Chapter II · TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

I SHALL begin with subjecting, to the test proposed by the Council of Trent itself, the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

I. The following, as defined by the Council of Trent, is the doctrine of the Roman Church with respect to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.

1. In the sacrament of the Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true man, is, truly and really and substantially, contained, under the species of those sensible objects: so that, immediately after consecration, the true body and the true blood of our Lord, together with his soul and divinity, exist under the species of bread and wine: for, by the very force of the words themselves, the blood exists under the species of the wine; and the body, under the species of the bread. But, furthermore, by virtue of that natural connection and concomitance, through which the parts of the Lord, after his resurrection from the dead, are mutually joined together, the body exists under the species of the wine, the blood exists under the species of the bread, and the soul exists under the species both of the bread and the wine. The divinity, moreover, on account of its admirable hypostatic union with the body and the soul, similarly exists alike under each species. Wherefore, under each species and under both species, so much as even the whole is contained. For the entire Christ exists both under the species of bread, and under each particle of that species: and the entire Christ exists, both under the species of wine, and under all the particles of that species. Hence, through the consecration of the bread and wine, there takes place a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of our Lord Christ, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood: which conversion is properly and conveniently denominated Transubstantiation.

2. All the faithful are bound to offer to the Eucharist that same adoration of Latria, which is paid to the Deity: for such adoration rests upon the belief, that in that sacrament there is substantially present the filial God, concerning whom the Father pronounced; Let all the angels of God worship him. And, analogously, in point of beneficial efficacy, the Eucharist, being the identical sacrifice which Christ offered upon the cross, must be deemed a true propitiatory sacrifice, making satisfaction, each time that it is offered, not only for the living, but likewise for the dead in the Lord who have not as yet been fully purified. [11a]

II. Let us now hear Scripture with respect to this same holy sacrament.

1. I am the living bread, which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews, therefore, strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them: Verily, verily, I say unto you; Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life: and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He, that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him—These sayings said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. Many, therefore, of his disciples, when they had heard this, said: This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them: Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? IT IS THE SPIRIT THAT QUICKENETH: THE FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING. THE WORDS, THAT I SPEAK UNTO YOU, ARE SPIRIT AND LIFE. [11b]

When our Lord enforced the necessity of eating his flesh and of drinking his blood, the Jews and even his disciples, understanding him literally just as the Romish Clergy now expound his language, murmured at so hard a saying, and asked how he could possibly give men his flesh to eat. Whereupon Christ, in the avowed way of explanation, immediately declared: that the words, which he spake, are spirit; and that the flesh profiteth nothing. Clearly, therefore, according to his own distinct explanation, his words are to be understood spiritually or figuratively, not carnally or literally.

2. As they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to his disciples, and said: Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you: I will not drink henceforth of THIS FRUIT OF THE VINE, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom. [12a]

(1.) The authoritative interpretation of such language, as that which is here employed by our Lord, had already been given by him at Capernaum. His words are to be understood spiritually or figuratively: just as when he declared himself to be a vine and his disciples to be branches. [12b]

Accordingly, even after consecration, when the Romish Clergy assert the wine to have been literally transubstantiated into the actual material blood of Christ; he himself still calls it this fruit of the vine: an appellation, if we receive as scriptural truth the doctrine of Transubstantiation, then clearly false and erroneous and inaccurate.

(2.) We may note, that the Apostles expressed not the least surprise, or uttered the smallest murmur, on account of our Lord’s phraseology, when he instituted the sacrament of the Eucharist.

The reason is obvious, though the fact is highly worth our special attention. They had heard and recollected his own explanation of the parallel language which he employed at Capernaum. Hence they now, as a matter of course, understood him to speak figuratively, not literally: and hence, what was the natural result, his words now gave them NO offence.

3. I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you: that The Lord Jesus, the night in which he was betrayed, took bread: and, when he had given thanks, he brake, and said: Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also, the cup, when he had supped, saying: This cup is the New Testament in my blood: this do ye as oft as ye drink, in remembrance of me. For, as often as ye eat THIS BREAD and drink THIS CUP, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore, whosoever shall eat THIS BREAD and drink THIS CUP of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself: and so let him eat of THE BREAD, and drink of THE CUP. [13a]

(1.) The language of St. Paul exactly corresponds with the language of Christ.

