Beveridge on Article XXVIII: Of the Lord's Supper

we have discoursed of in the foregoing article : the other pre- sents itself to be spoken’ to in this under the name of the supper of the Lord. Which name, though the papists are very angry at us for making use of it, yet we need not regard - that, seeing the scripture giveth us sufficient warrant for it, St. Paul himself calling it the Lord’s supper, 1 Cor. xi. 20. And therefore though the Fathers do often call it the eucha- rist, as we may see art. X XIV., yet do they frequently call it the Lord’s supper also, as we may see in the margin®. And

[…]

Hh

Art.

468 Of the Lord’s Supper.

there is good reason for the name too ; for seeing it was in- stituted at eventide, yea, at supper-time, it may well be called a supper ; and seeing it was instituted by the Lord himself, it may well be called the Lord’s supper.

This sacrament of the Lord’s supper is here said not only to be a sign of the love Christians ought to have to one an- other, but a sacrament of our redemption by Christ’s death ; insomuch that to such as receive it by faith, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ ; and likewise the cup of blessing ts a partaking of the blood of Christ ; which being the very words of the apostle, 1 Cor. x.16, I need not heap up any more scriptures to prove it. For though our translation reads communion instead of partaking, yet they both come to one and the same thing; and therefore is it often translated partaking too as well as communion. ‘‘To this therefore I shall only add the express words of institution, wherein Christ said of the bread, This is my body, Matt. xxvi. 26, and of the wine, This 1s my blood of the new testament, shed Sor many for the remission of sins, ver. 28. And if the bread be his body and the wine his blood, it must needs follow, that whosoever eats the one and drinks the other as he ought to do, is made partaker of the body and blood of Christ.

The Fathers are very frequent in asserting this truth; I shall instance but in a few. St. Cyril of Jerusalem; »“ With all certainty or persuasion let us partake of it as of the body and blood of Christ ; for under the type of bread his body is given to thee, and under the type of wine his blood is given to thee; that partaking of the body and blood of Christ, thou mayest be of one body and blood with him.” So that we so partake of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament, as

[…]

Aug. epist. [urv. 7. vol. II.] Qua- propter neminem cogimus Dominica illa coena prandere, sed nulli etiam contradicere audemus. Ibid. [9.] Quis ad convivium illud Domini- cum quod infamant sine sua suspi- cione dimittet? Tertul. de uxore, 1, 2. c. 4. [vol. III.] Kupsaxdy dé Seimvoy ro SeorrotiKdy Kadet puoTy- poov. QCicum. in x Cor. 11. [vol. I. p-529-] V. et Nilum in parenet.

p. 1149.] et Hesych. 1. 7. in Levit. Cc. 24.

[…]

XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper. 469 that we are thereby made one body and blood with himself. Therefore saith St. Hilary, ° “Of the truth of the flesh and blood there is no place left to doubt; for now by the pro- session of the Lord himself it is truly flesh and truly blood ; and these being received and taken down, cause that we should be in Christ, and Christ in us.” And St. Chrysostome ; d“ Wherefore it is necessary we should learn the miracle of these mysteries, what it is, and why it was given, and what profit there is of the thing. We are made one body, and members of his flesh and of his bones.. But let such as are initiated strive for the knowledge of these sayings: that therefore we may not only be made such by love and charity, but indeed mixed with that flesh. It is that nourishment that causeth it, which he hath vouchsafed us, willing to shew us the desire he hath towards us ; therefore he mixed himself with us, and tempered his body with ours, that we might become one, as a body joined to the head.” To which we may add that of St. Augustine; °“ But let us hear and understand two in one flesh, Christ and the church, as the mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus giving us his flesh to be eaten, and his blood to be drunk, we receive with

a faithful heart and mouth.”

Thus Origen saith, ‘“ When

thou receivest the holy food, and that incorruptible banquet,

© De veritate carnis et sanguinis non est relictus ambigendi locus: nunc enim et ipsius Domini pro- fessione, et fide nostra vere caro est et vere sanguis est; et hzec accepta atque hausta id efficiunt, ut et nos in Christo et Christus in nobis sit. Hilar. de Trin. 1. 8. [14.]

[…]

e Nos autem audiamus et intelli- gamus duos in carne una, Christum et ecclesiam, sicut Mediatorem Dei et hominum, hominem Christum Jesum, carnem suam nobis man- ducandam, bibendumque sanguinem dantem fideli corde atque ore susci- pimus. Aug. contra advers. leg. et proph. 1. 2. [ 33. vol. VIII.]

[…]

470 Of the Lord’s Supper. Arr,

when thou enjoyest the bread and water of life, and eatest and drinkest the body and blood of the Lord, then doth the Lord come under thy roof.” And Tertullian; & “The flesh is shadowed by imposition of hands, that the soul may be illuminated by the spirit. The flesh is fed with the body and blood of Christ, that the soul may be fattened by God.” And Macarius ; » “ In the church is offered bread and wine, the antitype of his flesh and blood ; and they that partake of the visible bread spiritually eat the flesh of the Lord.” All which could not be, unless we were partakers of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the sacrament of the Lord) can- not be proved by holy writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many super- stitions.

Scripture and Fathers holding forth so clearly, that whoso- ever worthily receives the sacrament of the Lord’s supper do[ th] certainly partake of the body and blood ‘of Christ, the devil thence took occasion to draw men into an opinion, that the bread which is used in that sacrament is the very body that was erucified upon the cross; and the wine, after consecration, the very blood that gushed out of his pierced side. The time when this opinion was first broached was in the days of Gregory the Third, pope of Rome. The persons that were the principal abettors of it were Damasceni in the eastern,

[…]

bratur, ut et anima spiritu illumine- tur. Caro corpore et sanguine Christi vescitur, ut et anima de Deo saginetur. Tertul. de resurrect. carnis, c. 8. [vol. HL.)

