Doctrines and Practices of the Ancient Church Relating to the Eucharist, Chapter 10
CHAP. X. The Tenth Difference. The Fathers aſſert poſitively, that the ſubſtance of the Elements remain after Conſecration; that Bread and Wine are taken, eaten and drunk in the Sacrament: which all that believe Tranſubſtantiation muſt deny.
WE have ſeen before that the Fathers ſay plainly, that it was Bread which Chriſt called his Body, when he bleſſed it. Now we ſhall ſee, that the Fathers are as poſitive, that after Conſecration, and the change made by it, yet ſtill the Bread and Wine remains.
I begin with that famous Teſtimony of S. Chryſoſtome againſt the Apollinarians; produced firſt by P. Martyr; by ſome of our Adverſaries charged upon him as his Forgery, becauſe it was ſo full againſt them; by others ſhifted off to another John of Conſtantinople, and denied to be S. Chryſoſtome's; but vindicated for his, See Append. to the Defence of the Expoſition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, p. 142, 143, &c.by the Learned Bigotius, who had tranſcribed it out of the Florentine Library of S. Mark's Monaſtery, and prepared it for the Preſs, in his Edition of Palladius; then ſuppreſſed by ſome Doctors of the Sorbonne, and the printed leaves taken out of the Book; but now lately recovered and publiſhed to their ſhame… A paſſage of which (the ſubject of this great conteſt) I ſhall here ſet down.
Chriſt is both God and Man: God, Deus & homo Chriſtus: Deus propter impaſſibilitatem, Homo propter Paſſionem. Unus Filius, unus Dominus, idem ipſe proculdubus unitarum naturarum unam dominationem, unam poteſtatem poſſidens, etiamſi non conſubſtantiales exiſtunt, & unaquae que in commixtam proprietatis conſervat agnitionem, propter hec quod inconfuſa ſunt, [duo] dico. Sicut enim antequam ſanctificetur Panis, Panem nominamus, divina autem illum Sanctificante gratiâ, mediante ſacerdote, liberatus eſt quidem appellatione panis, dignus autem habitus eſt dominici corporis appellatione, etiamſi natura panis in ipſo permanſit, & non duo corpora, ſed unum corpus filii praedicatur. Sic & hic Divinâ foreign, id eſt, inundante corporis naturâ, unum filium, unam perſonam, utra que haec fecerunt. Agnoſcondum tamen inconfuſam & indiviſibilem rationem, non in unâ ſolùm natura, ſed in dimbus perfectis.for that he is impaſſible, Man for that he ſuffered. One Son, one Lord, he the ſame without doubt, having one Dominion, one power of two united natures: not that theſe (natures) are conſubſtantial, ſeeing each of them do's retain without confuſion its own properties, and being two are inconfuſed in him. For as (in the Euchariſt) before the Bread is conſecrated, we call it Bread, but when the grace of God by the Prieſt has conſecrated it, it has no longer the name of Bread, but is counted worthy to be called the Lords Body, altho' the nature of Bread remains in it, and we do not ſay there are two Bodies, but one Body of the Son. So here, the divine nature being joined to the (humane) Body, they both together make one Son, one Perſon; but yet they muſt be acknowledged to remain without confuſion, and after an indiviſible manner, not in one nature only, but in two perfect natures.
Another remarkable Teſtimony, is in Theodoret's Dialogues; ſome part of which I hope the Reader will not think it tedious to be inſerted here, ſince by obſerving the thread of his Diſcourſe, he will ſee his undoubted ſenſe to be, that the ſubſtance of the Bread and Wine remain in the Euchariſt, and the change is by addition not annihilation; and I will add his Greek where it is needful.
