The Buckler of the Faith, Part 2 · Article 38 · Subpart 10
Certaine places out of the ancient Fathers touching this subiect.
Sect. 33 Tertullian in his third booke against Marcion, the 19. chap.*Panem suū corpus appellans, vt & hinc iam eum intelligat corporis sui figuram pani dedisse. saith, God hath so reuealed it in your Gospell, calling the bread his body, that thereby thou mightest vnderstand, that he hath made the bread to be the figure of his body.
Also in his fourth booke against Marcion, 40 chapter, disputing against the Marcionites which denied that Iesus Christ had a true body,**Acceptum panem & distributum discipulis corpus suum fecit, dicendo, Hoc est corpus meum. Id est, figurae corporis mei. he saith, Iesus Christ hauing taken bread and giuen it to his disciples, made it to be his body, saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body, which should not be a figure if he had not a true body. The reason is, because we cannot truly prefigurate those things that are not.
Cyprian in the third Epistle of his second booke saith,***Vinum fuit quod sanguinem suum dixit. We finde that the cup which the Lord offered was mixed, and that that which he called his bloud was wine.
Origen vponupon the 15. of Saint Matthew saith:**Ille cibus qui sanctificatur per verbum Dei pèrque obsecrationē, iuxta id quod habet materiale in ventrem abit & in secessum emittitur. This meate which is sanctified by the word of God and by prayer, as touching the materiall substance descendeth into the belly, and is cast into the draught, and of his owne nature doth not sanctifie. There also he calleth that which we receiue in the Eucharist, a symbolicall or figuratiue body.
Eusebius in the eight booke of Euangelicall Demonstration, cap. 1. saith,*foreign. We hauehave receiued this custome, to celebrate the memory of this Sacrifice vponupon the table, by the wholsome signes of his body and of his bloud, according to the lawes of the new couenant.
Saint Augustine against Adimantus, Chap. 12. saith:**Non dubitauit dicere, hoc est corpus meumcum daret signum corporis sui. Iudam adhibuit ad conuiuium in quo corporis & sanguinis sui figuram discipulis cōmendauit & tradidit Videte fide manente signae variantur. Ibi petra Christus, nobis Christus quod in altari ponitur. Spiritualiter intelligite quod locutus sum. Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis & bibituri illum sanguinem quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent. Sacramentam aliquod vobis commendaui, spiritualiter intellectum viuificabit vos. Quem tenebo absentem? Quomodo in coelum manum mittam vt ibi fedentem teneam? Fidem mitte & tenuisti. Parentes tui tenuerunt carne, tu tene corde. The Lord made no difficultie to say, This is my body, when he gaue the signe of his body. There he doth not onelyonly say, that the Lord gaue the signe of his body, but also expoundeth these words, This is my body, by the signe of my body.
VponUpon the third Psalme he saith: Iesus Christ receiued Iudas to the feast, at the which he recommended and gaue the signe of his body and of his bloud to his disciples.
In the 45 Treatise vponupon Saint Iohn, This rocke was Christ. He saith Behold then, that faith remaining, the signes are diuerse. Then the Rocke was Christ, and now that which is set vponupon the table is Christ. Will you learne of Saint Augustine how that which is set vponupon the table is Christ? It is, as in time past the Rocke was Christ.
VponUpon the 38 Psalme he saith, Vnderstand that which I hauehave said vntounto you spiritually; you shall not eate that which you see, nor drinke the bloud which those that shall crucifie me will shed: I hauehave recommended a sacred signe vntounto you, which b…ing vnderstood spiritually, will quicken you.
And in the 50 Treatise vponupon Saint Iohn: Shall I take Iesus that is absent? How shall I stretch out my hand to heauen (where he is set) to lay hold on him? To this that holy personage answereth and saith: Send thy faith thither, and thou hast laid hold vponupon him: thy ancestors (the Iewes) had him bodily among them, hold thou him in thy heart. And in the first Treatise vponupon the first Epistle of Saint Iohn, he saith, Ipsum iam in coelo sedentem manu contrectare non possumus, sed fide contingere: Being set in heauen, we cannot handle him any more with our hands, but we may touch him with our hearts.
