Doctrines and Practices of the Ancient Church Relating to the Eucharist, Chapter 12
CHAP. XII. The Twelfth Difference. The Fathers aſſert, That Christ's Body is not eaten corporally and carnally, but only ſpiritually. But the Church of Rome teaches a Corporal Eating, a Deſcent of Chriſt's Natural Body into ours, and understands the Eating of Chriſt's Body literally and carnally.
IF the Church of Rome declares its own Faith, when it impoſes the Profeſſion of it upon another, and makes one abjure the contrary under pain of Anathema; then I am ſure it was once with a witneſs for the eating of Chriſt's Body in the moſt literal and proper Senſe; when An. Dom. 1059. Pope Nicholas II. and the General Council of Lateran, preſcribed a Profeſſion of it to Berengarius, made him ſwear it, and anathematize the contrary, as it is ſet down by Lanfrank (n)De Euchariſt. Sacram. adv. Berengar.; which becauſe the Nubes Teſtium (tho' it has ſet down two other. Forms) durſt not give us, I will therefore here tranſcribe out of him.
I Berengarius, Ego Berengarius indignus Diaconus Eccleſiae S. Mauritii Andegavenſis, cognoſcens veram Catholicam & Apoſtolicam Fidem, anathematizo omnem Haereſin, praecipue eam de quâ hactenus infamatus ſum; quae aſtruere conatur panem & vinum quae in altari ponuntur, poſt conſecrationem ſolummodo Sacramentum, & non verum corpus & ſanguinem Dom. noſtri Jeſu Chriſti eſſe; nec poſſe ſenſualiter, niſi in ſolo Sacramento, manibus Sacerdotum tractari, vel frangi, aut fidelium dentibus atteri. Conſentio autem S. Romanae Eccleſiae & Apoſtolicae ſedi, & ore & corde profiteor de Sacramentis Dominicae menſae, eam fidem tenere, quam Dominus & Venerabilis Papa Nicholaus & haee S. Synodus authoritate Evangelica & Apoſtolica tenendam tradidit, mihique ſirmavit: ſcilicet, Panem & vinum quae in altari ponuntur poſt conſecrationem, non ſolum Sacramentum, ſed etiam verum corpus D. N. J. Chriſti eſſe, & ſenſualiter non ſolum Sacramento, ſed in veritate manibus Sacerdotum tractari, frangi & fidelium dentibus atteri, jurans per S. & homouſion Trinitatem, & per haec ſacroſancta Chriſti Evangelia. Eos vero qui contra hanc fidem venerint cum dogmatibus & ſectatoribus ſuis aeterno anathemate dignos eſſe pronuncio, &c.unworthy Deacon, &c. knowing the true Catholick and Apostolick Faith, do anathematize all Hereſie, eſpecially that for which I have hitherto been defamed; which endeavours to maintain, that the Bread and Wine placed on the Altar, after Conſecration, are only a Sacrament (or Sign), and not the true Body and Blood of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt; and cannot, ſave only in the Sign, be handled or broken by the Prieſt's Hands, or be ground by the Teeth of the Faithful. But I agree with the Holy Roman Church, and the Apoſtolick Seat, and do with my Mouth, and from my Heart profeſs, That I hold the ſame Faith concerning the Sacraments of the Lords Table, which our Lord and Venerable Pope Nicholas and this Holy Synod, by Evangelical and Apoſtolical Authority, has delivered to me to hold, and confirmed to me, viz. That the Bread and Wine which are placed on the Altar, after Conſecration, are not only a Sacrament, but alſo the true Body of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, and is ſenſibly, not only in the Sign and Sacrament, but in truth, handled and broken by the Priests Hands, and ground by the Teeth of the Faithful: Swearing this by the Holy and Co-eſſential Trinity, and by the most Holy Goſpels of Chriſt. And as for thoſe that oppoſe this Faith, I judge them, with their Opinions and Followers, worthy of an eternal Anathema, &c.
This we may look upon as the Belief of that Church then, and this to be the manner of eating the Body of Chriſt: ſince, as Bellarmine well obferves (o)De Sacr-Euchar. l. 3. c. 21. Nec coguntur ulli abjurare & anathematizare ſententias dubias, ſed eas tantùm quae damnantur ab Eccleſia, tanquam haereſes exploratae., None are compelled to abjure and anathematize dubious Opinions, but only ſuch as are condemned by the Church as known Hereſies.
But however Infallible this Pope and that General Council were, this way of eating Chriſt's Body, by tearing it with the Teeth, was quickly oppoſed, (as a late Learned Preface to the Determination of Joh. Pariſienſis ſhews at large.)
Peter Lombard could not digeſt it (p)Sentent. lib. 4. diſt. 12, Fractio & partes quae ibi videntur fieri, in Sacramento fiunt, i. e. in viſibili ſpecie. Ideoque illa Berengarii verba ita diſtinguenda ſunt, ut ſenſualiter, non modo in Sacramento, ſed in veritate dicatur corpus Chriſti tractari manibus Sacerdotum: Frangi verò & atteri dentibus, verè quidem ſed in Sacramento tantum.. For tho' the Pope and Council defined, That both the handling, and alſo the breaking and tearing with the Teeth of Chriſt's Body, were not only in the Sign and Sacrament, but in Truth performed; he makes a diſtinction, and in expreſs words (cited in the Margin) ſays, That Chriſt's Body is handled indeed, not only in Sacrament, but in Truth; but that it is broken and torn with the Teeth truly indeed, but yet only in Sacrament. That is, in the viſible Species, as he before explains that Phraſe. Directly contrary to Berengarius's Recantation.