Orthodoxus. Dial. 1 Do you not know that God called his Body Bread? Eranniſtes. I know it. Orth. Elſewhere alſo he calleth his Fleſh Wheat. Eran. I know that alſo. Unleſs a Corn of Wheat fall into the ground and die, &c. Orth. But in the delivery of the myſteries, he called the Bread his Body, and that which is mixed (viz. Wine and Water in the Cup) Blood. Eran. He did ſo call them. Orth. But that which is his Body by nature (foreign) is alſo to be called his Body, and his Blood (viz. by nature) Blood. Eran. It is confeſs'd. Orth. foreignBut our Saviour changed the names, and on his Body he impoſed the name of the ſymbol (or ſign) and on the ſymbol he put the name of his body; And ſo having called himſelf a Vine, he called the Symbol Blood. Eran. Very right. But I have a mind to know the reaſon of this change of names. Orth. The ſcope is manifeſt to thoſe that are initiated in Divine things. foreignFor he would have thoſe that participate the divine myſteries, not to attend to the nature of thoſe things that are ſeen, but upon the changing of the names, to believe the change that is made by grace. For he that called his Body, that is ſo by nature, Wheat and Bread, foreignand again termed himſelf a Vine, he honoured the viſible Symbols with the appellation of his Body and Blood, not altering nature, but to nature adding grace.
Proceed we now to the next Dialogue.
Orth. Dial. 2 The myſtical Symbols offered to God by the Prieſts, pray tell me what are they ſigns of? Eran. Of the Lords Body and Blood. Orth. Of his Body truly or not truly ſuch? Era. Of that which is truly (his Body). Orth. Very right. For there muſt be an original of an Image (foreign) for Painters imitate nature, and draw the Images of viſible things. Era. True. Orth. foreignIf then the divine myſteries are Antitypes of a true Body, then the Lords Body is a true Body ſtill, not changed into the nature of the Deity, but filled with Divine Glory. Era. You have ſeaſonably brought in the Diſcourſe of the Divine Myſteries; for thereby I will ſhew that the Lords Body is changed into another Nature. Anſwer therefore my Queſtion. Orth. I will. Era. What call you the Gift that is offered before the Prieſts Invocation? Orth. I may not openly declare it, for perhaps ſome here preſent may not be initiated. Era. Anſwer then Aenigmatically. Orth. I call it the food that is made of a certain grain. Era. How call you the other Symbol? Orth. By a common name that ſignifies a kind of drink. Era. But how do you call it after Conſecration? Orth. The Body of Chriſt, and the Blood of Chriſt. Era. And do you believe you partake the Body and Blood of Chriſt? Orth. Yes, I believe it. Era. As then the Symbols of Chriſts Body and Blood are one thing before the Prieſts Invocation, but after the Invocation, are changed and become another thing; ſo the Lords Body, after his Aſſumption, is changed into a Divine Eſſence. Orth. foreignYou are caught in a Net of your own weaving. For after ſanctification, the myſtical Symbols do not depart from their own nature; for they remain ſtill in their former ſubſtance, and figure and form, and may be ſeen and touched juſt as before. But they are underſtood to be that which they are made, and are believed and venerated, as being thoſe things they are believed to be.
How ſhamefully Mr. Sclater has attempted to pervert theſe laſt words of Theodoret, he has been told ſufficiently by his Anſwerer.
The next Teſtimony is of Gelaſius (t)De duābus naturis in Chriſto. Certè Sacramenta quae ſumimus, corporis & ſanguinis Chriſti, divina res eſt, propter quod & per eadem divinae efficimur conſortes naturae; & tamen eſſe non definit ſubſtantia vel natura panis & vini; & certè Imago & ſimilitudo corporis & ſanguinis Chriſti in actione myſteriorum celebrantur. Satis ergo nobis evidenter oſtenditur, hoc nobis in ipſo Chriſto Domino ſentiendum, quod in ejus imagine profitemur, celebramus & ſumimus; ut ſicut in hanc, ſc. in Divinam tranſeunt Spiritu S. perficiente ſubſtantiam, permanente ramen in ſuae proprietate naturae, ſic illud ipſum myſterium principale, cujus nobis efficientiam Virtutem que veraciter repraeſentant, ex quibus conſtat propriè permanentibus, unum Chriſtum, quia integrum verum que permanere.Biſhop of Rome. The Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Chriſt which we take, are ſurely a divine thing; for which reaſon we become by them partakers of the Divine nature; and yet the ſubſtance or nature of Bread and Wine do's not ceaſe to be; and indeed the Image and likeneſs of the Body and Blood of Chriſt are celebrated in the action of the myſteries: therefore it appears plainly enough to us, that we ought to think that of our Lord, which we profeſs and celebrate and receive in his image; that as they (viz. the Elements) paſs into that Divine ſubſtance, the H. Spirit effecting it, their nature ſtill remaining in its own property; ſo that principal mystery whoſe efficiency and virtue theſe (the Elements) truly repreſent to us, remains one entire and true Chriſt; thoſe things of which he is compounded (viz. the two natures) remaining in their properties.
