The Buckler of the Faith, Part 2 · Article 35 · Subpart 13
The opinion of the ancient Fathers touching the sacrifice of the Eucharist.
Sect. 15 This is a point which eueryevery man takes vponupon him to know. For there is nothing easier then to collect diuerse places out of the ancient Fathers, taken vponupon trust, and so to make a booke. But to sound into the depth of them, and to find their manner of writing for the time, their alteration of words and customes in seuerall ages, their intents, and the occasions and consequences of abuses which ages and times ensuing hauehave disclosed, is a thing whereunto few men attaine, and for which 20. yeares study is a small time.
For the foure reasons aforesaid, the ancient Fathers called the Eucharist a sacrifice, and a sacrifice of the body of Christ, and a sacrifice of our redemption. But where occasion serued, they gaue vsus enough to vnderstand, that their meaning is sound, and altogether contrary to our aduersaries opinions. To proue it I will produce a few places out of them.
The booke of Faith written to Peter the Deacon, were it Augustines or Fulgentius his disciples, in the 19. chapter saith,*Sacrificium panis & v…ni in fide & charitate, sancta Ecclesia Catholica per vniuersum orbē terrae offerre non cessat. In illis enim carnalibus victimis, figuratio fuit carnis Christi quam pro peccatis nostris ipse sine peccato fuerat oblaturus, & sanguinis quē erat effusurus in remissionem peccatorum nostrorum. In isto autem sacrificio gratiarum actio atque commemoratio est carnis Christi quam pro nobis obtulit, &c. The vniuersall Church throughout all the world doth not ceasse to offer a sacrifice of bread and wine in faith and charitie. For in the carnall flesh-offerings (of the old Testament) there was a representation of the flesh of Christ, which he being without sinne, was to offer for our sinnes; and of his bloud, which he was to shed for the remission of our sinnes. But in this sacrifice (of the Eucharist) there is a thansgiuing and a commemoration of the flesh of Christ, which he offered for vsus, and of his bloud which the same God shed for vsus. Note here specially that they offered a sacrifice of bread and wine, in commemoration of the flesh and bloud of Iesus Christ that was broken and shed for vsus.
And in the 17. Chapter and 17. booke of the Citie of God, he saith,*Manducare panem est in nouo Testamento sacrificium Christianorum. To eate the bread in the new Testament, is the sacrifice of Christians.
And in the 20. book against Faustus the Manichee, cap. 21. he saith,**Huius caro & sanguis ante aduentum Christi per victimarum similitudinem promittebatur, in passione Christi per ipsam veritatem reddebatur: Post ascensum Christi per Sacramentum memoriae …elebratur. This flesh & bloud of Christ was promised before his coming, by the resemblance of sacrifices: in his passion it was truly exhibited. After the ascention of Christ it is celebrated by the sacrament of commemoration.
In his 23. Epistle to Boniface he saith: Oftentimes when the passion approcheth, we say, To morrow or the next day is the passion of our Lord, although there are so many yeares past since he suffered, and that the same passion was done but once. And vponupon the Sabboth day we say, This day the Lord rose againe, though there are so many yeares past since his resurrection. Why doth not some vain fellow tel vsus that we lie, in saying so, but because that day is called the Sonnes day, which is not the same day, but like vntounto it, by reuolution of Time?aNon semel immolatus est Christus in ipso, & tamen in Sacramento non solùm per omnes paschae solemnitates, sed omne die populis immolatur? Nec vtique mentitur qui interrogatus, eum respōderit immolari. Si enim Sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum quarum Sacramēta sunt non haberent, omnino Sacramēta nō essēt. Ex hac autem similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum nomina accipiunt. Was not Christ once sacrificed in his body? and yet he is sacrificed to the people in a sacred signe, not onelyonly at eueryevery solemnization of the feast of Easter, but also eueryevery day. And yet he lieth not, who being asked that question, maketh answer and saith, That he is sacrificed. For if the Sacraments had not some resemblance of the things whereof they are Sacraments, they should not be Sacraments. Now for this resemblance most commonly they hauehave the name of the things themselues.
And to shew how he vnderstandeth the word Sacrament, in the tenth booke and fifth chapter, of the Citie of God, he saith thus,bSacrificium visibile est inuisibilis sacrificij sacramētum id est, sacrum signum. The visible sacrifice is a Sacrament, that is, a sacred signe of the inuisible Sacrifice. And a little after, That which men call a Sacrifice, is a signe of the true Sacrifice. And in his 5. epistle to Marcelline, he saith,cIllud quod ab hominibus vocatur sacrificium, signum est veri sacrificij. The signes when they belong to diuine things, are called Sacraments.
In the Canon, Hoc est, taken out of Saint Augustine, in the second Distinction of Consecration, these words are found:dVocatur ipsa imolatio carnis quae Sacerdotis manibus fit, Christi passio…mors, crucifixio, non rei veritate, sed significante mysterio. The sacrifice of the flesh which is made by the hands of the Priest, is called the passion, the death, and the crucifying, not in truth, but in a significant mysterie, in the same manner as the Sacrament of faith, whereby we vnderstand Baptisme is called faith.