Even after consecration, the Apostle, we may observe, still repeatedly calls the elements this bread and this cup or the bread and the cup. Yet he could not truly have thus called them: if, all the while, they had become, by transubstantiation, literal human flesh and literal human blood.

(2.) We may here again note, that the true doctrine of the Eucharist, as undoubtedly delivered by St. Paul to the gentile converts of Corinth, does not appear to have excited either surprise or offence.

Whence the presumption, or rather indeed the certainty, is: that, in delivering it to them, he distinctly taught, on the authority of his Lord and Master, that it is the spirit which quickeneth, that the flesh profiteth nothing, and that the words spoken by Christ are spirit and life.

4. As our Saviour thus fully explains his own phraseology: so, in strict congruity with his explanation; on the existence, of the soul and divinity of Christ in the consecrated elements, and on the adoration of those elements with the very same adoration as that which is paid to the Deity, Holy Scripture is PROFOUNDLY SILENT.

From whatever quarter the duty of such worship was learned by the Romish Priesthood, it assuredly was not learned from the Bible. The written word of God neither enjoins it, nor gives a single instance of its ever having being paid either in the time or with the sanction of the Apostles.

5. Equally silent also is the Bible, respecting the alleged circumstance: that The celebration of the Eucharist is a true propitiatory sacrifice both for the quick and for the dead.

The Church of Rome, indeed, teaches this doctrine: but she did not learn it from Scripture.

III. We may now, with advantage, proceed to hear the declarations of the Fathers concerning the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.

1. Clement of Alexandria lived in the second century.

(1.) The Scripture has named wine A MYSTIC SYMBOL of the holy blood. [14a]

(2.) Know well, that the Lord himself also partook of WINE: for he himself also was a man. And he blessed the wine, saying: Take, drink; this is my blood, the blood of the vine. The holy stream of exhilaration ALLEGORICALLY REPRESENTS the Word, who poured himself out on behalf of many, for the remission of sins. [14b]

2. Tertullian flourished at the end of the second and at the beginning of the third century.

(1.) We must not call our senses in question, lest we should doubt respecting their fidelity even in the case of Christ himself. For, if we question their fidelity, we might be led to say: that Christ—TASTED A DIFFERENT FLAVOUR OF THE WINE WHICH HE CONSECRATED IN MEMORY OF HIS OWN BLOOD. [15a]

(2.) If Christ declares, that The FLESH profiteth nothing; the sense must be decided from the matter of the saying. For, because the Jews deemed his discourse hard and intolerable, as if he had truly determined that his FLESH was to be eaten by them: in order that he might dispose the state of salvation TOWARD THE SPIRIT, he promised; It is the SPIRIT that quickeneth. And thus he subjoined: The FLESH profiteth nothing, namely, to quicken. There follows also, WHAT HE WOULD HAVE US UNDERSTAND BY SPIRIT. The words, which I have spoken unto you, are spirit and life. [15b]

(3.) Christ reprobated, neither the water of the Creator with which he washes his people, nor the oil with which he anoints them, nor the fellowship of honey and milk with which he feeds them as infants, nor the BREAD by which he REPRESENTS his own body: for, even in his sacraments, he needs the beggarly elements of the Creator. [15c]

3. Athanasius flourished in the fourth century.

When our Lord conversed on the eating of his body, and when he thence beheld many scandalised, he forthwith added: Doth this offend you? What if ye shall behold the Son of man ascending where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words, which I speak unto you, are spirit and life. Both these matters, THE FLESH and THE SPIRIT, he said respecting himself. And he distinguished the spirit from the flesh: IN ORDER THAT, BELIEVING BOTH THE VISIBLE AND THE INVISIBLE, THEY MIGHT UNDERSTAND HIS SAYINGS TO BE NOT CARNAL BUT SPIRITUAL. For TO HOW MANY PERSONS COULD HIS BODY HAVE SUFFICED FOR FOOD: SO THAT IT MIGHT BECOME THE ALIMENT OF THE WHOLE WORLD? But, that he might divert their minds from carnal cogitations, and that they might learn the flesh which he would give them to be supercelestial and spiritual food: he, on this account, mentioned the ascent of the Son of man to heaven. The words, said he, which I speak unto you, are spirit and life. As if he had intimated: My body shall be exhibited and given as food for the world; so THAT THAT FOOD SHALL BE GIVEN TO EACH ONE SPIRITUALLY, and shall to all be a preservative to the resurrection unto life eternal. [16a]