[…]

[17.]

[…]

AXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper. 471

and afterwards Amalarius* in the western churches. It was no sooner started in the east, but it was opposed by a famous council at Constantinople, consisting of three hundred and thirty-eight bishops, the famous opposers of idol-worship. But afterwards in the second council of Nice it was again defended, and in particular by Epiphanius the deacon, who confidently affirmed, that !“ after the consecration, the bread and wine are called, are, and believed to be properly the body and blood of Christ.” In the western also, Amalarius having broached this opinion, Paschasius Radbertus glibly swallowed it down. But Rabanus Maurus, Ratramnus or Bertramnus, (of whom more presently,) as also Johannes Scotus Erigena, not only stuck at it, but refused it, and wrote against it as a poisonous error. And after them Berengarius too, who was not only written against by Lanfrane, archbishop of Canterbury, but condemned for it in a council held at ™ Vereel, (where the book of Johannes Scotus of the eucharist was also con- demned,) and at another council held at Rome about the same time. And though he did recant his opinions at a council held at Tours, and another at Rome, “as some think, so as never to hold it more, ° yet his followers would never recant what they had learned from him. But in the Lateran council, held an. 1215, the opinion of the real or carnal presence of Christ was not only confirmed, but the word

[…]

panis et vini mixti verti in naturam rationabilem, scilicet corporis et sanguinis Christi. Amalar. de ec- cles. offic. 1. [III.] c. 24.

[…]

m Jn qua (synodo Vercellensi) in audientia omnium, qui de diversis hujus mundi partibus illuc con- venerant, Johannis Scoti liber de eucharistia lectus est ac damnatus : sententia tua Berengari exposita ac damnata. Lanfranc. contra Beren- garium, [Petri McxpompeoBurixor, P- 529-]

n T say, as some think. For others

Berengarius, nove heresis de cor- pore Domini auctor, eo tempore defi- ciens, abiit in locum suum: qui licet eandem heeresin szepissime in synodo abjuravit, ad vomitum tamen suum canino more non expavit redire. Nam et in Romana synodo canonice convictus heresin suam in libro a se descriptam combussit, et ab- juratam anathematizavit, nec tamen postea dimisit. Bertold. presbyt. Constant. ad an. 1083. [p. 352. Ger- man. histor. illust. a C. Urstitio: ]

[…]

472 Of the Lord’s Supper. Art.

transubstantiated was newly coined to express it by; that council determining, that ?“there is one universal church of the faithful, without which there is none saved; in which Jesus Christ himself is both priest and sacrifice, whose body and blood in the sacrament of the altar are truly contained under the shapes of bread and wine; the bread being transubstantiated, or substantially changed into his body, and the wine into his blood, by the power of God; that for the perfecting the mystery of our union we might receive of him what he had received of us.” And ever since this word was thus forged by this council, the abettors of this opinion have made use of it to declare their minds by con- cerning this great mystery; still holding with the council of Trent, 4“ That by the consecration of the bread and wine is made a change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood ; which change is aptly and properly called by the holy catholic church transubstantiation.” So that according to this opinion, the bread and wine, which before are properly bread and wine* only, and not the body and blood of Christ, are after con- secration as properly the body and blood of Christ only, and not bread and wine; the bread being changed by the words of consecration into the very body of Christ that hung upon the cross, and the wine into the very blood that ran in his veins, and afterwards issued forth out of his side.

Now the doctrine delivered in the former part of this article being so much abused, that they should take occasion from that great truth to fall into this desperate error, so as

» Una vero est fidelium universalis

ecclesia, extra quam nullus omnino salvatur, in qua idem ipse sacerdos et sacrificlum Jesus Christus, cujus corpus et sanguis in sacramento altaris sub speciebus panis et vini veraciter continentur, transubstan- tlatis pane in corpus et vino in sanguinem potestate divina, ut ad perficiendum mysterium. unitatis, accipiamus ipsi de suo, quod accepit ipse de nostro. Concil. Lateran. 4.

e. 1. [Concil. vol. VII.]

XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper. 473

to say the bread and wine is really changed into the body and blood of Christ, because he doth really partake of the body and blood of Christ that rightly receives the bread and wine; that truth is no sooner delivered, but this error is presently opposed: it being no sooner declared that the bread we break is a partaking of the body, and the cup we bless a partaking of the blood of Christ, but it is immediately subjoined, that notwithstanding the truth of that assertion, yet transubstantiation, or the change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, is to be rejected upon a fourfold account: first, because it cannot be proved by the seriptures; secondly, it is repugnant to them; thirdly, it overthroweth the nature of the sacrament; fourthly, it hath given occasion to many superstitions. Of which in their order briefly.

As for the first, that this doctrine of transubstantiation cannot be proved from the holy scriptures is plain from the insufficiency of those places which are usually and principally alleged to prove it; and they are the sixth of St. John’s Gospel and the words of institution. In the sixth chapter of St. John’s Gospel we find our Saviour saying, My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed, John vi. 55. And many such like expressions hath he there concerning our eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood. From whence they gather, that the bread and wine are really turned into the body and blood of Christ; not considering, first, that our Saviour said these words at the least a year before the sacrament of the Lord’s supper was instituted; for when Christ said these words, it is said, that the passover was nigh, ver. 4; whereas the institution of the sacrament was not until the passover following: and it is very unlikely that he should preach of that sacrament before it was instituted. To which we may also add, that our Saviour here saith con- cerning the flesh and blood here spoken of, Haucept you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you, ver. 53. Whereas it is manifest, that a man may be deprived of the sacramental bread and wine, and yet have life in him; for otherwise all that die before they receive the sacrament must of necessity be damned. And therefore

Art.

ATA Of the Lord’s Supper.

though the thing signified, even the flesh and blood of Christ, is here to be understood, yet the signs themselves of the sacrament cannot. And so this place not intending the bread and wine in the sacrament, it cannot be a sufficient foundation to ground the transubstantiation of that bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. And, secondly, suppose this place was to be understood of the sacrament, when our Saviour saith, My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed; this might prove that Christ’s body and blood were turned into flesh and drink, but not at all that bread and drink are turned into his body and blood. Thirdly, it is plain that our Saviour in these words doth not mean any external or bodily, but an internal and ’ spiritual feeding upon him. So that whosoever thus feedeth upon him shall never die, ver. 50, but live for ever, ver. 51; yea, He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him, ver. . 56. So that, as sOrigen observeth, no wicked man can eat of this bread here spoken of; whereas it is as clear as the noonday sun, that sinners as well as saints, the worst as well as the best of men, may eat the bread and drink the wine in the sacrament. And as the sixth of St. John’s Gospel doth not, so neither doth the words of institution, This is my body, prove the transubstantiation of the bread into the very body of Christ. For he that saith, because our Saviour said, This ts my body, the bread is therefore changed into his body, may as well say, that because that Joseph said, The seven good kine are seven years, and the seven good ears are seven years, Gen. xli. 26, therefore the seven good kine and the seven good

[…]

XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper. 475

ears were all changed into seven years. And because that Daniel said to Nebuchadnezzar, Thou art this head of gold, Dan. ii. 38, therefore Nebuchadnezzar must needs be changed into an head of gold. Whereas it is plain that in scripturet that is often said to be a thing which is only the sign of it: as the great God is pleased to explain himself when he said of circumcision, This is my covenant, Gen. xvii. 10; and in the next verse, And it shall be a sign or token of the covenant be- twiat me and you, ver.11. And what sense the Most High explains himself by in that sacrament, we may well under- stand him in in this. When he said, This és my covenant, he tells us what he meant by the phrase, even, This is the sign of my covenant: and so here, when Christ said, This is my body, according to his own explication of himself before, it is no more than if he should have said, This is the sign or token of my body. And therefore saith St. Augustine, »“ For if sacraments should not have a certain resemblance of the things whereof they are sacraments, they would not be sacra- ments at all; but from this resemblance they often receive the name of the things themselves. Therefore, as after a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is the body of Christ, and the sacrament of his blood is blood; so the sacrament of faith (baptism) is faith.” So that the words, This is my body, prove no more than that the bread was the sign or sacrament of his body, not at all that it is really changed into. his body. But that this doctrine of transub- stantiation cannot be proved from the scriptures is further evident, in that it is contrary to them.

And that is the second thing here asserted of transub-

t Solet autem res que significat ejus rei nomine quam significat nun- cupari; sicut scriptum est, Septem spice septem anni sunt, et septem boves septem anni sunt, (non enim dixit septem annos significant,) et multa hujusmodi. Hine est quod dictum est Petra erat Christus, non enim dixit Petra significat Christum, sed tanquam hoc esset, quod utique per substantiam non hoc erat sed per significationem. Aug. in Lev.

q. 57. [3. vol. III. p. 516.)

u Si enim sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum quarum sacramenta sunt non haberent, om- nino sacramenta non essent. Ex hae autem similitudine plerunque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina acci- piunt. Sicut enim secundum quen- dam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est, sacra- mentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est, ita sacramentum fidei fides est. Aug. epist. ad Bonifacium, [98. 9. vol. II.]

ART.

476 Of the Lord’s Supper.

stantiation, that it is repugnant to the plain words of the holy scriptures. Which to prove I need go no further than to shew, that the scripture doth still assert them to be bread and wine after as well as before consecration. And this one might think was plain enough in the first place, even from the words of institution themselves: for the scripture saith, And as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed it, and gave it to his disciples, and said, Take, cat; this is my body, Matt. xxvi. 26. So that that which Jesus took was bread, that which Jesus blessed was bread, that which Jesus gave to the disciples was bread; and therefore that of which he said, This is my body, must needs be bread too, as the xFathers long ago acknowledged. And truly in reason it cannot be denied; for there is no other antecedent to the pronoun this, but bread; for the body of Christ, that cometh after it, cannot possibly be the antecedent to it. For accord- ing to the principles of our adversaries themselves that hold this opinion, the bread is not changed into the body of Christ before consecrated, nor is it consecrated until the words, This is my body, be all pronounced ; so that when the priest saith This, there is no such thing as the body of Christ present, that not coming in till both that and the following words too are perfectly uttered; and therefore the body of Christ can by no means be looked upon as the antecedent to this pro- noun; but that it is bread, and bread only, that it hath reference to. So that This is my body is as much as to say,

a > > X Av’rov ovy amodnvapevov Kal e€i=

[…]

XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper. 477

This bread is my body; this bread that I have taken and blessed and give to you, is my body. Now, as Bellarminey himself acknowledgeth, this proposition, This is my body, can- not possibly be taken any other ways than significatively, so as that the sense should be, This bread signifies my body, is a sign or sacrament of it, it being absolutely impossible that bread should be the very body of Christ: for if it be bread and yet the very body of Christ too, then bread and the body of Christ would be convertible terms. So that the very words of institution themselves are sufficient to convince any rational man, whose reason is not darkened by prejudice, that that of which our Saviour said, This is my body, was real bread, and so his body only in a figurative or sacramental sense; and by consequence, that the bread was not turned into his body, but his body was only represented by the bread. But if this will not do, we may consider in the second place the institution of the other part of the sacrament: for it is said, And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of wt; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins, Matt. xxvi. 27, 28. Where these last words, for this is my blood, &c., being the words of consecration; and our Saviour having given them the cup before, and bidden them to drink all of it, it could not pos- sibly be meant of any thing else than the wine in the cup, of which he said these words. To which we may also observe what follows, even after the words of consecration: But I say

consilium primitias Deo offerre ex suis creaturis, non quasi indigenti, sed ut ipsi nec infructuosi nec in- grati sint, eum qui ex creatura panis est accepit et gratias egit dicens, Hoc est corpus meum ; et calicem similiter qui est ex ea creatura que est se- cundum nos suum sanguinem con- fessus est. Irenzeus adv. heres. 1. 4. ce. [17.5.] Eimay d€ rodro pov eore TO capa, Seukvver Ste avtd TO THpa tov Kupiov ear 6 aptos 6 ayiaté- pevos ev TH Ovovactnpio, Kai ovxi avrirumov. ‘Theophyl. in Matt. 26. [p. 162.] And therefore in Dioscorus’s Ethiopic Liturgy, in the rehearsal of our Saviour’s words at the con-

[…]

y Ibidem scripsit Lutherus, Verba evangelistze, Hoe est corpus meum, hunc facere sensum, hic panis est corpus meum; qu sententia aut accipi debet tropice, ut panis sit corpus Christi significative, aut est plane absurda et impossibilis, nec enim fieri potest ut panis sit corpus Christi. Bellarm. de eucharistia, 1. 1. c.1. [p. 466. vol. III.]

478 Of the Lord’s Supper. Arr.

unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom, Matt. xxvi. 29. Where we see our Saviour himself, even after he had consecrated the wine, still calls it the fruit of the vine ; and in saying that he will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, plainly shews that it was the fruit of the vine which he before drank. So that the very wine of which he said, This is my blood, was wine still, and the fruit of the vine; which I hope none of our adversaries will say the very blood of Christ is. But thirdly, this may be discovered also from the words of the apostle: The cup of blessing which we bless, as it not the communion of the blood of Christ 2? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ ? 1 Cor. x. 16. Where we may take notice of two things: first, that he here calls the sacramental elements still a cup or wine, and bread, the bread which we break, so that it is still bread; and secondly, that the cup of blessing is the communion of the blood, and the bread broken the communion of the body of Christ. Now if the bread be the communion of his body, and the cup the communion of his blood, it cannot be that the cup should be his real blood, and the bread his real body ; for then it would be as much as if he should have said, The blood of Christ is the communion of the blood of Christ, and the body of Christ is the communion of the body of Christ ; and so the body of Christ must be the communion of itself ; which is impossible. ‘To which we might also add the several places where the apostle still calls the elements bread and wine, or the cup: as, For as oft as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, 1 Cor. xi. 26: Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, ver. 27: But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup, ver. 28. From whence it is manifest, that that which we eat at the sacrament is bread, and not the very body of Christ; that which we drink, the cup or wine, and not the very blood of Christ ; and therefore, that to say it is not bread nor wine, but the very body and blood of Christ, is repugnant to the plain words of the scripture.

The third thing is, that it overthroweth the nature of the sacrament ; which I need not spend many words to prove.

é a

XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper. 479

For in a sacrament it is requisite, first, that there be some outward sign representing spiritual grace; whereas if the bread be really changed into the body of Christ, there is no outward sign at all in the sacrament, there being nothing else but the body and blood of Christ, which are not signs, but the thing signified. Nay, as St. Augustine? observes, the signs themselves are the sacrament, and therefore where there is no sign, there can be no sacrament. And so by depriving this sacred ordinance of its outward signs, they degrade it from being a sacrament, making it to have nothing of the nature of a sacrament init. And therefore, if they will still hold that by the words of consecration the bread and wine are substantially changed into the body and blood of Christ, let them cease to call that holy action any longer a sacrament, and name it, the body and blood of Christ; for according to their opinion, there is nothing in it but the body and blood of Christ. So that it is plain, that by this doctrine the nature of a sacrament in general must be destroyed, or this sacra- ment in particular must be expunged out of their catalogue of sacraments.

The fourth and last thing here objected against this doc- trine of transubstantiation is, that it hath given occasion to many superstitions, which any one that ever observed their customs and practices cannot but acknowledge. For this fond opinion possessing their brains, that the bread is the real body of Christ hung upon the cross, and pierced for their sins, O how zealous are they in wrapping it up neatly in their handkerchiefs, laying it up in their treasuries, carrying it about in their processions, yea, and at the length worship- ping and adoring it too! which sad superstitions, yea, trans- gressions of theirs, we shall have occasion to speak of more presently.

In the meanwhile, to these four indictments, justly brought against the doctrine of transubstantiation, I shall add a fifth; and that is, that it is contrary to the judgment of the Fathers too, and therefore may justly be condemned. For Tertullian

z Nimis autem longum est con-pertinent sacramenta appellantur. venienter disputare de varietate si- Aug. epist. ad Marcellinum, [138. gnorum, que cum ad res divinas 7. vol. II. ]

Arr.

480 Of the Lord’s Supper.

saith plainly, 2 “Having received bread and distributed it to his disciples, he made it his body, saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body.” And in the sermon of ex- treme unction attributed to St. Cyprian, >“ Our Lord there- fore at the table, where he “partook of the last banquet with his apostles, with his own hands gave bread and wine; but in the cross he gave his body to be wounded by the hands of the-soldiers, that in the apostles the sincere truth and true sincerity being more secretly impressed, might expound to the Gentiles, how wine and bread are his flesh and blood, and by what reasons the causes agree with the effects, and diverse names or species are brought to one essence, and the things signifying and the things signified should be called by the- same names.” So that it seems it was not his very body and blood, but bread and wine he then gave, and yet called by the same name with that they signified, even the body and blood of Christ.

