Evangelical Miscellanies: Transubstantiation and John 6: A Comprehensive Historical Refutation

Note: Click here for a list of the abbreviations used in the bibliographical citations.

Outline:

1. The Patristic Understanding of the Sixth Chapter of the Gospel According to John as Spiritual not Carnal/Corporeal.

2. The Medieval Continuation of the Patristic Understanding of John 6.

3.1. Excursus: All Historical-Confessional Protestant Denominations Believe that Christ is Really Present in the Lord’s Supper.

3.2. Objection: Transubstantiation, a Eucharistic Miracle?

4. Appendix: The Letter Kills, But the Spirit Gives Life—Historical Testimony.

5. The Patristic Understanding of the “Real Presence” was Spiritual not Carnal/Corporeal.

5.1. The Medieval Continuation of the Patristic Understanding of the “Real Presence” as Spiritual not Carnal/Corporeal.

6. Appendix: The Origin of the Pagan Accusation that Christians “Ate Actual Flesh.”

6.1. The Unanimous Christian Response to the Pagan Claim that they “Ate Actual Flesh.”

7. Appendix: “Eating” and “Drinking” in Jewish Literature.

8. Appendix: The OT Saints Ate the Same Flesh and Drank the Same Blood as the NT Saints—Historical Testimony.

9. Appendix: Only “Believers” Eat the Body (Flesh) of Christ—Historical Testimony.

10. Endnotes (Alternate Translations and Additional Testimony).

i. Prolegomena. Return to Outline.

Marcus Tullius Cicero (c. 106-46 B.C.):

When we speak of corn as Ceres and wine as Liber, we employ a familiar figure of speech, but do you suppose that anybody can be so insane as to believe that the food he eats is a god?

(Marcus Tullius Cicero, De Natura Deorum, 3.16.41; trans. LCL, 268:325.) See also: loebclassics.com. [1.]

1. The Patristic Understanding of the Sixth Chapter of the Gospel According to John as Spiritual not Carnal/Corporeal. Return to Outline.

Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (c. 35-108/40 A.D.):

You, therefore, must arm yourselves with gentleness and regain your strength in faith (which is [ἐστιν] the flesh of the Lord) and in love (which is [ἐστιν] the blood of Jesus Christ).

(Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Trallians, 8; PG, 5:681; trans. Michael W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations of Their Writings, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007], p. 221. Cf. ANF, 1:69.) [2.]

Cf. Luke 22:19:

Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is [ἐστιν] my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.”

(New American Bible.)

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 A.D.):

Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols [συμβολων], when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood;” describing distinctly by metaphor [ἀλληγορῶν] the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,—of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.

(Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor (Pædagogi), 1.6; PG, 8:296; trans. ANF, 2:219.) See also: ccel.org. [3.]

Theodotus of Byzantium (c. 2nd Century A.D.) / Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 A.D.):

He is “heavenly bread” and “spiritual food” furnishing life by food and knowledge, “the light of men,” that is, of the Church. Therefore those who ate the heavenly bread died, but he who eats the true bread of the Spirit shall not die. The Son is the living bread which was given by the Father to those who wish to eat. “And my flesh is the bread which I will give,” he says, that is, to him whose flesh is nourished by the Eucharist [εὐχαριστίας, lit. thanksgiving]; or better still [ὅπερ καὶ μᾶλλον], the flesh is his body, “which is the Church,” “heavenly bread,” a blessed Assembly.

(Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta: Ex Scriptis Theodoti et Doctrina Quæ Orientalis Vocatur: Ad Valentini Tempora Spectantia, n. XIII; PG, 9:664; trans. Clement of Alexandria, The Excerpta ex Theodoto of Clement of Alexandria, trans. Robert Pierce Casey, [London: Christophers, 1934], p. 51.) [4.]

Tertullian of Carthage (c. 155-220 A.D.):

(Tertullian of Carthage, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 37; trans. ANF, 3:572.) See also: ccel.org. [5.]

Origen of Alexandria (c. 184-253 A.D.):

Acknowledge that they are figures, which are written in the sacred volumes; therefore as spiritual, not carnal, examine and understand what is said. For, if as carnal you receive them, they hurt, not nourish you. Not only in the old Testament is there a letter which killeth; but also in the new there is a letter which killeth him who does not spiritually consider it. For, if according to the letter you receive this saying, Except ye eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, that letter killeth.

(Origenis, In Leviticum, Homilia VII, §. 5; PG, 12:487; trans. Edward Harold Browne, An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles: Historical and Doctrinal: The Tenth Edition, [London: Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer, 1874], p. 691. Cf. FC, 83:146.) [6.]

Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea (c. 260/5-339/40 A.D.):

Do you, receiving the Scriptures of the Gospels, perceive the whole teaching of our Saviour, that He did not speak concerning the flesh which He had taken, but concerning His mystic body and blood. . . . He instructed them to understand spiritually (πνευματικῶς) the words which He had spoken concerning His flesh and His blood; for, He says, you must not consider Me to speak of the flesh which I wear (ἣν περίκειμαι), as if you were able to eat that, nor suppose that I command you to drink perceptible and corporal (σωματικὸν) blood. . . . These things profit nothing, if they are understood according to sense (αἰσθητῶς); but the Spirit is the Life, given to those who are able to understand spiritually.

(Eusebii Cæsariensis, De Ecclesiastica Theologia, Lib. III, Cap. XII; PG, 24:1021, 1024; trans. Lucius Waterman, The Primitive Tradition of the Eucharistic Body and Blood, [New York: Longmans, Green and Co, 1919], p. 99. Cf. FC, 135:319-320.) [7.]

Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria (c. 296/8-373 A.D.):

Our Lord made a difference betwixt the flesh and the spirit, that we might understand that what He said was not carnal, but spiritual [ὅτι καὶ ἃ λέγει οὐκ ἔστι σαρκικὰ, ἀλλὰ πνευματικά]. For how many men could His body have fed, that the whole world should be nourished by it? But therefore He mentioned His ascension into heaven, that they might not take what He said in a corporal sense, but might understand that His flesh whereof He spake is a spiritual and heavenly food, given by Himself from on high; for the words that I spake unto you, they are spirit and they are life; as if he should say, My body which is shewn and given for the world shall be given in food, that it might be distributed spiritually to everyone, and preserve them all to the resurrection to eternal life.

(S. Athanasii, Epistola ad Serapionem (Epistola IV: Eiusdem ad Eumdem Serapionem Εpistola Item de Sancto Spiritu), §. 19; PG, 26:665, 668; trans. John Cosin, The History of Popish Transubstantiation, ed. John Sherren Brewer, [London: J. Leslie, 1840], pp. 90-91.) [8.]

Basil the Great, Bishop of Cæsarea Mazaca (c. 329/30-379 A.D.):

“He that eateth me,” He says, “he also shall live because of me;” for we eat His flesh, and drink His blood, being made through His incarnation and His visible life partakers of His Word and of His Wisdom. For all His mystic sojourn among us He called flesh and blood, and set forth the teaching consisting of practical science, of physics, and of theology, whereby our soul is nourished and is meanwhile trained for the contemplation of actual realities. This is perhaps the intended meaning of what He says.

(Basil the Great, Letter 8.4 [To the Cæsareans. A defence of his withdrawal, and concerning the faith]; PG, 32:253; trans. NPNF2, 8:118.) See also: ccel.org. [9.]

Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem (c. 313-386 A.D.):

Christ on a certain occasion discoursing with the Jews said, Except ye eat My flesh and drink My blood, ye have no life in you. They not having heard His saying in a spiritual sense were offended, and went back, supposing that He was inviting them to eat flesh.

(Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 22.4; PG, 33:1100; trans. NPNF2, 7:151-152.) See also: ccel.org.

Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):

Let us have a guess as to who these eagles may be, and then we might arrive at discovering what is meant by “the body.” …Having identified the “eagles” we should have no difficulty in discovering who is meant by the “body.” All the more so when we recall how Joseph was given Christ’s body by Pilate (cf. Jn 19:38). …We can consider “body” in another sense. Remember how the Lord said “My flesh is real food, and my blood is real drink” (Jn 6:56). …The Church, too, is a body.

(Sancti Ambrosii, Expositio Evangelii Secundum Lucam, Lib. VIII, §. 55-56; PL, 15:1781-1782; trans. Commentary of Saint Ambrose on the Gospel According to Saint Luke, trans. Íde M. Ní Riain, [Dublin: Halcyon Press, 2001], 8.55-56, on Luke 17:37, pp. 288-289.)

Note: According to Ambrose, the body Joseph was given by Pilate was not the same body Christ spoke of in John 6.

Cf. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):

For we have the true bread, that bread which came down from heaven. He eats that bread who keeps those things which have been written [Panem illum manducat, qui ea quæ scripta sunt servat].

(Sancti Ambrosii, Expositio Evangelii Secundum Lucam, Lib. VII, §. 3; PL, 15:1699; trans. John Harrison, An Answer to Dr. Pusey’s Challenge Respecting the Doctrine of the Real Presence: In Two Volumes: Vol. II, [London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1871], p. 76.) [10.]

Macarius, Bishop of Magnesia (fl. 403 A.D.):

Now the flesh and blood of Christ, or of Wisdom (for Christ and Wisdom are the same), are the words of the Old and New Testaments spoken with allegorical meaning, which men must devour with care and digest by calling them to mind with the understanding, and win from them not temporal but eternal life. Thus did Jeremiah eat when he received the words from the hand of Wisdom, and by eating he had life; thus did Ezekiel feel sweetness when he ate the roll of the words (Ezek. iii. 3), and the bitterness of this present life was cast away. Thus did the saints one by one, once long ago, and again and again, by eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Wisdom, that is, by receiving in themselves the knowledge and revelation of her, live for aye with a life that will never cease. It was not only to the disciples that He gave His own flesh to eat and likewise His own blood to drink (for He would not have done right in thus offering the life eternal to some at a certain season, but not supplying it to others); but it was to all men alike in whom was holiness and the spirit of prophecy, that He gave allegorically this supply of food.

(Macarius Magnes, Apocriticus, 3.23; trans. Translations of Christian Literature: Series I, Greek Texts: The Apocriticus of Macarius Magnes, trans. T. W. Crafer, [London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1919], 3.23, p. 82.) See also: earlychristianwritings.com.

John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 349-407 A.D.):

“It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing.” His meaning is, “Ye must hear spiritually what relateth to Me, for he who heareth carnally is not profited, nor gathereth any advantage.” It was carnal to question how He came down from heaven, to deem that He was the son of Joseph, to ask, “How can he give us His flesh to eat?” All this was carnal, when they ought to have understood the matter in a mystical and spiritual sense. …“The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.” That is, they are divine and spiritual, have nothing carnal about them… How then doth “the flesh profit nothing,” if without it we cannot live? Seest thou that the words, “the flesh profiteth nothing,” are spoken not of His own flesh, but of carnal hearing?

(John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 47 [on John 6:63]; trans. NPNF1, 14:169-170.) See also: ccel.org. [11.]

Gaudentius, Bishop of Brescia (c. ?-410 A.D.):

For a figure is not the truth, but an imitation of the truth [Figura etenim non est veritas, sed imitatio veritatis]. …For the bread which came down from heaven, said: The bread which I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world. For properly, by the species of wine His blood also is expressed, because when He says in the Gospel: I am the true vine: He sufficiently declared that all wine which is offered in a figure of His passion, is His blood.

(S. Gaudentii Brixiæ Episcopi, Sermo II. De Exodi Lectione Secundus; PL, 20:855; trans. JHT-TCF, 218, 181.) [12.]

Jerome of Stridon (c. 347-420 A.D.):

We read the Holy Scriptures. I believe that the Gospel is the body of Christ. I believe the Holy Scriptures to be his doctrine, and when he says, He who does not eat my flesh and drink my blood, although this may be understood of the mystery, yet the word of the Scriptures and the divine doctrine is more truly the body of Christ and his blood [tamen verius corpus Christi, et sanguis ejus, sermo Scripturarum est, doctrina divina est]. If at any time we go to the mystery, whoever is faithful understands that if he falls into sin he is in danger; so if at any time we hear the word of God, and the word of God, and the flesh of Christ, and his blood poured into our ears, and we are thinking of something else, how great is the danger we incur.

(S. Hieronymi, Breviarium in Psalmos, Psalmus CXLVII; PL, 26:1258-1259; trans. George Finch, A Sketch of the Romish Controversy, [London: G. Norman, 1831], p. 170. Cf. FC, 48:410.) [13.]

Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia (c. 350-428 A.D.):

…the Jews argued again with each other, saying, [6:52] How can this man give us his flesh to eat? when nature itself does not allow this. And they opposed what he was saying as something difficult and sinful as though he were asking them to really eat human flesh.

(Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on the Gospel of John, on John 6:52; trans. Ancient Christian Texts: Commentary on the Gospel of John: Theodore of Mopsuestia, trans. Marco Conti, ed. Joel C. Elowsky, [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2010], on John 6:52, p. 69.) [14.]

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

It seemed unto them hard that He said, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, ye have no life in you:” they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; …But He instructed them, and saith unto them, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.

(Augustine, On the Psalms, Psalm 99.8 [98.9 in Migne, PL, 37:1264-1265]; trans. NPNF1, 8:485-486. Cf. WSA, III/18:475.) See also: ccel.org. [15.]

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

But the apostle says, and says what is true, “To be carnally-minded is death.” The Lord gives us His flesh to eat, and yet to understand it according to the flesh is death; while yet He says of His flesh, that therein is eternal life. Therefore we ought not to understand the flesh carnally. …What means “are spirit and life”? They are to be understood spiritually. Hast thou understood spiritually? “They are spirit and life.” Hast thou understood carnally? So also “are they spirit and life,” but are not so to thee.

(Augustine, Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel of John, 27.1, 6; trans. NPNF1, 7:174, 176.) See also: ccel.org. [16.]

Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria (c. 378-444 A.D.):

From an exceedingly great ignorance, some of those taught by Christ the Savior were offended by this statement of his. When they heard him saying, “Truely, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you,” they understood themselves to be invited to some savage cruelty, as though they were being told inhumanly to eat flesh and gulp blood and were being compelled to commit acts that are horrible even to hear.

(Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, 4.3 [on John 6:62]; PG, 73:600; trans. Ancient Christian Texts: Commentary on John: Cyril of Alexandria: Volume 1, trans. David Maxwell, ed. Joel C. Elowsky, [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2013], 4.3, on John 6:61-62, p. 245.) [17.]

Nestorius, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 386-451 A.D.):

Yea, I will speak those words of offence: The Lord Christ was speaking with them of His Own Flesh, ‘Except ye eat,’ He saith, ‘the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His Blood, ye have no life in you;’ they who heard could not bear the loftiness of the saying, they thought, in their folly, that He was bringing in cannibalism [ἀνθρωποφαγίαν, lit. man-eating].

(S. Cyrilli, Alexandrie Archiepiscopi, Adversus Nestorii Blasphemias, Lib. IV, Cap. IV; PG, 76:189; trans. Edward Bouverie Pusey, The Doctrine of the Real Presence, [Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1855], pp. 654-655.) [18.]

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus (c. 393-458/66 A.D.):

For He, we know, who spoke of his natural body as corn and bread, and, again, called Himself a vine, dignified the visible symbols [σύμβολα] by the appellation of the body and blood, not because He had changed their nature [φύσιν], but because to their nature He had added grace. …of what do you understand the Holy Food to be a symbol and type? Of the godhead of the Lord Christ, or of His body and His blood? …You have spoken as a lover of truth should speak, for when the Lord had taken the symbol, He did not say “this is my godhead,” but “this is my body;” and again “this is my blood” and in another place “the bread that I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world.”

(Theodoret of Cyrus, Dialogue I.—The Immutable. Orthodoxos and Eranistes; PG, 83:56; trans. NPNF2, 3:168.) See also: ccel.org. [19.]

2. The Medieval Continuation of the Patristic Understanding of John 6. Return to Outline.

Anastasius, Abbot of Sinai [Anastasius Sinaita] (c. 7th Century A.D.):

For an incorruptible nature is not cut or wounded in the side and hands or divided or put to death or eaten or at all held or handled…

(S. Anastasii Sinaitæ, Viæ Dux Adversus Acephalos, Cap. XXIII; PG, 89:297; trans. Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist: In Two Volumes: Vol. I, [London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1909], p. 138.)

Bede the Venerable (c. 672/3-735 A.D.):

Moses gave you not the bread from heaven, but my Father gave you the bread from heaven… That manna, therefore, was significant of the imperishable meat, and all those were signs of me. My signs ye loved; what was signified thereby ye despise [Signa mea dilexistis; quod significabatur, contemnitis]. …And the bread which I will give is my flesh: Whosoever will live, let him believe in Christ; let him eat spiritually the spiritual food [manducet spiritualiter spiritualem cibum], and become incorporated with the body of Christ; and let him not be a corrupt member, meriting excision, but let him be fair and sound, fit for his Head.

(Bedæ Venerabilis, In S. Joannis Evangelium Expositio, Caput VI; PL, 92:713, 718; trans. Samuel Hulbeart Turner, Essay on Our Lord’s Discourse at Capernaum: Recorded in the Sixth Chapter of St. John, [New York: Harper & Brothers, 1851], p. 152.)

Cf. Bede the Venerable (c. 672/3-735 A.D.):

But those who were present, many were scandalized not understanding. They thought only of the flesh, which is what they were. The Apostle says, and he says the truth: To be carnally minded is death (Romans 8). The Lord gives us to eat His flesh, and yet to be carnally minded is death, because in His flesh is eternal life. Therefore, we should not be carnally minded according to the flesh, as in these words. . . . they understood it as they wished, and like those men who did not have Jesus as their head, they thought Jesus was arranging to distribute, as if in pieces, the flesh in which the Word was clothed, to those who believed in Him.

(Bedæ Venerabilis, In S. Joannis Evangelium Expositio, Caput VI; PL, 92:719-720.) [20.]

Alcuin of York [Flaccus Albinus Alcuinus], Abbot of Marmoutier Abbey (c. 735-804 A.D.):

Whoso will live, let him believe in Christ, let him spiritually eat the spiritual food. …Anon He explains more diffusely what is the difference between spirit and flesh, and how to will to eat Christ carnally differs from receiving Him spiritually; for He says, It is the spirit which quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. …And now He says: ‘The flesh profiteth nothing’; that is, if you wish to receive carnally what I say, the flesh profiteth nothing; if you understand My flesh is to be thus eaten as other food, as meat which is bought in the markets. It is the spirit, therefore, that quickeneth; by the spirit the flesh profiteth, which by itself profiteth not, because the letter killeth, but the spirit quickeneth.

(B. F. Albini Seu Alcuini, Commentaria in S. Joannis Evangelium, Lib. III, Cap. XV, Vers. 52, 63; PL, 100:834, 837, 838; trans. JHT-TCF, 204.)

Walafridus Strabo of Fulda (c. 808-849 A.D.):

As if to say: Then ye will understand that I do not give my body in the same manner in which you think, and that this grace is not consumed by the teeth, but by a spiritual grace in giving myself to them, I convert them into My body.

(Walfridi Strabi Fuld., Glossa Ordinaria: Evangelium Secundum Joannem, Cap. VI, Vers. 63; PL, 114:384; trans. JHT-TCF, 204-205.)

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

“But Jesus, knowing in Himself that His disciples murmured at it,”—for they so said these things with themselves that they might not be heard by Him: but He who knew them in themselves, hearing within Himself,—answered and said, “This offends you;” because I said, I give you my flesh to eat, and my blood to drink, this forsooth offends you. “Then what if ye shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before?” What is this? Did He hereby solve the question that perplexed them? Did He hereby uncover the source of their offense? He did clearly, if only they understood. For they supposed that He was going to deal out His body to them; but He said that He was to ascend into heaven, of course, whole: “When ye shall see the Son of man ascending where He was before;” certainly then, at least, you will see that not in the manner you suppose does He dispense His body; certainly then, at least, you will understand that His grace is not consumed by tooth-biting.

(Augustine of Hippo, Tractates on John, 27.3; trans. NPNF1, 7:174.) See also: ccel.org.

Amalar of Triers (c. 775-850 A.D.):

It is called the mystery of faith because those who believe they have been redeemed by His blood and become imitators of His Passion, benefit from it for their salvation and eternal life. Hence, the Lord says: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you” (John 6:54). This means, unless you are partakers of My Passion and believe that I died for your salvation, you will not have life in you. The term ‘mystery’ in Greek, which translates to ‘secret’ in Latin, refers to the fact that this faith is hidden in the hearts of the elect; thus, it is called the secret of faith.

(Symphosii Amalarii (Metensis Presbyteri et Chorepiscopi), Epistolæ, Epistola IV: Amalarii ad Rantgarium Episcopum; PL, 105:1334.) [20.5]

Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mainz (c. 780-856 A.D.):

With respect to your interrogation, Whether the Eucharist, after it has been consumed and in the manner of other food has passed into the draught, returns again into his pristine nature which it had before its consecration upon the altar: a question of this description is superfluous, since in the Gospel the Saviour himself hath said; Every thing, that enters into the mouth, goes into the belly, and passes away into the draught. The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord is composed of things visible and corporeal: but it produces an invisible sanctification both of the body and of the soul. Why need we, then, on the part of that which is digested in the stomach and which has passed away into the draught, talk of a return to its pristine state when no person ever asserted the occurrence of any such return? Lately, indeed, some individuals, not thinking rightly concerning the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord, have said that That very body and blood of the Lord, which was born from the Virgin Mary, in which the Lord himself suffered on the cross, and in which he rose again from the sepulchre, is the same as that which is received from the altar. In opposition to which error as far as lay in our power, writing to the Abbot Egilus, we propounded what ought truly to be believed concerning the body itself. For, respecting his body and blood, the Lord says in the Gospel: I, who descended from heaven, am the living bread. If any person shall eat of this bread, he shall live for ever. For my flesh is truly meat, and my blood is truly drink. He, who eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life. The person, therefore, who eats not that bread and who drinks not that blood, has not the life here intended for mere temporal life, indeed, without any such manducation, may in this world be enjoyed by men, who are not in his body through faith: but eternal life, which is promised to the saints, can never be enjoyed by such individuals. Lest, however, they should fancy, that, in that meat and drink which they receive carnally and understand not spiritually, life eternal is promised in faith; so that they, who receive it, should die neither in soul nor in body he condescended to meet and to anticipate any such cogitation. For, when he had said; He, who eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life: he immediately subjoined; I will raise him up at the last day; that, meanwhile, he may have eternal life according to the spirit.

(B. Rabani Mauri Archiep. Mogunt., Incipit Pœnitentiale, Caput XXXIII; PL, 110:492-493; trans. George Stanley Faber, Christ’s Discourse at Capernaum: Fatal to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, [London: R. B. Seeley and W. Burnside, 1840], pp. 160-165.) [21.]

Ratramnus [Bertram] of Corbie (c. ?-868 A.D.):

29. Here also we must consider the proper interpretation of his words: “Unless you shall eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.” For he does not say that his flesh which hung on the cross would have to be cut to bits and eaten by his disciples, or that his blood which was to be shed for the redemption of the world would have to be given to his disciples to drink. This would have been a crime if, in accordance with what men outside the faith then understood, his blood were to be drunk or his flesh to be eaten by his disciples.

30. For this reason a little later in the same passage he says to his disciples who were receiving Christ’s words, not as unbelievers but as believers, though hitherto it did not enter into their thoughts how those words would have to be understood: “Do you take offense at this? What if you should see the Son of Man ascending where he was before?” This is as if he were to say: “Do not think that you must eat in a bodily sense [corporaliter] my flesh or drink my blood, distributed to you in pieces or having to be so distributed, since after the resurrection you will see me ascending into the heavens with the fullness of my entire body and of my blood. Then you will understand that my flesh does not have to be eaten by believers, as men without faith suppose, but the bread and wine, by the mystery [per mysterium, i.e. sacramentally] truly changed into the substance of my body and blood, must be taken by believers.”

31. And he goes on to say: “It is the Spirit which gives life; the flesh is of no avail.” He says that the flesh is of no avail in the sense in which those without faith understood. In some other way it bestows life as it is taken through the mystery by those with faith. And this, as he makes it clear by saying: “It is the Spirit which gives life.” So in this mystery the effect of the body and blood is spiritual. It gives life, and without its effect the mysteries are of no avail, since they, indeed, feed the body but cannot feed the soul.

(Ratramni Corbeiensis Monachi, De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, §§. XXIX-XXXI; PL, 121:140; trans. LCC, 9:126-127.) [22.]

Cf. Ratramnus [Bertram] of Corbie (c. ?-868 A.D.):

34. We see that that doctor says that the mysteries of Christ’s body and blood are celebrated in a figurative [figura] sense by the faithful. For he says that to take his flesh and his blood in a fleshly sense involves, not religion, but crime. This was the view held by those who, understanding the Lord’s statement in the Gospel not in a spiritual but in a fleshly sense, departed from him, and were already not going with him.

(Ratramni Corbeiensis Monachi, De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, §. XXXIV; PL, 121:141; trans. LCC, 9:127.) [23.]

Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims (c. 806-882 A.D.):

A spiritual understanding makes the believer another person, for ‘the letter killeth, it is the spirit that vivifieth.’ For His disciples who followed Him were afraid and terrified, not understanding His discourse, and thinking that our Lord Jesus Christ said I know not what hard thing, that they were to eat His flesh Whom they saw, and were to drink His blood, and they could not endure it. But when He commended His very body and His blood, He took into His hands what the faithful know, and He bore Himself in a certain sense [quodammodo] when He said: This is My body.

(Hincmari Rhem. Archiep., De Cavendis Vitiis et Virtutibus Exercendis, Cap. X; PL, 125:920, 921; trans. JHT-TCF, 205.)

Fulbert, Bishop of Chartres (c. 952/70-1028 A.D.):

Unless ye shall eat, He said, the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye shall have no life in you. He seems to enjoin a crime or wicked act. It is a figure, therefore (a heretic will say*), commanding us to partake of the Lord’s Passion only…

(S. Fulberti Carnotensis Episcopi, Sermones ad Populum, Sermo VIII (Fragmentum); PL, 141:334; trans. JHT-TCF, 245-246.)

Cf. Jacques Paul Migne:

*NOTE. — The interpretation is mystical, and observe that these two words, ‘a heretic will say,’ are not found in the MS. of Dionysius Petavius.

(PL, 141:334, n. 54; trans. JHT-TCF, 246.)

Cf. John Harvey Treat:

Carolus de Villiers, a Parisian Theologian, published an edition of the works of Fulbert at Paris in 1608. Immediately after the words “Figura ergo est” he inserted in the text “dicet haereticus,” to destroy the force of the passage. Some one informed him that the whole passage was cited from St. Augustine, De doct. Christ., L. 3, c. 16, n. 24, col. 75, and that by the insertion of these words he had made that eminent Saint a heretic. In his next edition, accordingly, he placed these words among the errata and confessed that they were not to be found in the MSS. Such pious frauds and corruptions of texts are of common occurrence in the Church of Rome, as the easiest way to destroy the force of a passage.

(JHT-TCF, 245.) [24.]

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.” This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure [figura], enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.

(Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3.16.24; PL, 34:74-75; trans. NPNF1, 2:563.) See also: ccel.org. [25.]

Ælfric of Eynsham (c. 955-1010 A.D.):

I am the living bread, which came down from heaven. Not so as your fathers ate the heavenly meat in the wilderness, and afterwards died; he who eateth this bread shall live to eternity. …He is called bread typically, and lamb, and lion, and whatever else. He is called bread, because he is the life of us and of angels… Great is the difference between the body in which Christ suffered, and the body which is hallowed for housel. The body verily in which Christ suffered was born of Mary’s flesh, with blood and with bones, with skin and with sinews, with human limbs, quickened by a rational soul; and his ghostly body, which we call housel, is gathered of many corns, without blood and bone, limbless and soulless, and there is, therefore, nothing therein to be understood bodily, but all is to be understood spiritually. Whatsoever there is in the housel which gives us the substance of life, that is from its ghostly power and invisible efficacy…

(Ælfric of Eynsham, Sermo de Sacrificio in Die Pascae (A Sermon on the Sacrifice on Easter-Day); trans. The Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church: The First Part, Containing the Sermones Catholici, or Homilies of Ælfric: In the Original Anglo-Saxon, With an English Version: Vol. II, trans. Benjamin Thorpe, [London: Printed for the Ælfric Society, 1846], pp. 267, 269, 271. Cf. JHT-TCF, 252-253.) [26.]

Theophylact, Archbishop of Ohrid (c. 1050-1107 A.D.):

Behold the foolishness of these people. For it had been their duty to ask and to learn those things which they knew not. But they ran back, and expounded nothing spiritually, but all things as they appeared. For when they heard of flesh, they imagined that he would compel them to become devourers of flesh and blood. But forasmuch as we understand of it spiritually, we are no devourers of flesh, and moreover we are sanctified by such meat.

(Theophylacti Bulgariæ Archiep., Enarratio In Evangelium Joannis, Cap. VI, Vers. 60-63, PG, 123:1313; trans. Thomas Becon, The Catechism of Thomas Becon, S.T.P., Chaplain to Archbishop Cranmer, Prebendary of Canterbury, &c., ed. John Ayre, [Cambridge: Printed at the University Press, 1844], p. 289.)

Cf. Theophylact, Archbishop of Ohrid (c. 1050-1107 A.D.):

Forasmuch as we have oftentimes said, they expounding carnally those things which Christ spake were offended, he saith: When the things which I speak are spiritually understanded, then do they profit. For the flesh, that is to say, carnally and fleshly to expound those things, profit nothing, but is made an occasion of offence, &c. The words therefore that I speak are spirit; that is to say, they are spiritual, and life, having in them no carnal and fleshly thing, and bringing everlasting life.

(Theophylacti Bulgariæ Archiep., Enarratio In Evangelium Joannis, Cap. VI, Vers. 64, 65; PG, 123:1313, 1316; trans. Thomas Becon, The Catechism of Thomas Becon, S.T.P., Chaplain to Archbishop Cranmer, Prebendary of Canterbury, &c., ed. John Ayre, [Cambridge: Printed at the University Press, 1844], p. 289.)