In the 23 Epistle to Boniface, he saith,*Sicut ergo secundū quendam modum Saeramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est, Sacramentum sanguinis Christi, sanguis Christi est. Ita Sacramentum fidei fides est. The Sacrament of the bodie of Christ, in some maner is the bodie of Christ, and the Sacrament of the bloud of Christ, is the bloud of Christ. And to shew how the Sacrament of the bodie of Christ is the bodie of Christ, he saith for example, it is, as Baptisme which is the Sacrament of faith, is faith; and as we are said to be buried by Baptisme.
And in the third booke of Christian Doctrine, cap. 16. he saith,**Nisi manducaueritis carnem filij hominis & non biberitis eius sanguinē, non habebitis vitam in vobis. Facinus vel flagitium videtur iubere. Figura est ergo praecipiens passioni Dominicae esse communicandum, & suauiter atque vtiliter recondendum in memoria, quòd pro nobis caro eius crucifixa & vulnerata sit. If you eate not the flesh of the Son of man, and drinke not his bloud, you shall not hauehave life in you; it seemeth that he commandeth a wicked thing. Therefore it is a figure, commanding vsus to communicate the passion of the Lord, and sweetly and profitably to hauehave in remembrance, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for vsus. Note, that he doth not onelyonly say that there is a figure in these words (If you eate not the flesh of the Sonne of man,) but also that he expoundeth this figure, thus, that in the sixt Chap. of Saint Iohn, to eate the flesh of the Lord, is to hauehave his death and passion in remembrance, which is an exposition which the Church of Rome receiueth not.
Ephraim Patriarch of Antiochia, alledged by Photius in his Librarie, saith,*Pag. 415. editionis August. foreign. The bodie of Christ which the faithfull receiue, loseth not his sensible substance; and is not separated from the intelligible grace. So Baptisme being wholly and onelyonly spirituall, keepeth the propertie of his sensible substance, that is, water, and loseth not that which it was before. This is an excellent place, for it sheweth in what sence the ancient Fathers called the Sacrament the bodie of Christ, seeing it is said, that it keepeth his first sensible substance, that is, the substance of bread, euen as the substance of water remaineth in baptisme.
Ʋigilius in his fourth booke against Eutyches, saith,**Si Verbi & carnis vna natura est, quomodo cùm verbum vbi{que} sit non vbique inuenitur & caro? nā quando in terra fuit, non erat vtique in coelo, & nunc quia in coelo est, non est vtique in terra. If the Word and the flesh hauehave but one nature, how cometh it to passe, that the Word being in all places, the flesh also is not in all places? for when it was here on earth, it was not in heauen; and now when it is in heauen, it is not here on earth. Our aduersaries seeke to defend themselues against this place, by saying, that the flesh of Christ is no more visible here on earth. But this excuse might as well hauehave serued the Eutychians, who said also, that the flesh of the Lord is no more visible here on earth. They dispute therefore against Ʋigilius, and ioyne with the ancient heretickes. For Ʋigilius said, that the flesh of Iesus Christ being on earth, was not in heauen, neither visibly nor inuisibly. Then it followeth, that he also meaneth, that the flesh of our Lord being in heauen, is not on earth, neither visibly nor inuisibly; otherwise there should be no correspondence betweene these two propositions, nor no consequence in his discourse.
Theodoretus disputeth against the same heretickes, in his first Dialogue intituled Immoueable, where he saith,*foreign. The Lord gaue the name of his bodie to the signe. Nothing can be more expresly spoken. There also he called the signe his bloud.
And a little after he saith,**foreign. Iesus Christ honoured the visible signes with the names of his bodie and of his bloud, not hauing changed their nature, but hauing added grace to nature. EueryEvery word in this sentence is of great force.
In the second Dialogue, the Eutychian hereticke maintaineth the changing of the substance of the bread into flesh after consecration; thereby to inferre, that in like manner after the incarnation of the Word, the flesh was changed into the diuine substance. But see what Theodoretus *foreign, &c.saith against it: The mysticall signes do not change their nature after consecration: for they remaine and continue in their first substance, figure and forme, and are visible and palpable as before; but they are vnderstood to be those things which they are made to be, and are beleeued and reuerenced as being made that which they are beleeued to be. So Gentian, Heruet, and Bellarmine translate it, and also the Greeke is cleare and manifest; and Theodoretus meaning cannot be otherwise expounded: for he disputed against an hereticke which affirmed that the substance of the bread and wine were changed in the Sacrament. But Theodoretus contradicting him, necessarily maintaineth that the substance of the bread and the wine still remaineth. For that occasion being offered to shew, that after the incarnation, the substance of the flesh of our Lord remained; Theodoretus should hauehave spoken very improperly and against himselfe, if to shew it, he should hauehave alledged, that the substance of the bread being changed, the accidents and the apparence of bread remained. That had bene as much as if he had pleaded the Eutychians cause, that would hauehave, that the substance of the flesh of Christ being changed, the apparence thereof remained.