The words alſo of Job. Semeca, the Author of the Gloſs upon the Canon-Law (q)Gloſſ. apud Gratian. de Conſecr. Diſt. 2. c Ego Berengarius. Niſi ſanè intelligas verba Berengarii in majorem incides Haereſin quam ipſe habuit; & ideo omnia referas ad ſpecies ipſas; nam de Chriſti corpore partes non facimus., are very bold againſt it. Unleſs you underſtand the words of Berengarius in a ſound ſenſe, (and there can be no other, the words are ſo plain, but what muſt contradict it) you will fall into a greater Hereſie than he was guilty of; and therefore you muſt refer all to the Species, (that's directly contrary to the Pope and Council) for we do not make Parts of Christ's Body.
In fine, all the great Writers, eſpecially the Jeſuits, have forſaken this Definition, as not to be maintained, and this Eating in the moſt proper ſenſe is wholly diſcarded; and we are told (r)De Sacr. Euchar. l. 1. c. 11. Ad rationem manducationis, non eſt neceſſaria attritio, ſed ſatis eſt ſumptio, & tranſmiſſio ab ore ad ſtomachum per inſtrumenta humana & naturalia, i. e. linguam & palatum.by Bellarmine, That grinding with the Teeth is not neceſſarily required to Eating; but it ſuffices that it be taken in, and tranſmitted from the Mouth into the Stomach by humane and natural Inſtruments, viz. the Tongue and Palate.
This way, in plainer terms, is ſwallowing the Body of Chriſt without chewing. And indeed without this Deſcent of it into the Body, there could no Account be given of that Prayer in the Roman Miſſal (s)Corpus tuum, Domine, quod ſumpſi, & ſanguis quem potavi, adhaereat viſceribus meis.: Lord, let thy Body which I have taken, and thy Blood which I have drunk, cleave unto my Entrals.
They have alſo determined how long this Sacred Body makes its ſtay there. Aquinas (whom they all now follow) ſays (t)In 3. part. quaeſt. 76 art. 6. ad 3. Corpus Chriſti remanet in hoc Sacramento, quouſque ſpecies ſacramentales manent. Quibus ceſſantibus deſinit eſſe corpus Chriſti ſub eis., The Body of Christ remains in this Sacrament, ſo long as the Sacramental Species remain: When they ceaſe to be, the Body of Christ ceaſes to be under them.
Thus alſo Domin. Soto (u)In 4. diſt. 12. qu. 1. art. 3. Eſt indubiè tenendum quod corpus (ſc. Chriſti) deſcendit in ſtomachum. — Cùm digeſtio fiat in ſtomacho illic deſinunt eſſe ſpecies, atque adeo corpus, quare non deſcendit in ventrem.. We ought undoubtedly to hold, That Chriſt's Body deſcends into the Stomach. — Since Digestion is made in the Stomach, there the Species ceaſe to be, and ſo alſo Chriſt's Body, and therefore will not deſcend into the Draught.
But now comes a ſcurvy Caſe, that will force out the whole Truth. Suppoſe, by reaſon of any Diſeaſe, the Species ſhould deſcend further than the Stomach; as in a Flux, when there is no Digeſtion of the Species, nor time to do it in the Stomach, but they are preſently carried downward whole, or elſe brought up immediately, as in caſe of ſudden Vomiting. This alſo is reſolved by the ſame Principles. So the laſt-named Author (x)Soto ibid. Sed ſi ob aliquem morbum ſpecies deſcenderent, conſequenter & ipſum corpus deſcenderet & emitteretur. Pudor enim non debet eſſe in cauſa negandi veritatem.. If by reaſon of any Diſeaſe the Species ſhould deſcend, (into the Draught, he means) the Body alſo it ſelf would deſcend and be ſent forth. For Shame ought not to be a Reaſon for denying the Truth.
To which S. Antoninus (y)Part. 3. tit. 13. cap. 6. ſect. 3. Igitur corpus Chriſti & ſanguis tamdiu manet in ventre & ſtomacho vel vomitu & quocunque alibi, quamdiu ſpecies manent, ſicut ſubſtantia converſa manſiſſet. Et ſi ſpecies incorruptae evomuntur, vel egrediuntur, eſt ibi vere corpus Chriſti.agrees, (citing Paludanus in the caſe.) Therefore the Body and Blood of Chriſt remains ſo long in the Belly and Stomach, or Vomit, or any where elſe, as the Species remain, juſt as the converted Subſtance (viz. Bread and Wine) would have remained. And if the Species are vomited up whole, or go forth (downwards) there is truly the Body of Christ.
And he tells us of S. Hugo Cluniac. how he commended one Goderanus, who (by a ſtrange fervor) ſwallowed down the Particles of an Hoſt, which a Leper had vomited up with vile Spittle, ſaying, That S. Laurence his Gridiron was more tolerable.
If theſe Conſequences ſeem horrid and deteſtable to the Reader, the Doctrine, from which they neceſſarily flow, ought to be look'd upon much more ſo.
But now, to return to the Fathers, and their Senſe of Eating the Body of Christ.
