interpreters.9 However, concerning the conversion or transubstantiation, they bring the following arguments.
ARGUMENTS FOR TRANSUBSTANTIATION
3. [1]10 First, holy Scripture proposes it. For in John 6 the Lord promised to give his flesh not only for the life of the world, but also to be eaten, and added: “Unless a man will eat my flesh and drink my blood, he will not have life.” Again he said that he was bread from heaven, even living bread which the Father had given. Here is a clear promise to give himself to be eaten according to the likeness of bread. And he fulfilled what he promised in good faith at the Last Supper, as the Evangelist testified.11 Moreover, Paul declares that what is given is the Lord’s body when he says: “Whoever eats and drinks unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” Again: “He eats and drinks judgment to himself, not judging the Lord’s body.”12 They hold that the whole strength of the argument consists in those words, “This is my body,” which they claim to be clear, needing no exposition. They speak in support of the reverence we owe to the Word of God; the evangelists agree that they should be believed on this point —Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as well as the apostle Paul in I Corinthians. If this matter were not of great moment, or to be taken simpliciter, as it sounds, the apostles would not have agreed with each other in such harmony. [25] But if it is permissible to evade by figures of speech,13 nothing (they say) will be safe from heretics.
[2] Again, propositions of this kind, that is, Hoc est corpus meum, must be taken as having subject and predicate representing and referring to the same thing. They are propositions of identity (as the Scholastics put it), unless anything is found in the context of the words either before or after which forces us to a trope or allegory; no such thing is found in this place. But if you consider properly what follows, it recalls us to a simple proposition, for it says, “which is given for you.” And it is clear that the very body of Christ was given for us.
[3] Moreover, things distinct in nature and kind, commonly called “disparates” by logicians—such as a man, a horse, and a stone—are such that they cannot be mutually predicated of one another.14 For it will never be true that a man is a stone, or the opposite. Surely no one doubts that the body of Christ and bread are to be taken in this sense, so that it will never be true to say that bread is the body of Christ. Especially since when the Lord declared, “This is my body,” the substance of bread must disappear.
[4] They add15 that Christ did not use the verb substantive of the present tense carelessly when he said, “This is my body.” He could have said plainly this signifies my body, this represents my body, this is a figure of my body, or a sign of my body, or else this bread is my body. Since he avoided all these, the dictum is to be taken simply, as he spoke it. [5] Besides, if the substance of bread remains there would be two substances at once, and both corporeal, penetrating each other; this is avoided by accepting transubstantiation. [6] A danger threatens that people may fall into idolatry. For since the body of Christ is to be worshipped, bread will also be worshipped if it remains there. [7] Nor does it seem proper to the dignity of Christ’s body to be joined in this way [26] with bread or wine. [8] They also argue from the nature [ratio] of sacrifice. If the body of Christ is offered by the minister, he must hold it and stand there before God, unless we wish to say that he offers something merely signified and foreshadowed.
4. [9] Further, they proclaim that all the Fathers stand with them.16 First they cite Irenaeus, who says in the fifth book, “When the mixed cup and broken bread receive the Word of God, it becomes the Eucharist of the blood and body of Christ”; in the fourth book he says practically the same thing.17 And Tertullian in the fourth book says that Christ, taking bread and distributing to his disciples, made it his body.18 Origen, writing on Matthew 26 says, “This bread, which God the Word confesses to be his body” and so on.19 Cyprian, in his sermon on the Lord’s Supper: “This common bread, changed into flesh and blood, procures life.” And again in the same sermon, “This bread which the Lord gave to his disciples, changed not in form but in nature, by the power of the Word is made flesh.”20
Ambrose in the fourth book, On the Sacraments: “It is bread before the words of the sacraments; when consecration comes, bread becomes the flesh of Christ”; and he has many other like sayings in his book on the sacraments.21 In the same line of thought, Chrysostom, homily 60 on the Eucharist, contained in the sixth volume, says: this sacrament is like wax put into fire, where none of the substance remains, but all becomes like the fire; even so, he says, the bread and wine are consumed by this substance of Christ’s body.22 In the prologue to Psalm 23 [27] Augustine says that Christ carried himself in his hands when he instituted the sacraments in the Supper.23 And in Psalm 98, expounding that sentence “Worship his footstool,” he affirms that the flesh of Christ is to be worshipped in the sacrament, an inconsistency if bread remains.24 Again in On the Trinity book 3, he says, “There can be no sacrament except by the power of the Holy Spirit cooperating.”25
In his On the Trinity 8, Hilary says: “Christ is in us by the reality of nature and not only by an agreement of will; he states that in the dominical food we truly take the word as flesh.”26 Bishop Leo of Rome, in his twenty-second letter to the clergy and people of Constantinople: “Receiving the strength of the heavenly food, we pass into his flesh who was made flesh for us.”27 They add that Damascene stands completely with them.28 Also Theophylact is introduced by them, who quite clearly mentions a changing of the elements [transelementatio].29 And regarding Anselm and Hugh of St. Victor, who were of later time, there is no doubt that they support transubstantiation.30 Therefore they hold that the Fathers both old and new support their opinion.
They also cite councils, namely Ephesus against Nestorius, where Cyril presided. He has much to say on this point, especially that participating [28] in the complete holy body and precious blood of Christ, we do not receive common flesh nor that of a sanctified man, but in fact that which sanctifies, even made peculiarly the Word himself.31 They cite the Council of Vercelli under Leo IX, where Berengar was condemned, whose recantation is recorded in the decrees de Consecratio, part 2, and in the Sentences, 4.32 Again, they cite the Roman Lateran Council under Innocent III, who mentioned transubstantiation in the decretals de summa Trinitate, chapter Firmiter, and de celebratione Missarum, chapter Cum Martha.33 Also the Council of Constance, which condemned Wyclif, who denied this transubstantiation.34 [11] They claim that on their side they have the consent of the whole church, which moved Scotus so much that (in the fourth book) when transubstantiation could not be firmly proved by Scripture and arguments, he still yielded, lest he oppose the consent of the church.35
5. [12] Moreover, they deduce an extravagant and extreme argument from the power of God, because he can perform far greater things than these.36 [13] They introduce many miracles which were performed [29] as a witness to this truth—such as that in Gregory’s hands and by his prayer this sacrament was turned into a finger of flesh; one time a little boy appeared in it; again, when the sacrament was pierced with lancets it discharged blood.37
[14] They have much to say about the glorified body of Christ, which Paul in 1 Corinthians called spiritual, in order to show that it was quite permissible for Christ to convey his body veiled and covered in accidents. [15] They suggest that the Greek does not state simply, “This is my body,” but adds the article, so that it is not “body” but “my body” [to sôma mou]. The Greeks use articles when they want to make language precise and significant.
[16] They add that Christ promised to the apostles, “I will be with you until the end of the age.”38 This should be understood not only concerning the divinity, which they knew in this way; but since they were saddened on account of his bodily departure, he assured them that he would be with them in the body too. [17] Moreover, if transubstantiation is set aside and bread remains only a sign would be left, since it cannot be the body of Christ, and the new sacrament would have nothing that is not found in the old. For those also signified Christ; indeed in respect of the outward form they prefigured him better than bread and wine. In them dumb animals were slain and their blood shed, which does not happen with bread and wine.
[18] Since Christ promised in Peter that the faith of the church should not fail, and since she is Christ’s dear bride, they wonder why he has forsaken her so long in this idolatry, nor shown her the truth against such abuse. [19] They also argue that if the substance of bread and wine is preserved the reality cannot be present; we must conclude that no more is obtained in the sacrament than in common food and banquets. For there also the faithful will perceive a signification of bread and wine, and so the dignity of the sacraments will perish.
[20] Finally, they say that the Word of God must keep its force and power, which are removed if transubstantiation falls. Ambrose says in On the Sacraments: “Through the operation of the Word of God the bread and wine remain what they are, yet are changed into something [30] else”39 The recent writer Alger interprets this, in his first book on this sacrament, chapter 7, that bread and wine remain in terms of accidents, but are changed into something other or better as to substance.40
ARGUMENTS AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION41
6. Now we must look at the contrary arguments by which this opinion is overthrown.
[1] First, holy Scripture lays down that this is bread; therefore it is not true that its substance is changed. The evangelists say that Christ took bread, broke it, and gave it to his disciples. Paul mentions bread five times: “Is not the bread which we break a participation in the body of Christ?” “We who are many are one bread, and one body, who participate in one bread.” “As often as you eat this bread you announce the Lord’s death till he come.” “Whoever eats this bread and drinks this cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” Finally, “Let a man prove himself, and so eat that bread and drink that cup.”42 Since these things are clear and open, if an angel from heaven should preach otherwise let him be accursed. I could also propose what is often said about the breaking of bread, but I see that it might be understood otherwise, as if it is spoken of common food, as in Isaiah 58, “Break your bread to the hungry,” and by Jeremiah in Lamentations 4, “The little ones beg for their bread, but no one breaks it for them.”43 Therefore I will restrain myself, and advance only what is firm. Since the passages cited are quite clear, they ought to be taken as they stand.
Some cavil that it is called bread because of the natures which are exchanged; to speak in their style, they say that the name is a terminus a quo, and offer examples. When a serpent was made from Aaron’s rod it devoured the serpents of the magicians, which they had also made [31] from their rods; it is said the rod of Aaron devoured the serpents of the magicians.44 Again, in the sacred writings man is often called earth, since his body was made from it. Woman also was called by Adam bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh, because she was formed from them by God.45 But these are empty objections, because Scripture clearly takes note of these changes, so that the necessity of history and of the words forces us to these tropes, and we admit them. First let them show us in Scripture that this change was made (namely of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ) and we will also grant them the tropes; that is, the bread is called not what it is now but what it was before. By the same token they might say: if someone gives me wine which at once turns sour, and I put the vinegar in a pot, I might well say, this is your wine. Not that it was then wine, but because it was wine before. But here one’s sense judges the change of wine into vinegar, which does not occur in the Eucharist. For in that case, neither sense nor reason nor holy Scripture drives us to admit such a change.
7. They object a passage in John, chapter 2, “when the governor of the feast had tasted the water made into wine,” by which they wish to show that the wine just produced by the miracle of Christ still retains the name of water.46 But the Evangelist did not simply say water, but “made into wine.” Nor will they find in holy Scripture this declaration that bread is said to be turned into the body of Christ. They jump to John, chapter 6, and say that here the apostle calls bread not ordinary wheat bread but the Lord’s body; as in the sixth of John it is called bread when Christ said, “I am the bread of life.”47 And what Paul said counts against them: “The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?”48 since it cannot suit the body of Christ to be broken—as it is written, “Not a bone of him will be broken.”49
Where will these sharp wits who find in John 6 that Christ called himself bread, find that he called himself wine? For in this Supper the other symbol is called wine, in fact in those words of the Evangelist, “I shall not drink hereafter of this fruit of the vine.”50 But without doubt [32] vines do not produce accidents, but wine. Nor is it of consequence that the Fathers say with such agreement that the mystical body is signified by the symbols of this sacrament, bread being made of many grains and wine pressed out of many grapes; such things do not possess reality through accidents. We really marvel at these men who, when they hear us bringing similes (the rock was Christ; the lamb or victim is the passover; circumcision is the covenant), claim that these allegories do not apply, while they themselves pile up tropes and allegories everywhere. They also say that bread is taken for everything that can be eaten, as in the Hebrew tongue Lehem is taken for all kinds of food. But the evangelists are against them, for they restrict this kind of food to bread. Others imagine that bread signifies the accidents and form of bread; they beg the question, and take as already proved what is in dispute, namely that accidents are present without a subject, which they should have proved first. Nor should miracles be multiplied without some necessity.
8. [2] Another argument is that the ancients had the same sacraments as we, yet had no need of transubstantiation. Neither the rock, nor the water flowing out of the rock, nor manna was transubstantiated, for this was impossible; therefore, it is not required for our sacraments. We read the first proposition in Paul: “The fathers and we had the same food.”51 Our opponents deny this and would have our sacraments completely distinguished from the mysteries of the ancients in many ways. We grant this, too, as to different symbols and also different times as well as other properties. But concerning the reality of the sacraments, which was received by the holy patriarchs, we hold that it was the very same meat and drink that form the substance of our sacraments. Augustine writes to Marcellinus about the difference between these sacraments: “For an astute man it is enough that Christ’s future coming was foretold by some sacraments; and that after his coming others should proclaim this.”52 Here Augustine seems to regard only the difference in time. And in his little work On the usefulness of true penance he states quite clearly that when the ancients had manna they ate the very same thing we eat: “For they ate the same spiritual food.”53 What is “the same” but what we also have here? And because to some it [33] might seem unworthy that we have no more than the Jews, he stresses Paul’s testimony. Paul, he says, thought it not enough to say that the ancients had spiritual food, and added “the very same,” that by this “same” we might understand that in their manna they ate what we do. Nor is it a serious objection of some that he spoke of spiritual eating, that is, the patriarchs believed in the Christ that was to come. First, they cannot confirm their own carnal eating of Christ; second, the fathers not only believed with the mind but also received a symbol of the object of faith, that is, manna or water. So the reality did not exist only in faith, and Augustine’s saying stands, that the food of the fathers was not only spiritual but “the very same.”
9. It matters little if one brings from the same Augustine the prologue to Psalm 73, where he considers three differences between the new and old sacraments.54 First, the Savior is promised there but given here. Second, our sacraments are easier, fewer, nobler, and felicitous. Lastly, theirs were like toys in the hands of children, whereas in ours there is something more profitable and solid. The first of these should be understood concerning the promise of Christ’s coming, even though he had not yet taken actual flesh; still, in the food he was given spiritually to the fathers who believed in the promise. But ours are said to give Christ, since they testify that he has come and is no longer expected.
Next, it is certain that our sacraments are fewer and easier, for they signify in a more powerful way, since their words are clearer than in the Old Testament. Moreover, the joy is greater, for we are free from the yoke of ceremonies and live in the last hour and have advanced all the nearer to Christ’s kingdom. More plentiful also is the Spirit, and the church more extensive than at that time, when many kings and prophets desired to see the things you see.55 Again, the sacraments of the Law were like toys in the hands of children, because it suited the age of the fathers to be like children busy with many ceremonies, various first principles and numerous instructions. But all these do not prove that the sacraments of the ancients lacked what makes for reality in a mystery, the same as ours.
Cyprian states in the second book, epistle 3: “Our Lord Jesus Christ offered the very same thing as Melchizedek,” that is, “bread and [34] wine, namely his body and blood.”56 Augustine wrote against Faustus, book 19, chapter 16: “What error do they embrace who think that when the signs and sacraments are changed, the things themselves are different.” In the same work, book 20, chapter 21: “Before Christ’s advent the flesh and blood of this sacrifice was promised through the likeness of sacrificial victims; in Christ’s passion, it was represented through the truth itself; after Christ’s ascension it is celebrated through the sacrament of remembrance.”57 On John, tract 26: “Those sacraments differed in the signs, but were equal in the thing signified.” Later he adds: “Therefore it was the same food and drink, to those who understood and believed; but to those who understood not the one was only manna, the other water, and to believers the same as now.”58 For then Christ was to come, now Christ has come; venturus and venit are different words, but it is the same Christ.
More recently, Bertram writes: “Now St. Paul affirms that our fathers ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink. Perhaps you ask what ‘same’? Just this: the same which the faithful in the Church eat and drink today. For it is not proper to suppose a difference, since it is one and the same Christ who not only fed the people with his flesh and gave them drink with his blood when they were in the desert, in the cloud and baptized in the sea, but also in the church now feeds believers with the bread of his body and gives them drink with the water of his blood.”59 He adds: “Here is surely a wonder, incomprehensible and matchless: he had not yet assumed manhood, nor yet tasted death for the salvation of the world, nor yet redeemed us with his blood, but our fathers in the desert already ate his body and drank his blood by a spiritual food and invisible drink; as the apostle testifies saying ‘The same spiritual meat.’” Again: “For this very one who in the church converts bread and wine into the flesh of his body and the water of his blood spiritually by his omnipotence, in those days by an invisible operation gave manna from heaven as his body and water coming down from heaven as his blood.”60
[35] 10. [3] Moreover, we see that in the sacrament of baptism the Holy Spirit and the remission of sins are conferred, yet we do not say that they lie concealed in the water. In fact we put on Christ, yet no one holds that the water is transubstantiated. [They say that] Christ is in the Eucharist in one way and in baptism in another; I do not deny it, so long as they agree to his presence in baptism. As to the mode, I confess that in baptism Christ is given to us as mediator, reconciler; to speak more properly, as regenerator. Here he is given to us truly as food and nourishment.
[4] Further, with their transubstantiation they come close to the Marcionite trope, for they say: It seems to be bread, but is not. This is the very thing Marcion said about Christ’s flesh and body, that it was not true flesh, but only an appearance.
[5] Christ is no conjurer, nor does he delude our senses; indeed he proved his resurrection by the senses: “Touch and see, because a spirit has not flesh and bones.”61 The apostles might have said, “We touch and see, it appears to be flesh and body, but is not.” Thus it would be an empty proof by which Christ established that he was no fantasy but had a true body. He showed that he had received his own and not another by the nail wounds and by the opening in his side. His argument would be of no strength if room is given for these tricks.
[6] The Fathers also argue from the properties and qualities of human nature: Christ was truly man because he hungered, slept, was surprised and saddened, wept and suffered. Such arguments are lost if substance is not demonstrated by these qualities, so that one could no longer say: it is the form, the same taste, the same color as bread; therefore it is really bread. For heretics will confess that Christ hungered, slept, showed surprise, wept and suffered; but when you infer from this that he was therefore truly man, they deny the conclusion. They hold that these properties can be present in Christ without their reality, namely human nature. As to Marcion’s argument, they say that perhaps he took his error from the Gospel, where it is written that Christ walked on the water with dry feet, that he ascended to heaven, and escaped from the hands of the Jews so that they did not see him; but that such things from the Gospel should not be used because of this Marcionite peril. To this we reply that in the Gospels Christ is described as once or twice doing these miracles, while you treat them as constant. [36] And since we have not invented what is in Scripture, we ought not to be accused of providing excuses. Where we invent, expound and theologize without the express Word of God, we must beware lest we open a window to heretics.
11. [7] Further, this corrupts the nature of the sacrament. Augustine states (on John): “The word comes to the element and is made a sacrament.”62 Its nature is to be composed of these two things; but they would remove the elements, bread and wine. Then Augustine should not have said the word comes to the element, but rather it destroys or removes the element.
[8] When they remove the natures of the elements, the analogy of signification is lost. Bread signifies the body of Christ because it feeds, strengthens, and sustains, and this we cannot attribute to accidents. It is also a signification of many grains gathered into one, representing the mystical body, and that cannot be attributed to accidents. Paul has said, “We many are one bread and one body, who participate in one bread.”63 In baptism, water is said to be the fountain of regeneration, and since its substance is preserved that is quite fitting, for the accidents of water are not suitable.
[9] In removing the substance of bread and wine in the proposition Hoc est corpus meum they abuse the verb substantive est, for it is transubstantiated, converted, or transmuted. For when [cum] they utter those words of the Lord the bread is not yet the body of Christ; if they accept “is” in its true meaning they state a falsehood. This is why some of the Scholastics hold that the verb “is” ought to be taken for: to be made, to be changed or transformed.64
[10] They attribute this power of efficacy to those few words of the Lord, which make this change whenever used; yet in the Scripture they have not a word about such a thing. If some relate those words of Paul, Matthew, Mark, or Luke, they do not think of consecration, for the whole power is ascribed to their own canon.65 We know that the sacrament is present when we do what Christ did and commanded to be done. Not only did he say those words; he gave thanks, broke bread, ate, and gave others to eat. Since many things are here, all concur with [37] the truth of the sacrament, nor should any be neglected. I overlook their ignorance of whether consecration is in Christ’s words or in the prayers.
[11] They expose themselves to great danger, for an evil priest and impostor could refrain from those words, could change or invert them. [12] Since an intention (as they say) is required of him that is to consecrate, it could happen that when doing these things he has no thought of consecration, or even rejects it.
12. [13] They fall into many absurdities and perplexities; for they hold that a body may be in infinite places at one and the same time. They claim that this is no problem, since if the body of Christ is there it is not in a quantitative manner. Here is a wonder, how they can have a body, a quantum, truly present and yet not by way of quantity! Since they affirm his presence truly, corporeally, and carnally, as they say, yet not locally, who cannot see that these arguments are invented to deceive? They object that this was permitted to the body of St. Ambrose, who while in Milan was present at the funeral of St. Martin in Tours and was seen there. They ask why what was granted to Ambrose should not be allowed the body of Christ even more? But they assume what we do not; for it could have been revealed to Ambrose and have seemed to him that he was present at those rites, and perhaps he was represented to the people’s vision by the work of angels; but that his body was in both places we do not allow. Besides, we can leave the truth of the reported miracle to the mind of its author.66
[14] Another objection concerns souls. Although they are creatures, yet each is in the head and all the members of our body. But this is rash, to compare spirit with body, and allow to bodies what we grant spirits. Christ said plainly: “A spirit has not flesh and bones,” thus putting a great distance between them.67 Even if we allow to the body what is proper to our soul, it does not follow that the body of Christ can be in many places, just because our spirits and angels can be in various places at one and the same time. For they are creatures, and therefore of limited and finite power.
13. [15] Many other disasters follow, for if mice nibble the sacred bread they say they have eaten accidents; if they are filled and satisfied, this is the work of accidents. If a priest happens to utter those words [38] over a cask of wine and a chest of bread, both full to the top, and you ask what fills the cask and the chest—as well as the bellies of those who eat and drink—they will reply: accidents. And since those who eat are nourished, some of them dare to claim that God creates in the bellies of those who eat and drink either phlegm or some other humor,68 which can be changed into blood, whence they are nourished. [16] But if that sacrament is burned, as happened in the time of Hesychius, as he testified on Leviticus, and Origen also on the same book, ashes will surely remain, and so a substance will be created out of accidents.69 Worms may breed in the consecrated bread, and here too they say that substance is produced from accidents. The more daring of them pretend that the former substance is restored by a miracle so that such things may occur. But if one can add and invent miracles like this, any theologian can easily escape. For no matter how difficult the problem he will apply a miracle and thus solve all arguments that may be brought against him.
[17] They affirm these things not only by miracles but by sophistries, just as Scotus was urged to tell us what is demonstrated in the subject of the proposition, when uttering those words Hoc est corpus meum. At length he replied: what is demonstrated is something singular or individual of a more general substance,70 which with the predicate refers to the same thing, or as they say is made the subject of the same thing; no difference exists between those things signified by the subject and the predicate, except by different ways of conceiving.
See where they rush, yet still do not escape. For they have not yet replied as to what is described when one says, “This is my body.” Rochester says that in these propositions when one thing is changed into [39] another it is not absurd that one describe what went before.71 Thus he admits that in “This is my body” the former bread is demonstrated, and is changed into the body of Christ while those words are spoken. In that case I maintain that the proposition is not properly formed, for it should have been: this becomes my body or this is changed into my body; otherwise to say “This is my body” is improper speech.
14. [18] Those who hold that the body of Christ is really joined to the symbols while the natures of bread and wine are preserved, argue against transubstantiation as follows. What dignity or privilege do accidents have, that they can be joined with Christ’s body, while this is denied to the substance and nature of bread? And if accidents can remain, why not also the substance of bread? Indeed many Fathers supposed that this was done, and used a likeness, showing that in Christ the human and divine natures truly remain, in such a way that one does not pass into the other; these opinions we shall introduce in their place.
[19] They fall into another absurdity: when they break the sacrament, what is broken, we ask? On this they hedge; some have said, according to the Master of the Sentences in book 4, that the essence or substance of the body of Christ is broken.72 But he refutes this opinion, since the body of Christ is immortal and therefore not affected by such things or new events. Others have said that it is not a true fraction, but only looks like it, for so our senses take it. This is also rejected, lest we establish a permanent illusion. At las t they say that accidents are broken, positing a sort of mathematical quantity, separated from matter, so that if it is divided it is so only by the power of mind and the capacity of intellect. They divide reality, so that the separated parts are readily visible.
[20] We read in Jeremiah, “Let us send wood into his bread”—a place cited by Tertullian and Lactantius.73 They interpret it to mean putting the wood of the cross on the body of Christ, and assume that bread is mentioned because through bread Christ was to give himself to us. They take the prophet’s words as a figure of the sacramental [40] bread. But since these others remove it, leaving us only a figure, they therefore assert a figure of a figure, so that nothing solid remains. This can be inferred from the Fathers’ familiar statement about Melchizedek, who brought bread and wine: the analogy [typos] is not observed by these men when they remove bread and wine. The same result occurs in relation to the showbread.
15. [21] Let us submit an argument from baptism. Just above we held that the truth of that sacrament does not require that water is transubstantiated. Now let us reason from those who are themselves baptized, of whom Scripture clearly says that they put away the old man and are born again.74 No transubstantiation is imagined in them, even though generation is defined as a motion by which new substance is acquired.75 Little wonder that Nicodemus balked at the words of the Lord, announcing that he must be born anew. He hesitated, considering the new beginning proclaimed to someone already existing and advanced in years.76 But if we interpret that beginning to be new and the nativity spiritual, why refuse the same thing in the Eucharist? And why not refer everything to spiritual eating? I gladly link these two sacraments, baptism and Eucharist, because Paul does so in this letter, chapter 12: “We were all by one Spirit baptized into one body, and all made to drink of one Spirit.”77 Nor is it valid to say that we are baptized into one body in terms of a mystical body, since Christ is not absent from the mystical body, being its head. Elsewhere Paul says clearly, “In baptism we put on Christ.”78
[22] We see also that Christian authors draw much from John chapter 6 concerning the sacrament of the Eucharist; no Father interprets that chapter without writing copiously about the Eucharist. Therefore we conclude: what is said there either applies to this sacrament or not; if not, why is it cited, or the Eucharist discussed in that context? If it does apply, it means a spiritual eating only, that is, through faith, by which the true body and blood of Christ are received. Why is it necessary to introduce another new reception there, and to imagine a carnal eating by which the same thing is received again? For they must admit that if someone who is pious and faithful comes, he [41] eats Christ’s body twice, first by a spiritual eating through faith, afterward in their carnal eating, which they have never proved. So you see that they block their own way, since they cannot truly cite those testimonies concerning the Eucharist from John 6. [23] When they affirm transubstantiation, they are branded with the same error as the Capernaites.79 These also had in mind who knows not what corporeal eating of the flesh of Christ. Christ called them back from this idea immediately, by saying that his words were spirit and life, the flesh profiting nothing. And he introduces the thought of his ascension into heaven: “What if you see the Son of Man ascending into heaven where he was before?” But these men say they are not of the same opinion as the Capernaites. They hold that the latter thought Christ’s flesh should be cut in pieces and torn with the teeth, which they abhor. Whatever the special fantasy of the Capernaites was one cannot say, but probably it was a carnal sense, so that they were disturbed by the mention of ascension into heaven. Why do these men who dare to say that Christ is eaten both carnally and corporeally not learn from this example? What is the difference whether you receive him in parts or swallow him whole?
