Chapter 30: The Mystical Distribution and Spiritual Food
of a sign and figure. For more easily is the body known and considered by us how it hung upon the cross, than as they make it in the Eucharist.
Chapter 30:
Mystical Distribution and Spiritual Food Leo the Pope, in an Epistle to the Clergy and people of Constantinople, wrote that this is a mystical distribution, a spiritual food, and a heavenly virtue: "That here we receive it, to the intent we may be made the flesh of Christ, who for our sakes took our flesh upon him." Cyril, in the fourth book and fourteenth chapter upon John, says: "On this wise he gave unto the believing disciples pieces of bread, saying: Take ye." The same Father, in an Epistle to Calosyrius, writes: "Wherefore it became him after a sort to be united unto our bodies, by his holy flesh, and by his precious blood, which we receive in the lively blessing in bread and wine."
Now, we will allege Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus: he lived in the time of Cyril and was present at the Synods of Ephesus and Chalcedon. He was accounted most learned and eloquent. During the Synod of Ephesus, when there was a dissension between John the Patriarch of Antioch and Cyril the Patriarch of Alexandria, Theodoret sided with the Patriarch of Antioch.
However, the matter was resolved, and at the Synod of Chalcedon, Theodoret was recognised as a very learned man and a holy member of the Church of Christ. In his books, he specifically opposed Nestorius and addressed him by name. The book was printed at Rome. The Papists noticed that he was clearly against Transubstantiation, and they excused him for two reasons. First, because the Church had not yet pronounced on that matter, as though we should seek what the Pope and his Cardinals decreed either at Constance or in the Synod where Berengarius was condemned, and not rather what had been preached and believed in the old Church. Further,
they said that this man, in writing against Heretics, when he discussed these mysteries, leaned too much to the other side, thus opposing
Transubstantiation to more easily refute the adversaries. But how vain an excuse this is can be seen in the writer's discourse, where it is evident that not one word escaped him and that the whole argument and strength thereof are drawn from the nature of a sacrament. If Transubstantiation were mingled with it, nothing could be concluded. Rather, the Heretics would prevail. They add that he, in the same book, sometimes speaks more reverently of the Eucharist. But considering all things, he speaks nowhere so reverently that he opposes our opinion, which we have now affirmed.
Theodoret disputes against those who denied that Christ had a true body and claimed that His body at the time of His Ascension was wholly turned into the divine nature. First, he quotes the prophecy of the Patriarch Jacob to prepare an argument from the sacraments. The words are these:
ORTH. Do you know that God called bread His own body?
SOD. I know it.
ORTH. And again, that at another time His flesh was called Corn?
SOD. This also I know: for I have heard Him say, "The hour comes wherein the Son of Man shall be glorified: and unless the grain of Corn is cast into the earth and dies, it remains alone, but if it is dead, it will bring forth much fruit."
ORTH. He undoubtedly, in the delivery of the mysteries, called bread His body, and the Cup mixed, His blood.
SOD. So indeed He named it.
ORTH. But it might also according to nature be called a body, yea even His own body and blood.
SOD. It is granted.
ORTH. Yes, indeed our Saviour Himself changed the names; and to the body, He gave the name of the sign, and to the sign the name of the body.
After the same manner also, when He said that He Himself is the vine, He called His blood the sign.
SOD. This indeed is true: but I would also learn the cause of the changing of the names.
ORTH. The end why it is so called is manifest unto those who are instructed in Religion. For He would that they who are partakers of those divine mysteries, should not regard the nature of those things which are seen, but by the changing of names they should believe that transmutation which is done by grace. For He that called His own natural body Corn, and bread, and also called Himself a vine; even He Himself also honored those things which seem to be signs, with the name of His body and blood: not, forsooth, changing nature itself, but unto nature adding grace.
SOD. Truly the mystical things are spoken mystically, and those things which are not known unto all men are made clear and manifest.
ORTH. Wherefore, seeing He confesses that the robe and garment is by the Patriarch called the Lord's body, and that we have entered into the talk of divine mysteries, tell me in very deed, whose sign and figure do you think that most holy meat to be? Was it the sign of the very divinity of Christ, or else of His own body and blood?
SOD. Doubtless even of those things whereof also they received their names.
ORTH. Do you mean, of the body and blood?
SOD. So I mean.
ORTH. You have truly spoken: For the Lord, taking the sign, says not: This is My divinity, but, This is My body: And again, This is My blood. And in another place: But the bread which I will give for the life of the world.
SOD. Indeed all these things are true, for they are the words of God.
ORTH. Certainly if these things are true, the Lord had a body indeed.
SOD. But I say that He is without a body.
ORTH. But you confess that He had a body.
Out of the second dialogue, we have these words:
SOD. We must doubtless (according to the proverb) remove every stone that we may attain unto the truth, especially in setting forth the doctrine of God.
ORTH. Show me then: whereof the signs (which are offered unto God by the ministers of holy things) are mystical signs.
SOD. Of the body and blood of the Lord.
ORTH. Of the true body or not?
SOD. Of the true body.
ORTH. Very well said: for they must be a principal pattern of the image.
For the painters do follow nature, and they paint the images of those things that are seen.
SOD. You say true.
ORTH. If then those divine mysteries are examples of a body being, then is the Lord's body now also a body, and is not changed into the nature of
divinity, but is replenished with divine glory.
SOD. In good time have you moved this speech of divine mysteries: for thereby will I show you a changing of the Lord's body into another nature: answer therefore unto my questions.
ORTH. I will answer.
SOD. What do you call that gift which is offered before the priest's invocation?
ORTH. We must not speak openly: For it is very likely that some here present are not yet thoroughly instructed.
SOD. This is a diffuse answer.
ORTH. Look what seed it was, such meat it is.
SOD. But how do we name the other sign?
ORTH. This name also is common, betokening a figure of the cup.
SOD. How do you call those things after sanctification?
ORTH. The body of Christ, and the blood of Christ.
SOD. And do you believe that you receive the body and blood of Christ?
ORTH. Yea verily, I believe it.
SOD. Therefore even as the signs of the body and blood of the Lord are one thing undoubtedly before the invocation of the priest, but after the very invocation are changed from one to another, and become other things: so likewise the body of the Lord, after it is received, is changed into divine substance.