It is evident to any that will impartially conſult their Writings, that they were perfect Strangers to all theſe Caſes that are thus currently reſolved in the Roman Church.
That Chriſt's Natural Body ſhould enter into ours, is too groſs and carnal a Thought, to be attributed to them; and fits only the Imaginations of a Carnal Church, and of thoſe Capernaites, who in the Sixth of S. John ask, How can this Man give us his Fleſh to eat?
Chriſt tells them, That the Words he ſpoke to them were Spirit and Life. And ſo the Fathers always underſtood the eating of Chriſt's Body and drinking his Blood, not in a literal and proper, but in a figurative and ſpiritual Senſe; as I ſhall now prove from their Writings. Wherein it may not be amiſs to take notice, firſt, What their Senſe is about underſtanding things carnally and ſpiritually.
S. Chryſostome (z)Hom. 46. in Joan. foreign.asking this Queſtion, What is it to think (or underſtand) carnally? He anſwers, Simply to look upon the things propoſed, and to think of no more.—But we ought to view all Mysteries with our inward Eyes: for this is ſpiritually to view them.
S. Auſtin (a)De Doctr. Chriſt. l. 3. c. 5. Cùm figuratè dictum ſic accipitur, tanquam proprie dictum ſit, carnaliter ſapitur.gives the ſame account. We have a carnal Taste, when we take that which is figuratively ſpoken, as if it were properly ſpoken.
And elſewhere (b)Serm. 44. de diverſis. Omnis figurata & allegorica lectio vellocutio, aliud videtur ſonare carnaliter, aliud inſinuare ſpiritualiter.. Every figurative and allegorical Reading or Speech, ſeems to ſound one thing carnally, and to inſinuate another thing ſpiritually.
S. Auſtin (c)De Doctr. Chriſt l. 3. c. 16. Si praecepriva eſt locutio, aut flagitium aut facinus yetans, aut beneficentiam jubens, non eſt figurata. Si autem flagitium aut facinus videtur jubere, aut utilitatem aut beneficentiam vetare, figurata eſt. Niſi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis, &c. facinus vel flagitium videtur jubere: Figura ergo eſt, praecipiens paſſioni Domini eſſe communicandum, & ſuaviter atque utiliter in memoria condendum, quod caro ejus pronobis crucifixa & vulnerata eſt.further gives a Rule when to underſtand a thing literally, and when to underſtand it figuratively and ſpiritually. If the Speech be by way of command, either forbidding a Crime or heinous Wickedneſs, or bidding a beneficial or good thing to be done, it is not figurative: But if it ſeems to command a Crime or heinous Wickedneſs, or forbid an uſeful and beneficial thing, it is figurative. And then he gives the Example of his Rule, in thoſe words of Chriſt, Except ye eat the Fleſh and drink the Blood of the Son of Man, ye have no Life in you. Now this, ſays he, ſeems to command a Crime or horrid thing; therefore it is a Figure, commanding us to communicate in the Paſſion of our Lord, and ſweetly and profitably to treaſure up in our Memory, that his Fleſh was crucified and wounded for us.
Origen ſaid the very ſame before him (d)Hom. 7. in Levitic. non ſolùm in Veteri Teſtamento occidens Litera deprehenditur, eſt & in N. Teſtamento Litera quae occidit cum qui non ſpiritualiter quae dicuntur adverterit. Si enim ſecundùm literam ſequaris hoc ipſum quod dictum eſt, Niſi manducaveritis carnem meam, & biberitis ſanguinem meum, occidit haec litera., and gives the ſame Inſtance. Not only in the Old Teſtament is found the killing Letter; there is alſo in the New Teſtament a Letter that kills him who do's not ſpiritually conſider what is ſaid. For if thou follow this according to the Letter which was ſaid, Unleſs ye eat my Fleſh and drink my Blood, this Letter kills.
And in another place (e)In Joan. Tom. 10. foreign, &c. —foreign.. We are not to eat the Fleſh of the Lamb, as the Slaves of the Letter do, &c. To which he oppoſes thoſe who receive the Spirituals of the Word.
Such as thoſe whom S. Auſtin mentions (f)In Joan. tract. 26. Quia viſibilem cibum ſpiritaliter intellexerunt, ſpiritaliter eſurierunt, ſpiritaliter guſtaverunt, ut ſpiritaliter ſatiarentur., who pleaſed God and died not (i. e. eternally). Becauſe they underſtood the viſible Food (Manna) ſpiritually, they hungred ſpiritually, they taſted ſpiritually, that they might ſpiritually be ſatisfied.
Or, as he expreſſes it a little after (g)Ibid. Qui manducat intus non foris, qui manducat in corde, non qui premit dente., He that eats inwardly, not outwardly; that eats in his Heart, not he that preſſeth it with his Teeth. And therefore elſewhere *Serm. 33. de Verb. Dom. Nolite parare fauces, ſed cor.exhorts them, Do not prepare your Jaws, but your Heart.
This is what Clemens Alexandr. (h)Strom. l. 1. foreign.requires, when he ſays, That Chriſt, when he broke the Bread, ſet it before them, that we may eat it rationally, i. e. ſpiritually.
