Chapter 28: The Role of Miracles
Chapter 28:
The Role of Miracles And whereas here they so very often pretend unto us many miracles, we must not so easily give credit, because miracles are not wont to be brought in, unless it be in respect that they be strange and wonderful things, by whose unaccustomed happening, a weight may be added unto the word of God. For then men be stricken with admiration, and may be easily led to embrace the doctrine of Christ. But here is no visible thing changed, and there is nothing that can stir up men to admiration, wherefore they seem in vain to crave help of miracles. The Virgin indeed conceived of the Holy
Ghost, but this she sensibly perceived to be done. And if any at any time have been converted unto Christ, they perceived that their mind and their life was changed from the former conversation. But here is nothing perceived of these miracles which they imagine. Only they are talked of, but can be proved by no reason, or experience, or scripture.
Unto these things that have been already said, add, that the breaking of bread is after the same manner unto the death and passion of Christ, as bread is unto the body. But breaking, as they themselves also affirm, is a Sacrament and sign of the passion of Christ, and yet for all that it is not so to be transubstantiated, as it makes the same to be truly and really present: therefore neither shall the bread be so changed into the body, as it may make the same to be present really. And then forasmuch as this opinion has nothing else but contention of words and inexplicable difficulties, it furthers not unto godliness.
Chapter 29:
The Testimonies of the Fathers
But now let us consider the Fathers and whether they judge so or not.
Irenaeus, against the Valentinian heretics, says: "The earthly bread, when it has received that faculty from the word of God, it is no more common bread, but is made the Eucharist, which consists of two things, to wit, earthly and heavenly." First of all, he does not deny the Eucharist to be bread, except thou make it common bread. Afterward, he says that it consists of two things, whereof one is terrestrial as bread, the other celestial, as the body of Christ. And as on the one part is retained the truth, to wit, as touching the body of the Lord, so on the other part it is to be preserved, namely as touching bread. And he adds by a similitude: even so our bodies receiving the same are no more corruptible.
Tertullian, in his first book against Marcion, says that God did not cast away bread, being His creature, seeing in it He represented His body. And in the fourth book against the same Marcion, He received bread and distributed it to His disciples, making the same to be His body, saying,
"This is my body," that is, a figure of my body. But a figure it should not be, unless it were a body of the truth.
Origen, upon the book of Numbers, Homily 16, says: "We are said to drink the blood of Christ, not only by the rite of the Sacraments, but also when we receive His word." The very same thing Jerome also wrote sometimes upon Ecclesiastes, the third chapter. The same Origen, upon Matthew the 26th chapter: "This bread which God, being the Word, confesses to be His body, is a nourishing word of souls." Upon Leviticus, the 7th Homily: "For there is in the Gospel also a letter that kills, and not in the Old Testament only.
For if according to the letter, thou follow that which is said: 'Unless ye shall eat my flesh,' and so forth." And in the same book, Homily 9: "Do not thou stand in doubt in the blood of the flesh, but learn rather the blood of the Word, and hear Him speaking unto thee. For this is my blood which is shed for you." Origen, upon Matthew the 15th chapter: "The bread sanctified as touching that which it has material passes into the belly and is cast out into
the draught." And straightway after: "Not the matter of the bread but the word spoken over the same is it that profiteth, yet not him that unworthily eateth it unto the Lord." The same father, against Celsus, the 8th book:
"When as we have given thanks for the benefits bestowed upon us, we eat the loaves that be offered."
Cyprian Cyprian, in the sixth Epistle of the first book unto Magnus, says: "The Lord calls His body bread, which is kneaded together by the uniting of many grains, and He calls His blood wine that is pressed out of clusters and many grapes." And when he interprets the Lord's Prayer, he calls the body of the Lord, bread. And in his sermon De Coena Domini, he says that we do not sharpen the teeth, but only break and eat that bread with a sincere faith. And in his sermon De Chrismate, he says manifestly that sacraments have names of those things which they signify. These two sayings it seems that Augustine borrowed from him, the latter in his Epistle to Boniface. But when he says the other, "Why preparest thou thy teeth or belly? Believe and thou hast eaten," that he has in the 25th treatise upon John. But the same
Cyprian, in the third Epistle and second book unto Caecilius: "In wine," he says, "is showed the blood of the Lord." And against the Aquarii he says,
"The blood of Christ cannot seem to be present in the cup, if the wine cease to be therein," which by these men's transubstantiation does come to pass.