Ephrem Antiochenus (u)Apud Photii Biblioth. cod. 229. foreign.treating of the two Natures (which he calls palpable and impalpable, viſible and inviſible) united in Chriſt, adds, Thus the Body of Chriſt which is received by the faithful, do's not depart from its ſenſible ſubſtance, and yet remains unſeparated from the intellectual grace. So Baptiſm becoming wholly ſpiritual and one, it preſerves its own ſenſible ſubſtance, I mean Water, and do's not loſe what it is made to be.
Our Adverſaries, to teſtify the reſpect they have for the Fathers, when they do not ſpeak as they would have them, they try to make them ſpeak ſo as no Body ſhall underſtand their true ſenſe. And as the Putney Convert did by Theodoret, ſo the Jeſuit Andr. Schottus (not for want of skill, but honeſty) has dealt with this of Ephrem, making it, by his tranſlation, obſcure, or rather unintelligible nonſenſe. For the firſt words [foreign] he tranſlates [ſenſibilis eſſentiae non cognoſcitur, it is not known of a ſenſible nature,] and the other expreſſion about Baptiſm [foreign] he turns it thus. [Hoc que ſubſtantiae ſenſibilis proprium eſt per aquam, inquam, ſervat. And this is the property of ſenſible ſubſtance, it keeps, I ſay, by Water.] A good Man cannot take more pains to find out Truth than this Man do's that it may be loſt.
The next Teſtimony, is of Facundus, (x)Lib. 9. defenſ. 3. capit. cap. 5. Sacramentum adoptionis ſuſcipere dignatus eſt Chriſtus, & quando circumciſus eſt & quando baptizatus eſt: & poteſt Sacramentum adoptionis adoptio nuncupari, ſicut Sacramentum corporis & ſanguinis ejus quod eſt in pane & poculo conſecrato, corpus ejus & ſanguinem dicimus; non quod propriè corpus ejus ſit panis, & poculum ſanguis, ſed quod in ſe myſterium corporis ſanguiniſ que contineant. Hinc & ipſe Dominus benedictum panem & calicem, quem diſcipulis tradidit, corpus & ſanguinem ſuum vocavit.the African Biſhop. Chriſt vouchſafed to receive the Sacrament of Adoption, both when he was Circumciſed and when he was Baptized: and the Sacrament of Adoption may be called Adoption, juſt as we call the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Chriſt, which is in the Conſecrated Bread and Cup, his Body and Blood. Not that properly Bread is his Body, and the Cup his Blood, but becauſe they contain in them the myſtery of his Body and Blood. Hence it is, that our Lord himſelf called the Bread and Cup he bleſſed, and gave to his Diſciples, his Body and Blood.
Nothing can be more poſitive than theſe five Teſtimonies, that the Bread and Wine remain in their ſubſtance after Conſecration. And I cannot but here add the remarkable Confeſſion of an Adverſary, concerning two of them.
For thus Card. Alan (y)De Euchar. Sacram. l. 1. c. 35. De duobus, Gelaſio & Theodoreto, facilè mihi perſuadeo, eos ſolos eſſe ex omni Antiquitate, qui inclinaverunt in communem poſteà multorum errorem, ut ita defenderent veram converſionem panis, ut materiam Elementi, ſicut in caeteris naturalibus tranſmutationibus fieri videbant, relictam eſſe concederent, &c.ſays, Concerning theſe two, Gelaſius and Theodoret, I readily perſuade my ſelf, that they are the only perſons in all Antiquity (tho' I have already produced three more of their mind) who inclined to that, which was afterwards a common errour, ſo to defend the true Converſion of Bread, that they granted the matter of the Element to remain, as they ſaw it did in all other natural tranſmutations.