So S. Auſtin again (i)De Verb. Apoſt. Serm. 2. Tunc vita unicuique erit corpus & ſanguis Chriſti, ſi quod in ſacramento viſibiliter ſumitur, in ipſa veritate ſpiritualiter manducetur, ſpiritualiter bibatur.. The Body and Blood of Chriſt will then be Life to every one, if what is viſibly taken in the Sacrament, be in truth ſpiritually eaten and ſpiritually drunk. Where he makes this to be eating in Truth, and the other but Sacramental.
So Macarius (k)Homil. 27.having called the Bread and Wine the Antitype of Chriſt's Fleſh and Blood, he adds, — foreign.They which are Partakers of the viſible Bread, do ſpiritually eat the Fleſh of the Lord. He ſhould rather have ſaid orally, according to the Doctrine of our Adverſaries.
S. Athanaſius (l)Tract. in illud Evang. Quicunque dixerit verbum contra filium hominis.expounding thoſe words, What if ye ſee the Son of Man aſcending where be was before? It is the Spirit that quickneth, the Fleſh profiteth nothing, &c. adds, —foreign.He affirmed both of himſelf, the Fleſh and Spirit, and made a difference betwixt the Spirit and the Fleſh, that not only believing that of him which was viſible, but what was inviſible, they might learn, that thoſe things which he ſpake were not carnal, but ſpiritual. —foreign;For to how many could his Body have ſufficed for Meat, that it ſhould be made the Food of the whole World? But therefore he mentions the Son of Man's Aſcenſion into Heaven, that he might draw them from this corporal Conceit, —foreign.and hereafter might learn, that the Fleſh he ſpake of was celeſtial Meat from above, and ſpiritual Nouriſhment to be given by him, &c.
It will ſuffice all the World, if we follow Tertullian's (m)De Reſurr. c. 37. Quia & ſermo caro erat factus, proinde in cauſam vitae appetendus, & devorandus auditu, & ruminandus intellectu, & fide digerendus.Advice. Since the Word was made Fleſh, he is to be long'd for that we may live, to be devoured by Hearing; to be chewed by Underſtanding, and digeſted by Faith.
It is an excellent Comment on this, which Euebius gives us (n)Lib. 3. Eccl. Theol. c. 12. foreign.—foreign.upon thoſe words of John 6. The Fleſh profits nothing, &c. Do not imagine that I ſpeak of that Fleſh I am encompaſſed withal, as if you muſt eat that; nor think that I command you to drink ſenſible and corporeal Blood: But know, that the very Words that I have ſpoken to you are Spirit and Life. So that theſe very Words and Speeches of his, are his Fleſh and Blood; whereof whoſo is always Partaker, being nouriſhed as it were with beavenly Bread, ſhall be a Partaker of heavenly Life.—Let not the haſty hearing of thoſe things by me, —foreign.of Fleſh and Blood, trouble you; for things ſenfibly heard profit nothing, but it is the Spirit that quickneth them that can ſpiritually hear them.
S. Baſil (o)foreign.ſays the ſame. There is an intellectual Mouth of the inward Man, whereby he is nouriſhed who receives the Word of Life, which is the Bread that deſcended from Heaven:
Facundus Hermian. (p)Lib. 12. Defenſ. 3. capit. c. 1.takes this of eating Chriſt's Fleſh to be a Myſtery, and that S. Peter when he anſwered, Lord, whither ſhould we go? thou haſt the Words of Eternal Life, did not then underſtnad it. For, ſays he, Quod ſi myſterium intellexiſſet, hoc potius diceret, Domine, cur abeamus non eſt, cum credamus nos corporis & ſanguinis tui fide ſalvandos.if he had underſtood the Myſtery, he ſhould rather have ſaid, Lord, there is no reaſon we ſhould go away, fince we believe we ſhall be ſaved by Faith in thy Body and Blood. He means his Death and Paſſion, which is his Senſe of eating Chriſt's Body and Blood.
Theodorus Heracleot. (q)Catena in Joan. 6.54, 55.refers this eating Chriſt's Fleſh to the ſincere embracing the Oeconomy of his Incarnation. Theſe, ſays he, —foreign.upon the reaſoning of their Minds, by aſſenting to it, as it were taſting the Doctrine, do rationally (or ſpiritually) eat his Fleſh, and by Faith partake of his Blood.
S. Chryſoſtom (r)Hom. 46. in Joan. foreign, &c.upon thoſe words, It is the Spirit that quickneth, the Fleſh profiteth nothing, reckons up ſome of thoſe carnal Doubts that profit nothing; as, It is a carnal thing, ſays he, to doubt how Chriſt deſcended from Heaven, and to imagine him to be the Son of Joſeph, and how he can give us his Fleſh to eat. All theſe are carnal, which ought to be myſtically and ſpiritually underſtood.
Cyril of Jeruſalem (s)Catech. Myſtag. 4.ſays, That the Jews, for want of underſtanding ſpiritually Chriſt's words, foreignimagined that Chriſt exhorted them to devour his Fleſh; which is hard to be diſtinguiſh'd from the Roman Churches Oral Manducation.
This carnal Fancy might well make them ſhrink, and cry out, This is a hard Saying, who can hear it? For, as S. Auſtin (t)Cont. adverſ. Legis l. 2. c. 9. Horribilius videatur humanam carnem manducare quam perimere, & humanum ſanguinem potare quam fundere.well obſerves, It ſeems more horrible to eat Humane Fleſh, than to kill it; and to drink Mans Blood, than to ſhed it.