16. [24] What Christ said to his apostles at the end of his life is relevant here, that he would leave the world and depart from them. This would not be true if he were with us through transubstantiation, as they wish. They usually reply that Christ left the world as to the conditions of mortality, of intimacy and human conversation. This may be subtle but it misses the point. For when Christ spoke the words in question, Philip replied, “Behold now you speak plainly and without parables.”80 But if it had been taken in their sense, it would have been an obscure and parabolic utterance. Moreover, if Christ remains with us corporeally in the Eucharist, by the same token he might remain in our hearts and lives. Thus after his ascension he could still rule the church in person and be present in the apostles. But he said that he would give a substitute [vicarius] in his place, namely the Holy Spirit, who would not be necessary if the whole Christ in divinity and humanity were present, as they have it. For since according to their doctrine his flesh and body is in each of us through communicating, and his divinity is present, he could act in person without the Holy Spirit as counselor.
[42] [25] When Mary the Lord’s mother, the most blessed Virgin, heard from the angel that the Word of God would take flesh and that she was chosen to conceive and bear the Son of God, she considered them new and wonderful things, asked how they were possible, and so on.81 But since this transmuting of bread into Christ’s body is not less than the mystery of incarnation and nativity from a virgin, it is astonishing that one finds in Scripture neither wonder nor questioning about it. Nor is such faith in transubstantiation, although of such great moment, commended to us in the writings of the evangelists or apostles. We do not bother about those who say that in John’s sixth chapter a question had been asked, for they wish to transfer the answer given there concerning spiritual eating to this sacramental eating, holding it to be distinct. That question and answer therefore serves our purpose, but is little help to those who imagine this eating now being discussed, another beside the spiritual.
17. [26] Such fabrications lead to other improprieties and absurdities. Christ said “I will that where I am, there my servant shall be also,” and made the same statement to the apostles.82 In Revelation we read of certain martyrs, “They follow him wherever he shall go.”83 From this we should conclude that in the Eucharist transubstantiation is not only into the body of Christ but into all the saints! If they do not like it, let them leave Christ in heaven with his saints, or else they will follow him as attendants. They say, we also grant that he is in heaven, visible and in his majesty and glory, but we claim that in the sacrament he is invisible.84 The objection about the company of saints and martyrs is true when applied to Christ, since he is visible in his glory and majesty in heaven. Their answer rests on ground already destroyed, for it allows the body of Christ to be present in many places at once, which the Fathers deny. It grants that Christ is with us as body and flesh, whereas he said that he would send another in his place, the Holy Spirit.
[27] They cannot avoid giving Christ two bodies: when he took bread in his hands at the Supper, if it had been transubstantiated into his body then [tum] he would have carried his body with his body. Then one must say the body that carried and the body that was carried are one, whereas you cannot have active and passive in regard to [43] the same thing at the same time. You can see into what absurdities they throw themselves.
They like to bring in Augustine on the Psalms, who states that Christ carried himself in his own hands. But if the passage on Psalm 73 is considered, that in one sense he carried himself in his own hands we will grant it, because he carried in his hands the sacrament of his body, but not really and properly his body.85 You could add that it follows from Christ’s eating with his apostles that he ate himself! Invariably they reply that these matters are exercises of our faith. But we have many statements of Scripture in which our faith may occupy itself other than in human inventions. We believe that the Son of God was incarnate, born of a virgin, suffered and died for us, was raised from the dead and ascended to heaven, and many similar things, in which our faith is sufficiently exercised.
[28] Because sense does not apprehend this transubstantiation, nor can reason understand it or experience teach it, how can it be known? I’m sure you will say: through faith. But if it is a question of acting in faith, this cannot happen without the Word of God; and of that you are quite destitute.
18. [29] Since Christ made this sacrament of two parts, body and blood, it is clear enough that the reality cannot be received through transubstantiation, because they are not divided in the real and carnal body of Christ. They take refuge by stating that both are contained in one part or another. We hear them well enough, but the words of Scripture do not teach it, for regarding bread only the body is mentioned and regarding the cup, blood alone is commemorated. They answer that by the power of the words, transubstantiation makes bread properly and in itself into the body of Christ or the flesh of Christ, while the blood and soul and divinity follow through concomitance.86 Similarly, by the efficacy of the words, transubstantiation makes the cup first and properly into blood, and through concomitance you have also the body, soul, and divinity. By their subtleties they make Christ less bountiful, since he gave no more in the two parts than is contained in the [44] one alone. This fiction results in their dividing the sacrament and giving the laity only one part, persuading them that they have as much as if they received both. We might add that by this fantasy they open a window to many false teachings, since by concomitance you can add anything you like to a doctrine. It would also follow, as we said above, that all saints are present in this sacrament, since they always accompany Christ. Yet the only argument we need to defeat them is that they teach it while Scripture does not.
19. [30] Another false and senseless dogma has followed transubstantiation: they think that after the sacrament is received another sacrament remains, that the bread or appearance of bread really and truly contains in itself the body of Christ. We show that this is not the case from other sacraments, where everything consists in action.87 When that is done there is no longer a sacrament. Clearly in baptism, after someone has been dipped or sprinkled with water by the words of the Lord, it stops being a sacrament. It was the same in circumcision, for that sacrament also consisted of action. I will even accept those which some call sacraments: confirmation, extreme unction, penance and so on; all of them may be seen to consist of action alone. Now they hold that this sacrament of the Eucharist is an exception. How logically our adversaries speak is easily grasped. If every part of the inductive argument is granted and even one instance of the matter in question set aside, obviously this is false, an evasion of argument. For it is like admitting the premises and denying the conclusion.
[31] Because of these unheard-of marvels of metamorphosis, the central thing is shut out, the purpose of Christ’s command to us in Scripture, that is, the commemoration of Christ and of his death. For their whole mind and will is concentrated on believing in transubstantiation. You may even see some priests at communion urging and demanding that this alone is to be believed, to the neglect of more necessary things. And through this fiction, men resort to communion less frequently. Their persuasion makes them think that if Christ is concealed there in body and flesh under accidents, surely we go to church to see, adore, invoke, light candles, and so on—by this they think they can please Christ. If they had not imagined things like this but had grasped the truth, that it is only a sacrament, they would understand that there is no profit unless they communicate. Then their minds [45] would be drawn to communion and so the institution of Christ would be truly satisfied.
20. [32]88 We should remember that the time of Christ’s humility and descent is over. Now he reigns in the heavens and bears a name which is above every name. Therefore what is right about sending him down again bodily through transubstantiation, into our throats and bellies? I know they point out that he is not harmed, nor does he contract any impurity. I agree; yet it is indecent for him to be so long detained under these accidents which are complete in themselves, so that when they dissolve, Christ’s body flies away. This means that they regularly compel him to fly down and fly away [devolare et avolare]—every day, especially before noon. They insist that we should ignore such thoughts, all the while suggesting them by their carnal transubstantiation. If they could agree that everything is to be done spiritually, no such thoughts would arise.
[33] Do they appoint his natural and carnal body to be present in order that it may penetrate our soul, or that it may enter our body? It cannot be the soul, since it receives nothing carnal or corporeal. If it is the body they wish Christ to enter like this, we must ask why he does it. They reply, so that we might be sanctified. But sanctification properly begins with the soul, not the body. [34] They claim that a certain power and efficacy is stamped on us through water, the soul is made better and the body strengthened. So far as power is concerned, transubstantiation is unnecessary, since one could have it without that.
[35] When the Fathers taught the nature of this sacrament, they said that a bloodless victim is sacrificed; we contradict them if we establish true and corporeal blood. Nor will it do for them to maintain that it is a bloodless victim since Christ is not killed here, or his blood shed by force. Although that does not happen, still their low imagination thinks the thing is not done without blood. The Fathers seem to speak like this because they want only a memory of the true victim and his spiritual reception, accomplished through faith. [36] They are accustomed to saying also that Christ’s body and blood are covered and hidden by the accidents of bread and wine, lest we seem to eat real flesh or drink real blood. However they paint or color it, I don’t think they will say that even if transubstantiation is true we eat real flesh. No matter how it is presented, no reason is given by them, or by Scripture. [46] In fact it is written of the paschal lamb, which was a likeness of this sacrament, that no part of it should be eaten raw.89
21. [37] It is evident that Christ instituted a sacrament in the Eucharist so that everything done there should be taken sacramentally. In sacraments it is not necessary for more to be given or to be expected than the sacramental relationship [sacramentalis ratio] requires. If we set out clearly what Christ did in that Last Supper, it is easily shown that he gave his own body. If we ask further what kind of body he gave, they cannot explain. [38] Some seem to say that he gave just what he had, a passible and mortal body. But such a body existing under these conditions could not be contained in the flesh (as they dream) in small pieces of bread. [39] Others who consider themselves wiser say that Christ himself had a mortal and passible body, but in the bread gave a glorified and spiritual body. But then the Lord’s words count against them, “This is my body which is given for you, and my blood which is shed for you.” Here he plainly limits his words to the body he had then and the blood possessed at that hour. He did not receive the glorified and impassible form until after the resurrection. [40] Even admitting their position, we argue that passible and glorified conditions of the body are opposites, so that they cannot exist together in the same subject at the same time. Therefore if you want to put them in Christ’s body at one time you will make twin bodies of Christ.
[41] Experience and history teach us not to allow transubstantiation, since it is written that Pope Victor of Rome died drinking poison from the chalice, and Emperor Henry took poison from the bread in the Eucharist.90 But how are such things possible, if everything is transubstantiated and only accidents remain? We know that sacraments consist of matter and form, as the adversaries themselves say. They define matter as the symbols or elements, and form as that which is added by the word. [42] What is composed of both must not so destroy the other that nothing is left except accidents, or else you lose the nature of composition and combination. We therefore conclude that the substances of bread and wine remain. Before they know it, the body of Christ is robbed of quantity, place, and variety of parts so that his entire body is shrunk into a tiny particle of bread.
[47] 22. [43] The Eucharist is called not only the sacrament of the body of Christ our Savior, but also of the mystical body. Paul says in I Corinthians, “You are the body of Christ,” and “We who are many are one bread and one body, who share in one loaf.”91 Augustine, City of God, book 22, chapter 10, says that Christians do not sacrifice to martyrs.92 The sacrifice is the body of Christ, not offered to martyrs because they themselves are the body of Christ. Since this sacrament is of both bodies, and since they do not hold that the bread is transubstantiated into the mystical body; therefore it is not proved that it is converted truly and properly into the body of the Lord; for it is declared to be the sacrament of the one body just as much as the other.
[44] It would follow from this opinion that both the faithful and the unfaithful receive the Lord’s body. I have refuted this elsewhere93 by two arguments. First, since Christ’s body is not divorced from his Spirit, it follows that the wicked receive the Spirit of Christ. Second, since the unfaithful are dead in their inner self, they completely lack the means by which spiritual things are received. Now Augustine states clearly that no one eats the body of Christ except those who are of his body.94 Jerome also, book 4 on Jeremiah 22: when he infers that they shall not eat and drink, he means the body and blood of the Savior; but he was speaking of the heretics. Again on Isaiah 66: they are not holy in body and spirit, nor eat the flesh of Jesus, nor drink his blood.95 Many such places are found in the Fathers.
[45] So many miracles are paraded so often before us that we should not give credence too easily to a miracle, unless they are new and wonderful things by whose extraordinary occurrence weight is added to the Word of God. Then men may be seized with admiration, and easily led to embrace Christ’s teaching. But nothing visible is changed here, and nothing to excite admiration; they seem to seek the help of miracles in vain. The Virgin indeed conceived through the Holy Spirit, but she perceived it by sense. Whenever men are converted to Christ by a miracle, they can see that their mind and life is changed from former ways. But here, no part of those miracles which they imagine [48] can be seen. They are announced but cannot be proved by reason or by experience or by Scripture.
[46] To this we can add that the breaking of bread is related to the death and passion of Christ in the same way that bread is related to the body of Christ. Yet they themselves hold that the fraction is a sacrament and symbol of Christ’s passion, which needs no transubstantiation to be truly and really present. Therefore neither does the bread need to be so changed into the body as to make it present in the flesh. Thus since this opinion breeds only a war of words [logomachias] and escape-proof labyrinths, it does not make for piety.
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE
23. [47] Now let us examine the Fathers as to whether they think like this. Against the Valentinian heretics, Irenaeus says that earthly bread receives a calling from the Word of God and is no longer common bread but is made the Eucharist, consisting of two things, earthly and heavenly.96 At first he does not deny that the Eucharist is bread, unless you make it common. Afterwards he says that it consists of two things, one being earthly, that is, bread, and the other heavenly, the body of Christ. And as the truth is retained in one part, in regard to the Lord’s body, so it should be preserved in the other, in regard to bread. He adds that similarly, when our bodies receive the sacrament, they are no longer corruptible.
In the first book against Marcion, Tertullian says that God did not throw away his creation, bread, because through it he represented his body. And in the fourth book against Marcion: “Taking bread and distributing to his disciples, he made it his body saying ‘This is my body,’ that is, a figure of my body.” But it was not a figure unless a true body was present.97
Origen on Numbers, homily 16: “We are said to drink the blood of Christ, not only by the sacramental rite, but also when we receive his word.” Jerome once wrote the same thing on Ecclesiastes chapter 3.98 Origen on Matthew 26: “This bread, which God the word admitted to be his body, is a term for the nourishment of souls.”99 On Leviticus, [49] homily 7: “In the Gospel too there is a letter which kills, not only in the Old Testament, if you follow literally what is said, ‘Unless you eat my flesh,’” and so on. In the same book, homily 9: “Do not cling to the blood of the flesh, but rather learn the blood of the word, and hear him speaking to you, “So there is my blood, which is shed for you.’”100 Origen on Matthew 15: “The sanctified bread, as that which has substance, passes into the stomach and so is cast out.” And then, “What profits him that eats worthily to the Lord is not the substance of bread but the word spoken over it.”101 The same against Celsus, book 8: “When we have given thanks for the benefits bestowed on us, we eat the loaves that are offered.”102
24. Cyprian says, in the sixth Letter of the first book Ad Magnum: “The Lord calls the bread made of many grains joined together, his body, and the wine pressed from clusters of many grapes, his blood.” When he interprets the Lord’s prayer, he calls bread the body of the Lord.103 In his sermon On the Lord’s Supper he says: “We do not sharpen our teeth, but with sincere faith only we break and eat bread.”104 In the sermon On chrism he states clearly that sacraments have the names of the things they signify.105 Augustine seems to have borrowed these two sayings from him, the latter in the letter to Boniface, the other when he says, “Why prepare teeth or stomach? Believe and you have eaten,” treatise 25 on John.106
Cyprian, letter 3, book 2, To Caecilius: “In wine the blood of the Lord is exhibited.” And against the Aquarians he states that the blood of Christ cannot be held to be present in the cup if wine ceases to be there, which happens through their transubstantiation.107 In the sermon On the Lord’s Supper he writes that the symbols are changed into the body of Christ, but in such a way that he takes a simile from Christ himself, in whom the human nature was visible, while the divine lay hidden. His intention will be clear from this simile: as two [50] natures remain in Christ so are they preserved in this sacrament.108 Cyprian also, the third epistle, the second book: “Just as the body of the Lord cannot be only in grain or only in water unless the two are united and joined, pressed into one loaf of bread, so also by the sacrament our people are declared to be one.”109
Athanasius, expounding those words “If anyone speak a word against the Son of Man, it is forgiven him, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him in this age or the next,”110 writes: “How great a body is required for the whole world to eat of it?” He infers that it is to be taken spiritually, and for this reason the Lord on that occasion mentioned his ascension, against the Capernaites.111 In his Liturgy, Basil calls bread antitype of the body of Christ, even after the words of consecration.112 Dionysius, On Ecclesiastical Hierarchies, chapter 3: “The Bishop uncovers the bread, hidden and undivided, and cuts it into pieces.”113
25. In his exposition of 1 Corinthians dealing with doing this in remembrance of Christ and his death, Ambrose says: “In eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ, we signify the things that are offered.” About the same place he also says that in the mystical chalice we take a type of Christ’s blood.114 In book 4, chapter 4, where he affirms the change of symbols, he treats also of our change into Christ, yet does not suggest any transubstantiation in those who receive the sacrament. In the same book 4, chapter 4, On Sacraments: “Therefore we add this: how is it possible for what is bread to be by consecration the body of Christ?” Later: “If there is such great power in the word of the Lord, that things which were not should come into being, how much greater is that operation by which things already existing are changed into something else?”115 Jerome on Matthew says clearly that [51] the body and blood of the Lord are represented in the bread and wine.116
Chrysostom on 2 Corinthians says that what is set before us on the table is not only Christ’s body but also the poor, to whom we are bound to do good. For the one who said “This is my body” also said in his Word that in the persons of the poor he is in need, and is benefited by gifts.117 In his homily 11 on Matthew, the work called Unfinished,118 he states, “In the holy vessels there is not the body of Christ and the blood of Christ, but mysteries of the body and blood of Christ.” Also, on 2 Corinthians chapter 12, homily 17: “Just as Christ said, do in remembrance of me, both in the bread and in the cup.” And on Psalm 22, “You prepared a table in my sight. This is showed to us daily in the sacrament, through the likeness of the body and blood of Christ, bread and wine after the pattern of Melchizedek.”119
Emissenus, whom they cite from de Consecrat. dist. 2, seems to affirm a change of the symbols, and also mentions our mutation into Christ.120
26. Augustine has numerous statements on this point. Commenting on Psalm 82: “You will not eat what you see, nor drink this blood which they are about to pour; I tell you a mystery, which brings life when understood spiritually.”121 On the Trinity, 3, chapter 10: “The bread made for this purpose is consumed in receiving the sacrament.”122 It is wrong for Rochester to try to apply this saying to the showbread. For we have elsewhere proved his interpretation incorrect, [52] by several arguments.123 First, if you take the plain sense which the words themselves bear and which is offered you at first sight, you will see clearly that the saying concerns the Eucharist. And in the book of Augustine which Erasmus edited, he wrote in the margin Eucharistia.124 Moreover, soon after in this chapter, Augustine deals with the same thing and mentions the Eucharist so plainly that even an opponent could not deny it. He had written of the Eucharist above, chapter 4 of the same book, in beginning the treatise.125 Also, in these words there is explicit mention of the same sacrament; if he had wanted it taken as common bread, it would still have agreed with what had gone before, namely the bronze serpent and the stone erected by Jacob, as much as with the showbread. In that passage he had not mentioned the term sacrament, but later stated that we should understand him as speaking about the Eucharist. Last, he said, “The bread made for this purpose is eaten in receiving the sacrament.” This does not suit the showbread. They were not made for eating but for putting on the table, to remain before the Lord—so in Hebrew they are called Panim. It happened later that they were eaten, not by accident but so that they would not spoil in the Lord’s sight. For this reason they were changed every week. Once they were dedicated to God, he wished to show this honor to them, that they should be eaten by the priests. Truly the bread of our Eucharist is made for this purpose, to be eaten in receiving the sacrament. To the arguments already stated I add one stronger than the rest: Augustine said “It is eaten” in the present tense, and not “it was eaten,” as it should have been if it were spoken of figures and ceremonies of the Old Testament.
In To Peter on Faith, chapter 19, Augustine calls it a sacrament of bread and wine. He instructs the said Peter thoroughly in the faith regarding the memory of Christ and his death, but he has not a word about this transubstantiation which they so greatly plead today.126 Against Faustus, book 20, chapter 21: “The flesh and blood of Christ was promised in the Old Testament in the likeness of the victims; on the [53] cross it was exhibited in reality; but in the sacrament it is celebrated through remembrance.”127 And in City of God 21, chapter 25, he says plainly that the unfaithful do not eat the substance of the sacrament, that is, the body of Christ: “For he who is not in the body of Christ is not to be considered to eat the body of Christ, and he in whom Christ abides not does not abide in Christ.”128 He has similar words on John, tract. 20, and in the thirtieth says, “The body of Christ is in a definite place in heaven, but its truth extends everywhere.”129 He says so because truth is spiritual and always present with the faithful. Wherever they are, communicants confess Christ and believe that he had a true body, not counterfeit as the heretics thought.
27. Against Adimantus the Manichee, chapter 12, he writes: “The Lord did not hesitate to say, ‘This is my body,’ when he gave a sign of his body.”130 It does not matter if you say he gave both sign and reality, for Augustine was not referring to that, but wanted to show that the saying is figurative, like another he mentions from Deuteronomy, “The blood is the life.” Thus he says, the Lord does not “doubt,” because in figurative speech we put something at risk.
In On Christian doctrine, book 3, chapter 16, he teaches that we have figurative speech in John 6: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man,” and so forth, because something scandalous seems commanded. For it is more offensive to eat a man’s flesh than to kill him, and to drink his blood than to shed it. “Therefore it is a compelling figure, that we should with gladness and profit store up in memory the flesh of Christ crucified and wounded for us.”131
In the Letter to Boniface he states quite clearly that sacraments take the name of those things of which they are sacraments, and he expressly names the sacrament of the body of Christ to be the body of Christ in a certain way, adding “The sacrament of the blood of Christ is the blood of Christ.” He wrote all this to show that baptism is the sacrament of faith and hence may be said to be faith, so that little ones who are baptized have faith because they receive this sacrament.132 Lest anyone say they are signs of something substantially present, as they [54] put it, let them ponder the similes which this Father brings: when we are near Easter we say tomorrow or the day after will be the Lord’s passion, and on the Lord’s Day Christ rose again, when such things are not present but happened long ago. And he affirms that the baptism of children is faith, when it is not yet present in little ones.133
The same Father, as is seen in de Consecratione, dist. 2, chapter Interrogo vos: it is as much a sin of neglect to let the word that was preached slip from our mind as part of the sacrament to fall on the ground. If we accept this, it hardly agrees with transubstantiation, for it seems far more absurd for Christ’s body itself to fall or be trampled, than for some part of the holy words to be heard without regard.134 Moreover on Psalm 3 he said that Christ admitted Judas to the Supper when he delivered the figure of his body.135
They like to say that the figure and sign in this sacrament, which is the body of Christ hidden under accidents, is his own body as it hung on the cross, lifeless and bloodless. And the blood hidden under accidents of wine is the figure and sign of the blood shed on the altar of the cross. But who cannot see that these figments are worthless? For we would be offering a sign and figure greater than the thing signified in terms of sense and eminence. Therefore the Master of the Sentences defines a sacrament, from Augustine, as a visible sign of invisible grace.136 But the body of Christ concealed under accidents (as they have it) is just as remote as that which hung on the cross, indeed—if one may speak the truth—even more unknown and obscure than what is signified, contrary to the nature of signs and figures. For we may more easily know and contemplate the body hanging on the cross than what they provide in the Eucharist.
28. In a letter to the clergy and people of Constantinople, Pope Leo wrote that this is a mystical distribution, a spiritual food, a heavenly power, and that we receive it in order to be changed into the flesh of Christ, who took our flesh for our sake.137
[55] Cyril, book 4, chapter 14, on John: “Thus he gave pieces of bread to the believing disciples, saying, ‘Take.’ And in the Letter to Calosyrium “Therefore it was fitting that he should be united with our bodies in a certain way through his holy flesh and precious blood, which we receive as a blessing unto life in the bread and wine.”138
We now produce Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus. He lived in the time of Cyril and attended the Synod of Ephesus and Chalcedon. He was held to be most learned and eloquent. When a dissension arose in the Synod of Ephesus between John, patriarch of Antioch, and Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret saw fit to join with Antioch; but the affair was settled. He was known as a learned man and saintly member of Christ’s church. In the books which he wrote he explicitly and by name opposed Nestorius; it is printed at Rome.139 The papists saw that he was a definite adversary of transubstantiation, and accused him of double-dealing. One reason is that the church had not yet pronounced on it, as if we should heed what the pope with his cardinals decreed at Constance or in the synod where Berengar was condemned,140 instead of what the ancient church preached and believed. Further they say that when this man wrote against heretics and dealt with mysteries he leaned too much the other way, and was against transubstantiation in order to vanquish adversaries. But the superficiality of this excuse is evident from the context of the writer, where you can see that one word cannot be overturned, because the entire argument and its force derives from the nature of a sacrament. If you mix transubstantiation with it, nothing is conclusive and heretics will carry the day. They add that in the same book he sometimes speaks more highly of the Eucharist, [56] but all things considered, he never speaks with such veneration as to be against our stated opinion. He stands against those who denied that Christ had a true body, saying that at the time of his ascension his body was completely changed into the divine nature. First he introduces the patriarch Jacob, that he may build up an argument from the sacraments.141 Here are the words.
[28b]142 “He washes his garments in wine, and his vestments in the blood of grapes.” Orthodoxus asks again: Do you know what the Lord himself called the wine? And adds: Therefore the Savior called the blood of grapes blood. And a little after: For as we call the mystical fruit of the vine the blood of the Lord after consecration, so the blood of grapes is called blood of the true vine. And again: You know that God called his own body bread? and so on. Also: And in another place his flesh is called bread? and so on. And referring to sacraments he states as follows:143 In giving the mysteries in truth he called the bread body, and what was mixed in the cup, blood. He adds what I taught before about the conversion of properties or change of names. In John chapter 6 and finally at the Lord’s Supper, the same thing happens both then and now, except that the names are inverted and the terms exchanged, so that he speaks like this: Our Savior, however, changed the names and gave the name of the symbol to the body: and to the symbol the name of the body. In the same way in which he called himself a vine, he called the symbol itself blood. So because of this change of names the heretic takes the symbols named for the reality, and the reality for the name of the symbols. The orthodox declares clearly the benefit of this exchange of names. The heretic says first: But I want to know the reason for the change of names. Orthodoxus responds: For he wished the partakers in the holy mysteries not to fasten on the nature of visible objects, but through the variation in names to believe the change accomplished through grace. And soon after: He dignified the visible things by calling them symbols of the body and blood, not changing nature but adding grace to nature.
[57] Here you do not have transubstantiation, but only symbols to be changed according to grace, and made sacraments. He concludes his argument, that these symbols are of the body and not the divinity, so that they are not changed into the body of Christ in such a way that Christ’s body truly is a body and passed into the divine nature. So speaks the first dialogue, called Immutabilis, in Greek Atreptos, page 8.
