Chapter 43: The Synod of Constance and Transubstantiation
understanding, could not help but see such an absurdity. Therefore, he says these things must be very advisedly and rightly understood. If not, he warns, one may fall into a greater error than that with which Berengarius was infected. He saw that it was not convenient to say that the body of Christ is sensibly felt in the Sacrament, or that it is broken or rent with the teeth.
The Master of the Sentences, in the fourth book, attempted to remedy this issue, stating that these things must be attributed not to the body of Christ but to the signs, which they affirm to be accidents. Thus, he used a figure whereby what belongs to the signs is attributed to the thing. If we use this figure in due time, interpreting the Fathers' sayings when they speak magnificently of this Sacrament to the people, our adversaries claim we corrupt and falsify their writings. Nevertheless, they themselves resort to the same interpretation, using a figure where it ought least to be, namely in declaring an opinion and framing a recantation, which ought to be the clearest and most plain of all.
So, we disregard this council, seeing that they dealt so clumsily.
Chapter 43:
The Synod of Constance and Transubstantiation They also object to the Synod of Constance, wherein Wycliffe was condemned, and where John Hus and Jerome of Prague were burned for various articles, but especially for holding against Transubstantiation, which was ordained there by a full decree. Doubtless, we cannot choose but call this council treacherous, seeing it found the means to slay those two men, who came under safe conduct. This also the Emperor took grievously, for
he, among others, had given his word. Otherwise, the Bohemians would never have allowed those men to go to that Council.
Insofar as they decreed touching Transubstantiation, it is an argument that the same is a new opinion. It is of no force when many say it was confirmed by a decree but not first invented because, under Nicholas the Roman
Bishop in the Vercellentian and Roman Synod, it was manifestly enough declared. We grant indeed that this opinion broke out after a sort and was obtruded before the Council of Constance. However, because it was not fully received and faced many contradictions, they judged it necessary to establish the same again, and that tyrannically, by fire and cruel threatenings.
Against this Council, we object to the general and universal Council of Florence, held under Eugenius, Bishop of Rome, the fourth of that name, who was present there. Also present were the Emperor of Greece, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and many Bishops of the East. In this Council, the Greek Church was joined with the Latin, and they agreed on the dissension about the Holy Ghost. We may see in the Acts of that Council, that after agreement was made between those of the East and the West about certain articles, the Pope wanted to proceed further and have them entreat about Transubstantiation, and to receive it according to the opinion of the Western Church.
The Greeks resisted and would not deal in that matter, nor could they be driven by any reasons to consent to it. When writings of union were to be drawn and published, they ensured that no mention would be made of that matter. This was observed, as evident in a Bull of Eugenius, which begins:
"Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad," wherein he rejoices with Christendom for the good fortune that the Greek and Latin Churches were once again joined together.
If this Transubstantiation had been of such great importance, the Roman Church would never have been joined with the Greek Church, which did not receive it. For at this day, they say that it is a pestilent heresy not to admit the same. But it is not credible that the Latin Church would then join itself with heretics and be partakers with them.
This also dissolves the argument they brought regarding the universal consent of the Church. It is not true that all Churches agreed together on this; for that ancient Church, which existed in the time of the Fathers, as we have shown, never dreamed of any such thing. Again, the Eastern and Greek Churches were of the same judgment as we are.
Moreover, in their arguments, they add exceedingly great praises of the power of God to bring men to believe in such a great miracle. But it is a most feeble kind of reasoning. That which they ought to have shown, they have never proved—namely, that God's will is to do this and that the holy scriptures promise us this. For what they allege, "This is my body," is in controversy and may have another sense. Therefore, the argument is weak, and we will show its feebleness by a certain example.
The Lord said to Nicodemus that none can enter into the kingdom of heaven unless he is born anew. Nicodemus began to ask, "How can a man of ripe age, or else an old man, enter the second time into his mother's womb?" It might have been said to him: Christ has now affirmed that it shall be so; why do you doubt the power of God, whereby all things are created? By it, you may undoubtedly be born again out of your mother's womb. However,
Christ did not say this. Instead, He declared that all this should be done by spiritual regeneration. Although He mentioned water, which pertains to baptism, He most plainly taught that we should be born again by the Spirit.
So, we see it come to pass in this place. Christ commanded that we should eat His flesh. In receiving bread, He said: "This is my body." The transubstantiators say: It cannot be that the body of the Lord should be
together with bread; therefore, the nature thereof must be transubstantiated into the body of Christ. They will persuade that this is done by the power of God. But in the meantime, they object that they alone do not say this: for Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Cyril, when they dispute this change, send us to the power of God and extol it with wonderful praises.