Origen's (u)Prolog. in Cantic. Eſt materialis hujus hominis, qui & exterior appellatur, cibus potuſque naturae ſuae cognatus, corporeus iſte, ſc. & terrenus. Similiter autem & ſpiritualis hominis ipſius, qui & interior dicitur, eſt proprius cibus, ut panis ille vivus qui de caelo deſcendit, &c. — Rerum vero proprietas unicuique diſcreta ſervatur, & corruptibili corruptibilia praebentur, incorruptibili verò incorruptibilia proponuntur.words (for I ſee no good reaſon to queſtion they are his) are enough to convince effectually all ſuch carnal Jews and Chriſtians. There is a Meat and Drink for this material and outward Man, as we call him, agreeable to his Nature, viz. this corporeal and earthly Food. There is likewiſe a proper Food for the ſpiritual, or, as we call it, inward Man, as that living Bread that came down from Heaven, &c.—But the Property of things is reſerved to each diſtinct, and corruptible things are given to that which is corruptible, and incorruptible things are propoſed to that which is incorruptible.
Greg. Nyſſen (x)Hom. 1. in Cantie. foreign, &c.alſo well expreſſes it thus. There is an Analogy betwixt the Motions and Operations of the Soul and the Senſes of the Body, &c.
—Wine and Milk are judged of by the Taſte; — foreign.but theſe being intellectual, the Power of the Soul that apprehends them muſt be altogether intellectual.
S. Chryſoſtom (y)Homil. 26. in Matth.—foreign.ſaid well, That Chriſt gave himſelf to us for a ſpiritual Feaſt and Banquet.
And Procopius Gazaeus (z)Comment. in Exod. Coeleſtis ſeu divinus Agnus animarum ſolet eſſe cibus.. The Celeſtial and Divine Lamb is wont to be the Food of Souls.
S. Auſtin (a)Tract. 1. in Epiſt. Joan. — Ipſum jam in coelo ſedentem manu contrectare non poſſumus, ſed fide contingere.indeed tells us, We cannot handle him who now ſits in Heaven; yet, ſays he, we may touch him by our Faith.
For, as he ſays elſewhere (b)Tract. 26. in Evang. Joan. Non ad Chriſtum ambulando currimus, ſed credeudo: nec motu corporis, ſed voluntate cordis accedimus. —Sic ſe tangi voluit, ſic tangitur ab eis à quibus benè tangitur, aſcendens ad patrem, manens cum patre, aequalis patri., We run to Chriſt, not by walking, but by believing; nor do we approach him by the Motion of our Bodies, but by the Will of our Hearts.
And afterwards.—Thus he would be touched, and thus he is touched by all that rightly touch him, aſcending to the Father, remaining with the Father, equal to the Fath. r.
And in the next Tractate (c)Idem Tract. 27. in Joan. Quid eſt hoc? Hinc ſolvit illud quod non noverant— Illi enim putabant eum erogaturum corpus ſuum, ille autem dixit, ſe aſcenſurum in coelum, utique integrum. Cùm videritis filium hominis aſcendentem ubi crat priùs, certè vel tunc videbitis quia non co modo quo putatis erogat corpus ſuum, certè vel tunc intelligetis, quia gratia ejus non conſumitur morſibus.upon thoſe words, What if ye ſee the Son of Man aſcend, &c. What do's this mean? He hence reſolves that which they did not know—For they imagined, that he would beſtow his Body upon them; and he told them, that he would aſcend into Heaven entire and whole. When you ſhall ſee the Son of Man aſcending where he was before, then ſurely you will ſee, that be do's not beſtow his. Body after that manner you think he do's: Surely you will then at leaſt underſtand, that his Grace is not conſumed by bites (of the Teeth)
Gelaſius (d)Contr. Eutych. l. 4. Credere in filium Dei, hoc eſt videre, hoc eſt audire, hoc eſt odorari, hoc eſt guſtare, hoc eſt contrectare eum.therefore ſaid well: To believe on the Son of God, this is to ſee him, this is to bear him, this is to ſmell, this is to taſte him, and this is to handle him.
Theſe Teſtimonies, one would think, are ſufficient to tell us the Senſe of the Fathers in this Matter; yet, with the Reader's leave, I will add a few Conſiderations more, to put it out of all doubt.
1 Conſideration. It appears there is no neceſſity to underſtand eating and drinking Chriſt's Body in the Eucharist, of his natural Body received into ours; becauſe the Fathers ſay, We eat and drink, and partake of Chriſt's Body and Blood in Baptiſm, which, by the confeſſion of all, can be done only ſpiritually there.
Thus Cyril of Alexandria (e)In Joah. 9.6.ſays, The Gentiles could not have ſhaken off their Blindneſs, and contemplated the Divine and H. Light, that is, attained the Knowledge of the Holy and Conſubſtantial Trinity, —foreign.unleſs by Holy-Baptiſm they had been made Partakers of his Holy Fleſh, and waſhed away the blackneſs of their Sin, and ſhak'd off the Devil's Power.
And elſewhere (f)Glaphyr. in Exod. lib. 2. foreign.ſpeaking of the Eunuch: He by his Queſtion, ſays he, ſhewed, that he was Partaker of the Spiritual Lamb; for he was preſently thought worthy of Baptiſm.