So Eusebius Cezesariensis: 4 ‘The memory of this sacrifice we celebrate at the Lord’s table, by the symbols of his body and saving blood, according to the received constitutions of the New Testament.” And Ephraem Antiochenus: °“ And so the body of Christ received by the faithful is not turned from its sensible essence, and yet remains-undivided from its spiritual grace.” And Theodoret: £“ But our Saviour changed

censerentur.

b Dedit itaque Dominus noster in mensa, in qua ultimum cum dis- cipulis participavit convivium, pro- priis manibus panem et vinum; in cruce vero manibus militum corpus tradidit vulnerandum, ut in aposto- lis secretius impressa sincera veritas et vera sinceritas exponeret genti- bus, quomodo vinum et panis caro esset et sanguis, et quibus rationi- bus cause effectibus convenirent, et diversa nomina vel species ad unam reducerentur essentiam, et signifi- cantia et significata eisdem vocabulis

Cyprian. de extrema unctione, [p. 48. ad calc. Cypr. op. ] ¢ MS. partaked.

[…]

doret. dial. 1. [p. 17. vol. IV.]

_— a a

XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper. 481

their names, and gave the name of the symbol to the body, and the name of the body to the symbol :” not the things, but the names were changed. And therefore saith St. Augus- tine, 8“ For the Lord did not stick to say, This is my body, when he gave the sign of his body.” And Acacius saith, h« The bread and wine sanctifies them that ‘feed upon this matter.” And Macarius of Egypt saith, i“ In the church is offered bread and wine, the antitype of his body and blood.” To these we may add that of Bertramus, otherwise called Ratramnus: k“ What else but the substance of the wine is seen? It is clear, because the bread and wine are Christ’s body and blood figuratively.” And again: !“There is nothing more absurd than to take bread for flesh, and to call wine blood : neither would it be a mystery, wherein there is nothing secret and hidden contained. And how shall that be called the very body and blood of Christ wherein there is no change known to be made? And if they have endured no change, they are nothing else than what they were before.” And again: ™“* For as to the substance of the creatures, what they were before consecration, that they are also after.” And in the Comment upon St. Matthew, attributed to St. Chrysostom, we find it said, ® “If therefore it be so dangerous to transfer the sanctified vessels to private uses, in which not the true

& Non enim Dominus dubitavit dicere, Hoe est corpus meum, cum signum daret corporis sui. Aug. contra Adimant. c. 12. [3. vol. VIII. ]

[…]

k Quid aliud quam. substantia vini conspicitur? Claret quia panis ille vinumque figurate Christi cor- pus et sanguis existit. Bertram. de corp. et sang. Christi, [p. 514. Petri Mexpor-. |

1 Nihil absurdius quam panem carnem accipere et vinum sangui- nem dicere. Nec jam mysterium erit, in quo nihil secreti nihil abditi continebitur: et quomodo jam cor-

pus Christi et sanguis dicitur, in quo nulla permutatio facta esse co- gnoscitur? [Ibid.] Et si nihil per- mutationis pertulerunt, nihil aliud existunt quam quod prius fuerunt. Ibid. [p. 515.]

[…]

n§i ergo hec vasa sanctificata ad privatos usus transferre sic peri- culosum est, in quibus non est ve- rum corpus Christi sed mysterium corporis ejus continetur, quanto magis vasa corporis nostri, que sibi Deus ad habitaculum preparavit, non debemus locum dare diabolo agendi in eis quod vult? Comment. in Matt. hom. rr. ascript. Chrysost. [p. lxiii. vol. VI. edit. Bened. ]

482 Of the Lord’s Supper. Arr.

• body of Christ, but the mystery of his body is contained ; how much: more as. for the vessels of our body, which God hath prepared for himself to dwell in, we ought not to give place to the devil to act in!” What could be spoken more plainly ? It is not the body of Christ itself, but only the mystery and sacrament thereof, that is contained in the holy vessels and offered in the Lord’s Supper.

To all these testimonies I shall only add that of Theodoret again; © The visible symbols he honoured with the name of his body and blood, not changing their nature, but adding grace to nature.” And Gelasius, P“ Truly the sacraments which we receive of the body and blood of Christ are a Divine thing, and by them we are made partakers of the Divine Na- ture, and yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine doth not cease to be.” And therefore we conclude, that tran- substantiation is both a doctrine that cannot be proved by the scriptures, is contrary to the scriptures, overthroweth the nature of sacraments, hath given occasion to many supersti- tions, and is also contrary to the judgment of the Fathers.

The body of Christ is given and taken and eaten in the Supper only after a heavenly and spiritual manner ; and the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith.

It being so clear a truth, that the bread and wine are not turned into the very body and blood of Christ in the holy sacrament, we need not heap up many arguments to prove, that it is only after a spiritual, not after a corporal manner, that the body and blood of Christ are received and eaten in the sacrament. For if the bread be not really changed into the body of Christ, then the body of Christ is not really there

[…]

P Certe sacramenta quee sumimus corporis et sanguinis Christi divina

res est, propter quod et per eadem divine efficimur consortes nature, et tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis et vini. Gelas. de eet naturis in Christo, contra Hutychen, [p. 703. vol. VIII. Max. Bibi, Pate a

XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper. 483

present ; and if it be not really there present, it is impossible it should be really eaten and received into our bodies as bread is. So that the truth there demonstrated, and the truth here delivered, have so much affinity to one another, that they cannot so well be called two as one and the same truth. And therefore to the arguments produced in the foregoing dis- course, I shall add only these following, and that briefly, to shew that the body and blood of Christ are not eaten after a corporal but only a spiritual manner in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.