But we will try whether the reſt of the Fathers did not alſo ſpeak the ſame thing.
Juſtin Martyr (z)Dial. cum Tryph. foreign.ſpeaking of the oblation of fine Flour for thoſe that were cleanſed from Leproſy, ſays, It was a type of the Bread of the Eucharist, which our Lord J. Chriſt commanded us to make in memory of his paſſion. What we make (as was ſhow'd, cap. 8. obſerv. 7.) can be only Bread, not Chriſts Body in a proper ſenſe.
Again (a)Apol. 2. foreign —telling us of the Biſhops praying and giving thanks over the Elements, he adds, that the Deacons give to every one preſent leave to take of the Bread and Wine of the Euchariſt.
That this was his ſenſe appears further, by another Character he gives of it in the ſame place, foreignwhen he calls it Food by which our Fleſh and Blood by a change are nouriſhed.
What he ſays in another place (b)Dial. cum Tryph. p. 345. Edit. Pariſ. 1615. foreign.of Chriſtians remembring their Lords Paſſion by their dry and wet food, can agree only to Bread and Wine, which therefore muſt be ſuppoſed to remain.
S. Irenaeus (c)L. 5. adv. haereſ. c. 2. Ex quibus augetur & conſiſtit carnis noſtrae ſubſtantia.aſſerts with Juſtin, that the Bread and Cup of the Euchariſt is that, by which the ſubſtance of our Fleſh is nouriſhed and conſiſts.
In another place (d)Ibid. l. 4. c. 34. Carnem quae à corpore Domini & ſanguine alitur. Quemadmodum qui eſt à terra panis, percipiens invocationem Domini, jam non communis panis eſt, ſed Euchariſtia ex duabus rebus conſtans, terrena & coeleſti, &c.he not only ſays, that our Fleſh is nouriſhed by the Body and Blood of our Lord, but adds, As the Bread that is from the Earth, perceiving the Lords Invocation, is not now common Bread, but the Euchariſt, conſiſting of two things, an Earthly and an Heavenly, &c. Tho' not common Bread, yet Bread ſtill, becauſe elſe it would conſiſt only of one thing, viz. Chriſts Body, and no earthly thing beſides.
Origen (e)Comm. in Matth. 15. v. 15. p. 254. Edit. Huet. — foreign.. If every thing that enters into the mouth gees into the Belly and is caſt into the draught, then alſo the food that is ſanctified by the word of God and Prayer, as to the material part of it (which can be nothing but Bread) goes into the Belly, &c. but in reſpect of the Prayer that is ſuperadded — it becomes profitable, &c. foreignNor is it the matter of the Bread, but the word that is ſaid over it that profits him that eats it not unworthily of the Lord.
Cyprian (f)Epiſt. ad Caecilium, l. 2. Ep. 3. alias 63. Invenimus calicem mixtum fuiſſe quem Dominus obtulit, & vinum fuiſſe quod ſanguinem ſuum dixit.. We have found that it was a mixed Cup which our Lord offered, and that it was Wine which he called his Blood.
Macarius (g)Homil. 27. foreign.In the Church is offered Bread and Wine, the Antitype of his Fleſh and Blood, and they that are partakers of the viſible Bread, do ſpiritually eat the Fleſh of the Lord.
Epiphanius (h)In Compend. fidei. foreign.in a place I before cited, ſpeaking of the Euchariſt, ſays, that the Bread is food, but the virtue that is in it, is for begetting Life. It do's not ceaſe to be food, tho' the quickening power is all from the grace and ſpirit of God in it.
S Ambroſe (i)De Benedict. Patriarch. c. 9. Hunc panem dedit Apoſtolis, ut dividerent populo credentium, hodié que dat nobis eum, quum ipſe quotidiè ſacerdos conſecrat ſuis verbis. Hic panis factus eſt eſca Sanctorum.ſpeaking of the Benediction of Aſſur, Her Bread is fat, &c. ſays, Chriſt gave this Bread to the Apostles, to divide it among believing people, and now he gives it to us, whenas the Prieſt daily Conſecrates with his words. This Bread is made to be the food of Saints.