Gelasius in his booke of two Natures saith,**Et tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis & vini. Et certè imago & similitudo corporis & sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur. And yet the substance and nature of bread and wine do still remaine; and certainly the image and resemblance of the body and the bloud of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries.
Chrysostome *Pag. 500. edit. Comel. foreignin his 82. Homilie vponupon Saint Matthew saith, When Iesus Christ gaue the mysteries, he gaue wine.
Chrysostome, or whosoeuer is the author of the imperfect worke vponupon Saint Mathew, in the 11. Homily saith,**Si ergo haec vasa sanctificata ad priuatos vsus transferre sic periculosum est in quibus non est verum corpus Christi, sed mysterium corporis eius continetur, quanto magis vasa corporis nostri, &c. If it be a sinne and a dangerous thing to put the sanctified vessels to priuate vses, as Baltazzar teacheth vsus, who drinking in the sacred cups, lost both his kingdome and his life: if, I say, it is so dangerous a thing to put those sacred vessels to priuate vses, wherein the true bodie of Iesus Christ is not, but the mysterie of his bodie is therein contained; how much more the vessels of our bodies? It is to no purpose to say, that the Arrians did corrupt that booke: for the Arrians had no other opinion touching that point, then those that hold the orthodoxall and true faith.
Saint Macarius the Egyptian in his 27 Homily**foreign. saith, In the Church bread and wine is offered, being the figure of his flesh and of his bloud: and those that participate that bread which is seene, spiritually eate the flesh of our Lord.
Maximus which hath made notes vponupon Denis falsly surnamed the Areopagite, saith, foreign, These things are signes, and not the truth.
But not to be too tedious, (for a man might set down a thousand such places) I will content my selfe with the producing of certaine Councels. In the volume of the Canons of the Councels of Africa, the 37 Canon saith,*foreign. To the end (as the Lord himselfe hath taught vsus) that in the sacred Seruice, we should offer nothing but the bodie and the bloud of our Lord, that is, nothing but bread and wine mixed with water. Here by the ordinance of a Councell, the exposition of these words, My bodie and my bloud, is set downe, that is, bread and wine mixed with water. And the same Canon is repeated in the Councell in Trulle, Canon 32.
The 2. Canon of the Councell of Ancyra forbiddeth Deacons that had sacrificed to idols no more to present the bread and the cup. And the last Canon saue two of Neocesarea, forbiddeth Priests of country villages**foreign. to giuegive the bread and the cup in the presence of a Bishop, or of a Priest of a towne.
The Councell of Constantinople holden anno 756. composed of 338. Bishops, condemning images, expresly speaketh of this Sacrament, saying, Behold the image of this quickning or liuely body, &c. And a little after: Iesus Christ commanded that we should set vponupon the table an image totally chosen, to wit, the substance of bread, lest, if it should be figured by humane forme, idolatry might steale in. A place which the 2. Councell of Nice authoriseth, by condemning it. For nothing pleased that abhominable Councell, but that which displeaseth God.
It is a mockerie to say, that the Fathers spake in that manmer, lest they should be vnderstood by the Catechumeni, seeing that both their Sermons, and their bookes, and the Councels are not expresly made for the Catechumeni, but for all the faithfull.Hier. in 1. ad Corinth. c. 11. Euagrius lib. 4. histor. cap. 35. Nicephorus lib. 17. cap. 25. Hesych. in Leuit. lib. 2. cap. 8. Eusebius li. 7. cap. 8. Augustinus contra literas Petiliani lib. 2. cap. 23. Oportet eam carere variarum illecebris voluptatum, vt corpus & sanguinem Christi ministret. And it is not credible that the Fathers speaking to the faithfull would lie for feare of offending the Catechumeni, which would hauehave bene much more offended, if they had vnderstood that the Fathers had told the faithfull one thing and them another. Much lesse is it to be beleeued, that if the consecrated hoast be Iesus Christ himselfe, that the Pastors of the Church would hauehave perswaded the Catechumeni that it is not so; seeing that at this day they make little children beleeue it. I know that the Fathers spake of the mysteries of faith with more sobriety before the Catechumeni, but it is one thing to speake to the Catechumeni, and another thing to write and preach to the faithfull, as the Fathers in these places do. Let vsus hereunto adde ancient customes. The Christians in Saint Pauls time made a banket in the Church, wherein they did eate the remainder of the Sacrament. In many places they gaue that which was left to little children. And in other places they burnt the rest of the sacred bread which was left. Saint Ambrose in the booke of Widowes teacheth vsus, that in his time they vsed women to administer the body of our Lord. And he speakes of widowes; a thing which at this day would be held to be prophane; & which in truth would be very inconuenient, if that which were giuen them to beare and administer were the true and naturall body of the Sonne of God. Then also they gaue the Sacrament into the hands of the people, and sometimes they suffered them to carrie it home to their houses.*Ambrosius oratione de obitu fratris Satyri. Satyrus brother to Saint Ambrose, hung it about his necke, and swam therewith.
