LXVII. The grace which we have by the holy Eucharist doth not begin but continue life. No man therefore receiveth this sacrament before Baptism, because no dead thing is capable of nourishment. That which groweth must of necessity first live. If our bodies did not daily waste, food to restore them were a thing superfluous. And it may be that the grace of baptism would serve to eternal life, were it not that the state of our spiritual being is daily so much hindered and impaired after baptism. In that life therefore where neither body nor soul can decay, our souls shall as little require this sacrament as our bodies corporal nourishment. But as long as the days of our warfare last, during the time that we are both subject to diminution and capable of augmentation in grace, the words of our Lord and Saviour Christ will remain forcible, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you1.”
Life being therefore proposed unto all men as their end, they which by baptism have laid the foundation and attained the first beginning of a new life have here their nourishment and food prescribed for continuance of life in them. Such as will live the life of God must eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man, because this is a part of that diet which if we want we cannot live. Whereas therefore in our infancy we are incorporated into Christ and by Baptism receive the grace of his Spirit without any sense or feeling of the gift which God bestoweth, in the Eucharist we so receive the gift of God, that we know by grace what the grace is which God giveth us, the degrees of our own increase in holiness and virtue we see and can judge of them, we understand that the strength of our life begun in Christ is Christ, that his flesh is meat and his blood drink, not by surmised imagination but truly, even so truly that through faith we perceive in the body and blood sacramentally presented the very taste of eternal life, the grace of the sacrament is here as the food which we eat and drink.
This was it that some did exceedingly fear, lest Zwinglius2 and Œcolampadius would bring to pass, that men should account of this sacrament but only as of a shadow, destitute, empty and void of Christ. But seeing that by opening the several opinions which have been held, they are grown for aught I can see on all sides at the length to a general agreement3 concerning that which alone is material, namely the real participation of Christ and of life in his body and blood by means of this sacrament; wherefore should the world continue still distracted and rent with so manifold contentions, when there remaineth now no controversy saving only about the subject where Christ is? Yea even in this point no side denieth but that the soul of man is the receptacle of Christ’s presence. Whereby the question is yet driven to a narrower issue, nor doth any thing rest doubtful but this, whether when the sacrament is administered Christ be whole within man only, or else his body and blood be also externally seated in the very consecrated elements themselves; which opinion they that defend are driven either to consubstantiate and incorporate Christ with elements sacramental, or to transubstantiate and change their substance into his; and so the one to hold him really but invisibly moulded up with the substance of those elements, the other to hide him under the only visible show of bread and wine, the substance whereof as they imagine is abolished and his succeeded in the same room.
All things considered and compared with that success which truth hath hitherto had by so bitter conflicts with errors in this point, shall I wish that men would more give themselves to meditate with silence what we have by the sacrament, and less to dispute of the manner how? If any man suppose that this were too great stupidity and dulness, let us see whether the Apostles of our Lord themselves have not done the like. It appeareth by many examples that they of their own disposition were very scrupulous and inquisitive, yea in other cases of less importance and less difficulty always apt to move questions. How cometh it to pass that so few words of so high a mystery being uttered, they receive with gladness the gift of Christ and make no show of doubt or scruple? The reason hereof is not dark to them which have any thing at all observed how the powers of the mind are wont to stir when that which we infinitely long for presenteth itself above and besides expectation. Curious and intricate speculations do hinder, they abate, they quench such inflamed motions of delight and joy as divine graces use to raise when extraordinarily they are present. The mind therefore feeling present joy is always marvellous unwilling to admit any other cogitation, and in that case casteth off those disputes whereunto the intellectual part at other times easily draweth.
A manifest effect whereof may be noted if we compare with our Lord’s disciples in the twentieth of John the people that are said in the sixth of John to have gone after him to Capernaum. These leaving him on the one side the sea of Tiberias, and finding him again as soon as themselves by ship were arrived on the contrary side, whither they knew that by ship he came not, and by land the journey was longer than according to the time he could have to travel, as they wondered so they asked also, “Rabbi, when camest thou hither4?” The disciples when Christ appeared to them in far more strange and miraculous manner moved no question, but rejoiced greatly in that they saw. For why? The one sort beheld only that in Christ which they knew was more than natural, but yet their affection was not rapt therewith through any great extraordinary gladness, the other when they looked on Christ were not ignorant that they saw the wellspring of their own everlasting felicity; the one because they enjoyed not disputed, the other disputed not because they enjoyed.