And in his sermon De Coena Domini, he writes that the signs are changed into the body of Christ, but so as he takes a similitude of Christ Himself in whom the human nature appeared, and the divine nature lay hidden. By which similitude thou seest that he would that as in Christ remained the two natures, so they are preserved in this sacrament. And Cyprian, in his third
Epistle and second book: "By this reason, neither can the body of the Lord be in meal alone or in water alone, unless both of them shall be united and
coupled together, and made firm into a lump of one loaf, whereby also in the sacrament itself our people is said to be united."
Athanasius, expounding those words, "If any man shall speak a word against the Son of man, it is forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world nor yet in the world to come," writes: "And how great a body should be needful unto this, that the world should eat of it?" But he infers that the thing must be understood spiritually, and that therefore the Lord in that place against the Capernaites made mention of His ascension. Basil, in his Liturgy, calls bread an example of the like form of the body of Christ, and that after the words of consecration. Dionysius, De Hierarchia Ecclesiastica, the third chapter: "The Bishop openeth the bread hidden and undivided, and cutteth it into morsels."
Ambrose, Jerome, and Chrysostom Ambrose, in his exposition of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, when he speaks of doing this in remembrance of Christ and His death, says that we, in eating and drinking of the flesh and blood of Christ, do signify the things that are offered. And again, about the same place he says: "That we take it into the mystical cup for a figure of Christ's blood." And in the fourth book, the fourth chapter, where he puts a changing of the signs, he treats also of our changing into Christ: and yet it is not affirmed that they which receive the Sacrament are transubstantiated. And the same Father, in the same fourth book De Sacramentis, the fourth chapter: "This we add moreover:
How can it be that which is bread should by consecration be the body of Christ?" And straightway: "If there be so great a strength in the word of the Lord, as things should begin to be which were not, how much rather is the word so effectuous, that the things which were may remain, and yet be changed into another thing?"
Jerome, upon Matthew, says plainly that in bread and wine are represented the body and blood of the Lord. Chrysostom, upon the later Epistle unto the Corinthians, says that not only that which is set before us upon the table is the body of Christ, but also the poor people unto whom we are bound to do good: because even he that says, "This is my body," said also by His word, that He receives alms and is needy in the poor. In his eleventh homily upon Matthew in his work which is called imperfect: he says that in the holy vessels there is not the body of Christ and the blood of Christ, but a mystery of the body and blood of Christ. Also upon the twelfth chapter of the second
Epistle to the Corinthians, the 27th homily: Even as Christ, both in the bread and in the cup, said, "Do this in the remembrance of me." The same father, upon the 22nd Psalm, upon these words, "Thou hast prepared a table in my sight." As it is showed unto us that there is every day in the sacrament bread and wine according to the order of Melchizedek, unto the similitude of the body and blood of Christ. Emisenus, whom they cite De
Consecratione distinct. 2, and he seems to put a change of the signs: even the selfsame man makes mention of our changing into Christ.
Augustine's Testimonies on the Eucharist Augustine has many testimonies on this matter. Upon the 82nd Psalm, he says: "This that ye see, ye shall not eat, neither shall ye drink this blood which they will pour out: it is a mystery that I speak unto you, which if it be spiritually understood, it will quicken you." In De Trinitate, the third book and tenth chapter: "The bread for this purpose made, is eaten up in receiving of the sacrament." There is no cause why the Bishop of Rochester should attempt to apply this saying to the Shewbread. We have shown elsewhere by various arguments that his interpretation is incorrect.
First, if thou follow the plain sense and that which offers itself at first view and which the words suggest, thou shalt manifestly perceive that the speech
is of the Eucharist. Erasmus, in the books of Augustine which he edited, wrote in the margin "Eucharist." Further, a little after in the same chapter, while he treats of the same thing, he makes such evident mention of the Eucharist that even the adversary cannot deny it. Of the same Eucharist, he had written before in the fourth chapter of that book when he began the same treatise.
Add herewithal: that expressly in these words which we have in hand, it is plainly called a sacrament. If he had meant it to be understood generally, it would have been no less applicable to those things that he had reckoned before, namely unto the brazen serpent and to the stone erected by Jacob, than unto the Shewbread. But in those words, he did not use this word sacrament, which afterward (that we may understand he speaks of the Eucharist) he would not suppress. Lastly, he says: "The bread made for this purpose is eaten up in the sacrament," which does not agree with the Shewbread, for that was not made to this end, that it should be eaten, but that they, being set upon the table, should remain before the Lord. Therefore they are called in the Hebrew Panim. It came to pass that without regard, they were eaten, lest they should putrefy before the Lord. Therefore, they were changed every week. When it had been once dedicated unto God, it was given the honor of being eaten by the priests. But the bread of our
Eucharist was verily made for the purpose of being eaten in receiving of the sacrament.