In the booke of the Sentences of Prosper, gathered out of Saint Augustine, in the same Distinction, this place is alledged;aCan. Semel. Dist. 2. de Consecrat. Iesus Christ was but once sacrificed in his owne body, and yet he is eueryevery day sacrificed in the Sacrament: that is, (as he expounded it before) in a sacred signe. And thereuppon the ancient Glosses of the Romish Church note in the margent:bChristus immolatur, id est, immolatio eius repraesentatur: & fit memoria passionis. Christ is sacrificed, that is, his Sacrifice is represented, and a commemoration is made of his passion.
Therefore the Fathers not onelyonly say, That the Sacrifice which is offered in the Church, is the Sacrifice of the bodie of Christ, but also, that the same Sacrifice which they offer, is his death and passion. Saint Cyprian, in his third Epistle and second booke saith:cPassio est Domini sacrificium quod offerimus. In all the Sacrifices which we offer, we make mention of his passion, for the Sacrifice which we offer, is his passion. And Chrysostome in his 21. Homilie vponupon the Acts, speaking of the holy Scripture, saith,dforeign. While this death is finished, and this dreadfull sacrifice, and these vnutterable mysteries. The body therefore of Iesus Christ is taken and sacrificed in the Eucharist, in the same manner as he dieth there, that is, as it is said before in the Romish Decretall, not in truth, but in a significant mysterie.
Chrysostome in his seuenteenth Homilie vponupon the Epistle to the Hebrews, saith.eforeign. We alwayes offer the same Sacrifice: or to speake more properly, the commemoration of the same Sacrifice.
Eusebius in the tenth chapter of his first booke of the Demonstration of the Gospell, saith▪fforeign. Seeing that we hauehave receiued the memorie of this Sacrifice to celebrate the same vponupon the Table thereof by the signes of his body and of his bloud, according to the institution of the new Testament, we are taught by the Prophet Dauid, saying, Thou hast prepared my Table, &c. And it is to be noted, that the same chapter being very long, speaketh of nothing else but of the Sacrifices both in the old and new Testament; but speaketh not of sacrificing of the body of our Lord in the Eucharist, but onelyonly of celebrating the memorie thereof.
Iustin Martyr against Triphon saith,gPag. 201. Edit. Con…el. foreign, The oblation of the Cake of fine floure was a figure of the bread in the Eucharist, which Iesus Christ hath commanded vsus to do in commemoration of his death.
It is the propertie of Grammarians, and specially of those that make Dictionaries, to name things by their names, and to speake simply. So doth Suidas the Grammarian, in the word Ecclesia. hforeign.The Church (saith he) maketh an oblation of the signes of the body and of the bloud of Christ, sanctifying the whole lumpe by the first fruits.
The Priest in the Masse speaketh as though he beleeued not that that which he sacrificeth is the body of Iesus Christ, seeing he offereth that Sacrifice by Iesus Christ; and desireth that the Angels would present that Oblation vntounto God and carry it to his heauenly altar; for Iesus Christ hath no need of the aide of Angels to present him to his Father. And it also appeareth in this, that he calleth his oblation,*Per Christū Dominum nostrum per quē haec omnia Domine semper bona creas, sanctificas, viuificas, benedicis et praestas nobis. gifts, and presents, in the plurall number, which God blesseth, createth, quickneth, and alwaies sanctifieth: of all which words, none can be applied to Iesus Christ. For it is hard to be conceiued how the consecrated Sacrifice or Host may be called, All these good things, if Iesus Christ be the Host. And it is likewise more hardly to be comprehended how God continually createth Iesus Christ: and how he blesseth and quickeneth Iesus Christ by Iesus Christ. These words hauehave a good meaning, being spoken of the bread and wine, but not of Iesus Christ. If by these words the Priest vnderstandeth that he speaketh of the bread and the wine, and giueth thankes to God, because he alwaies createth and quickneth those things, he falleth into three ineuitable absurdities. The first is, that he giueth thankes to God, because he createth the bread and the wine in the Eucharist, when according to their doctrine there is neither bread nor wine. The second is, That he sheweth the bread and the wine as being present, saying All these good things, whē those things are no more those things, being (as they say) transsubstantiated into flesh and bloud. Adde hereunto, that these words are said at the very same time when the Priest lifts vp the Host to cause it to be adored. But is not this a thing against all reason and apparence, that then when men adore the Host, and when they sacrifice the eternall Sonne of God to God for the redemption of soules, in stead of praising God for so great a benefite, they giuegive him thankes▪ because he maketh the corne to grow, and that he createth and blesseth it continually? That is all one in effect, as if when God admitteth any one into the Church by Baptisme, men should giuegive thankes vntounto God, because he created the water, and maketh fountaines and riuers continually to runne.
To be short, the Truth is so strong, that our Aduersaries out of the heate of disputation, ordinarily say as we say. Reade Lombard in the fourth booke of Sentences, the twelfth Distinction, at the letter G: and Thomas Aquinas in the third part of his Sermons, Question 83. Article 1. and you shall see that they wholly agree with vsus: and that they say, that the Eucharist is called a Sacrifice for no other reason, but because that therein a commemoration is made of the sacrifice of the Crosse, and because the sacrifice of the death of our Lord is therein applied vntounto vsus, that we may be partakers of that benefite.