4. Eusebius of Cesarea lived in the fourth century.

(1.) Christ himself gave the SYMBOLS of the divine economy to his own disciples; commanding, that the IMAGE of his own body should be made. [16b]

(2.) He delivered to us, that we should use the bread as the SYMBOL of his own body. [16c]

5. Ambrose lived in the fourth century.

In the Law, was the shadow: in the Gospel, is the IMAGE: in heaven, is the REALITY. Formerly, a lamb was offered, a calf was offered: now, Christ is offered—Here, he is in an IMAGE: there, he is in REALITY. [16d]

6. Macarius the Egyptian lived in the fourth century.

In the Church are offered bread and wine, the ANTITYPE of Christ’s flesh and blood: and they, who partake of the visible bread, eat the flesh of the Lord SPIRITUALLY. [16e]

7. Gregory of Nyssa lived in the fourth century.

Since this holy altar, at which we stand, is in its nature only a common stone, differing nothing from those other flat tablets, which are built into our walls or which ornament our pavements; but, when it has been dedicated to the service of God and has received the benediction, it is a holy table, an unpolluted altar, no longer indiscriminately handled by all, but touched only by the priests and even by them with pious caution: and, again, since the bread is originally mere common bread; but, when the mystery shall have wrought its sanctification, it is both called and is the body of Christ: THUS the mystic oil, THUS the wine, though of small value before the benediction, respectively operate with mighty power after sanctification by the Spirit. The SAME potency of the word, moreover, effects a venerable and honourable priest: when, through the newness of the benediction, the individual is separated from common fellowship with the many. For, only yesterday and the day before, he was nothing more than one out of the many, nothing more than one of the laity: but now he is set forth, as a leader, as a precessor, as a teacher of piety, as a heirophant of the hidden mysteries. And these things he does, not at all changed in body or in form: but he does them; being, in outward appearance, the same person that he was before; though, in his invisible soul, through a certain invisible power and grace, being transmuted into a better condition. [17a]

8. Cyril of Jerusalem lived in the fourth century.

(1.) While eating, the communicants are commanded to eat, not bread and wine, but the ANTITYPE of the body and blood of Christ. [17b]

(2.) As ALSO the bread of the Eucharist, after the invocation of the Holy Spirit, is no longer bare bread, but the body of Christ: so LIKEWISE, after the invocation, this holy ointment (the ointment or chrism formerly used in the rite of Confirmation) is no longer mere ointment, nor as one may say common ointment. [17c]

9. Augustine flourished in the fourth and fifth centuries.

(1.) The Lord, when he gave the SIGN of his body, did not doubt to say: This is my body. [18a]

(2.) These are sacraments, in which, not what they are, but what they shew forth, is the point to be always attended to: far THEY ARE THE SIGNS OF THINGS, BEING ONE THING, AND SIGNIFYING ANOTHER THING. [18b]

(3.) Christ instructed them, and said unto them: It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing. The words, which I speak unto you, are spirit and life. As if he had said: Understand SPIRITUALLY what I have spoken. You are NOT about to eat this identical body, which you see; and you are NOT about to drink this identical blood, which they who crucify me will pour out. I have commended unto you a certain sacrament: which, if SPIRITUALLY understood, will vivify you. Though it must be celebrated visibly, it must be understood invisibly. [18c]

(4.) In the interpretation of figurative passages, let the following canon be observed.—

If the passage be preceptive, either forbidding some flagitious deed and some heinous crime, or commanding something useful and beneficent: then such passage is NOT FIGURATIVE. But, if the passage seems, either to command some flagitious deed and some heinous crime, or to forbid something useful and beneficent: then such passage is FIGURATIVE.

Thus, for example, Christ says: Unless ye shall eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye shall have no life in you.