Moreover, Augustine says in the present tense: "It is eaten," and not "It was eaten," which it would have to be if he had spoken of a figure and ceremony of the Old Testament. In De Fide ad Petrum, the 19th chapter, he calls it a sacrament of bread and wine. As touching the memory and death of Christ, he abundantly instructed Peter in the faith, but of this transubstantiation which these men so greatly urge at this day, he speaks not one word.
Against Faustus in the 20th book and the 21st chapter, he says that the flesh and blood of Christ was promised to us in the Old Testament under the
similitude of sacrificed beasts; upon the cross, it was given in very deed; but in the sacrament, it was celebrated by a memorial. In the 21st book De
Civitate Dei, the 25th chapter, he plainly affirms that the wicked do not eat the matter of the sacrament, that is, the body of Christ. For he is not to be accounted (saith he) to eat the body of Christ, who is not in the body of Christ. And he, in whom Christ abideth not, neither does he abide in Christ.
And similar words he has in the 20th treatise upon John: but in the 30th treatise, he says: that the body of Christ is in some certain place in heaven, but that His truth is everywhere spread, which he therefore speaks because truth is spiritual and is always present with the faithful. And communicants, wherever they be, do confess Christ and believe that He had a true body, not a feigned body as the heretics thought.
Against Adamantius the Manichee, the 12th chapter, he writes: "The Lord doubted not to say, This is my body, when as yet He gave a sign of His body." Neither does it matter if thou say: He gave both the sign and the thing signified, for Augustine did not intend this, but he would show that the saying is figurative, and like unto another which he quotes from Deuteronomy: "The blood is the life." Therefore, he said: "The Lord doubted not," because in tropes or figures we dare do something. In his third book of Christian doctrine, the 16th chapter, he showed that it was a figurative kind of speech which we have in the sixth chapter of John:
"Unless ye shall eat the flesh of the Son of Man," etc., because a wicked thing seems to be commanded. For it is more heinous to eat the flesh of man than to kill him, and to drink blood than to shed it. Therefore (saith he) it is a commanding figure, namely, that we should sweetly and profitably lay up in memory the flesh of Christ that was crucified and wounded for us.
In an epistle unto Boniface, he said most plainly, that sacraments take their name from those things whereof they should be sacraments: and he expressed by name the sacrament of the body of Christ. And he adds that the sacrament of the blood of Christ is the blood of Christ. And all this he wrote to show that baptism is the sacrament of faith, and that therefore it
may be said that it is faith, and that young children being baptized have faith, because they receive this sacrament.
And lest any should say that these be signs substantially (as these men speak) of the thing present, let them consider the similitudes which these men have alleged: to wit, that we say, when we are near unto Easter, that tomorrow or the next day after shall be the Passion of the Lord, and upon Sunday the Lord rose again, when as yet these things are not now present but were done long before. Further, he here affirms that the baptism of young children is faith; which nevertheless young children presently have not. Yea, and the same father, as we have it De Consecratione distinct. 2 in the Chapter Interrogo vos, saith that it is as sinful a negligence to suffer the word which is preached to slip out of our minds, as it is for a part of the sacrament to fall upon the earth. If this were granted, this transubstantiation would take but small place. For it would seem to be far more absurd that the body itself of Christ should fall or be trodden underfoot than if any part of the holy words should be heard with small regard.
Moreover, upon the 8th Psalm, he says that Christ admitted Judas in the supper when He commended unto us the figure of His body. They are accustomed to say that the figure or sign in this sacrament, which is the body of Christ, being hidden with accidents, is His own dead and unbloody body as He hung upon the cross, and that the blood hidden under the accidents of wine is the figure of the blood shed upon the altar of the cross.
But who perceives not that the devices of these men are vain? For there ought to be put a sign and figure which is sensible and more known than the thing signified. Therefore, the Master of the Sentences out of Augustine defined a sacrament to be a visible sign of an invisible grace. But the body of Christ being hidden under accidents, as they affirm, is no less obscure than that which hung upon the cross; yea, and if I may say the truth, more unknown and obscure than the thing signified. Which is against the nature