S. Auſtin (k)L. 3. de Trin. c. 4. Corpus Chriſti & ſanguinem dicimus illud tantum, quod ex frugibus terrae acceptum & prece myſticâ conſecratum, rite ſumimus ad ſalutem ſpiritualem in memoriam pro nobis Dominicae Paſſionis; quod cùm per manus hominum ad illam viſibilem ſpeciem perducitur, non ſanctificatur ut ſit tam magnum Sacramentum niſi operante inviſibiliter Spiritu Dei.. We only call that the Body and Blood of Chriſt, which being taken from the fruits of the Earth, and Conſecrated by myſtical Prayer, we rightly receive to our ſpiritual health in memory of our Lords Paſſion. Which, when it is by the hands of men brought to that viſible ſubſtance, is not ſanctified to become ſo great a Sacrament, unleſs the ſpirit of God inviſibly operate.
Again (l)Idem Ibid. c. 10. Panis ad hoc factus in accipiendo Sacramento conſumitur.. Bread made for this purpoſe is conſumed in receiving the Sacrament. But it is neither received nor conſumed till it be Conſecrated, nor then but when eaten.
And again elſewhere (m)Serm. 9. de diverſ. cap. 7. Euchariſtia panis noſter quotidianus eſt; ſed ſic accipiamus illum, ut non ſolum ventre ſed & mente reficiamur.The Euchariſt is our daily Bread; but let us ſo receive it, that we may not only have refreſhment for our bellies, but for our minds.
Upon this account it is, that looking upon the Sacrament as a refreſhing food to our Bodies (as S. Auſtin here ſpeaks) the Ancients believed, that by partaking of the Euchariſt, they Broke their Faſts; this appears beyond all queſtion in what Tertullian (n)Lib. de Orat. c. 14. ad finem. Stationum diebus non putant pleri que ſacrificiorum orationibus interveniendum, quod ſtatio ſolvenda ſit accepto corpore Dominico.ſays; who in reſolving a doubt that troubled ſome minds, what they ſhould do, when it happened that by a private vow they undertook a ſtrict Faſt (which obliged them not to take any refreſhment till Evening) and this fell out upon a ſtation day (which was uſually Wedneſdays and Fridays) when the Faſt was ended at three a Clock by receiving the Communion. Moſt think, ſays he, that on the ſtation days they ought not to be preſent at the Prayers of the Sacrifices (when the Euchariſt was adminiſtred) becauſe the Faſt was broken upon receiving the Lords Body. Tertullian excepts not againſt this reaſon, but grants it, and finds out ſuch an expedient as would be counted ridiculous in the Roman Church (where this of the Sacraments breaking the Faſt is not believed) which is, to be preſent, and to take the Sacrament, and reſerve it to be eaten at night.
By receiving the Lords Body, Accepto corpore Dominico & reſervato, ucrum que ſalvum eſt, & participatio Sacrificii & executio officii.ſays he, and reſerving it, both is ſalved, both the partaking of the Sacrifice (i. e. of the Euchariſt given at three a Clock) and the execution of their duty (he means of faſting till Evening, according to their Vow, and eating the Sacrament then, and not before.) But to proceed with our Teſtimonies.
Heſychius (o)In Levit. l. 2. c. 8. Propterea carnes cum panibus comedi praecipiens, ut nos intelligeremus illud ab eo myſterium dici, quod ſimul panis & caro eſt, ſicut Corpus Chriſti panis vivi qui de Coelo deſcendit.. God therefore commanded Fleſh to be eaten with Bread, that we might underſtand, that that myſtery (viz. the Euchariſt) was ſpoken of by him, which is both Bread and Fleſh, as the Body of Chriſt the living Bread that deſcended from Heaven. It can be only Bread and Fleſh in our way, for in that of Tranſubſtantiation it is only Fleſh and no Bread.
