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.