In the second dialogue, called Asygchytos,144 page 138, he writes of the mysteries, how he understands them concerning the body of Christ: If then the divine mysteries are exemplars of the real body, the Lord’s body is now still a body, not however changed into the divine nature, but filled with divine glory. The heretic continues to enquire. What do you call the gift which is offered before the priestly consecration? Orthodoxus replies: Food of a certain kind of grain. Again his partner [socius] asks, playing the role of heretic: And how do we call the other symbol? The orthodox replies: This name is also common, signifying a kind of drink. His partner presses him on this: But after consecration, what do you call them? Orthodoxus responds: The body of Christ and the blood of Christ. With these questions the heretic concludes his argument, and wishes to infer from the conversion of the symbols into the body of Christ also a conversion of the body of Christ into divine nature; he says: Therefore just as the symbols of the Lord’s body and blood are one thing before the priestly invocation but after it are changed and become something else, so the Lord’s body after the ascension is changed into divine substance. The orthodox turns the argument back on its author and says: but rather sacraments should be considered to be the body of Christ, not transformed into divinity, as if bread and wine after consecration do not change their nature at all, but now have grace added to them, just as immortality is granted to Christ; he says: You are caught in the net you have woven. For even after consecration, the mystical symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance, both figure and form, and are both visible and tangible as before. But they are regarded as what they have become, and are believed and worshipped as being what they are taken to be. Therefore compare the image with the archetype and you will see the likeness. For a figure must resemble the truth. That body has its former form, figure and limitation, and (to speak simply) the same substance as a body. But after resurrection it is made immortal, and beyond corruption, worthy of a seat on the right hand; it is worshipped by all creatures, because it is called [58] as body of the Lord’s nature. His partner [socius] asks: Since bread changed in name after it is consecrated, how does it happen that the body that is in Christ after resurrection is called body, since according to the analogy of sacraments it should be called divine, as bread is said to be the body of Christ; therefore he has: Yet that mystical symbol changes its former name, nor is it afterwards called by what it was known before, but is styled body. So must the reality now be called God, and no longer body. Orthodoxus responds to this objection that sacramental bread is by no means called the body of Christ so that the name bread will be surrendered, but is called the bread of life, so that the body of Christ also is now glorified, to be called divine and life-giving body; he says: You seem to me to be ignorant. For he is called not only body but also bread of life; for so the Lord used to call it; we call that very body a divine body, life-giving, masterful [herile] and lordly, teaching that it is not common to all men but belongs to our Lord Jesus Christ, who is God and man. “Even Jesus Christ, who is the same yesterday and today and forever.”145 If Latin has any power, at least when written, I repeat all of the above, and now add:
29.146 Orthodoxus: You know how God called his own body bread?
Sodalis: I know.
Orthodoxus: And in another place his flesh was called grain?
Sodalis: I know this too. I have heard him say, “The hour comes when the Son of Man shall be glorified,” and “unless the grain of corn fall on the earth and die, it remains alone, but if it die, it will bring forth much fruit.”147
Orthodoxus: In giving the mysteries in truth he called the bread body, and what was mixed in the cup, blood?
Sodalis: He called them so.
Orthodoxus: Yet by nature it would properly be called body, even his own body and blood?
Sodalis: Agreed.
Orthodoxus: Our Savior himself changed the names, and gave the name of the symbol to the body, and to the symbol the name of body. In [59] the same way in which he called himself a vine, he called the symbol itself blood.
Sodalis: What you said is true; but I want to know the reason for the change of names.
Orthodoxus: The point is clear to those initiated in divine things. For he wished the partakers in the holy mysteries not to fasten on the nature of visible objects, but through the variation in names to believe the change accomplished through grace. He who spoke of his own natural body as grain and bread and called himself a vine, also dignified the visible things by calling them symbols of the body and blood, not indeed changing nature, but adding grace to nature.148
Sodalis: Certainly, mysteries are spoken of in mystic language, and things not known to all are made manifest.
Orthodoxus: Since then it is agreed that the patriarch called the Lord’s body “robe” and “garment,” and that we have begun to discuss divine mysteries, tell me in truth of what you understand the holy food to be a symbol and type? Of the divinity of Christ the Lord, or of his body and blood?
Sodalis: Plainly of those things whose names they received.
Orthodoxus: You mean the body and blood?
Sodalis: I do.
Orthodoxus: Well said. For when the Lord took the symbol, he did not say, “This is my godhead” but “This is my body.” And again, “This is my blood”; and elsewhere, “The bread which I will give for the life of the world.”
Sodalis: All are true, for they are words of God.
Orthodoxus: But if they are true, the Lord at least had a body.
Sodalis: Yet I say he is bodiless.
Orthodoxus: But you confess that he had a body?
30. From the second Dialogue:149
Sodalis: We must “turn every stone” as the proverb says, to get at the truth, especially in establishing sacred doctrine.
[60] Orthodoxus: Tell me then: the mystic symbols offered to God by ministers of holy things, of what are they symbols?
Sodalis: Of the body and blood of the Lord.
Orthodoxus: Of the true body or not?
Sodalis: The true.
Orthodoxus: Well said, for they should be an image of the archetype, just as artists imitate nature, painting images of what they see.
Sodalis: You speak the truth.
Orthodoxus: If then the divine mysteries are exemplars150 of the real body, the Lord’s body is now still a body, not however changed in nature into divinity, but filled with divine glory.
Sodalis: You have introduced this subject of divine mysteries in good time, for through it I will show a change of the Lord’s body into another nature. Therefore answer my questions.
Orthodoxus: I will answer.
Sodalis: What do you call the gift which is offered before the priestly invocation?
Orthodoxus: We should not speak openly; perhaps some are here who are not yet initiated.
Sodalis: Let the answer be enigmatic.
Orthodoxus: Food of a certain kind of grain.
Sodalis: And how do we name the other symbol?
Orthodoxus: This name is also common, signifying a kind of drink.
Sodalis: After consecration what do you call them?
Orthodoxus: The body of Christ and the blood of Christ.
Sodalis: And you believe that you receive Christ’s body and blood?
Orthodoxus: I do.
Sodalis: Therefore just as the symbols of the Lord’s body and blood are one thing before the priestly invocation but after it are changed and became something else, so the Lord’s body after the ascension is changed into divine substance.
Orthodoxus: You are caught in the net you have woven. For even after consecration, the mystical symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance, both figure and form, and are both visible and tangible as before. But they are regarded as what they have become, and are believed and worshipped as being what they are taken to be. Therefore compare the [61] image with the archetype and you will see the likeness. For a figure must resemble the truth. That body has its former form, figure and limitation, and (to speak simply) the same substance as a body. But after resurrection it is made immortal, and beyond corruption, worthy of a seat on the right hand; it is worshipped by all creatures, because it is called as body of the Lord’s nature.
Sodalis: Yet that mystical symbol changes its former name, nor is it afterwards called by what it was known before, but is styled body. So must the reality now be called God, and no longer body.
Orthodoxus: You seem to me to be ignorant. For he is called not only body but also bread of life; the Lord himself used to call it so, and the body moreover we call a divine body, life-giving, masterful and lordly, teaching that it is not common to all men but belongs to our Lord Jesus Christ, who is God and man. “Even Jesus Christ, who is the same yesterday and today and forever.”151
31. Chrysostom to Caesar the monk, at the time of his second exile, against Apollinaris and others who confused the divinity and humanity in Christ (it is in the library at Florence, though not printed):152 “Christ is both God and man: God because impassible, man because of his passion, one Son, one Lord, truly one and the same in unity of the natures, possessing one dominion, one power (even if not consubstantial) and each one preserving unmixed its obvious properties, because the two are distinct. For before the bread is sanctified we call it bread, and being sanctified by divine grace through the priestly mediation, it is freed from the name bread and considered worthy to be called the Lord’s body, although the nature of bread remains in it, and it is proclaimed not two bodies but one body of the [62] Son. Even so this divine enydrosis, that is, the nature of an overflowing body, makes both into one Son, one person.”153
Hesychius, in book 20, on Leviticus 8: he commands the flesh to be eaten with the bread so that we might understand why he calls it a mystery, which is both bread and flesh.154
Gelasius against Eutyches wrote that in the sacrament of the Eucharist the substance and nature of bread and wine do not cease to exist. He makes a comparison of this sacrament with Christ, in whom both natures remain whole, divine and human, just like the nature of bread and of the body of Christ in the sacrament.155
Gregory in the Register says that whether the bread is leavened or unleavened, when we eat we are made one body of the Lord and Savior.156
Bertram, in his little book On the body and blood of the Lord, says about the nature of the symbols, that according to the substance of created things, what they were before consecration, that they are after.157
In the sermon On the Lord’s Supper, Bernard clearly proposes the simile of a ring, by which one receives either marital faithfulness or the possession of some dignity; so in the ordination of a bishop, the ring or crozier or mitre are signs handed down and conferred, but not empty signs.158 For what is signified is most surely given, as I have shown happens in sacraments.
REFUTATION OF ARGUMENTS FOR TRANSUBSTANTIATION
32. Now let us dissolve the arguments of these men by which they try to prove transubstantiation. To the first159 we reply that in John 6 Christ promised his flesh or body and blood for food and drink. He does this as often as we truly believe that he died for us; and also in the Supper, because when this sacrament was instituted he added symbols to that spiritual eating. They object strenuously Hoc est corpus meum, and the controversy concerns its truth, yet only as to the mode, for both of us affirm the proposition’s truth, and contend only about its [63] meaning. They declare that the statement is clear, and on the contrary we say that Augustine, in his On Christian doctrine, teaches that one place should not be interpreted against many others, but in the way that agrees with them.160
They should not object clarity of sense so often, otherwise when it is said, “Let us make man in our image and likeness,”161 Anthropomorphites arise, and infer that God has body and soul and other members, as we see them formed in man.162 You will say that this likeness refers to the soul, since through it man rules other creatures, as God does; but they say that it is written about man, and that you falsely attribute what is said of the whole to the part, the soul. But you again object that God is a spirit and does not have flesh and bones, and so by other Scriptures determine the sense of this one.
The Arians claimed to have the plain sense of “The Father is greater than I.”163 You restrict this to human nature because in other places Christ’s divinity is demonstrated, as in John 1, Romans 9, and the fifth chapter of John’s Letter. Likewise Christ said, “Let him who has not a sword buy one.”164 This would seem to incite to vengeance; but if you consider other places you will see that it is spoken figuratively. Paul has, “Pray without ceasing”—the Euchêtae arose, who thought we should devote ourselves to perpetual, whispered praying.165 Yet it is stated elsewhere, “He who does not provide for his own, especially his household, denies his faith and is worse than a heathen”; again, “Let all things be done with order,” and “Whoever does not work, let him not eat.”166
The Chiliasts or Millenarians thought they had the clearest word in Revelation 20 about the thousand years, when Christ will reign with his own.167 The Sabellians said there is no difference between the Father and Son, from another place, “I and the Father are one,” and [64] from “Philip, he that sees me, sees the Father also. And as I am in the Father, so the Father dwells in me.” They claimed that these are clear, and support their case.168
The Ebionites considered Christ a mere creature, and said that “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”169 could not be understood otherwise, since God could not forsake himself. They said that it follows from what is written in John 6 (”Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood will never die”) that those who have once properly communicated can never die. Augustine brilliantly exposed this error, in City of God.170
If you take the words of the Song of Songs at their face value, it is only a love song or nuptial poem [epithalamium]. Thus we should not always pretend to clarity of words. Christ said “He that has ears to hear, let him hear, and he that reads, understand.”171 We should not seize the first sense to offer itself, neglecting other places without due consideration. Christ told the apostles, “Beware that leaven of the Pharisees.”172 At first they thought he spoke of bread, but he meant doctrine. When he said, “Our friend Lazarus sleeps,” the apostles were also sleeping and replied, “If he sleeps he is safe”; but he was speaking about death.173 Again, the Lord said, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up,” yet they did not understand that he meant his body.174 “He that keeps my commands will never die”; here too the Jews thought he spoke of ordinary death. Nicodemus interpreted the new birth basely, and the woman of Samaria was just as wrong about the water that Christ promised her. The Jews also had the wrong idea when Christ said to them that Abraham saw his day and was glad.175
Well then, they should not so often tell us that this Scripture, “This is my body,” is clear, for we will answer: it is clear as to the significance of the word. But their interpretation is not clear, as parallel sentences indicate: Christ is a rock, Christ is a lamb, You are the body of [65] Christ, We many are one bread. All these are words of God, and we may affirm them to be clear and transparent, yet they do not imply transubstantiation.
33. There is therefore no reason why clarity176 of the words should be promoted like this. We must look carefully for what is meant here by examining other places and circumstances of Scripture. We will expound the proposition through a deeper examination. God seeks to draw man to himself through generous promises; he wishes to bless man and make him happy. Because of our unbelieving hearts, he makes many benefits appear to mankind, to draw them to himself. Not only has he given us the whole of creation, but in the time of the flood he delivered the race from destruction by water, though all had deserved it. He declared himself merciful to Abraham, he prospered the family of Isaac and his seed Jacob, that they should increase in Egypt. When they were oppressed there he delivered them, gave them a land richly blessed, and exalted them to kingly and priestly dignity. Yet they were always unfaithful, sceptical of God’s goodwill towards them. Therefore on account of their unbelief he drove them into various captivities, then set them free. Finally, that there should be no doubt of his goodness, he bestowed the greatest of all benefits, namely his Son clothed in human flesh, to die on the cross for our salvation. So great was this favor that as Paul said to the Romans, “How could he not give us all things with him?”177 In case it should be forgotten, he decreed that it should be renewed in this sacrament of the Eucharist, that by faith we should keep Christ in mind delivered by him to death for us, and that in believing this we should eat his flesh and blood. To do this more effectively, symbols of bread and wine were added, moving us more powerfully than mere words.
34. When Christ says, “This is my body,” he means the very same that is offered in John 6 when he said, “I am the bread of life.”178 He was speaking of himself, of the body and flesh delivered to death or rather to be delivered, as is clear from his words. He wished only that they might be bread and drink for us, by which our minds should be strengthened and fed, and through the mind, the body and even the whole man. Therefore in the Supper, Christ did nothing else than [66] transpose the proposition: first he had said that his body and flesh are bread, and now he says the reverse, showing bread as his body. When he stated, “This is my body,” it was as if to say, my body received by faith will be for bread or like bread, by which you will be fed spiritually. Therefore let the meaning be, I give you bread to eat, while offering my body to be fastened to the cross, so that with faithful memory and attentive mind you may spiritually eat among yourselves; and as with the body you eat bread so with the mind will you eat my flesh.
What is more simple or clear than this interpretation? Or what agrees better with the promises made by our Lord in John 6? Some may argue that Christ’s first saying, “I am the living bread,” should be taken in respect to the divine nature, as Chrysostom seems to desire. First, we say that this is not quite suitable, since Christ chose his words in regard to the eating of his body, and instead of earthly bread offered the Capernaites his flesh to be eaten. This seems clear from the burden of his speech, even though he states that the bread came down from heaven, for often what belongs to the divinity is attributed also to the humanity. But if the explanation of Chrysostom carries such weight with them, so should what he says later, that the saying of Christ, “The bread which I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world,” refers to the Eucharist.179 He is not alone in this, for other interpreters agree.
Hence the Lord stated that the bread is his flesh, and now he declares the same thing in the Supper, for he says of the bread displayed, “This is my body.” He affirms both things at once, that his body or flesh is bread spiritually eaten—bread of the soul and of our regenerated nature. Thus there is no change of the proposition, it is taken the same way in both places. If you take the whole thing, bread and what is offered through bread, that is, the body of Christ, we admit synecdoche, for it is spoken of the whole, or one part for the other. But if you refer the saying to the bread, which signifies and offers us Christ’s body to be eaten, it will be the figure metonymy, when the name of what is signified is attributed to the sign.180 Once again in this interpretation everything is simple: absurdities are avoided, and one Scripture does not contradict another.
[67] 35. They have said that if you allow tropes in this way, heretics will pervert everything. But I maintain that unless we use figures, as is clear from what we cited above, the heretics will triumph. For they also will plead a proper sense, namely whatever suggests itself at first sight. Nothing remains for us but to show that such phrases and figurative speech are used frequently in the holy Scriptures, something we can easily do.
We read in Scripture, “The seed was the Word of God,” “The rock was Christ.”181 I know there are some who cavil that no trope is involved, since Paul limited his speech to the spiritual rock, which they claim to be Christ truly and not figuratively. Yet Augustine and Origen are with us, for they state plainly that the outward rock signifies Christ.182 But in case we seem to evade the objection, we say that if they want to take “rock” spiritually, let them also take bread here spiritually and allegorically, and we will admit it to be Christ in truth and without any trope. Moreover the Lord said, “I have chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil,” yet Judas was not therefore transubstantiated into a devil.183 It is written about circumcision, “My covenant will be in your flesh,” although circumcision is not the covenant, but only a sign of the covenant.184 In Genesis 33 it tells of Jacob building an altar, which he called the great God of Israel.185 And in Exodus, after the victory over Amalek, Moses called the altar which he raised “the Lord my banner,” and Jeremiah recalls a city named “the Lord our righteousness.”186 For these were reminders of those things to come which they expressed by names. It is written about John the Baptist that he was a burning and shining light; also “He is Elijah, if you receive him.”187 Christ said of himself, “I am the vine, and you are the branches; I am the door.” We are also told about him that he is a stone set for ruin and resurrection.188 In Deuteronomy, “the blood is the life,” although it is that by which the life is preserved and symbolized.189 Judah said about [68] his brother Joseph, “Let him not be killed, he is our flesh,” the phrase denoting the natural union of kinfolk.190
Paul said the many are one bread, which must be understood figuratively. And Christ breathed on the disciples and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit,” yet the breath was not transubstantiated into the Holy Spirit. In Genesis, “My spirit will not dwell in man, because he is flesh,” and in John, “The Word became flesh,” where the figure is synecdoche, because the entire person is understood in the term flesh.191 On the cross the Lord said, “Woman, behold your son” and to the disciple, “Behold your mother”; yet they were not transubstantiated, but remained as before except that a new order, a new relation and reference was established between them.192 It is said of Christ, “He is our peace,” yet he is rather the cause of our peace. “My words are spirit and life,” yet they only signified these things, or brought them to believers. John said of Christ, “Behold the Lamb of God,” but his nature was not changed into that of a lamb.193
36. All through Scripture the words of the Lord are said to be judgment, truth, and justice, whereas this is but signified and expressed in them. This simile is most appropriate to sacraments, which are said to be visible words.194 The Apocalypse has, “I am alpha and omega,” that is, the beginning and end of all things. And Paul says of his Gospel which he preached, “It is the power of God to salvation to all who believe,” yet it is only the instrument by which God’s power declares itself to those who will be saved. Of the preaching of the cross he says that to the ungodly it is foolishness, that is, it signifies something foolish to that sort of man. But to the godly, he adds, it is the power and wisdom of God, because it represents these things to them.195
Concerning the Law, God said that death and life, blessing and curse were set before the Hebrews, that is, through the Law’s signification, the promises and threats expressed in it.196 In Genesis the seven cows and seven ears of corn are said to signify seven years.197 Ahijah the prophet of Shiloh gave Jeroboam ten pieces of his torn cloak and [69] said that he was giving him the rule of ten tribes.198 In 1 Corinthians 11 Paul writes that a woman should have power [exousian] on her head, that is, a veil, by which the man’s power is signified.199 In 2 Corinthians, God made Christ to be sin, namely in terms of the likeness and representation of flesh—the victim offered for sin is called sin, and the priests were said to eat the sins of the people, that is, the victims offered for their sins.200
It is written in Ezekiel, “I will pour water upon you,” and by water the Holy Spirit is signified, as we read of Christ’s saying, “He that drinks of this water” etc., where the evangelist recalls that he spoke of the Spirit which they were to receive.201 We hear of the lamb that was called passover, although some try to deny it. But the Hebrew has “The sacrifice is the passover.”202 By sacrifice we must understand the animal killed, or the act of offering the victim. Just so is Christ’s body represented both in bread and wine and in the action of eating and drinking. The lamb was not that passing over [transitus] of the angel, but only its token and sign. Christ sought a place where he might eat the passover with his apostles, and by passover he understood those meats and things consecrated, which denote a passing over.203 Also Paul: “Christ our passover is offered,” calling Christ himself our ceremony and passing over.204 This cannot be other than figurative. Nor was the lamb a passing over of the angel to be performed at that moment, but something done long ago, whose memory was represented by those outward signs. We also have Christ’s body here, though it suffered before; it is not to be delivered to the cross now, or the blood to be shed now.
37. If they are to interpret these words of Christ strictly, when he said “This is my body which is given for you,” they must say that the bread was crucified, or at least Christ hidden in accidents (as they put it) in the sacrament. For showing what he held in his hands, Christ said that it was to be given and shed for them. And if they state that it was indeed what was given, but not in the same mode [sed non eodem [70] modo] or form, then they are groping for interpretations and evasions and not accepting the statement simpliciter. You see this in the words “given” and “shed”; when taken as they sound (while we utter the words of consecration), they signify the body of Christ now delivered to the cross, and his blood now shed or soon to be shed. But they want them turned into the perfect tense, so that we should understand the body given and the blood shed; that means dealing figuratively, taking one tense for another.
Paul’s saying makes no difference; “those who eat unworthily are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord”; also they eat their own judgment because they do not distinguish the Lord’s body.205 The interpretation of Ambrose on the first was that they will be punished for the Lord’s death, because he was killed for them, who do not respect his worth. So he takes them to be guilty of the Lord’s body as we have heard, and no transubstantiation is required.206 Those who eat unworthily are said not to discern, that is, not to value the Lord’s body, because so great is the union between symbols and things signified that the reproach of the one redounds to the other. So Paul said, “A man praying or prophesying with head covered dishonors Christ,”207 where clearly he would ascribe to Christ what was done about man’s head, which ought to be a symbol of Christ.
Consider also what Paul wrote to the Corinthians, who were not completely without faith, but plagued with certain weaknesses. We do not say that this kind of person receives symbols alone, and has not the body of Christ, but we say this of unbelievers, Epicureans, atheists, and those outside the church. We might rightly say of them that they were guilty of the Lord’s body and blood, as to both symbols and the reality of the sacrament, because they did not discern the Lord’s body, receiving them without faith and not fulfilling them in life.
It should be noted here that when Paul deals with the sacramental action, that is, with eating and drinking, he mentions bread and says, “Who eats this bread.” Afterwards, when he would exaggerate the fault, he says “the body of the Lord.” If we judge the matter correctly, in his whole treatment of this sacrament the apostle referred to bread more often than to the Lord’s body. For you will find that he refers five times to bread, and the body of the Lord only four.208
[71] 38. Now we must see what moves us to take this saying “This is my body” figuratively. First consider that Christ was present at the Supper, so that he did not need to show his body to the apostles, for they saw him. And how could he eat himself really and corporeally? Yet he truly communicated with the apostles, as the Fathers affirm and Christ himself says, in Matthew: “I shall not drink hereafter of this fruit of the vine.”209 Moreover, we note what is said about remembrance, where a figure is implied. We see that they change the tenses so that what is declared by the future or present, about giving the body and shedding the blood, they render by the perfect.
We consider that in their consecration they cannot escape figures of speech, because they take the word “is” for “is changed,” “is transubstantiated,” or “becomes.” Since Christ instituted a sacrament, it is appropriate for the symbols to be taken as significant, that is, figuratively, according to the nature of a sacrament, which is that it should be a sign. We remember also Christ’s ascension into heaven, the truth of the human nature he assumed. Also John, when it is said to the Capernaites, “My words are spirit and life, the flesh profits nothing” (when eaten carnally), “it is the Spirit who gives life.”210 Once again there is Paul, who clearly names it bread, where those who still want a figure are so much against us. We hear Paul testify that the Fathers had the same sacrament with us; in Augustine’s judgment it was not enough for him to say that they had spiritual meat and drink, but he adds “the very same.”211 To prevent any doubt, the apostle refers also to baptism, which he says they obtained in the sea and cloud. Hence it seems as if they had the same sacraments not only among themselves but also along with us. It is evident that the related statements are to be taken figuratively, for they say “The bread which we break is the communion of the body of Christ,” and, “this cup is the new testament.”212 We have often dealt with these things. It is not fitting that the body of Christ should be eaten.
From all this it is obvious what should be said to the second argument,213 in which they objected that the sentence is not to be taken figuratively, unless it has something before or after which leads us to do [72] so. They insist upon retaining that phrase, “which is given for you,” in the strict sense. This is patently false, since it would change the tenses; we do not take it as the body that was delivered, for that was visible and passible. Nor can the qualities of a corruptible body and a glorified one exist together in the same substance or subject, so that the same body should be passible and impassible at the same time. We have showed what other places lead us to admit this kind of figure, synecdoche, or metonymy.
39. We will answer another argument about things that are distinct, disparata as they are called, between which you cannot form a mutual predication.214 Things that are discrete or dissimilar can be joined when an analogy or signification occurs, so that they are strong enough to make a proposition. We see this not only when the Lord says, “The seed is the Word of God” and “I am the vine,” but also when Paul says that we are one bread. Again he says, “The bread which we break is the communion of the body of Christ,” and “This cup is the new testament in my blood.” We are not troubled because some hold Matthew and Mark to state clearly, “This is my blood of the new testament.” We do not deny that those evangelists wrote it, but we contend that the words of Luke and Paul must be accepted, and we hold that those statements just cited consist of words that differ widely, called disparates in logic. But through analogy and signification they are well and aptly connected.
40. Another argument has it that when Christ said “This is my body,” he did not say, this signifies or represents my body, this bread is a figure or sign of my body. To this we reply that Christ did not say that his body hid under accidents without a subject, nor did he affirm that the substance of bread ceases to exist, or is changed or transubstantiated into his body. I am surprised that they make such objections, since these views may be found among the Fathers. For they often say that the body and blood of the Lord is represented, signified, designated, showed, and call the symbols of bread and wine seal, figure, type, and antitype. No one should cavil that they refer these signs or figures to Christ’s death and not to the body; the Fathers clearly state that the body and blood are signified, and the signs or figures of the body and blood of the Lord are given. We shall set out some of the numerous texts, to convince you of this truth.
[73] Augustine, On instructing the unlearned: “Concerning the sacrament which he received, there are visible seals of divine things, and the invisible things themselves are honored in them.” The same man in City of God, book 10, chapter 5: “Therefore the visible sacrifice is the sacrament and sacred sign of the invisible sacrifice.”215 And Jerome, book 4 on Matthew, chapter 26: “as in his prefiguration Melchizedek priest of God Most High offered bread and wine, he also represented the truth of his body and blood.”216
Bertram: “by the testimonies of the holy Scriptures and sayings of the holy Fathers, it is quite clearly shown that the bread called Christ’s body and the cup Christ’s blood is a figure, since it is a mystery.”217
Tertullian, against Marcion book 4: “having taken bread and distributed it to the disciples, he made it his body, saying: ‘This is my body, that is, a figure of my body.’”218
Cyprian, epistle 3, book 2: “We see that in the water the people are understood, in the wine the blood of Christ is shown.”219
Ambrose, the book Of those who are initiated in the Mysteries: “Before the blessing of the heavenly words another species is named; after consecration the body of Christ is signified.” And On Sacraments, book 4, chapter 5: “Make this offering for us, attested as reasonable and acceptable, a figure of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.”220 Also on 2 Corinthians 11: “Having this in mind, we signify in eating and drinking the flesh and body of the Lord, which were offered for us.” Again, “We receive the cup as this type, as mystical blood, to the maintenance of our body and soul.”221
Bernard in the sermon on the Lord’s Supper: “Therefore as the Lord approached his passion, he prepared to endow his own with his grace, so that the invisible grace might be present by some visible sign.”222
Chrysostom on 1 Corinthians 10: “Why do I speak of communion? We are that same body. What does bread signify? The body of [74] Christ. What do they become who partake of it? The body of Christ.”223
Basil calls it antitype in his Liturgy, and that after consecration.224
Augustine, On the Trinity book 3, chapter 4: “The apostle could preach the Lord Jesus Christ by signifying through the tongue, or else by a letter, or by the sacrament of his body and blood.”225 Against Adimantus: “The Lord doubted not to say, This is my body, when he gave a sign of his body.”226 And on Psalm 3: “He admitted Judas to the feast in which he commended and delivered to his disciples a figure of his body and blood.”227 Also against Maximinus book 3, chapter 22: “In the sacraments one should consider not what they are but what they show, because they are signs of things, being one thing and signifying another.”228
So you see that the Fathers do not reject but establish a signification of the body in this sacrament. Moreover we showed from Scripture that there is this kind of statement, where the verb substantive is is taken for signifies. And so this argument fades. When they object that Christ did not say either signifies or represents, we answer that this may be understood from Scripture, which we proved sufficiently above.