Things which would neuer hauehave bene suffered if they had beleeued that the bread had bene the true body of Christ. Then they spake not of concomitance, nor of putting the whole body into eueryevery drop of wine in the cup: nor of accidents without substance, nor of a body without a place. They vsed no lifting vp of the host, and the people reuerenced the symbols and signes, but adored not the Sacrament as God. They adored Iesus Christ in the action of the Eucharist, not as being inclosed in the bread, but as being in heauen on the right hand of God. And the consecration of the bread was not made by these words This is my body, but by prayer. Iustin Martyr at the end of his second Apologie,*foreign. called that which they receiued in the holy Supper, a meate consecrated by the prayer of the word proceeding from God. S. Augustine in his 4 chap. and third booke of the Trinitie, saith, That which is taken from the fruits of the earth and consecrated by mysticall prayer. Theodoretus alledged before, bringeth in the Heretick speaking in this manner, saying,*foreign. The signes of the body and of the bloud are one thing before the inuocation made by the Priest, but after inuocation they are changed, and made other things. Origen in his 8. booke against Celsus saith,*foreign. We eate loaues of bread which by prayer are made a body, which is some holy thing. Basil in his booke of the holy Spirit, cap. 27. if that book be his, calleth foreign, The words of the inuocation when they shew the bread. Which shewing of the bread was not done by lifting vp a round wafer ouer the Priests head,foreign. but by drawing of curtaines which hung betweene the table and the people. As S. Chrysostome saith, in his 3. Homilie vponupon the Epistle to the Ephesians. Then consecration was done before they said these words, This is my body, which Pope Innocent the 3. acknowledgeth, as we hauehave already shewed.
That which deceiueth many men, is diuerse bookes falsly attributed to the ancient Fathers, as the booke of the Supper of our Lord attributed to Saint Cyprian: the Catecheticall Orations of Gregorie Nissen: the Catechesis Mystagogicke placed at the end of Cyrils Catechisme: and diuerse the like false bookes, which were not brought forth till many yeares after the death of the authors of whom they beare the name, the style and doctrine thereof wholly repugning the authors to whom they are attributed.
To no better purpose they produce the rhetoricall amplifications of certaine Fathers in their Homilies, where they speake of chewing and grinding the flesh of the Lord between their teeth, of thrusting their fingers into his wounds, of embracing his crosse, of making the altar red with the bloud of the Lord: of hote coales brought with tongues by Seraphins, &c. Excessiue speeches vsed to rauish the spirits of the auditors, and such as if a man presse according to the letter, would bring in a thousand absurdities.
But the greatest matter which they alledge, and whereat they stumble, is, that oftentimes among the ancient Fathers that which is receiued in the Eucharist, is called the body of Christ, and that they say that the Priest with his sacred mouth, maketh the body of Christ. But he that hath read the ancient Fathers, knoweth that they make two sorts of the body of Christ, one that was crucified for vsus, the other which is receiued in the Eucharist, whereof the last is eaten by the faithfull, but the other can not be eaten with the mouth. Saint Ierome vponupon the Epistle to the Ephesians saith:*2. De Consecr. Can. Dupliciter intelligitur caro Christi, vel spiritualis illa atque diuina de qua ipse ait, caro mea est verè cibus, vel Caro ea quae crucifixa est, & sanguis qui militis effusus est lancea. The flesh and the bloud of Christ is vnderstood two wayes, either that spirituall and diuine flesh, whereof he himselfe saith, My flesh is meate indeed; or that flesh which was crucified, & that bloud which was shed by the souldiers speare. And the same Father in 2. Distinction of Consecration saith:**Can. De hac quidem hostia quae in Christi commemoratione mirabiliter fit, edere licet. De illa verò quam Christus in ara crucis obtulit, secundùm se nulli edere licet. We are permitted to eate of yt hoast which is wonderfully made in remēbrance of Christ. But it is not lawfull for any man to eate of yt same hoast which Christ offered vponupon the tree of the crosse.