We answer that the Fathers speak well. Indeed, it belongs to the power of God to change bread and wine so that the sacraments should be such as they were not before. It is not a work of nature that they should so mightily and effectually signify, offer, and exhibit the body and blood of the Lord, which must be apprehended with our minds and faith. Therefore, the Holy Ghost is the chief in this business, and the institution of the Lord is of great force.
The words uttered by divine inspiration and now repeated profit greatly.
Moreover, while we communicate, there is a change or conversion of us into Christ, which far exceeds the power of nature.
But now, seeing the supernatural power of God is required for all these things, they apply the same to transubstantiation. It is as if we should argue from the more universal to the more particular affirmatively, which is not lawful. Moreover, baptism requires the same power, as it is not the work of nature that water should become the fountain of regeneration. But some take issue with comparing baptism to the Eucharist. Although they cannot deny that Christ is also present in baptism and given to us (for it is written:
"So many of you as are baptized have put on Christ"), they say: Christ is better and after a more excellent manner in the Eucharist than in baptism; therefore, the bread is transubstantiated, and it is not necessary that the water should be changed.
We answer that we need not strive much over which sacrament Christ is more excellent, as long as it is granted that He is in both. Just as He may be in one, with the substance of the elements preserved, so may He be in the other. But if you will contend about their worthiness, the excellence of
baptism may be shown by effective reasons. It is more to be begotten than to be nourished. Furthermore, baptism was made famous by many miracles.
The heavens were opened, the voice of the Father was heard, and the Holy Ghost was seen in the likeness of a dove—things which did not happen in the institution of the Eucharist. We speak not to abase this sacrament, for it is most worthy and should be exceedingly honored, but to answer the objection about the power of God.
We have already shown before, out of Augustine's "De Trinitate," Book 3, Chapter 10, that we must not allow such exceedingly great miracles as these men bring. This also appears if you rehearse the verses of Gregory
Nazianzen, wherein he comprehended all the miracles of Christ. He made no mention of these miracles, which, if believed, are singular and without comparison. Augustine also, while comprising the marvels of the holy scripture in his book of miracles, does not mention transubstantiation.
Therefore, it appears that we must not use an argument drawn from the power of God for this opinion, which we deny not; rather, we affirm that this sacrament requires it.
Examination of Miracles and Transubstantiation Next, they objected that their opinion was confirmed by many wonders and miracles, which are read in Cyprian, in the life of Gregory, and among many other writers. We answer that miracles might be done concerning the Eucharist for three causes. Firstly, to keep back wicked and unworthy men from such a worthy Sacrament. This kind of miracle we allow, for the Apostle writes that among the Corinthians, many were feeble and weak, and that many were asleep because they communicated unworthily. I believe those men mentioned by Cyprian must be brought into this category.
Secondly, another kind of miracle is sometimes brought in to set forth the excellency of this Sacrament, so that its dignity and greatness might be
expressed. These miracles we also reject not, for we know that baptism was often adorned with many miracles.
Thirdly, there may be miracles for confirming this opinion or rather error concerning Transubstantiation. This manner of miracle is what our adversaries allege against us. But miracles of this sort must be utterly rejected. We are admonished by the law that whenever a prophet tries to draw men to idolatry and superstitions, even if he gains credibility through miracles, we must not believe him. Rather, the Lord would have him stoned. We know moreover that Antichrist shall come, and that he shall be famous for signs and wonders. We are not ignorant that in the time of Moses, the sorcerers stood before Pharaoh and performed wonders against the word of God.
We read in Irenaeus's first book about one Mark, a deceiver and heretic, who in the sacrament of the Eucharist did wonderfully beguile the simple.
He changed the colour of the wine to appear as blood, and by his enchantment, he so increased a little wine that the whole cup was filled and ran over. When there was a larger cup of more capacity, that too was filled to the top without the addition of more liquid. Who would say that through these miracles, his heresy should be approved?
If we mention the pagans, we read that rivers of blood flowed from the earth, and that blood sprang from Jupiter's thumb. Titus Livius says that it rained flesh in Rome. Quintus Curtius states that in Tyre, when it was besieged by Alexander the Great, bread openly sweated blood. It is also said that Apollonius of Tyana, when he was in council before Domitian the Emperor, suddenly vanished and was no more found. The pagans have countless stories to confirm their idol worship.
Therefore, we wholly reject these miracles, which these men claim serve to establish the superstition of transubstantiation. We are not to make much account of what they bring forth as a miracle wrought by Gregory, Bishop