Nor (as they think) do we argue as follows: the sentence is taken like this elsewhere; therefore it should be taken so here. Rather, we oppose those who, in order to prove their transubstantiation, repeat “This is my body,” the very thing in controversy, and of doubtful sense. They offer us a simple meaning, holding fast to what other Scriptures show to be slippery, since this way of speaking should often be taken in a different way in Scripture. We have many other reasons for our opinion of the Eucharist; we do not advance this as our own argument, but when they insist on such a phrase we reply only that it usually means something else, and therefore their conclusion is weak.
41. They argue about adoration, that if bread remains it would be venerated in the sacrament. I am amazed at their concern for true adoration when both pictures and statues are venerated among them; but they claim that they do not worship these but what they represent. [75] [5]229 Why not acknowledge the same thing if bread remains, that what will be worshipped is not bread but what it signifies? And why not remove accidents for the same reason, lest perhaps they are worshipped? They might make the excuse that no one wishes to honor accidents here; but we know that the pictures and figures they allow in their churches are accidents, to which men kneel. If they would worship the substance of wood or stone, they have plenty to adore in forests and roadways. But rough and simple folk cannot make the distinction, or judge between accidents and substance.
Those who pretend to be moved with such zeal should transubstantiate the cup, lest it be worshipped when displayed. Certainly this argument always seemed very light to me, even when put forward by Scholastics of no mean reputation. [6] It is objected that if we do not allow transubstantiation in this sacrament, two natures or bodily substances will occur at once in the same place. Who does not wonder that they show such awe towards nature, such reverence as not to break its laws? Yet they have accidents hanging without a subject, which is quite contrary to nature’s decrees. Through their absurd device they do not escape what they fear, because when accidents remain, among them is a body having quantity and occupying a distinct place. Yet they also want Christ’s flesh to be corporeally present, a thing of quantity; to have it under accidents they must grant two quantities and two bodies together. But according to the opinion which we assert, there is no danger of such absurdity.
42. [7] They declared that it is not appropriate to the dignity of Christ to have his body joined with bread. This is frivolous, for it is not held that the body of Christ and the nature of bread compose one subject, like the divine and human natures in Christ. Nor can we see what greater dignity accidents have than bread, so that if Christ’s body is with them it cannot remain with the substance of bread. Is not the divine nature said to be in hell itself without losing its dignity? Yet they judge that this body is given to be eaten truly and substantially even to the wicked, who are most unclean and unworthy of it. Why do they fear for the dignity only when the Lord’s body and blood are joined to bread and wine? Especially when there ought to be a union of signification.
[76] [8] They also referred to the nature of sacrifice. They say that the body and blood of the Lord are offered in Masses, so that unless we allow the metamorphosis, nothing is offered but something signified and adumbrated. Here Cyprian may do for us, To Caecilium third letter book 2: “It is the passion of the Lord that we offer.”230 Everyone knows that Christ’s passion is not at all present in the hands of the priest, since it is something done in the past of which a memorial is made and for which thanks are given to God. But everything they pretend in this argument is a fiction, in which they imagine that the Son of God himself is properly and truly offered to the Father by the priest. How wrong they are in this, it is not now the place to say.
RULES FOR PATRISTICS231
43. [9] At this point we should show that what they bring from the Fathers’ beliefs that seem to oppose our aim do not actually count against us. But before proceeding to their exposition, I wish to offer a preface, that can be taken as certain rules for understanding the Fathers, who speak on this topic of the sacrament powerfully and earnestly.232
[1] The first consideration is that Scripture alternately attributes to the reality what belongs to the symbols, and in turn ascribes to signs what belongs to the reality. The Fathers use the same procedure, so that you often see them treat the substance as if they spoke of symbols, and on the other hand write about the symbols as if they dealt with the reality and significance. This follows from the great likeness that exists [77] between them through the Lord’s institution. Augustine illustrates this clearly, to Boniface, that in sacraments the names are exchanged.233
[2] Another rule is that if you look carefully at what is said before and after, you will see that the Fathers always identify this food as spiritual, and not related to the throat, stomach, or teeth.
[3] Third, whenever they say that we communicate with Christ “carnally,” so that the body also is nourished in the Eucharist, we should take it in the same way as we understand that when he was conceived of a virgin and assumed human nature, the Son of God joined with us carnally. Moreover when we believe his words and receive the sacraments with faith, we abide in him and he in us, because in such communion the Spirit is given us, and our flesh and body which were already of the same nature with Christ are made of the same qualities with him: they become capable of immortality and resurrection, and when they obey and serve the spirit, are truly nourished to eternal life. So in the Eucharist our body is fed in two ways. First it is fed by symbols, second by this renewal to eternal life, and thus is Christ said to abide in us through this sacrament. Of the first communication that we have with him through nativity and incarnation, you have witness from the letter to the Hebrews, chapter 2: “Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature.”234
[4] Consider also that to the Fathers, the words of consecration mean nothing else than to dedicate something common and profane to a holy use, and this is to make it holy. Therefore when the word consecration occurs in the Fathers, there is no reason for us to imagine transubstantiation. We do not deny some change there, namely that by which they become sacraments, to signify effectively, to offer and exhibit the body and blood of the Lord to us through the power of the Holy Spirit, in mind and faith.
[5] Further it should be known that between us and the Capernaites there is no difference regarding the essential thing: they thought that they would eat the true flesh of Christ, which we also agree does happen. But the difference lies in the manner and way of eating [in modo et ratione manducationis]. What they thought was done carnally, happens spiritually according to our teaching. Thus the true [78] body and true blood is exhibited, because faith does not grasp things imagined but true. When we read in the Fathers that the body of Christ is contained or obtained in these mysteries, they mean nothing else than that it is denoted, exhibited, demonstrated, and signified.235
44. [6] When you hear the Fathers say that bread or wine is no longer present, you should not take it at face value but apply it to yourself, when you communicate faithfully. For in that case you should not think of bread or wine, but your mind and sense should cleave only to the things represented to you. Therefore it is said, Sursum corda, when you lift up your mind from them to the invisible things offered you. Holy Scripture also does not shrink from this kind of figure. Paul said, “Our wrestling is not with flesh and blood,” even though he agreed that the body and flesh trouble the soul and must be restrained, as he writes elsewhere: “The flesh lusts against the spirit.”236 Nor was he ignorant that many evil men are called flesh and blood, who trouble us still and with whom we must wrestle daily. But Paul was thinking of that chief and principal struggle, from which the others derive.
[7] He also said that in Christ there is neither male nor female, bond nor free, although these offices and persons are not removed from Christ and the church, indeed there are rules prescribed just for them.237 But Paul understood that these things in Christ do not relate to regeneration, the forgiveness of sins, and eternal life, the essence of Christianity. In distributing them, Christ does not take account of status and condition. The same apostle writes, “The kingdom of God is not in word,”238 yet he would not thereby divest the church, which is the kingdom of God, of sermons, exhortations, and readings, which are performed by words. He meant only that great power and efficacy of the Spirit, by which everything should be ruled in the church. So say the Fathers when they deny that the nature of the symbols remains; as we noted, it is not to be taken absolutely, but in terms of our faith and meditation, which should not cling to them.
[8] You may add to this that faith is so effective that it makes things present not indeed really or substantially but spiritually, for it apprehends them truly. The apostle said that Christ was crucified before the eyes of the Galatians. Abraham was said to have seen the day [79] of the Lord.239 Similarly, the ancients had in their sacraments the same Christ whom we enjoy. So you see that for this presence the reality in its natural condition need not change place, or be present to us with all its material and physical conditions.
[9] It should also be noted that because the divine nature of Christ is truly present to us, this can be imparted to the humanity through alternation and communication of the properties. Thus when Christ was speaking on earth he said that the Son of Man was in heaven, and so attributed to the humanity what belonged to the divinity. In this way I concede that the human nature of Christ is present to us in the communion, if interpreted through communication of properties.240
[10] Finally, if you ask why the Fathers used these tropes and hyperboles, we think it was partly to follow the language of Scripture and partly to strike the human mind more forcibly. It was also to show that this significance of the sacrament is not just like comic or tragic acting. For there, an actor can represent Hector or Priam and nothing follows of any consequence. But here, the reality is represented by the power of the Holy Spirit, given and imprinted on our minds through faith, with many gifts and graces resulting, especially a secret and ineffable union with Christ, so that we become truly one with him.
ANALYSIS OF THE PATRISTIC EVIDENCE
45. The first objection was from Irenaeus,241 who said that when earthly bread is consecrated it is not common bread but becomes Eucharist. We admit this willingly, and affirm that what is present is not profane and common bread but holy, which as he said has been made the Eucharist. What follows supports us the more; he writes that the Eucharist consists in two things, heavenly and earthly: he does not say, accidents of something earthly. Afterwards he adds that in receiving the Eucharist our bodies are not corruptible, having hope of resurrection. And if he holds such a great change in our bodies as is equal to the change in bread (for he says, just as the bread is no longer common, [80] so our bodies are no longer corruptible) what need is there of transubstantiation? For he sees these changes as equal in both, yet permits no transubstantiation of our bodies.
In the second place Tertullian was introduced, and he also had declared himself for them. Not only, however, does he say that when the Lord took bread he made it his body, saying “This is my body,” but he adds: “that is, a figure of my body.”
They objected that Origen wrote about the Lord’s confessing that this is his body. We certainly do not deny this; but the whole quarrel concerns the mode by which it becomes the body of the Lord. On this he himself plainly teaches elsewhere that there are figures here, and that this bread is called the nourishing word of the soul, so that we are not to cling to the blood of the flesh but the blood of the word.
Cyprian seems to speak more harshly, when he said that this bread is changed not in form but in nature. But consider what he wrote to Caecilius, that the blood of the Lord is displayed with the wine. And if wine is no longer in the cup, the Lord’s blood cannot be there.242 What he says about mutation we also grant, only sacramentally. We do not admit that the shape or form or accidents have this gift to be sacraments, but that the very nature and substance of bread and wine is changed into the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord. As bread’s own substance nourishes and not its form, so the body of Christ feeds our soul, animates our body, and renews it. And as the substance of bread consists of many grains, so the mystical body which it represents has many members joined together. Both we and our opponents therefore say that the form—the appearance and aspect of bread—is not changed, but it is the substance that is changed. They would have the mutation come through destroying the nature of bread, but we hold only a sacramental change. Cyprian himself is against them, for they do not change the substance of bread but remove it completely. We say that it is changed, that it becomes the body of Christ, that is, a sacrament of Christ’s body, which it was not before. Besides, among good authors of the Latin tongue, natura does not always mean substance, but power, ability, and property [vim, ingenium, et proprietatem]. Thus Cicero’s Scipio’s Dream: the proper nature and power of the soul is to be self-moved. And To Lentulum: that is, the nature and religion of your province; also when he speaks about the nature of herbs, the nature of [81] stones, and such like.243 This meaning agrees well with Cyprian’s saying.
46. They appeal to Ambrose, especially in his books on the sacraments. Some have thought that these are not his.244 Rochester attacks those who think so, saying that we must at least credit Augustine, who ascribes those books to Ambrose, and clearly states that Ambrose wrote books on the sacraments. He cites the Prologue on the books of Christian doctrine.245 I have often read these, but never found what this fellow writes. Unless perhaps he means what Augustine says in the Retractations, where he mentions his writing On Christian doctrine; there he might have something like it. Moreover, I know well that Augustine against Julian the Pelagian cited Ambrose, de Sacramento regenerationis, vel de philosophia, but not the books de Mysteriis, vel de Sacramentis; and what is cited is not found in the de Sacramentis. But to delay no longer, let them be counted Ambrose’s; they do not widely dissent from us. For he often mentions signifying, and states that these sacraments are named and are called the body of Christ, which we grant. And whenever he refers to mutation or conversion it is to be understood concerning sacramental change.
Further, the same Father should be examined in other places. First he has, On Duties book 4, chapter 48: “Here is the shadow, here the image, there the truth; a shadow in the Law, an image in the Gospel, the truth in heaven. In the past a lamb was offered, a calf was offered; now is Christ offered, but offered as a man, undergoing passion, yet he offered himself as a priest, that he might remit our sins. Here in image, [82] there in truth, where before the Father he intercedes for us as an advocate.”246 And on 1 Corinthians, as we cited above, he said: “In eating and drinking we signify the flesh and blood of Christ, which are offered.” When he speaks of the blood he says that we receive its type, the mystical cup.247 Again in the books de Sacramentis in the fourth part, chapter 4 he clearly holds our change into Christ, which we have often noted in other Fathers.248
47. It remains for us to consider Chrysostom. They proposed his simile of wax, which is destroyed in substance when put into fire, so that nothing remains or survives; even so, he states, you may think that the mysteries are consumed by the substance of the body of Christ.249 They ask us what could be better suited to transubstantiation? But here I think it well to examine Chrysostom himself, so that you may see how such things are properly taken, as we mentioned above about the sayings of the Fathers.
In homily 83 on Matthew he said: “Many say that they wish and long to see the form and shape of Christ, and to look on his garments and shoes: but he gives himself to you not only to see but to touch.” Do we not understand here that he attributes to the sacramental reality what belongs to the symbols, namely that the body of Christ should be touched and seen? Who does not see that this applies to the symbols alone? Again in the same homily, “He reduces us to one lump (so to speak) with himself, not by faith alone but makes us actually his body.”250 He wrote the same in homilies 60 and 61, To the People of Antioch: “I say that we are made and mixed with the body of Christ, not only by faith and love but in actuality.”251 If it is true that we are not transubstantiated, although still so closely joined to Christ, what need is there for bread to be transubstantiated in order to be made Christ’s body? It could be questioned whether Chrysostom counts against us when we teach such a reception by faith, since he says that we are mixed with him and changed into him not only in faith but in fact. It should be noted here that while we said Christ’s body and blood are eaten and drunk through faith, yet such receiving by faith is followed [83] not by a fictional but a true union between us and Christ. By this our mind is joined with him and also our body and flesh receive his renewing power, and we become truly members of the Lord, taking him as our head and drawing spirit and life from him continually. This is what Chrysostom says, that we are in fact joined to Christ.
Again, in the same homily on Matthew he said that these are symbols of the Lord Jesus by which we stop the mouths of heretics, who ask how Christ could suffer. For if he had not true flesh and truly suffered, these symbols were empty. He has in the same homily that our tongue is bloodied in receiving the sacraments.252 Do not cavil that the blood should be taken to be invisible, by which our tongue is bloodied with wine or as they say accidents of wine. In homily 60 which the same Father has To the People of Antioch he writes that our tongue grows red with this blood.253 Who cannot see hyperbole here? Also in In Encaeniis he has that the blood in the cup is drawn from the Lord’s side, which cannot be believed as it stands, since the Lord’s side is not opened today, nor is blood drawn from it.254
48. He writes in the same homily, “Do you really see bread or wine?” and adds, “God forbid!” Surely if he were asking the senses, they would reply that what he says is not true. For by the judgment of our senses both bread and wine are present; but he speaks the truth when he continues, “Do not think that; because in our opinion they ought to depart.” And, “Think not that you receive the body of Christ from man, but from the seraph who is present, and who delivers a live coal to you with tongs.” I do not think they want to transubstantiate the minister or pastor who gives us the sacrament! He adds, “Let us run to suck the blood that flows from the Lord’s side.” Not even the scholastics dare to say things like that. They write that the bread and wine are changed into the substance of the body and blood, yet not so that anything is added to the true substance of Christ’s body, or leaves it. Also he has, in homily 61, To the People of Antioch, that Christ not only gave himself to us to be seen but also to be touched and felt, on whose flesh we fasten our teeth.255 Here you see what belongs to symbols being attributed to the things signified through the sacraments. For [84] our tooth does not reach the substance of Christ’s body, but only the bread the symbols and sacraments.
He says in homily 60, To the People of Antioch, that we should not think the hand of the priest offers the sacrament, but rather the outstretched hand of Christ. No less in baptism, he fulfils the office of baptizing. and in 61 he warns us in this sacrament to leave Christ seated in heaven, worshipped by angels.
From all this it is clear that this Father of ours took all possible care to shift the minds of the communicants from crass signs and outward symbols to meditation on things heavenly and divine. It is odd that those who so diligently examine patristic texts do not produce what is in homily 61 to the people of Antioch. They are heedless and stubborn who stand by at the administration of the sacraments and do not communicate, thus showing that they do Christ great injury. But lest we swerve from what is proposed in the argument in Homilia in Encaeniis regarding the wax which is destroyed n the fire, we reply that in that place Chrysostom several times has the word “think,” so that we should understand them to be received in terms of our faith and meditation. By this means when communicating we do not take bread and wine themselves but seek the things that are joined to them by an effective signification.
Moreover, we bring a like simile from Cyril, in book 10, chapter 13, on John. There he says that when wax is melted and mixed with other wax to make one of both together, this refers to what happens in receiving this sacrament, when we are really made one with Christ. He has the same in book 4 chapter 17.256 If this simile about wax is relevant to Christ and ourselves without any transubstantiation of our bodies, the same can be said of the simile of Chrysostom, which he has between wax and the symbols or mysteries. Our adversaries should also be questioned as to whether they want the similes to be equal in every respect. If so, accidents must be removed from this sacrament, for wax put into fire is destroyed not only in substance but also in accidents. If they do not want the comparison to apply like that, then we are free to take it all in terms of our mental contemplation and the embrace of faith. We confess to you that with respect to the matter itself, the nature of bread and wine departs and our mind clings only to its signification, [85] and to what is offered us through symbols, that is the body and blood of Christ. Enough has been said about Chrysostom for us to see the relevance of what we said above about the Fathers.
49. After that, what augustine said on Psalm 33 was cited: when he distributed the sacrament to the apostles at the Last Supper, Christ carried himself in his own hands.257 We do not deny this, for what prevents Christ from carrying his body in his own hands, if by body you understand the sacrament of his body? Also, at the end of that passage Augustine adds: “In a certain” [quodammodo] as if to say he does not simply carry, but in the sort of manner we are describing just now.
They oppose us with the same Augustine in book 3 of On the Trinity: bread is given this visible form by men’s hands, but it cannot be made into so eminent a sacrament without the invisible operation of the Holy Spirit. It is a great wonder why they do not acknowledge any other work of the Holy Spirit in this sacrament except transubstantiation. When one hears the name of the Holy Spirit’s work in this sacrament, immediately they infer transubstantiation. Yet these symbols cannot be brought or changed to the state and condition of sacraments without the divine operation—the Lord’s institution, the sacred words and the power of the Holy Spirit. For these holy things no longer strike our minds in an ordinary and common way, but by an effectual and most vehement force of the Spirit. And by the strength and work of the same Holy Spirit our minds and spirits are moved to grasp the sacramental reality.
Now on Psalm 98 where it says, “Worship his footstool,”258 Augustine enquires what that [istud] footstool is, and finds it stated in Scripture: “The earth is his footstool.” He continues: “But how can we worship the earth? Is it not written, you shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve? And is it not commanded that we should not worship things in heaven or above the earth, or in the waters, or under the earth?” Then he adds that there is a kind of earth which can and should be adored properly, for he says “the Son of God assumed human nature, that is, the flesh of a virgin, which is called earth in Scripture because our body is taken from the earth. It is clear that Christ’s flesh should be worshipped, for when he presented it for eating, none ate without first worshipping.” These words of Augustine [86] cannot be held against us, because we agree that the flesh of Christ should be adored on account of the union it has with the divine nature. What is at issue here is not whether it should be worshipped but whether it lies hidden under accidents.
They say that it would be idolatry if it were not there in the sacrament, but only bread. We reply to this that they run as great a risk, for they should remove accidents in case they are worshipped, and should transubstantiate the cup itself. In the sacrament, however, we distinguish symbols from realities, and give some honor to the symbols, namely that they should be handled properly and not be despised, for once dedicated to God they are holy things. As for the things signified, the body and blood of Christ, we grant that they should be readily and joyfully worshipped. For Augustine says here, “we do not sin in worshipping the flesh of Christ, but we sin in not worshipping.” Meanwhile he reminds us not to cleave to Christ’s flesh but to be lifted up in mind to the divine nature, to which it is joined by an unbreakable bond; otherwise “The flesh profits nothing, but the spirit gives life.” Here you may note that Augustine takes this saying of the Savior in John 6 to refer to the flesh of Christ, not the carnal understanding which some desire.
50. As to adoration, I will sum up in a few words, repeating what I have said elsewhere in the exposition of the letter to the Corinthians.259 It consists of invocation, confession which is twofold, of heart and mouth, and thanksgiving. They are due both to God and to Christ, wherever they reveal themselves to us. This happens in three ways. First, when by the internal word and the power of the divine Spirit any strong thoughts arise in our minds about God and Christ, worship follows because we confess or invoke or give thanks. Sometimes they declare themselves to us through outward words, when we read the Scriptures or hear godly sermons; then we are often stirred up to invocation or other things that belong to divine service. Finally, Christ and God sometimes reveals himself by outward signs, as on Mount Sinai. To Isaiah it was under the form of a king sitting on his royal throne, in the ark of the covenant, or in the sacraments; there also adoration is given. But just as Augustine warned us not to settle on the flesh but to go on to the godhead, so here concerning worship I advise us when receiving the Eucharist not to stick with symbols but in [87] spirit and truth to adore Christ sitting in heaven at the Father’s right hand. I say this because the error of transubstantiation is so large and firm that the simpler folk do not understand; therefore I consider it profitable to abstain from outward adoration, namely prostration or kneeling, until they can be instructed. Inward worship may be used without risk, nor would the outward be evil in itself. For many kneel and worship devoutly when they hear those words of the Gospel, “And the word became flesh,” yet the words themselves are not said to be worshipped, but rather their signification.260 Why could not the same be done here, in such a way that the symbols are not adored, but what is signified through them? Nevertheless at present, for the reason noted above, outward worship is perhaps not opportune, unless frequent mention of these things is made in sermons.
51. Let no one seize my statements as an excuse for saying that it is lawful for images or pictures to be venerated, since at times God and Christ seem effectively to declare themselves to us there. For we have clear instruction not to make ourselves images to worship. But regarding scriptural words and sacraments, nothing prevents our worship in hearing or receiving them, because they are instituted by the word, will and command of God, so that we may be called to divine service, which consists of worship. Nor should you gather from this that the elements of the Eucharist are to be worshipped. For whatever strength the symbols have is from the Holy Spirit, the words of the Lord and his institution, which are nothing without the use of the sacrament.261 The promise obtains while we eat and drink. Therefore that dogma about consecration was not universal, for in the time of Hesychius, as he himself testifies (on Leviticus), the Eucharistic remains were burned. You have this in Origen on Leviticus, but it is the same book ascribed to both.262 And Clement, bishop of Rome, as appears by his decree de Consecratione, dist. 2, rules that the remnants of this sacrament [88] are to be eaten by clerics. We do not deny that they were sometimes kept, but this was done without adoration and superstition.263 They were given to children, and to women to be taken to the sick, as is clear from the history of Eusebius of Caesarea, and from Jerome. Now I would not say too quickly that receiving the sacrament in that way—apart from the sacred company and the rite instituted by the Lord—was a proper communion; yet I allow it to the sick providing the sacred words are repeated and some of the faithful celebrate the Lord’s ceremony there together.264 For where a number do not communicate, the nature of a sacrament is not preserved. Christ said, “Take, eat and drink.” The breaking of bread concerns distribution, and in their canon they say many things which are false unless a number communicate. Also it is called supper, communion, gathering [synaxis], names which hardly suit a private action. We never read of private masses in the Fathers. Honorius, bishop of Rome, decreed that the Eucharist should be reserved, adding that honor and reverence should be given it when carried about.265 If this had been done previously he need not have made a solemn decree.
In summary, we hold that this sacrament, as has been stated already, has no power or efficacy of its own unless it is used and received, even as you see in all other sacraments.
52. Hilary is brought against us, but he had great controversies with the Arians and fought against them because they thought there is no union between the Father and the Son except by an agreement of wills. Hilary says to them, “I ask whether there is between us and Christ a union by natural property or by agreement of will?”266 For the Arians would seize on that place where Christ prayed that we should be made one with him, just as he and the Father are themselves one—in John 17, where it says “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 consent and will, and from this inferred that between the Son of God and the Father no other union occurs than this. Hilary [89] therefore had to demonstrate that we are united to Christ naturally, in order to show that the Son also is naturally joined to the Father. His proof is as follows. If the Word of God truly assumed human nature, he communicated naturally with us in his flesh and we are to abide in him, because he himself has our nature in him. And in turn in the Lord’s Supper, if we truly receive his flesh, we participate in him naturally, and he truly abides in us. Thus Hilary argues from the truth of sacraments, which we do not deny. This was the Fathers’ custom, to draw arguments from the sacraments, the things known best. But there is nothing here against our opinions, for Hilary does not contend that the flesh of Christ is under accidents, hidden or covered in this sacrament. He holds only that in communicating we are truly joined to Christ’s flesh; we do not deny that at all. But let us consider [mihi consyderate] that a little before those words on the Eucharist, this Father says the same thing about baptism, that through it we are joined to Christ and each other, not only by unity of assent and will but in nature.267 There again you are forced to posit transubstantiation, if you introduce it into the Eucharist for this reason.
Nor is Chrysostom wide of this habit of taking arguments from sacraments. In homily 83 on Matthew, as we cited before, he says that these are symbols of the Lord Jesus, by which we curb and stop the mouths of heretics. For they often say, how could Christ suffer? And we in turn object that if Christ had not true flesh, these symbols are vain. This follows naturally because they would represent to us fictitious things. And so they silence Manichees, Marcionites, and other such plagues.