Fulgentius (g)De Bapt. Aethiop. in fine. Niſi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis, & biberitis ejus ſauguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobis. Quod quiſquis non ſolum ſecundùm veritatis myſteria, ſed ſecundùm myſterii veritatem, conſiderare poterit, in ipſo Lavacro S. Regenerationis hoc fieri providebit.. Unleſs ye eat the Fleſh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, ye ſhall have no Life in you. Which whoſoever can conſider, not only according to the Mystery of Truth (viz. in the Sacraments) but according to the Truth of the Myſtery, will ſee that this is done in the Laver of Holy Regeneration.
And again (h)Ibid. Nec cuiquam eſſe aliquatenus ambigendum, tu… unumquemque fidelium corporis ſanguiniſque participem fieri, quando in baptiſmate membrum corporis Chriſti efficitur.. Neither need any one in the leaſt doubt, that every Believer is then made Partaker of Chriſt's Body and Blood, when he is made in Baptiſm a Member of Chriſt's Body.
Therefore S. Baſil (i)In Eſa. 3.ſays, That the Lord takes away Chriſt from thoſe who having put him on by Baptiſm, —foreign.by ſinning afterwards trample upon his Body, and count the Blood of the Covenant an unholy thing.
2 Conſideration. The Fathers, with reference to Eating and Drinking, diſtinguiſh Chriſt's True Body from his Sacramental one; which they could not do, if Chriſt's True and Natural Body and Blood were eat and drunk in a proper ſenſe in the Sacrament.
S. Chryſoſtome (k)In 1 Cor. c. 11. v. 29. foreign, &c. foreign.expounding thoſe words, He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, &c. ſays, As Chriſts Preſence, which brought thoſe great and unſpeakable Bleſſings to us, did condemn thoſe the more that did not receive it; ſo alſo the Myſteries make way for greater Puniſhments to thoſe that unworthily partake of them.
S. Auſtin (l)Contr. Fauſtum l. 20. c. 21. Hujus ſacrificii caro & ſanguis, &c. —in paſſione Chriſti per ipſam veritatem reddebatur, poſt aſcenſum Chriſti per Sacramentum memoriae celebratur.(whoſe words I have given Chap. 10. Poſit. 2.) makes the Fleſh and Blood of Chriſt to be exhibited in the Truth at his Paſſion, and in the Sacrament only the Memory of it to be celebrated.
Bede (m)In Pſal. 21: —Intelligent in pane & vino viſibiliter ſibi propoſito aliud inviſibile, ſcilicet corpus & ſanguinem verum Domini, qui verus cibus & potus ſunt, quo non venter diſtenditur, ſed mens ſaginatur.upon thoſe words, The Poor ſhall eat and be ſatisfied, ſays, By this Bread and Wine, which are viſibly offered to them, they will underſtand another inviſible thing, viz. the true Body and Blood of our Lord, which are really Meat and Drink, not ſuch as fills the Belly, but which nouriſhes the Mind.
And in another place (n)In Eſdram lib. 2. cap. 8. immolatio. Paſchae gloriam inſinuet reſurrectionis, cùm omnes electi carne agni immaculati, id eſt, Dei & Domini noſtri, non amplius in Sacramento credentes, ſed in reipſa ac verirate videntes, reficiuntur.ſpeaking of the Paſſover. The Immolation of this Paſſover repreſents the Glory of our Reſurrection, when all the Elect ſhall eat together the Fleſh of the Immaculate Lamb, I mean of him who is our God and Lord, no more in Sacrament as Believers, but in the thing it ſelf, and in Truth, as Spectators.
Neither is that of Iſidore of Sevil (o)De Officiis Eccleſ. l. 1 c. 15.to be paſſed over, who mentions this Prayer in the Liturgy of his Time; —Ut oblatio quae Domino offertur ſanctificata per ſpiritum ſanctum, corpori & ſanguini Chriſti conformetur (not confirmetur, as the laſt Colen Edition abſurdly has printed it, An. 1617.)That the Oblation which is offered to God, being ſanctified by the Holy Spirit, may be conformed to the Body and Blood of Chriſt. Which very Phraſe ſhews a difference betwixt what we receive in the Euchariſt, and the true Body and Blood of Chriſt: Elſe it would not be Conformity, but Identity, as Monſieur Claude has well obſerved.
3 Conſideration. They ſay, That the Fathers under the Old Teſtament did eat the ſame ſpiritual Meat with us; and give this as the Reaſon why it is ſpiritual Meat, Becauſe it is not eaten corporally, but by Faith. Therefore both they and we muſt eat the ſame Meat only ſpiritually, not corporally.
S. Auſtin has ſaid ſo much in this Argument, that I need go no further. And I might inſiſt upon many Paſſages I have upon other occaſions named before; as that in his Treatiſe upon S. John's Goſpel (p)Tract. 45. in Ev. Joan. Videte, fide manente, ſigna variata. Ibi petra Chriſtus, nobis Chriſtus quod in altari Dei ponitur. Et 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., where explaining that of the ſame ſpiritual Drink the Fathers drank, he has ſuch Expreſſions as theſe. See the Signs are varied, Faith remaining the ſame. There the Rock was Chriſt (in Sign); to us that which is laid on the Altar is Chriſt; and they drank of the Water that flowed from the Rock, for a great Sacrament of the ſame Chriſt; what we drink, the Faithful know. If you regard the viſible Species or Nature, it is another thing; if the ſpiritual or intelligible Signification, they drank the ſame ſpiritual Drink.