First, therefore, it is impossible 4 that that body, which was but of the ordinary bulk with ours, should be sufficient, if eaten after a corporal manner, to feed and satisfy so many millions of millions of souls as have already, and may here- after eat of it. And secondly, suppose it was not impossible, yet it would be unprofitable for us thus to eat of the body of Christ. For our Saviour himself having preached concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood, the Jews and Capernaites taking him (as their followers the papists do) in a carnal sense, cried out, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? John vi.52. And his disciples themselves said, This is an hard saying, who can hear it ? ver. 60. Whereupon he explained himself, and told them, ’ Jt is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh propiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto. you, they are spirit and they are life, ver.63. As if he should have said, Though I do speak of eating my flesh, I would not have you - think that my very flesh profiteth any thing, or quickeneth ; no, Jt is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing ;

a Deinde et hoc illos movere po- terat cum ejusmodi sensum habe- rent, quod etsi ullo modo fas esse potuisset, sic illum concidi et man- ducari, sanguinemque ejus bibi, vix paucis suflicere ut unusquisque mo- dicum quid acciperet, atque ideo vix centum homines ad vitam pertin- gere posse, cum copiosa multitudo hominum ad vitam pertinenttum nulli nisi soli Deo numerabilis sit. Rupert. in Johan. [7. p. 211. vol. IJ.] Udoos yap fpxec TO cdma mpos Bpaow, iva Kal rod Kéopou mdyros

[…]

t Nam quia durum et intolerabi- lem existimaverunt sermonem ejus, quasi vere carnem suam comeden- dam determinasset, ut in spiritu deponeret statum salutis pramisit, spiritus est qui vivificat ; atque ita subjunxit, caro nihil prodest, ad vivificandum scilicet. Tertull. de resurrectione carnis, c. 37. [vol.

III.] a1

=

Of the Lords Supper. Art,

and the words that I speak unto you are not to be understood in a carnal, but a spiritual sense, for they are spirit and life: plainly shewing that the corporal eating of his body is unpro- fitable, and that whatsoever he said concerning eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood was still to be understood in a heayenly and ‘spiritual sense. Thirdly, upon this suppo- sition, that the body of Christ is corporally eaten in the sacra- ment, it follows that it was corporally broken too, and so that Christ did really break his own body, before the Jews broke it for him; yea, and that Christ received his own body into his own body: for that he received this sacrament himself, as well as administered to his disciples, is plain, not only from the testimonies of the ‘Fathers, but from the words of our Saviour himself: With desire have I desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer, Luke xxii.15; and, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom, Matt. xxvi. 29. So that I cannot see how it can possibly be denied, that Christ ate of the bread whereof he said, This is my body; and if he ate it, and ate it corporally, that is, ate his very body as we eat bread, then he ate himself, and made one body two, and then crowded them into one again, putting his body into his body, even his whole body into part of his body, his stomach; and so he must be thought not only to have two bodies, but two bodies so as to be one within another ; yea, so as to be one eaten and devoured by another ; the absurdity of which and the like assertions,

[…]

exovra cupKikdy, ovd€ dkodovbiay u- ouny. Chrysost in loc. [p. 750. 34. vol. II.] [le autem instruxit eos et ait illis, spiritus est qui vivificat, caro autem nihil prodest. Verba que lo- cutus sum vobis spiritus est et vita. Spiritualiter intelligite quod locutus sum. Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis, et bibituri Ulum sanguinem quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent. Sacramentum ali- quod vobis commendavi; spirituali- ter intellectum vivificabit vos. Aug. in Psal. 98. [9. vol. IV.

t Nec- Moses dedit nobis panem

[…]

ulis sumendum tradidit. Thom.

par. III. vol. XII.] quest. 81. Art. I,

XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper. 485

he that hath but half an eye may easily discover. So that it must needs be granted to be in a spiritual manner that this sacrament was then instituted, and by consequence that it is in a spiritual manner that this sacrament ought now to be received.

And this was the judgment of the Fathers. Macarius saith, ¥ “In the church is offered bread and wine, the antitype of his flesh and blood ; and they that partake of the visible bread do spiritually eat of the flesh of Christ.”

And St. Augustine: *“ Understand spiritually what I say unto you; you must not eat that body which you see, nor drink that blood which they will shed that crucify me. I have commended to you a certain sacrament; being spirit- ually understood, it will quicken you; though it be necessary it should be celebrated visibly, yet it must be understood in- visibly.” For as Atlfrick archbishop of Canterbury saith, y“ That bread is Christ’s body, not bodily but spiritually ;” and if so, it must needs be eaten spiritually, not bodily.

And it being thus only after a spiritual manner that we re- eeive the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament, there can be no other means whereby we can receive him but faith. And therefore saith Origen, 2“ That food which is sanctified by the word of God and prayer, as to the material part of it, it goes into the belly, and is cast out into the draught ; but as to the prayer which is added to it, it is made profitable

intelligi. Aug. in Psal. 98. [9.] V. et Gratian. de consecrat. dist. 2. cap. 44; 45- [pp. 1893, 1894. |

[…]

AapBdvovtes ek TOU pawopevov aprov a a / mvevpaTiKas THY oapKa ToD Kupiov

éoOiovot. Macar. Augypt. hom. 27.