53. We need not labor over Leo, bishop of Rome; for in the saying put up against us he affirms a mystical distribution, setting down a spiritual nourishment and heavenly power, and stating that we pass into the flesh of Christ just as he took ours.268
They cite Emissenus, whose words are read in de Consecratione, distinction 1. But examine it closely and you find these words: “Touch with the mind and take the body of Christ with the hand of the heart.” This makes his position clear, that we eat the Lord’s body spiritually. Further, like other Fathers he strongly urges our mutation into Christ, which (as we see) is still without transubstantiation.269
[90] I know that some may wonder why we so often oppose the changing which the Fathers seem to add to the symbols, with the change in ourselves, which they consider equal. Some imagine a far different union between us and the body of Christ, so that the analogy and proportion does not obtain, even though the Fathers hold both. To this we answer and say that our argument is most effective because it is from the greater to the less by negation. For the union of Christ with us and those who communicate is greater than with the symbols. Therefore since transubstantiation is not required in our case, much less is it for symbols. That we are joined with Christ more than are symbols is clear because the latter union was created on account of the former. Moreover the words and Spirit through which the symbols are consecrated apply much less to them than to humans.270
54. As to Theophylact, we say that he is a recent writer, who happened to live in that time when many questions about transubstantiation began to be raised, under Nicholas, bishop of Rome, in the time of Lanfranc and Berengar.271 He was not a man of much judgment, as can be shown from his interpretation of John 3 at the end, where he accuses the Latin church by name on the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. So we should not think his authority so great as to prejudge its truth; still we shall examine his statements. In his work on Matthew he asserts that bread is not a figure of the body of Christ.272 Now if he means something empty and vain, he speaks rightly; we do not appoint such a figure either. That this is his interpretation is not to be doubted, for on Mark he says that it is not only a figure; otherwise, if he denied a figure absolutely he would be against the other Fathers, whom we clearly showed here positing both sign and figure.273 He says that bread is transformed, converted, and transelemented; if these words are taken sacramentally we do not mind. For bread and wine become sacraments, passing into elements of divine things, and put on a symbolic form. But they say that he writes that the flesh and blood is not seen, lest we abhor it. Now if you urge these [91] words too strongly we object what he wrote on Mark: the forms of bread and wine are changed into the power of the body and blood of the Lord. If you insist that elsewhere he does not say “into the power,” but “into the body and blood of the Lord,” we reply that this is the interpretation of those words, that these signs take the power of the things, so that the sacraments have nothing less than if the reality were there. As I have said, the offense is removed if we determine that the change is made not into the reality but into the power.
Another saying of his seems more forced, where he writes on John 6: “Just as, while Christ lived on earth, bread was changed into his flesh by the usual manner of nourishment through natural mutation, so this bread is changed into the body of Christ.”274 We conceded that this analogy is generally accepted. We do not deny a sacramental change to the sacrament. But suppose you take this similitude just as it stands, that the bread is as truly changed in the sacrament of the Eucharist as it was converted into Christ’s flesh while he lived here, through his own food and sustenance. Then an absurdity follows, contrary to your own opinion, namely that accidents of the symbols are not retained in this sacrament, because they were not kept in Christ’s sustenance while he lived here.
I may add that on those words in John 6, “Who eats my flesh and drinks my blood dwells in me and I in him,” the same exegete says that this happens while he is mixed with us, so to speak, and transelemented into me. Here again you see that along with the other Fathers he affirms such a change of ourselves into Christ as to say that we are transelemented into him. So much for Theophylact.
55. Among more recent men they cite Anselm, Hugh, and Richard of St. Victor. But since the dogma of transubstantiation had been forced on their age, these men served the time by their writings, and their new invention should not prejudice the opinion of the most ancient church and the teaching of the oldest Fathers.
They seem to make the most of one among the rest, John of Damascus, who in book 4 in his On the Orthodox Faith, chapter 14, wrote at length on the subject. Now I find that he lived under Leo Isauricus, emperor of Greece. There were almost one hundred and twenty years between Gregory the Great, bishop of Rome, and this John. Already in Gregory’s time many superstitions and human inventions were piling [92] up in the church, and things became even worse afterwards. So it is no wonder that Damascene inclined toward many half-truths and superstitions. We have a specimen of his judgment in doctrine and in expounding Scripture. He was much in favor of images, and ran great risks in their defense. In this same fourth book he wrote a particular chapter on the matter, in which he would have them not only made but worshipped and honored.275 Besides, he held the relics of departed saints in such honor that he devoted a special chapter to them, in which he is not afraid to call them the fountain of divine gifts.276 He is bold to say that we should worship the saints by faith, something intolerable, since faith is owing only to God and to his words. He has a sermon on purgatory in which he states that Emperor Trajan, an idolater and persecutor of martyrs, was freed from the punishment of hell by the prayers of Gregory. Also that the idolatrous woman Falconilla had been saved by the prayers of a certain man after she was dead and held in the bonds of hell. He introduces a fable about one Marcarius, who conversed with the skull of a dead man, from which he heard that the souls of the dead which are harassed by pains, experience relief at the time of the sacrifice of the mass. He sprinkles the whole sermon with these stories.277 When he writes about the resurrection, he tries to prove it from the book of Genesis, where it is written that the Lord said to Noah, “You shall not eat the flesh with the blood, for I will require your lives at the hands of beasts.”278 He will require them, he says, at the resurrection, for beasts do not die on man’s account. It seems that he did not know the law given by God in Exodus and in Deuteronomy, where he commands the stoning of an ox that had gored and killed a man.279 In the chapter on Virginity he writes: “If Adam had not sinned, men would not have been joined in marriage, to procreate.” Seeing that the divine saying, “Increase and multiply,” is against him, he says that perhaps men could have multiplied through some other part of the body!280 No scholastic theologian would have said that. The same man twists Basil: when he says bread and wine are antitypes, [93] that is, examples of the body of Christ, he expounds him as meaning before consecration.281 This is absurd, for before consecration they have no more in them than other ordinary food. If this is the way they signify Christ’s body and blood, they would be sacraments already before the pronouncement of the words of the Lord. In the Greek Mass after consecration they pray openly that the bread may become the body and blood of Christ. And according to the Mass of Basil those words come after consecration. In our own canon, if you look carefully, after consecration it is named bread.282
56. Now let us examine his arguments. The first is from the power of God. Since he was able to create heaven and earth by his Word, to produce plants, animals, birds, and fish, why could he not make his body from bread? That sort of argument is very weak; in fact, the present dispute is not about the divine power. We do not deny that God is able to turn bread into flesh, but the entire contention is whether he wills to do it.283
His other argument is derived from Christ’s words, for he says that “this is a figure or sign of my body” was not said by the Lord; it is declared to be the Lord’s own body. We have already replied to this argument. If he means it absolutely when he denies the sacrament to be a figure of the Lord’s body, he has almost all the Fathers against him, for they acknowledge a figure here. But if he means not merely a figure, a vain or empty sign, we give him this readily. Still, he mixes certain words in his writings which suggest that he is not so crass as he appears. For he says that the bread of communion is not simple bread, but has divinity adjoined.284 We easily allow this, saying that it is not common or simple but now sanctified and converted into the nature of a sacrament. It can therefore be said that divinity is added, since the Holy Spirit uses it as an instrument for our salvation.
[94] He compares it also to baptism, stating that God always condescends to our ways and customs, and since we wash in water and anoint with oil; therefore God joined to these things his grace and Spirit in baptism. Thus, since it is a human custom to eat bread and drink wine, he joined his divinity to these things.285 To follow the transubstantiators he should not have added to but extinguished their natures. The nature of analogy requires that just as the union of grace and the Holy Spirit in baptism neither repels nor destroys the nature of water, even so the reality of this sacrament does not destroy or cast out the essence of the symbols.286
He also says that God condescended to our ways so that through familiar things and according to their nature we may reach what is beyond nature. Here he deals with our transmutation into Christ.287 We should note that he holds the sacramental symbols to be natural, and if you suppose them to be only accidents without a subject, or having the body of Christ hidden within, they are no longer natural. Indeed he uses terms in which he says that the nature of bread is changed, consumed, made Christ’s body; if they are taken in regard to the change of the sacrament they do not contradict us; we accept what he says, that these things happen beyond nature. For it is not natural for a sacrament to be made from common bread, nor for the washing of regeneration to consist of natural water. But if you ask for the mode of this change into the body of Christ, he says it is not easy for us to express the way bread passes into our flesh in ordinary nourishment. How to take this likeness was described sufficiently above, when we spoke about Theophylact. It is enough to take the simile generally and apply it to sacramental mutation; but if you want a special analogy for such a change as food’s entering our body and being converted into flesh, then you destroy not only the nature of bread but also its accidents.
57. He adds that bread is made the body of Christ and wine and water his blood, so that they are not two but one.288 If he refers the unity to the cup and the bread as if to say they are one sacrament, we will not labor the point. For in this action Christ is given us as food, as [95] if by one sacrament, although in receiving its two parts the church is not afraid to say in the plural, here are sacraments. In the Collect of the Mass after communion you often read, “The sacraments which we have received,” and so on. But suppose they say that they are one, so that after consecration the bread and body of Christ, because of transubstantiation, are now one and not two. Then we oppose with the opinion of Irenaeus, where he writes, the Eucharist consists of two things, namely earthly and heavenly.289 Also Pope Gelasius, who argued from the union of bread with the body of Christ, the natures remaining whole, that the union of human and divine natures in Christ maintains them both whole and inviolate. He adds moreover that this sacrament is not passed out of the body.290 Surely the transubstantiators can say nothing else, for since they allow to the Eucharist nothing but accidents and the nature of Christ’s body, there is nothing that pertains to elimination.
Against these things I object a clear place of Origen, on Matthew 15, where he interprets the words “What enters the mouth does not defile a man.” He says, “If it does not defile, neither does it sanctify. But what shall we say about the bread of the Lord? Is it true that it neither sanctifies nor defiles?” He replies, “If anything seems to be impure, it does not defile us, unless through an evil conscience. Even so what is seen and called holy does not sanctify unless there is uprightness and integrity of the inner life. For if it were able to sanctify through its own nature, there would not have been among the Corinthians ‘so many weak and infirm, nor many who slept’. […] Therefore whatever is material in the bread of the Lord passes into the stomach and beyond. But whatever comes through prayer and the word of the Lord profits the soul according to the proportion of faith. So it is not the material that is useful, but the word that is added benefits the soul.” In case you think that he speaks of some other food, he recapitulates: “These things concern the mystical and symbolic body.”291 No one will deny that Origen sometimes erred in doctrine. Yet Jerome, Epiphanius, and the Fathers who most diligently examined his errors, never mention that his judgment on the Eucharist was faulty; they would not have done so if he had been wrong on so great a point. In the same place [96] he adds most clearly that the wicked do not eat the body of Christ, because it gives life, and whoever eats it abides in him.
Therefore let Origen, a most ancient Father and of great renown, be opposed to John of Damascus, a recent and not illustrious writer.
58. Then there was objected to us from the Council of Ephesus what Cyril wrote in its name to Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople; for there was agitation against him at that time.292 He affirmed that the human person in Christ is completely distinct and separate from the person of the Son of God, so that there was no kind of unity except one of dignity. The argument against him was from the nature of sacraments. If the flesh of Christ is so separate from the divine person, it follows that it is not life-giving; if we grant that Christ’s flesh is in the sacraments, we would eat the flesh of a man, somehow sanctified and exalted. But from that we could not obtain eternal life according to the promise. This is the scope of all those debates. Those Fathers do not maintain or try to prove that Christ’s flesh lies hidden in bread, but wish us to eat it in the sacrament in truth, and to eat such flesh as will give us life eternal. We do not deny this, if the mode of eating is understood to pertain to the spirit and to faith. For we grant that in the sacrament the flesh of Christ is eaten spiritually yet truly. Nor do we ever pretend that it is disjoined and separated from the divine person of the Word.
They object to us the Council of Rome or Vercelli, where Berengar was condemned, and compelled to recant. Since the acts of such councils are not extant we cannot answer at length. So it is best to weigh the recantation itself, prescribed by Pope Nicholas to Berengar in the council, to see how important this council was and whether those who presided were of sound mind. In the decrees de Consecratio, dist. 2 chapter Ego Berengarius, one finds the text in which he had to confess that the body of Christ is handled physically by the hands of the priests, that it is broken and torn with the teeth.293 How well such things agree with the body of Christ now glorified, and with his sacrament, may be judged by any wise man.
The commentator on the decrees, a man otherwise of denser intellect, could not help seeing such absurdity.294 He therefore says, these things are to be taken with caution and skill, or else you will fall [97] into greater error than that under which Berengar labored. For he saw that it is not fitting to say that the body of Christ may be felt physically in the sacrament, or be broken or torn with the teeth. And trying to heal this wound, the Master of the Sentences says, book 4: these things are not to be attributed to the body of Christ, but to the symbols, which they hold to be accidents.295 So he identifies a trope in that speech, in which what belongs to the symbols is attributed to the reality. If we use the figure properly in interpreting the Fathers when they speak extravagantly to the people about this sacrament, the adversaries shout that we corrupt and distort or falsify their writings, whereas here they rush to the same anchors. They want a trope where one should least be present, namely in explaining the doctrine and crafting the recantation, things that ought to be clearest of all. So we do not linger over this council, which acted most crassly.
59. They also appeal to the Synod of Constance, where Wyclif was condemned, and John Hus and Jerome of Prague were burned for certain opinions, especially because they were against transubstantiation, which was prescribed there by full decree.296 We must certainly call this council treacherous, since it saw to the killing of those two men who had come under safe conduct. The emperor also took this badly, for he had given his own word; otherwise, the Bohemians would never have allowed those men to go to the council. As for their decree on transubstantiation, there is the point that it is a recent opinion. Nor should we take seriously what many say, that it was confirmed by decree but not first established, because under Nicholas, bishop of Rome in the Synod of Vercelli and Rome, it had been declared clearly enough. We grant indeed that this opinion broke out before the council of Constance; but because it was not fully received and met much opposition everywhere, they thought it necessary to reestablish it arbitrarily, by fire and severe threats.297
Against this council we object the general and ecumenical Council of Florence, held under Bishop Eugene IV, who attended it. Also [98] present was the emperor of the Greeks, with the patriarch of Constantinople and many bishops of the East. In the council, the Greek church was united with the Latin, and they settled the dissension over the Holy Spirit. In the acts of that council we may see that after agreement was reached between men of the Eastern and Latin rites concerning articles, the pope would have gone further and had them deal with transubstantiation, receiving it according to the Latin opinion. At that point the Greeks resisted and would have none of it, nor could they be driven to give their consent by any other arguments. When letters of union were to be drawn up and published, they took good care that there should be no mention of it. This may be observed in the bull of Eugene, which begins “Let the heavens rejoice and let the earth be glad.” In it he rejoices with the Christian world for this blessing of the Greek and Latin Churches being reunited.298 Now if this transubstantiation had been of such great moment, the Roman Church would never have been joined with the Greek which did not accept it. Today they say that it is a grave heresy not to admit it. But it is unbelievable that the Latin Church should at that time have joined with heretics and communicated with them. Here also the argument concerning the universal consent of the church dissolves, for what they assume is not true, that all churches agreed together on this. That ancient church existing in the time of the Fathers (as we have showed), never dreamed of such a thing, while the Eastern and Greek Church thought exactly like us.
60. To their arguments they add considerable praise of the divine power, to induce men to believe so great a miracle.299 But the reasoning is very flimsy. What they should have shown was never proved, namely that God willed to do it and that the Scriptures promise it to us. They point to “This is my body,” but this is the very point in controversy, and can have another meaning. Thus the argument is rendered weak, and can be proved vacuous by an example. The Lord said to Nicodemus, “None can enter the kingdom of heaven unless he is born again.” He began to ask, “How can a man of mature age or an old man [99] enter again into his mother’s womb?”300 One could say to him, Christ has now declared that it shall be so; why do you doubt the power of God, by which all things are created? By it you can surely be born again from your mother’s womb. Yet Christ did not say so, but declared that it would occur through spiritual rebirth. Even if he did [not] mention water relating to baptism, he clearly taught that we must be reborn by the Spirit. We see the same things here: Christ commands us to eat his flesh, and taking bread said, “This is my body.” The transubstantiators say, the body of Christ cannot be one with bread; therefore its nature is transubstantiated into the body of Christ; and they would persuade us that this is done by the power of God. Meanwhile they plead that they are not alone, because when Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Cyril debate mutation, they point us to the power of God, and celebrate it with adoring praise.
We reply that the Fathers speak well. No doubt it is within God’s power to change bread and wine into sacraments, which they were not before; nor is it a work of nature that they should so powerfully and effectively signify, offer, and exhibit the body and blood of the Lord, to be grasped by our souls and by faith. Thus the Holy Spirit is involved here, the Lord’s institution is of great moment, while the words uttered by divine inspiration and now repeated have much to contribute. Add to these that while we communicate we experience a change or conversion into Christ, far exceeding the power of nature. Now, since the supernatural power of God may be required for all these things, they apply it to transubstantiation. It is as if we should argue affirmatively from the more universal to the more particular, which is not allowed.301
Moreover, the same power is required in baptism, since it is not a work of nature that water should become the fountain of regeneration. Yet some do not welcome such comparison of baptism with Eucharist. For though they cannot deny that Christ is also present in baptism, and is given to us (for it is written, “As many of you as are baptized have put on Christ”),302 yet they say that Christ is in the Eucharist in a better and more excellent way than in baptism; therefore, bread is transubstantiated, while water does not need to be transubstantiated. We reply to them that we need not bother much in which of the sacraments [100] Christ is more eminent if it be granted that he is in both; and as he may be present in the one with the substance of the elements remaining whole, even so in the other. If you contend at all about their value, the excellence of baptism may be shown by cogent reasons. For it is greater to be born than to be nourished; again, baptism was made famous by many miracles: the heavens were opened, the voice of the Father was heard, and the Holy Spirit was seen in the form of a dove—nothing like this happened in instituting the Eucharist. We do not say this to degrade this sacrament, for it is most worthy and should be highly honored, but to answer the objections about the power of God. We already showed from Augustine, On the Trinity book 3 chapter 10, that such great miracles as they assert are not to be accepted.303 You have the same thing in the poem of Gregory Nazianzen, in which all Christ’s miracles are treated, without mentioning those that are the greatest and without peer, if we are to believe them.304 Augustine also dealt with the miracles of Scripture, in a certain book of his entitled the Book of Miracles, but does not mention transubstantiation.305 So it seems that we should not introduce an argument for this opinion from the divine power, which we do not deny; but rather argue that in this sacrament it is required.
61. Next they alleged that their opinion had been confirmed by many wonders and miracles, which may be read in Cyprian, in the life of Gregory, and in many other writers. To this we answer that miracles might happen for three reasons. One is, to keep back rogues and the unworthy from such a sacrament, which kind of miracle we allow. For the apostle writes that among the Corinthians many were feeble and weak, and many slept, because they communicated unworthily.306 I think that those of whom Cyprian writes are to be considered under this heading. Another kind of miracle is sometimes used to illustrate the dignity and greatness of this glorious sacrament, and this we do not reject, for we know that baptism was often adorned with many miracles. A third kind could be for the confirmation of this opinion or rather error of transubstantiation. This is the way our adversaries oppose it to us. But miracles of this kind are to be completely rejected. [101] We are warned about it by the Law: whenever a prophet tries to entice men to idolatry and superstition, even though he gains credence by miracles, he is not to be believed, but the Lord wants him stoned.307 And we know that the Antichrist will come, and will become famous through signs and wonders. Nor are we ignorant that in the time of Moses the magicians stood before Pharaoh and performed miracles against the Word of God. We read in Irenaeus, book 1, about the impostor and heretic named Mark who in this sacrament of the Eucharist deluded the simple by wonders.308 For he changed the color of the wine, so that it appeared entirely blood, and by his illusions increased a little wine so much that the whole cup was full and overflowing. Again, when there was a larger cup of greater capacity, it too was filled to the brim without more liquid. Who would say that his heresy should be approved on account of these miracles? If we turn to the heathen, we read that rivers of blood flowed on the earth, blood pouring from the thumb of Jove. Livy tells how it rained flesh at Rome; Quintus Curius, that when Tyre was besieged by Alexander the Great, bread oozed blood before everyone. And it is said that when Apollonius of Tyana was in the council before Emperor Domitian he suddenly vanished and could not be found.309 The things that the heathen can bring to support their service of idols are infinite. Therefore we completely reject these miracles which they claim establish the superstition of transubstantiation.
Nor is it a great thing which they introduce about a miracle wrought by Gregory the Roman Pontiff: it is written in his biography that the bread of the Lord, or call it the sacrament of the Eucharist, was turned into a finger of flesh. If this were done for the two reasons we allow, there would not be much to argue over. But that life of Gregory has not much weight. For if we believe Vincent, it was written a hundred years after his death by John, a deacon of Rome, and sent to a certain emperor of Germany.310 Even granted its worth, the adversaries wish to conclude from a finger of flesh that the flesh of Christ lies [102] hidden corporeally under accidents. One could infer from this kind of miracle that under the sacramental forms there are contained ashes and coals, because in Cyprian’s time the holy bread was once turned into these, as he himself wrote. Also I believe that it is not unknown for frauds often to use illusions for the construction of miracles.
62. Another argument strongly pushed the dignity of the glorified body which after resurrection is called spiritual. We do not deny it, but recall Augustine in the letter to Consentius, that such a body is not so spiritual that it passes into the nature of spirit. For Paul also calls the body in some sense animal, which cannot be understood if the body passes into the nature of soul.311 Again, The City of God, chapter 20: “At times while the soul obeys the flesh, it is called fleshly, not because it passes into the nature of flesh; likewise the body is called spiritual, not because of its passing into the nature of spirit but because it will completely subject its entire will to spirit.”312 In the epistle to Pammachius (an apology against John, bishop of Jerusalem, who attributed an ethereal or airy body to the souls of the risen, which would be subject neither to touch nor to eating) Jerome argued that after the resurrection Christ possessed without any doubt a most true body, quite visible.313 And he presented an objection: if it was thus visible and the same body, why was it not known when he showed himself like a stranger? He answers, because their eyes were held fast, that they should not know him; as if to say that what belongs to the nature of body was not only visible but recognizable, unless there was an impediment in the eyes, holding them back. Therefore since Christ had a true body after the resurrection, bound to its dimensions and space, we have no reason to rob it of these properties, and force it into the straits of a bit of bread, as though it were contained within it no matter how great it is. But granted that this too may be done by God’s power, can it simply be concluded that it is done? The argument is weak, as we showed before.
They reasoned also from the Greek article, when Christ said touto estin to sôma mou, as if the article has power to draw the proposition to its correct sense, and allow no trope.314 They are deceived, for the Greek article does not always possess that power, as is clearly shown in [103] Luke 8, where Christ explains the parable he gave about the sower of the seed, and says ho sporos estin ho logos tou Theou, where you see that the Greek article is added to the Word of God.315 Yet this text does not demand that the Word of God should be held as though it is properly, really, and corporeally in that seed cast on the ground, about which the parable was first made. It is said to be contained in it by the strength and property of signification, in the same way we take it in the words of the Lord, “This is my body.” For we may say that the Lord’s body is not predicated of bread except through signification.
An argument was also taken from Christ’s promise, “I will be with you to the end of the age,” which is no problem for our position.316 For we admit that Christ is present with us [nobis] through the divine nature, through grace and the many gifts that his Spirit offers us. If we desire his blood and flesh beyond that, we can have them in this sacrament by faith and spiritual eating, after which there follows our truest yet secret and ineffable union with Christ, when we are changed into him.
63. It was proposed afterwards that if things stand like this, it follows that our sacraments contain nothing more than the sacraments of the old law, since Christ was signified in them as well.317 In truth, if we regard the nature of symbols, the reality was more fully shadowed than in our sacraments, which are completely without blood. In the sacrifices of the ancients, the slaughter was plainly seen, and the blood shed there more clearly represented the death of the Lord and placed it before man’s eyes, than do our bread and wine.
We reply that in terms of the reality, our sacraments are one with those of the fathers, the same thing being given in both even though the signs vary. So Paul testified in 1 Corinthians.318 Still, our sacraments have many advantages over the old. For they are established never to be changed until the end of the age; nor do they show something that has yet to be done, but what is already accomplished. They are simpler, and relate to a greater number of people. And since they [104] are clearer, they excite more faith, followed by a fuller measure of the Spirit. Their greater clarity does not result, as the adversaries imagine, from a more obvious form of the outward symbols, but from the nature of the words spoken in them. For our finished redemption is announced in clear words, stronger than could be generally understood by the ancients. If the thing is expressed more clearly by words, an outward representation is not to be expected. They also wondered how it is possible, if things are as we claim, for the church to have been so long in such a serious error. They would not wonder if they considered what Christ said of his final advent: “Do you think that when the Son of Man comes, he will find faith on earth?”319 So great was the coming error showed to be that if it were possible, even the elect would be led astray. Will these men please tell us what kind of church Christ found at his first coming? Had not the scribes and Pharisees, priests, and high priests corrupted and tainted everything with their traditions? Yet we are not to think that the church was left completely in error, for there were always many good people who were displeased at these things and condemned them. And since at the first advent there were Simeon, the widow Anna, Joseph and the Virgin Mary, Elizabeth and John the Baptist, who were faithful and of excellent judgment, the church could not be termed utterly forsaken. So also in these last times the whole church is not infected with these human traditions.
They also say that the fact of signification may occur in meals through bread and wine, so that we need not honor the Eucharist so much. But the argument is feeble, because in ordinary food there is no institution of the Lord, no sacraments, no words of the Lord heard or any promise given. Therefore they are not comparable.
64. Finally, an argument was introduced from the power and efficacy of the Word of God. A dictum of Ambrose cited in Alger, book 1 chapter 7, calls it a working word [operatorium], since the bread and wine remain the same yet are changed into something else.320 We accept the words of [ab] Ambrose willingly. We also affirm that bread and wine remain the same, not (as the transubstantiators say) by accidents or species experiencing such change that the substance disappears; they are conserved in their proper natures, the change occurring through sacramental grace. We take nothing away from the efficacy of [105] the Lord’s words, yet think it unsuitable to refer to them as if they were an incantation, so that the result follows whenever and however they are pronounced by the priest over bread and wine with an intention to consecrate. For everything depends on the Lord’s institution and the action of the Holy Spirit. We need not worry over Algerius, for he comes after Berengar’s time, and mentions his recantation in his writings.321 Moreover his judgment may be gathered from a certain argument of his, in chapter 21 of the first book. Seeking to prove that the ungodly as well as the godly receive the body of Christ in the sacrament, which indeed follows from transubstantiation, he says: “Take a simile from the outward word, that is, speech made through sound. For anyone reached by such speech, it contains and has its own proper sense. If it comes to men of intelligence they hear with profit for they perceive what is said. But if it comes to unlearned and ignorant men, it carries its proper meaning just as much, but is of no use to the hearers because they do not understand.”322 In his argument this man presumes that words bear their sense with them, but does not consider that the sense is not included or enclosed really, as they say, in the sound or form of the letters, but only through signification.323 If the same thing were said to him about the bread and wine in sacraments, that they offer the body of Christ through signification, he would be refuted by his own simile. This proves that the ungodly do not receive the body of the Lord, like the rude and ignorant who hear Greek and Latin speech but do not catch the meaning. So nothing better could have been said on our behalf. The same author states in the first chapter of the second book that the accidents in the sacraments by no means suffer decay or spoiling, but it only seems so to us, a thing the Scholastics would not have said.324 What else is this but to appoint a permanent illusion of the senses? So we need not put much stock in him, even though he tries to support his transubstantiation by every means.