In another place (q)Idem in Pſal. 77. Idem in myſterio cibus & potus illorum qui noſter, ſed ſignificatione idem non ſpecie. Quia idem ipſe Chriſtus illis in petra figuratus, nobis in …ne manifeſtatus eſt.. Their Meat and Drink was the ſame with ours in Myſtery; not in Subſtance (or Species) the ſame, but in Signification. Becauſe the ſame Chriſt who was figured to them in the Rock, is manifeſted to us in the Fleſh.
To add but one place more, which fully comprehends the whole ſenſe of the Argument (r)De Ʋtilit. Penitentiae, cap. 1.: Where S. Auſtin explaining the ſame words, of our Fathers eating the ſame ſpiritual Meat, &c. he diſcourſes thus.
The Apoſtle ſays, Apoſtolus dicit, Patres noſtros, non patres infidelium, non patres impiorum manducantes & morientes, ſed patres noſtros, patres fidelium, ſpiritalem cibum manducaſſe, & ideo cundem.— Erant enim ibi quibus plus Chriſtus in corde quam Manna in ore ſapiebat. Quicunque in Manna Chriſtum intellexerunt, cundem quem nos cibum ſpiritalem manducaverunt.—Sic etiam eundem potum, Petra enim erat Chriſtus. Eundem ergo potum quem nos, ſed ſpiritalem, id eſt, qui fide capiebatur, non qui corpore hauriebatur.—Eundem ergo cibum ſed intelligentibus & credentibus; non intelligentibus autem, illud ſolum Manna, illa ſola aqua, &c.That our Fathers, not the Fathers of Unbelievers, not the Fathers of the Wicked, that did eat and die; but our Fathers, the Fathers of the Faithful, did eat ſpiritual Meat, and therefore the ſame.— For there were ſuch there, to whom Chriſt was more taſteful in their Heart, than Manna in their Mouth.— Whoſoever underſtood Chriſt in the Manna, did eat the ſame ſpiritual Meat we do.— So alſo the ſame Drink, For the Rock was Chriſt. Therefore they drank the ſame Drink we do, but ſpiritual Drink, that is, Drink which was received by Faith, not what was ſwallowed down by the Body.—They ate therefore the ſame Meat, the ſame to thoſe that underſtand and believe; but to them that do not underſtand, it was only that Manna, only that Water, &c. Here you ſee, S. Auſtin calls that Spiritual Drink which Faith receives, not which the Body takes down. And thus whether Chriſt be come, or be to come, it's all one (as he ſays a little after, Venturus & venit diverſa verba ſunt ſed idem Chriſtus) becauſe Faith can apprehend what ſhall be, as well as what is. But if our Eating be Chriſt's natural Body ſwallowed down our Bodies, then their Meat and ours were not the ſame. For Chriſt could not be thus their Meat, becauſe then he had not taken Fleſh upon him; therefore thoſe old Fathers could not take it down in the oral Senſe.
4 Conſideration. The Body and Blood are to be eaten and drunk, and to be received, as they are repreſented and ſet before us in the Sacrament. But there the Body of Chriſt (according to the Fathers as well as the Scriptures) is ſet before us as broken and dead, and his Blood as poured out of his Veins. Therefore it can be eaten and drunk by us only figuratively and ſpiritually.
If the Reader look back to Chap. 10. Poſit. 4. he will find a great many Teſtimonies, eſpecially out of S. Chryſoſtome, to prove that the Fathers conſidered Chriſt's Body in the Sacrament as ſlain and dead, and his Blood poured out of his Veins, and ſeparated from his Body: And how S. Chryſoſtome, at the ſame time when he tells us that Chriſt has given us leave to be filled with his Holy Fleſh (i)Hom. 51. in Matth. —foreign—foreign., he has propoſed and ſet himſelf before us as ſlain.
This I ſhall now give a further account of, ſeeing the Fathers ſpeak nothing more plainly and fully than this.
S. Auſtin (t)In Pſal. 100. Nos de cruce Domini paſcimur; quia corpus ipſius manducamus.not only tells us in general, That we are fed from our Lord's Croſs, becauſe we eat his Body; but more expreſly ſays (u)Serm. 9. de 40. edit. à Sirmondo. —Qui ſe pro nobis in menſa crucis obtulit ſacrificium Deo Patri, donans Eccleſiae ſuae Catholicae vitale convivium, corpore ſuo nos videlicet ſatians, & inebrians ſanguine., That Chriſt offered himſelf a Sacrifice for us to God the Father, on the Table of the Croſs, giving to his Catholick Church a vital Banquet, viz. by ſatiating us with his Body, and inebriating us with his Blood. But all this, by looking upon him on the Table of the Croſs, ſacrificed and ſlain.
This made Gr. Nyſſen (x)Orat. 1. in Reſurr. Dom. foreign.ſay, That the Body of the Victim (ſpeaking of Chriſt) is not fit for eating, if it be alive.