S. Auſtin (p)Lib. cont. Donatiſt. c. 6. De ipſo pane & de ipſa Dominica manu, & Judas Partem & Petrus accepit; & tamen quae Societas, quae conſonantia, quae pars Petri cum Juda?. Of the very Bread Judas and Peter both took a part, and yet what Society, what agreement, what part has Peter with Judas?
Again (q)Id Tract. in Joan. 26. Patres manducaverunt ſpiritualem uti que eandem (eſcam) nam corporalem alteram, quia illi Manna, nos aliud — & omnes eundem potum ſpiritualem biberunt, aliud illi, aliud nos, ſed ſpecie viſibili quidem, tamen hoc idem ſignificante virtute ſpirituali.. The Fathers did eat the ſame ſpiritual meat with us, but the corporal was different, they did eat Manna, we another thing (he means Bread) — and they all drank the ſame ſpiritual drink, they one thing, we another, another as to the viſible ſubſtance, but in ſpiritual virtue ſignifying the ſame thing.
And again elſewhere (r)Id. Tract. 45. in Joan. Videte ergo, fide manente, ſigna variata. Ibi Petra Chriſtus, nobis Chriſtus quod in Altari ponitur; & illi pro magno Sacramento ejuſdem Chriſti biberunt aquam profluentem de Petra, nos quid bibamus norunt fideles. Si ſpeciem viſibilem intendas aliud eſt, ſi intelligibilem ſignificationem eundem potum ſpiritualem biberunt.. Behold while Faith remains the ſame, the ſigns are varied. There (in the Wilderneſs) the Rock was Christ, to us that which is placed on the Altar (viz. Bread) is Chriſt; And they drank the Water that flowed from the Rock for a great Sacrament of the ſame Chriſt, what we drink the faithful know, (viz. Wine) if you regard the viſible ſubſtance it is another thing, if the ſpiritual ſignification they drank the ſame ſpiritual drink.
Again in another place (s)Tract. 26. in Joan. Nam & nos hodie accepimus viſibilem cibum; ſed aliud eſt Sacramentum, aliud eſt virtus Sacramenti.. We have received to day the viſible food; but the Sacrament is one thing, and the virtue of the Sacrament is another.
That which he calls here cibus viſibilis (the viſible food) a little after S. Auſtin calls it viſibile Sacramentum (a viſible Sacrament) where he diſtinguiſhes this again from the Virtus Sacramenti (the Virtue of the Sacrament) ſo that the viſible food, and the viſible Sacrament, with him are the ſame.
I have already produced the Teſtimonies (vid. chap. 8. Obſerv. 5.) where the Fathers make what is diſtributed in the Euchariſt to be without Life or ſenſe; which can be true of nothing elſe but of the Bread and Wine. So that unleſs we make them diſtribute what they had not conſecrated, the Bread and Wine muſt remain after Conſecration.
The ſame is alſo evidently proved from another common aſſertion of the Fathers, that Chriſt offered the ſame oblation with Melchiſedek.
S. Cyprian (t)Lib. 2. Epiſt. 3. Quis magis ſacerdos Dei ſummi, quam Dominus noſter Jeſus Chriſtus, qui Sacrificium Deo Patri obtulit & obtulit hoc idem quod Mechiſedec obtulerat, id eſt panem & vinum, ſuum ſcilicet corpus & ſanguinem?. Who was more a Prieſt of the moſt High God, than our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, who offered a Sacrifice to God the Father, and offered this ſame that Melchiſedeck had offered, that is Bread and Wine, to wit his Body and Blood? Which indeed the Wine and Bread was by repreſentation, but if you underſtand this of proper Fleſh and Blood offered in the Euchariſt, then it is not the ſame oblation with that of Melchiſedeck.
Iſidere Peleuſiota (u)Lib. 1. Epiſt. 431. ad Pallad. foreign.. Melchiſedeck performed his ſacred Office in Bread and Wine, by which he foreſignified the type of the divine myſteries.