[106] ALTERNATIVES TO TRANSUBSTANTIATION
65. We have now explored the first opinion at length, because when it is removed many superstitions are abolished. We shall not discuss the other two in such detail, for we do not care particularly which of them is held, providing it is understood soundly. We speak of them now only in order to see what we think is to be avoided in both, and what accepted. Thus there have been some who retained the substance of bread and wine, and also the body and blood of the Lord, joining the Lord’s body and blood by the closest bond to these symbols which remain in their own nature. Yet I do not think they do so to make one person [hypostasis] of these things so united. Still, as they have said, the body and the blood of Christ are really, corporeally and naturally in the bread and wine. Now others have joined them together only through signification. The first opinion is attributed to Luther, the other to Zwingli; yet I have heard from worthy men that Luther regards this matter not so crassly, while Zwingli thought not so lightly of the sacraments.325
They say that Luther inclined to exaggeration and to language which exceeds the truth, because he thought Zwingli and others wished to make the sacraments bare and empty signs, whereas Zwingli intended no such thing. But he in turn was afraid that Luther might affirm things which detract from the truth of human nature, and “impanate” the body of Christ, so that a greater superstition would be nourished. Therefore he saw fit to treat this sacrament more lightly. So a controversy was aroused beyond what was called for, causing great harm, when actually the disagreement was more about words than reality. In dealing with these two we shall separate the opinions from the persons; for we do not hold that either Zwingli or Luther was of such a view, but only examine certain opinions that are circulated.
[107] THE LUTHERAN TEACHING
66. Those who join Christ’s body so crassly to symbols bring two similes in order better to present their case. The first is: if you have a pot full of wine and state “This is wine,” you do not lie, because you show the very wine contained in the cup. Similarly if you take heated iron and point to the fire, saying “This is fire,” you do not speak falsely or absurdly. In the same way, they say, what the Lord says (”This is my body”) is to be understood, and they admit the figure synecdoche. For since they show a compound subject, it is not a true proposition unless it refers to one part of what is demonstrated.326
It should be understood that they do not take these similes as if they believed them to correspond with the truth at every point. Rather they contend that the body of Christ is not present locally but only definitively, which they understand in terms of anything not circumscribed by measure of place, but said to be present because its nature or essence is appointed to that place, or at work in it.327 Yet this does not agree with the existence of wine in a cup, for it has its place there where it is enclosed. Moreover these men do not say that the body of Christ is in the bread in such a way that it takes the name from its qualities or accidents, for it cannot truly be called white, round, baked, or cooked. Yet we see this happen to fire which is mixed with glowing iron: it so follows the form of iron, the length, breadth, and depth, that it can be described from this shape and form. From this it seems clear that the likeness in this opinion is not taken by them in every detail, but only so that a true and real union of the sacrament and the reality may be demonstrated. When this is allowed, it follows that the faithful and the unfaithful alike receive the body of Christ. First, of course, they think that the reality of this union is sufficiently proved by the words of the Lord. But they see that the other matter, that Christ’s body is given even to the wicked, necessarily follows. We have already showed the opposite, namely that these words of Christ do not demand this meaning; [108] and it has been proved by effective reasons that the wicked receive only outward elements.
67. They also argue that if the words of Scripture are taken figuratively it could easily happen that many precepts would be overthrown. When circumcision was commanded, Abraham might have said, the words are figurative and I shall satisfy this law if I circumcise my heart and cut off the desires and vices of the flesh. Again, when choice of meat was enjoined, the Israelites might have said that the fulfillment of the precept could consist in its moral observance, by not committing those sins signified by unclean beasts. Thus neither circumcision nor the distinction of meats would count for anything.
The strength of this argument may be shown from the letter and proof-text, that it is not a figurative speech. As to circumcision, it is appointed on the eighth day after the child’s birth, and adds that the covenant of the Lord was to be done in the very flesh. From this it appears that true circumcision was commanded. And in the distinction of meats, the conditions of clean and unclean creatures are so expressly described, and purifying of offenders so instituted, that no doubtful ground remains. We also have a rule of Augustine, On Christian doctrine, in which he shows that unless an evil act is commanded, or some good work prohibited, the passage is to be taken without trope.328 If this rule is applied to the choice of meat and to circumcision, he shows that the words of God are to be understood simpliciter.
They say moreover that in the prophets and the histories, figures are admitted freely because there the Holy Spirit acts in human ways, and accommodates himself to their familiar speech, that he may express more and more earnestly what is to be said. But in doctrine and precepts we must not judge quite the same: they say that everything should be taken absolutely. Their opinion is not firm or universal, for instance in the Lord’s precept, “Beware the leaven of the Pharisees.” Here he clearly uses a figure, so that the apostles were deceived. Moreover in Matthew 7 he commands them to beware of false prophets, saying “They will come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves.”329 Who does not see a figure of speech in this command? Also in teaching doctrine there is no doubt that figures and tropes are used. Paul says in the New Testament, “The rock was Christ; [109] we are one bread.” And it is written of God that he is a consuming fire.330
68. After this they contend that the body of Christ can be everywhere according to his words to Nicodemus in John 3, where it is said “No one ascends into heaven but he that descends from heaven, the Son of Man who is in heaven.”331 See, they say, the Son of Man, that is, Christ, spoke to them about his human nature, and was also in heaven because the human nature cannot be torn from the divine; therefore what is said of one is to be affirmed of the other. I answer: although we should not divide these two natures from one another, yet it does not follow that what pertains to one is also to be given to the other. We surely grant that the divinity of Christ is everywhere, yet will not extend this to his body and humanity. Augustine quite clearly taught this To Dardanus.332 And what is brought out of the third chapter of John is interpreted by the same Augustine, that the Son of God was in heaven according to his divine nature.333 Nor did Chrysostom judge otherwise, when he expounded this place. For he affirms that to be in heaven was not attributed to the Son of Man but to his better nature.334
How feeble an argument this is—that these two natures are joined together; therefore what is granted to one must be also attributed to the other—can be shown by a similar argument. The solar body and its light have between them a natural and highest conjunction, yet that body does not really attain to every place the light reaches. So our body, eye, and sight are joined with each other and yet our sight apprehends many things which our physical eye does not contact.
They argue later that many things must be conceded to Christ’s body beyond the ordinary course and conditions of other bodies. There are two reasons for this: partly because it is glorified, partly [110] because [quia] it has the Word joined with it. We acknowledge that many things are to be accepted; but if the nature of a human body is to be preserved, to be everywhere cannot be appropriate to it. For if we grant this we would not add nobility to it but destruction, since it would then be forced from its own nature. Moreover, it does not take the matter much further: even if we grant that Christ’s body has this power to be in many places, it would not therefore follow that God wishes to act the same way in this sacrament.
69. They strive to prove this corporeal presence by the likeness of a teacher. Since he is able to extend his words to many hearers, he communicates his mental concepts to them so that all alike understand him fully. Even so, they say, the Lord acts in the words pronounced at the sacrament. He wraps his body in them, so that by them he might be revealed in all these symbols, and communicated to all who receive. Therefore why not allow Christ what is granted an earthly master?335 But the comparison is far-fetched, and as we said before, words do not carry the substance or concept of mind, except by way of signification.
Their purpose is not served either by what they attempt to add from Ephesians 1, where it is said that the body of Christ is everywhere: Christ is given as head of the body the church, which is as the Greek has it “the fullness of him who fills all in all.”336 For that does not mean that the body of Christ fills everything and is everywhere as they infer. The meaning of that verb or participle plêroumenou is ambiguous, for it can be taken both actively and passively, since it is a middle verb. If you understand it passively, according to the Greek scholia, the meaning is that Christ the head of the church is filled in all his members in regard to all things, not that he is completed in his own person. For he is perfect and sufficiently blessed, and is to be regarded in terms of the body and members. As the headship is conferred on him, so the church is understood as the fullness of Christ, so that it fills and perfects his mystical body. But if the sense is active, then Christ is said to be head in that he himself perfects all gifts and virtues in all his members. The meaning is not that he is everywhere as man.
It is also thought that this can be proved from Scripture because Christ clearly acknowledges that Lazarus was dead, although he was not there.337 But if one contends that he did not have a glorified body [111] at the time, then it matters little because he still had divinity joined with it. But to remove uncertainty, after the resurrection the angel said to the woman, “He is risen, he is not here,” and “He goes before you into Galilee”; again, “He was removed from their sight” when he ascended to heaven.338 Therefore he does not fill all things, nor is he everywhere.
70. They also like to cite a place in Ephesians 4, “He that descended is the same that also ascended even above all heavens, that he might fill all things.”339 Yet this passage proves nothing, and is interpreted in two ways. First, to fill all things is referred to what is prophesied and written of Christ. Thus a little before he quoted the Scripture, “He ascended on high, he led captivity captive, he gave gifts to men.” If you refer it to places, you must understand this as kinds of places, not one single kind, as in the sentence, “The Lord wills all men to be saved.”340 So we may say that Christ occupies sometimes a middle place, sometimes a higher, or another time even lower, as in the sepulchre. The transubstantiators say this does not apply to them, because they do not say that the body of Christ is everywhere, but only where there is the sacrament. Still, it counts against them; for if it is not inconsistent for Christ’s body to be at one time in twenty or fifty places, as they hold, then likewise in a hundred or a thousand, and ultimately in all; hence they will make the body of Christ infinite.
Nor is there any reason to question the form of argument, because Jerome used it against John, bishop of Jerusalem, when he wished to prove that after the resurrection our bodies can remain without food.341 For he said, Elijah and Moses continued without food forty days by the power of God; therefore someone could also be sustained longer by the divine power; and if for longer, then forever if God so wills.
But to return: they see that it follows from such a close union that the sacrament may be adored; for if the Lord is contained there really and corporeally, who would not worship him? They teach that one is free to do it or not, saying: although he is there, yet not for purposes of adoration; if you receive him and eat it is enough, although if you worship [112] you do no wrong. But on the contrary we judge that in adoration the mind should not turn to the symbols.342 While the sacramental rite is performed, if one well instructed in the mystery turns his mind to adore Christ reigning in heaven he does well, and acts as he should in worshipping Christ who declares himself to him. No idolatry is committed, as Paul teaches in his letter to Corinth when he says, if a man enters your gathering who is unlearned and simple, and hears everyone speaking together in tongues, he will no doubt say, “they are mad,” and will not be edified. But if he hears you prophesy and knows the secrets of his heart to be revealed, he will fall down and worship the Lord.343 He will not worship the men making these prophecies, but since the Lord is revealed to him there, he will turn to him in adoration.
71. In short, the reasons why their crass judgment seems false are these: (1)344 that this real and corporeal presence brings no usefulness that we do not have from a spiritual presence. For in John 6 the Lord promised eternal life to those who eat him, that he would dwell with them and they with him: what more is needed? (2) Neither could the same sacraments be allowed to us and to the ancients, because they could not have obtained this real presence, since the Son of God had not yet taken human flesh. (3) It would follow that both godly and wicked eat the body of Christ. (4) Also, beyond that spiritual eating which we have in John 6, they introduce another, both carnal and corporeal, which cannot be proved since it and the other are the same, except that in the latter symbols are added, to better confirm the reality. (5) Lastly, it follows also [item] that when they attribute so much to words, they are in the same difficulty as are the transubstantiators when they say, “This is my body.” For they cannot explain themselves or say plainly and without contradiction what they mean, and how the words uttered may be true, if they do not admit a trope. (6) They diffuse the body of Christ so that it is in many places at once, in fact everywhere. Nor is it valid to say “not locally,” since even though he is there in the way that angels are said to occupy a place, this is not appropriate for a creature, as is proved above by Didymus, Basil, Augustine To Dardanus, and Cyril. You may find these texts at the end of the first disputation.345 The words of Scripture do not drive us to such a gross and [113] corporeal presence, and since faith is of the Word of God; therefore faith should not accept it.
72. The Fathers teach otherwise. Cyprian shows what sort of body is in the Eucharist when he says in his sermon on the Lord’s Supper: “Even today whoever creates, sanctifies and blesses his most true and holy body, and distributes it to those who receive in faith.” The proper body of Christ is not created afresh, or sanctified, or divided up.346
Chrysostom on Matthew 5, homily 2, opus imperfectum: “Therefore if it is so dangerous to transfer these sanctified vessels to private use, which do not contain the true body of Christ but a mystery of his body.”347 And how we are to ascend to heaven when we communicate, if we want to enjoy the body of Christ, the same Father expounds 1 Corinthians 10, homily 24. He commands us to approach Christ with all unity and love, and being made eagles in this life, to fly to heaven itself or rather above heaven. He says, “For where the corpse is, there also are the eagles. The corpse is the body of the Lord, on account of his death. For unless he had fallen, we should not have risen again. But he calls us eagles, showing that whoever comes to this body must strive towards the heights, having nothing in common with earth, nor follow and clutch lower things, but always be soaring heavenwards, and behold the sun of righteousness and have the eye of the mind farsighted; for this is a table of eagles, not of crows.”348
Again, Chrysostom on Matthew 26, homily 83: “They were ready to journey from Egypt to Palestine and therefore wore travellers’ clothes: you must ascend from earth to heaven.”349 And in the 3rd of The Priesthood: “Do you think you are still among mortals and on earth? Do you not rather think that you are translated into heaven? And casting off all carnal thoughts, with disembodied spirit and pure mind contemplate the things that are in heaven?”350
[114] 73. Augustine To Boniface has all these things in the same order and sense: “when Easter is approaching, ‘Today or the day after Christ died; on the Lord’s day he rose again; baptism is faith; the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body.’”351 We see that in all the sayings we have considered what is really absent is predicated of what is present. The same Father on Psalm 54: “The head was in heaven, and he said, why do you persecute me? We are with him in heaven through hope, he is with us on earth through love.” And in letter 119 to Januarius: “Thus to that persecutor whom he smote with the voice and ate up as it were by transferring him into his body, he called from heaven ‘Saul Saul, why do you persecute me?’”352 On John, tract 30, as also in the de Consecrat. dist. 2, in fact the first: “The Lord is above, yet here is the truth of the Lord. For the Lord’s body in which he arose should be in one place, yet his truth is scattered everywhere.”353 Also on John, tract 50: “for in respect to his majesty, his providence, and the ineffable and invisible grace, what was spoken by him is fulfilled, ‘Behold I will be with you until the end of the age’;354 but in respect to the flesh which the word assumed, in respect to that which was born of a virgin, which was seized by the Jews, fastened to a tree, taken down from the cross, wrapped in clothes, buried in a sepulchre, revealed in resurrection, ‘me you have not always with you.’355 Therefore, since he had for forty days been close to his disciples according to his bodily presence, they escorted him and watched but did not follow as he ascended to heaven, and is not here. For there he sits at the right hand of the Father, yet is here. For he did not depart in the presence that belongs to majesty; we always have Christ. Concerning the carnal presence it is rightly said to his disciples, ‘But you will not always have me.’ For the church had him only a few days in the presence of flesh; now it holds by faith, it does not see with the eyes.”356
The same Father, on John’s letter at the end: “Therefore our Lord Jesus Christ ascended into heaven on the fortieth day, and commended his body to take a place where he was, because he saw [115] that many would honor him because he ascended to heaven, whose honor would be worthless if they trampled underfoot his members on earth. And lest anyone be mistaken, and oppress the feet on earth while adoring the head in heaven,357 he declared where his members would be. When he was about to ascend he gave some final words, and after these words spoke no more on earth. As he was about to ascend to heaven the head commended his members on earth, and departed. You no longer find Christ speaking on earth; you will find that he speaks only from heaven itself. Why? Because the earthly members were being oppressed. From heaven he said to Paul the persecutor, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?358 I ascended into heaven but I am still on earth. Here I sit at the Father’s right hand, there I still hunger, thirst, and am a stranger.’ How then did he commend his body on earth as he was going to ascend? When his disciples were asking him, ‘Lord, is this the time when you will manifest yourself and you restore the kingdom to Israel?’ He replied as he was about to leave, ‘It is not for you to know the time which the Father holds in his power; but you will receive the power of the Holy Spirit coming upon you, and will be my witnesses in Jerusalem.’359 See how he spreads out his body, see where he does not wish to be trampled. ‘You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and through all Judea and Samaria, to the end of the earth.’ Behold where I still lie as I ascend; for I ascend because I am the head. My body still abides—how? everywhere on earth.”360
74. Cyril agrees with Augustine, on John book 6, chapter 14: “We should note this: even though he was about to depart only as regards his body, yet he is always present through the majesty of his godhead, as he promised when departing from his disciples, ‘Behold I am with you always, to the end of the age.’”361 The same [Cyril] on John book 9, chapter 21: “Christ said that for a little time he would be with his disciples, not because he would depart from them completely, for he is with us always to the end of the age, but because he would not be with them as before. For now the time was near for him to go into heaven to the [116] Father. The faithful ought to believe that even though he is absent from us in body, he still directs us and all things by his power, and is present to all who love him. Therefore he said, ‘Truly truly I say to you, where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in their midst.’362 For just as when he dwelt on earth as a man yet at that time was also filling the heavens and never left the company of angels, even so now in the same way when he is in heaven he does not fill the earth with his flesh, and is with those who love him. But note that even though he was about to depart only as regards his flesh (for he is ever present through the power of his godhead, as we have said), yet he used to say that nevertheless he would be for a short time with his disciples, clearly naming himself, lest anyone dare to divide Christ into two sons.”363
To these we may add Vigilius, who writes in his first book against Eutyches: “The Son of God departs from us according to his humanity, but according to his divinity he tells us, ‘Behold I am with you always, to the end of the age.’”364 And just after: “Therefore those he has left and from whom he has departed in his humanity, he has not left nor deserted in his divinity. He is absent from us in the form of a servant which he took from us into heaven; he is present to us in the form of God, which has not gone away from us on earth. But for us he is one and the same, who is present and absent.”365 The same man in book 4: “If one nature belongs to the Word and to the flesh, why is not the flesh found everywhere, since the Word is everywhere? For when he was on earth he was surely not in heaven, and now that he is in heaven he is surely not on earth. It is not so much that we may look for Christ to come from heaven in his flesh, while as for the Word we believe that he is with us on earth. Therefore according to you either the Word is contained in a place with the flesh, or the flesh is everywhere366 with the Word, since one nature does not take to itself something contrary [117] or different. But being limited in place and being everywhere are opposite and very different. Because the Word is everywhere whereas the flesh is not everywhere, it is obvious that one and the same Christ has both natures; he is everywhere in his divine nature, and contained in a place in his human nature. Being created and not having a beginning, being subject to death and not being capable of dying.” And he adds at once, “This is the catholic faith and confession which the Apostles handed down, the martyrs confirmed, and the faithful keep to this day.”367
75. Then there is Fulgentius to King Thrasimundus, book 2: “It is one and the same man who has localized existence from a human and who is limitless deity from the Father. The same individual according to his human substance was absent from heaven while he was on earth, and left the earth when he ascended to heaven. According to his divine and limitless substance he did not leave heaven when he descended from heaven, nor did he leave the earth when he ascended to heaven. This can be known with complete certainty from the Lord’s own words; when he wished to show that his humanity was localized, he said to his disciples: ‘I ascend to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’368 He added when he was talking about Lazarus, ‘Lazarus is dead; and for your sakes I am glad that I was not there, so that you may believe.’369 Yet he showed the vastness of his divinity when he said to the disciples, ‘Behold I am with you always, to the end of the age.’370 How did he ascend to heaven unless he was a true and localized man? Or how is he present to his believers unless he is without limits and true God?”371
The same Father in book 3: “The very same and inseparable Christ arose from the tomb only as regards his flesh; the same and inseparable Christ as regards the whole man which he took, left the earth spatially, ascended to heaven, and sits at God’s right hand; as regards the same total man he shall come to judge the living and dead, and to crown the faithful and godly.”372
[118] Finally, Bernard on the Song of Songs, sermon 33: “I have also the Word, but in the flesh, and the truth is set before me, but in the sacrament. The angel is fattened with the fat of the grain, and now is full of meal; meanwhile I should be content with the husk of the sacrament, the bran of the flesh, the chaff of the letter, the veil of faith. These things are such that to taste them brings death, unless they have received some seasoning with the firstfruits of the Spirit. Only my death is in the pot, unless it is sweetened by a little meal from the prophet.” And later: “Regardless of how much these things increase, the husks of the sacraments and the richness of grain are not received with equal pleasure, nor are faith and vision, memory and presence, eternity and time, the face and the reflection, the image of God and the form of a servant. Truly in them all, faith is rich for me and understanding poor. But is the flavor of faith and understanding the same? For this makes for merit and that for reward. You see that there is as much difference between foods as between places, and as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are its inhabitants.”373
Here you see plainly that Bernard makes an antithesis between memory and presence, and assembles many other things that relate to our concern. But let us return to our adversaries. They have Fathers to oppose to us. Irenaeus says that the Eucharist consists of two things, earthly and heavenly; Gelasius also asserts it. But this only follows if you take the whole sacrament, making one thing of the sign and the significance; then we grant that it is made of two things. But if you afterwards appoint such a union between bread and the body of Christ as there is between the divine and human natures in Christ, that would certainly not be granted. For one hypostasis would have to be made of the bread and Christ’s body, that is, one subject, so that they could never be separated from one another, which is most absurd. From the other Fathers they object practically the same thing as the transubstantiators cited above.
THE ZWINGLIAN TEACHING
76. Now let us see what those who hold the third opinion say against them.
[119] First they do not admit that scattering of Christ’s body by which it can be everywhere, since it is against the property of human nature. Augustine writes otherwise quite clearly To Dardanus. Moreover they contend that the eating set forth in John 6 is completely one with this last eating, except that symbols are added.374 They prove this by claiming that when John mentions his eating at the end of the Gospel, he does not refer to the institution of the sacrament as do the other evangelists, since he had already conveyed it sufficiently. In his sixth chapter John supplied a summary of the doctrine which they had omitted. They maintain that there is no reason why anyone should say that the communion is therefore superfluous, since in frequent communication we celebrate the memory of the Lord, we give thanks, and the mind is stirred up by the appearance of those things which are done; what are there are not mute but speaking signs. Further, there is a sort of token [tessera] by which Christians show themselves one with Christ and among ourselves. Again, they confess their faith concerning the body of Christ delivered to the cross, and his blood shed for our salvation. For it is not enough to believe with the heart, but confession must also be with the mouth; and not only with the mouth, but with outward acts. Nor do they admit what the others claim, that the wicked also receive the body of Christ. For sense and reason do not reach him, but faith alone lays hold; since they are destitute of that, they can have nothing but symbols. And Paul writes, “Whoever eats this bread unworthily,” not whoever eats the body unworthily.
77. They are amazed at those who follow the opposite opinion, who attribute the remission of sins to a corporeal eating of Christ, since that is to admit opus operatum; the remission of sins is received only through faith. They also rest on the saying of Paul, when the Lord commands that this be done in his memory, and to proclaim his death.375 These words seem to them to imply the absence of the body of Christ. But I have warned elsewhere376 that this argument is not very firm, unless they mean it concerning the body of Christ really and corporeally [120] and naturally present; otherwise when it is received by faith, it is not understood to be completely absent, although he remains in heaven in respect of his nature and substance. For he is eaten spiritually, and is truly joined to us.
They cite the Fathers, who clearly state that here we have a type, sign, and figure of the body of Christ. And they bring two similes: one is of a friend, whose friend being absent in body is said to be present when he thinks of him. The other one they submit concerns a number of mirrors, which surround a man whose appearance and face is multiplied in them all, although he does not move from his place.377 I grant that these are similes, though somewhat colder than is suitable to this mystery. For a friend being grasped by thinking and kept in mind does not change the thinker or nourish his mind, nor does he restore his flesh to become capable of resurrection. And what one has in a mirror is the faintest shadow, which should not be compared to that union which we have with Christ. For the presence of Christ’s spirit which we affirm has the power of the Holy Spirit joined to it, coupling us most closely with him. Yet these similes should not be completely rejected, since they can in a way lead us to the truth of the matter, provided they do not take it for an equality. They show how this reception must be by faith and the mind.
They have mentioned two unions with Christ, one by faith when we apprehend his body nailed to the cross and his blood shed for our salvation; the other is the fact that the Son of God himself took our true nature and so there is a natural communion between us and Christ, of which mention is made in Hebrews 2. But there is a third kind of union,378 on which we enter with Christ by eating him spiritually. They do not often speak of this, though they are not entirely silent. But with that we shall deal in a moment.379
[121] If they are asked whether Christ is present in the Lord’s Supper, they answer that he is; but they say this through synecdoche, since one part of Christ, the divinity, is truly present. Otherwise in expounding the sentence of the Lord, “This is my body,” they use metonymy, applying what belongs to the sign to the thing signified.380 In this way they grant that Christ himself is present, as the sun which keeps its own place is nevertheless said to be present in the world, ruling it with its motion and light. How faith can make something present, they think Paul has stated in Galatians, that Christ was described before their eyes, and crucified among them.381
CONCLUSION
78. It now remains for us to show how we judge between these two opinions, what should be guarded against and what accepted. Not that I have in mind to reprove those singular and most excellent men, either Luther or Zwingli. For I know for a fact that in his books Zwingli considers the signs in this sacrament to be far from empty or useless, as we said above. And it has also been reported to me by men who have conferred with Luther that in truth he placed only a sacramental union between the body of Christ and the symbols.382 This is not the time to describe how the controversy between them has grown and inflamed. Therefore we shall set aside these men who are never praised enough, and treat the opinions as set down and advanced by both sides.
In the first opinion I cannot allow such a crass connection of the body of Christ with bread so that he is contained in it naturally, corporeally, and really. For the holy Scripture does not drive us to this position; to increase and multiply such miracles without its testimony is not theological. Moreover such a presence is not necessary, and has no bearing on our salvation. Nor do I agree that the wicked receive the body of the Lord. For whatever the Lord instituted he did for our health; but a carnal and corporeal eating is not healthy for the wicked; [122] therefore Christ instituted no such thing. Whatever the wicked eat corporeally, they should not call it an eating of Christ’s body, unless you wish to attribute the name of the reality to the sign or symbol. Further, we will not agree that the body of Christ is everywhere, or scattered through everything or in many places, since this is against the conditions of human nature. We do not need to infer that there is a distinction between the spiritual eating which you have in John 6 and that which the Lord instituted at the Last Supper, except that he added symbols to the doctrine and promise which he had first given. Moreover, we should not easily admit what they speak ambiguously about adoration. We taught above plainly and simply what we should believe on this point. So much for this opinion, from which I think it good to derive what I have thus stated.