TJ.

f \ pivitualiter intelligite quod lo- eutus sum. Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis, et bibituri illum sanguinem quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent. Sacramentum aliquod commendavi vobis; _ spiri- tualiter intellectum vivificabit vos. Etsi necesse est illud visibiliter ce- lebrari, oportet tamen invisibiliter

[…]

486 Of the Lord’s Supper. tic Ane,

by the proportion of faith.” And St. Cyprian, *“ Drinking and eating belong to the same reason, whereby as the bodily substance is nourished, and liveth, and remains safe, so is the life of the spirit nourished by this proper food: and what eating is to the flesh, that is faith to the soul; what food is to the body, that is the word to the spirit, working eter- nally by a more excellent virtue what the carnal elements do temporally and finally.” And afterwards: >“ As often as we do these things, we do not whet our teeth to bite, but by a sincere faith we break the holy bread and divide it, whilst we distinguish and separate what is divine and what is human, and joining the things separated together again, we acknow- ledge one God and man.”

In St. Augustine we meet with many expressions to this purpose: ¢“¢ How,” saith he, “shall I send up my hand to heaven to lay hold upon him sitting there? Send thy faith, and thou hast laid hold on him.” And again: 4“ For to be- lieve in him, this is to eat the living bread ; he that believeth in him eateth; he is invisibly fattened who is invisibly rege- nerated.” And again: ¢“‘This therefore is to eat the food that doth not perish but endureth to eternal life. Why dost thou prepare thy teeth and belly? Believe, and thou hast eaten.” So that it is faith whereby we feed upon the body and blood of Christ, and therefore it is not carnally but spirit- ually that we receive it,

a Potus et esus ad eandem perti- nent rationem, quibus sicut corporea nutritur substantia, et vivit, et inco- lumis perseverat, ita vita spiritus hoc proprio alimento nutritur: et quod est esca carni, hoc anime est

des ; quod cibus corpori hoe ver- bum spiritui, excellentiori virtute peragens eternaliter, quod agunt alimenta carnalia temporaliter et fi- naliter. Cyprian. de coena Domini, [p. 41. ad calc. ] ?

Heec quoties agimus, non den- tes ad mordendum acuimus, sed fide sincera panem sanctum frangimus et partimur, dum quod divinum et quod humanum est distinguimus et

[…]

© Quomodo in celum manum mittam ut ibi sedentem teneam? Fidem mitte et tenuisti. Aug. in Johan. tract. 50. [4. vol. III.]

a Credere enim in eum hoc est manducare panem vivum. Qui cre- dit in eum mandueat; invisibiliter saginatur qui invisibiliter renascitur. Ibid. tract. 26. [1.}

€ Hoc est ergo manducare cibum qui non perit sed qui permanet in vitam eternam. Ut quid paras dentes et ventrem? Crede et man- ducasti. Ibid. tract. 25. [12.]

XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper. 487

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or wor-

shipped.

The sacramental bread and wine being vainly fancied to be changed into the very body and blood of Christ, it was pre- sently conceived that something more than ordinary honour should be conferred upon it, yea that it was not only to be eaten, but laid up privately, yea carried about publicly, lifted up, and worshipped too, and that with the same f worship which is due to the true and living God : and therefore have they appointed a certain holyday & too, which they call Corpus Christi day, wherein the sacramental bread might be annually carried about and religiously worshipped.

Now we having before proved that this bread is not the very body of Christ, but bread still after as well as before consecration, we have overthrown the very foundations of these gross superstitions; it being only upon that account that they perform so much homage and worship to it, because they think it is not what it seems to be, real bread, but what it doth not seem to be, even the very body of Christ. And the foundation being thus destroyed, the superstructure falls of itself; or if it still stands, it must but be like a castle in the air, without any foundation. To what was therefore before proved, I shall wish the opposers of this truth, or the main- tainers of the reservation and adoration of the sacraments, to consider these things :

First, That that doctrine is contrary to Christ’s institution. For he said expressly, Take, cat, Matth. xxvi. 26; not, take

and reserve it, not, take and worship it, but, Take and eat ;

[…]

& Declarat preeterea sancta syno-

carry it about, not, take and this is my body. Neither need

dus pie et religiose admodum in Dei ecclesia inductum fuisse hune mo- rem, ut singulis annis peculiari quo- dam et festo die, praecelsum hoc et venerabile sacramentum singulari veneratione et solennitate celebrare- tur, utque in processionibus reveren- ter et honorifice illud per vias et loca publica circumferretur. Ibid.

mS

‘

488 Of the Lord’s Supper. Art,

I heap up many arguments to prove, that according to Christ’s institution the sacramental bread is not to be reserved, much less worshipped, but eaten; for our adversaries themselves, the reverend fathers in the council of Trent, do acknowledge it. And therefore, howsoever or whensoever this supersti- tion first crep into the church, by their own confession it is eontrary to Christ’s institution. Secondly, That it quite over- throws the nature of the sacrament. For according to St. Augustine’s rule, i“ If sacraments have not a certain resem- blance of the things whereof they are sacraments, they are no sacraments at all.’ Now wherein is there any resemblance betwixt the body of Christ and bread, but only in the eating ? Even because the one received by faith nourisheth and pre- serveth the spiritual, as the other reecived into the stomach doth the natural life. The bread itself hath no resemblance at all of his body, neither hath the bread as reserved, or car- ried about, or worshipped, any such resemblance ; all the re- semblance it hath, is in its feeding the body as Christ doth the soul. Christ is the nourishment of our souls, as bread is the nourishment of our bodies; and therefore doth he sometimes call his body bread, and at other times bread his body. And all the resemblance betwixt them consisting only in the bread’s nourishment of the body as Christ doth the soul ; if the bread should lose its nourishing faculty, it would not be any whit like to Christ’s body, nor could it be the sacrament of it; and whensoever bread is not eaten, but re- served or carried about, though it may have it, yet it doth not exert any such virtue, and by consequence loseth its re- semblance to.Christ’s body, and so ceaseth to be sacramental bread any longer. And therefore they must know, that the

h Neque enim ideo minus est adorandum quod fuerit a Christo Domino ut sumatur institutum. Ibid.

i Si enim sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum quarum sacramenta sunt non haberent, om- nino sacramenta non essent. Aug. Epist. [98. 9, vol. II.] ad Bonifa- cium.

k Sicut panis communis quem

quotidie edimus vita est corporis, ita panis iste supersubstantialis vita est anime et sanitas mentis. Cy- prian, de coena Domini, [p. 40. ad calc.]| Potus et esus ad eandem pertinent rationem, quibus sicut corporea nutritur substantia, et vivit et incolumis perseverat, ita vita spi- ritus hoc proprio alimento nutritur. Ibid. [p. re

XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper. 489

bread they reserve and carry about is not the body of Christ, nor hath any relation to it upon that very account, because they reserve and earry it about, and do not eat it.