If then the presence of Christ with them did so much move, judge what their thoughts and affections were at the time of this new presentation of Christ not before their eyes but within their souls. They had learned before that his flesh and blood are the true cause of eternal life; that this they are not by the bare force of their own substance, but through the dignity and worth of his Person which offered them up by way of sacrifice for the life of the whole world, and doth make them still effectual thereunto; finally that to us they are life in particular, by being particularly received. Thus much they knew, although as yet they understood not perfectly to what effect or issue the same would come, till at the length being assembled for no other cause which they could imagine but to have eaten the Passover only that Moyses appointeth, when they saw their Lord and Master with hands and eyes lifted up to heaven first bless and consecrate for the endless good of all generations till the world’s end the chosen elements of bread and wine, which elements made for ever the instruments of life by virtue of his divine benediction they being the first that were commanded to receive from him, the first which were warranted by his promise that not only unto them at the present time but to whomsoever they and their successors after them did duly administer the same, those mysteries should serve as conducts of life and conveyances of his body and blood unto them, was it possible they should hear that voice, “Take, eat, this is my body; drink ye all of this, this is my blood;” possible that doing what was required and believing what was promised, the same should have present effect in them, and not fill them with a kind of fearful admiration at the heaven which they saw in themselves? They had at that time a sea of comfort and joy to wade in, and we by that which they did are taught that this heavenly food is given for the satisfying of our empty souls, and not for the exercising of our curious and subtle wits.
If we doubt what those admirable words may import, let him be our teacher for the meaning of Christ to whom Christ was himself a schoolmaster, let our Lord’s Apostle be his interpreter, content we ourselves with his explication, My body, the communion of my body, My blood, the communion of my blood. Is there any thing more expedite, clear, and easy, than that as Christ is termed our life because through him we obtain life, so the parts of this sacrament are his body and blood for that they are so to us who receiving them receive that by them which they are termed? The bread and cup are his body and blood because they are causes instrumental upon the receipt whereof the participation of his body and blood ensueth. For that which produceth any certain effect is not vainly nor improperly said to be that very effect whereunto it tendeth. Every cause is in the effect which groweth from it. Our souls and bodies quickened to eternal life are effects the cause whereof is the Person of Christ, his body and his blood are the true wellspring out of which this life floweth. So that his body and blood are in that very subject whereunto they minister life not only by effect or operation, even as the influence of the heavens is in plants, beasts, men, and in every thing which they quicken, but also by a far more divine and mystical kind of union, which maketh us one with him even as he and the Father are one.
The real presence of Christ’s most blessed body and blood is not therefore to be sought for in the sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the sacrament.
And with this the very order of our Saviour’s words agreeth, first “take and eat;” then “this is my Body which was broken for you:” first “drink ye all of this;” then followeth “this is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins5.” I see not which way it should be gathered by the words of Christ, when and where the bread is His body or the cup His blood, but only in the very heart and soul of him which receiveth them. As for the sacraments, they really exhibit, but for aught we can gather out of that which is written of them, they are not really nor do really contain in themselves that grace which with them or by them it pleaseth God to bestow.
If on all sides it be confessed that the grace of Baptism is poured into the soul of man, that by water we receive it although it be neither seated in the water nor the water changed into it, what should induce men to think that the grace of the Eucharist must needs be in the Eucharist before it can be in us that receive it?
The fruit of the Eucharist is the participation of the body and blood of Christ. There is no sentence of Holy Scripture which saith that we cannot by this sacrament be made partakers of his body and blood except they be first contained in the sacrament, or the sacrament converted into them. “This is my body,” and “this is my blood,” being words of promise, sith we all agree that by the sacrament Christ doth really and truly in us perform his promise, why do we vainly trouble ourselves with so fierce contentions whether by consubstantiation, or else by transubstantiation the sacrament itself be first possessed with Christ, or no? A thing which no way can either further or hinder us howsoever it stand, because our participation of Christ in this sacrament dependeth on the co-operation of his omnipotent power which maketh it his body and blood to us6, whether with change or without alteration of the element such as they imagine we need not greatly to care nor inquire7.
Take therefore that wherein all agree, and then consider by itself what cause why the rest in question should not rather be left as superfluous than urged as necessary. It is on all sides plainly confessed, first that this sacrament is a true and a real participation of Christ, who thereby imparteth himself even his whole entire Person as a mystical Head unto every soul that receiveth him, and that every such receiver doth thereby incorporate or unite himself unto Christ as a mystical member of him, yea of them also whom he acknowledgeth to be his own; secondly that to whom the person of Christ is thus communicated, to them he giveth by the same sacrament his Holy Spirit to sanctify them as it sanctifieth him which is their head; thirdly that what merit, force or virtue soever there is in his sacrificed body and blood, we freely, fully and wholly have it by this sacrament; fourthly that the effect thereof in us is a real transmutation of our souls and bodies from sin to righteousness, from death and corruption to immortality and life; fifthly that because the sacrament being of itself but a corruptible and earthly creature must needs be thought an unlikely instrument to work so admirable effects in man, we are therefore to rest ourselves altogether upon the strength of his glorious power who is able and will bring to pass that the bread and cup which he giveth us shall be truly the thing he promiseth.
It seemeth therefore much amiss that against them whom they term Sacramentaries8 so many invective discourses are made all running upon two points, that the Eucharist is not a bare sign or figure only, and that the efficacy of his body and blood is not all we receive in this sacrament. For no man having read their books and writings which are thus traduced can be ignorant that both these assertions they plainly confess to be most true. They do not so interpret the words of Christ as if the name of his body did import but the figure of his body, and to be were only to signify his blood. They grant that these holy mysteries received in due manner do instrumentally both make us partakers of the grace of that body and blood which were given for the life of the world, and besides also impart unto us even in true and real though mystical manner the very Person of our Lord himself, whole, perfect, and entire, as hath been shewed.
Now whereas all three opinions do thus far accord in one, that strong conceit which two of the three have embraced as touching a literal, corporal and oral manducation of the very substance of his flesh and blood is surely an opinion no where delivered in Holy Scripture, whereby they should think themselves bound to believe it, and (to speak with the softest terms we can use) greatly prejudiced in that when some others did so conceive of eating his flesh, our Saviour to abate that error in them gave them directly to understand how his flesh so eaten could profit them nothing, because the words which he spake were spirit, that is to say, they had a reference to a mystical participation, which mystical participation giveth life. Wherein there is small appearance of likelihood that his meaning should be only to make them Marcionites by inversion, and to teach them that as Marcion did think Christ seemed to be a man but was not, so they contrariwise should believe that Christ in truth would so give them as they thought his flesh to eat, but yet lest the horror thereof should offend them, he would not seem to do that he did.
When they which have this opinion of Christ in that blessed sacrament go about to explain themselves, and to open after what manner things are brought to pass, the one sort lay the union of Christ’s deity with his manhood as their first foundation and ground; from thence they infer a power which the body of Christ hath thereby to present itself in all places; out of which ubiquity of his body they gather the presence thereof with that sanctified bread and wine of our Lord’s table; the conjunction of his body and blood with those elements they use as an argument to shew how the bread may as well in that respect be termed his body because his body is therewith joined, as the Son of God may be named man by reason that God and man in the person of Christ are united; to this they add how the words of Christ commanding us to eat must needs import that as he hath coupled the substance of his flesh and the substance of bread together, so we together should receive both. Which labyringh as the other sort doth justly shun, so the way which they take to the same inn is somewhat more short but no whit more certain. For through God’s omnipotent power they imagine that transubstantiation followeth upon the words of consecration, and upon transubstantiation the participation of Christ’s both body and blood in the only shape of sacramental elements.
So that they all three do plead God’s omnipotency: Sacramentaries to that alteration which the rest confess he accomplisheth; the patrons of transubstantiation over and besides that to the change of one substance into another; the followers of consubstantiation to the kneading up of both substances as it were into one lump.
Touching the sentence of antiquity in this cause, first forasmuch as they knew that the force of this sacrament doth necessarily presuppose the verity of Christ’s both body and blood, they used oftentimes the same as an argument to prove that Christ hath as truly the substance of man as of God, because here we receive Christ and those graces which flow from him in that he is man. So that if he have no such being, neither can the sacrament have any such meaning as we all confess it hath. Thus Tertullian9, thus Ireney10, thus Theodoret11 disputeth.
Again as evident it is how they teach that Christ is personally there present, yea present whole, albeit a part of Christ be corporally absent from thence; that Christ12 assisting this heavenly banquet with his personal and true presence13 doth by his own divine power add to the natural substance thereof supernatural efficacy, which14 addition to the nature of those consecrated elements changeth them and maketh them that unto us which otherwise they could not be; that to us they are thereby made such instruments as mystically15 yet truly, invisibly yet really work our communion or fellowship with the person of Jesus Christ as well in that he is man as God, our participation also in the fruit, grace and efficacy of his body and blood, whereupon there ensueth a kind of transubstantiation in us, a true change16 both of soul and body, an alteration from death to life. In a word it appeareth not that of all the ancient Fathers of the Church any one did ever conceive or imagine other than only a mystical participation of Christ’s both body and blood in the sacrament, neither are their speeches concerning the change of the elements themselves into the body and blood of Christ such, that a man can thereby in conscience assure himself it was their meaning to persuade the world either of a corporal consubstantiation of Christ with those sanctified and blessed elements before we receive them, or of the like transubstantiation of them into the body and blood of Christ. Which both to our mystical communion with Christ are so unnecessary, that the Fathers who plainly hold but this mystical communion cannot easily be thought to have meant any other change of sacramental elements than that which the same spiritual communion did require them to hold.
These things considered, how should that mind which loving truth and seeking comfort out of holy mysteries hath not perhaps the leisure, perhaps not the wit nor capacity to tread out so endless mazes, as the intricate disputes of this cause have led men into, how should a virtuously disposed mind better resolve with itself than thus? “Variety of judgments and opinions argueth obscurity in those things whereabout they differ. But that which all parts receive for truth, that which every one having sifted is by no one denied or doubted of, must needs be matter of infallible certainty. Whereas therefore there are but three expositions made of ‘this is my body,’ the first, ‘this is in itself before participation really and truly the natural substance of my body by reason of the coexistence which my omnipotent body hath with the sanctified element of bread,’ which is the Lutherans’ interpretation; the second, ‘this is itself and before participation the very true and natural substance of my body, by force of that Deity which with the words of consecration abolisheth the substance of bread and substituteth in the place thereof my Body,’ which is the popish construction; the last, ‘this hallowed food, through concurrence of divine power, is in verity and truth, unto faithful receivers, instrumentally a cause of that mystical participation, whereby as I make myself wholly theirs, so I give them in hand an actual possession of all such saving grace as my sacrificed body can yield, and as their souls do presently need, this is to them and in them my body:’ of these three rehearsed interpretations the last hath in it nothing but what the rest do all approve and acknowledge to be most true, nothing but that which the words of Christ are on all sides confessed to enforce, nothing but that which the Church of God hath always thought necessary, nothing but that which alone is sufficient for every Christian man to believe concerning the use and force of this sacrament, finally nothing but that wherewith the writings of all antiquity are consonant and all Christian confessions agreeable. And as truth in what kind soever is by no kind of truth gainsayed, so the mind which resteth itself on this is never troubled with those perplexities which the other do both find, by means of so great contradiction between their opinions and true principles of reason grounded upon experience, nature and sense. Which albeit with boisterous courage and breath they seem oftentimes to blow away, yet whoso observeth how again they labour and sweat by subtlety of wit to make some show of agreement between their peculiar conceits and the general edicts of nature, must needs percieve they struggle with that which they cannot fully master. Besides sith of that which is proper to themselves their discourses are hungry and unpleasant, full of tedious and irksome labour, heartless and hitherto without fruit, on the other side read we them or hear we others be they of our own or of ancienter times, to what part soever they be thought to incline touching that whereof there is controversy, yet in this where they all speak but one thing their discourses are heavenly, their words sweet as the honeycomb, their tongues melodiously tuned instruments, their sentences mere consolation and joy, are we not hereby almost even with voice from heaven, admonished which we may safeliest cleave unto?
“He which hath said of the one sacrament, ‘wash and be clean,’ hath said concerning the other likewise, ‘eat and live.’ If therefore without any such particular and solemn warrant as this is that poor distressed woman coming unto Christ for health could so constantly resolve herself, ‘may I but touch the skirt of his garment I shall be whole17,’ what moveth us to argue of the manner how life should come by bread, our duty being here but to take what is offered, and most assuredly to rest persuaded of this, that can we but eat we are safe? When I behold with mine eyes some small and scarce discernible grain or seed whereof nature maketh promise that a tree shall come, and when afterwards of that tree any skilful artificer undertaketh to frame some exquisite and curious work, I look for the event, I move no question about performance either of the one or of the other. Shall I simply credit nature in things natural, shall I in things artificial rely myself on art, never offering to make doubt, and in that which is above both art and nature refuse to believe the author of both, except he acquaint me with his ways, and lay the secret of his skill before me? Where God himself doth speak those things which either for height and sublimity of matter, or else for secresy of performance we are not able to reach unto, as we may be ignorant without danger, so it can be no disgrace to confess we are ignorant. Such as love piety will as much as in them lieth know all things that God commandeth, but especially the duties of service which they owe to God. As for his dark and hidden works, they prefer as becometh them in such cases simplicity of faith before that knowledge, which curiously sifting what it should adore, and disputing too boldly of that which the wit of man cannot search, chilleth for the most part all warmth of zeal, and bringeth soundness of belief many times into great hazard. Let it therefore be sufficient for me presenting myself at the Lord’s table to know what there I receive from him, without searching or inquiring of the manner how Christ performeth his promise; let disputes and questions, enemies to piety, abatements of true devotion, and hitherto in this cause but over patiently heard, let them take their rest; let curious and sharpwitted men beat their heads about what questions themselves will, the very letter of the word of Christ giveth plain security that these mysteries do as nails fasten us to his very Cross, that by them we draw out, as touching efficacy, force, and virtue, even the blood of his gored side, in the wounds of our Redeemer we there dip our tongues, we are dyed red both within and without, our hunger is satisfied and our thirst for ever quenched18; they are things wonderful which he feeleth, great which he seeth and unheard of which he uttereth, whose soul is possessed of this Paschal Lamb and made joyful in the strength of this new wine, this bread hath in it more than the substance which our eyes behold, this cup hallowed with solemn benediction availeth to the endless life and welfare both of soul and body, in that it serveth as well for a medicine to heal our infirmities and purge our sins as for a sacrifice of thanksgiving19; with touching it sanctifieth, it enlighteneth with belief, it truly conformeth us unto the image of Jesus Christ20; what these elements are in themselves it skilleth not, it is enough that to me which take them they are the body and blood of Christ, his promise in witness hereof sufficeth, his word he knoweth which way to accomplish; why should any cogitation possess the mind of a faithful communicant but this, O my God thou art true, O my Soul thou art happy!”
Thus therefore we see that howsoever men’s opinions do otherwise vary, nevertheless touching Baptism and the Supper of the Lord, we may with consent of the whole Christian world conclude they are necessary, the one to initiate or begin, the other to consummate or make perfect our life in Christ.
← Of Confirmation after Baptism. · Contents · Of faults noted in the Form of administering →
Footnotes
-
John vi. 53. ↩
-
[E. g. Zuingl. De Vera et Falsa Relig. Opp. ii. f. 202. “Qui in hac publica gratiarum actione interesset toti se Ecclesiæ probaret ex eorum esse numero, qui Christo pro nobis exposito fiderent… . Unde et Communio sive Communicatio apud Paulum vocatur.” fol. 204. “Christus est animæ cibus, quod ea dum videt Deum Filio unigenito non pepercisse, … certa fit gratiæ Dei salutisque.” f. 207. (after exposing the doctrine of gross corporal manducation) he adds, “Liberum cuique de spirituali manducatione utcunque velit sentire, modo Christi non suis nitatur placitis.” f. 212. “Est Eucharistia, sive Synaxis, sive Cœna Dominica, nihil aliud quam Commemoratio, qua ii qui se Christi morte et sanguine firmiter credunt Patri reconciliatos esse, hanc vitalem mortem annunciant.” fol. 213. “Augustinum, præ aliis acuto perspicacique ingenio virum, sua tempestate non fuisse ausum diserte veritatem proloqui, quæ jam casum magna parte dederat. Vidit omnino pius homo quid hoc sacramentum esset, et in quem usum esset institutum; verum invaluerat opinio de corporea carne.”] ↩
-
[Chiefly by the influence of Calvin on the one side and Melanchthon on the other. See Mosheim, E. H. Cent. xvi. § iii. p. ii. c. 1. n°. 27. and c. 2. n°. 12.] ↩
-
John vi. 25. ↩
-
Mark xiv. 22; [Matt. xxvi. 26-28.] ↩
-
[Chr. Letter, 35. “Instruct us, whether the institution of the sacrament by Christ … bee not the true and right making of it Christe’s bodie and blood unto us, and upon what ground of Scripture it may be proved that the co-operation of his omnipotent power doeth make it his bodie and blood unto us, and in what sense.”Hooker, MS. note. “God by this … doctrine did but at the first institute, and doth now no further meddle with the ministery thereof by assisting it any way to take effect in men’s soules through the power of his holy Spirit.” ↩
-
[Chr. Letter, 34. “In which words you seeme to make light of the doctrine of Transubstantiation, as a matter not to be stoode upon or to be contended for, cared for or enquired into: which maketh us to marvell how our Church and Reverend Fathers have all this time passed been deceaved. What should cause them to affirme it to bee a thing contrarie to the playne wordes of Scripture, overturning the nature of the Sacrament; to call it monstrous doctrine; why so manie reverend Fathers, as Cranmer, Ridley, Hooper, Latimer, Rogers, Bradford, &c. have given their lives in witnes against it, if it bee a thinge that neither furthereth nor hindreth, a thing not to bee cared for, nor enquired after?”Hooker, MS. note. “Not to be stood upon or contended for by them, because it is not a thing necessary, although because it is false, as long as they doe persist to maintaine and urge it, there is no man so grosse as to thinke in this case wee may neglect it. Against them it is therefore said, They ought not to stand in it as in a matter of faith, nor to make so high accompt of it, inasmuch as the Scripture doth only teach the communion of Christ in the holy Sacrament, and neither the one nor the other way of preparation thereunto. It sufficed to have believed this, and not by determining the manner how God bringeth it to passe, to have intangled themselves with opinions so strange, so impossible to be proved true. They should have considered in this particular Sacrament that which Bellarmine acknowledgeth of Sacraments in generall, It is a matter of faith to believe that sacraments are instruments wherby God worketh grace in the soules of men, but the manner how he doth it is not a matter of faith.”Again, p. 33. “Whereas popish doctrine doth hold that priests by wordes of consecration make the reall, my whole discourse is to shew that God by the Sacrament maketh the mysticall bodie of Christ: and that seing in this point as well Lutherans as Papists agree with us, which only point conteineth the benefit wee have of the Sacrament, it is but needles and unprofitable for them to stand, the one upon consubstantiation, and upon transubstantiation the other, which doctrines they neither can prove nor are forced by any necessity to maintein, but might very well surcease to urge them, if they did hartily affect peace, and seeke the quietnes of the Church.”See Bulinger De Eucharistia, p. 11. See Calvin’s Institutions. See an Epistle of Frithus in the booke of Martyrs touching this point. Foxe, Acts and Monuments, t. ii. 1034. “ ‘Well,’ said they, ‘dost thou not think that his very natural body, flesh, blood and bone, is contained under the Sacrament, and there present, without all figure or similitude?’ ‘No,’ said I, ‘I do not so think. Notwithstanding I would not that any should count, that I make my saying, which is the negative, any article of faith. For even as I say, that you ought not to make any necessary article of the faith of your part, (which is the affirmative,) so I say again, that we make no necessary article of the faith of our part, but leave it indifferent for all men to judge therein, as God shall open his heart, and no side to condemn or despise the other, but to nourish in all things brotherly love, and one to bear another’s infirmity.” And p. 1035. I will not hold it as an article of faith, but that you may without danger or damnation either believe it or think the contrary.”] ↩
-
[I. e. the Schools of Zwingli and Calvin as opposed to the Lutherans. Cf. Joachim Westphal’s (Lutheran) “Farrago de S. Cœnâ opinionum ex Sacramentariorum libris congesta.” Hamb. 1552. See Mosheim, b. iv. c. ii. § 4-6. Biog. Univ. Westphal.] 1887. ↩
-
“Acceptum panem et distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit, ‘hoc est corpus meum’ dicendo, id est figura corporis mei. Figura autem non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus, cum vacua res quod est phantasma figuram capere non posset.” Tertull. contra Marc. lib. iv. cap. 40. ↩
-
“Secundum hæc” (that is to say if it should be true which heretics have taught denying that Christ took upon him the very nature of man) “nec Dominus sanguine suo redemit nos, neque calix Eucharistiæ communicatio sanguinis ejus erit, nec panis quem frangimus communicatio corporis ejus est. Sanguis enim non est nisi a venis et carnibus et a reliqua quæ est secundum hominem substantia.” Iren. lib. v. cap. 2. [p. 395.] ↩
-
Εἰ τοίνυν του̑ ὄντος σώματος ἀντίτυπά ἐστι τὰ θει̑α μυστήρια, σω̑μα ἄρα ἐστὶ καὶ νυ̑ν του̑ δεσπότου τὸ σωμα, οὐκ εἰκ θεότητος ϕύσιν μεταβληθὲν ἀλλὰ θείας δόξης ἀναπλησθέν. Theodor. Ἀσύγχυτος. [Dial. ii. t. iv. pars 1. p. 125.] ↩
-
“Sacramenta quidem quantum in se est sine propria virtute esse non possunt, nec ullo modo se absentat majestas mysteriis.” Cypr. (i.e. Arnold.) de Cœn. cap. 7. [p. 41. ad calc. ed. Fell.] cf. p. 251, note. ↩
-
“Sacramento visibili ineffabiliter divina se infudit essentia, ut esset religioni circa sacramenta devotio.” Idem cap. 6. “Invisibilis sacerdos visibiles creaturas in substantiam corporis et sanguinis sui verbo suo secreta potestate convertit … In spiritualibus sacramentis verbi præcipit virtus et [rei] servit effectus.” Euseb. Emisen. Hom. 5. de Pasch. [p. 560. par. i. t. v. Biblioth. Patr. Colon.] ↩
-
[Eran.] Τὰ σύμβολα του̑ δεσποτικου̑ σώματός τε καὶ αἵματος ἄλλα μέν εἰσι πρὸ τη̑ς ἱερατικη̑ς ἐπικλήσεως, μετὰ δέ γε τὴν ἐπίκλησιν μεταβάλλεται καὶ ἕτερα γίνεται. [Orth.] Ἀλλ’ οὐκ οἰκείας ἐξίσταται ϕύσεως. Μένει γὰρ ἐπὶ τη̑ς προτέρας οὐσίας καὶ του̑ σχήματος καὶ του̑ εἴδους, καὶ ὁρατά ἐστι καὶ ἁπτὰ οἷα καὶ πρότερον ἠ̑ν, νοει̑ται δὲ ἅπερ ἐγένετο, καὶ πιστεύεται, καὶ προσκυνει̑ται ὡς ἐκει̑να ὄντα ἅπερ πιστεύεται. Theodor. [Dial. ii. p. 126.] “Ex quo a Domino dictum est, Hoc facite in meam commemorationem, Hæc est caro mea, et Hic est sanguis meus, quotiescunque his verbis et hac fide actum est, panis iste supersubstantialis et calix benedictione solenni sacratus ad totius hominis vitam salutemque proficit.” Cypr. (= Arnold.) de Cœn. cap. 3. “Immortalitatis alimonia datur, a communibus cibis differens, corporalis substantiæ retinens speciem sed virtutis divinæ invisibili efficientia probans adesse præsentiam.” Ibid. cap. 2. p. 39. ↩
-
“Sensibilibus sacramentis inest vitæ æternæ effectus, et non tam corporali quam spirituali transitione Christo unimur. Ipse enim et panis et caro et sanguis, idem cibus et substantia et vita factus est Ecclesiæ suæ quam corpus suum appellat, dans ei participationem spiritus.” Cyprian. (= Arnold.) de Cœn. cap. 5. “Nostra et ipsius conjunctio nec miscet personas nec unit substantias, sed effectus consociat et confœderat voluntates.” Ibid. cap. 6. “Mansio nostra in ipso est manducatio, et potus quasi quædam incorporatio.” Ibid. cap. 9. “Ille est in Patre per naturam divinitatis, nos in eo per corporalem ejus nativitatem, ille rursus in nobis per Sacramentorum mysterium.” Hilar. de Trin. lib. viii. [§ 15.] ↩
-
“Panis hic azymus cibus verus et sincerus per speciem et sacramentum nos tactu sanctificat, fide illuminat, veritate Christo conformat.” Cypr. de Cœn. c. 6. “Non aliud agit participatio corporis et sanguinis Christi quam ut in id quod sumimus transeamus, et in quo mortui et sepulti et conresuscitati sumus ipsum per omnia et spiritu et carne gestemus.” Leo de Pass. Serm. 14. [c. 5. fin.] “Quemadmodum qui est a terra panis percipiens Dei vocationem” (id est facta invocatione divini numinis) “jam non communis panis est, sed Eucharistia, ex duabus rebus constans terrena et cœlesti: sic et corpora nostra percipientia Eucharistiam jam non sunt corruptibilia, spem resurrectionis habentia.” Iren. lib. iv. cap. 34. [al. 18. ὡς ἀπὸ γη̑ς ἄρτος προσλαμβανόμενος τὴν ἔκκλησιν του̑ Θεου̑ οὔκετι κοινὸς ἄρτος ἐστὶν, ἀλλ’ εὐχαριστία, ἐκ δύο πραγμάτων συνεστηκυι̑α, ἐπιγείου τε καὶ οὐρανίου· οὕτως καὶ τὰ σώματα ἡμω̑ν μεταλαμβάνοντα τη̑ς εὐχαριστίας μηκέτι εἰ̑ναι ϕθαρτὰ, τὴν ἐλπίδα τη̑ς εἰς αἰω̑νας ἀναστάσεως ἔχοντα. t. i. p. 251. ed. Bened.] “Quoniam salutaris caro verbo Dei quod naturaliter vita est conjuncta vivifica effecta est, quando eam comedimus, tunc vitam habemus in nobis, illi carni conjuncti quæ vita effecta est.” Cyril. in Johan. lib. iv. cap. 14. [t. iv. 361. C.] ↩
-
[S. Matt. ix. 21.] ↩
-
[Arnold. (v. p. 251.) de Cœna Dom. p. 41. “Cruci hæremus, sanguinem sugimus, et inter ipsa Redemptoris nostri vulnera figimus linguam: quo interius exteriusque rubricati, a sapientibus hujus sæculi judicamur amentes… . . Qui manducat ex hoc pane ultra non esurit; qui bibit, ultra non sitit.”] ↩
-
[“Panis iste supersubstantialis et calix benedictione solenni sacratus ad totius hominis vitam salutemque proficit, simul medicamentum et holocaustum ad sanandas infirmitates et purgandas iniquitates existens.” Arnold. p. 39.] ↩
-
[See above, p. 358, § 11. note 2.] ↩