79. In the other opinion I am not happy that they mention only rarely a sacramental mutation of the bread and wine, although this is no light matter, and one that the Fathers intend whenever they seem to favor transubstantiation. Scripture does not condemn it, because in his treatment of the sacrament, Paul does not call it simply cup, but cup of the Lord.383 We see also in the Old Testament that what was offered was called not merely holy, but holy of holies, that is, in the Hebrew phrase “the holiest.”384 Therefore they have no right to say that this change is a little thing, since it is of great moment. But if they pretend that they do this because we should not cling too much to symbols, we reply that a remedy is easily found for this evil through doctrine, by which men are taught that Christ is joined to us by an excellent union when we communicate, so that he dwells in us and we in him. In the next degree he is also joined to words, through signification. And in the third place he is joined to symbols, also by signification, but less than that which belongs to words. Indeed through the former (of words) the symbols derive their sacramental signification. If these things are taught properly there will be no danger. I admit that the writers of this opinion have dealt with the sacramental conversion at times, but seldom.
80. Then again, they have not always recognized the power belonging to it. For these are no ordinary signs, but such as may move the mind powerfully and effectively. They will say that this attributes [123] too much to elements of this world. We answer that it is not attributed to them for their own sake, but on account of the institution of the Lord, the power of the Holy Spirit, and the clarity of the words. If they ask how I can know that the Holy Spirit is at work here, the answer is simple: because a spiritual eating is already ordained, and how will we eat spiritually without the Holy Spirit? There is no doubt about the Lord’s institution, and of the efficacy of the Word the Scriptures everywhere speak. Paul says, “The Gospel is the power of God to salvation,”385 namely that God will declare his power by this instrument; and what else is the Eucharist than the visible Gospel or Word? Paul also says, “Faith is by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.”386 Not that the Word makes us believe, for the Spirit is he through whom we believe; but he uses the instrument of words and also sacraments, which are sensible words of God. For who does not know that creatures are sanctified by the Word of God, as in the letter to Timothy?387 This also must be understood properly, for it is the Holy Spirit who sanctifies, but he does it through instruments of both words and sacraments. Therefore we must not remove from bread and wine this change by which they are made effective signs of the body and blood of Christ, that is, through which the Spirit of the Lord works in us powerfully and extraordinarily provided we are endowed with faith and piety. For here we do not intend a power that will tie our salvation to things of this world. On the other hand, let no one question us as to what communicants gain, on the ground that since this reception is by faith, they already have Christ joined to them if they believe. To answer is easy, for he is indeed joined to them, but is daily joined more closely, and while we communicate is united to us more and more. This happens so that we might fulfil the Lord’s command, who ordered us to eat and drink this sacrament. Otherwise you could say the same about baptism: for as soon someone believes he is justified and has remission of sins, yet he is not baptized in vain. If you ask whether this power of the Eucharist holds for everyone equally, I reply: not at all; rather, according to the reason and proportion of the communicant’s faith. Just as Origen said on Matthew 15: the matter of this sacrament profits only through the Word, and its appeal can assist our minds according to the quantity and proportion of faith.388
[124] 81. There is something else I want to pass on to them, that through communion we are incorporated in Christ. This word is not new, but is in Paul, to the Ephesians: the Gentiles are made joint heirs and of the same body [cohaeredes et concorporales], which is in Greek synsôma.389 For although we hold that the encounter with Christ’s body happens through faith, yet a true union with Christ follows this contact as an effect, not fictitious or imaginary. It is related first to the soul and then redounds to the body. This is commended to us in Scripture by Paul under the metaphor of bread and body, when he calls us members of the same body under Christ the head, and by the analogy of marriage, in which two become one flesh. To explain it, Cyril introduced a simile of melted wax, mingled with other wax so that one is made of both; thus would he have us joined with Christ. The words in Ephesians are especially relevant here, according to which we are said to be of his flesh and of his bones.390 At first glance it seems that it ought to be put differently, namely that the Son of God is of our flesh and of our bones, because he assumed our kind of flesh. But Paul does not simply mean flesh, but flesh free from sin, capable of resurrection and immortality. Since the faithful do not have this by themselves or from Adam, they claim it for themselves from Christ, since they are incorporated in him through the sacraments and by faith. Thus there comes a kind of entrance of Christ into us, and a spiritual contact, which Paul had in mind when he said to the Galatians: “Yet now I do not live, but Christ lives in me.”391
The above does not make it necessary to draw Christ from heaven, or spread his body throughout infinite places, since everything we teach is spiritual. Yet it is not fictional, since spectres, apparitions, and illusions do not nourish the soul, as this certainly does. For we declare and insist that these symbols signify, offer, and most truly exhibit the body of Christ, although spiritually, that is, to be eaten with the mind, not the bodily mouth. If you question the way that the ancients in their sacraments could have the same as us, it is easy to make a reply, because we have established that what is done in this sacrament is not corporeal but spiritual. And we read in the Apocalypse, “the Lamb slain [125] from the foundation of the world.”392 They awaited things to come, we honor what is already done.
Last, we showed this by way of a warning, lest what we add about the spiritual mode should be taken to detract from the truth. For Augustine said on Psalm 54, the body of the Lord is in a definite place in heaven, but the truth of the Lord’s body is everywhere, for wherever the faithful are they grasp the fact that Christ had a true body given for us, and by that faith are fed.393
82. Now then I have said what it seems to me should be established as scriptural in this matter of the sacraments, which I would have the faithful reader consider and take in good part. Of his own goodness, God grant that the church of Christ may obtain both truth and peace concerning this sacrament. These two things are my desire because I have observed so far that the Eucharist (with which we are dealing) has been so overwhelmed, buried, and deformed by lies, devices, and superstitions that it could be reckoned anything besides what the Lord instituted in the Supper. To prevent its being easily purged, the devil (the greatest enemy of all peace and truth) has sown so many opinions, controversies, disagreements, heresies, and battles, although without blood, that scarcely any consent worthy of Christians can be hoped for by human reason. Alas! we have not endured these things without harm, for we have dealt double injury to this sacrament: in part because we have erected an accursed idol instead of the excellent and special gift of Christ; in part because we have abused these holy mysteries, without sincere faith, with conscience defiled by grave sins, scorning a proper examination of our own hearts.
I pray that God will pity such a great calamity, and will deign to restore to his church at last a Eucharist renewed and enjoying its proper use; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
ENDNOTES
1 Numbered sections follow LC/CP, 4.10. Headings in Small Caps are added by the translator, usually from the marginalia.
2 This first point reflects proposition 1 of the Disputation. Transubstantiation is the concern of almost the whole Treatise, §§2–65.
3 See proposition 2 of the Disputation.
4 See proposition 3 of the Disputation.
5 The Lutheran view occupies §§66–75, the Zwinglian view §§76–77, and Martyr’s “Conclusion,” §§78–82.
6 The original has only two section headings: De transubstantiatione here and Argumenta contra transubstantiatione at §6. The other headings are inserted by the translator, usually from marginalia.
7 Peter Lombard, Sent. IV, dists. 8–11 (PL 192.855–64).
8 Lombard, Sent. IV, dist. 8, Tria in hoc (PL 192.1095).
9 Cf. Thomas Aquinas: “quod corpus Christi est in hoc sacramento per modum substantiae et non per modum quantitatis” (ST III, q 76 ad 1).
10 The arguments are numbered from 1 to 20 in the margins.
11 John 6:33, 53; Matt. 26:26.
12 1 Cor. 11:27–29.
13 Tropus will be rendered sometimes as “figure,” sometimes as “trope.” Usually Martyr identifies the critical trope in eucharistic doctrine as “either Synecdoche or Metonymy” (COR, 10:4).
14 Disparates have no common ground or genus (unlike contraries and disjuncts). The concept was introduced by Cicero, De Iuv. Rhet. 29.42, and was prominent in Occamist logic. Martyr expands on it in DEF, 44ff., 386; cf. VWG, 186ff. He examines the concept of analogy in ETH, 1.6 and 2.6. In the 1554 debate at Cambridge, Cole countered Cranmer by stating: “This argument holdeth, à disparatis: It is bread, ergo it is not the body; and it is such an argument or reason as cannot be dissolved”; Writings 402; Foxe, Acts & Monuments 2:1029a.
15 “They” are Martyr’s debating partners in the Disputation, although the Treatise does not follow its chronological order.
16 The Patristic sources were debated in the Disputation, passim.
17 On the first day of debate with Tresham, Martyr introduced Irenaeus, Contra Haereses IV.17.5, 18.5 (PG 7.1023, 1028–29); on the third day Tresham cited Irenaeus, Contra Haer. V.3.2 (PG, 7.1129 ff.).
18 Tertullian, Adv. Marcion IV.40 (PL 2.491); cf. §§23 and 40 below.
19 Origen, Comm. in Matt. XI, 14 (PG 13.954).
20 The Sermo De Coena Domini et Prima Institutione consummantis omnia sacramenta was influential in Martyr’s eucharistic theology, as the notations in his own copy show: Erasmus, Divi Caecilii Cypriani ep. Carth. et Martyris Opera (Basel: Hervagrius, 1530), where the text appears in fols. 443–51. But “Martyr knew from his copy of Melanchthon’s works that the Cyprian authorship of the De Coena was suspect, as in Sententiae Veterum” (PMRE, 277, 421). The work is in fact by the twelfth-century Arnoldus Carnotensis, abbot of Bonneval: De cardinalibus Christi operibus—De coena Domini (PL 189.1643 ff.). See GAN, 22, 62/2. Cranmer cites Gardiner’s Detection of the Devil’s Sophistry (1546) as his source; see DEF, 10; CRA, II:339.
21 Ambrose, De Sac. IV.4.15 (PL 16.440–41).
22 Chrysostom, De Poenit. IX (PG 49.345). “‘Homily 60 ad populum Antiochum’ refers to a text not in modern editions but printed in the Basel 1530 edition of Chrysos- tom’s works, IV.581”; J. E. Cox, Writings and Disputations of Thomas Cranmer on the Lord’s Supper (Cambridge University Press: Parker Society, 1844), 182, 402n. In earlier editions the nine sermons de Poenitentia were bound with the twenty-one Ad pop. Ant. H. Jenkyns notes that references to the two homilies 60 and 61 are “in fact to one only.” In earlier editions the sermons are entitled Ad Populum Antiochenum, “being, with the exception of the first twenty-five, mere compilations from his other works” (CRA, II:417n.); cf. Jenkyns “Authorities,” CRA, IV.xlv.422, and the comments of Henry Savile (1612 edition) in PG 49.277, 826 ff.
23 Augustine, En. in Ps. 33 [sic], Sermo 10 (PL 36.306), and in Gratian (PL 187.1780): David ferebatur manis suis. Cf. §§17, 49.
24 Augustine, En. in Ps. 98.9, Adorate scabellum pedum eius (Vulg.) (PL 36.1264); cf. §49 below.
25 Augustine, De Trin. III.4.10 (PL 42.874).
26 Hilary, De Trin. VIII.50 (PL 10.273–74. Cranmer (Def., 3:15; CRA, 2.406n) copied the passage from Gardiner’s Detection of the Devil’s Sophistry.
27 Leo I (440–461), Ep. LIX.2 (PL 54.868), and in Gratian (PL 187.1748). The text has “10,” corrected to “22” in ERR.
28 John of Damascus, De Fide Orth. IV.13 (PG 94.1139).
29 Theophylact of Ochydra (ca. 1050–1108), En. in Ev. Marci XIV.250 (PG 123.651). Cf. §54 below.
30 Anselm, De corpore et sang. Dom. 2.c.12 (PL 159.255–56); Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis, 2.8.9 (PL 176.468); CRAN, I.12, 20. Both condemn the doctrine of Berengar as heretical.
31 Cyril of Alexandria, Ep. XVII (PG 77.114–15). See DIS, 1(D), for Tresham’s introductory speech on the councils.
32 Council of Vercelli (1050), decree De Consecratio 2.c.xliii, 16: Ego Berengarius (Gratian, PL 187.1750); Lombard, Sent. 4, dist. XII (PL 192.805). The ninth century controversy between Paschasius Radbertus and Ratramnus (Bertramnus) of Corbie was revived when Berengar (d. 1088) took up Ratramnus’s argument. Berengan was forced by Pope Nicholas II (d. 1061) to affirm (in a Confessio imposed by Humbert) that in the sacrament he crushed the true body of Christ with his teeth: manibus sacerdotum tractari, frangi et fidelium dentibus atteri. Despite Luther’s problems with the medieval exegesis of “This is my body,” he approved the formula as correcting a purely symbolic view: Martin Luther, Confession on the Lord’s Supper (1528); see J. Pelikan, Luther the Expositor (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), 143–44. But Calvin, Inst. IV.17.12, agrees with Martyr: “such a presence in the Sacrament as the craftsmen of the Roman court have fashioned.” Also Zwingli, Eine klare Unterrichtung vom Abendmahl Christi, 1526 (Samtliche Werke iv in CR, xci), 801 ff. See also CRA, I.17, 31–32, and DEF, Obj. 15, VWG, 105–6. Cf. §58 below.
33 Fourth Lateran Council (1215) IV, cap. i (MAN, XXI.981). While the Ego Berengarius speaks of “substantialiter converti,” the first use of the term itself is by Peter Damian or Hilebert of Tours (eleventh century); the official use was sanctioned by the Council of Trent, 1551, sess. xii, cap. iv. See L. Hödl, “Der Transubstantiationsbegriff in der scholastischen Theologie des 12. Jahrhunderts,” Recherches de Théologie ancienne et médiévale 31 (1964): 235 ff.
34 Council of Constance (1414–18); John Wyclif (ca. 1330–84).
35 Duns Scotus, Sentiarum, Lib. IV, Dist. XI. Qu. 3, Op. Omn., vol. 17 (Paris, 1894; reprinted Gregg Inter. Pub., 1969), 350 ff. Cf. Cranmer, Def., II.6; CRA, II.333.
36 See Martyr on divine omnipotence: ”Miracles,” PW, 173, 197–214.
37 Gregory the Great is reported to have taken eucharistic bread from a woman who smiled incredulously when it was called the Body of Christ; when he laid it on the altar it turned into a bloodstained finger; see Blunt, Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology, “Transubstantiation,” 762b.
38 Matt. 28:20.
39 Ambrose, De Sac. IV.4.15 (PL 16.440–41).
40 Alger of Liége (d. 1132), De sacramentis corporis et sanguinis Domini, I.7 (PL 180.756); Alger also taught that when the body of Christ is taken spiritually by faith it is spirituale … et incorruptible, nec tamen minus substantiale (PL 180.771–72).
41 Cf. Calvin, Inst. IV.17.14–25; P. E. Hughes, “Why Transubstantiation Was Rejected,” Theology of the English Reformers (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1965), 216 ff.
42 1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:26–28. Cf. §38 below. ERR corrects the second quotation from “omnes” to “multi.”
43 Isa. 58:7, Lam. 4:4.
44 Ex. 7:12.
45 Gen. 2:23.
46 John 2:9.
47 John 6:35.
48 I Cor. 10:16.
49 Ps. 34:20, John 19:36.
50 Matt. 26:29.
51 See 1 Cor. 10:3.
52 Augustine, Ep. ad Marc. CXXXVIII.I.8 (PL 33.528). Reading two corrections noted in ERR, 7 r, and three on 7 v.
53 Augustine, Sermo, 352, “De utilitate agendae poenitentiae” II (PL 39.1551).
54 Augustine, En. in Ps. 73.1 (PL 36.930).
55 Luke 10:24.
56 Cyprian, Ad Caec., Ep. 63.4 (PL 4.376); the work appears in the Erasmus edition as Lib. II, Ep. 3, fol. 51–58. Johannes Quasten, Patrology, 11.365, observes: “Epistle 63 amounts to a treatise.” (Reading “panem et vinum” as in ERR.)
57 Augustine, Contra Faustum Man. XIX.16 (PL 42.356), XX–XXI (PL 42.385).
58 Augustine, In Johann., Tract. XXVI.11–12 (PL 35.1611 ff.).
59 Ratramnus (“Bertram”), De Corp. et Sang. Dom., XXII–XXIII (PL 121.137–38).
60 Ratramnus, De Corp. et Sang. Dom. XXV (PL 121.138–39).
61 Luke 24:40.
62 Augustine, In Joann. Ev., Tract. 80.3 (PL 35.1810).
63 I Cor. 10:17.
64 pro fieri, mutari, aut converti: see Lombard, Sent. IV, dist. 11, De conversione (PL 192.1096).
65 See DEF, Obj. 84, 805 ff., and VWG, 194 ff., on the words of consecration.
66 Source unknown; see Sozomen, Eccl. Hist., VII.25, on “the records of his numerous magnanimous deeds.”
67 Luke 36:39.
68 Pituita, one of the four humors in classical biology. See “Dreams,” PW, 156n4.
69 Hesychius, perhaps In Lev. II.9:24 (PG 93.894–95); Origen, In Lev. Hom. IX.9 (PG 12.522).
70 Demonstrari aliquod singulare sive individuum generalioris substantiae; see Duns Scotus, Lect. in Lib. Sec. Sent., dist. 3 (De principio individuationis), pars 1 Q 6: Utrum substantia materialis sit individua per entitatem… (vs. Boethius); Op. Omnia XVIII (Civ. Vat. 1982), 273 ff. Gardiner had introduced the Scotist concept of individuum vagum to explain the type of predication (or its object) implied in the words of institution; see CRA, II.375–76. It became a favorite target for Cranmer, Martyr, and later John Jewel. Martyr takes it to represent ens unum in substantia (DEF, obj. 14–15; cf. VWG, 188–89). Etienne Gilson, History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages (New York: Random House, 1955), 462, states: “The famous ‘hecceity’ of the Scotists is the ultimate act which restricts the form of a species to the singularity of its individuals.”
71 John Fisher (1469–1535), bishop of Rochester, De veritate corporis et sanguinis Christi in eucharistia adversus Iohannem Oecolampadium (Cologne, 1527), lib. II, cap. 20; Cranmer, Def., II.8 (CRA, II.335), uses the same passage.
72 Peter Lombard, Sent. IV, dist. XII.2 (PL 192.864–65).
73 mittamus lignum in panem; Jer. 11:19 (Vulgate); Tertullian, Adv. Judaeos X (PL 2.668–69), Adv. Marc. III.19; IV.40 (PL 2.376, 492); Lactantius, Div. Inst. IV.18 (PL 6.508).
74 Eph. 4:22.
75 Aristotle, On Generation and Corruption, 319b32 ff.
76 John 3:4.
77 l Cor. 12:13.
78 Gal. 3:27.
79 John 6:24, 65.
80 John 16:29, “His disciples said.…”
81 Luke 1:26 ff.
82 John 12:26, 14:3.
83 Rev. 14:4.
84 The margin has “concomitantia.”
85 Augustine, En. in Ps. 72:24 (PL 36.926–27; 33, Sermo 1, 10 (PL 36.306); Gratian, Dec. III, dist. 2, XCII (PL 187.1780). Cf. §§4, 49.
86 On concomitance, see Aquinas, Summa theologica, III.lxxvi.1,2; Lombard, Sent. IV, dist. 10D; cf. Calvin, Inst. IV.17.35, 45, 47. The Council of Basle (1437) confirmed the doctrine (against the Hussite demand for communion sub utraque forma); see MAN, 29, 158).
87 nulla sacramentum nisi usum; see §51 below.
88 The marginal numeration is inconsistent in these sections.
89 Ex. 12:9.
90 Victor I (d. 198); Henry II (972–1024), whose memory became surrounded by legends.
91 1 Cor. 10:17, 12:27.
92 Augustine, De civit. Dei 22.10: “we make no gods of our martyrs” (PL 41.772).
93 DIS, 2(C), against Chedsey; cf. COR, 10:17.
94 Augustine, In Joann. Ev., Tract. XXVI.6.18 (PL 35.1614).
95 Jerome, Comm. in Jer. Proph. IV.22:15 (PL 24.815); Comm. in Isa. Proph. XVIII.66:17 (PL 24.666).
96 Irenaeus, Contra Haer. V.2.2 (PG 7.1124–25).
97 Tertullian, Adv. Marc. IV,40 (PL 2.491). Migne adds an interesting footnote: “Haec verba intelligenda sunt ut volunt Calvinisticae.”
98 Origen, In Num. Hom. XVI.9 (PG 12.701); Jerome, Comm. in Ecc. 9,7 (PL 23.1084).
99 Origen, Comm. in Matt. X.25 (PG 13.902–3.
100 Origen, In Lev. Hom. VII.5 (PG 12.487), IX, 10 (PG 12.523).
101 Origen, Comm. in Matt. XI.14 (PG 13.954).
102 Origen, Contra Cels. VIII.33 (PG 11.1566).
103 Cyprian, Ad Magnum, LXXVI.6 (PL 3.1142); De Oratione Dom. XVIII (PL 4.532).
104 See p. 26 n. 20 above.
105 Cyprian, De Unctione Chrismatis is spurious. Cf. CRA, II.383.
106 Augustine, Ad Bonifacium, Ep. 98.9 (PL 33.363–64); quoted also at length by CRAN, III.11, 140 ff.; In Joann. Ev., Tract. XXV.12 (PL 35.1602).
107 Cyprian, Ad Caec. 9 (PL 4.380–81). Cf. DIS 3(B).
108 See p. 26 n. 20 above.
109 Cyprian, Ad Caec. 13 (PL 4.384).
110 Matt. 12:31–32.
111 Athanasius, Frag. in Matt. (PG 27.1386).
112 See p. 74 n. 224 and p. 92 n. 275 below, and §55 for the opinion of John of Damascus that Basil calls bread and wine antitypa only before consecration, De Orth. Fid. 13, 273 (PL 94.1151–52). See GAN, 28, 65, for Martyr’s copies of Basil. Cranmer agrees with Martyr (Def. III.15; CRA, II.420), but the liturgical texts do not support this claim. See Basil’s liturgy, Praemium fractionis (PG 31.1639).
113 Dionysius, De Hier. Eccles. 3.12.
114 Ambrose, Comm. in Epist. Ad Cor. Prim. 11:26 (PL 4.384).
115 Ambrose, Comm. in Epist. Ad Cor. Prim. 11:26 (PL 4.384).
116 Jerome, Comm. in Ev. Matt. IV.26:26 (PL 26.195).
117 Chrysostom, In Ep. II ad Cor., Hom. XX.3 (PG 61.539–40).
118 Hom. XI.22 (PG 56.691). The Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum is now known to be spurious, but “enjoyed great reputation during the Middle Ages as a genuine work of Chrysostom” (Quasten, Patrology III.471).
119 Chrysostom, In Ep. I ad Cor. Hom. XXVII.4 (PG 61.230).
120 Eusebius, bishop of Emesa, whose extant writings are now recognized, vindicating ancient opinion. See Quasten, Patrology III.348 ff. In the Reformation it was his sermon De Eucharistia that proved most significant: Gratian on “Eusebius Emissenus,” De Eucharistia c.xxxv (PL 187.1744 ff.). Cf. CRAN, II.5, 49. In defense of his softer view of the words of consecration (Adv. mon. quosdam Hispanos, 1528), Erasmus noted his opponents’ appeal to Emissenus, “an author of not much favorable renown provided he is the one whose words are reported in the Decretals”; J. B. Payne states that the text “has finally been established as belonging to Faustus of Riez” (John B. Payne, Erasmus: His Theology of the Sacraments [Richmond, Va.: John Knox Press, 1970], 129, 289n160.
121 Augustine, En. in Ps. 98.9 [sic] (PL 37.1265); CRA, II.443–44.
122 Augustine, De Trin. III.X.19 (PL 42.880).
123 John Fisher, De veritate corporis Lib. IV, cap. 30F; Martyr had replied to his arguments in COR, fols. 309 v–310 r (on 11:25).
124 Erasmus, Omnium Operum D. Aur. Augustini… (Basel: Froben, 1543), tom. III, fol. 289.
125 Augustine, De Trin. III.4.10 (PL 42.874).
126 The De fide ad Petrum is spurious (PL 40.772–73): a dogmatic collection by Fulgentius of Ruspe (PL 65.759) familiar in the Middle Ages.
127 Augustine, Contra Faustum XX.21 (PL 42.385), paraphrase.
128 Augustine, De civit. Dei XXI.25.2 (PL 41.741).
129 Augustine, in Joh. Tract. XXX.1 (PL 35.1632).
130 Augustine, Contra Adim. I.12.1 (PL 42.143–44).
131 Augustine, De doctrina Christiana III.16 (PL 34.74–75).
132 Augustine, Ad Bon., Ep. 98, 9 (PL 33.303–4).
133 Augustine, Ad Bon., Ep. 98, 9 (PL 33.363–64); his letter to Bishop Boniface was a reply to the latter’s question how parents and friends could answer on the child’s behalf at baptism.
134 Augustine in Gratian, Dec. II.C.1, qu. 1.c.94 (PL 187.521).
135 Augustine, En. in Ps. 93.27 [sic] (PL 37.1214); LC/CP have “Psalm 8.” Cranmer has In Joan. Tract. 59 (CRA, II.434), PL 35.1795.
136 Lombard, Sent. IV, dist. 1, 2 (PL 192.839); Augustine, De civ. Dei X.19 (PL 41.297; Gratian, PL 187.1744).
137 Leo I, Ep. LIX.2 (PL 54.868); see p. 23 n. 8 above.
138 Cyril of Alexandria (376–444), In Johann. IV.2 (6.52) (PG 73.570); Ep. ad Calor., Praef. adv. Anthrop. (PG 76.1074). Donnelly notes: “The biggest difficulty in verifying patristic citations arose from the edition of Saint Cyril of Alexandria almost certainly used by Vermigli: Opera divi Cyrilii.… Tomi quatuor (Basel: Hervagius, 1546), whose commentary on John’s Gospel contains material not found in modern editions” (DIAL, xxv n59).
139 In the Disputation Martyr introduces Gelasius and Theodoret as he opens debate with Tresham, in order to press the Christological analogy. Tresham objects that Theodoret is “an obscure author, known only to you.” Martyr insists that he was quoting from a book which was “printed, and may be bought at Rome.” Tresham closes the discussion with the apt remark that it is “a long and tedious business to go to Rome for such a book.” See DIS, 1(E), below, CRA, II.331 ff., and GAN, 219 (III) on Martyr’s copy. MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer 490–91, notes “the partisan unreliability of the fifth-century Nestorian sympathizer Theodoret.”
140 Council of Vercelli; see p. 28 n. 32 above.
141 Gen. 49:10–11.
142 Masson and Marten (LC, CP) omit this section, presumably because it quotes Theodoret in Greek, and is repeated in the following sections. Theodoret of Cyrus (ca. 393–466), Eranistes seu Polymorphus, Dial. 1, Immutabilis [Atreptos]. The first five quotations are from PG 83.53b–d. The speakers are Eranistes and Polymorphus; Martyr uses the Latin names Orthodoxus and Sodalis. Cranmer used the same passage (Def. III.11, CRA 388 ff.). Cf. DIAL, xxiii, 52n.
143 The next four quotations, still from Theodoret’s first Dialogue, are found in PG 83.56a–b.
144 Inconfusus. The quotations are from PG 83.165c–168d.
145 Heb. 13:8.
146 LC/CP resume at this point. The quotations in this section are repeated, from Dialogue 1, Immutabilis [Atreptos] (PG 83.53a–d).