Now, in these words, he seems to command a heinous crime or a flagitious deed. Therefore this passage is a figure. [18d]

10. Theodoret lived in the fifth century.

(1.) Our Saviour interchanged the names: for to his body be gave the name of the SYMBOL, while to the SYMBOL he gave the name of his body; and, having called himself A VINE, he applied the appellation of his blood to the SYMBOL.—Our Lord required: that they, who partake of the divine mysteries, should not attend to the nature of the things which they see; but that, in the change of names, they should believe that change which is wrought by grace: inasmuch as he, who called his own natural body wheat and bread, and who further bestowed upon himself the appellation of a vine, honoured also the viable SYMBOLS with the name of his body and blood; NOT CHANGING THEIR NATURE, BUT ADDING GRACE TO NATURE. [19a]

(2.) The mystic symbols, AFTER CONSECRATION, PASS NOT OUT OF THEIR OWN NATURE: FOR THEY REMAIN IN THE FORMER SUBSTANCE and shape and appearance: and they are seen and touched, such as they were before. But they are understood to be what they were: and they are believed and venerated, as being those things which they are believed. Compare, therefore, the IMAGE with the ARCHETYPE; and you will perceive their resemblance: for the TYPE must needs be similar to the TRUTH. [19b]

11. Pope Gelasius lived in the fifth century: and, in his quality of a Pope speaking judicially or controversially, it is thought, that he specially merits the attention of the Romish Clergy.

Certainly, the sacraments of the body and blood of the Lord, which we receive, are a divine thing: because, by these, we are made partakers of the divine nature. Nevertheless, THE SUBSTANCE OR NATURE OF THE BREAD AND WINE CEASES NOT TO EXIST: and, assuredly, the IMAGE and SIMILITUDE of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries. [19c]

12. Vacundus lived in the sixth century.

The sacrament of adoption may be called adoption: just as the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which sacrament is in the consecrated bread and wine, we are wont to call his body and blood. Not, INDEED, THAT THE BREAD IS PROPERLY HIS BODY, OR THAT THE WINE IS PROPERLY HIS BLOOD: but we so denominate them, because they contain the mystery (or sacrament) of his body and blood within themselves. Hence it was, that our Lord called the consecrated bread and wine, which he delivered to his disciples, his own body and blood. [20a]

13. Ephrem of Antioch flourished in the sixth century.

The body of Christ, which is taken by the faithful, NEITHER DEPARTS FROM ITS SENSIBLE SUBSTANCE, on the one hand: nor remains separated from intellectual grace, on the other hand. And spiritual baptism, likewise, being whole and single, both retains the propriety of ITS SENSIBLE SUBSTANCE, I mean THE WATER: and loses not that, which it hath become. [20b]

14. The venerable Bede flourished in the eighth century.

The Lord, in the Supper, gave to his disciples the FIGURE of his holy body and blood. [20c]

15. Amalar of Triers lived in the ninth century.

(1.) Sacraments ought to have a certain SIMILITUDE of those things, whereof they are sacraments. Let us, therefore, say: that the officiating priest bears a SIMILITUDE to Christ, AS the bread and wine bear a SIMILITUDE to the body and blood of Christ. [20d]

(2.) After a certain mode, the sacrament of the body of Christ is Christ’s body. For, unless sacraments had a certain SIMILITUDE of those things whereof they are sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all: but, FROM THIS VERY SIMILITUDE, THEY COMMONLY RECEIVE THE NAMES OF THE THINGS THEMSELVES. [21a]

16. Walafrid Strabo lived in the ninth century.

Christ, in the Supper, which, before his betrayal, he had celebrated with his disciples after the solemnisation of the ancient Passover, delivered to the same disciples the sacraments of his body and blood IN THE SUBSTANCE OF BREAD AND WINE:—and taught them; that they ought to pass, from things CARNAL to things SPIRITUAL, from things EARTHLY to things HEAVENLY, from IMAGES to TRUTH. [21b]

17. Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mentz, lived in the ninth century.