And S. Cyprian (y)Lib. 2. Ep. 3. Nec nos ſanguinem Chriſti poſſemus bibere, niſi prius calcatus fuiſſet & preſſus.. Neither ſhould we be able to drink the Blood of Christ, unleſs it were firſt trodden and preſſed. Alluding to Grapes in a Wine-preſs; and that Chriſt's Blood muſt be out of his Veins when we drink it, and ſo conſidered by us.
But none of the Ancients has given a fuller Account of this than Heſychius (z)Com. in Lev. l. 1.—Carnem ejus, quae ad comedendum inepta erat ante paſſionem— aptam cibo poſt paſſionem fecit. Si enim non fuiſſet crucifixus, ſacrificium corporis ejus minimè comederemus. Comedimus autem nunc cibum, ſumentes ejus memoriam paſſionis., who ſays, That Christ made his Fleſh fit to be eaten after his Paſſion, which was not fit to be eaten before his Paſſion: For if he had not been crucified, we could by no means eat the Sacrifice of his Body. But now we eat Food, receiving the Memory of his Paſſion.
And again (a)Ib. l. 2. Sartaginem, Domini crucem,—accipi oportet, quae etiam ſuperimpoſitam Dominicam carnem, eſibilem hominibus reddidit. Niſi enim ſuperimpoſita fuiſſet cruci, nos corpus Chriſti nequaquàm myſticè percepiſſemus., he compares the Croſs to a Gridiron, which when our Lord's Fleſh is put upon it, makes it fit to be Food of Men: For unleſs it had been laid thus upon the Croſs, we could in no wiſe myſtically have received Chriſt's Body.
And becauſe this Food, which is thus myſtically to be eaten, could not be fit Food for us, unleſs Chriſt was crucified and ſlain; therefore in ſeveral places he ſpeaks of Chriſt as ſlaying himſelf in the Euchariſt (which cannot be underſtood properly) before he was ſlain upon the Croſs. ſays (b)Ib. l. 1. Praeveniens, ſeipſum in caena Apoſtolorum immolavit, quod ſciunt qui myſteriorum virtutem percipiune., Chriſt, by way of anticipation, ſlew (or ſacrificed) himſelf in the Supper of the Apostles, which they know that perceive the Virtue of the Myſteries.
Again (c)Ib. l. 2. Prius figuratam ovem cum Apoſtolis caenans Dominus poſteà ſuum obtulit ſacrificium, & ſecundò ſicut ovem ſcipſum occidit.. Our Lord firſt ſupping upon the figurative Lamb with the Apoſtles, did afterwards offer his Sacrifice, and a ſecond time, as a Lamb, ſlew himſelf.
And now after all theſe Teſtimonies and Conſiderations, which, put together, demonſtratively conclude againſt any eating of Chriſt's Body, or drinking his Blood, but what is ſpiritual and figurative; I'll put an end to this Chapter with two remarkable Sayings of S. Auſtin.
The firſt is upon the 98 Pſalm (d)In Pſ. 98., where he confutes thoſe who, when our Saviour ſpake of eating his Fleſh, and drinking his Blood, were offended at this, as an hard Saying; and then expounding that which Chriſt added, The words I ſpeak are Spirit and Life, he makes our Lord ſpeak thus to them: Spiritualiter intelligite quod locutus ſum. Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi eſtis & bibituri illum ſanguinem quem fuſuri ſunt qui me crucifigent. Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi, ſpiritualiter intellectum vivificabit vos; & ſi neceſſe eſt illud viſibiliter celebrari, oportet tamen inviſibiliter intelligi.Underſtand ſpiritually what I have ſpoken. You are not to eat this Body which you ſee, nor to drink that Blood which they ſhall ſhed that will crucifie me. I have commended a certain Sacrament to you, which if ſpiritually underſtood, will give Life to you; and if it be neceſſary this Sacrament ſhould be viſibly celebrated, yet it muſt be inviſibly (i. e. ſpiritually) underſtood by you. No Proteſtant could chuſe Words to expreſs his Mind more fully by, in this Matter.
His other Saying is againſt the Manichees, who fanſied a latent Christ in the Fruits of Trees, and Ears of Corn, and profeſſed to eat him that was paſſible with their Mouths. S. Auſtin thus ſarcaſtically derides them (e)Contr. Fauſtum l. 20. c. 11. Ore aperto expectatis quis inferat Chriſtum, tanquam optimae ſepulturae, faucibus veſtris.: Ye expect with open Mouth, who ſhould bring in Chriſt into your Jaws, as the beſt Sepulcher for him.
If S. Auſtin had been for Oral Manducation of Chriſt's Body in the Euchariſt, he could not have had the confidence to have objected this, as a Reproach to the Manichees, which might ſo eaſily have been returned with ſhame upon himſelf.
I conclude therefore, that the Trent Fathers, when they called the Sacramental and Oral Manducation, real eating, to diſtinguiſh it from the ſpiritual eating; and made that Canon (f)Conc. Trid. Seſſ. 13. Can. 8. Si quis dixerit Chriſtum in Euchariſtia exhibitum, ſpiritualiter tantùm manducari, & non etiam ſacramentaliter ac realiter, anathema ſit., If any ſhall ſay, That Chriſt exhibited in the Euchariſt, is only ſpiritually eaten, and not alſo ſacramentally and really, let him be Anathema: that herein they were ſo far from deſigning to teſtifie their Conſent with the Fathers (who, as you have heard, generally ſay the contrary) that they ſeem rather to have had a Conſpiracy againſt them.