147 John 5:25; 12:24.
148 Ridley, A Brief Declaration of the Lord’s Supper (1555; Cambridge: Parker Soc. Ed., 1843), 35, quotes this passage in commenting, “where is there the Papistical transubstantiation?”
149 Dialogue 2, Inconfusus (PG 83.166–170); cf. CRA, II.391 ff.
150 Existentis corporis exemplaria; Theodoret has antitypa.
151 Heb. 13:8.
152 Martyr’s appeal to the Ad Caesarium Monachum was challenged by Gardiner and others. The original MS was discovered in the library of the Dominican monastery of S. Marco in Florence in 1680, confirming Martyr’s reference. See VWG, app. B, 269; also McNair, Peter Martyr in Italy, 289–90. Migne’s introductory Monitum describes the events: “quam Petrus Martyr olim adversus transubstantiationis fidem objecerat, cum viri clarissimus Emericus Bigotius in bibliotheca Florentina Sancti Laurentii reperisset, edissetque … [Martyr] … qui ex ea locum quemdam protulit in Locis communibus” (PG 52.755–60) Cf. John of Damascus on the text: Diss. Tertia (PG 94.315ff.). Gardiner questioned Martyr’s translation of the work, which he calls “a secret copy of an epistle uttered at one time in divers senses,” which “remaineth in the archdeacon or archbishop of Canterbury’s hands” (Cranmer, Answer, Works, 287).
153 Chrysostom, Ad Caes. Mon. (PG 52.758)
154 Hesychius, In Lev. II, 8:31 (PG 93.886).
155 Gelasius (Pope 492–96), Ep. 1 and 3 (PL 59.17d, 23c); cf. 14 (PL 59.89) and App. Sec. (PL 59.141). See also DEF, 388, 585–86, and CRA, II.331–32.
156 Gregory the Great, Registrum VIII, 1 (PL 148.573); CRA, II.328.
157 Ratramnus, De corpore et sanguine Domini XII (PL 121.132–33).
158 Bernard, In Coena Domini, Sermo 8 (PL 184.953–54).
159 See 3 above,
160 Augustine, De doct. Chr. II.9 (PL 34.42).
161 Gen. 1:6.
162 On the anthropomorphitae, see Martyr, “Visions,” PW, 139, 147.
163 John 14:28.
164 Luke 22:36. Adding “Item” from ERR, 27 v.
165 The Euchite sect, “those who pray,” or Messalians (fourth to seventh centuries) believed that one’s personal demon could be exorcised only by continuous praying, taking 1 Thess. 5:12 literally.
166 1 Tim. 5:8; 1 Cor. 14:40; 2 Thess. 3:10.
167 On Chiliasm see Martyr’s “Resurrection” §57, PW, 108.
168 John 10:30, 38; 14:9. The Sabellians (third-century Rome) emphasized the divine unity, with three modes rather than persons.
169 Matt. 27:46.
170 Augustine, De civ. Dei XXI.20.19 (PL 41.733–34); the Ebionites were Jewish Christians reputed to have denied the Virgin Birth and full deity of Christ.
171 Matt. 11:15.
172 Matt. 16:11.
173 John 11:11–12.
174 John 2:19.
175 John 3:9; 7:11–12; 8:56.
176 perspecuitas: for Martyr’s theory of interpretation, see COR, Praef. (LC I.6), and the introduction to PML, vol. 6 (Commentary on Lamentations).
177 Rom. 8:31.
178 Matt. 26:26; John 6:35.
179 Chrysostom, Ad Caes. Mon. See p. 61 n. 152 above.
180 Martyr argues for a verbalis communicatio by which signum and res may be designated by certain literary devices, chiefly metonymy and synecdoche. For these figures of speech, see VWG, 107 ff. and 221 ff. (”The Eucharist and Tropism.”)
181 Luke 8:11; 1 Cor 10:4.
182 Origen, In Jer., Hom. XVI, 3 (PG 13.442); Augustine, Sermo LXXVI, 1 (PL 38.479).
183 John 6:70.
184 Gen. 17:13.
185 Gen. 33:20.
186 Jehovah nissi (Ex. 17:15); Jehovah tsidkenu (Jer. 23:6): Martyr uses the Hebrew in both cases.
187 John 5:35; Matt. 17:12.
188 John 15:1, 10:7; 1 Pet. 2:6.
189 Deut. 12:23.
190 Gen. 37:27.
191 Gen. 6:3; John 1:14.
192 John 19:26–27.
193 Eph. 2:14; John 6:63; 1:29.
194 Augustine, In Joan. Ev., Tr. 80, 3 (PL 35.1840).
195 Rev. 1:8; Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 1:18.
196 Deut. 30:19.
197 Gen. 41:26.
198 1 Kings 11:31.
199 1 Cor. 11:10.
200 2 Cor. 5:21; Lev. 7:6.
201 Ezek. 36:25, John 4:14.
202 Martyr also includes the Hebrew: Zebah pesah hu (Ex. 12:27; Deut. 16:2).
203 Matt. 26:17.
204 1 Cor. 5:7.
205 1 Cor. 11:27.
206 Ambrose, Comm. in Ep. ad Cor. Primam XI (PL 17.243).
207 1 Cor. 11:4.
208 Cf. §6 above.
209 Matt. 26:29.
210 John 6:63.
211 1 Cor. 10:1; Augustine, In Joh. Tract. 26.12 (PL 35.1612).
212 1 Cor. 10:16, 11:25.
213 See §3 above.
214 See p. 25 n. 14 above.
215 Augustine, De catech. rud. I.26.50 (PL 40.344); De civit. Dei XVI.22 [sic] (PL 41.500).
216 Jerome, Comm. in Ev. Matt. IV.26:26 (PL 26.195).
217 Ratramnus, De Corp. et Sang. Dom. XCVII (PL 121.169).
218 Tertullian, Adv. Marcion. IV, 40 (PL 2.491).
219 Cyprian, Ad Caec., Ep. 63.13 (PL 4.383).
220 Ambrose, De Myst. IX, 52 (PL 16.406); De Sac. IV.5, 21 (PL 16.443).
221 Ambrose, Comm. in Ep. ad Cor. Primam [sic] 11:26 (PL 17.243).
222 Bernard, perhaps Sermo de excell. ss sac. 11 (PL 184.987).
223 Chrysostom, In Ep. ad Cor., Hom. XXIV.2 (10:16) (PG 61.200).
224 See 50 n. 112 above. Reading “consecrationem” for “baptismum” as in ERR 34r.
225 Augustine, De Trin. III.4.10 (PL 42.874); also in DIS, 91 r.
226 Augustine, Cont. Adim. I.12.1 (PL 42.143–44).
227 Augustine, En. in Ps. 3, 1 (PL 36.73); also in CRA, III.11 (II, 388).
228 Augustine, Cont. Max. Arian. Episc. II.22.3 (PL 42.794); CRA, II.387.
229 Margin begins numbering 5 to 9.
230 Cyprian, Ad Caec., Ep. 63.17 (PL 4.387).
231 Margin: Quaedam regulae ad intelligendos Patres. Martyr’s discrimination in approaching the Fathers illustrates the humanist shift from auctoritates to fontes: see C. Stinger, “Italian Renaissance Learning and the Church Fathers,” RCF, 473 ff. I. Backus, “The Fathers and Calvinist Orthodoxy: Patristic Scholarship,” RCF, 842 ff., describes later cases, such as Abraham Scultetus’s Syntagma of 1598.
232 See §4 (26) above, and [47 r] (p. 208) below. Martyr’s general principles for interpreting the Fathers are: (1) Scripture is Deus dixit, with priority over the sententiolae which “doctors of indices” like to gather from the Fathers; and (2) there are “degrees of the Fathers,” according to which Augustine lived in “purer” times, while from Theophylact onwards it is evident that “Later Fathers speak less prudently.” See LC, 4.4.13–23 (scholium from Martyr’s De Votis) on the authority of the Fathers, DEF, II (fols. 595–96) on Regulae; and VWG, app. B, 267–71, “Peter Martyr’s Patristic Sources.” Cf. Calvin, Inst. IV.17.14: transubstantiation was “unknown to those better ages when the purer doctrine of religion still flourished.” Cf. §54 below, and GAN, 41 ff., “La Littérature Patristique.”
233 Augustine, Ad Bonif., Ep. XCVIII.9 (PL 33.303–4).
234 Heb. 2:14. On this twofold union see Martyr, ROM, 8:1, VWG, 142 ff.
235 See introduction, xxxvii, n. 78, on the key term “exhibere.”
236 Eph. 6:12; Gal. 5:17.
237 Gal. 3:28.
238 1 Cor. 4:20.
239 Gal. 3:1; John 8:56.
240 Martyr’s typically Reformed doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum would become sharper in later debates with the Lutherans, after his return to Strasbourg and subsequent removal to Zürich: see DIAL, 50–51, 102–4, etc. In 1549, however, Martyr was content to object to a transubstantial presence simply in terms of the hypostatic presence expressible through communication of properties.
241 Martyr is replying to the Patristic evidence cited by the opposition, which began in §4.
242 See above, 34, n. 56.
243 Cicero, Somnium Scipionis, ed. F. E. Rockwood (Norman: University of Oklahoma, 1966), 19 ff.; Ad Lentulum (Publius Cornelius Spinther Lentulus, governor of Cilicia), perhaps Epist. 18: “eam esse naturam et regionem provinciae tuae” (Cicero: Epistulae ad Familiares, ed. D. R. S. Bailey; (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), I.7. Cf. Martyr’s “Dreams” in PW, 137.
244 The genuineness of the books on the sacraments attributed to Ambrose was denied by the Reformers: Zwingli, Eine klare Unterrichtung vom Abendmahl Christi, 853, states: “The papacy includes these words of Ambrose in the canons … but they are ascribed to Augustine, although they are not really his.” Today the authenticity of the De Mysteriis is no longer in doubt; the De Sacramentis (PL 16.417 ff.) is regarded as a later document, with borrowings from Ambrose and Origen. Quasten, Patrology, IV.172, concludes: “These doubts have been laid to rest through the work of Faller, Botte, and Chadwick, who have established that the De sacramentis is the stenographic record of homilies given to the neophytes.” Martyr’s quotation in this section is from the De Off. I.48. Cf. CRA, II.325n.
245 John Fisher, De veritate corporis, Lib. V, cap. 21A; Augustine, Retract. IV.4 (PL 32.632).
246 Ambrose, De Officiis I [sic], 48.238 (PL 16.94).
247 Ambrose, Comm. in Eph. XI (PL 17.243).
248 Ambrose, De Sac. IV.4.16 (PL16.441).
249 Chrysostom, De Poenit., Hom. IX, in Encaeniis (PG 49.345).
250 Chrysostom, In Matt., Hom. 82 (al. 83) 4 (PG 57.743).
251 See 26 n. 22 above. Cf Calvin, Inst. IV.17.6.
252 Chrysostom, In Matt., Hom. 82 (al. 83) (PG 57.743).
253 Cranmer, Writings and Disputations, 405, used this language against Weston in interpreting Chrysostom’s De Sacerdotio III.3.
254 Chrysostom, De Poenit., Hom. IX (PG 49.345); CRA, II.415.
255 Weston quoted this passage against Cranmer, Writings and Disputations, 403.
256 Cyril of Alexandria, In Joann. Ev. X.2 (15:5–6) (PG 74.363); Jenkyns has only “lib. iv cap. 17” as reference (CRA, II.452).
257 See §4 [9] (26) above for the texts from Augustine.
258 Paraphrase of Augustine, En. in Ps. 98.9 (PL 36.1264). See §§4, 17 above.
259 COR, 10:16, fols. 261 r ff.
260 The notorious “black rubric” appended to the Book of Common Prayer (attributed to John Knox) states that in the case of such kneeling, “no Adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received, or unto any Corporal Presence of Christ’s natural Flesh and Blood. The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner.” See F. Proctor and W. H. Frere, Prayer Book, 83 ff.
261 extra usum sacramenti non extant: see 44 n. 87 above.
262 Hesychius, In Lev. II, 9:24 (PG 93.894); Origen, In Lev., Hom. IX.9 (PG 12.522). The latter was attributed to Hesychius in a sixth-century introduction; see Quasten, Patrology 3:490, and §32 above.
263 Clement, Ep. 2 (PL 187.1740).
264 Martyr’s attitude towards reservation of the sacramental elements is given in detail in the treatise An in communione liceat una tantum specie uti (COR, 10:17, LC, 4.11), recapitulated in the Censura libri Communium Precum; see VWG, 29–30.
265 Honorius I, pontificate 625–38 (PL 80.469); councils at Tours (461, 567) had ruled on the manner of reservation. MAN, VII.943 ff., IX.789 ff.
266 Hilary, De Trin. VIII.50 (PL 10.273–74). Cf. 27 n. 26 above.
267 Hilary, De Trin. VIII.7 (PL 10.241).
268 See 27 n. 27 above.
269 See p. 51 n. 120 above on Eusebius of Emesa.
270 Cf. DIS IV(C) 70 v, against Chedsey: “The words through which bread is brought to become a sacrament belong more to us than to bread, which is completely without sense and faith,” and Calvin, Inst. IV.17.39.
271 See p. 76 n. 232, concerning interpretation of the Fathers. Theophylact was introduced in §4 above.
272 Theophylact, En. in Ev. Matt. XXVI.26 (PG 123.443).
273 Theophylact, En. in Ev. Marci XIV.22 (PG 123.650).
274 Theophylact, En. in Ev. Joh. VI.48 (PG 123.1307).
275 John of Damascus, De fide orth. IV.13.267 (PG 94.1135 ff.).
276 John of Damascus, De fide orth. IV.16 (PG 94.1167 ff.).
277 John of Damascus, Diss. Quinta. “De iis quid in fide obdormierunt,” et de purgatorio III (PG 94.351).
278 Gen. 9:4.
279 Ex. 21:28.
280 John of Damascus, De fide orth. IV.24.296 (PG 94.1207): “God had power to multiply the race in different ways.”
281 John of Damascus, De fide orth. IV.13.273 (PG 94.1151–52). See p. 50 n. 112, and p. 73 n. 225 above.
282 See Canon Missae: Panem sanctum vite eterne —The Sarum Missal (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969) 223.
283 John of Damascus, De fide orth. IV.13.271 (PG 94.1139). See COR, 11.24; it is not the divine posse which is at issue but the velle, as revealed in the scriptural promises: what God wills to do. The same question was to arise from the Lutheran side in defense of their concept of the ubiquity of Christ’s glorified body; Martyr responded in his DIAL,16 ff.; cf. “Resurrection” §19, PW, 64–65; Calvin, Inst. IV.17.24: “It is not a question of what God could do but what he willed to do … they plunge themselves into the abyss of omnipotence, in order to extinguish the light of truth.”
284 John of Damascus, De fide orth. IV.13.271 (PG 94.1147).
285 John of Damascus, De fide orth. IV.13.269 (PG 94.1142).
286 I.e., proportionate relations (A:B::C:D) are based on the presence of comparable terms on each side.
287 John of Damascus, De fide orth. IV.13.269 (PG 94.1142).
288 John of Damascus, De fide orth. IV.13.270 (PG 94.1146).
289 Irenaeus, Contra Haer. IV.18.5 (PG 7.1028–29).
290 See p. 62 n. 155 above.
291 Paraphrase of Origen, Comm. in Matt. (15:11) XI.14 (PG 13.947–51).
292 See §4 and §28 above on arguments from the councils.
293 Confessio Berengarii in Gratian, c.xlii (PL 187.1750–51); see 28 n. 32 above.
294 Glossator: the Glossa ordinaria is a twelfth-century compilation of interlinear and marginal glosses to Scripture; see E. A. Matter, “The Church Fathers and the Glossa Ordinaria,” RCF, 83ff. Zwingli calls the work “the papacy’s own book” (bäptisch decret) and the gloss “mere words without any real meaning,” Eine Klare, op.cit. 806–7.
295 Peter Lombard, Sent. IV, dist. 12.4 (PL 192.865). Calvin, Inst. IV.17.12, comments that Lombard “rather inclines to a different opinion” from that of the recantation imposed by Nicolas.
296 See §4 above.
297 Calvin, Inst. IV.17.15, agreed with Martyr’s view of the historical development: “In the time of Bernard, though a harsh mode of expression had been adopted, still transubstantiation was yet unknown.”
298 Council of Florence, 1439: Eugene IV, Decretum “Exultate Deo” (MAN, 31A, 1047ff.).
299 See §5 (28) above on omnipotence.
300 John 3:3–4.
301 Aristotle, An. Prior. I.23, 95a28–29.
302 Gal. 3:27.
303 Augustine, De Trin. 3, 10 (PL 42. 879–80); see §25 above.
304 Gregory Nazianzen, Carmina I, Poemata Theol. 1, Dogmatica 20–23 (PG 37.487ff.).
305 Augustine’s De mirabilibis is spurious (PL 35.2149ff.).
306 1 Cor. 11:30.
307 Lev. 19:27. Reading “esse” for “est” as in ERR, 52 r.
308 Irenaeus, Contra Haer. I.13.2 (PG 7.579–80).
309 Apollonius of Tyana in Cappadocia (b. 4 B.C.E.), neo-Pythagorean sage and the subject of several “Lives” much embellished. Philostratus and Hierocles narrated the disappearing story to counter Christian claims of miracle. See Eusebius Contra Hieroclem 1 (PL 4.795ff.). Martyr repeats the passage in “Resurrection” §64, PW 118.
310 Cf. Altaner: “drei … legendären Viten,” including one by Johannes Diaconus (Patrologie 417). See 29 n. 37 for this story.
311 1 Cor. 15:44. Udall expands this sentence: “For a certaine kynde of bodye there is, whyche of S. Paule … is called Corpus animale, as if ye should say in englyshe, a bodye indewed wyth a solle …” (Discourse, fol. lxxxviii, verso).
312 Augustine, De civit. Dei 13.20 (PL 41.393).
313 Jerome, Ep. ad Pamm. 84.6 (PL 22.742).
314 Matt. 26:26. Udall follows the Greek words with a gloss: “that is in Englyshe sillable for sillable, thissame is the body of me (for so runneth the greke wordes which are translated …)” (Discourse, fol. lxxxix; some intervening pages are not numbered).
315 Luke 8:11.
316 Matt. 28:20.
317 See §§8–9 above.
318 1 Cor. 10:1–4, a favorite text of Martyr’s; cf. COR, fol. 241r ff.
319 Luke 18:8.
320 Ambrose, De Myst. IX.52 in Alger, De sac. Corp. et Sang. Dom. I,7 (PL180.756); cf. §5 above.
321 Alger, De sac. corp. et sang. Dom. I, 7 (PL 180.756).
322 Paraphrase of Alger, ibid. I, 21 (PL 180.801).
323 Cf. Augustine, De Magistro II.3 (PL 32.1196), and Martyr’s “Resurrection” §28, PW 77.
324 Alger, De Sac. II, 1 (PL 180.807–808).
325 Bucer defended the Lutheran view, convincing Martyr that Luther himself should not be equated with the hyper-Lutheran party at Strasbourg. Martyr’s earlier contact with Bullinger led him to regard the Zurich tradition favorably, while the Swiss students at Oxford, particularly the indefatigable John ab Ulmis, brokered a bond between Vermigli and “Zwinglianism.” Cf. B. Gerrish: “The Lutheran Eucharist was not a theophany, and the Zwinglian Eucharist was not a Pelagian workout,” OER, 2:76. Cf. Calvin on the “two faults … too little regard for the signs … [or] extolling them too much” (Inst. IV.17.5).
326 The glowing fire and two natures is a recurring simile, e.g. Babylonian Captivity (1520) and The Adoration of the Sacrament (1523)—Luther’s Works 36: Word and Sacraments vol.2, ed. A. R. Wentz and H. T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1959) 32, 282.
327 On modes of presence, see Luther, Confession concerning Christ’s Supper (1528) trans. and ed. R. H. Fischer, Luther’s Work, vol. 37 (Phila: Muhlenberg Press, 1961) 215 ff. Luther follows the Occamist spelling diffinitive. The terms come from the Nominalist tradition. See H. A. Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967) 275–76, and J. Pelikan, Luther the Expositor (St. Louis: Augsburg, 1959) 138 ff.
328 Augustine, De doct. Christ. III.16.24 (PL 34.74).
329 Matt. 16:6, 7:15.
330 1 Cor. 10:4,18; Heb. 12:29.
331 John 3:13.
332 Augustine, Ep. 187, ad Dard. 19 (PL 33.839). At this time Martyr is not too concerned with the concept of ubiquity, but on his return to Strasbourg in 1553 he found the relationship with Lutherans deteriorating. He published his reply to Brenz, Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ (1561). Donnelly, DIAL xxii, 45, describes the significance of Augustine and Cyril for both Brenz and Vermigli and of Augustine’s letter to Dardanus in particular; it was printed along with the 1552 edition of the Treatise and Disputation. Cf. Calvin, Inst. IV.17.17, 30.
333 Augustine, In Joann. Ev., Tract. XII.8 (PL 35.1488).
334 Chrysostom, In Joannem, Hom. XXVII (al. XXVI), 1 (PG 59.157–58).
335 E.g. Luther’s Large Confession upon Christ’s Supper (1528): one voice falls on a thousand ears.
336 Martyr quotes the Greek of Eph. 1:22–23.
337 John 11:14–15.
338 Matt. 21:6–7; Acts 1:9.
339 Eph. 4:10.
340 1 Tim. 2:4.
341 Jerome, Lib. Contra Joan. Hier. 29 (PL 23.381).
342 Cf. n. 260 on the “black rubric” of the Book of Common Prayer, by Knox.
343 Paraphrase of 1 Cor. 14:23–25.
344 Numbers are marginalia.
345 LC/CP add: “against Tresham.” In the opening debate on the first proposition of the Disputation the authority of Augustine was invoked by both Tresham and Martyr; see DIS I(E). The four texts mentioned here are: Didymus, De spiritu sancto, 1, and Basil, De spiritu sancto, 22, on the deity of the Holy Spirit and his omnipotence, “which is not a condition of a created being”; Augustine, ad Dard., “where he wrote concerning the glorified body of Christ, that it is in a definite place because of the measure of a true body”; and Cyril, Dialog de Trin. 2, “Cyril plainly states that divinity would be limited if it were quantitative.”
346 See p. 26 n. 20 above.
347 See p. 51 n. 118 above.
348 Chrysostom, In Cor. Primum, Hom. XXIV, 7 (PG 61.203).
349 Chrysostom, In Matt., Hom. 82 (al 83), 4 (PG 58.743).
350 Chrysostom, De Sacerdotio III, 4 (PG 48.642).
351 Augustine, Ad Bonif. 98.9 (PL 33.303).
352 Augustine, En. in Pss. 54 (55) (PL 36.629); Ep. LV (119) Ad Inquis. Jan. XVII.31 (PL 33.220).
353 Augustine, In Joann. Tract. 30,1 (PL 35.1632); and in Gratian (PL 187.1752).
354 Matt. 28:20.
355 Matt. 16:11.
356 Augustine, In Joann. Ev., Tract. 30, 13 (PL 35.1763).
357 Martyr uses the same quotation in the Dialogue on the Two Natures; J. P. Donnelly, DIAL, 157n541, notes that at this point he omits part of the passage, whereas here he gives it all.
358 Acts 9:4.
359 Acts 1:6 ff.
360 Augustine, In Epist. Johann., Tract. X.V.9 (PL 35.2060–61).
361 Cyril of Alexandria, In Joann. Ev. IX.14 [sic] (PL 74.156–57). Cranmer, Def. III.5, CRA II.364, uses the same pair of quotations, from IX.14 and 21.
362 Matt. 18:20.
363 Cyril, In Joann. Ev. IX.13:33 (PG 74.156–57). Cf. DIAL, 159, where Martyr uses the same quotation. Donnelly, DIAL, 159, notes that “There are only eighteen chapters in book II of his commentary on John’s Gospel in the PL edition. Vermigli was almost certainly using Opera divi Cyrilli … Tomi quatuor (Basel: Hevagrius, 1546), which does have twenty-two chapters” (cf. p. 55 n. 138 above).
364 Matt. 28:20.
365 Vigilius, Lib. ad Eut. I.6 (PL 62.98–99); also in DIAL, 160–61; CRA, II.368.
366 J. P. Donnelly, DIAL, 162n567, notes that here we should follow “the reading of the 1581 Basel edition, ubique, rather than that of the Zurich editions, utique.”
367 Vigilius, Lib. ad Eut. 4.14–15 (PL 62.126); also in DIAL, 161–62.
368 John 20:17.
369 John 11: 14–15.
370 Matt. 28:20.
371 Fulgentius, Ad Trasimundum II.17 (PL 65.265); also in DIAL, 163.
372 Fulgentius, Ad Tras. III.34 (PL 65.299); cf. DIAL, 164.
373 Bernard, Serm. in Cant. Canticorum XXIII.3 (PL 183.952); partially quoted in DIAL, 201.
374 John 6 was Zwingli’s standard reading at the Lord’s Supper. It is the first of his two “plain Scriptures” supporting his Eucharistic doctrine, the other being 1 Cor. 10; see Zwingli, Eine Klare 810, 825. Brian Gerrish, OER, 79, notes: “Zwingli’s favorite text (John 6:63) stands like a banner on the front page of [Cranmer’s] Defence”; see Cranmer, Def., title page: “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh profits nothing” (CRA, II.275).
375 1 Cor. 11:24ff.
376 COR. 11.24; cf. 10.16 regarding the Anabaptists.
377 These images have not been found in examining Zwingli’s Eucharistic writings, despite the assistance of my late colleague Edward Furcha in the search. For Zwingli’s general treatment of tropes, see “Subsidiary Essay on the Eucharist” (1525) in Huldrych Zwingli Writings, trans. W. Pipkin (Allison Park, Pa.: Pickwick, 1984), 2:201 ff.; the latter has a general treatment of tropes. There is a simile of a widow regarding her wedding ring to recall her husband, “On the Lord’s Supper” (LCC, XXIV), 234.
378 For Martyr’s teaching on this medium or arcana communio, found in his commentaries (e.g. ROM, 8, COR, 10) and in correspondence with Calvin and Beza, see VWG, 142 ff.
379 See §81 below.
380 The problem of metaphorical language was central to the Marburg debate; see J. C. McLelland, “Lutheran-Reformed Debate on the Eucharist and Christology,” in Marburg Revisited, ed. P. C. Empie and J. I. McCord (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1966), 39–54.
381 Gal. 3:1.
382 E.g. Martin Bucer: “I have dealt again and again with so many Lutherans” who wish only “Christ to be truly given and received in the Supper” (letter to Calvin of 14 August 1549 on the Consensus Tigurinus; text in CR, 41, 350 ff.).
383 1 Cor. 11:27.
384 Ex. 30:36.
385 Rom. 1:16.
386 Rom. 10:17.
387 1 Tim. 4:5.
388 Origen, In Matt., Comm. Series 85 (PG 13.1734–35).
389 Eph. 3:6.
390 Eph. 5:30.
391 Gal. 2:20.
392 Rev. 13:8.
393 Augustine, En. in Ps. LIV.3 (PL 36.629).