Saint Augustine oftentimes speaketh of eating the body of Christ: but to the end that men should know that it is another body then that which was crucified, writing vponupon the 98. Psalme, he produceth Iesus Christ speaking in this manner: You shall not eate this body which you see, neither shall you drinke the bloud which those that shall crucifie me shall shed. What body then do they eate? He expoundeth it himselfe and saith: I hauehave recommended a Sacrament vntounto you, which being taken spiritually will giuegive you life.
So before we heard Origen call the bread of the Eucharist, the body of Christ symbolically; and a body which in some sort is an holy thing, to discerne it from the naturall body. And S. Cyprian in his third Epistle of his second booke saith,*Si vinum tantùm quis offerat, sanguis Christi incipit esse sine nobis, si verò aqua sola sit, plebs incipit esse sine Christo. Corpus Domini non potest esse farina sola, nec aqua sola: The body of our Lord cannot be meale alone, nor water alone; because meale must be kneaded with water. There also he will hauehave water to be mixed with wine, because wine is the bloud of Christ, and water the people, for that the bloud of Christ must not be without the people.
Ephraem before alledged by vsus, saith, that the body of Christ which the faithfull receiue, loseth not his sensible substance, euen as water in baptisme is still water. It is clearer then the day light, that by the body of Christ, he vnderstandeth not the naturall body of our Lord, seeing he maketh that body in the Eucharist to be the same that water is in baptisme, that is, an externall signe. And Ephraem should in vaine say, that the naturall body of Iesus Christ doth not lose his substance in the Eucharist; for who euer imagined that the naturall body of our Lord loseth his substance in the holy Supper, or is no more a man?
The same also appeareth by this, that the Fathers oftentimes speake of peeces or parts of the body of Christ which are giuen to the people in the Eucharist, which can not be said of the crucified body.
So in the Canon,*Comperimus quòd quidam sumpta tantummodo corporis sacri portione à calice sacrati cruoris abstineant. Comperimus, in the second Distinction of Consecration, Pope Gelasius complaineth of some that hauing taken a part of the body of Christ, abstained from the cup.
Gregorie Nissen, in his booke of Baptisme, saith that the consecrated bread is no more common bread, but is called, & is, the body of Christ. But he declareth how it is bread, and yet it is the body of Christ, by the similitude of the water in baptisme, and of stones of an altar, which are of the same nature that others are, but become holy by blessing. By these examples he manifestly excludeth transsubstantiation. The place is long and worthy to be read.
This being so, it shall not be amisse to know how Saint Ambrose will hauehave the bread still continuing bread, neuerthelesse to become the body of Christ by diuine vertue. Which he declareth in the fourth chap. of the fourth booke of Sacraments, where he propoundeth this question, Hoc igitur astruamus, quomodo potest qui panis est, esse corpus Christi: Let vsus shew how that which is bread, may be the body of Christ. By which question it appeares that he will hauehave bread & Christs body at the same time. And thereupon he produceth diuerse workes of God, whereby he hath made things to be that which they were not. And so inferreth, that by greater reason God can make things that were, to be the same still, and yet to be changed into other things. His words are these. Si ergo tanta vis est in sermone Domini Iesu, vt inciperent esse quae non erant, quanto magis operatorius est vt sint quae erant, & in aliud commutentur? Then if there be such vertue in the words of our Lord, to make those things that were not to begin to be, how much more can he make those things that were before, to be the same that they were, and yet be changed into another thing? He will hauehave the bread to remaine bread, and neuerthelesse to be the body of Christ.
Howbeit, such kindes of speaking hauehave bene stumbling blocks at which the ages ensueing hauehave stumbled, specially since the holy Scriptures hauehave bene hidden from the people: and that men to aduance themselues aboue Angels, hauehave boasted that they make God with words, & create their creator.