Imágenes de páginas

And in another place, he says, “ Christ calls “ bread his body, that from thence you may un“ derstand that he gave the figure of his body to " the bread.” Origen a says, “ we eat of the “ loaves that are set before us, which by prayer

are become a certain holy body, that sanctifies “ those who use them with a sound purpose.” St. Cyprian says “ Christ calls the bread that

was compounded of many grains his body, and " the wine that is pressed out of many grapes “ his blood, to shew the union of his people.” And again,

“ the blood of Christ is shewed by the wine in the chalice.” St. Epiphanius says, " that the bread is not like Christ, neither “ in his invisible Deity, nor in his incarnate “ likeness, for it is round and with feeling as to • its virtue.” Gregory Nyssend says, “ the “ bread in the beginning is common, but after

the mystery has consecrated it, it is said to be, 6 and is the body of Christ;" to which he compares the sanctification of the water in baptism, and the stones of an altar dedicated to God. St. Ambrose e says, “ this bread is made the food of saints.” St. Chrysostom says, “ the bread is “the body of Christ, as they who take it are the


a See Cont. Celsum, 1. 8. 6 See Ep. 63. and 76. c See in Anchoret.

d See in Orat. de Bapt. Christ. e Sec de bened. Patr. c. 9.

f See Hom. 24. in Ep. ad Cor. Ep. ad Cæsar, et Comment, in Ep. ad Gal. c. 5.

“ body of Christ.” St. Jerome a says,

« Christ “ took bread, that as Melchisedech had in a

figure offered bread and wine, he might also

represent the truth of his body and blood." St. Augustine compares the sacrament's being called the body and blood of Christ, with the passages in which the Church is called his body; which shows that he thought the one was to be figuratively understood as well as the other. Again, he says, " after some sort, the sacrament of the body of Christ is his body :" “ He carried himself in some sort, when he said, “ This is my body.”

(2.) The Fathers affirm, that the elements retain their nature and substance. This is evident, from the arguments against the Apollinarian heresy. The Apollinarians, or more properly speaking, their successors the Eutychians, held that the human nature of Christ was confounded with the divine. The Fathers who wrote against them state, that the human nature remained in Christ, not absorbed, but only sanctified by the divine nature which was united to it; and illustrate their assertion by the doctrine of the sacrament. Thus Chrysostomo says,

“ As before the bread is sanctified, we

[blocks in formation]

b See Cit. ap. Fulg. de Bap. Ep. 23 ad Bonif. et Ser. 2. in Ps. 33.

See Ep. ad Casarium.

“ call it bread; but when the divine force has " sanctified it by the means of the priest, it is “ freed from the name of bread, and is thought “ worthy of the name of the Lord's body, “ though the nature of bread remains in it, and

yet it is not said there are two bodies, but one " body of the Son; so the divine nature being “ joined to the body, both these make one Son “ and one person.” Ephraim a of Antioch says, " the body of Christ, which is received by the “ faithful, does not depart from its visible substance.Theodoret b


66 Christ honours " the symbols with the name of his body and “ blood, not changing the nature, but adding

grace to nature.” And again, “ the mystical symbols, after the sanctification, do not de

part from their own nature; for they continue “ in their former substance, figure and form, and

are visible as they were before; but they are 56 understood to be what they are made.” Pope Gelasius says, “ the sacraments of the body 66 and blood of Christ are a divine thing ; for “ which reason we become by them partakers “ of the divine nature; and yet the substance 6 of bread and wine does not cease to exist; “ and the image and likeness of the body and “ blood of Christ are celebrated in holy mys

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

a See in Phot, Bibl. cod. 229. b See Dial. I et 2. cont. Eutych. C See Lib. dc duabus Nat. Chris.

« teries.” Now had the corporal presence of Christ in the sacrament been then believed in the Church, the plain and evident argument against those heretics to whom the preceding quotations refer, would have been this: Christ must have a natural body after his incarnation, because the bread and wine are turned into it, and they cannot be turned into that which is not. Whereas the arguments they use might on this supposition have been easily refuted; for then they should have reasoned thus : that Christ's human nature was not absorbed by the divine,, because the elements in the sacrament are changed into the substance of Christ's body, retaining only the outward substance of bread and wine. To this an Eutychian might easily have answered, that though he appeared in the likeness of human nature, he retained only its accidents, but that the human nature itself was destroyed, as the bread and wine were destroyed in the Eucharist. This answer would have been (on Roman Catholic principles) triumphant. On the contrary, those Fathers urge, that as in the Eucharist there was an union of two natures, the one communicating a sanctification to the other, a similar union might exist in Christ. It is evident from this argument, that in the fourth and fifth centuries it was not believed that any change took place in the substance of the bread and wine in the sacrament.

[ocr errors]

The same inference with respect to the opinion of the Fathers on this subject, may be derived from their asserting that our bodies are nourished by the sacrament. Thus Irenæus a says, “ when the cup and the bread receive the “ word of God, it becomes the Eucharist of the

body and blood of Christ, by which the sub

stance of our flesh is increased and subsists.” Tertullian b


66 The flesh is fed with the body and blood of Christ.” Origen, in explaining our Saviour's words," it is not that which enters within the man, that defiles the man," says, “ if every thing that goes into the stomach “ is cast out in the draught, then that food “ which is sanctified by the word of God and by

prayer, goes into the stomach as to that which " is material in it, and goes from thence into the “ draught.” The Bishops of Spain, in a council held at Toledo d in the seventh century, decreed that as much of the bread as remained after the communion, should be put in a bag and preserved, or if it was necessary, be eaten, “ that it, “ might not oppress the stomach of him that “ took it with an overcharging burden, and that “ it might not go into the digestion.” Again, in the ninth century, Rabanus Maurus and Heribald, and several Greek writers, held that the sacrament was subject to the ordinary laws of

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »