« PreviousContinue »
others; although “by none but authors that lived since the seventh or eighth century.” A book entitled “ De Cæna,” and ascribed to St. Cyprian, comes under the same description. Dupin calls it “a ridiculous impertinent book.” And yet it has been cited without scruple, by modern authors.
From the apostolick fathers---so called because of their having seen and conversed with the apostles... it is not here known, that there has been alleged any thing bearing on the controversy; except a passage in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrneans; in which he speaks of certain hereticks, who abstained from the Eucharist, because they did not believe it to be the flesh of our Saviour, which suf. fered for our sins. This will be perceived to be nothing to the present purpose; when it is consider. ed, that there was a branch of the Gnosticks, who held that Christ had no body except in appearance. Whether the Eucharist be literally, or only sym. bolically the body of Christ, the observance of the ordinance was alike inconsistent with the errour of that sect.
The account which Justin gives, in his Apology, of the administration of the Eucharist,* can never be made consistent with transubstantiation. He speaks of the distribution of the bread and of the wine by the deacons, after the consecration of them by the president of the assembly. He calls them the body and the blood of Christ. But that he means this in a spiritual sense, appears from his referring to their being turned into the nourishment of our flesh and blood; which could not be, unless the properties of bread and wine remained.
Tertullian says..." Christ made the bread and the wine distributed to his disciples, his body, by saying... This is my body: that is, the figure of my body.”+ The obvious sense has been evaded, by disposing the sentence thus...“ This figure of my body, is my body:" 'It is a strain on the words;
* Thirlby, p. 96. + Contra Marcion, lib. iv. cap. 40.
and besides, will not do away the distribution of real bread and real wine to the disciples: for the opposite theory supposes them to have given place to that of which they were representative.
Tertullian explains his own meaning in the next book, where he sums up his argument thus... “ Wherefore, in the sacrament of the bread and the cup, we have proved the verity of Christ's body and blood, against the Phantasie of Marcion."* Here is a distinction between the body and the blood of Christ, and the sacrament of the bread and the cup. The one was evident of the reality of the other: and this analogy was the point, against the theory of the hereticks.
Clement of Alexandriaf distinguishes between the blood of Christ which is carnal, whereby we are redeemed from death; and that which is spiri. tual, whereby we are anointed. Of the latter he
says “ This is to drink the blood of Jesus, to be
partakers of the incorruption of our Lord.”
Other authorities from the third century, might be produced. The authors of the fourth century, are not barren of passages to the same effect; although it will not be here denied, and has been intimated in the lecture, that in this age, there began to prevail a habit of discoursing, which helped to the gradual growth of the doctrine here alluded to.
The evil can be hardly said to have begun, when Eusebius wrote; although the century was then considerably advanced. In his book “Of the Evangelical Demonstration,” he has sundry matters to the purpose. The following are from the tenth chapter of the first book. He speaks of " making remembrance of the body and of the blood of Christ: which remembrance he contrasts with the first and weak elementary symbols and images” (meaning of the law) not comprehending the truth itself." Again, after applying to the sacrifice of Christ,
* Cap. 8. + Pæd. Syllab. ed. lib. ii. cap. ii. p. 151.
what is said in Ps. xl. 7, 8, 9, he adds—“Of this victim we make remembrance on a table by the symbols of the body and blood of Christ, according to the precepts of the New Testament.” And again after citing Ps. xli. 2.—“Let my prayer be set forth in thy sight as the incense &c.,” he goes on in the following definite language-“Wherefore we sacrifice and
offer the incense spoken of by the prophet, accomplishing the memorial of the great victim, according to the mysteries delivered to us by him.” It is well known, that by “Mysteries,” the Greeks understood what the Latins expressed by sacraments. Both terms were applied to signs and symbols.
From the said century, there shall be quoted fur. ther only St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Austin and St. Chrysostom. There might be named many more: but these are selected, because much use has been made of their names—especially the last of them-on the other side. Nazianzen says—"Now we shall be partakers of the Paschal Supper, but still in figure; though more clear than the old law. For the legal passover (I will not be afraid to speak it) was an obscurer figure of a figure.” That he deliberately designed to represent the elements as a figure, is evident from what follows; in which he anticipates there being a still purer and more perfect figure of the same subject; when there shall be verified the saying of Christ concerning the sacramental cup, of the drinking of it new with his dis. ciples in his Father's kingdom: this being here apparently construed to mean a future life; and not to refer to what took place soon after Christ's resurrection, to which it is referred by some.
Austin, commenting on the ninety-eighth psalm, (in the common version the ninety-ninth) in a passage noticed on another account in the fifth dissertation, introduces Christ interpreting his own words in the sixth chapter of St. John
Oratio ii, in Pascha.
“ You are not to eat this body which you see, or to drink that blood which my crucifiers shall pour forth: I have commanded to vou a sacrament, which being spiritually understood, quickens you.” Again, [on Ps. iii.] “He" (Christ] " admitted him” (the traitor Judas) “to a banquet, in which he commanded and delivered to his disciples the figure of his body and blood.” Again (contra Adimant cap. 12] " He did not doubt to say, this is my body, where he gave the sign of his body.” The meaning of the father is evi. dent, in his making of this an illustration of what is said concerning the blood of animals, that it is their life, when no vital principle is in it: the saying being therefore figurative. And again—" A preceptive speech forbidding a crime, or commanding something good or profitable, is not figurative. But if it seems to command a crime, it is figurative. Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, &c. seems to command a wickedness. It is therefore a figure, commanding us to communicate with the passion of our Lord; and sweetly and profitably to lay it up in our memory, that, his flesh was crucified and wounded for us.”* This is said in explanation of John vi. 51–58, which the advocates of transubstantiation consider as intended of the Eucharist.
St. Chrysostome, referring to the saints of the Old Testament, says—“ As thou eatest the body of the Lord, so they did eat manna; as thou drinkest blood, so they the water of the rock. For though the things which be made are sensible, yet they are given spiritually; not according to the consequence of nature, but according to the grace of a gift; and with the body, they also nourish the soul.”+ The father is commenting on 1 Cor. x. 1-4: in which it will hardly be denied, that the apostle discourses of spiritual benefit, typically represented by material manna, and a material rock. There are accordingly contemplated by
• De Doctrina Christiana, Lib. iii. Cap. 16. Ep. 1. ad cor.
+ Hom. 23.
Chrysostome, spiritual eating and drinking in the Eu. charist: but to complete the analogy, there must be real bread and real wine, answering to the manna and the rock.
In like manner, commenting on Psalm cxxxiii, after recognizing as symbols, the cherubim, the holy of holies, the urn, the manna, the tables of stone, and the rod that budded, he urges as an argumeat to the greater holiness, the having received “the body and the blood of Christ; the spirit, instead of the letter, a grace ex. ceeding all human reckoning, and an unspeakable gift.” But to perceive the sense to be, that as there were visible symbols under the law, there are the like under the gospel, we should attend to him when he subjoins“By how much greater are the symbols and the awful mysteries with which we are favoured, the greater is our obligation to holiness, and the greater our punishment for transgression.” Thus, there were symbols under both economies: but those under the New Testament are representative of a greater subject, than any known under the old.
The same father, writing of the errour of Appollinarius, says" As bread is called bread before the sanctification, but after divine grace bath followed it, by means of the priest, it is freed from the name of bread, but is reckoned worthy of the name of Christ's body, although the nature of bread remains in it, and not two bodies, but one body of Christ is predicated; so also here, the divine nature resting on the body, both these make up one son-one person. And yet, they must be confessed to remain without confusion, after an indivisible manner, not in one nature, but in two perfect natures."'*
The epistle containing the last passage, laboured for a long time under the charge of being a protestant forgery. But further inquiry has established the authenticity of it: which Dupin acknowledges, and gives his reasons. He endeavours, however, to clear up the
• Ep. ad Cæsarium.