Euſebius (x)Lib. 5. Dem. Evang. c. 3. foreign (Melchiſedeck) foreign, &c. —foreign.. For as he (Melchiſedeck) being a Prieſt of the Gentiles never ſeems to have made uſe of Bodily Sacrifices, but bleſſed Abraham only in Bread and Wine. After the ſame manner alſo, firſt our Lord and Saviour himſelf, then all the Prieſts that derive from him, performing in all Nations their ſpiritual function according to the Eccleſiaſtical Sanctions, by Bread and Wine do expreſs the myſteries of his Body and ſaving Blood, Melchiſedeck having foreſeen theſe things by a divine ſpirit, and having uſed before theſe images of future things.
S. Jerome (y)Epiſt. ad Evagrium. Melchiſedec pane & vino ſimplici puro que ſacrificio, Chriſti dedicaverit Sacramentum.. Melchiſedeck by Bread and Wine, which is a ſimple and a pure Sacrifice, did dedicate Chriſts Sacrament.
S. Auſtin (z)Epiſt. 95. Melchiſedec prolato Sacramento coenae Dominicae novit aeternum ejus ſacerdotium figurare.. Melchiſedeck, bringing forth the Sacrament of the Lords Supper (i. e. Bread and Wine) knew how to figure Chriſts Eternal Prieſthood.
Again (a)L. 17. de civit. Dei, c. 17. — Ex eo quod jam nuſquam eſt Sacerdotium & Sacrificium ſecundum ordinem Aaron, & ubi que offertur ſub ſacerdote Chriſto, quod protulit Melchiſedec quando benedixit Abraham.upon thoſe words, Thou art a Prieſt for ever, &c. He adds, Since now there is no where any Prieſthood or Sacrifice, according to the Order of Aaron; and that is every where offered under Chriſt the Priest, which Melchiſedeck brought forth when he bleſſed Abraham.
In many other places S. Auſtin ſays the ſame.
Arnobius (b)In Pſal. 109. Chriſtus per myſterium panis & vini factus eſt ſacerdos in a ternum.. Chriſt by the myſtery of Bread and Wine, is made a Prieſt for over.
S. Chryſoſtom (c)Comment. in Pſal. 110. vel 109. — foreign.. Why did he ſay, a Prieſt after the Order of Melchiſedeck? Even becauſe of the myſteries, becauſe he alſo brought out Bread and Wine to Abraham.
Iſidore of Sevil (d)In Geneſin cap. 12. Non ſecundùm Aaron pecudum Victimas, ſed oblationem panis & vini, id eſt, corporis & ſanguinis ejus Sacramentum in Sacrificium offeramus.. Let us not offer the Victims of Beaſts according to Aaron, but let us offer in Sacrifice the oblation of Bread and Wine, that is the Sacrament of Chriſts Body and Blood.
Bede (e)Hom. de 55. in Vigil. S. Jo. Bapt. Redemptor noſter ideo ſacerdos eſſe dicitur ſecundùm Ordinem Melchiſedec, quia, ablatis victimis legalibus, idem ſacrificii genus in myſterium ſui corporis & ſanguinis in N. Teſtamento offerendum inſtituit.. Our Redeemer is therefore called a Prieſt, after the Order of Melchiſedeck, becauſe taking away the legal Sacrifices, he inſtituted the ſame kind of Sacrifice (viz. Bread and Wine) ſhould be offered under the N. Teſtament, for the myſtery of his Body and Blood.
What the Scriptures acquaint us with, that after the Bleſſing of the Bread, Chriſt brake it and gave it to his Diſciples, is alſo inſiſted on by the Fathers as done in the Euchariſt, in order to the diſtributing of it to the receivers.