Lately, indeed, SOME INDIVIDUALS, not thinking rightly concerning the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord, have said: that That very body and blood of the Lord, which was born from the Virgin Mary, in which the Lord himself suffered on the cross, and in the which he rose again from the sepulchre, is the same as that which is received from the altar. In opposition to which error as far as lay in our power, writing to the Abbot Egilus, WE PROPOUNDED WHAT OUGHT TRULY TO BE BELIEVED CONCERNING THE BODY ITSELF. [21c]

18. Bertram of Corby lived in the ninth century.

Let us now consider the question: Whether the identical body, which was born from Mary and suffered and died and was buried, and which now sits at the right hand of the Father, is that, which in the Church is daily received by the mouth of the faithful through the mystery of the sacraments.—

According to the substance of the creatures, WHAT THEY WERE BEFORE CONSECRATION, THAT ALSO THEY ARE AFTER IT.—

Spiritual flesh which is received by the mouth of the faithful, and spiritual blood which is daily given to be drunk by the faithful, DIFFER from the flesh which was crucified and from the blood which was shed by the knee of the soldier.

Therefore they are not me same. [22]

IV. The plain inquirer will now judge for himself: whether the romish doctrine of Transubstantiation, with the associated practice of adoring as God the consecrated elements, be taught either in Scripture, or by the early Fathers.

As for Scripture, sufficient has already been said: and, with respect to the evidence afforded by the ancient Doctors of the Catholic Church, those Doctors, we see, protest against any such new-fangled notions, not only during the three first centuries, but down even to the ninth century; and they protest, moreover, in every possible way that could well have been either required or imagined.

1. According to their interpretation of Scripture, which manifestly was the interpretation received as orthodox by the universal Church at the times when they respectively flourished, we have the following very distinct and very important results.

(1.) The consecrated elements are IMAGES or SYMBOLS or TYPES or SIGNS or REPRESENTATIONS of the body and blood of Christ.

(2.) Communicants do NOT partake of that literal body and blood, in which the Lord suffered and which he shed on the cross.

(3.) The symbols of bread and wine, AFTER consecration, STILL REMAIN UNCHANGED IN THEIR ORIGINAL SUBSTANCE: and, consequently, they are NOT transubstantiated.

(4.) Christ called the bread and wine his body and blood, IN THE SAME SENSE and ON THE SAME PRINCIPLE that he called himself a vine.

(5.) When the early writers style the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ; or when they say, that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ; or when they affirm, that the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ: they themselves state, by way of explanation, that they only speak metonymically and figuratively. For they distinctly tell us: that they are wont to call the bread and wine Christ’s body and blood; NOT BECAUSE THE BREAD IS PROPERLY HIS BODY, OR BECAUSE THE WINE IS PROPERLY HIS BLOOD; but only because they contain the sacrament of his body and blood within themselves, or because the IMAGE and SIMILITUDE of his body and blood are exhibited in the due celebration of the Eucharist.

(6.) Hence, in strict consistency, the sole change in the elements, produced by consecration, is said, by the same early writers, to be a MORAL and not a PHYSICAL change. For they pronounce it to be such a change, as is produced in the confirmatory chrism or in the stone of an altar-table or in the baptismal water; when, by consecration, they cease to be secular, and are devoted to sacred purposes: and, even yet more remarkably, they pronounce it to be such a change, as is produced in a man; when, by ordination, he ceases to be a laic, and becomes a clerk.

2. Nor do we thus find, in the old Doctors of the Church, a mere simple anticipatory protest against the modern Romish dogma, of Transubstantiation: we may note also, in the case of Raban and Bertram, a formal direct synchranical protest against the wild notion of Christ’s CORPOREAL or LITERAL or SUBSTANTIAL presence in the Eucharist, when, in the ninth century, and under the fostering management of Paschase Radbert, it was attempting to creep into the hitherto untainted Western Churches.

No sooner was the idle phantasy started; that The identical body and blood of Christ, in which he was born from the Virgin Mary, is literally and substantially received from the altar: than it was distinctly and openly opposed, on the specific ground, not only of its abstract scriptural falsehood, but likewise of its palpable novelty and its then scanty reception. For all these three points are clearly set forth by Archbishop Raban in his three very remarkable expressions, LATELY, and SOME INDIVIDUALS, and NOT THINKING RIGHTLY.