"call it bread; but when the divine force has "sanctified it by the means of the priest, it is "freed from the name of bread, and is thought "worthy of the name of the Lord's body, though the nature of bread remains in it, and 66 66 a 66 yet it is not said there are two bodies, but one body of the Son; so the divine nature being joined to the body, both these make one Son " and one person." Ephraim of Antioch says, "the body of Christ, which is received by the faithful, does not depart from its visible sub66 stance." Theodoret b says, "Christ honours "the symbols with the name of his body and blood, not changing the nature, but adding grace to nature." And again," the mystical symbols, after the sanctification, do not depart from their own nature; for they continue "in their former substance, figure and form, and 66 66 66 66 66 c are visible as they were before; but they are "understood to be what they are made." Pope Gelasius says, "the sacraments of the body "and blood of Christ are a divine thing; for "which reason we become by them partakers "of the divine nature; and yet the substance "of bread and wine does not cease to exist ; " and the image and likeness of the body and "blood of Christ are celebrated in holy mys a See in Phot, Bibl. cod. 229. b See Dial. 1 et 2. cont. Eutych. See Lib. de duabus Nat. Chris. «teries." Now had the corporal presence of Christ in the sacrament been then believed in the Church, the plain and evident argument against those heretics to whom the preceding quotations refer, would have been this: Christ must have a natural body after his incarnation, because the bread and wine are turned into it, and they cannot be turned into that which is not. Whereas the arguments they use might on this supposition have been easily refuted; for then they should have reasoned thus: that Christ's human nature was not absorbed by the divine, because the elements in the sacrament are changed into the substance of Christ's body, retaining only the outward substance of bread and wine. To this an Eutychian might easily have answered, that though he appeared in the likeness of human nature, he retained only its accidents, but that the human nature itself was destroyed, as the bread and wine were destroyed in the Eucharist. This answer would have been (on Roman Catholic principles) triumphant. On the contrary, those Fathers urge, that as in the Eucharist there was an union of two natures, the one communicating a sanctification to the other, a similar union might exist in Christ. It is evident from this argument, that in the fourth and fifth centuries it was not believed that any change took place in the substance of the bread and wine in the sacrament. 66 b The same inference with respect to the opinion of the Fathers on this subject, may be derived from their asserting that our bodies are nourished by the sacrament. Thus Irenæus a says, "when the cup and the bread receive the "word of God, it becomes the Eucharist of the body and blood of Christ, by which the sub"stance of our flesh is increased and subsists." Tertullian says, "The flesh is fed with the body and blood of Christ." Origen, in explaining our Saviour's words, "it is not that which enters within the man, that defiles the man," says, "if every thing that goes into the stomach "is cast out in the draught, then that food "which is sanctified by the word of God and by 66 prayer, goes into the stomach as to that which ❝is material in it, and goes from thence into the "draught." The Bishops of Spain, in a council held at Toledo d in the seventh century, decreed that as much of the bread as remained after the communion, should be put in a bag and preserved, or if it was necessary, be eaten," that it 66 might not oppress the stomach of him that "took it with an overcharging burden, and that "it might not go into the digestion." Again, in the ninth century, Rabanus Maurus and Heribald, and several Greek writers, held that the sacrament was subject to the ordinary laws of a See Adv. Hær. 1. 5. c. 2. See De Resurrec. c. 8. d See Con. Tol. 16. can. 6. g digestion; whom their adversaries, therefore, called Stercoranists. And though Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, and others, held a contrary opinion, still they thought the sacrament was changed into the substance of our bodies, and afforded them nourishment, without undergoing the same process as other food. (3.) The Fathers call the consecrated elements the figures, the signs, the types, the representation and the sacraments of the body and blood; which shows they could not have held any transubstantiation of them. Thus Tertullian, in order to prove that Christ had a true body, and was not a mere phantasm, argues thus: "He "made bread to be his body, saying, this is my body, that is, the figure of my body." From which he infers, that since his body had bread for its figure, it must be a true body, for an empty thing, such as a phantasm, cannot have a figure. Now, these words prove that he did not hold a corporal presence of Christ in the sacrament, for then he could easily have reasoned, that Christ must have a true body, since the sacrament is truly his body; instead of which he uses a tedious circumlocution. 2 See Cyr. Cat. Mest. 5. Chrys. Hom. in Euch. t. 5. Damas, de Orth. Fide. 1. 4. c. 14. b See Adv. Marc. 1. 4. e. 40. Again, St. Austin a says, "he commended and 66 gave to his disciples the figure of his body " and blood." And in order to prove that the sign sometimes means the name of the thing signified, he says, "Christ did not doubt to say, "this is my body, when he was giving the sign "of his body." Now, if the bread were truly the body of Christ, this argument would have disproved his own assertion, since it would shew, that the sign must be the same with the thing signified. Again, he says: "The flesh "and blood of this sacrifice were promised be"fore the coming of Christ, by the sacrifices "that were the types of it; in the passion the "sacrifice was truly offered, and, after his as❝cension, it is celebrated by the sacrament of "the remembrance of it." And, speaking of the murmuring of the Jews upon our Saviour's declaring he would give them his flesh to eat; he adds, "they foolishly and carnally thought, that he was to cut off some par"cels of his body, to be given to them; but he "shows that there was a sacrament hid there," and thus paraphrases that passage: "The words "that I have spoken to you, they are spirit " and life: Understand spiritually that which I "have said, for it is not this body which you See Com. in Ps. 3. lib. cont. Adim. c. 12. and cont. Faust. 1. 20. c. 21. |