But Bellarmine ſays expreſly (f)L. 1. de Miſſa, c. 27. Noſtra fractio non fit ad diſtribuendum, ſed ad certum myſterium ſignificandum.. That our breaking is not made for diſtribution, but to ſignify a certain myſtery. Therefore in the Roman Church, that which they give in the Sacrament to the people is whole, and not broken off from any other thing. Wherein they differ from the Fathers, for their Euchariſt was what the Apoſtles call breaking of Bread, Act. 2 46. and the Jeſuit Lorinus upon that place obſerves, that it was the manner of the Primitive Church, Lorinus in Act. 2. v. 46. Panem unum conficere, at que illum conſecratum in tot partes frangere, quot erant communicantes, ſicut & Chriſtus in coena fecit.to make one Loaf, and when they had conſecrated it, to break it into ſo many parts as there were Communicants, as Chriſt alſo did in his Supper. And thus as it is 1 Cor. 10.17. There is one Bread, &c. and we being many are one Body, for we all partake of one Bread.
This Fraction, tho' the Fathers expreſs it as if it were done to the proper Body of Chriſt, yet they mean it only of the Bread that repreſents it: and therefore that muſt remain, for there is nothing elſe to be broken.
When therefore S. Chryſoſtome (g)Hom. 24. in 1 Cor. Tom. 3. Edit. Savil. p. 397. foreign.ſays, that upon the Croſs a Bone of him was not broken, but what Chriſt did not ſuffer up…n the Croſs, that he ſuffers in the oblation for thy ſake, and ſuffers himſelf to be broken, that he may fill us all. duplicate page duplicate page duplicate page duplicate page duplicate page duplicate page duplicate page duplicate page This cannot be meant of any thing but what repreſents his Body torn and rent, viz. Bread.
So S. Austin (h)Epiſt. 59. — Et ad diſtribuendum comminuitur.ſpeaks of that upon the Lords Table, which is bleſſed and ſanctified, and broke in ſmall pieces to be diſtributed. Which can be only Bread.
And this elſewhere (i)Epiſt. 86. — Sicut frangitur in Sacramento Corporis Chriſti.he expreſſes more plainly. Paul, ſays he, broke Bread that night, as it is broken in the Sacrament of the Body of Chriſt.
Again (k)Auguſt. apud Bedam in 1 Cor. 11. Manducemus Chriſtum; vivit manducatus, quia ſurrexit occiſus: nec quando manducamus, partes de illo facimus, & quidem in Sacramento id fit; & norunt fideles quemadmodum manducent carnem Chriſti, unuſquiſ que accipit partem, &c.S. Austin thus exhorts. Let us eat Christ; he lives tho' eaten, for he aroſe tho' ſlain. Neither when we eat him, do we make parts of him; ſo indeed we do in the Sacrament, and the faithful know how they eat the Fleſh of Chriſt (there.) Every one takes a part, &c.
This is a very remarkable Teſtimony, becauſe of the diſtinction he makes between Chriſt's proper Body, and that in the Euchariſt, affirming quite different things of them, as this of taking and eating a part, which is only true of the Bread. For as for the true Body of Chriſt, we are informed by another,
Chryſologus (l)Serm. 159. Non poteſt Chriſtus edi & dividi. Integer à credentibus ſumitur, integer in ore cordis recipitur.. Chriſt cannot be eaten and divided. He is taken whole of Believers, he is received whole in the mouth of the heart.
I will conclude this Chapter with the ſayings of three great perſons among the Fathers, who poſitively aſſert what I have been proving, that the Bread and Wine remain in the Euchariſt.
S. Chryſoſtom (m)Hom. 83. in Matth. foreign.. Who ſays expreſly, When our Lord delivered the myſteries, he delivered Wine.
S. Auſtin (n)De Civ Dei, lib. 17. cap. 5. Manducare panem, eſt in N. Teſtamento ſacrificium Chriſtianorum.. To eat Bread, is the Sacrifice of Chriſtians in the N. Teſtament.
Fulgentius (o)De fide ad Petrum, cap. 19. Chriſto nunc, id eſt, tempore N. Teſtamenti, cum Patre & Spiritu Sancto, cum quibus una eſt illi Divinitas, Sacrificium panis & vini in fide & charitate Sancta Eccleſia Catholica per univerſum orbem terrae offerre non ceſſat.. Now; that is, in the time of the N. Teſtament, the Holy Catholick Church, throughout the whole Earth, do's not ceaſe to offer in Faith and Charity, the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine to Chriſt, with the Father and H. Spirit, who have one Divinity together with him.