And if these considerations will not convince them, let them in the last place take notice of the testimonies of the primitive church. Origen (or as others think St. Cyril) saith, ! “The Lord said to them, concerning the bread which he gave to his disciples, Take and eat; he did not defer it, nor command it to be kept till to-morrow.” And St. Cyprian, shewing the differ- ence betwixt the sacramental bread and the shew-bread, saith, the sacramental bread ™ “is incorporated not injured, received not included.” As if he should have said, the shew-bread was included in the ark of the covenant, but so is not this ; it is only received, not included or shut up in any thing, and by consequence not reserved. And in the Second Epistle to St. James, attributed to Clemens Romanus, we find it written, n** Let as many sacrifices be offered upon the altar as may suffice the people: and if any remain, let them not be reserved till to-morrow, but with fear and dread be consumed by the diligence of the clerks.”

To this purpose also it was determined in the Ceesaraugus- tane council: ° “ If it be proved that any one, having received the grace of the Lord’s supper, hath not consumed or eaten it up, let him be anathema for ever.” And in the first council at Toledo, ?“ If any one shall not consume the eucharist re- ceived of the priest, let him be put away as a sacrilegious person.” Which canon was explained and confirmed again in the eleventh council at Toledo, an. 6754.

To this we may also add the several ways whereby the

m Incorporatur non Cyprian.

recipitur non includitur. de ccena Domini, [p. 42.]

n Janta in altario holocausta of- ferantur quanta populo sufficere de- beant. Quod si remanserint, non reserventur in crastinum, sed cum timore et tremore clericorum dili-

[…]

Arr, XXVIII.

490 Of the Lord’s Supper.

primitive church used to dispose of the sacramental bread and wine which was left after the communicants had all received. Evagrius tells us, * “There was an ancient custom at Constan- tinople, that when many pieces of the undefiled body of Christ our Lord were left after the communion, such young youths as went to school were sent for, and eat them up.” But St. Jerome tells us, that “after the communion, whatsoever was left of the bread and wine, the communicants themselves eating a common supper in the church, did consume them to- gether.” And Hesychius saith, ’« What was left used to be consumed in the fire.” Whence we may observe, that even what was left after the communion was not reserved; but though some used one, others another way, yet all used some way or other to consume it, so that it might not be reserved.

And if the primitive church was against the reservation, surely it was much more against the adoration of the sacra- ment, holding, as we have shewed before, that no person or thing, under any pretence whatsoever, ought to be worshipped besides God. I know it is not bare bread our adversaries say they worship, but Christ in the bread, or the bread in the name of Christ. But I wish them to consider what Gregory Nyssen long ago said, ”“‘ He that worshippeth a creature, though he do it in the name of Christ, is an idolater, giving the name of Christ to an idol.” And therefore, let them not be angry at us for concluding them to be idolaters, whilst they eat one piece of the bread, and worship the other; and for asserting that the sacraments ought to be reserved, carried about, or worshipped.

¥”EOos madaidy BovAerar ava rijy t Sed hoc quod reliquum est de

[…]

S Et post communionem queecun- que eis de sacrificiis superfuissent, ili in ecclesia communem ccenam comedentes pariter consumebant.

Hieron. in 1 Cor. xi. [p. 92t. vol. XI [p- 93

carnibus et panibus in igne incendi preecepit. Quod nunc videmus etiam sensibiliter in ecclesia fieri, ignique tradi queecunque remanere contigerit inconsumpta. Hesych. in Lev. 1. 2. [p. 49. D.] ;

[…]

Notes

• Per consecrationem panis et vini conversionem fieri totius substantice panis in substantiam corporis Christi Domini nostri, et totius substantiz vini in substantiam sanguinis ejus, que conversio convenienter et pro- prie a sancta catholica ecclesia tran- substantiatio est appellata. Concil. Trident. sess. 13. cap. 4. et can. 2. [Concil. vol. X.]
• Multa porro et de ipso verbo dici possunt, quod factum est caro verusque cibus, quem qui comederit omnino vivet in zternum, quem nullus malus potest edere. Etenim si fieri posset, ut qui malus adhuc perseverat, edat verbum factum car- nem cum sit verbum et panis vivus, nequaquam scriptum fuisset, Quis- quis ederit panem hune vivet in eter- num. Origen. in Mat. 15. [vol. III. Pp. 500. ]
• Acceptum panem et distribu- tum discipulis suis corpus suum illum fecit, Hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est figura corporis mei. Tertull. advers. Marcion. 1. 4. c. 40. {vol. I.]
• Ile cibus qui sanctificatur per verbum Dei perque obsecrationem, juxta id quod habet materiale, in ventrem abit et in secessum ejicitur ; ceterum juxta precationem que illi accessit, proportione fidei fit utilis. Origen. in Mat. 15. [p. 499. vol. Ill. |
• Dominus de pane, quem disci- pulis dabat, dicebat eis, Accipite et manducate ; non distulit, nec reser- vari jussit in crastinum. Origen. in Lev. hom. 5. [vol. II. p. ann.) injuriatur,