Hugh of Saint Victor (c. 1096-1141):

…a three-fold reception of the body and blood of the Lord. The first is both sacramental and spiritual, of which the Lord says, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I in him. And again: He that eateth me shall live on account of me. The second, which is only spiritual, as the Lord himself says again, The flesh profiteth nothing, it is the spirit that quickeneth. As if he had said, If ye understand a carnal reception only without grace, it is of no use, but rather injurious: but the spiritual without the carnal quickeneth thee [spiritualis vero absque carnali te vivificat]. Of the third, which is only sacramental, the apostle speaks when he says, He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body; that is to say, not distinguishing it from other food.

([Hugh of Saint Victor], Instructio Sacerdotis Seu Tractatus de Præcipuis Mysterijs Nostre Religionis, Caput XII, §. 31; PL, 184:789-790; trans. Samuel Hulbeart Turner, Essay on Our Lord’s Discourse at Capernaum: Recorded in the Sixth Chapter of St. John, [New York: Harper & Brothers, 1851], pp. 153-154.) [27.]

Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux (c. 1090-1153 A.D.):

In that day we shall not escape the dreadful sentence of condemnation, ‘Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire’ (Matt. 25.41). O dreadful sentence indeed, O hard saying! How much harder to bear than that other saying which we repeat daily in church, in memory of the Passion: ‘Whoso eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood hath eternal life’ (John 6.44). That signifies, whoso honours My death and after My example mortifies his members which are upon the earth (Col. 3.5) shall have eternal life; even as the apostle says, ‘If we suffer, we shall also reign with Him’ (II Tim. 2.12). And yet many even today recoil from these words and go away, saying by their action if not with their lips, ‘This is a hard saying; who can hear it?’ (John 6.60).

(Bernard of Clairvaux, On Loving God, 4; trans. St. Bernard of Clairvaux, On Loving God: And Selections from Sermons, ed. Hugh Martin, [London: SCM Press Ltd., 1959], p. 28.) [28.]

Arnold, Abbot of Bonneval (c. 12th Century A.D.):

…when the Lord said, Except ye shall eat the flesh of the Son of man and shall drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you, the auditors were astonished. Because some believed not this, nor were able to understand it, they went back: for they thought it a horrible and nefarious thing to eat human flesh; fancying, that they were taught to eat his flesh boiled or roasted or cut asunder, when yet his personal flesh, if divided into portions, would not be sufficient for the whole human race: so that, if that were once consumed, religion itself might seem to have perished, inasmuch as no victim would ulteriorly have remained to it. But, in thoughts of this description, flesh and blood profit nothing: for, as the Master himself taught us, the words are spirit and life…

(Ernaldi Bonævallis Abbatis, Liber De Cardinalibus Operibus Christi, VI, PL, 189:1643; trans. George Stanley Faber, Christ’s Discourse at Capernaum: Fatal to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, [London: R. B. Seeley and W. Burnside, 1840], p. 115.) [29.]

Cf. Arnold, Abbot of Bonneval (c. 12th Century A.D.):

The Master, who handed down this doctrine, had said; that, unless we eat his flesh and drink his blood, we have not life in us: thus instructing us by spiritual teaching, and thus opening our intellect to a matter so hidden, that we might know, that the Eating is Our abiding in him, and that the Drinking is a Certain incorporation with him, by a subjection of obedience, by a junction of will, by an union of affection. Therefore the Eating of his flesh is a Certain avidity and a certain eager desire of abiding in him: by which we so impress upon ourselves the sweetness of charity, that the infused savour of love adheres to our palate and bowels, penetrating and imbuing all the recesses both of soul and of body. Eating and drinking appertain to the same purpose: for, as by them the bodily substance is nourished and lives and perseveres in a condition of soundness; so the life of the spirit is nourished by this its proper aliment: and, what food is to the flesh, that very same thing faith is to the soul; and, what meat is to the body, that very same thing the word is to the spirit: for, by a more excellent virtue, it effects eternally, what carnal aliments effect temporally and impermanently.

(Ernaldi Bonævallis Abbatis, Liber De Cardinalibus Operibus Christi, VI, PL, 189:1645; trans. George Stanley Faber, Christ’s Discourse at Capernaum: Fatal to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, [London: R. B. Seeley and W. Burnside, 1840], pp. 120-121.)

Unknown Author of Liber de Modo Bene Vivendi (c. 12th Century A.D.):

Therefore, whoever wishes to receive the body of Christ should first strive to remain in the faith and love of Christ. Hence, the Lord says in the Gospel: “Whoever eats my flesh, remains in me and I in him” (John 6:57). As if to say: “He remains in me who fulfills my will in good works.” Otherwise, unless he first remains in me through faith and performs the work, and I in him, he cannot eat my flesh or drink my blood. What, then, do people eat? Behold, all frequently receive the Sacraments of the altar plainly; but one eats the flesh of Christ spiritually and drinks the blood, while another does not, but only the Sacrament, that is, the body of Christ under the Sacrament, and not the reality of the Sacrament. This Sacrament is called the body of Christ, born of the virgin, while the reality is the spiritual flesh of Christ. Therefore, the good person receives both the Sacrament and the reality of the Sacrament; the evil person, however, because he eats unworthily, as the Apostle says, eats and drinks judgment upon himself, not examining himself beforehand nor discerning the body of the Lord.

(Liber de Modo Bene Vivendi, Cap. XXVIII, §. 85; PL, 184:1251-1252.) [30.]

Note: “Liber de Modo Bene Vivendi” is often attributed to Bernard of Clairvaux.

3. Conclusions. Return to Outline.

Compare the Patristic understanding of the sixth chapter of John (see testimony above, §§. 1-2) with the typical (popular) modern Roman Catholic understanding of the same (quoted below). [31.]

Nicholas Cardinal Wiseman (Roman Catholic Theologian and Cardinal):

Thus far, then, we have the strongest testimony we can require, to our Saviour’s having passed, in his discourse, to the literal eating of his flesh. One thing now only remains to decide the question finally: were the Jews right in so understanding him, or were they wrong? If they were right, then so are the Catholics, who likewise take his words literally; if wrong, then Protestants are right, when they understand him figuratively.

(Cardinal Wiseman, The Real Presence of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ in The Blessed Eucharist: Proved From Scripture, [New York: P. O’Shea, 1836], p. 110.) [32.]

George Leo Haydock (Roman Catholic Theologian):

We may also observe with divers interpreters, that if Christians are not to believe that Jesus Christ is one and the same God with the eternal Father, and that he is truly and really present in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, it will be hard to deny but that Christ himself led men into these errors, which is blasphemy. For it is evident, and past all dispute, that the Jews murmured, complained, and understood that Christ several times made himself God, and equal to the Father of all. 2ndly, When, in this chapter, he told them he would give them his flesh to eat, &c. they were shocked to the highest degree: they cried out, this could not be, that these words and this speech was hard and harsh, and on this very account many that had been his disciples till that time, withdrew themselves from him, and left him and his doctrine. Was it not then at least high time to set his complaining hearers right, to prevent the blasphemous and idolatrous opinions of the following ages, nay even of all Christian Churches, by telling his disciples at least, that he was only a nominal God, in a metaphorical and improper sense; that he spoke only of his body being present in a figurative and metaphorical sense in the holy Eucharist? If we are deceived, who was it that deceived us but Christ himself, who so often repeated the same points of our belief?

(The Holy Bible, Translated from the Latin Vulgate: With the Hebrew, Greek, and Other Editions in Divers Languages: With Useful Notes, Critical, Historical, Controversial, and Explanatory, ed. Geo. Leo Haydock, [New York: Edward Dunigan and Brother, 1852], on John 6:52, pp. 1405-1406. Cf. Annotations on the New Testament of Jesus Christ: The First Volume, [1733], on John 6:52, p. 342.) See also: studylight.org and archive.org.

Cf. Robert Sungenis (Roman Catholic Apologist):

Probably the most notable Catholic biblical evidence leading to the doctrine of Transubstantiation is the entire chapter of John 6. …John 6 is in a strange way the most sacramental of all the Eucharistic accounts. Not surprisingly, therefore, the passage has become one of the most controversial between Catholics and Protestants. …Beginning in vr. 48, Jesus now sets the stage for the second section of His discourse — the non-symbolic section. Despite the Jews’ objections, He reiterates: “I am the bread of life,” the same words he had uttered in vr. 35. In vr. 51, however, He begins, for the first time in the discourse, to speak about actually eating this bread. Jesus thus begins the transition from mere spiritual belief to actually partaking of Him physically. In the next verse he adds that He is “living” bread and that this bread is His “flesh.” As noted above, Jesus has not used the words, “eat” and “flesh” in His opening dialogue (vrs. 25-47). The Jews catch Jesus’ shift in expression and immediately object to His demand that they not only believe in Him, but actually eat His flesh.

(Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Catholic Mass: Second Edition, [Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2009], pp. 141, 141-142, 145-146.)

Cf. Scott Hahn, Curtis Mitch (Roman Catholic Theologians):

The second half of the discourse likewise opens with the statement “I am the bread of life” (6:48). This is followed by a string of invitations to eat the flesh of Jesus and drink his blood. Here the literal import of Jesus’ teaching is so obvious that it, too, stands out in the response of the Jews, who ask how it is possible to consume his flesh (6:52). . . . eat the flesh . . . drink his blood: Jesus is speaking literally and sacramentally.

(Scott Hahn, Curtis Mitch, The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: The Gospel of John, [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2003], p. 30.)

Cf. Brant Pitre (Roman Catholic Theologian):

First and foremost, we must emphasize the negative reaction of many of Jesus’ disciples to his Eucharistic words. It is very hard to overestimate the importance of their response. Like the other Jews in the synagogue, Jesus’ disciples took him literally. They “took offense” at his words, decided to leave his company, and he let them go. …Moreover, notice exactly what the disciples’ dilemma was, and what it wasn’t. The difficulty was not that they misunderstood Jesus by taking him too literally. This had happened before, and when it did, Jesus would clarify or explain himself. …Contrast this response with Jesus’ Eucharistic discourse. After the disciples objected to the bread of life sermon, Jesus did not say to them, “Do you not perceive or understand?” (Mark 8:17). What he said was, “Do you take offense at this?” (John 6:61). In other words, with regard to Jesus’ Eucharistic teaching, his disciples’ primary problem was not that they didn’t understand him. Their problem was that they didn’t believe him. Because of this, something shocking happens. In the wake of his bread of life sermon, many of Jesus’ followers abandoned him, and he let them go. As the Gospel tells us, “After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer walked with him,” meaning that they stopped being his followers (John 6:66). This is extraordinary; it’s the only time in all four Gospels that Jesus was ever abandoned by his own followers because of something he taught. And why did they leave? Because they took his Eucharistic teaching literally. But did he back down? No.

(Brant Pitre, Jesus And The Jewish Roots of The Eucharist: Unlocking The Secrets of The Last Supper, [New York: Doubleday, 2011], pp. 105, 106, 106-107.)

3.1. Excursus: All Historical-Confessional Protestant Denominations Believe that Christ is Really Present in the Lord’s Supper. Return to Outline.

Gavin Ortlund:

Most of the Reformers affirmed the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and opposed transubstantiation on the grounds that it represented a departure not only from Scripture but also from patristic testimony. For example, early Protestants like Peter Martyr Vermigli and Thomas Cranmer argued that for church fathers like Augustine and Theodoret, the bread and wine remained bread and wine in substance while also becoming Christ’s body and blood. The whole appeal of their Eucharistic theology was a return to catholicity, against the changes introduced by the substance-accidents distinction in the medieval development. It is true that many modern-day evangelicals have adopted more of a symbolic view, but that is by no means representative of Protestantism wholesale.

Third and most egregiously, the idea that the Reformers were intending to replace the Eucharist with a pulpit is quite nearly the opposite of the case. The Protestant effort was to reclaim the Eucharist, not replace it. Lay Christians in the late medieval West hardly ever partook of the Eucharist. For most it would have been only once a year, if that, and even then, it was generally in one kind only (the bread, not the wine). For many the Eucharist had become more of a spectacle, and its celebration was plagued by superstitious beliefs. One of the central, animating concerns of the Protestant Reformation was to reestablish for lay Christians a meaningful and frequent participation with the Eucharist in both kinds.

(Gavin Ortlund, What It Means to Be Protestant: The Case for an Always-Reforming Church, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Reflective, 2024], pp. xvi-xvii.) Preview.

Note: See further: Thomas Cranmer, A Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ; Peter Martyr Vermigli, The Oxford Treatise and Disputation On the Eucharist; John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.17.

E.g. The Westminster Confession of Faith:

VII. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are, to their outward senses.

(The Westminster Confession of Faith, A.D. 1647. Ch. XXIX, §. VII; In: Philip Schaff, Bibliotheca Symbolica Ecclesiæ Universalis: The Creeds of Christendom: With a History and Critical Notes: Fourth Edition—Revised and Enlarged: Volume III, [New York: Harper & Brothers, 1905], p. 666.) See also: ccel.org.

Note: See further: The Question of the “Real Presence.”

Note: See further: The “Real” Presence: Four Interpretations of the Lord’s Supper. See especially: “Confessional Examples.”

3.2. Objection: Transubstantiation, a Eucharistic Miracle? Return to Outline.

Tertullian of Carthage (c. 155-220 A.D.):

Well, but “with God nothing is impossible.” True enough; who can be ignorant of it? Who also can be unaware that “the things which are impossible with men are possible with God?” “The foolish things also of the world hath God chosen to confound the things which are wise.” We have read it all. Therefore, they argue, it was not difficult for God to make Himself both a Father and a Son, contrary to the condition of things among men. For a barren woman to have a child against nature was no difficulty with God; nor was it for a virgin to conceive. Of course nothing is “too hard for the Lord.” But if we choose to apply this principle so extravagantly and harshly in our capricious imaginations, we may then make out God to have done anything we please, on the ground that it was not impossible for Him to do it. We must not, however, because He is able to do all things suppose that He has actually done what He has not done. But we must inquire whether He has really done it. God could, if He had liked, have furnished man with wings to fly with, just as He gave wings to kites. We must not, however, run to the conclusion that He did this because He was able to do it.

(Tertullian of Carthage, Against Praxeas, 10; trans. ANF, 3:604-605.) See also: ccel.org. [33.]

4. Appendix: The Letter Kills, But the Spirit Gives Life—Historical Testimony. Return to Outline.

Origen of Alexandria (c. 184-253 A.D.):

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

…we must beware of taking a figurative expression literally. For the saying of the apostle applies in this case too: “The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” For when what is said figuratively is taken as if it were said literally, it is understood in a carnal manner. And nothing is more fittingly called the death of the soul than when that in it which raises it above the brutes, the intelligence namely, is put in subjection to the flesh by a blind adherence to the letter. For he who follows the letter takes figurative words as if they were proper, and does not carry out what is indicated by a proper word into its secondary signification; but, if he hears of the Sabbath, for example, thinks of nothing but the one day out of seven which recurs in constant succession; and when he hears of a sacrifice, does not carry his thoughts beyond the customary offerings of victims from the flock, and of the fruits of the earth. Now it is surely a miserable slavery of the soul to take signs for things, and to be unable to lift the eye of the mind above what is corporeal and created, that it may drink in eternal light.

(Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3.5.9; PL, 34:68-69; trans. NPNF1, 2:559.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

(Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3.16.24; PL, 34:74-75; trans. NPNF1, 2:563.) See also: ccel.org.

Bede the Venerable (c. 672/3-735 A.D.):

The Spirit is the one who gives life; the flesh is of no use. A little earlier, He said: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you; and now He says: The flesh is of no use, that is, if you wish to understand what I am saying in a carnal way, the flesh is of no use. If you understand it carnally, as if it were to be eaten like other food, like meats bought in the marketplace, the Spirit is the one who gives life. The flesh is beneficial through the Spirit, which it does not have by itself; because the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life (2 Corinthians 3). For the flesh, which was an instrument used by the Spirit for our salvation, acted as a vessel through which the Spirit saved us, using the organ of the flesh for the salvation of humankind, just as the devil used the serpent, as an instrument, to bring about the downfall of our first parents (Gen. 3). The Spirit is the one who gives life, but the flesh is of no use. Just as they understood the flesh in a carnal way, I do not give my flesh to be eaten in that manner.

(Bedæ Venerabilis, In S. Joannis Evangelium Expositio, Caput VI; PL, 92:721.) [34.]

Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims (c. 806-882 A.D.):

(Hincmari Rhem. Archiep., De Cavendis Vitiis et Virtutibus Exercendis, Cap. X; PL, 125:920, 921; trans. JHT-TCF, 205.)

5. The Patristic Understanding of the “Real Presence” was Spiritual not Carnal/Corporeal. Return to Outline.

Note: In addition to the following quotations see all of the quotations in §§. 1-2 (above) and the corresponding endnotes.

Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (c. 35-108/40 A.D.):

I take no pleasure in corruptible food or the pleasures of this life. I want the bread of God, which is the flesh of Christ who is of the seed of David; and for drink I want his blood, which is [ἐστιν] incorruptible love.

(Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans, 7.3; PG, 5:693; trans. Michael W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations of Their Writings, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007], p. 233. Cf. ANF, 1:77.) [35.]

Cf. Luke 22:19:

Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is [ἐστιν] my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.”

(New American Bible.)

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 A.D.):

And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh.

Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality.

And the mixture of both—of the water and of the Word—is called Eucharist [εὐχαριστία, thanksgiving], renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul.

(Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor (Pædagogi), 2.2; PG, 8:409, 412; trans. ANF, 2:242.) See also: ccel.org. [36.]

Irenæus, Bishop of Lyon [Lugdunum] (c. 130-202 A.D.):

And therefore the oblation [προσφορὰ, offering] of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure [Διότι καὶ ἡ προσφορὰ τῆς εὐχαριστίας οὐκ ἔστι σαρκικὴ, ἀλλὰ πνευματικὴ καὶ ἐν τούτῳ καθαρά]. …in order that the receivers of these antitypes [ἀντιτύπων] may obtain remission of sins and life eternal. Those persons, then, who perform these oblations [προσφορὰς, offerings] in remembrance of the Lord, do not fall in with Jewish views, but, performing the service after a spiritual manner, they shall be called sons of wisdom.

(Irenæus of Lyon, Fragments, 37 [38 in PG, 7:1253]; trans. ANF, 1:574-575.) See also: ccel.org.

Origen of Alexandria (c. 184-253 A.D.):

So also the bread is the word of Christ made of that corn of wheat which falling into the ground yields much fruit. For not that visible bread which He held in His hands did God the Word call His body, but the word in the mystery of which that bread was to be broken. Nor did He call that visible drink His blood, but the word in the mystery of which that drink was to be poured out. For what else can the body of God the Word, or His blood, be but the word which nourishes and the word which gladdens the heart? Why then did He not say, This is the bread of the new covenant, as He said, ‘This is the blood of the new covenant’? Because the bread is the word of righteousness, by eating which souls are nourished, while the drink is the word of the knowledge of Christ according to the mystery of His birth and passion.

(Origenis, In Matthæum Commentariorum Series, §. 85; PG, 13:1734-1735; trans. Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist: In Two Volumes: Vol. I, [London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1909], pp. 27-28.) [37.]

Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem (c. 313-386 A.D.):

In the Old Testament also there was shew-bread; but this, as it belonged to the Old Testament, has come to an end; but in the New Testament there is Bread of heaven, and a Cup of salvation, sanctifying soul and body; for as the Bread corresponds to our body, so is the Word [ὁ Λόγος] appropriate to our soul. …Also the blessed David shall advise thee the meaning of this, saying, Thou hast prepared a table before me in the presence of them that afflict me. What he says, is to this effect: Before Thy coming, the evil spirits prepared a table for men, polluted and defiled and full of devilish influence; but since Thy coming. O Lord, Thou hast prepared a table before me. When the man says to God, Thou hast prepared before me a table, what other does he indicate but that mystical and spiritual Table, which God hath prepared for us over against, that is, contrary and in opposition to the evil spirits? And very truly; for that had communion with devils, but this, with God. …Therefore Solomon also, hinting at this grace, says in Ecclesiastes, Come hither, eat thy bread with joy (that is, the spiritual bread; Come hither, he calls with the call to salvation and blessing), and drink thy wine with a merry heart (that is, the spiritual wine) . . . “strengthen thou thine heart,” by partaking thereof as spiritual, and “make the face of thy soul to shine.”

(Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 22.4-5, 7, 8, 9; PG, 33:1100, 1101, 1104; trans. NPNF2, 7:151-152.) See also: ccel.org.

Gregory Nazianzen, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 329-390 A.D.):

Now we will partake of a Passover which is still typical; though it is plainer than the old one. For that is ever new which is now becoming known. It is ours to learn what is that drinking and that enjoyment, and His to teach and communicate the Word to His disciples. For teaching is food, even to the Giver of food. Come hither then, and let us partake of the Law, but in a Gospel manner, not a literal one…

(Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 45.23; PG, 36:653, 656; trans. NPNF2, 7:431.) See also: ccel.org.

Macarius of Egypt (c. 300-391 A.D.):

…and that in the church bread and wine should be offered, the symbol [ἀντίτυπον] of His flesh and blood, and that those who partake of the visible bread eat spiritually [πνευματικῶς] the flesh of the Lord, and that the apostles’ and Christians receive the Paraclete, and are endued with power from on high, and are filled with the Godhead, and their souls mingled with the Holy Ghost.

(S. Marcarii Ægyptii, Homiliæ Spirituales, Hom. XXVII, §. XVII; PG, 34:705; trans. Fifty Spiritual Homilies of St. Macarius the Egyptian, trans. Arthur James Mason, [London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1921], 27.17, p. 209.)

Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):

Whence also the Church seeing so great grace, bids her sons, bids her neighbours come together to the sacraments, saying, Eat, O my neighbours; and drink and be inebriated, my brethren. What we are to eat, what we are to drink, the Holy Spirit hath made clear to thee elsewhere by the Prophet, saying, Taste and see that the Lord is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him. Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ; therefore it is not bodily food, but spiritual [non ergo corporalis esca, sed spiritalis est]. Whence also the Apostle says of the type of it that our fathers ate spiritual meat, and drank spiritual drink. For the body of God is a spiritual body; the body of Christ is the body of a divine Spirit, because Christ is Spirit as we read, The spirit before our face is Christ the Lord.

(S. Ambrosii, De Mysteriis, Cap. IX, §. 58; PL, 16:408-409; trans. St. Ambrose, On the Mysteries and the Treatise on the Sacraments, trans. T. Thompson, ed. J. H. Strawley, [London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1919], On the Mysteries, 9.58, p. 72. Cf. FC, 44:27.) [38.]

Cf. Ratramnus [Bertram] of Corbie (c. ?-868 A.D.):

58. Likewise, in the following passage: “What we are to eat, what we are to drink, the Holy Spirit has elsewhere expressed to you by the prophets when he says: ‘Taste and see that the Lord is good. Blessed is the man who hopes in him.’” That bread, corporeally tasted, or that wine when drunk, did not show how good the Lord is, did it? For whatever affects the taste is corporeal and gives pleasure to the tongue. To taste the Lord is that to have a sense experience of something corporeal? Therefore he invites us to try the savor of a spiritual taste, and in that drink and bread nothing is thought of corporeally but all is felt spiritually, since God is a Spirit, and “blessed is the man who hopes in him.”

59. Likewise he goes on to say: “Christ is in that sacrament because it is the body of Christ. It is therefore not corporeal food but spiritual.” What is more obvious, more clear, more divine? For he says, “Christ is in that sacrament.” He does not say, “Christ is that bread, that wine.” Were he to say this, he would be preaching that Christ is corruptible (which God forbid!) and subject to mortality, for whatever in that food is seen or tasted in a corporeal sense is liable, surely, to be corruptible.

60. He adds, “Because it is the body of Christ.” You get up and say: “Look here, he clearly confesses that that bread and that drink is Christ’s body. But see how he adds, ‘It is therefore not corporeal food but spiritual.’ Do not use the sense of the flesh, for here there is no suggestion of that. It is, indeed, Christ’s body, though not corporeal but spiritual. It is Christ’s blood, though not corporeal but spiritual. Nothing, therefore, is here to be taken in the corporeal but in the spiritual sense. It is the body of Christ but not corporeally; and it is the blood Christ but not corporeally.”

61. Likewise he continues: “The apostle for this reason says of His symbol, ‘Our fathers ate a spiritual food and drank a spiritual drink.’ For the body of God is spiritual. The body of Christ is the body of the divine Spirit because Christ is spirit as we read: ‘The Lord Christ is spirit before our face.’”

62. Most splendidly he has taught us how we ought to understand the mystery of Christ’s blood and body. For having said that our fathers ate spiritual food and drank spiritual drink, and yet no one doubts that that manna which they ate and that water which they drank were corporeal, he adds with reference to the mystery now enacted in the church, defining the sense in which it is Christ’s body: “For the body of God,” he says, “is a spiritual body.” God is surely Christ, and the body which he assumed from Mary, which suffered, which was buried, which rose again, was surely the true body, that is, one which remained visible and could be touched. But the body which is called the mystery of God is not corporeal but spiritual. If it be spiritual, it is now not visible or capable of being touched. Hence blessed Ambrose adds, “The body of Christ is the body of the divine Spirit.” For the divine Spirit exists as nothing which is corporeal, nothing corruptible, nothing capable of being touched. But this body which is celebrated in the church with respect to its visible appearance is both corruptible and capable of being touched.

63. How, therefore, is it called the body of the divine Spirit? With respect to the fact that it is surely spiritual, that is, with respect to the fact that it is invisible and not capable of being touched, and on this account incorruptible.

(Ratramni Corbeiensis Monachi, De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, §§. LVIII-LXIII; PL, 121:151-153; trans. LCC, 9:134-136.) [39.]

Note: Ratramnus is commenting on the above passage by Ambrose.

Jerome, of Stridon (c. 347-420 A.D.):

But the blood of Christ and the flesh of Christ are to be understood in two ways. There is that spiritual and divine flesh and blood of which He said, ‘My flesh is truly food, and my blood is truely drink,’ and ‘Except ye shall have eaten my flesh and drunk my blood, ye shall not have eternal life.’ There is also the flesh which was crucified and the blood which flowed forth from the wound made by the soldier’s lance. According to this distinction a difference of blood and flesh is understood also in the case of His saints, so that there is one flesh which will see the salvation of God, and there is another flesh and blood which cannot possess the kingdom of God.

(S. Eusebii Hieronymi, Commentariorum in Epistolam ad Ephesios, Lib. I, Cap. I, Vers. 7; PL, 26:451; trans. Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist: In Two Volumes: Vol. I, [London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1909], pp. 97-98.)

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

But so far as relates to that death, concerning which the Lord warns us by fear, and in which their fathers died: Moses ate manna, Aaron ate manna, Phinehas ate manna, and many ate manna, who were pleasing to the Lord, and they are not dead. Why? Because they understood the visible food spiritually, hungered spiritually, tasted spiritually, that they might be filled spiritually. For even we at this day receive visible food: but the sacrament is one thing, the virtue [virtus, power] of the sacrament another. How many do receive at the altar and die, and die indeed by receiving? Whence the apostle saith, “Eateth and drinketh judgment to himself.” For it was not the mouthful given by the Lord that was the poison to Judas. And yet he took it; and when he took it, the enemy entered into him: not because he received an evil thing, but because he being evil received a good thing in an evil way. See ye then, brethren, that ye eat the heavenly bread in a spiritual sense; bring innocence to the altar.

(Augustine, Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel of John, 26.11; PL, 35:1611; trans. NPNF1, 7:171.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Ratramnus [Bertram] of Corbie (c. ?-868 A.D.):

…the sacraments are one thing and that the things of which they are sacraments are another. …It is one thing, however, which is outwardly done, but another which through faith is believed. What pertains to the sense of the body is corruptible, but what faith believes is incorruptible. Therefore, what appears outwardly is not the thing itself but the image of the thing, but what is felt and understood in the soul is the truth of the thing.

(Ratramni Corbeiensis Monachi, De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, §§. XXXVI, LXXVII; PL, 121:142-143, 160; trans. LCC, 9:128, 140.)

Vigilius, Bishop of Thapsus (c. 5th Century A.D.):

To believe on the Son of God, therefore, this is to see, this is to hear, this is to adore, this is to taste, this is to handle Him [Credere ergo in Filium Dei, hoc est videre, hoc est audire, hoc est adorari, hoc est gustare, hoc est contrectare eum].

(Vigilii Tapsensis, Contra Eutychetem, Lib. IV, §. XXII; PL, 62:133; trans. JHT-TCF, 204.)

Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus [Senator] (c. 485-585 A.D.) / Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 A.D.):

“And the blood of Jesus Christ His Son,” he says, “cleanses us.” For the doctrine of the Lord, which is very powerful, is called His blood.

(Fragments of Clemens Alexandrinus: From The Latin Translation of Cassiodorus: Comments on the First Epistle of John, on 1Jhn. 1:7; trans. ANF, 2:575.) See also: ccel.org. [40.]

Cf. Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus [Senator] (c. 485-585 A.D.) / Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 A.D.):

“For there are three that bear witness, the spirit,” which is life, “and the water,” which is regeneration and faith, “and the blood,” which is knowledge; “and these three are one.” For in the Saviour are those saving virtues, and life itself exists in His own Son.

(Fragments of Clemens Alexandrinus: From The Latin Translation of Cassiodorus: Comments on the First Epistle of John, on 1Jhn. 3:8; trans. ANF, 2:576.) See also: ccel.org.

5.1. The Medieval Continuation of the Patristic Understanding of the “Real Presence” as Spiritual not Carnal/Corporeal. Return to Outline.

Bede the Venerable (c. 672/3-735 A.D.):

The poor eat and shall be filled eternally, because they shall understand in the bread and wine, visibly set before them, something invisible; namely, the true body and true blood of the Lord, which are true food and drink, whereby not the belly is distended, but the mind feasted [quo non venter distenditur, sed mens saginatur].

(Bedæ Venerabilis, In Psalmorum Librum Exegesis, In Psalmum XXI; PL, 93:597; trans. JHT-TCF, 195.) [41.]

Christian [Druthmar] of Stavelot (c. 9th Century A.D.):

Our Lord gave to his disciples the sacrament of his body for the remission of sins and for the preservation of charity, that, being mindful of that fact, they might alway[s] in a figure do that, which he not forgetfully was about to do for them. This is my body: that is, in a sacrament. And, taking the cup, he gave thanks and gave unto them. Because, among all the nourishments of life, bread and wine avail to strengthen and refresh our infirmity, he was rightly pleased through these two to confirm the ministry of his sacrament. For wine both exhilarates and increases the blood. Therefore, not inconveniently, the blood of Christ is figured by this: since, whatsoever comes to us from him, makes us joyful with true joy, and increases all our good. As if any person, departing on a journey, leaves to his friends some bond of love, in the tenour that they should do this, every day, for the purpose of not forgetting him: so God commanded it to be done by us, spiritually transferring his body into the bread and the wine into his blood [transferens spiritaliter Corpus in panem, vinum in sanguinem], that by these two we may commemorate what he has done for us from his body and his blood, and may not be ungrateful to such most loving charity.

(Christiani Druthmari Corbeiensis Monachi, Expositio in Matthæum, Cap. LVI (Matth. xxvi. 26); PL, 106:1476-1477; trans. George Stanley Faber, The Difficulties of Romanism in Respect to Evidence: The Third Edition, Revised and Remoulded, [London: Thomas Bosworth, 1853], pp. 259-260.)

Florus of Lyon [Florus Magister] (c. 9th Century A.D.):

Truly, that bread is the body of Christ in the most sacred offering, not in matter or visible species [non materie vel specie visibili], but by spiritual virtue and power. For neither is the body of Christ generated in the field, nor is His blood produced in the vineyard, nor pressed out in the winepress. The bread is simply made from grains, the wine is simply drawn from grapes; to these are added the faith of the offering Church, the consecration of mystical prayer, and the infusion of divine power; thus, in a wondrous and ineffable way, what is naturally bread and wine from earthly seed becomes spiritually [spiritualiter] the body of Christ, that is, the mystery of our life and salvation, in which we see one thing with bodily eyes and another with the eyes of faith; and not only what we receive with the mouth but what we believe with the mind, we honor [sed quod mente credimus, libamus].

(Flori Diaconi Lugdunensis, Opuscula Adversus Amalarium, Cap. I, §. 9; PL, 119:77.) [41.5]

Walafridus Strabo of Fulda (c. 808-849 A.D.):

Therefore, when He came in the flesh, He established greater things for mankind: He taught the transformation from carnal things to spiritual, from earthly to heavenly, from temporal to eternal, from imperfect to perfect, from semblance to substantive, from replicas to reality.

Therefore, when the Son of God says, “For My flesh is meat indeed: and My blood is drink indeed”, we must understand that those very sacraments of our redemption are truly the body and blood of the Lord, so that we may trust the pledges of that perfect unity which we shall have with our Head, now in hope, hereafter in reality [nostro iam spe, postea re tenebimus, pignora credere debeamus].

(Walfridi Strabi Fuld., De Rebus Ecclesiasticis, Cap. XVI-XVII; PL, 114:937; trans. Walahfrid Strabo’s Libellus de Exordiis et Incrementis Quarundam in Observationibus Ecclesiasticis Rerum, trans. Alice L. Harting-Correa, [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996], p. 105.)

Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mainz (c. 780-856 A.D.):

Our blessed Saviour would have the sacrament of His body and blood to be received by the mouth of the faithful, and to become their nourishment, that by the visible body the effects of the invisible might be known for as the material food feeds the body outwardly and makes it to grow, so the word of God doth inwardly nourish and strengthen the soul. …He would have the sacramental elements to be made of the fruits of the earth, that as He, who is God invisible, appeared visible in our flesh, and mortal to save us mortals, so He might by a thing visible fitly represent to us a thing invisible. …Some receive the sacred sign at the Lord’s table to their salvation, and some to their ruin; but the thing signified is life to every man, and death to none. Whoever receives it, is united as a member to Christ the Head in the kingdom of heaven; for the sacrament is one thing, and the efficacy of it another [quia aliud est sacramentum, aliud virtus sacramenti]; for the sacrament is received with the mouth, but the grace thereof feeds the inward man. …And as the first is turned into our substance when we eat it and drink it, so are we made the body of Christ when we live piously and obediently [Sicut ergo in nos id convertitur cum id manducamus et bibimus, sic et nos in corpus Christi convertimur dum obedienter et pie vivimus]. …Therefore the faithful do well and truly receive the body of Christ, if they neglect not to be His members; and they are made the body of Christ, if they will live of His Spirit.

(B. Rabani Mauri Archiep. Mogunt., De Clericorum Institutione, Lib. I, Cap. XXXIV; PL, 107:316-318; trans. John Cosin, The History of Popish Transubstantiation, ed. John Sherren Brewer, [London: J. Leslie, 1840], pp. 121-122.)

Ratramnus [Bertram] of Corbie (c. ?-868 A.D.):

89. And so it appears that they are separated from each other by as great a difference as exists between the pledge and the thing on behalf of which the pledge is handed down, and as exists between appearance and truth. Thus we see that a great difference separates the mystery of Christ’s blood and body which now is taken by the faithful in the church from that which was born of the Virgin Mary, suffered, died, rose again, ascended to the heavens, sits on the right hand of the Father. For what is done on the way must be accepted spiritually, because faith, which does not see, believes and spiritually feeds the soul and gladdens the heart and provides life and incorruption, provided what feeds the body, what is pressed by the teeth, what is broken into bits, is not considered, but what is in faith received spiritually. But that body in which Christ suffered and rose again exists as his own body, assumed from the body of the Virgin Mary, capable of being touched or visible even after the resurrection, as he himself said to his disciples: “Touch and see that a spirit does not have flesh and bones such as you see I have.”

(Ratramni Corbeiensis Monachi, De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, §. LXXXIX; PL, 121:165; trans. LCC, 9:143. Cf. JHT-TCF, 241.) [42.]

John Scotus Eriugena (c. 800-877 A.D.):

For we also, who, after the accomplishment of His Incarnation, and Passion, and Resurrection, believe in Him, and understand His mysteries, so far as it is allowed us, both spiritually immolate Him, and intellectually eat Him with the mind, not with the teeth.

(Joannis Scoti, Commentarius in S. Evangelium Secundum Joannem, Fragmentum I, Cap. I; PL, 122:311; trans. JHT-TCF, 244.)

Ælfric of Eynsham (c. 955-1010 A.D.):

This mystery is a pledge and a symbol; Christ’s body is truth. This pledge we hold mystically until we come to the truth, and then will this pledge be ended. But it is, as we before said, Christ’s body and his blood, not bodily but spiritually. Ye are not to inquire how it is done, but to hold in your belief that it is so done.

Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux (c. 1090-1153 A.D.):

The flesh of Christ even at this present day is exhibited and given to us, notwithstanding spiritually, not carnally [sed spiritualiter utique, non carnaliter exhibeatur].

(S. Bernardi Abbatis Claræ-Vallensis, In Festo S. Martini Episcopi Sermo (De exemplis obedientiæ), §. 10; PL, 183:495; trans. Thomas Becon, The Catechism of Thomas Becon, S.T.P., Chaplain to Archbishop Cranmer, Prebendary of Canterbury, &c., ed. John Ayre, [Cambridge: Printed at the University Press, 1844], p. 286.) [44.]

Arnold, Abbot of Bonneval (c. 12th Century A.D.):

Therefore this unleavened bread, the true and sincere food, through species and sacrament, sanctifies us by touch, illuminates us by faith, and by truth conforms us to Christ. And, as the common bread, which we daily eat, is the life of the body so that supersubstantial bread is the life of the soul and the health of the mind. From the understanding of such great things carnal sense altogether repels us: and, as the Lord himself says, in the perception of such great mysteries flesh and blood profit nothing; because these words are spirit and life, and this magnificent virtue is judged of by spiritual men alone.

(Ernaldi Bonævallis Abbatis, Liber De Cardinalibus Operibus Christi, VI, PL, 189:1644; trans. George Stanley Faber, Christ’s Discourse at Capernaum: Fatal to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, [London: R. B. Seeley and W. Burnside, 1840], p. 120.)

Unknown Author of Liber de Modo Bene Vivendi (c. 12th Century A.D.):

(Liber de Modo Bene Vivendi, Cap. XXVIII, §. 85; PL, 184:1252.) [45.]

Note: “Liber de Modo Bene Vivendi” is often attributed to Bernard of Clairvaux.

6. Appendix: The Origin of the Pagan Accusation that Christians “Ate Actual Flesh.” Return to Outline.

Irenæus, Bishop of Lyon [Lugdunum] (c. 130-202 A.D.):

For when the Greeks, having arrested the slaves of Christian catechumens, then used force against them, in order to learn from them some secret thing [practised] among Christians, these slaves, having nothing to say that would meet the wishes of their tormentors, except that they had heard from their masters that the divine communion was the body and blood of Christ, and imagining that it was actually flesh and blood, gave their inquisitors answer to that effect.

(Irenæus, Fragments, 13; PG, 7:1236; trans. ANF, 1:570.) See also: ccel.org.

6.1. The Unanimous Christian Response to the Pagan Claim that they “Ate Actual Flesh.” Return to Outline.

Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 A.D.):

For what sensual or intemperate man, or who that counts it good to feast on human flesh, could welcome death that he might be deprived of his enjoyments… For having put some to death on account of the accusations falsely brought against us, they also dragged to the torture our domestics, either children or weak women, and by dreadful torments forced them to admit those fabulous actions which they themselves openly perpetrate; about which we are the less concerned, because none of these actions are really ours…

(Justin Martyr, The Second Apology, 12; trans. ANF, 1:192.) See also: ccel.org. [46.]

Tatian the Assyrian (c. 120-180 A.D.):

It is not we who eat human flesh—they among you who assert such a thing have been suborned as false witnesses…

(Tatian the Assyrian, Address to the Greeks, 25; trans. ANF, 2:76.) See also: ccel.org.

Theophilus, Patriarch of Antioch (c. ?-183/5 A.D.):

…wherewith godless lips falsely accuse us…alleging…what is most impious and barbarous of all, that we eat human flesh.

(Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, 3.4; trans. ANF, 2:112.) See also: ccel.org. [47.]

Athenagoras of Athens (c. 133-190 A.D.):

…for men to partake of the flesh of men is a thing most hateful and abominable, and more detestable than any other unlawful and unnatural food or act…

(Athenagoras of Athens, On the Resurrection of the Dead, 8; trans. ANF, 2:153.) See also: ccel.org. [48.]

Minucius Felix (fl. c. 150-270 A.D.):

To us it is not lawful either to see or to hear of homicide; and so much do we shrink from human blood, that we do not use the blood even of eatable animals in our food.

(Minucius Felix, The Octavius, 30; trans. ANF, 4:192.) See also: ccel.org.

7. Appendix: “Eating” and “Drinking” in Jewish Literature. Return to Outline.

John Lightfoot:

As to this whole passage of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ, it will be necessary to premise that of Mark iv. 11, 12: “I speak by parables; and all these things are done in parables; that seeing they may see, and not perceive,” &c. Ver. 34: “Without a parable spake he not unto them and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.”

And what can we suppose in this place but parable wholly?

I. There was nothing more common in the schools of the Jews than the phrases of ‘eating and drinking’ in a metaphorical sense. And surely it would sound very harsh, if not to be understood here metaphorically, but literally. What! to drink blood? a thing so severely interdicted the Jews once and again. What! to eat man’s flesh? a thing abhorrent to human nature; but above all abhorrent to the Jews, to whom it was not lawful to eat אבר מן החי a member of a living beast, nor touch אבר מן המת the member of a dead man.

כל אכילה ושתיה וגו [Midras Coheleth, fol. 88. 4.]“Every eating and drinking of which we find mention in the book of Ecclesiastes is to be understood of the Law and good works,” i. e. by way of parable and metaphor. By the Capernaite’s leave, therefore, and the Romanist’s too, we will understand the eating and drinking in this place figuratively and parabolically.

II. Bread is very frequently used in the Jewish writers for doctrine. So that when Christ talks of eating his flesh, he might perhaps hint to them that he would feed his followers not only with his doctrines, but with himself too.

כָּל־מִשְׁעַן לֶחֶם [Chagigah, fol. 14. 1.]The whole stay of bread, Isa. iii. 1. אילו בעלי תלמוד “These are the masters of doctrine; as it is written, ‘Come, eat of my bread,’ Prov. ix. 5.” האכילהו לחם [Gloss. in Succah, fol. 52.]“Feed him with bread, that is, Make him take pains in the warfare of the Law, as it is written, ‘Come, eat of my bread.’”

Moses fed you with doctrine and manna, but I feed you with doctrine and my flesh.

III. There is mention, even amongst the Talmudists themselves, of eating the Messiah. “Rabh saith,[Sanhedr. fol. 98. 2.] עתידין ישראל דאכלי שני משיח Israel shall eat the years of Messiah.” [The Gloss is, “The plenty and satiety that shall be in the days of the Messiah shall belong to the Israelites.”] “Rabh Joseph saith, ‘True, indeed: but who shall eat thereof? חילק ובילק אכלי לה Shall Chillek and Billek [two judges in Sodom] eat of it?’ We must except against that of R. Hillel, who saith, אין משיח להם לישראל שכבר אכלוהו בימי חזקיה Messiah is not likely to come to Israel, for they have already devoured him in the days of Hezekiah.” Those words of Hillel are repeated, fol. 99. 1.

Behold, here is mention of eating the Messiah, and none quarrel the phraseology. They excepted against Hillel, indeed, that he should say that the Messiah was so eaten in the days of Hezekiah, that he was not like to appear again in Israel; but they made no scruple of the scheme and manner of speech at all. For they plainly enough understood what was meant by eating the Messiah; that is, that in the days of Hezekiah they so much partook of the Messiah, they received him so greedily, embraced him so gladly, and in a manner devoured him, that they must look for him no more in the ages to come. Gloss upon the place; “Messiah will come no more to Israel, for Hezekiah was the Messiah.”

IV. But the expression seems very harsh, when he speaks of “eating his flesh” and “drinking his blood.” He tells us, therefore, that these things must be taken in a spiritual sense: “Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?” That is, “When you shall have seen me ascending into heaven, you will then find how impossible a thing it is to eat my flesh and drink my blood bodily: for how can you eat the flesh of one that is in heaven? You may know, therefore, that I mean eating me spiritually: ‘for the words that I speak to you, they are spirit, and they are life.’”

V. But what sense did they take it in that did understand it? Not in a sacramental sense surely, unless they were then instructed in the death and passion of our Saviour; for the sacrament hath a relation to his death: but it sufficiently appears elsewhere that they knew or expected nothing of that. Much less did they take it in a Jewish sense; for the Jewish conceits were about the mighty advantages that should accrue to them from the Messiah, and those merely earthly and sensual. But to partake of the Messiah truly is to partake of himself, his pure nature, his righteousness, his spirit; and to live and grow and receive nourishment from that participation of him. Things which the Jewish schools heard little of, did not believe, did not think; but things which our blessed Saviour expresseth lively and comprehensively enough, by that of eating his flesh and drinking his blood.

(John Lightfoot, Horæ Hebraicæ et Talmudicæ: Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations: In Four Volumes: Vol. III, [Oxford: At The University Press, 1859], pp. 307-309.)

Note: Cf. Mark 4:11-12, 34; cf. Luke 8:10; Matthew 13:10-11.

Cf. Sirach 24:1, 19-22:

Wisdom sings her own praises, before her own people she proclaims her glory; . . . Come to me, all you that yearn for me, and be filled with my fruits; You will remember me as sweeter than honey, better to have than the honeycomb. He who eats of me will hunger still, he who drinks of me will thirst for more; He who obeys me will not be put to shame, he who serves me will never fail.” All this is true of the book of the Most High’s covenant, the law which Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the community of Jacob.

(New American Bible.) [49.]

Note:

(1.) “Eating” and “drinking” are common Biblical metaphors used to convey the concept of participation, partaking of, sharing in, etc. either for good (2 Samuel 12:3; Psalm 16:5; 23:5; 116:13) or for bad (Jeremiah 16:7; Psalm 11:6; 73:10; 75:8; Isaiah 51:17, 22; 25:15-17, 28; 49:12; 51:7; Lamentations 4:21; Ezekiel 23:31-33; Habakkuk 2:16; Zechariah 12:2; Revelation 14:10; 16:19; 17:4; 18:6; John 18:11; Matthew 20:22-23; 26:39, 42; cf. Mark 10:38-39; 14:36; Luke 22:42). [50.]

Cf. 1 Corinthians 10:16-18, 20-21 (Cf. 1 Corinthians 11:26):

The cup [ποτήριον] of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation [κοινωνία] in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation [κοινωνία] in the body of Christ? Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake [μετέχομεν] of the one loaf [ἄρτου]. Look at Israel according to the flesh; are not those who eat the sacrifices participants [κοινωνοὶ] in the altar? So what am I saying? That meat sacrificed to idols is anything? Or that an idol is anything? No, I mean that what they sacrifice, (they sacrifice) to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to become participants [κοινωνοὺς] with demons. You cannot drink the cup [ποτήριον] of the Lord and also the cup [ποτήριον] of demons. You cannot partake [μετέχειν] of the table [τραπέζης] of the Lord and of the table [τραπέζης] of demons.

(New American Bible. Cf. 1 Corinthians 11:26.)

Notice the clear parallel between participating in Christ through the bread and wine (cup) of the Lord’s table and the pagan participation with demons though similar sacrifices (in which no carnal/corporeal transubstantiation occurs). [51.]

(2.) The concept of “tasting” is similarly used to convey the idea of participation, partaking of, sharing in, etc. (1 Peter 2:3; Psalm 34:8; Hebrews 6:4-5: Matthew 16:28; Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27; John 8:52).

(3.) “Drinking” (lit. cup) is used metaphorically to denote covenants (Luke 22:20) as well as individuals (Matthew 23:25-26; Luke 11:39).

(4.) “Eating” is used to denote the appropriation and internalization of the Word of God (Ezekiel 2:8-9; 3:1-4; Jeremiah 15:16; Revelation 10:8-10).

(5.) “Eating” and “drinking” are used to convey the idea of obtaining wisdom and understanding (Proverbs 9:1-6; cf. Sirach 24:19-22).

(6.) “Eating” and “drinking” are used metaphorically of “enjoying” (Ecclesiastes 5:19; 6:2; Exodus 24:9-11). [52.]

(7.) “Eating” and “drinking” are common metaphors for spiritual contentment (1 Corinthians 10:1-4; 12:13; Matthew 8:11: 26:29; Luke 14:15; 22:30; Revelation 2:17; 7:15-17).

(8.) “Eating” and “drinking” are common metaphors for life (Deuteronomy 8:3; Jeremiah 17:13; Matthew 4:4; Luke 4:4; John 4:13-14, 31-34; 6:27-29, 35; 7:37-39; Revelation 2:7; 21:6-8).

(9.) Similarly, there is a strong Biblical connection between the concepts of “blood” and “life” (Leviticus 17:11, 14; Genesis 3:21; 9:4; 37:26; Deuteronomy 12:23; 19:10; 21:7; Numbers 35:19ff; 2 Samuel 14:11; 23:17; 2 Kings 24:4; 1 Chronicles 11:19; 28:3; Deuteronomy 32:42; Ezekiel 39:17-18; Psalm 9:12; 30:9; 72:14; Isaiah 59:7; Jeremiah 22:17; Hebrews 9:22). [53.]

Cf. 1 Chronicles 11:16-19 (Cf. 2 Samuel 23:14-17):

David was then in the stronghold, and a Philistine garrison was at Bethlehem. David expressed a desire: “Oh, that someone would give me a drink from the cistern that is by the gate at Bethlehem!” Thereupon the Three broke through the encampment of the Philistines, drew water from the cistern by the gate at Bethlehem, and carried it back to David. But David refused to drink it. Instead, he poured it out as a libation to the LORD, saying, “God forbid that I should do such a thing! Could I drink the blood of these men who risked their lives?” For at the risk of their lives they brought it; and so he refused to drink it. Such deeds as these the Three warriors performed.

(New American Bible. Cf. Deuteronomy 32:42; Ezekiel 39:17-18) [53.5]

(10.) The Old Covenant, which forbade the drinking of blood, was still in effect (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 3:17; 7:26-27; 17:10-14; 19:26; Deuteronomy 12:16, 23-24; 15:23; 1 Samuel 14:32-34; Ezekiel 33:25).

(11.) The New Covenant also forbids the consumption of blood (Acts 15:29). [54.]

8. Appendix: The OT Saints Ate the Same Flesh and Drank the Same Blood as the NT Saints—Historical Testimony. Return to Outline.

1 Corinthians 10:1-4:

I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea, and all of them were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. All ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they drank from a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was the Christ.

(New American Bible.)

Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):

Cf. Ratramnus [Bertram] of Corbie (c. ?-868 A.D.):

(Ratramni Corbeiensis Monachi, De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, §§. LXII; PL, 121:152-153; trans. LCC, 9:136.)

Note: Ratramnus is commenting on the above passage by Ambrose.

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

“This is the bread which cometh down from heaven.” Manna signified this bread; God’s altar signified this bread. Those were sacraments. In the signs they were diverse; in the thing which was signified they were alike. Hear the apostle: “For I would not that ye should be ignorant, brethren,” saith he, “that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat.” Of course, the same spiritual meat; for corporally it was another: since they ate manna, we eat another thing; but the spiritual was the same as that which we eat. But “our” fathers, not the fathers of those Jews; those to whom we are like, not those to whom they were like. Moreover he adds: “And did all drink the same spiritual drink.” They one kind of drink, we another, but only in the visible form, which, however, signified the same thing in its spiritual virtue. For how was it that they drank the “same drink”? “They drank,” saith he “of the spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.” Thence the bread, thence the drink. The rock was Christ in sign; the real Christ is in the Word and in flesh. And how did they drink? The rock was smitten twice with a rod; the double smiting signified the two wooden beams of the cross. “This, then, is the bread that cometh down from heaven, that if any man eat thereof, he shall not die.” But this is what belongs to the virtue of the sacrament, not to the visible sacrament; he that eateth within, not without; who eateth in his heart, not who presses with his teeth.

(Augustine, Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel of John, 26.12; PL, 35:1612; trans. NPNF1, 7:171-172. Cf. WSA, I/12:459-460.) See also: ccel.org.

Bede the Venerable (c. 672/3-735 A.D.):

This is the bread which came down from heaven. This bread was symbolized by the manna; and this bread was symbolized by the altar of God. Those sacraments were different in signs but equal in the reality they signify [Sacramenta illa fuerunt in signis diversa sunt in re, quæ significantur paria sunt]. Listen to the Apostle: “I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food” (1 Corinthians 10:1-3). Indeed, spiritual, not physical. They had a different type because it was manna, while we have something else; but spiritually, it is the same as ours [spiritualem vero eamdem quam nos]. However, our ancestors were not like the ancestors of those who are like us, but rather those who were like them. Therefore, this is the bread that came down from heaven, so that anyone who eats of it shall not die. But what pertains to the power of the sacrament is not what pertains to the visible sacrament: one who eats inwardly, not outwardly; one who eats with the heart, not with the teeth. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Therefore, living because I came down from heaven. Manna came down from heaven too; but manna was a shadow, this is the truth.

(Bedæ Venerabilis, In S. Joannis Evangelium Expositio, Caput VI; PL, 92:717.) [55.]

Ratramnus [Bertram] of Corbie (c. ?-868 A.D.):

20. The apostle also, writing to the Corinthians, says, “Do you not know that our fathers were all under a cloud, and they all passed over the sea, and all in Moses were baptized in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink? For they drank from the spiritual rock which followed them, and the rock was Christ.” We notice that the sea and the cloud bore the appearance of baptism, and in them, that is, in the cloud or the sea, the fathers of the older covenant were baptized. Could the sea, in so far as it appeared to be an element, have the power of baptism? Or could the cloud, in that it revealed a condensation of air, make the people holy? Yet we dare not say that the apostle did not truly speak in Christ when he said that our fathers were baptized in the cloud and the sea.

21. And although that baptism did not bear the form of the Baptism of Christ which today is practiced in the church, that it really was, nevertheless, a baptism and in it our fathers were baptized, no one in his right mind will dare to deny, unless mad enough to presume to contradict the apostle’s words. And therefore the sea and the cloud granted the purification of sanctification not with respect to what they were as body, but they contained the sanctification of the Holy Spirit with respect to what they were invisibly. For in them was a visible form which appeared to the bodily senses, not in a representation but in truth, and from within spiritual power shone forth, which appeared not to the eyes of the flesh but to the lights of the soul.

22. Likewise the manna given the people from heaven, and the water flowing from a rock were really corporeal, and they fed and watered the people in a corporeal sense, yet the apostle calls both that manna and that water spiritual food and spiritual drink. Why does he? Because the power of the spiritual word inhered in these bodily substances which fed and watered the souls rather than the bodies of the believers. And since that food or drink foreshadowed the mystery of Christ’s body and blood, which the church celebrates, Saint Paul maintains that our fathers ate that same spiritual food and drank that same spiritual drink.

23. You ask, perhaps, what is the same? That very thing, surely, which today the believing people in the church eat and drink. For it cannot be thought otherwise than that He is that one and the same Christ who then in the desert fed with his flesh the people who had been baptized in the cloud and in the sea, and gave them to drink of his blood, and now in the church feeds the people who believe with the bread of his body and gives them to drink of the stream of his blood.

24. This is what the apostle wished to suggest, when, after he said that our fathers ate this same spiritual food, and drank this same spiritual drink, then added, “For they drank from the spiritual rock which followed them, and the rock was Christ.” He wished us to understand that in the desert Christ stood in the spiritual rock, and gave the people to drink of the stream of his blood, who afterward has showed to our times the body assumed from the Virgin, which for the salvation of believers hung upon the cross, and from it has shed the stream of his blood, by which we might not only be redeemed but even might drink of it.

25. Marvelous, surely, because incomprehensible and inestimable! Not yet had He assumed the form of man, not yet for the salvation of the world had he tasted death, not yet had he redeemed us by his blood, and already in the desert our fathers through spiritual food and invisible drink were eating his body and drinking his blood. So the apostle stands as witness, crying out that our fathers ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink. One must not inquire by what method this could be done, but exercise the faith that it was done. For the very One who now in the church, with omnipotent power, spiritually changes the bread and wine into the flesh of his body and the stream of his blood, then also invisibly made the manna given from heaven to be his body and the water which had been poured forth from the rock to be his very blood.

(Ratramni Corbeiensis Monachi, De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, §§. XX-XXV; PL, 121:136-139; trans. LCC, 9:124-125.)

Ælfric of Eynsham (c. 955-1010 A.D.):

Paul the Apostle said of the old people of Israel, thus writing in his epistle to believing men: “All our forefathers were baptized in the cloud and in the sea, and they all ate the same ghostly meat, and they all drank the same ghostly drink. Verily they drank from the stone that followed after them, and the stone was Christ.” The stone from which the water then flowed was not Christ bodily, but it betokened Christ, who thus cried to all believing men, “Whosoever is thirsty, let him come to me and drink, and from his inside shall flow living water.” This he said of the Holy Ghost, whom they received who believed in him. The apostle Paul said, that the people of Israel ate the same ghostly meat, and drank the same ghostly drink, because the heavenly meat which fed them forty years, and the water which flowed from the stone, were a type of Christ’s body and his blood, which are now offered daily in God’s church. They were the same which we now offer, not bodily but spiritually.

We have said to you a little before, that Christ hallowed bread and wine, before his passion, for housel, and said, “This is my body and my blood.” He had not yet suffered, but, nevertheless, he changed, through invisible might, the bread to his own body, and the wine to his blood, as he had before done in the wilderness, before he was born as man, when he changed the heavenly meat to his flesh, and the flowing water from the stone to his own blood. Many men ate of the heavenly meat in the wilderness, and drank the ghostly drink, and, nevertheless, became dead, as Christ said. Christ meant not the death which no man may avoid, but he meant the eternal death, which some of the people had merited for their unbelief. Moses and Aaron, and many others of the people who were pleasing to God ate the heavenly bread, but they died not the eternal death, although they departed by the common death. They saw that the heavenly meat was visible and corruptible, but they understood spiritually concerning the visible thing, and partook of it spiritually. Jesus said, “He who eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, shall have everlasting life.” He did not command the body with which he was invested to be eaten, nor the blood to be drunk which he shed for us; but he meant by that speech the holy housel, which is spiritually his body and his blood and he who tastes that with believing heart shall have everlasting life.

Cf. George Stanley Faber:

Such a line of exposition speaks for itself. They, who adopted it as the received sense of the Primitive Church from the beginning, could, by no possibility, have held the doctrine of Transubstantiation. For, if that doctrine be the mind of Scripture, the fathers under the Old Dispensation certainly could not have partaken of the body and blood of Christ, in the same manner as believers partake of them, by the hypothesis, under the New Dispensation. And yet our witnesses are explicit in assuring us that, in the judgment of the Primitive Church, believers, under each Dispensation alike, equally and in the very same sense or manner, did eat the flesh of Christ and did drink his blood. . . . Thus the early interpretation of the Discourse at Capernaum is, in itself alone, absolutely fatal to the Romish Doctrine of Transubstantiation. At every step, the interpretation proleptically condemns the doctrine: insomuch that, by no possibility, can the two be made to consist together.

(George Stanley Faber, Christ’s Discourse at Capernaum: Fatal to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, [London: R. B. Seeley and W. Burnside, 1840], pp. 176-177, 180.)

9. Appendix: Only “Believers” Eat the Body (Flesh) of Christ—Historical Testimony. Return to Outline.

Origen of Alexandria (c. 184-253 A.D.):

But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it [οὐδενὸς δυναμένου φαύλου ἐσθίειν αὐτήν]; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh, who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that “every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.”

(Origen of Alexandria, Commentary on Matthew, 11.14; PG, 13:952; trans. ANF, 9:443.) See also: ccel.org. [56.]

Jerome of Stridon (c. 347-420 A.D.):

All who are lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God,—while they are not holy in body and spirit, neither eat the flesh of Jesus nor drink his blood: concerning which, he himself says: He, that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life. For Christ our passover is sacrificed for us and he is eaten, not out of doors, but in one house and within.

(S. Eusebii Hieronymi, Commentariorum in Isaiam Prophetam, Lib. XVIII, Cap. LXVI, Vers. 17; PL, 24:666; trans. George Stanley Faber, Christ’s Discourse at Capernaum: Fatal to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, [London: R. B. Seeley and W. Burnside, 1840], p. 125. Cf. JHT-TCF, 233.)

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

Finally, he explains how what he is talking about happens and what it means to eat his body and to drink his blood. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him (Jn 6:56). This, therefore, is eating that food and drinking that drink: abiding in Christ and having him abide in oneself. [Hoc est ergo manducare illam escam, et illum bibere potum, in Christo manere, et illum manentem in se habere.] And thus if someone does not abide in Christ and Christ does not abide in him, there can be no doubt that he does not eat his flesh or drink his blood, but rather he is eating and drinking the sacrament of such a great reality to his own condemnation, because he had the presumption to approach the sacraments of Christ in an unclean state…

(Augustine of Hippo, Homilies on the Gospel of John, 26.18; PL, 35:1614; trans. WSA, I/12:464. Cf. NPNF1, 7:173.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

All this that the Lord spoke concerning His flesh and blood;—and in the grace of that distribution He promised us eternal life, and that He meant those that eat His flesh and drink His blood to be understood, from the fact of their abiding in Him and He in them; and that they understood not who believed not; and that they were offended through their understanding spiritual things in a carnal sense; and that, while these were offended and perished, the Lord was present for the consolation of the disciples who remained, for proving whom He asked, “Will ye also go away?” that the reply of their steadfastness might be known to us, for He knew that they remained with Him;—let all this, then, avail us to this end, most beloved, that we eat not the flesh and blood of Christ merely in the sacrament, as many evil men do, but that we eat and drink to the participation of the Spirit, that we abide as members in the Lord’s body, to be quickened by His Spirit, and that we be not offended, even if many do now with us eat and drink the sacraments in a temporal manner, who shall in the end have eternal torments.

(Augustine of Hippo, Tractates on John, 27.11; trans. NPNF1, 7:177-178.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

In fine, He Himself, when He says, “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him,”[John vi. 56.] shows what it is in reality, and not sacramentally [non sacramento tenus, sed re vera], to eat His body and drink His blood; for this is to dwell in Christ, that He also may dwell in us. So that it is as if He said, He that dwelleth not in me, and in whom I do not dwell, let him not say or think that he eateth my body or drinketh my blood.

(Augustine of Hippo, City of God, 21.25; PL, 41:742; trans. NPNF1, 2:473.) See also: ccel.org. [57.]

Prosper of Aquitaine (c. 390-455 A.D.):

He receives the food of life, and drinks the cup of eternity, who abides in Christ, and in whom Christ dwells. For whoso is at variance with Christ, neither eats His flesh nor drinks His blood [Nam qui discordat a Christo, nec carnem ejus manducat, nec sanguinem bibit]: although he indifferently receive the Sacrament of so great a thing to the judgment of His own presumption.

(Prosperi Aquitani, Sententiæ ex Augustino Delibatæ, 341; PL, 45:1890; trans. JHT-TCF, 234. Cf. Augustine of Hippo, Homilies on the Gospel of John, 26.18; PL, 35:1614; trans. WSA, I/12:464. Cf. NPNF1, 7:173.)

Bede the Venerable (c. 672/3-735 A.D.):

No infidel eats the flesh of Christ [Omnis infidelis non vescitur carne Christi].

(Bedæ Venerabilis, In Pentateuchum Commentarii: Exodus, Cap. XI, XII; PL, 91:308; trans. JHT-TCF, 235.)

Cf. Bede the Venerable (c. 672/3-735 A.D.):

And whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Therefore, to eat that food and to drink that drink is to remain in Christ and to have Christ remaining in oneself. Thus, those who do not remain in Christ, and in whom Christ does not remain, undoubtedly do not eat His flesh spiritually, even though they physically and visibly press the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ with their teeth. Instead, they more so eat and drink the sacrament of such a great thing to their judgment, because the impure presumes to approach the sacraments of Christ, which another does not worthily receive unless he is pure; of whom it is said: Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God (Matthew 5).

(Bedæ Venerabilis, In S. Joannis Evangelium Expositio, Caput VI; PL, 92:719.) [58.]

Alcuin of York [Flaccus Albinus Alcuinus], Abbot of Marmoutier Abbey (c. 735-804 A.D.):

Such is the power of this sacrifice, that it is the body and blood of Christ to the just alone, not to sinners [Tanta est virtus hujus sacrificii, ut solis justis peccatoribus corpus sit et sanguis Christi].

(B. F. Albini Seu Alcuini, Confessio Fidei, Pars Iv: De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, Ac de Proprius Delictis, §. VII; PL, 100:1091; trans. JHT-TCF, 235.)

Walafridus Strabo of Fulda (c. 808-849 A.D.):

But there are two ways of eating: one sacramental, whereby the wicked eat, as well as the good; the other spiritual, whereby the good alone eat. …For he eats spiritually who abides in the unity of the Church, which the Sacrament itself signifies. For if he is at variance with Christ, he neither eats the flesh of Christ nor drinks His blood, though he daily take the Sacrament of so great a thing to judgment.

(Walafridi Strabi, Glossa Ordinaria: Epistola I Ad Corinthios, Caput XI, Ver. 29; PL, 114:539; trans. JHT-TCF, 236.)

Paschasius Radbertus, Abbot of Corbie (c. 785-865 A.D.):

‘Whoso eats My flesh and drinks My blood, abides in Me, and I in him’; otherwise, unless he first abide in Me and I in him, he cannot eat My flesh nor drink My blood [alioquin nisi prius in me maneat et ego in illo, carnem meam manducare non potest, neque sanguinem bibere]. And what is it that men eat? Behold how often men receive indifferently the Sacraments of the altar. They receive, plainly, but the one spiritually eats the flesh of Christ, and drinks His blood; but the other does not, although he appears to receive a morsel from the hand of the priest [Percipiunt plane, sed alius carnen Christi spiritaliter manducat et sanguinem bibit, alius vero non, quamvis buccellam de manu sacerdotis videatur percipere].

(Paschasii Radberti Abbatis Corbeiensis, De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, Caput VI, §§. 1-2; PL, 120:1282; trans. JHT-TCF, 236. Cf. LCC, 9:106.)

Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims (c. 806-882 A.D.):

But whoso is at variance with Christ, neither eats the flesh of Christ nor drinks His blood to life, even though he daily indifferently receive the Sacrament of so great a thing to the judgment of his own presumption [Qui autem a Christo discordat, nec carnem Christi manducat, nec sanguinem bibit ad vitam, etiam si tantæ rei sacramentum ad judicium suæ præsumptionis quotidie indifferenter accipiat].

(Hincmari Rhem. Archiep., De Cavendis Vitiis et Virtutibus Exercendis, Cap. X; PL, 125:928; trans. JHT-TCF, 236.)

Unknown Author of Liber de Modo Bene Vivendi (c. 12th Century A.D.):

(Liber de Modo Bene Vivendi, Cap. XXVIII, §. 85; PL, 184:1251-1252.) [59.]

Note: “Liber de Modo Bene Vivendi” is often attributed to Bernard of Clairvaux.

10. Endnotes (Alternate Translations and Additional Testimony). Return to Outline.

[1.] Alt. Trans. Marcus Tullius Cicero (c. 106-46 B.C.):

When we speak of corn as Ceres, and of wine as Liber, we use, it is true, a customary mode of speech, but do you think that any one is so senseless as to believe that what he is eating is the divine substance?

(Marci Tullii Ciceronis, Opera Philosopha et Politica: Vol. II, recognovit J. G. Baiter, [Lipsiae: Ex Officina Bernhardi Tauchnitz, 1864], “De Natura Deorum,” 3.16.41, p. 104; trans. Marci Tullii Ciceronis, De Natura Deorum, trans. Francis Brooks, [London: Methuen & Co., 1896], 3.16, p. 180. Cf. LCL, 268:325.)

Cf. Francis Turretin:

XII. Sixth, from the absurdity and impiety of the doctrine, by which a necessity is imposed of adoring what is eaten and carried into the stomach and of eating what is adored. There is nothing in the whole Roman religion (from the time that this worship gained a footing among them) which has excited in philosophers and infidels a greater contempt for Christianity than this; or which they have more immoderately ridiculed and more persistently assailed. The words of Averroes, the philosopher, quoted by Perronius, are known: “He found no sect worse or more foolish than the Christian, the members of which rend asunder and devour with their teeth the God whom they worship” (Traite de sainct sacrament de l’Euchariste 3.29 [1633], p. 973). And that this very thing is commonly objected against even by the Turks in our day as a most base infamous action, many testify who have given an account of their eastern travels, since they call them “God-eaters” (theophagous). As indeed what can be imagined more abhorrent to the common sense and reason of mortals than that man should adore (and I do not say a thing that is mute and lifeless, which is weak and exposed to the injuries of all animals, even the most helpless, but what either he or another equally mortal is about to eat and swallow)—should adore, I say, that very thing and think it to be his God? Balbus, the Stoic in Cicero, was not ignorant of this: “Do you suppose,” says he, “that anyone is so senseless as to believe that which he eats to be a god?” (De Natura Deorum 3*.16.41 [Loeb, 19:324–25]).

(Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology: Volume Three, trans. George M. Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., [Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 1997], 19.30.12, pp. 543-544.) Return to Article.

[2.] Alt. Trans. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (c. 35-108/40 A.D.):

Wherefore, clothing yourselves with meekness, be ye renewed in faith, that is the flesh of the Lord, and in love, that is the blood of Jesus Christ.

(Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Trallians (Shorter), 8; PG, 5:681; trans. ANF, 1:69.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (c. 35-108/40 A.D.):

Alt. Trans. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (c. 35-108/40 A.D.):

I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

(Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans (Shorter), 7; PG, 5:693; trans. ANF, 1:77.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (c. 35-108/40 A.D.):

My brothers and sisters, I am overflowing with love for you, and greatly rejoice as I watch out for your safety—yet not I, but Jesus Christ. Though I am in chains for his sake, I am all the more afraid, because I am still imperfect. But your prayer to God will make me perfect, so that I may attain the fate by which I have received mercy, since I have taken refuge in the gospel as the flesh of Jesus [τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ ὡς σαρκὶ Ἰησοῦ] and in the apostles as the council of presbyters of the church.

(Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Philadelphians, 5.1; PG, 5:828; trans. Michael W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations of Their Writings, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007], pp. 239, 241. Cf. ANF, 1:82.)

Alt. Trans. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (c. 35-108/40 A.D.):

My brethren, I am greatly enlarged in loving you; and rejoicing exceedingly [over you], I seek to secure your safety. Yet it is not I, but Jesus Christ, for whose sake being bound I fear the more, inasmuch as I am not yet perfect. But your prayer to God shall make me perfect, that I may attain to that portion which through mercy has been allotted me, while I flee to the Gospel as to the flesh of Jesus, and to the apostles as to the presbytery of the Church.

(Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Philadelphians (Shorter), 5; PG, 5:828; trans. ANF, 1:82.) See also: ccel.org. Return to Article.

[3.] Cf. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 A.D.):

Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality.

(Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor (Pædagogi), 2.2; PG, 8:409, 412; trans. ANF, 2:242.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. John Henry Hopkins:

Here, all is simple and consistent. The elements are spoken of as consecrated symbols, and the sacred effects are spiritual, the operation of Christ and the Spirit upon the faithful and worthy recipient.

(John Henry Hopkins, The Novelties which Disturb Our Peace: Letters Addressed to the Bishops, Clergy, and Laity of the Protestant Episcopal Church, [Philadelphia: Herman Hooker, 1844], p. 55.)

Cf. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 A.D.):

If, then, “the milk” is said by the apostle to belong to the babes, and “meat” to be the food of the full-grown, milk will be understood to be catechetical instruction—the first food, as it were, of the soul. And meat is the mystic contemplation; for this is the flesh and the blood of the Word, that is, the comprehension of the divine power and essence. “Taste and see that the Lord is Christ,” it is said. For so He imparts of Himself to those who partake of such food in a more spiritual manner…

(Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, or Miscellanies, 5.10; PG, 9:100-101; trans. ANF, 2:460.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 A.D.):

The Word is all to the child, both father and mother and tutor and nurse. “Eat ye my flesh,” He says, “and drink my blood.” Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children’s growth. O amazing mystery! We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange another new regimen, that of Christ, receiving Him if we can, to hide Him within; and that, enshrining the Saviour in our souls, we may correct the affections of our flesh.

(Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor (Pædagogi), 1.6; PG, 8:301; trans. ANF, 2:220.) See also: ccel.org.

Note: Cf. William Goode, The Nature of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist: Vol. I, [London: T. Hatchard, 1856], pp. 109-110.

Full Text. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 A.D.):

But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes—the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food—that is, the Lord Jesus—that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified. . . . “I,” says the Lord, “have meat to eat that ye know not of. My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me.” You see another kind of food which, similarly with milk, represents figuratively the will of God. . . . Further, the Word declares Himself to be the bread of heaven. “For Moses,” He says, “gave you not that bread from heaven, but My Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is He that cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world. And the bread which I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” Here is to be noted the mystery of the bread, inasmuch as He speaks of it as flesh, and as flesh, consequently, that has risen through fire, as the wheat springs up from decay and germination; and, in truth, it has risen through fire for the joy of the Church, as bread baked. But this will be shown by and by more clearly in the chapter on the resurrection. But since He said, “And the bread which I will give is My flesh,” and since flesh is moistened with blood, and blood is figuratively termed wine, we are bidden to know that, as bread, crumbled into a mixture of wine and water, seizes on the wine and leaves the watery portion, so also the flesh of Christ, the bread of heaven absorbs the blood; that is, those among men who are heavenly, nourishing them up to immortality, and leaving only to destruction the lusts of the flesh.

Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord’s blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine? “Who washes,” it is said, “His garment in wine, His robe in the blood of the grape.” In His own Spirit He says He will deck the body of the Word; as certainly by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word.

(Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor (Pædagogi), 1.6; PG, 8:301, 304, 305; trans. ANF, 2:220, 220-221, 221.) See also: ccel.org. Return to Article.

[4.] Cf. Everett Ferguson:

The technical use of Eucharist seems clear. There is once more the double reference to food that nourishes the flesh and to knowledge, the “true bread of the Spirit,” that gives life to the church, the real body of the Son of God. Later in the document (82.1), bread and oil are cited as analogies to the water of baptism that has a material effect and by the Spirit an immaterial effect:

(Everett Ferguson, “A Response To Robin Darling Young On: The Eucharist as Sacrifice according to Clement of Alexandria;” In: Rediscovering the Eucharist: Ecumenical Conversations, ed. Roch A. Kereszty, O. Cist., [New York / Mahwah: Paulist Press, 2003], p. 110.)

Cf. Theodotus of Byzantium (c. 2nd Century A.D.) / Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 A.D.):

And the bread and the oil are sanctified by the power of the Name, not being, as they appear, the same as they were taken, but by power they are changed into a spiritual power [δυνάμει εἰς δύναμιν πνευματικὴν μεταβέβληται]. In like manner, the water, too, both that which is exorcised, and that which becometh Baptism, not only contains what is inferior, but also acquires sanctifying.

(Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta: Ex Scriptis Theodoti et Doctrina Quæ Orientalis Vocatur: Ad Valentini Tempora Spectantia, n. LXXXII; PG, 9:696; trans. Lucius Waterman, The Primitive Tradition of the Eucharistic Body and Blood, [New York: Longmans, Green and Co, 1919], p. 66.)

Alt. Trans. Theodotus of Byzantium (c. 2nd Century A.D.) / Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 A.D.):

And the bread and the oil are sanctified by the power of the Name, and they are not the same as they appeared to be when they were received, but they have been transformed by power into spiritual power. Thus, the water, also, both in exorcism and baptism, not only keeps off evil, but gives sanctification as well.

(Clemens Alexandrinus, Excerpta: Ex Scriptis Theodoti et Doctrina Quæ Orientalis Vocatur: Ad Valentini Tempora Spectantia, n. LXXXII; PG, 9:696; trans. Clement of Alexandria, The Excerpta ex Theodoto of Clement of Alexandria, trans. Robert Pierce Casey, [London: Christophers, 1934], pp. 89, 91.)

Cf. Lucius Waterman:

I follow Dr. Pusey in adding here a quotation from a heretical writer, Theodotus, who was a contemporary of Clement of Alexandria. His doctrine of the Eucharist would seem to have been just that of the Catholic Church. This passage is noteworthy as bringing together, as if they were quite analogous, three sacramental consecrations, — that of the bread of the Eucharist, that of the oil of Confirmation, and that of the water of Baptism.

(Lucius Waterman, The Primitive Tradition of the Eucharistic Body and Blood, [New York: Longmans, Green and Co, 1919], p. 66. Cf. Edward Bouverie Pusey, The Doctrine of the Real Presence, [Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1855], pp. 177-178.) Return to Article.

[5.] Full Text. Tertullian of Carthage (c. 155-220 A.D.):

He says, it is true, that “the flesh profiteth nothing;” but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, “It is the spirit that quickeneth;” and then added, “The flesh profiteth nothing,”—meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” In a like sense He had previously said: “He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.” Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before (the passage in hand), He had declared His flesh to be “the bread which cometh down from heaven,” impressing on (His hearers) constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling. Then, turning His subject to their reflections, because He perceived that they were going to be scattered from Him, He says: “The flesh profiteth nothing.”

(Tertullian of Carthage, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 37; trans. ANF, 3:572.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Tertullian of Carthage (c. 155-220 A.D.):

For the Lord had withal issued His edict, “Seek ye first the kingdom, and then even these shall be added:” albeit we may rather understand, “Give us this day our daily bread,” spiritually [spiritaliter]. For Christ is our Bread; because Christ is Life, and bread is life. “I am,” saith He, “the Bread of Life;” and, a little above, “The Bread is the Word of the living God, who came down from the heavens.” Then we find, too, that His body is reckoned in bread: “This is my body.” And so, in petitioning for “daily bread,” we ask for perpetuity in Christ, and indivisibility from His body.

(Tertullian, On Prayer, 6; PL, 1:1160-1161; trans. ANF, 3:683.) See also: ccel.org. Return to Article.

[6.] Alt. Trans. Origen of Alexandria (c. 184-253 A.D.):

Know that they are figures written in the divine volumes and, for that reason, examine and understand what is said as spiritual and not as carnal. For if you receive those things as carnal, they wound you and do not sustain you. For even in the Gospels, it is “the letter” that “kills.” Not only in the Old Testament is “the letter that kills” found; there is also in the New Testament “the letter that kills” that one who does not spiritually perceive what is said. For, if you follow according to the letter that which is said, “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood,” this “letter kills.”

(Origen of Alexandria, Homilies on Leviticus, Homily 7.5.4-5; PG, 12:487; trans. FC, 83:146.)

Cf. Origen of Alexandria (c. 184-253 A.D.):

As another example, take the Lord’s words, “The bread that I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” When “the Jews strove with one another saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” we showed that the hearers were not so foolish as to suppose that the speaker was inviting the hearers to approach him and eat of his flesh.

(Origen, Commentary on John, 20.387; trans. FC, 89:285.)

Cf. Origen of Alexandria (c. 184-253 A.D.):

“He will not sleep, until he eats the prey. and drinks the blood of the wounded.” In these words, who will be such a contentious defender of the historical narrative, or rather, who will be found so dull, that he would not take refuge by sheer necessity in the sweetness of allegory and shrink back from the sound of the letter? For how will that people, who are so praiseworthy and magnificent, of whom the word lists so many praiseworthy things, come to the point of drinking the blood of the wounded? For God forbids the consumption of blood by so many forceful commands that even we who are called from the Gentiles are necessarily commanded to abstain “both from things sacrificed to idols and from blood.”

So let them tell us who this people are who are accustomed to drink blood. These were the things that those Jews in the Gospel who were following the Lord were scandalized about and said: “Who can eat flesh and drink blood?” But the Christian people, the faithful people, hear these things and embrace them and follow him who says: “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will not have life in yourselves; for my flesh is truly food, and my blood is truly drink.” And surely, the one who said these things was wounded for men; for “he was wounded for our sins,” as Isaiah says. But we are said to drink the blood of Christ not only in the rite of the sacraments, but also when we receive his words, in which are life, as he himself says: “The words that I have spoken are spirit and life.” Thus, he himself was wounded, whose blood we drink, that is, we receive the words of his teaching. Moreover, they are no less wounded who have preached his word to us. For when we read their words, that is, the words of his apostles, and when we attain to life from them, we are “drinking the blood of the wounded.”

(Origen of Alexandria, Homilies in Numbers, Homily 16.9; PG, 12:701; trans. Ancient Christian Texts: Homilies on Numbers: Origen, trans. Thomas P. Scheck, [Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009], p. 101.) Preview.

Cf. Origen of Alexandria (c. 184-253 A.D.):

The solemnity of the Passover is placed fourth among the feasts of God, during which feast a lamb is killed. But you should look to the true lamb, “the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world,” and say that “Christ our Passover has been sacrificed.” Let the Jews eat lamb’s flesh in a carnal sense, but let us eat the flesh of the Word of God; for he himself said: “Unless you eat my flesh, you will not have life in yourselves.”

What we are now saying is the flesh of the Word of God, but only if we set it forth not as “vegetables” for the weak or as the nourishment of “milk” for children. If we speak what is perfect, robust and strong, we are setting out the flesh of the Word of God for you to eat. For where there are mystical words, where there are doctrinal and solid words that are brought forth in a way that is filled with faith in the Trinity, when the mysteries of the spiritual law of the age to come are expanded on, once the “veil of the letter has been removed”; when the soul’s hope is torn away from the earth and cast toward heaven and is located in those things that “eye has not seen nor ear heard nor have they ascended into the heart of man.” All these things are the flesh of the Word of God. The one who is able to consume these things with a perfect understanding and with a purified heart truly offers the sacrifice of the Passover feast and celebrates the feast day with God and his angels.

(Origen of Alexandria, Homilies in Numbers, Homily 23.6; PG, 12:751-752; trans. Ancient Christian Texts: Homilies on Numbers: Origen, trans. Thomas P. Scheck, [Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009], p. 144.) Preview.

Cf. Origen of Alexandria (c. 184-253 A.D.):

Now, it may very well be that some one not versed in the various aspects of the Saviour may stumble at the interpretation given above of the Jordan; because John says, “I baptize with water, but He that cometh after me is stronger than I; He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit.” To this we reply that, as the Word of God in His character as something to be drunk is to one set of men water, and to another wine, making glad the heart of man, and to others blood, since it is said, “Except ye drink My blood, ye have no life in you,” and as in His character as food He is variously conceived as living bread or as flesh, so also He, the same person, is baptism of water, and baptism of Holy Spirit and of fire, and to some, also, of blood.

(Origen of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of John, 6.26; trans. ANF, 9:372.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Origen of Alexandria (c. 184-253 A.D.):

“And the bread which I will give is My flesh, for the life of the world.” Again, we eat the flesh of the Lamb, with bitter herbs, and unleavened bread, when we repent of our sins and grieve with the sorrow which is according to God, a repentance which operates for our salvation, and is not to be repented of; or when, on account of our trials, we turn to the speculations which are found to be those of truth, and are nourished by them. We are not, however, to eat the flesh of the Lamb raw, as those do who are slaves of the letter, like irrational animals, and those who are enraged at men truly reasonable, because they desire to understand spiritual things; truly, they share the nature of savage beasts. But we must strive to convert the rawness of Scripture into well-cooked food, not letting what is written grow flabby and wet and thin, as those do who have itching ears, and turn away their ears from the truth; their methods tend to a loose and flabby conduct of life. But let us be of a fervent spirit and keep hold of the fiery words given to us of God, such as Jeremiah received from Him who spoke to him, “Behold, I have made My words in thy mouth like fire,” and let us see that the flesh of the Lamb be well cooked, so that those who partake of it may say, as Christ speaks in us, “Our heart burned by the way, as He opened to us the Scriptures.” Further, if it is our duty to enquire into such a point as the roasting of the flesh of the Lamb with fire, we must not forget the parallel of what Jeremiah suffered on account of the words of God, as he says: “And it was as a glowing fire, burning in my bones, and I am without any strength, and I cannot bear it.” But, in this eating, we must begin at the head, that is to say, at the principal and the most essential doctrines about heavenly things, and we must end at the feet, the last branches of learning which enquire as to the final nature in things, or about more material things, or about things under the earth, or about wicked spirits and unclean demons.

(Origen of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of John, 10.13; trans. ANF, 9:390.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Origen of Alexandria (c. 184-253 A.D.):

(Origen of Alexandria, Commentary on Matthew, 11.14; PG, 13:952; trans. ANF, 9:443.) See also: ccel.org.

Full Text. Origen of Alexandria (c. 184-253 A.D.):

…nothing is pure to him who is defiled and unbelieving, not in itself, but because of his defilement and unbelief, so that which is sanctified through the word of God and prayer does not, in its own nature, sanctify him who uses it, for, if this were so, it would sanctify even him who eats unworthily of the bread of the Lord, and no one on account of this food would become weak or sickly or asleep for something of this kind Paul represented in saying, “For this cause many among you are weak and sickly and not a few sleep.” And in the case of the bread of the Lord, accordingly, there is advantage to him who uses it, when with undefiled mind and pure conscience he partakes of the bread. And so neither by not eating, I mean by the very fact that we do not eat of the bread which has been sanctified by the word of God and prayer, are we deprived of any good thing, nor by eating are we the better by any good thing; for the cause of our lacking is wickedness and sins, and the cause of our abounding is righteousness and right actions; so that such is the meaning of what is said by Paul, “For neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we eat not are we the worse.” Now, if “everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,” even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it [οὐδενὸς δυναμένου φαύλου ἐσθίειν αὐτήν]; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh, who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that “every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.”

(Origen of Alexandria, Commentary on Matthew, 11.14; PG, 13:948-952; trans. ANF, 9:443.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. William Goode:

After having spoken of the Eucharist, he proceeds thus:—“And thus much concerning the typical and symbolical body. But many things might be spoken concerning the Word himself, who became flesh and true food, which he who eats shall certainly live for ever, no wicked person being able to eat it. For if it were possible that any one living in sin could eat him who became flesh, being the Word, and living bread, it would not have been written, [John vi. 51.] that every one who eats this bread shall live for ever.” Here he clearly draws a distinction between “the typical and symbolical body,” that is, the Eucharistic elements, and the Word himself, the living bread, spoken of in John vi., of which we are to eat; manifestly referring to a spiritual act, a spiritual feeding upon Christ himself, which, however it may be connected in the case of the faithful with the act of the outward reception of the Eucharistic elements, is distinct from it, and may be independent of it. And it cannot be objected to this, as it has been to the former passages, that he is here giving an allegorical interpretation of the passage.

(William Goode, The Nature of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist: Vol. I, [London: T. Hatchard, 1856], p. 114.) Return to Article.

[7.] Alt. Trans. Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea (c. 260/5-339/40 A.D.):

But you, having taken up the gospel text, see the whole teaching of our Savior [and] how he did not speak about the flesh that he assumed, but about the mystical body and blood. “…It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” Through these remarks he taught them to hear in a spiritual sense what had been said about his flesh and blood. For [he says], “Do not think that I am speaking about the flesh, which I bear, [saying] that it is necessary to eat it, nor suppose that I command [you] to drink sensible and corporeal blood… For these things are ‘of no avail’ when they are heard sensibly, but the Spirit is that which gives life to those who are able to hear spiritually.”

(Eusebius of Cæsarea, Ecclesiastical Theology, 3.12; PG, 24:1021, 1024; trans. FC, 135:319-320.)

Full Text. Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea (c. 260/5-339/40 A.D.):

But you, having taken up the gospel text, see the whole teaching of our Savior [and] how he did not speak about the flesh that he assumed, but about the mystical body and blood. For when he fed the multitudes with the five loaves and provided this great miracle to those who were watching, many Jews, disparaging the deed, said to him, “Then, what sign do you do, that we may see, and believe you?” Then they made a comparison with the manna in the desert, saying, “Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it has been written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” (2) To these remarks the Savior answered, “Truly, truly I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.” Then he continues, “I am the bread of life,” and again, “I am the bread that came down from heaven,” and again, “The bread which I shall give is my body.” And again he adds, “Truly, truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you (3) have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood (4) is true drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.” And when he had recounted all these sorts of things in a more mystical way, certain of his disciples said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?”—to which the Savior replied, saying, “Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see (5) the Son of Man ascending where he was before? It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” Through these remarks he taught them to hear in a spiritual sense what had been said about his flesh and blood. For [he says], “Do not think that I am speaking about the flesh, which I bear, [saying] that it is necessary to eat it, nor suppose that I command [you] to drink sensible and corporeal blood, but know well that ‘the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life,’ so that the words themselves and the statements themselves are the flesh and blood; he who partakes of them always, feeding as it were on heavenly bread, (6) will have a share in the life of heaven.” Therefore, he [Christ] says, “Take no offense at what I have said to you about the food of my flesh and the drink of my blood, nor let what I have said about the flesh and blood trouble you when at first you hear it. For these things are ‘of no avail’ when they are heard sensibly, but the Spirit is that which gives life to those (7) who are able to hear spiritually.”

(Eusebius of Cæsarea, Ecclesiastical Theology, 3.12; PG, 24:1021, 1024; trans. FC, 135:319-320.)

Cf. Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea (c. 260/5-339/40 A.D.):

When we are nourished by the rational flesh of this sacrificial Savior, who rescued the entire human race by his own blood—that is, when we are nourished by his teachings and discourses, which announce the kingdom of heaven—then we are rightly luxuriating with the luxury that is in accordance with God. [Τούτου δὴ τοῦ σωτηρίου θύματος τοῦ τῷ ἰδίῳ αἵματι τὸ πάντων ἀνθρώπων γένος ἀνασωσαμένου ταῖς λογικαῖς σαρξὶ τρεφόμενοι, μαθήμασι δηλαδὴ καὶ λόγοις βασιλείας οὐρανῶν καταγγελτικοῖς, τὴν κατὰ Θεὸν εἰκότως τρυφῶμεν τρυφήν.]

(Eusebii Cæsariensis, De Solemnitate Paschali, §. 2; PG, 24:696; trans. Andrew Eastbourne.) See also: tertullian.org.

Alt. Trans. Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea (c. 260/5-339/40 A.D.):

This saving sacrifice, indeed, having by its own blood saved the race of all men, we nourished by the reasonable flesh, manifestly by instruction and words that declare the Kingdom of Heaven, feed richly, as it is likely, on its dainties according to God’s way.

(Eusebii Cæsariensis, De Solemnitate Paschali, §. 2; PG, 24:696; trans. Charles Hebert, The Lord’s Supper: Uninspired Teaching: The First Volume, From Clement of Rome to Photius, And the Fathers of Toledo (From A.D. 74 to A.D. 891.), [London: Seeley, Jackson and Halliday, 1879], p. 168.)

Alt. Trans. Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea (c. 260/5-339/40 A.D.):

Hujus ergo victimæ, id est Servatoris qui proprio sanguine humanum genus salvavit, intellectualibus pasti carnibus, videlicet dogmatibus atque doctrinis cælorum regnum nuntiantibus, deliciis merito divinis deliciamur.

(Eusebii Cæsariensis, De Solemnitate Paschali, §. 2; PG, 24:696; trans. Migne, PG, 24:695.) Return to Article.

[8.] Alt. Trans. Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria (c. 296/8-373 A.D.):

Here also He has used both terms about Himself, namely flesh and spirit; and He distinguished the spirit from what relates to the flesh in order that they might believe not only in what was visible in Him but also in what was invisible, and might thereby learn that what He says is not fleshly but spiritual. For how many would the body suffice for eating, that it should become the food of the whole world? But for this reason He made mention of the ascension of the Son of man into heaven, in order that He might draw them away from the bodily notion, and that from henceforth they might learn that the aforesaid flesh was heavenly eating from above and spiritual food given by Him. For, He says, what I have spoken unto you is spirit and life, as much as to say, That which is manifested, and is given for the salvation of the world, is the flesh which I wear. But this and its blood shall be given to you by Me spiritually as food, so that this may be imparted spiritually to each one, and may become to all a preservative for resurrection to eternal life.

(S. Athanasii, Epistola Ad Serapionem (Epistola IV: Eiusdem ad Eumdem Serapionem Εpistola Item de Sancto Spiritu), §. 19; PG, 26:665, 668; trans. Darwell Stone, A History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist: In Two Volumes: Vol. I, [London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1909], p. 90.)

Cf. Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria (c. 296/8-373 A.D.):

Such was the case with our Lord, who said, ‘My meat is to do the will of My Father which is in heaven.’ But if it is not thus with the soul, and it inclines downwards, it is then nourished by nothing but sin. For thus the Holy Ghost, describing sinners and their food, referred to the devil when He said, ‘I have given him to be meat to the people of Æthiopia.’ For this is the food of sinners. And as our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, being heavenly bread, is the food of the saints, according to this; ‘Except ye eat My flesh, and drink My blood;’ so is the devil the food of the impure, and of those who do nothing which is of the light, but work the deeds of darkness. Therefore, in order to withdraw and turn them from vices, He commands them to be nourished with the food of virtue; namely, humbleness of mind, lowliness to endure humiliations, the acknowledgment of God.

(Athanasius of Alexandria, Festal Letters, 1.5; trans. NPNF2, 4:508.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria (c. 296/8-373 A.D.):

Since these things are so, my brethren, let us mortify our members which are on the earth, and be nourished with living bread, by faith and love to God, knowing that without faith it is impossible to be partakers of such bread as this. For our Saviour, when He called all men to him, and said, ‘If any man thirst, let him [come] to Me and drink,’ immediately spoke of the faith without which a man cannot receive such food; ‘He that believeth on Me, as the Scripture saith, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.’ To this end He continually nourished His believing disciples with His words, and gave them life by the nearness of His divinity, but to the Canaanitish woman, because she was not yet a believer, He deigned not even a reply, although she stood greatly in need of food from Him. He did this not from scorn, far from it (for the Lord is loving to men and good, and on that account He went into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon); but because of her unbelief, and because she was of those who had not the word.

(Athanasius of Alexandria, Festal Letters, 7.7; trans. NPNF2, 4:525-526.) See also: cceo.org.

Cf. Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria (c. 296/8-373 A.D.):

The Apostle exhorts his beloved son Timothy, in his first Epistle, ‘to be nourished with the word of faith, and the good doctrine whereto he had attained.’ And in the second, ‘Preserve thou the form of sound words which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus.’ And not only here, my brethren, is this bread the food of the righteous, neither are the saints on earth alone nourished by such bread and such blood; but we also eat them in heaven, for the Lord is the food even of the exalted spirits, and the angels, and He is the joy of all the heavenly host. And to all He is everything, and He has pity upon all according to His loving-kindness. Already hath the Lord given us angels’ food, and He promises to those who continue with Him in His trials, saying, ‘And I promise to you a kingdom, as My Father hath promised to Me; that ye shall eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.’ O what a banquet is this, my brethren, and how great is the harmony and gladness of those who eat at this heavenly table! For they delight themselves not with that food which is cast out, but with that which produces life everlasting.

(Athanasius of Alexandria, Festal Letters, 7.8; trans. NPNF2, 4:526.) See also: cceo.org. Return to Article.

[9.] Alt. Trans. Basil the Great, Bishop of Cæsarea Mazaca (c. 329/30-379 A.D.):

We eat the flesh of Christ, and drink His blood, if we, through His incarnation and human life, become partakers of the Logos and of wisdom [Τρώγομεν γὰρ αὐτοῦ τὴν σάρκα καὶ πίνομεν αὐτοῦ τὸ αἷμα, κοινωνοὶ γινόμενοι διὰ τῆς ἐνανθρωπήσεως καὶ τῆς αἰσθητῆς ζωῆς τοῦ λόγου καὶ τῆς σοφίας].

(S. Basilii, Epistola VIII, §. 4; PG, 32:253; trans. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church: Vol. III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1960; copyright, 1910, by Charles Scribner’s Sons], §. 95: The Sacrament of the Eucharist, p. 497.) See also: ccel.org. Return to Article.

[10.] Alt. Trans. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):

But what is it to taste death? Unless, perhaps, bread may be death, just as bread is life? For there are those who eat the bread of sorrow; there are also the Ethiopian peoples who received the dragon as food. May it be far from us to devour the dragon’s poison, for we have the true Bread, that Bread which came down from heaven. He who keeps what is written eats that Bread. Thus there are those who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God.

(Sancti Ambrosii, Expositio Evangelii Secundum Lucam, Lib. VII, §. 3; PL, 15:1699; trans. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament III: Luke, ed. Arthur A. Just Jr., [Downers Grove: InterVarsity-Press, 2003], Ambrose, Exposition of the Gospel of Luke, 7.3, p. 157.)

Cf. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):

Be not alarmed because the cup of Babylon is a golden cup, for you drink out of the cup of wisdom, which is more precious than gold and silver. Drink of each cup, therefore, of the Old and New Testament, because you drink of Christ from each. Drink Christ, that you may drink the blood with which you are redeemed: drink Christ, that you may drink his discourses. His discourse is the Old Testament; his discourse is the New Testament. The Holy Scripture is drunk and devoured, when the juice of the eternal Word descends into the veins and energies of the mind. Lastly, man lives not by bread alone, but by every word of God. Drink this word, but drink it in its right order. First drink it in the Old Testament, and make haste to drink it in the New Testament.

(Sancti Ambrosii, Enarrationes in XII Psalmos Davidicos, In Psalmum Primum Enarratio, §. 33; PL, 14:939-940; trans. George Finch, A Sketch of the Romish Controversy, [London: G. Norman, 1831], pp. 220, 222.)

Cf. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):

Christ is touched by faith, Christ is seen by faith; he is not touched by the body, he is not comprehended by the eyes…

(Sancti Ambrosii, Expositio Evangelii Secundum Lucam, Lib. VI, §. 57; PL, 15:1683; trans. William Goode, The Nature of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist: Vol. I, [London: T. Hatchard, 1856], p. 420.)

Cf. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):

…we touch not Christ with bodily touch, but with faith.

(Sancti Ambrosii, Expositio Evangelii Secundum Lucam, Lib. X, §. 155; PL, 15:1843; trans. JHT-TCF, 208.)

Cf. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):

Thou didst indeed descend, O Son of man, nor when thou descendest wast thou absent from the Father: but Thou descendest to us, that we might see Thee with our eyes and minds, that we might believe in Thee. Therefore Thou hast ascended from us also, that we might likewise follow Thee with our minds, whom we cannot see with our eyes.

(Sancti Ambrosii, Expositio Evangelii Secundum Lucam, Lib. X, §. 159; PL, 15:1843; trans. JHT-TCF, 208.)

Cf. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):

Therefore, not upon earth, nor in the earth, nor after the flesh ought we to seek Thee, if we would find Thee: for now we know Christ no longer after the flesh.

(Sancti Ambrosii, Expositio Evangelii Secundum Lucam, Lib. X, §. 160; PL, 15:1844; trans. JHT-TCF, 208. Cf. William Goode, The Nature of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist: Vol. I, [London: T. Hatchard, 1856], p. 307.) Return to Article.

[11.] Full Text. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 349-407 A.D.):

Ver. 63. “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing.”

His meaning is, “Ye must hear spiritually what relateth to Me, for he who heareth carnally is not profited, nor gathereth any advantage.” It was carnal to question how He came down from heaven, to deem that He was the son of Joseph, to ask, “How can he give us His flesh to eat?” All this was carnal, when they ought to have understood the matter in a mystical and spiritual sense. “But,” saith some one, “how could they understand what the ‘eating flesh’ might mean?” Then it was their duty to wait for the proper time and enquire, and not to abandon Him.

“The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.”

That is, they are divine and spiritual, have nothing carnal about them, are not subject to the laws of physical consequence, but are free from any such necessity, are even set above the laws appointed for this world, and have also another and a different meaning. Now as in this passage He said “spirit,” instead of “spiritual,” so when He speaketh of “flesh,” He meant not “carnal things,” but “carnally hearing,” and alluding at the same time to them, because they ever desired carnal things when they ought to have desired spiritual. For if a man receives them carnally, he profits nothing. “What then, is not His flesh, flesh?” Most certainly. “How then saith He, that the flesh profiteth nothing?” He speaketh not of His own flesh, (God forbid!) but of those who received His words in a carnal manner. But what is “understanding carnally”? It is looking merely to what is before our eyes, without imagining anything beyond. This is understanding carnally. But we must not judge thus by sight, but must look into all mysteries with the eyes within. This is seeing spiritually. He that eateth not His flesh, and drinketh not His blood, hath no life in him. How then doth “the flesh profit nothing,” if without it we cannot live? Seest thou that the words, “the flesh profiteth nothing,” are spoken not of His own flesh, but of carnal hearing?

(John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 47 [on John 6:63]; trans. NPNF1, 14:169-170.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 349-407 A.D.):

They, when they heard this, replied, “Give us this bread to eat”; for they yet thought that it was something material, they yet expected to gratify their appetites, and so hastily ran to Him.

(John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 45 [on John 6:32]; trans. NPNF1, 14:160.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 349-407 A.D.):

“Give us this bread.” Then He, to rebuke them, because while they supposed that the food was material they ran to Him, but not when they learned that it was a spiritual kind…

(John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 45 [on John 6:34]; trans. NPNF1, 14:160.) See also: ccel.org. Return to Article.

[12.] Alt. Trans. Gaudentius, Bishop of Brescia (c. ?-410 A.D.):

In the shadow of that legal Passover not one lamb was slain, but many. For one was slain in every house, since one was not sufficient for all. But a figure is not the reality of the Lord’s passion. For a figure is not the truth, but an imitation of the truth. For man too was made in the image of God, but was not therefore God. …For the bread which came down from heaven saith “the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.” Rightly to is His blood expressed by the kind of wine, in that he saith in the Gospel, I am the true vine. He Himself plainly declares all which is offered in the figure of His Passion to be, in one, His blood.

(S. Gaudentii Brixiæ Episcopi, Sermo II. De Exodi Lectione Secundus; PL, 20:854-855; trans. John Harrison, An Answer to Dr. Pusey’s Challenge Respecting the Doctrine of the Real Presence: In Two Volumes: Vol. II, [London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1871], pp. 100-101, 101.) Return to Article.

[13.] Cf. Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia (c. 350-428 A.D.):

This teaching is difficult; who can accept it? Since they had understood in a human sense that flesh had to be eaten, they thought that is was sacrilegious and certainly too difficult.

(Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on the Gospel of John, on John 6:60; trans. Ancient Christian Texts: Commentary on the Gospel of John: Theodore of Mopsuestia, trans. Marco Conti, ed. Joel C. Elowsky, [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2010], on John 6:60, p. 70.)

Cf. Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia (c. 350-428 A.D.):

The words that I have spoken to you are siprit and life. “Therefore,” he says, “the things I am saying to you must also be understood in a spiritual way, and then you will be able to believe that they are eternal life.”

(Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on the Gospel of John, on John 6:63; trans. Ancient Christian Texts: Commentary on the Gospel of John: Theodore of Mopsuestia, trans. Marco Conti, ed. Joel C. Elowsky, [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2010], on John 6:63, p. 71.) Return to Article.

[14.] Alt. Trans. Jerome of Stridon (c. 347-420 A.D.):

I think the Gospel is the body of Christ; Holy Writ, His teaching. When He says: ‘He who does not eat my flesh and drink my blood,’ although the words may be understood in their mystical sense, nevertheless, I say the word of Scripture is truly the body of Christ and His blood; it is divine doctrine. If at any time we approach the Sacrament—the faithful understand what I mean—and a tiny crumb should fall, we are appalled. Even so, if at any time we hear the word of God, through which the body and blood of Christ is poured into our ears, and we yield carelessly to distraction, how responsible are we not for our failing?

(Jerome of Stridon, Homily 57 [on Psalm 147 (147b)]; PL, 26:1258-1259; trans. FC, 48:410.)

Cf. Jerome of Stridon (c. 347-420 A.D.):

Cf. Jerome, of Stridon (c. 347-420 A.D.):

Moreover, forasmuch as the flesh of the Lord is true meat, and his blood is true drink anagogically [αναγωγην], we have only this good in this life, if we eat his flesh and drink his blood not only in the mystery, but also in the reading of the Scriptures.

(S. Eusebii Hieronymi, Commentarius in Ecclesiasten, Cap. III; PL, 23:1039; trans. George Finch, A Sketch of the Romish Controversy, [London: G. Norman, 1831], p. 170.)

Note: “Anagogically,” i.e. spiritually or mystically—not carnally or corporeally. Return to Article.

[15.] Alt. Trans. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

What he said seemed hard to them: Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will not have life in you. It seemed to them a stupid idea, for they took it in a carnal sense, supposing that the Lord meant to hack off small pieces of his body to give them; so they objected. This is a hard saying. …But the Lord insisted: It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life (Jn 6:54). “Understand what I have told you in a spiritual way. You are not asked to eat this body that you can see, nor to drink the blood that will be shed by those who will crucify me. What I have revealed to you is something mysterious, something which when understood spiritually will mean life for you. Although it is to be celebrated in a visible manner, you must understand it in a way that transcends bodily sight.”

(Augustine, Exposition of the Psalms, Psalm 98.9; PL, 37:1264-1265; trans. WSA, III/18:475.)

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

When therefore commending such Meat and such Drink He said, “Except ye shall eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, ye shall have no life in you;” (and this that He said concerning life, who else said it but the Life Itself? But that man shall have death, not life, who shall think that the Life is false), His disciples were offended, not all of them indeed, but very many, saying within themselves, “This is an hard saying, who can hear it?” But when the Lord knew this in Himself, and heard the murmurings of their thought, He answered them, thinking though uttering nothing, that they might understand that they were heard, and might cease to entertain such thoughts. What then did He answer? “Doth this offend you?” “What then if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before?” What meaneth this? “Doth this offend you?” “Do ye imagine that I am about to make divisions of this My Body which ye see; and to cut up My Members, and give them to you? ‘What then if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before?’” Assuredly, He who could ascend Whole could not be consumed. So then He both gave us of His Body and Blood a healthful refreshment, and briefly solved so great a question as to His Own Entireness. Let them then who eat, eat on, and them that drink, drink; let them hunger and thirst; eat Life, drink Life. That eating, is to be refreshed; but thou art in such wise refreshed, as that that whereby thou art refreshed, faileth not. That drinking, what is it but to live? Eat Life, drink Life; thou shalt have life, and the Life is Entire. But then this shall be, that is, the Body and the Blood of Christ shall be each man’s Life; if what is taken in the Sacrament visibly is in the truth itself eaten spiritually, drunk spiritually. For we have heard the Lord Himself saying, “It is the Spirit That quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken unto you, are Spirit and Life. But there are some of you,” saith He, “that believe not.” Such were they who said, “This is a hard saying, who can hear it?” It is hard, but only to the hard; that is, it is incredible, but only to the incredulous.

(Augustine of Hippo, Sermon 81.1 [131.1 in Migne, PL.]; trans. NPNF1, 6:501.) See also: ccel.org.

Alt. Trans. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

So when in proposing such food and such drink, he said, Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you shall not have life in you (Jn 6:53)—and who else but Life itself could say this about life? But it will be death, not life to anyone who thinks that Life was lying—his disciples were shocked, not all of them to be sure, but most of them, and they said to themselves, This is a hard saying; who can listen to it? (Jn 6:60). But when the Lord perceived this in himself, and heard their grumbling thoughts, he answered the thoughts they had not spoken out loud, to show them that they had been heard and stop them thinking such things. So how did he answer? Does this shock you? So what if you see the Son of man going up to where he was before? (Jn 6:61-62).

What did he mean by Does this shock you? “Do you imagine that of this body of mine which you can see, I am going to make portions, and carve up my limbs, and give them to you? So, what if you see the Son of man going up to where he was before? Certainly one who could go up entire and complete could hardly be eaten up.” So as well as giving us his body and blood as the restorative of our salvation, he also solved in a few words the difficult problem of his own complete preservation.

So let those who eat, eat, and those who drink, drink; let them feel hunger and thirst; let them eat life, drink life. To eat that is to be nourished; but nourished in such a way that what you are nourished by is not diminished. And what can it be to drink that, but to live? Eat life, drink life; you will have life, and the life is complete and entire. However, this will be the case, that is to say, the body and blood of Christ will be life for anyone, if what is taken visibly in the sacrament is spiritually eaten, spiritually drunk in very truth. After all, we heard the Lord himself saying, It is the Spirit which gives life, while the flesh is of no use at all. The words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some, he said, who do not believe (Jn 6:63-64). They had been saying, This is a hard saying; who can listen to it? Yes, it is hard, but for those who are hard; which means that it is unbelievable, but for those who won’t believe.

(Augustine of Hippo, Sermon 131.1; trans. WSA, III/4:316-317.) Return to Article.

[16.] Full Text. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

And He explained the mode of this bestowal and gift of His, in what manner He gave His flesh to eat, saying, “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.” The proof that a man has eaten and drank is this, if he abides and is abode in, if he dwells and is dwelt in, if he adheres so as not to be deserted. This, then, He has taught us, and admonished us in mystical words that we may be in His body, in His members under Himself as head, eating His flesh, not abandoning our unity with Him. But most of those who were present, by not understanding Him, were offended; for in hearing these things, they thought only of flesh, that which themselves were. But the apostle says, and says what is true, “To be carnally-minded is death.” The Lord gives us His flesh to eat, and yet to understand it according to the flesh is death; while yet He says of His flesh, that therein is eternal life. Therefore we ought not to understand the flesh carnally.

(Augustine, Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel of John, 27.1; trans. NPNF1, 7:174.) See also: ccel.org.

Full Text. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

Hence “the words,” saith He, “which I have spoken to you are Spirit and life.” For we have said, brethren, that this is what the Lord had taught us by the eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood, that we should abide in Him and He in us. But we abide in Him when we are His members, and He abides in us when we are His temple. . . . “It is the Spirit,” then, “that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” What means “are spirit and life”? They are to be understood spiritually. Hast thou understood spiritually? “They are spirit and life.” Hast thou understood carnally? So also “are they spirit and life,” but are not so to thee.

(Augustine, Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel of John, 27.6; trans. NPNF1, 7:175, 176.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

“Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already. Faith is indeed distinguished from works, even as the apostle says, “that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law:”...

(Augustine of Hippo, Tractates on John, 25.12; trans. NPNF1, 7:164.) See also: ccel.org.

Alt. Trans. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

So they said to him then, What shall we do, to work the works of God? For he had said to them, Work not for the food which perishes but for that which abides to eternal life. What shall we do? they say. “What observances must we keep, if we are to comply with this instruction?” Jesus answered and said to them, This is the work of God, to believe in the one whom he has sent. (Jn 6:27-29) So this is to eat the food which does not perish, but which abides to eternal life. Why are you getting your teeth and stomachs ready? Believe and you have eaten. [Utquid paras dentes et ventrem? crede, et manducasti.]

(Augustine of Hippo, Homilies on the Gospel of John, 25.12; PL, 35:1602; trans. WSA, I/12:439. Cf. NPNF1, 7:164.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

And, consequently, he that hungers after this bread, hungers after righteousness,—that righteousness however which cometh down from heaven, the righteousness that God gives, not that which man works for himself. For if man were not making a righteousness for himself, the same apostle would not have said of the Jews: “For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and wishing to establish their own righteousness, they are not subject to the righteousness of God.” Of such were these who understood not the bread that cometh down from heaven; because being satisfied with their own righteousness, they hungered not after the righteousness of God. What is this, God’s righteousness and man’s righteousness? God’s righteousness here means, not that wherein God is righteous, but that which God bestows on man, that man may be righteous through God. But again, what was the righteousness of those Jews? A righteousness wrought of their own strength on which they presumed, and so declared themselves as if they were fulfillers of the law by their own virtue. But no man fulfills the law but he whom grace assists, that is, whom the bread that cometh down from heaven assists. “For the fulfilling of the law,” as the apostle says in brief, “is charity.” Charity, that is, love, not of money, but of God; love, not of earth nor of heaven, but of Him who made Heaven and earth. Whence can man have that love? Let us hear the same: “The love of God,” saith he, “is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit which is given unto us.” Wherefore, the Lord, about to give the Holy Spirit, said that Himself was the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe on Him. For to believe on Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again. A babe within, a new man within. Where he is made new, there he is satisfied with food.

(Augustine of Hippo, Tractates on John, 26.1; trans. NPNF1, 7:168.) See also: ccel.org.

Alt. Trans. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

Let us listen to him: The charity of God, he says, has been poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us (Rom 5:5). So then, the Lord, who was going to give the Holy Spirit, said he was himself the bread who came down from heaven, urging us to believe in him. To believe in him, in fact, is to eat the living bread. The one who believes, eats; he is invisibly filled, because he is invisibly reborn; [Credere enim in eum, hoc est manducare panem vivum. Qui credit, manducat: invisibiliter saginatur, quia invisibiliter renascitur.] inside, he is an infant; inside he is new; where he is newly planted, that is where he is filled up.

(Augustine of Hippo, Homilies on the Gospel of John, 26.1; PL, 35:1607; trans. WSA, I/12:450. Cf. NPNF1, 7:168.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

(Augustine, Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel of John, 26.11; PL, 35:1611; trans. NPNF1, 7:171.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

“They drank,” saith he “of the spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.” Thence the bread, thence the drink. The rock was Christ in sign; the real Christ is in the Word and in flesh. And how did they drink? The rock was smitten twice with a rod; the double smiting signified the two wooden beams of the cross. “This, then, is the bread that cometh down from heaven, that if any man eat thereof, he shall not die.” But this is what belongs to the virtue of the sacrament, not to the visible sacrament; he that eateth within, not without; who eateth in his heart, not who presses with his teeth.

(Augustine, Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel of John, 26.12; trans. NPNF1, 7:172.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

“I am the living bread, which came down from heaven.” For that reason “living,” because I came down from heaven. The manna also came down from heaven; but the manna was only a shadow, this is the truth. “If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.” When did flesh comprehend this flesh which He called bread? That is called flesh which flesh does not comprehend, and for that reason all the more flesh does not comprehend it, that it is called flesh. For they were terrified at this: they said it was too much for them; they thought it impossible. “Is my flesh,” saith He, “for the life of the world.” Believers know the body of Christ, if they neglect not to be the body of Christ. Let them become the body of Christ, if they wish to live by the Spirit of Christ. None lives by the Spirit of Christ but the body of Christ.

(Augustine of Hippo, Tractates on John, 26.13; trans. NPNF1, 7:172.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

In a word, He now explains how that which He speaks of comes to pass, and what it is to eat His body and to drink His blood. “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.” This it is, therefore, for a man to eat that meat and to drink that drink, to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ dwelling in him. Consequently, he that dwelleth not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwelleth not, doubtless neither eateth His flesh [spiritually] [spiritualiter] nor drinketh His blood [although he may press the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ carnally and visibly with his teeth] [licet carnaliter et visibiliter premat dentibus Sacramentum corporis et sanguinis Christi], but rather doth he eat and drink the sacrament of so great a thing to his own judgment, because he, being unclean, has presumed to come to the sacraments of Christ, which no man taketh worthily except he that is pure: of such it is said, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”

(Augustine of Hippo, Tractates on John, 26.18; PL, 35:1614-1615; trans. NPNF1, 7:173.) See also: ccel.org.

Note: The bracketed portions of the text are thought by some to be a scribal interpolation.

Alt. Trans. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

(Augustine of Hippo, Homilies on the Gospel of John, 26.18; PL, 35:1614; trans. WSA, I/12:464. Cf. NPNF1, 7:173.) See also: ccel.org.

Helmut Hoping (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian):

Bread and wine are signs of a pneumatic reality, the glorified Christ, who died for us and in his self-surrender gives himself anew for us again and again in his Body and Blood. In this sense, Augustine distinguishes between sacramentum tantum, the mere sign, and the res sacramenti, the reality of the sacrament. Unworthy Communion is manducare tantum in sacramento. What matters, however, is to partake not only according to the mere sign: “To eat Christ’s body and drink his blood . . . in reality it . . . means to abide in Christ in such a way that Christ also abides in us.” For the sign alone (sacramentum tantum) is fleeting.

The sign is not yet regarded by Augustine in its own substantiality but, rather, altogether as a sign and image for the invisible reality given therein. The question about the reality of the sacrament was not fiercely debated until the early Middle Ages. One prerequisite for it was that the understanding of the Eucharist since Isidore of Seville (d. 636) increasingly shifted from the εὐχαριστία as a cultic thanksgiving to which the faithful were called to participate through the gratias agamus to the presence of Christ in the sacramental signs. Gratiarum actio (thanksgiving) became bona gratia (good grace = a literal Latin rendering of eu-charistia). The relation of the sacramental-mystical Body to the ecclesial Body of the Lord, which in Augustine’s writings is still entirely in the foreground, recedes in importance. This was accompanied by a decline in the reception of Communion by the faithful.

(Helmut Hoping, My Body Given for You: History and Theology of the Eucharist, trans. Michael J. Miller, [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2019], p. 117.) Preview.

Cf. Pamela Jackson (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian):

Later sacramental theology would see the sacraments as having the symbol’s quality of being able to represent what it signifies as well as point to it, as having not only sacramentum (outward sign of a more important spiritual reality) and res (invisible reality), but also res et sacramentum; in the Eucharist this res et sacramentum is Christ really present. Since Augustine’s definition of sign, however, contains only sacramentum and res, when he speaks of the consecrated elements in the Eucharist, they cannot be res, by definition an invisible reality, so he must see them as sacramentum, something which points beyond itself to res.

(Pamela Jackson (Mount Saint Mary’s Seminary), “Eucharist;” In: Augustine Through the Ages: An Encyclopedia, gen. ed., Allan D. Fitzgerald, O.S.A., [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1999], p. 334.)

Cf. Edward J. Kilmartin, S.J. (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian):

In short, Augustine teaches that the Church is the true body of Christ (verum corpus Christi) while the eucharistic elements are the sacrament of the body of Christ (sacramentum corporis Christi). Hence the sacrament of the body of Christ is received in the true body of Christ. ...The visible in the sacrament is the expression and possibility of encounter with the invisible, i.e., Christ and the invisible Church: “These things, brothers, are called sacraments, because in them something is seen, [but] something else is understood.”[fn. 64: “Ista, fratres, ideo dicuntur Sacramenta, quia in eis aliud videtur, aliud intelligitur”—Augustine, Sermo 272 (PL 38.1247); cf. Principia dialecticae 5 (PL. 32.1410-11).]

(Edward J. Kilmartin S.J., The Eucharist in the West: History and Theology, ed. Robert J. Daly, S.J., [Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 2004], pp. 28, 26.)

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

For the Son, who was begotten equal, does not become better by participation of the Father; just as we are made better by participation of the Son, through the unity of His body and blood, which thing that eating and drinking signifies. We live then by Him, by eating Him; that is, by receiving Himself as the eternal life, which we did not have from ourselves.

(Augustine of Hippo, Tractates on John, 26.19; trans. NPNF1, 7:173.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

“Many therefore,” not of His enemies, but “of His disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is a hard saying; who can hear it?” If His disciples accounted this saying hard, what must His enemies have thought? And yet so it behoved that to be said which should not be understood by all. The secret of God ought to make men eagerly attentive, not hostile. But these men quickly departed from Him, while the Lord said such things: they did not believe Him to be saying something great, and covering some grace by these words; they understood just according to their wishes, and in the manner of men, that Jesus was able, or was determined upon this, namely, to distribute the flesh with which the Word was clothed, piecemeal, as it were, to those that believe on Him. “This,” say they, “is a hard saying; who can hear it?”

(Augustine of Hippo, Tractates on John, 27.2-3; PL, 35:1616; trans. NPNF1, 7:174.) See also: ccel.org.

Alt. Trans. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

Many of those who were listening, therefore, not of his enemies but of his disciples, said, This is a hard saying; who can listen to it? (Jn 6:60) If his disciples considered this a hard saying, what about his enemies? And yet it was right for it to be said in such a way that it would not be understood by everyone. The mysteriousness of God should make us keen, not hostile. These disciples, though, quickly fell away, when the Lord Jesus said such things; they did not believe the one speaking of a great matter whose words contained a hidden gift of grace; they understood what they wanted and, in a merely human way, took them to mean that Jesus was able, or even that he was preparing, to slice up the flesh with which the Word was clothed, and distribute it to those who believed in him. This is a hard saying, they said; who can listen to it?

But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were murmuring about this. They said this among themselves, you see, in such a way as not to be overheard by him; but he who knew them within himself, also heard them within himself, and said in reply, Does this scandalize you? Because I said I am giving you my flesh to eat and my blood to drink, this evidently scandalizes you. What then if you see the Son of Man ascending where he was before? (Jn 6:61-62) What is this all about? Is this how he solved the problem that was troubling them? Is this how he cleared up what had scandalized them? Indeed it is—if only they would understand. For they were thinking he was going to give them helpings of his body; but he said that he was going to ascend into heaven—the whole of him, of course. When you see the Son of Man ascending where he was before, then at least you will see that he is not giving you helpings of his body in the way you are thinking; then at least you will understand that his grace is not something finished off in mouthfuls [certe vel tunc intelligetis quia gratia ejus non consumitur morsibus, lit. “certainly, even then you will understand that his grace is not consumed by bites.”].

(Augustine of Hippo, Homilies on the Gospel of John, 27.2-3; PL, 35:1616; trans. WSA, I/12:467. Cf. NPNF1, 7:174.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

Then what means “the flesh profiteth nothing”? It profiteth nothing, but only in the manner in which they understood it. They indeed understood the flesh, just as when cut to pieces in a carcass, or sold in the shambles… Therefore “it is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing,” as they understood the flesh, but not so do I give my flesh to be eaten.

(Augustine of Hippo, Tractates on John, 27.5; trans. NPNF1, 7:175.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

(Augustine of Hippo, Tractates on John, 27.11; trans. NPNF1, 7:177-178.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

(Augustine of Hippo, City of God, 21.25; PL, 41:742; trans. NPNF1, 2:473.) See also: ccel.org.

Alt. Trans. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

Finally, Christ himself says: “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.” He thus shows what it is to eat the body of Christ and drink His blood, not only in the sacrament, but in reality [non sacramento tenus, sed re vera], for to remain in Christ is to have Christ also remaining in him. For this is the same as if he said: “He who does not remain in me, and in whom I do not remain, may not say or think that he is eating my body or drinking my blood.”

(Augustine of Hippo, The City of God, 21.25; PL, 41:742; trans. LCL, 417:137. Cf. NPNF1, 2:473; FC, 24:397-398.) See also: ccel.org and loebclassics.com.

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

Our Lord Jesus Christ, who called himself bread, is looking for hungry people. But it is only a healthy mind, that is, the belly of the inner man, which is hungry for this bread. Here’s a comparison with this visible bread. Sick people, whose illness has lost them their appetite, can praise good bread, but can’t eat it. In the same way, when the inner man is ill, he is not inclined to eat this heavenly bread, being afflicted with loss of appetite, and though he may praise it, he takes no pleasure in eating it. But the Lord himself said, as we have just heard, Work for the food which does not perish, but which abides to eternal life (Jn 6:27), distinguishing it from this visible and bodily food, about which he says in another place, Everything that enters the mouth goes down into the belly, and is evacuated into the privy (Mt 15:17)—and so it perishes.

(Augustine of Hippo, Sermon, 130A.1; trans. WSA, III/11:118.)

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

(Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3.16.24; PL, 34:74-75; trans. NPNF1, 2:563.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Ratramnus [Bertram] of Corbie (c. ?-868 A.D.):

(Ratramni Corbeiensis Monachi, De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, §. XXXIV; PL, 121:141; trans. LCC, 9:127.)

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

For in the Jewish people was figured the Christian people. There a figure [figura], here the truth [veritas]; there a shadow, here the body: as the apostle says, “Now these things happened to them in a figure.”

(Augustine, Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel of John, 11.8; PL, 35:1479; trans. NPNF1, 7:77.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

Every figurative and allegorical text or utterance seems to mean one thing materially, and to suggest another thing spiritually.

(Augustine, Sermon 4.23 [Esau and Jacob]; PL, 38:45; trans. WSA, III/1:198.)

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

(Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3.5.9; PL, 34:68-69; trans. NPNF1, 2:559.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

Now the rule in regard to this variation has two forms. For things that signify [significant] now one thing and now another, signify either things that are contrary, or things that are only different. They signify contraries, for example, when they are used metaphorically at one time in a good sense, at another in a bad, as in the case of the leaven mentioned above. Another example of the same is that a lion stands for Christ in the place where it is said, “The lion of the tribe of Judah hath prevailed;” and again, stands for the devil where it is written, “Your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about seeking whom he may devour.” In the same way the serpent is used in a good sense, “Be wise as serpents;” and again, in a bad sense, “The serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty.” Bread is used in a good sense, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven;” in a bad, “Bread eaten in secret is pleasant.” And so in a great many other cases. The examples I have adduced are indeed by no means doubtful in their signification, because only plain instances ought to be used as examples [Et hæc quidem quæ commemoravi, minime dubiam significationem gerunt, quia exempli gratia commemorari nonnisi manifesta debuerunt].

(Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3.25.36; PL, 34:79; trans. NPNF1, 2:566.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

What you see passes away, but what is invisibly symbolized does not pass away. It perdures. The visible is received, eaten, and digested. But can the body of Christ be digested? Can the church of Christ be digested? Can Christ’s limbs be digested? Of course not.

(Augustine of Hippo, Sermon 227; trans. Gary Wills, Why Priests? [New York: Penguin Books, 2014], p. 16.) Preview.

Alt. Trans. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

What you can see passes away, but the invisible reality signified does not pass away, but remains. Look, it’s received, it’s eaten, it’s consumed. Is the body of Christ consumed, is the Church of Christ consumed, are the members of Christ consumed? Perish the thought!

(Augustine of Hippo, Sermon 227; trans. WSA, III/6:255.)

Cf. Gary Wills (Roman Catholic Historian):

Augustine repeatedly says that Christ cannot be chewed, digested, and excreted. He says that Christ as bread refers to “the validity of the mystery (virtus sacramenti), not to the visibility of the mystery (visibile sacramentum), given to the one who eats inwardly, not outwardly, one who feeds his heart, not one who chews with his teeth” (In Johannis Evangelium Tractatus 26.12). …For us to be united with Jesus we must be taken into him, not he into us. We must become his members (In Johannis Evangelium Tractatus 27.6).

(Gary Wills, Font of Life: Ambrose, Augustine and the Mystery of Baptism, [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012], p. 155.)

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

In this loaf of bread you are given clearly to understand how much you should love unity. I mean, was that loaf made from one grain? Weren’t there many grains of wheat? But before they came into the loaf they were all separate; they were joined together by means of water after a certain amount of pounding and crushing. Unless wheat is ground, after all, and moistened with water, it can’t possibly get into this shape which is called bread. In the same way you too were being ground and pounded, as it were, by the humiliation of fasting and the sacrament of exorcism. Then came baptism, and you were, in a manner of speaking, moistened with water in order to be shaped into bread. But it’s not yet bread without fire to bake it. So what does fire represent? That’s the chrism, the anointing. Oil, the fire-feeder, you see, is the sacrament of the Holy Spirit.

Notice it, when the Acts of the Apostles are read; the reading of that book begins now, you see. Today begins the book which is called the Acts of the Apostles. Anybody who wishes to make progress has the means of doing so. When you assemble in church, put aside silly stories’ and concentrate on the scriptures. We here are your books. So pay attention, and see how the Holy Spirit is going to come at Pentecost. And this is how he will come; he will show himself in tongues of fire. You see, he breathes into us the charity which should set us on fire for God, and have us think lightly of the world, and burn up our straw, and purge and refine our hearts like gold. So the Holy Spirit comes, fire after water, and you are baked into the bread which is the body of Christ. And that’s how unity is signified.

(Augustine of Hippo, Sermon 227; trans. WSA, III/6:254-255.)

Cf. Gary Wills (Roman Catholic Historian):

So insistent was Augustine that the body of Christ—the bread of Christ—was the whole body of believers that he explained to neophytes the whole process of their formation as a baking of Christ’s bread in them…

(Gary Wills, Font of Life: Ambrose, Augustine and the Mystery of Baptism, [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012], p. 156.)

Cf. Gary Wills (Roman Catholic Historian):

Here is his most explicit claim that what is changed in the Mass is not the bread given out but the believers receiving it...

(Garry Wills, Why Priests? [New York: Penguin Books, 2014], p. 55.) Preview.

Cf. William Harmless, S.J. (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian):

For Augustine the Body of Christ appeared as a sort of diptych: at once sanctified people and sanctified bread. This double image was at once fact and exhortation, an indicative and an imperative. He encapsulated this in one of his most memorable aphorisms:

Estote quod videtis, Be what you see,

et accipite quod estis. and receive what you are.[S. 272 (PL 38:1247-48)]

Augustine did not conceive of real presence in strictly ritual terms. His thinking admitted no sharp fissure between the real presence of Christ in the consecrated bread and the real presence of Christ within the Christian community.

(William Harmless, S.J., Augustine and the Catechumenate: Revised Edition, forward by Allan Fitzgerald, O.S.A, [Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2014], p. 376.) Preview.

Cf. Joseph Martos (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian):

With regard to the eucharist, Augustine does not seem to have insisted on the sacramental realism that eventually became part of the Latin theological tradition…

(Joseph Martos, Deconstructing Sacramental Theology and Reconstructing Catholic Ritual, [Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2015], p. 140.)

Cf. Ælfric of Eynsham (c. 955-1010 A.D.):

We have also to consider, that the holy housel is both the body of Christ and of all believing people, by a ghostly mystery, as the wise Augustine said of it, “If ye will understand concerning the body of Christ, hear the apostle Paul, thus saying, Ye are truly Christ’s body and limbs. Now your mystery is laid on God’s table, and ye receive your mystery, for which ye yourselves are. Be that which ye see on the altar, and receive that which ye yourselves are.” Again the apostle Paul said of this, “We many are one bread and one body.” Understand now and rejoice; many are one bread and one body in Christ. He is our head, and we are his limbs. The bread is not of one corn, but of many; nor the wine of one berry, but of many. So we should also have unity in our Lord, as it is written of the faithful company, that they were in so great unity, as if there were for them all one soul and one heart.

Cf. Father Jack A. Bonsor (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian):

Readers familiar with Catholic theology might wonder about Augustine’s position regarding the real presence. Does he hold the church’s doctrine of transubstantiation?

The question is anachronistic. That is, it takes an issue from later theological disputes and asks it of Augustine’s theology. Augustine never asked the question in this way. He did not focus on what happens to the elements of bread and wine. More, his Neoplatonic perspective never suggested the question of substance.

(Jack A. Bonsor, Athens and Jerusalem: The Role of Philosophy in Theology, [New York: Paulist Press, 1993], p. 43.)

Cf. Emmanuel J. Cutrone (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian):

…a full understanding of Augustine’s theological reflections on sacraments must begin with his treatment of signs. Augustine operates within a Platonic worldview which understands the material, visible world to be a manifestation of a deeper inner reality. What is seen and experienced are reflections of a truer world, in such a way that material reality becomes a sign which both reveals and veils the inner world. Augustine, then, understands all signs to have a revelatory quality, but they are not mirror images of what they signify.

(Emmanuel J. Cutrone, “Sacraments;” In: Augustine Through the Ages: An Encyclopedia, gen. ed., Allan D. Fitzgerald, O.S.A., [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1999], p. 741.)

Cf. Celine S. Yeung:

Diverse approaches to understanding Christ’s presence in the Eucharist have often been categorized into “Augustinian” vs. “Ambrosian” approaches, with the former understood to be inclined towards a symbolic understanding and the latter towards a realist approach, Yet, as Gary Macy argued, this is inaccurate. The symbolist-leaning theologians drew from Ambrose for authority, and the realist-leaning theologians quoted Augustine extensively. Instead of an Augustine-Ambrose divide, a more accurate divide is Platonic vs. Aristotelian. . . . The Plato-Aristotle contrast in the development of sacramental theology may be seen as reflective of the contrast famously depicted in the fresco School of Athens by the Renaissance painter Raphael: while Plato, holding his Timaeus, points upward to heaven, Aristotle, holding his Ethics, points outward to the world.

(Celine S. Yeung, Received by Christ: A Biblical Reworking of the Reformed Theology of the Lord’s Supper, [Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2023], pp. 105, 106.) Preview.

Note: This categorization is helpful, however, it should be noted that Ambrose, like Augustine, was heavily influenced by Platonic thought. His engagement with classical philosophy, like most early Church Fathers, was shaped primarily by the Platonic tradition. This influence is not as overtly pronounced in Ambrose as it is in Augustine, but it is present nonetheless. Therefore, it is unlikely that Ambrose’ Eucharistic views were substantially different from Augustine’s (emphasizing a real spiritual presence not a somatic [carnal/corporeal] presence). Especially if we examine the totality of Ambrose’s extant writings—in which we find numerous statements which strongly militate against a somatic (carnal/corporeal) presence.

Cf. John W. Riggs:

On one side, there are passages in Augustine that discuss sacramental and eucharistic signs as pointing to, while participating in, spiritual realities; passages where Augustine says that the bread and cup are the body and blood of Christ in “a certain fashion” (quodam modo); and passages where Augustine says that the appropriation of the Eucharist is to be spiritual. Augustine’s commentaries on the Fourth Gospel are especially notable for comments such as these. By contrast, Augustine has passages in which he talks about holding Christ when the elements are held; or, communicants being offered Christ’s body, or being able to recognize the body of Christ in the bread and the blood that flowed from Christ’s side in the cup. . . Most scholars acknowledge the two different types of passages in Augustine and try to find ways to account for both: realistic and symbolic positions are both present, but not as moderns so conceive the issue; or Augustine’s teaching on signs cannot be fit into the later realistic/symbolic binary categories, because Augustine is “neither realistic nor symbolic but sacramental”, or with reference to the signs Augustine would be “symbolic,” but with reference to the realities signified he would be “realistic”; or the issue of realistic or symbolic misses the larger ecclesial context of sacrifice and community, wherein believers together, as the body of Christ, are united to God; or tensions simply exist in Augustine’s eucharistic thought.

On the trajectory outlined by Geiselmann and Kilmartin, and undergirded by the work of Betz—all three notable Roman Catholic scholars these two options are not sufficiently adequate to describe Augustine, who insisted that believers do indeed participate in Christ’s true body, although for Augustine “we do not so much receive Christ; rather, he receives us and engrafts us more deeply into his body.” Furthermore, once one assumes the (inadequate) alternatives of symbolic or realistic, Augustine can seem symbolic because he does not affirm a localized metabolic or somatic presence, and yet he can seem realistic because he affirms a real communion with Christ. Put slightly differently, the alternatives are not realistic or symbolic, but realistic (metabolic presence), realistic (nonmetabolic presence), and symbolic. Later chapters of this study will argue that because the false alternatives of realistic or symbolic have been applied to Reformed eucharistic theology, centuries of mistakes have been made about Zwingli, Calvin, and the Reformed tradition, even mistakes from within the Reformed tradition in its own self-understanding.

(John W. Riggs, The Lord’s Supper in the Reformed Tradition: An Essay on the Mystical True Presence, Columbia Series in Reformed Theology, [Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2015], pp. 14-15.) Return to Article.

[17.] Alt. Trans. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria (c. 378-444 A.D.):

From utter ignorance, certain of those who were being taught by Christ the Saviour, were offended at His words. For when they heard Him saying, Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink His Blood, ye have no life in you, they supposed that they were invited to some brutish savageness, as though they were enjoined to eat flesh and to sup up blood, and were constrained to do things which are dreadful even to hear.

(S. Cyrilli Alexandrini Archiep, In Joannis Evangelium, Lib. IV, Cap. III, (VI. 62, 63); PG, 73:600; trans. A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church: Commentary on the Gospel According to S. John, by St. Cyril: Vol. I, S. John I-VIII, [Oxford: James Parker & Co., 1874], 4.3, on John 6:62, p. 434). See also: tertullian.org.

Cf. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria (c. 378-444 A.D.):

The spiritual man then will delight himself in the words of our Saviour, and will justly cry out, How sweet are Thy words unto my throat, yea, above honey and the comb to my mouth; while the carnal Jew ignorantly esteeming the spiritual Mystery to be foolishness, when admonished by the Words of the Saviour to mount up to the understanding befitting man, ever sinketh down to the folly which is his foster-brother, calling evil good, and good evil, according to the Prophet’s voice.

(Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, on John 6:60-61; trans. A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church: Commentary on the Gospel According to S. John, by St. Cyril, Vol. I, S. John I-VIII, trans. by members of the English Church, [Oxford: James Parker & Co., 1874], on John 6:60-61, p. 433.)

Cf. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria (c. 378-444 A.D.):

The words then which I have discoursed with you, are spirit, that is spiritual and of the Spirit, and are life, i. e., life-giving and of that which is by Nature Life.

(Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, on John 6:63; trans. A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church: Commentary on the Gospel According to S. John, by St. Cyril, Vol. I, S. John I-VIII, trans. by members of the English Church, [Oxford: James Parker & Co., 1874], on John 6:63, p. 437.) Return to Article.

[18.] Cf. Lucius Waterman:

With so much of comment I turn to Cyril the controversialist, presenting first the passage (from the fourth of his five books Against Nestorius) in which he charges Nestorius with teaching anthropophagy. He first quotes Nestorius as commenting on our Lord’s words (S. John vi. 53), “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, ye have no life in you,” and as saying that those who heard Him “endured not the loftiness of the revelation. They thought in their ignorance that He was introducing anthropophagy.” Cyril catches at that word, and pounces upon his opponent on this wise:

“Then how is the proposition not plain anthropophagy? And in what fashion can the mystery be made out to be lofty any longer, except we declare the Word that proceedeth from God the Father to have been sent,[fn. 1: Nestorius interpreted “As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you” (S. John xx. 21) as referring to the Man Jesus, and not to the Divine Word.] and acknowledge the particular manner of the sending to be that of the Incarnation? For then, and only then [Greek, τότε γὰρ τότε] shall we see the flesh that was united to Him availing to quicken us to life, and [that flesh] not as the flesh of some other person, but only because it has been made His own, who avails to quicken all things. For if fire, the very fire we know by our senses, communicates the power of the natural force which belongs to it to the materials with which it would seem to be associated, and changes even water also, which is cold by nature, into that which is contrary to its nature, and makes it warm, what wonder is it, and should it be held a thing incredible, if the Word that is from God the Father, being Life by nature, showed forth the flesh united to Him as a quickening power? For it is His own flesh, and not the flesh of some other person, who is regarded as apart from Him, and is just one of us. But if you abandon the mystical and true union of God the Word with the body that is quickening, and utterly disjoin the body from the Word, how can you prove it to be quickening? For who was He who said, ‘He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, dwelleth in Me, and I in him’? If it be some one of man’s sort, and if it be not rather that the Word of God has been made like us, the thing that is done is man-eating, and our participation is absolutely without profit. For I hear Christ Himself saying, ‘The flesh profiteth nothing; it is the Spirit that quickeneth.’ For as regards its own nature, the flesh is mortal, and in no wise will it give life to others, having the disease of mortality in itself. But if you say that it is the own body of the Word Himself, why these portentous and vain fables? Why contend that not the Word of the Father was sent Himself, but some other instead of Him, that is, a visible being, or His flesh? Whereas the divinely inspired Scripture everywhere proclaims one Christ, strongly asserting that the Word became Man with us, and defining herein the tradition of the true faith.”[fn. 1: Adv. Nestorium IV. 5, Patrol. Graeca lxxvi. 189, 192; Pusey, 655.]

Nestorius and Cyril agreed in these two points, — first, that human flesh, even the flesh of our Lord, could not be life-giving in itself,[fn. 1: So Cyril speaks in his book, De Recta Fide ad Theodosium, 38:(P. G. 76, 1192.) “Shall I not confess that the flesh from the earth had in its own nature no power to give life? How, then, tell me, is the flesh life-giving? Or how can that of earth be understood to be of heaven, too? I say, By union, the union with the Living Word from heaven.”] and second, that those who came to be associated with our Lord’s flesh did receive life from that association. Their difference lay in this, that Nestorius said that our Lord’s Divinity gave life through a partnership with a human body, which body was not really His own after all, but only the body of His human partner, and Cyril, on the other hand, insisted that the Eternal Son of God took a human nature, and made it absolutely His own, so that His human body was as truly and entirely His body, His own body, and no other person’s body, as your body is your body, and mine is mine. So Cyril is constantly pressing upon men that the body of our Lord is an “own body” (σῶμα ἴδιον) of the Divine Word. But even while Cyril is looking eagerly for something with which he may reproach Nestorius, and for something, anything, whereby he may make Nestorius to be abhorred, he never finds any fault with Nestorius for saying that what we receive in the Eucharist is bread and wine. He never thinks of charging Nestorius with believing in a “real absence.” The only point of difference between them as to the Eucharist is that Nestorius thought participation in the Eucharist made Christians to be partners with a man, who in his turn was a partner with God, and Cyril stormed at this strange idea, and said that it was truly a bringing in of man-eating. It follows that when Cyril lays such stress, as he often does, on our receiving in the Eucharist “the own body of the Word,” he is not contrasting our Lord’s body with bread, as all modern readers are inclined at once to assume, but rather contrasting our Lord’s own body with the body of some other person, a man, Jesus, supposed to be taken into partnership with the Word.

(Lucius Waterman, The Primitive Tradition of the Eucharistic Body and Blood, [New York: Longmans, Green and Co, 1919], pp. 176-179. Cf. Idem, pp. 179-183.) Return to Article.

[19.] Alt. Trans. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus (c. 393-458/66 A.D.):

For who called what is by nature a body, grain and bread, he honored visible symbols with the appellation of his body and blood, not changing the nature, but adding grace to nature.

(Theodoreti Episcopi Cyrensis, Dialogus I, Immutabilis.; PG, 83:56; trans. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology: Volume Three, trans. George M. Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., [Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 1997], 19.26.20, p. 479.) Return to Article.

[20.] Sed qui aderant, plures non intelligendo scandalizati sunt. Non enim cogitabant hæc audiendo, nisi carnem, quod ipsi erant. Apostolus autem dicit, et verum dicit: Sapere secundum carnem, mors est (Rom. VIII). Carnem suam dat nobis Dominus manducare et sapere tamen secundum carnem, mors est, cum de carne sua dicat, quia ibi est vita æterna. Ergo nec carnem debemus sapere secundum carnem, sicut in his verbis. . . . sed prout voluerunt, ita intellexerunt, et more hominum quibus caput non erat Jesus, quasi hoc disponeret Jesus, carnem, qua indutum erat Verbum, velut in frusta concisam distribuere credentibus in se.

Full Text. Bede the Venerable (c. 672/3-735 A.D.):

As the living Father sent me, he says, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me, he too will live because of me. For the Son does not become better through participation in the Father, who is born equal to him, just as the participation of the Son through the unity of his body and blood, which that eating and drinking signify, makes us better. Therefore, we live because of him, by eating him, that is, by receiving eternal life from him, which we do not have from ourselves. But he lives because of the Father, having been sent by him, because he emptied himself, becoming obedient even unto the cross (Philippians 2). As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me, he too will live because of me. It is as if he were saying: “I live because of the Father,” that is, I refer my life to him as to a greater one, which my emptying accomplished; in which he sent me. So that each one may live because of me, participation makes it so by eating me. Thus, I, being humbled, live because of the Father; he, being exalted, lives because of me. He did not speak of the nature by which he is always equal to the Father, but of the nature in which he became less than the Father. He also said above: As the Father has life in himself, so he gave the Son to have life in himself (John 5), that is, he begot the Son as having life in himself.

Here is the bread that came down from heaven. That we might live by eating it, who cannot have eternal life from ourselves.

Not as your fathers ate the manna and died, He says, but whoever eats this bread will live forever. He said this in the synagogue, teaching in Capernaum. What is meant by “they died” is that they did not live forever. For indeed those who eat Christ temporally will die, but they will live forever because Christ is eternal life. The sign is that if it remains and is remained in; if it dwells and is dwelled in, it will not be abandoned. Thus, He taught us and warned us with mystical words to be in His body, under the same head in His members, eating His flesh, not leaving His unity. But those who were present, many were scandalized not understanding. They thought only of the flesh, which is what they were. The Apostle says, and he says the truth: To be carnally minded is death (Romans 8). The Lord gives us to eat His flesh, and yet to be carnally minded is death, because in His flesh is eternal life. Therefore, we should not be carnally minded according to the flesh, as in these words.

Therefore, when the listeners [not from enemies, but] from His disciples, said: “This is a hard saying; who can hear it?” If the disciples found this teaching difficult, what about the enemies? And yet it had to be said in a way that it would not be understood by men. The secret of God should make one attentive, not averse. But they failed when the Lord Jesus spoke such things: they did not believe something great being said, and did not see any grace in His words; instead, they understood it as they wished, and like those men who did not have Jesus as their head, they thought Jesus was arranging to distribute, as if in pieces, the flesh in which the Word was clothed, to those who believed in Him. “This is a hard saying,” they said; “who can hear it?”

But Jesus, knowing within Himself that His disciples were murmuring about Him (for they said these things to themselves in such a way that they thought He would not hear them), responded, hearing within Himself, and said:

This offends you. Because I said: “I give you my flesh to eat and my blood to drink”; this indeed offends you.

If then you see the Son of Man ascending where He was before, what does this mean? Here He solves the issue that had troubled them; here He explains from where they had been scandalized; here, clearly, if they understood: for they thought He would distribute His body; but He said He would ascend, certainly to heaven in its entirety. When you see the Son of Man ascending where He was before, you will certainly then see that He will not distribute His body in the way you thought. You will certainly then understand that His grace is not consumed by eating. In these words, it is clearly understood that Christ is one person, as He said that the Son of Man was before in heaven. He was speaking on earth, and was saying that He was in heaven. What does this pertain to, if not that we understand Christ as one person, both God and man, not two? Otherwise, our faith would be a quaternity rather than a trinity. Therefore, Christ is one, the Word, soul, and flesh. One Christ, the Son of God, and the Son of Man. One Christ, the Son of God always, the Son of Man in time; yet one Christ according to the unity of the person was in heaven when He spoke on earth. Thus, the Son of Man was in heaven just as the Son of God was on earth. Thus, the Son of God on earth having taken on flesh, just as the Son of Man was in heaven, in the unity of the person. He will soon explain more broadly the difference between spirit and flesh, and between desiring to eat Christ carnally and receiving Him spiritually. For He says:

(Bedæ Venerabilis, In S. Joannis Evangelium Expositio, Caput VI; PL, 92:719-721.)

Latin. Bede the Venerable (c. 672/3-735 A.D.):

Et qui manducat meam carnem, et bibit meum sanguinem, in me manet, et ego in eo. Hoc est ergo manducare illam escam, et illum bibere potum, in Christo manere, et illum manentem in se habere. Ac per hoc qui non manet in Christo, et in quo non manet Christus, procul dubio nec manducat spiritualiter ejus carnem, licet carnaliter et visibiliter premat dentibus sacramentum corporis et sanguinis Christi; sed magis tantæ rei sacramentum ad judicium sibi manducat et bibit, quia immundus præsumit ad Christi accedere sacramenta, quæ alius non digne sumit, nisi qui mundus est; de quibus dicitur: Beati mundo corde, quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt (Matth. V).

Sicut misit me, inquit, vivens Pater, et ego vivo propter Patrem et qui manducat me, et ipse vivit propter me. Non enim Filius participatione Patris fit melior, qui est natus æqualis, sicut participatio Filii per unitatem corporis ejus et sanguinis, quod illa manducatio potatioque significat, efficit nos meliores. Vivimus ergo nos propter ipsum, manducantes eum, id est, ipsum accipientes æternam vitam, quam non habemus ex nobis. Vivit autem ipse propter Patrem, missus ab eo, quia semetipsum exinanivit, factus obediens usque ad lignum crucis (Philip. II). Sicut misit me vivens Pater, et ego vivo propter Patrem et qui manducat me, et ipse vivit propter me. Ac si diceret: Et ego vivo propter Patrem; id est, ad illum tanquam ad majorem refero vitam meam, quod exinanitio mea fecit; in qua me misit. Ut autem quisque vivat propter me, participatio facit qua manducat me. Ego itaque humiliatus vivo propter Patrem, ille erectus vivit propter me. Non de ea natura dixit, qua semper est æqualis Patri, sed de ea in qua minor factus est Patre. Qui etiam superius dixit: Sicut Pater habet vitam in semetipso, ita dedit Filio vitam habere in semetipso (Joan. V), id est, genuit Filium vitam habentem in semetipso.

Hic est panis, qui de cœlo descendit. Ut illum manducando vivamus, qui æternam vitam ex nobis habere non possumus.

Non sicut manducaverunt, inquit, patres vestri manna, et mortui sunt. Qui manducat hunc panem vivet in æternum. Hæc dixit in synagoga, docens in Capharnaum. Quod ergo illi mortui sunt, ita vult intelligi, ut non vivant in æternum. Nam temporaliter profecto et hi morientur, qui Christum manducant; sed vivent in æternum, quia Christus est vita æterna. Signum quia manducavit, et bibit, hoc si manet, et manetur; si habitat, et inhabitatur; sic erit ut non deseratur. Hoc ergo nos docuit, et admonuit mysticis verbis, ut simus in ejus corpore, sub ipso capite in membris ejus, edentes carnem ejus, non relinquentes unitatem ejus. Sed qui aderant, plures non intelligendo scandalizati sunt. Non enim cogitabant hæc audiendo, nisi carnem, quod ipsi erant. Apostolus autem dicit, et verum dicit: Sapere secundum carnem, mors est (Rom. VIII). Carnem suam dat nobis Dominus manducare et sapere tamen secundum carnem, mors est, cum de carne sua dicat, quia ibi est vita æterna. Ergo nec carnem debemus sapere secundum carnem, sicut in his verbis.

Mulli itaque audientes [non ex inimicis, sed ] ex discipulis ejus, dixerunt: Durus est hic sermo, quis potest eum audire? Si discipuli durum habuerunt istum sermonem, quid inimici? Et tamen sic oportebat, ut diceretur, quod non ab hominibus intelligeretur. Secretum Dei, intentos debet facere, non aversos. Isti autem defecerunt talia loquente Domino Jesu: non crediderunt aliquid magnum dicentem, et verbi illius aliquam gratiam cooperientem; sed prout voluerunt, ita intellexerunt, et more hominum quibus caput non erat Jesus, quasi hoc disponeret Jesus, carnem, qua indutum erat Verbum, velut in frusta concisam distribuere credentibus in se. Durus est, inquiunt, hic sermo, quis potest eum audire?

Sciens autem Jesus apud semetipsum, quia murmurarent de eo discipuli ejus. Sic enim apud se ista dixerunt, ut ab illo non audirentur: sed ille qui eos noverat in seipsis, audiens apud semetipsum respondit, et ait:

Hoc vos scandalizat. Quia dixi: Carnem meam do vobis manducare, et sanguinem meum bibere: hoc vos nempe scandalizat.

Si ergo videritis Filium hominis ascendentem ubi erat prius? Quid est hoc? hinc solvit quod illos moverat; hinc eruit unde fuerunt scandalizati; hinc plane, si intelligerent: illi enim putaverunt eum erogaturum corpus suum; ille autem se dixit ascensurum, in cælum utique integrum. Cum videritis Filium hominis ascendentem ubi erat prius, certe vel tunc videbitis quia non eo modo quo putatis eroget corpus. Certe vel tunc intelligetis quia gratia ejus non consumitur morsibus. In his verbis perspicue intelligitur Christum esse unam personam, dum dixit Filium hominis esse prius in cœlo. In terra loquebatur, et in cœlo se esse dicebat. Quod quo pertinet, nisi ut intelligamus unam personam esse Christum Deum et hominem, non duas? ne fide nostra non sit trinitas, sed quaternitas. Christus ergo unus est, Verbum, anima, caro. Unus Christus, Filius Dei, et Filius hominis. Unus Christus, Filius Dei semper, Filius hominis ex tempore; tamen unus Christus secundum unitatem personæ in cælo erat, quando in terra loquebatur. Sic erat Filius hominis in cœlo, quomodo Filius Dei in terra. Sic Filius Dei in terra suscepta carne, quomodo Filius hominis in cœlo, in unitate personæ. Quod mox latius exponit, quid intersit inter spiritum et carnem, et quid inter carnaliter Christum manducare velle, et spiritualiter accipere. Ait enim:

Spiritus est qui vivificat, caro non prodest quidquam. Paulo ante dixit: Nisi manducaveritis carnem Filii hominis, et biberitis ejus sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobis; et modo dicit: Caro non prodest quidquam, id est, si carnaliter vultis intelligere quæ dico, caro non prodest quidquam; si sic carnaliter intelligitis, manducandum sicut alium cibum, sicut carnes quæ emuntur in macellis, Spiritus enim est, qui vivificat. Per spiritum prodest caro, quæ per se ipsam non prodest; quia littera occidit, Spiritus autem vivificat (II Cor. III). Nam per carnem spiritus aliquid pro salute nostra egit caro vas fuit quod habebat, per quam spiritus salvavit nos, utens organo carnis ad salutem humani generis, quia diabolus utebatur serpente, quasi organo, ad subversionem primi parentis nostri (Gen. III). Spiritus est, qui vivificat, caro autem non prodest quidquam. Sicut illi intellexerunt carnem, non sic ego do ad manducandum meam carnem.

(Bedæ Venerabilis, In S. Joannis Evangelium Expositio, Caput VI; PL, 92:719-721.) Return to Article.

[20.5] Ipse vocatur mysterium fidei, quoniam qui credit se redemptum ab eo sanguine, et imitator fit passionis ipsius, ei proficit ad salutem et ad vitam æternam. Unde Dominus dicit: Nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis, et biberitis ejus sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobismetipsis (Joan. VI, 54). Hoc est, nisi participes fueritis meæ passionis, et credideritis me mortuum pro vestra salute, non habebitis vitam in vobis. Mysterium Græce, Latine secretum, quia fides ista latet in cordibus electorum, propterea vocatur secretum fidei. Return to Article.

[21.] Alt. Trans. Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mainz (c. 780-856 A.D.):

For certain of late, not entertaining a correct view of the Sacrament itself of the body and blood of our Lord, have said, that this very body and blood of our Lord, which was born of the Virgin Mary, and in which the Lord Himself suffered upon the cross, and rose again from the tomb, is the self-same body which is taken from the altar. We disclosed this error, as far as we were able, writing to Egilus, the Abbot, what ought to be truly believed concerning that body. For our Lord says concerning His body and blood in the Gospel: I am the living bread, which have come down from heaven. If any man shall eat of this bread, he shall live forever: for My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. Whoso eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood, hath life eternal. He, therefore, hath not this life, who eateth not this bread and drinketh not this blood. For this temporal life men can have in this world without that (spiritual eating), who are not in His body through faith; but they can never have that eternal life which is promised to the Saints. But lest they should think that in this food and drink, which they take carnally, and do not understand spiritually, life eternal is thus promised in faith, that they who should take it, should die neither in soul or body, He condescended to meet this thought. For when He had said, Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh My blood hath eternal life; He immediately added and said: I will raise Him up in the last day; that he may have, in the meantime, eternal life according to the spirit.

(B. Rabani Mauri Archiep. Mogunt., Incipit Pœnitentiale, Caput XXXIII; PL, 110:493; trans. JHT-TCF, 242-243.)

Cf. Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mainz (c. 780-856 A.D.):

Indeed, the Lord willed that the sacraments of His body and blood be received by the mouths of the faithful and turned into their nourishment, so that through a visible act the effect of the invisible might be shown. Just as material food nourishes and sustains the body externally, so too does the word of God internally nourish and strengthen the soul; for man lives not by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4), and: The Word became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). For the Truth itself says: My flesh is truly food, and my blood is truly drink (John 6:55). Indeed, the flesh of Christ is food because it truly nourishes and sustains man to eternal life, and His blood is truly drink because it satisfies the hungry soul and thirst for justice eternally. Men can have temporal life without this food and drink, but not eternal life, because this food and drink signify eternal union with the head and its members. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him (John 6:56). The sacrament of this matter, that is, the unity of Christ’s body and blood, is taken from the Lord’s table; some for life, others for destruction. The reality itself is for every person’s life, none for destruction, for whoever is a participant is united with Christ the head in the heavenly kingdom. For the sacrament is one thing, and the virtue of the sacrament is another. The sacrament is received through the mouth, but the virtue of the sacrament satisfies the inner man. Therefore, since bread confirms the body, it is appropriately called the body of Christ; and wine, because it operates in the flesh as blood, is referred to as the blood of Christ. These, while visible, are sanctified by the Holy Spirit and become the sacrament of the divine body. [Maluit enim Dominus corporis et sanguinis sui sacramenta fidelium ore percipi, et in pastum eorum redigi, ut per visibile opus invisibilis ostenderetur effectus. Sicut enim cibus materialis forinsecus nutrit corpus et vegetat: ita etiam verbum Dei intus animam nutrit et roborat: quia non solo in pane vivit homo, sed in omni verbo quod procedit de ore Dei (Matth. IV); et: Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis (Joan. I). Ait enim ipsa Veritas: Caro enim mea vere cibus est, et sanguis meus vere est potus (Joan. VI). Vere scilicet caro Christi est cibus, quia vere pascit et ad æternam vitam hominem nutrit et sanguis ejus vere est potus, quia esurientem animam et sitientem justitiam in æternum veraciter satiat. Temporalem quippe vitam sine isto cibo et potu habere possunt homines, æternam omnino non possunt quia iste cibus et potus æternam societatem capitis membrorumque suorum significat. Qui manducat, inquit, meam carnem, et bibit sanguinem meum, ipse in me manet, et ego in eo (Joan. VI). Hujus rei sacramentum, id est, unitatis corporis et sanguinis Christi, de mensa Dominica assumitur quibusdam ad vitam, quibusdam ad exitium. Res vero ipsa omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium, quicunque ejus particeps fuerit, idem Christo capiti membrum associatur in regno cœlesti: quia aliud est sacramentum, aliud virtus sacramenti. Sacramentum enim ore percipitur, virtute sacramenti interior homo satiatur. Ergo quia panis corpus confirmat, ideo ille corpus Christi congruenter nuncupatur: vinum autem, quia sanguinem operatur in carne, ideo ad sanguinem Christi refertur. Hæc autem dum sunt visibilia, sanctificata tunc per Spiritum sanctum, in sacramentum divini corporis transeunt.]

(B. Rabani Mauri Archiep. Mogunt., De Universo Libri Viginti Duo, Lib. V, Cap. XI; PL, 111:135-136.)

Cf. Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mainz (c. 780-856 A.D.):

Therefore, whatever is read in the holy Scriptures that seems harsh and almost cruel in both its actions and words, when spoken from the perspective of God or His saints, serves to destroy the kingdom of lust. If it sounds clearly, it should not be referred to as something figurative, as is the case with the Apostle’s words: “You have laid up for yourself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will repay each one according to his deeds” (Romans 2:5). Thus, in figurative speech, the rule should be such that it is carefully considered for as long as necessary until the interpretation leads to the kingdom of charity. If it already sounds proper, no figurative meaning is to be assumed. If the speech is prescriptive, prohibiting vice or crime, or commanding utility or beneficence, it is not figurative. However, if it seems to command vice or crime, or to forbid utility and beneficence, it is figurative. For example, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you” (John 6:53). This seems to command a crime or vice. Therefore, it is figurative, instructing that we should share in the Lord’s Passion and recall sweetly and profitably in memory that His flesh was crucified and wounded for us. [Quidquid ergo asperum et quasi sævum factu dictuque in sanctis Scripturis legitur, ex persona Dei vel sanctorum ejus, ad cupiditatis regnum destruendum valet. Quod si perspicue sonat, non est ad aliud referendum, quasi figurate dictum sit, sicuti est illud Apostoli: Thesaurizasti tibi, inquit, iram in die iræ et revelationis justi judicii Dei, qui reddet unicuique secundum opera sua, et reliqua. (Rom. II.) Ergo in locutionibus figuratis regula sit hujusmodi, ut tam diu versetur diligenti consideratione quod legitur, donec ad regnum charitatis interpretatio perducatur. Si autem hoc jam proprie sonat, nulla putetur figurata locutio. Si præceptiva locutio est, aut flagitium, aut facinus vetans, aut utilitatem aut beneficentiam jubens, non est figurata. Si autem flagitium aut facinus videtur jubere, aut utilitatem et beneficentiam vetare, figurata est. Nisi manducaveritis, inquit, carnem filii hominis, et sanguinem ejus biberitis, nou habebitis vitam in vobis (Joan. VI). Facinus vel flagitium videtur jubere. Figurata ergo est, præcipiens passioni Domini esse communicandum, et suaviter atque utiliter recolendum in memoria, quod pro nobis caro ejus crucifixa et vulnerata sit.]

(B. Rabani Mauri Archiep. Mogunt., De Clericorum Institutione, Lib. III, Cap. XIII; PL, 107:390.) Return to Article.

[22.] Cf. George Stanley Faber:

In the preceding extract, we read: Then shall ye understand, not that my flesh, as the faithless imagine, is to be eaten by believers; but that bread and wine, truly, yet sacramentally, changed into the substance of my body and blood, are to be taken by them.

Here, from his use of the word SUBSTANCE, a Romanist may possibly contend, that Bertram, after all, maintained the Doctrine of Transubstantiation.

But, in truth, so far from favouring that Doctrine, the passage, in its entireness, is fatal to it.

First, it distinctly states, agreeably to what had immediately preceded that the flesh of Christ is NOT, according to the gross notion of the faithless, to be eaten by true believers.

And, next, it goes on to state that there is, nevertheless, a sense, in which his flesh is to be eaten. For the eucharistic bread and wine, truly in virtue, though but mystically or sacramentally (per mysterium) in mode, are changed into the substance or beneficial reality of the body and blood and thus, sacramentally, though not literally, Christ’s body and blood are to be taken by believers.

The passage is plain enough in itself: but, should any doubt remain as to its import, Bertram, in the sequel, by declaring that no change takes place in the SUBSTANCE of the elements, effectually removes it.

Now, says he, we must examine the second question proposed, and see: Whether the self-same body, which was born of Mary, which suffered, died, and was buried, and which sitteth at the right hand of the Father, be that, which, daily in the Church, is received by the mouths of the faithful in the mystery of the sacrament.—

St. Ambrose saith that, in that mystery of the body and blood of Christ, a change is made; and that a wondrous change, because divine; and ineffable, because incomprehensible. Let them, who will take nothing here according to any hidden virtue, but who will weigh every thing as it outwardly appeareth: let them say, in what respect the change is here made. For, in respect of the SUBSTANCE of the creatures, they are, after consecration, what they were before. Bread and wine they were before and, after consecration, they are seen to remain of the same species. So that a change hath inwardly been wrought by the mighty power of the Holy Spirit: and this is that, which faith gazeth upon; this is that, which feedeth the soul; this is that, which ministereth the substance of eternal life.—

How carefully, how warily, is this distinction drawn!—He distinguisheth, between THE SACRAMENT OF THE FLESH, and THE FLESH ITSELF: inasmuch as he saith; that He was crucified and buried in that true flesh, which he took of the Virgin; but that the mystery, which is now performed in the Church, is the sacrament of that true flesh in the which he was crucified. Here he openly teacheth the faithful: that the flesh, in what Christ was crucified and buried, is no mystery, but true and natural; while the flesh, which now in a mystery containeth the SIMILITUDE of the former, is not flesh in its nature but in a sacrament. For, in its nature, it is bread: but, sacramentally, it is the true body of Christ; as the Lord Jesus himself declareth, This is my body.

…It may be proper to state, that I have followed the english translation of Bertram’s Work, as it occurs in the Oxford edition of A.D. 1838.

(George Stanley Faber, Christ’s Discourse at Capernaum: Fatal to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, [London: R. B. Seeley and W. Burnside, 1840], pp. 161-163, 164. Cf. The Book of Ratramn: The Priest and Monk of Corbey, Commonly Called Bertram, On the Body and Blood of the Lord, trans. H. W. & W. C. C., [Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1838], §§. 50, 54, 57, pp. 26, 28-29, 30.) Return to Article.

[23.] Alt. Trans. Ratramnus [Bertram] of Corbie (c. ?-868 A.D.):

Here also we ought to consider how those Words of our Saviour are to be understood, wherein he saith, Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink, his Blood, you have not Life in you. For he doth not say, that his Flesh which hung on the Cross, should be cut in pieces, and eaten by his Disciples; or that his Blood, which he was to shed for the Redemption of the World, should be given his Disciples to drink: For it had been a Crime for his Disciples to have eaten his Flesh, and drunk his Blood, in the sense that the unbelieving Jews then understood him.

Wherefore, in the following words he saith to his Disciples, who did not disbelieve that Saying of Christ, though they did not yet penetrate the true Meaning of it. Doth this offend you? What if ye shall see the Son of Man ascending up he was before? As though he should say, Think not that you must eat my Flesh, and drink my Blood corporally [corporaliter], divided into small pieces; for, when after my Resurrection, you shall see me ascend into the Heavens with my Body entire, and all my Blood: Then you shall understand that the Faithful must eat my Flesh, not in the manner which these Unbelievers imagine; but that indeed Believers must receive it, Bread and Wine being mystically [per mysterium, i.e. sacramentally] turned into the substance of my Body and Blood.

And after, It’s the Spirit, saith he, that quickneth, the Flesh profiteth nothing. He saith, The Flesh profiteth nothing, taken as those Infidels understood him, but otherwise it giveth Life, as it is taken mystically by the Faithful. And why so? He himself shews, when he saith, It is the Spirit that quickneth: Therefore in this Mystery of the Body and Blood of Christ, there is a spiritual Operation, which giveth Life; without which Operation the Mysteries profit nothing; because they may indeed feed the Body, but cannot feed the Soul.

(Ratramni Corbeiensis Monachi, De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, §§. XXIX-XXXI; PL, 121:140; trans. Bertram or Ratram Concerning the Body and Blood of the Lord, In Latin; With A New English Translation: The Second Edition, [London: H. Clark, 1688], §§. 29-31, pp. 167, 169, 171.)

Cf. Alt. Trans. Ratramnus [Bertram] of Corbie (c. ?-868 A.D.):

We see this Doctor saith, that the Mystery of Christ’s Body and Blood is celebrated by the Faithful under a FIGURE [figura]. For he saith, To receive his Flesh and Blood carnally, is not an Act of Religion, but of Villany. For which Cause,they in the Gospel, who took our Saviour’s Words not Spiritually, but Carnally, departed from him, and followed him no more.

(Ratramni Corbeiensis Monachi, De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, §. XXXIV; PL, 121:141; trans. Bertram or Ratram Concerning the Body and Blood of the Lord, In Latin; With A New English Translation: The Second Edition, [London: H. Clark, 1688], §. 34, p. 173.)

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

(Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3.16.24; PL, 34:74-75; trans. NPNF1, 2:563.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Ratramnus [Bertram] of Corbie (c. ?-868 A.D.):

6. Let us examine the first of these two questions, and, to prevent our being stopped by ambiguity of language, let us define what we mean by “figure,” what by “truth,” so that keeping our gaze fixed on something quite certain, we may know in what path of reasoning we ought to direct our steps.

7. “Figure” means a kind of overshadowing that reveals its intent under some sort of veil. For example, when we wish to speak of the Word, we say “bread,” as when in the Lord’s Prayer we ask that daily bread be given us, or when Christ speaking in the Gospel says, “I am the living bread who came down from heaven”; or when he calls himself the vine and his disciples the branches. For all these passages say one thing and hint at another.

8. “Truth,” on the other hand, is representation of clear fact, not obscured by any shadowy images, but uttered in pure and open, and to say it more plainly, in natural meanings, as, for example, when Christ is said to have been born of the Virgin, suffered, been crucified, died, and been buried. For nothing is here adumbrated by concealing metaphors, but the reality of the fact is represented in the ordinary senses of the words. Nothing else may be understood than what is said. In the instances mentioned above this was not the case. From the point of view of substance, the bread is not Christ, the vine is not Christ, the branches are not apostles. Therefore in this latter instance the figure, but in the former the truth, is represented by the statement, that is, the bare and obvious meaning.

9. Now let us go back to the matter which is the cause of what has been said, namely, the body and blood of Christ. For if that mystery is not performed in any figurative sense, then it is not rightly given the name of mystery. Since that cannot be called a mystery in which there is nothing hidden, nothing removed from the physical senses, nothing covered over with any veil. But that bread which through the ministry of the priest comes to be Christ’s body exhibits one thing outwardly to human sense, and it proclaims another thing inwardly to the minds of the faithful. Outwardly it has the shape of bread which it had before, the color is exhibited, the flavor is received, but inwardly something far different, much more precious, much more excellent, becomes known, because something heavenly, something divine, that is, Christ’s body, is revealed, which is not beheld, or received, or consumed by the fleshly senses but in the gaze of the believing soul.

(Ratramni Corbeiensis Monachi, De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, §§. VI-IX; PL, 121:130-131; trans. LCC, 9:119-120.)

Alt. Trans. Ratramnus [Bertram] of Corbie (c. ?-868 A.D.):

…let us define what a Figure is, and what the Truth; that having some certain mark in our Eye, we may know how the better to direct the course of our Reasoning.

A Figure is a certain covert manner of Expression, which exhibits what it intends under certain Vails. For example; We call the Word, Bread, as in the Lords Prayer, we beg that God would give us our daily Bread: Or as Christ in the Gospel speaks, I am the Living Bread that came down from Heaven. Or when he calls himself a Vine, and his Disciples Branches, I am the true Vine, and ye are the Branches. In all these Instances, one is said and another thing is understood.

The Truth is the Representation of the very thing it self, not vailed with any Shadow or Figure, but expressed according to the pure and naked (or to speak more plainly yet) natural Signification of the words. As when we say that Christ was Born of a Virgin, Suffered, was Crucified, Dead and Buried: Here is nothing shadowed out under the coverture of Figures, but the very Truth of the thing is expressed, according to the natural Signification of the words; nor is anything here understood but what is said. But in the forementioned Instances it is not so. For in Substance, neither is Christ Bread, or a Vine, nor the Apostles Branches. These are Figures, but in the other, the plain and naked Truth is related.

Now let us return to the Subject which hath occasioned the saying of all this, viz. the Body and Blood of Christ. If there be no figure in that Mystery, it is not properly called a Mystery; for that cannot be said to be a Mystery, which hath nothing secret, nothing remote from our bodily Senses, nothing covered under any Vail. But as for that Bread which by the Ministry of the Priest, is made Christ’s Body, it sheweth one thing outwardly to our Senses, and inwardly proclaims quite another thing to the minds of the Faithful. That which outwardly appears is Bread, as it was before in Form, Colour and Taste: But inwardly there is quite another thing presented to us, and that much more precious and excellent, because it is Heavenly and Divine: That is, Christ’s Body is exhibited which is beheld, received, and eaten, not by our carnal Senses, but by the sight of the believing Soul.

(Ratramni Corbeiensis Monachi, De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, §§. VI-IX; PL, 121:130-131; trans. Bertram or Ratram Concerning the Body and Blood of the Lord, In Latin; With A New English Translation: The Second Edition, [London: H. Clark, 1688], §§. 6-9, pp. 137, 139, 141.) Return to Article.

[24.] Cf. James Ussher:

In the year 1608 there were published at Paris certain works of Fulbertus, Bishop of Chartres, “pertaining as well to the refuting of the heresies of this time” (for so saith the inscription) “as to the clearing of the History of the French.” Among those things that appertain to the confutation of the heresies of this time, there is one especially (fol. 168) laid down in these words: Nisi manducaveritis, inquit, carnem filii hominis, et sanguinem biberitis, non habebitis vitam in vobis. Facinus vel flagitium videtur jubere. Figura ergo est, dicet hæreticus, præcipiens Passioni Domini esse communicandum tantum, et suaviter atque utiliter recondendum in memoriâ, quod pro nobis caro ejus crucifixa et vulnerata sit. “Unless, saith Christ, ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you. He seemeth to command an outrage or wickedness. It is therefore a figure, will the heretic say, requiring us only to communicate with the Lord’s Passion, and sweetly and profitably to lay up in our memory, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us.” He that put in those words (dicet hæreticus) thought he had notably met with the heretics of this time; but was not aware, that thereby he made St Augustine an heretic for company. For the heretic that speaketh thus, is even St Augustine himself: whose very words these are, in his third book De Doctrinâ Christianâ, the 16th chapter. Which some belike having put the publisher in mind of, he was glad to put this among his errata, and to confess that these two words were not to be found in the MS. copy which he had from Petavius; but telleth us not what we are to think of him, that for the countenancing of the Popish cause ventured so shamefully to abuse St Augustine.

(James Ussher, Archbishop Usher’s Answer to a Jesuit: With Other Tracts on Popery, [Cambridge: Pitt Press, 1835], “An Answer to a Challenge Made by a Jesuit in Ireland,” Ch. 1: An Answer to the Former Challenge, pp. 14-15.) Return to Article.

[25.] Cf. Ratramnus [Bertram] of Corbie (c. ?-868 A.D.):

(Ratramni Corbeiensis Monachi, De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, §. XXXIV; PL, 121:141; trans. LCC, 9:127.)

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

(Augustine, Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel of John, 11.8; PL, 35:1479; trans. NPNF1, 7:77.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

Every figurative and allegorical text or utterance seems to mean one thing materially, and to suggest another thing spiritually.

(Augustine, Sermon 4.23 [Esau and Jacob]; PL, 38:45; trans. WSA, III/1:198.)

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

(Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3.5.9; PL, 34:68-69; trans. NPNF1, 2:559.) See also: ccel.org. Return to Article.

[26.] Alt. Trans. Ælfric of Eynsham (c. 955-1010 A.D.):

There is a wide difference between the body in which Christ suffered, and the body that is consecrated in the Housel; the body forsooth in which Christ suffered was born of the flesh of Mary, of blood and bones, skin and sinew, and human limbs, quickened by a reasonable soul; and his spiritual body which we call the Housel, is made up of many grains, without blood and bone, void of limbs and soul, and therefore nothing in it is to be understood in a bodily way, but every thing is to be taken spiritually. Whatever that may be in the Holy Eucharist that imparts the substance of life, it is a spiritual virtue, and its operation is invisible.

(Ælfric’s Easter Homily. Vind. Cath. III. 350; trans. William Wigan Harvey, The History and Theology of the Three Creeds: Volume I, [London: John W. Parker and Son, 1854], footnote, p. 296.)

Full Text. Ælfric of Eynsham (c. 955-1010 A.D.):

The people of Israel ate the flesh of the lamb at their Easter-tide, when they were delivered, and we now partake spiritually of Christ’s body, and drink his blood, when with true belief we partake of the holy housel. The time they held as their Easter-tide, for seven days, with great veneration, in which they were delivered from Pharaoh, and departed from the country; so likewise we christian men hold Christ’s resurrection as our Easter-tide, during these seven days, because, through his passion and resurrection, we are redeemed, and we shall be purified by partaking of the holy housel, as Christ himself said in his gospel, “Verily, verily I say unto you, ye have not life in you, unless ye eat my flesh and drink my blood. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, he dwelleth in me, and I in him, and he shall have everlasting life, and I will raise him at the last day. I am the living bread, which came down from heaven. Not so as your fathers ate the heavenly meat in the wilderness, and afterwards died; he who eateth this bread shall live to eternity.” He hallowed the bread before his passion, and distributed to his disciples, thus saying, “Eat this bread, it is my body, and do this in my remembrance.” Afterwards he blessed wine in a cup, and said, “Drink all of this: this is my blood, which shall be shed for many in forgiveness of sins.” The apostles did as Christ commanded, in afterwards hallowing bread and wine for housel in his remembrance. In like manner their after-comers and all priests, at Christ’s behest, hallow bread and wine for housel, in his name, with the apostolic blessing.

Now certain men have often inquired, and yet frequently inquire, how the bread, which is prepared from corn, and baked by the heat of fire, can be changed to Christ’s body; or the wine, which is wrung from many berries, can by any blessing be changed to the Lord’s blood? Now we say to such men, that some things are said of Christ typically, some literally. It is a true and certain thing that Christ was born of a maiden, and of his own will suffered death, and was buried, and on this day arose from death. He is called bread typically, and lamb, and lion, and whatever else. He is called bread, because he is the life of us and of angels; he is called a lamb for his innocence; a lion for the strength wherewith he overcame the strong devil. But yet, according to true nature, Christ is neither bread, nor a lamb, nor a lion. Why then is the holy housel called Christ’s body or his blood, if it is not truly that which it is called? But the bread and the wine which are hallowed through the mass of the priests, appear one thing to human understandings without, and cry another thing to believing minds within. Without they appear bread and wine, both in aspect and in taste; but they are truly, after the hallowing, Christ’s body and his blood through a ghostly mystery. A heathen child is baptized, but it varies not its aspect without, although it be changed within. It is brought to the font-vessel sinful through Adam’s transgression, but it will be washed from all sins within, though it without change not its aspect. In like manner the holy font-water, which is called the well-spring of life, is in appearance like other waters, and is subject to corruption; but the might of the Holy Ghost approaches the corruptible water through the blessing of the priests, and it can afterwards wash body and soul from all sins through ghostly might. Lo now we see two things in this one creature. According to true nature the water is a corruptible fluid, and according to a ghostly mystery has salutary power; in like manner, if we behold the holy housel in a bodily sense, then we see that it is a corruptible and changeable creature. But if we distinguish the ghostly might therein, then understand we that there is life in it, and that it gives immortality to those who partake of it with belief. Great is the difference between the invisible might of the holy housel and the visible appearance of its own nature. By nature it is corruptible bread and corruptible wine, and is by power of the divine word truly Christ’s body and his blood; not, however, bodily, but spiritually. Great is the difference between the body in which Christ suffered, and the body which is hallowed for housel. The body verily in which Christ suffered was born of Mary’s flesh, with blood and with bones, with skin and with sinews, with human limbs, quickened by a rational soul; and his ghostly body, which we call housel, is gathered of many corns, without blood and bone, limbless and soulless, and there is, therefore, nothing therein to be understood bodily, but all is to be understood spiritually. Whatsoever there is in the housel which gives us the substance of life, that is from its ghostly power and invisible efficacy: therefore is the holy housel called a mystery, because one thing is seen therein and another thing understood. That which is there seen has a bodily appearance, and that which we understand therein has ghostly might. Verily Christ’s body which suffered death, and from death arose, will henceforth never die, but is eternal and impassible. The housel is temporary, not eternal; corruptible, and is distributed piece-meal; chewed betwixt teeth, and sent into the belly: but it is, nevertheless, by ghostly might, in every part all. Many receive the holy body, and it is, nevertheless, in every part all, by a ghostly miracle. Though to one man a less part be allotted, yet is there no more power in the great part than in the less; because it is in every man whole, by the invisible might.

Cf. Ælfric of Eynsham (c. 955-1010 A.D.):

[27.] Full Text. Alt. Trans. Hugh of Saint Victor (c. 1096-1141):

Concerning the first reception, which is sacramental and spiritual, the Lord says: “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them”; and again: “Whoever eats me will live because of me.” Concerning the second, which is only spiritual, the Lord himself speaks again: “The flesh profits nothing; the Spirit gives life” (John 6:57, 58, 64); as if to say: If you understand only the carnal reception without grace, it is of no benefit, but rather harms; the spiritual, however, without the carnal, gives you life. Concerning the third, which is only sacramental, the Apostle says: “Whoever eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to themselves, not discerning the body of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:29), which means: Not distinguishing the body of the Lord from other foods. This is a helpful distinction of the body of the Lord from other foods because when we take other foods, we incorporate them into our body; but when we receive the body of the Lord as food, if we act worthily, we are incorporated into the Lord, and indeed, we are entirely transformed into God, because “the one who adheres to God is one spirit with Him” (1 Corinthians 6:17). Happy is the traveler who is refreshed by such nourishment, which safely leads him on the way and carries him to his homeland. [De prima sumptione, quæ est sacramentalis et spiritualis, Dominus dicit: Qui manducat meam carnem, et bibit sanguinem meum, in me manet et ego in eo; et rursum: Qui manducat me, vivet propter me. De secunda, quæ est tantum spiritualis, iterum ipse Dominus loquitur: Caro nihil prodest, spiritus est qui vivificat (Joan. VI, 57, 58, 64); ac si diceret: Si intelligis tantum carnalem sumptionem absque gratia, nihil prodest, imo nocet; spiritualis vero absque carnali te vivificat. De tertia, quæ est tantum sacramentalis, dicit Apostolus: Qui manducat et bibit indigne, judicium sibi manducat et bibit, non di-judicans corpus Domini (I Cor. XI, 29), quod est dicere: Non discernens corpus Domini ab aliis cibis. Hæc est salubris distinctio corporis Dominici ab aliis cibis quia cum alios sumimus, eos corpori nostro incorporamus: cum vero Domini corpus in escam suscipimus, si digne agimus, Domino incorporamur, imo toti in Deum transimus, quia qui adhæret Deo unus spiritus est cum eo (I Cor. VI, 17). Felix viator, qui tali viatico reficitur, quod secure reducit eum per viam, et trajicit in patriam.]

([Hugh of Saint Victor], Instructio Sacerdotis Seu Tractatus de Præcipuis Mysterijs Nostre Religionis, Caput XII, §. 31; PL, 184:789-790.)

Note: “Instructio Sacerdotis Seu Tractatus de Præcipuis Mysterijs Nostre Religionis” is often attributed to Bernard of Clairvaux; however, as best as I can discern, Hugh of Saint Victor is the more likely author. Return to Article.

[28.] Cf. Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux (c. 1090-1153 A.D.):

We must, brothers, imitate this wisdom; for many still walk with Jesus until they come to eat His flesh and drink His blood, that is, to share in His sufferings (for both that word and the sacrament itself signify this): then they become scandalized and turn back, saying, “This is a hard saying” (John 6:67, 68, 69, 61). [Necesse habemus, fratres, hanc prudentiam imitari; quia multi adhuc ambulant cum Jesu, donec veniatur ad edendam ejus carnem et bibendum sanguinem illius, ad com municandum scilicet passionibus ejus (hoc enim et verbum illud et ipsum sacramentum significat): extunc autem scandalizantur et abeunt retro dicentes, quia durus est hic sermo (Joan. VI, 67, 68, 69, 61).]

(S. Bernardi Abbatis Claræ-Vallensis, In Natali Sancti Benedicti Abbatis: Sermo, §. 12; PL, 183:382.)

Cf. Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux (c. 1090-1153 A.D.):

We read in the Gospel that when the Savior was preaching and advising His disciples to share in His sufferings under the mystery of eating His body, some said: “This is a hard teaching,” and because of this, they no longer followed Him. When the disciples were asked if they also wanted to leave, they answered, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life” (John 6:61, 67, 68, 69). Thus, I say to you, brothers, that to this day it is clear to some that the words Jesus speaks are spirit and life, and therefore they follow Him; to others, these words seem harsh, and they seek consolation elsewhere. [Legimus in Evangelio, quod prædicante aliquando Salvatore, et sub mysterio edendi corporis sui discipulos ad communicandum passionibus suis admonente. dixerint quidam: Durus est hic sermo; et ex hoc jam non fuerint cum eo. Interrogati vero discipuli an et ipsi vellent abire: Domine, inquiunt, ad quem ibimus? verba vitæ æternæ habes (Joan. VI, 61, 67, 68, 69). Ita dico vobis, fratres, usque hodie quibusdam manifestum est quoniam verba quæ loquitur Jesus, spiritus et vita sunt; et propterea sequuntur illum: aliis dura videntur, et miseram alibi quærunt consolationem.]

(S. Bernardi Abbatis Claræ-Vallensis, Sermones de Diversis: Sermo V, §. 1; PL, 183:554.) Return to Article.

[29.] Full Text. Arnold, Abbot of Bonneval (c. 12th Century A.D.):

There once, as it is recorded in the Gospel of John, arose a question respecting the newness of this word: and, at the doctrine of this mystery, when the Lord said, Except ye shall eat the flesh of the Son of man and shall drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you, the auditors were astonished. Because some believed not this, nor were able to understand it, they went back: for they thought it a horrible and nefarious thing to eat human flesh; fancying, that they were taught to eat his flesh boiled or roasted or cut asunder, when yet his personal flesh, if divided into portions, would not be sufficient for the whole human race: so that, if that were once consumed, religion itself might seem to have perished, inasmuch as no victim would ulteriorly have remained to it. But, in thoughts of this description, flesh and blood profit nothing: for, as the Master himself taught us, the words are spirit and life; nor, unless faith be added, can the carnal sense penetrate to the understanding of so great a profundity. The bread is food; the blood is life; the flesh is substance; the body is the Church: the body, on account of the agreement of the members in one; the bread, on account of the congruity of nutriment; the blood, on account of its vivifying efficacy; the flesh, on account of the propriety of assumed humanity. This Sacrament Christ calleth, sometimes his body, sometimes flesh and blood, sometimes bread the portion of eternal life, whereof, according to these visible things he has made a communication to our bodily nature. That common bread, being changed into flesh and blood, procures life and increase to our bodies: and, therefore, the infirmity of our faith, being from the wonted effect of things assisted, is taught, by an argument addressed to the senses, that the effect of eternal life is in the visible sacraments, and that we are united to Christ not so much by a bodily as by a spiritual transition. For he himself, being both bread and flesh and blood, the same is made food and substance and life to his Church, which he calls his own body, giving to it the participation of the Spirit.

Cf. George Stanley Faber:

Pamelius contends, that this passage is clearly corroborative of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation. Prorsus Transubstantiationem confirmat.

I marvel at his judgment.

To say nothing of such a gloss being absolutely at variance with the whole tenor of the Treatise and with the whole context of the passage itself, he has singularly misunderstood the import of the very place upon which he thus confidently comments.

The Changing of common bread into flesh and blood, as here mentioned, does not, agreeably to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, import Its change into the substance of CHRIST’S flesh and blood, but simply, by the ordinary process of nutritive digestion, Its change into OUR flesh and blood.

This, I think, will be quite clear to any body who marks the drift of the passage.

First, the author states a notorious physical fact. The common bread, which we eat, is changed into our natural flesh and blood, and thus procures life and increase to our bodies.

Next, from what he calls the wonted effect of things, he argues onward to our spiritual growth and improvement. Just as our natural flesh and blood are sustained and supplied by the physical operation of our daily food so, by an argument thus addressed to our senses, our infirm faith is taught, that, through a devout participation of the Visible Sacrament, we are united to Christ by a Spiritual though not by a Bodily Transition.

This is palpably the meaning of the passage: and it will serve to explain the import of my next following quotation from the same writer.

The early Ecclesiastics frequently speak of common or secular bread and wine being changed in their nature, so as to be made by the prayer of consecration the body and blood of Christ: and, from such language, the Divines of the Roman Church are fond of plausibly deducing the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

But this is a mere verbal fallacy. For, if, as in the next quoted passage from the same Author, we will only attend to their own explanation, we shall readily perceive that no such doctrine had ever entered into their thoughts.

With them, as I have already had occasion more than once to observe, the change of nature in the sacramental elements, by virtue of consecration, was no material change of one substance into another substance, but purely a moral change of the secular nature of the unconsecrated bread and wine into the holy or religiously appropriated nature of the consecrated bread and wine and, when those sacramental elements were said to be made into the body and blood of Christ, the import of such phraseology was, not that they were so made substantially and materially, but only that they were so made sacramentally and mystically. Accordingly, in the next cited passage where this language occurs, all reasonable possibility of misapprehension is precluded by the explicit statement: that our union with Christ, in a worthy participation of the Eucharist, extends not to any participation of his actual substance.

When such language was used in the Early Church, incidentally guarded as it was by ample explanation, its evil consequence was never anticipated: but, in the present day, when we ourselves have witnessed its perversion, its affected use by any Divine of the Church of England would be preëminently foolish and objectionable.

(George Stanley Faber, Christ’s Discourse at Capernaum: Fatal to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, [London: R. B. Seeley and W. Burnside, 1840], pp. 116-118.)

Cf. Arnold, Abbot of Bonneval (c. 12th Century A.D.):

That bread, which the Lord presented to his disciples, being changed not in semblance but in nature, was made flesh by the omnipotence of the word: and, as, in the person of Christ, the humanity was visible, while the divinity lay concealed; so the divine essence ineffably poured itself into the visible sacrament, that devotion in respect to the sacraments might be a point of religion, and that a more sincere access, even so far as a participation of the spirit, might lie open to that reality of which the body and blood are sacraments: not indeed that this union can extend to any participation of the actual substance of Christ [non quod usque ad consubstantialitatem Christi], but certainly to a most germane assocіаtion. For the Son alone is consubstantial with the Father: nor is the substance of the Trinity divisible or partible. But our conjunction with him neither mingles persons, nor unites substances: it only allies the affections, and confederates the wills.

(Ernaldi Bonævallis Abbatis, Liber De Cardinalibus Operibus Christi, VI, PL, 189:1643-1644; trans. George Stanley Faber, Christ’s Discourse at Capernaum: Fatal to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, [London: R. B. Seeley and W. Burnside, 1840], p. 119.)

Note: Notice the comparison, Christ is both human and divine (two distinct natures), so too the bread is both bread and something more (two natures).

Cf. Arnold, Abbot of Bonneval (c. 12th Century A.D.):

[30.] Qui ergo corpus Christi vult accipere, prius studeat in Christi fide et dilectione manere. Hinc est quod ait Dominus in Evangelio: Qui manducat carnem meam, in me manet et ego in eo (Joan. VI, 57). Ac si diceret: Ille in me manet, qui in bonis operibus voluntatem meam adimplet. Alioquin nisi prius maneat in me per fidem, et ponam operationem, et ego in eo, carnem meam manducare non potest, nec sanguinem bibere. Quid est ergo quod manducant homines? Ecce omnes frequenter Sacramenta altaris percipiunt plane; sed alius carnem Christi spiritualiter manducat et sanguinem bibit: alius vero non, sed tantum Sacramentum, id est corpus Christi sub Sacramento, et non rem Sacramenti. Sacramentum hoc dicitur corpus Christi proprium de virgine natum, res vero, spiritualis Christi caro. Bonus igitur accipit Sacramentum, et rem Sacramenti: malus vero, quia manducat indigne, sicut Apostolus ait, judicium sibi manducat et bibit; non probans se prius, nec dijudicans corpus Domini.

Cf. Unknown Author of Liber de Modo Bene Vivendi (c. 12th Century A.D.):

Therefore, if you do all these things as I have said, you will be able to approach the living fountain, that is, Christ, who is the source of all good things. He Himself also says of Himself: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven” (John 6:51). Concerning this bread, David says in the Psalms: “Man ate the bread of angels” (Psalm 77:25). Otherwise, although that food came from heaven and was a drink, because it was bodily, it did not befit the angels; but certainly that bread and drink were prefigured by it. Christ, however, is the bread of angels, and this sacrament is truly His flesh and true blood: which sacrament a man spiritually eats and drinks. And thus, just as the angels live in heaven by what is spiritual and divine, so man lives on earth by what he receives spiritually. [Itaque, si hæc omnia feceris sicut dixi, poteris accedere ad fontem vivum, id est ad Christum, qui est fons omnium bonorum. Ipse etiam ait de se ipso: Ego sum panis vivus qui de cœlo descendi (Joan. VI, 51). De hoc pane dicit David in Psalmis: Panem Angelorum manducavit homo (Psal. LXXVII, 25). Alioquin esca illa licet de cœlo venerit, et potus, quia corporeus erat, Angelis non congruebat: sed utique ille panis, et potus qui per hoc præfigurabatur. Christus vero panis est Angelorum, et Sacramentum hoc vera caro ejus est, et verus sanguis: quod Sacramentum spiritualiter manducat et bibit homo. Ac per hoc unde vivunt Angeli in cælis, inde vivit homo in terris: quia totum spirituale et divinum in eo quod percipit homo.]

(Liber de Modo Bene Vivendi, Cap. XXVIII, §. 85; PL, 184:1252.)

Note: “Liber de Modo Bene Vivendi” is often attributed to Bernard of Clairvaux. Return to Article.

[31.] Note: The typical (popular) modern Roman Catholic understanding of the sixth chapter of John is as follows: “When Christ informed the Jews that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood, He was speaking carnally/corporeally. Subsequently, the Jews walked away from Him, not because they misunderstood what He was saying, but because they rightly and truly understood His words (as He intended them to be understood, i.e., carnally/corporeally). The Jews could not accept this truth (that one must carnally and corporeally feed upon Christ’s literal flesh and blood, bone and sinew, through mandication), and as a result, they left Him.” Compare this understanding with the words of the Fathers quoted above. They are utterly incompatible. The Patristic understanding of the “real presence” was spiritual not carnal/corporeal (this is the historic-confessional Protestant understanding—i.e. that Christ is really and truly present in the Lord’s supper in a spiritual (non-carnal/corporeal) manner, and, to quote Augustine, “that His grace is not consumed by tooth-biting” [quia gratia ejus non consumitur morsibus]—but rather through the mouth of faith). Return to Article.

[32.] Cf. Pierre [Peter] Du Moulin:

In this controversy, we have the Popes, and also a great multitude of Doctors of the Romish Church, who hold, as we do, that there is not a word in the sixth chapter of John concerning the Eucharist, nor the corporal manducation of Christ’s body, but that Jesus speaks there of spiritual manducation, by faith in his own death. Such is the opinion of Pope Innocent III., and Pope Pius II., called Æneas Sylvius, before his elevation to the Popedom; likewise, of Cardinals Bonaventura, Cajetan, Cusanus, De Alliaco; also, of Durand, bishop of Mende, Gabriel Biel, Hesselius, one of the Doctors of the Council of Trent, Lindanus, bishop of Ruremond, Ruard Tapper, Jansenius, bishop of Ghent, Ferus, a divine of Mentz, Valdensis, and many more.[fn. *: Bonaventura in 4 Dist. art. 1, quest. 2; Cajetanus in 6 Johannis; Cusanus epist. 7, ad Bohemos; Petrus de Alliaco in 4 sent. q. 2, art. 3; Durant Rationali Div. Off. 1. 4, c. 41, n. 40; Lindanus Panopliac, 1. 4, c. 58; Tapper in explic. articulorum 15; Lovanensium. Jansen. Concord. c. 59; Ferus in 26 Mathaei et 6 Johannis; Valdensis, tom. 2 de Sacr. c. 91; Hessel. de communione sub utraque specie.] Amongst others, Gabriel Biel, in the thirty-sixth Lesson on the Canon of the Mass, says, that the Doctors, with one common consent, hold “that the sixth chapter of John relates to spiritual manducation only.” But, for brevity’s sake, let it suffice to cite the two forenamed Popes.

Pope Innocent III. expresses himself in these words: “The Lord speaks of spiritual manducation, saying, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. In this way the righteous alone eat of the body of Christ.”[fn. *: De Myst. Miss. lib. iv. c. xiv.]

A learned Pope is a very rare personage; nevertheless, it may be said of Pope Pius II. that he was one of the most learned men of his age. Arguing against the Bohemians, in his 130th epistle to Cardinal de Carvial, he writes thus: “That is not the sense of the Gospel of John which you ascribe to it; for there is no injunction given there to drink of the Sacrament; but a spiritual manner of drinking is there taught.”And shortly after: “the Lord there makes known, by these words, the secret mysteries of spiritual drinking, and not of carnal, when he says, It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing. And again, The words that I speak unto you are spirit and life. Do you wish to know certainly whether the Evangelist speaks of the spiritual manducation, which is performed by faith? Consider what the Lord says in these words, He that eats and drinks; these words are of the present and not of the future tense. Therefore, ever since the Lord spake them, there have been persons who have eaten and drunk; and, nevertheless, the Lord had not yet suffered, nor was the Sacrament yet instituted.”

On these words, “Except ye eat my flesh, ye have no life in you,” Thomas Aquinas says, “If this refers to spiritual manducation, the sentence is free from all ambiguity. For he who is a partaker in the unity of the Church, as it is affected by charity, &c., does spiritually eat the flesh of Christ, and drink his blood. But if it relates to sacramental manducation, there is ambiguity in this saying, Except ye eat my flesh, ye have no life in you.” But the modern Doctors and Jesuits have renounced this opinion, contemn the authority of the Popes now cited, and teach, that Jesus begins, John vi. 51, to speak of sacramental manducation, but that all before that relates to spiritual manducation. For example, when Jesus Christ says, (verses 33, 35, and 50,) that “he is the bread come down from heaven; that he is the bread of life; that whosoever believeth in him shall never thirst; and that he is the bread come down from heaven, of which whoso eateth shall never die,—they admit that, in all these passages, he speaks of a spiritual manner of eating and drinking, and deny that he speaks of the Eucharistic bread; and therefore they understand these expressions figuratively. This doctrine is full of absurdity, and destroys itself. How audacious to teach two kinds of manducation in the sequel of the same discourse, and to pronounce, with magisterial authority, that one part of the chapter is to be taken figuratively and the other literally, seeing that the same mode of speech is used in both, and the same exposition is equally applicable to both?

The Council of Trent was very much embarrassed with this matter, it being long agitated and controverted in that Assembly. The Prelates seeing the new Doctors opposed to the old, and even to the Popes, and likewise discording among themselves, would determine nothing upon the subject, but left it undecided, as the Jesuit Salmeron, who was present at the Council, assures us: “The Synod (says he) would not expressly determine at that time what was the most proper and natural sense of the words of Christ in John vi. on account of the various interpretations of the holy Fathers, and of the Doctors, which were brought forward on each side. However it was there especially that that attribute of perfection—the infallibility of the Pope and of the Council—ought to have displayed itself, it being a question of very great importance. The Popes have not determined any thing on the subject even yet, nor have they condemned those who hold an opinion opposite to that of the Jesuits.”[fn. *: It was urged in the Council of Trent, that the sixth chapter of John should be declared to refer to Sacramental eating; but this proposal gave much offence, because it tended to establish the necessity of the communion of the cup, which had already been taken away. Besides, if it were determined that John vi. referred to Sacramental eating, it was apprehended that the Council might be reproached with depriving the people of salvation, by having deprived them of the cup. If the haughty and arrogant Council of Trent would not venture to determine whether John vi. referred to Sacramental and oral, or to spiritual manducation being meant, how presumptuous and unwarrantable is it in individual Romanists,—as Bossuet, Hay, Milner, &c.—to assume that that chapter relates to the Eucharist, and then to adduce it in favour of Transubstantiation.]

(Peter [Pierre] Du Moulin, The Anatomy of the Mass, [Edinburgh: Waugh and Innes, 1833], pp. 279-282.)

Cf. Aeneas Silvius Bartholomeus [Pope Pius II] (1405-1464 A.D.):

That is not the sense of the Gospel of John which you ascribe to it; for there is no injunction given there to drink of the Sacrament; but a spiritual manner of drinking is there taught. . . . The Lord there makes known, by these words, the secret mysteries of spiritual drinking, and not of carnal, when he says, It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing. And again, The words that I speak unto you are spirit and life. Do you wish to know certainly whether the Evangelist speaks of the spiritual manducation, which is performed by faith? Consider what the Lord says in these words, He that eats and drinks; these words are of the present and not of the future tense. Therefore, ever since the Lord spake them, there have been persons who have eaten and drunk; and, nevertheless, the Lord had not yet suffered, nor was the Sacrament yet instituted. [Sed non est in Evangelio Ioannis, quem sibi sensus ascribitis, Non bibitio sacramentalis illic præcipitur, sed spiritualis insinuatur. . . . Declarat Dominus his verbis, non carnalis esus aut potus illic, sed spiritualis arcana mysteria contineri, dum ait, Spiritus est qui vivificat, caro non prodest quicquam. Et iterum, Verba qua locutus sum vobis, spiritus & vita sunt. Vis aperte cognoscere quoniam de spirituali manducatione, quæ fit per fidem, loquitur Evangelista, aduerte quæ dicit Dominus: Qui manducat & bibit, instantis non futuri temporis sunt verba. Erat igitur dum sic loqueretur Dominus, qui manducabant, & qui bibebant eum. Nondum passus Dominus erat, nec adhuc institutum fuit sacramentum.]

(Æneæ Sylvii, “Reverendissimo in Christo, Et Colendissimo Patri, Domino Iohanni de Carvaial, SS. Romanæ Ecclesiæ S. Angeli Diacono Cardinali,” [Epistola CXXX, “Dialogus Contra Bohemos et Taboritas De Sacra Communione Sub Una Specie,”]; In: Balthasaris Lydii M. F. Palatini, Waldensia: Id Est, Conservatio Verae Ecclesiae, [Roterodami: Ioannem Leonardi Berewout, 1616], pp. 397, 398; trans. Peter [Pierre] Du Moulin, The Anatomy of the Mass, [Edinburgh: Waugh and Innes, 1833], p. 280. Cf. Pius II [Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini], Epistolae Familiares. De Duobus Amantibus Euryalo et Lucretia. Descriptio Urbis Viennensis. ed. Nicolaus de Wyle, [Nuremberg: Anton Koberger, 1481], Epistola CXXX.) https://data.cerl.org/istc/ip00717000

Full Text. Alt. Trans. Aeneas Silvius Bartholomeus [Pope Pius II] (1405-1464 A.D.):

But it is not in the Gospel of John, to which you attribute this meaning. There, sacramental drinking is not commanded, but spiritual drinking is indicated. . . . The Lord declares by these words, that not physical eating or drinking is contained there, but spiritual mysteries are hidden, when He says, “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing.” And again, “The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” Do you want to clearly understand that the Evangelist is speaking about spiritual eating, which is done through faith? Pay attention to what the Lord says: “He who eats and drinks,” these are words of the present, not of the future time. Therefore, at the time the Lord spoke in this way, there were those who were eating and drinking Him. The Lord had not yet suffered, nor had the sacrament been instituted. How, then, did they eat and drink Christ, except spiritually through faith and love, believing in Him and doing His works? For He had also said earlier: “I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.” Those who believed in Him and followed His works were the ones eating His flesh, and they were the ones drinking His blood. And this is the truer meaning of the Gospel, because in no other way could the flesh be eaten or the blood of Christ be drunk. For the Lord’s speech was figurative, just as He said to the Samaritan woman, and on the cross said He thirsted, because He thirsted for her faith and our salvation. [Sed non est in Evangelio Ioannis, quem sibi sensus ascribitis, Non bibitio sacramentalis illic præcipitur, sed spiritualis insinuatur. . . . Declarat Dominus his verbis, non carnalis esus aut potus illic, sed spiritualis arcana mysteria contineri, dum ait, Spiritus est qui vivificat, caro non prodest quicquam. Et iterum, Verba qua locutus sum vobis, spiritus & vita sunt. Vis aperte cognoscere quoniam de spirituali manducatione, quæ fit per fidem, loquitur Evangelista, aduerte quæ dicit Dominus: Qui manducat & bibit, instantis non futuri temporis sunt verba. Erat igitur dum sic loqueretur Dominus, qui manducabant, & qui bibebant eum. Nondum passus Dominus erat, nec adhuc institutum fuit sacramentum. Quomodo ergo manducabat bibebant que Christum, nisi spiritualiter per fidem & charitatem, credentes in eum & facientes opera eius? Nam & prius dixerat? Ego sum panis vitæ, qui venit ad me, non esuriet, & qui credit in me non sitiet unquam. Qui credebant in eum, & opera sectabatur eius, hi carnem edebant eius, hi potabant sanguinem. Atque hic verior est Evangelii sensus, quia aliter edi caro, aut bibi Christi sanguis non poterat. Fuit enim figurata locutio Domini, sicut & Samaritanæ, & in cruce sitire se dixit, quia fidem illius & nostram salute sitiebat.]

(Æneæ Sylvii, “Reverendissimo in Christo, Et Colendissimo Patri, Domino Iohanni de Carvaial, SS. Romanæ Ecclesiæ S. Angeli Diacono Cardinali,” [Epistola CXXX, “Dialogus Contra Bohemos et Taboritas De Sacra Communione Sub Una Specie,”]; In: Balthasaris Lydii M. F. Palatini, Waldensia: Id Est, Conservatio Verae Ecclesiae, [Roterodami: Ioannem Leonardi Berewout, 1616], pp. 397, 398-399. Cf. Pius II [Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini], Epistolae Familiares. De Duobus Amantibus Euryalo et Lucretia. Descriptio Urbis Viennensis. ed. Nicolaus de Wyle, [Nuremberg: Anton Koberger, 1481], Epistola CXXX.) https://data.cerl.org/istc/ip00717000

Note: The context in which Pius II is writing is that of the Bohemian Reformation, specifically regarding the Bohemian assertion that the laity should be permitted to partake of the cup (and not only the bread) during the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. In 1415, at the Council of Constance, Communion under both kinds was officially abolished by the Roman Catholic Church. It was not until the 1960s (more than 500 years later), at the Second Vatican Council, that it was restored. The Bohemians argue that the Lord, in John 6, commands Christians to both “eat His flesh” and “drink His blood,” and therefore the Roman Church cannot forbid the laity from the cup (blood). Pius II argues against the Bohemians by asserting that the sixth chapter of John refers only to spiritual manducation (believing) and not to sacramental manducation (the Eucharistic elements), and therefore has no bearing upon the question. Pius II clearly has a theological agenda (as do we all); however, he presents a compelling argument (especially if we are employing a grammatical-historical method of exegesis as our primary methodological framework). If Jesus is speaking sacramentally (in a narrow sense—i.e. of the Eucharistic elements), the Bread of Life discourse would have been meaningless to all those present, as the sacrament had not yet been instituted. Thus, those present would have been unable to “eat His flesh” at that moment as He commanded.

Cf. Thomas Cardinal Cajetan, O.P. [Tommaso de Vio] (1469-1534 A.D.): (The Papal legate who opposed Martin Luther at Augsburg)

For he does not say that “whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood worthily,” but “whoever eats and drinks:” so we understand that he speaks of eating and drinking without the need for a “worthy” modification, which is not common to worthily or unworthily. Therefore, it is clear that the discourse is not literally about eating and drinking the sacrament of the Eucharist, but about eating and drinking the death of Jesus. [Non enim dicit qui manducat digne carnem meam & bibit digne sanguinem meum, sed qui ma[n]ducat & bibit: ut intelligamus ȹ de ipso maducare & bibere loquitur quod non eget modificatio[n]e digne, quod non est commune ad digne vel indigne. Clare igitur apparet ȹ non est ad literam sermo de manducare & bibere sacramentum eucharisti[a]e, sed de manducare & bibere mortem Iesu.]

(Thomae de Vio Caietani, Evangelia cum Commentariis Reuerendissimi Domini Domini Thomae de Vio Caietani, [Parisiis: Excussum parisis in officina Guilielmi Bossozeli, 1543], p. 205G) See also: 1532 Edition.

Note: Cajetan is arguing against the Utraquists who were using the sixth chapter of John to argue against the Roman Catholic practice which forbade the laity from partaking of the cup in the Lord’s Supper.

Cf. Johann Wild [Ferus] (1497-1554): (Franciscan Priest and Theologian)

What it is to eat spiritually Christ’s Body, that is to say, when He is offered in the Word, He hath Himself explained, when He saith, “He that cometh to me shall not hunger, and he that believeth in me shall not thirst.” Therefore to eat His Body spiritually is from thy heart to believe that Christ was made Man, and transferred thy sins upon Himself, and for thee shed His Blood, and overcame hell, and reconciled thee to God. He who thus believeth, by faith, in a certain manner, he seizeth Christ, and passeth Christ into himself (Christum in se trajicit) and becometh one body with Him; whereby it cometh about that he hungereth not in his sins, because he hath Christ’s righteousness, nor in death, because he hath Christ’s life, nor in curse, because he hath Christ’s blessing, nor in affliction, because through Christ he seeth deliverance.

This spiritual eating is necessary for all; without this no man is saved. For unless we have part in Christ’s righteousness and His life, what do we but remain in our sins? Wherefore Christ saith, “Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, ye shall not have life in you.” He speaketh not there of the Sacrament; for not all are condemned who take not the Sacrament, or have not taken it. He speaketh of spiritual eating, that is, of faith in Christ, without which no man shall see God. In this manner even the fathers of the Old Testament did eat the Body of Christ; for Christ was offered to them also in the Word and promises.

(Johann Wild [Ferus], Commentary on St Matthew, xxvi; trans. Nicholas Ridley, A Brief Declaration of the Lord’s Supper, ed. H. C. G. Moule, [London: Seeley and Co., 1895], pp. 297-298.)

Cf. John Lightfoot:

But what sense did they take it in that did understand it? Not in a sacramental sense surely, unless they were then instructed in the death and passion of our Saviour; for the sacrament hath a relation to his death: but it sufficiently appears elsewhere that they knew or expected nothing of that. Much less did they take it in a Jewish sense; for the Jewish conceits were about the mighty advantages that should accrue to them from the Messiah, and those merely earthly and sensual. But to partake of the Messiah truly is to partake of himself, his pure nature, his righteousness, his spirit; and to live and grow and receive nourishment from that participation of him. Things which the Jewish schools heard little of, did not believe, did not think; but things which our blessed Saviour expresseth lively and comprehensively enough, by that of eating his flesh and drinking his blood.

(John Lightfoot, Horæ Hebraicæ et Talmudicæ: Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations: In Four Volumes: Vol. III, [Oxford: At The University Press, 1859], p. 309.)

Cf. Martin Luther:

In the first place, John vi is to be entirely excluded from this discussion, since it does not refer in a single syllable to the sacrament. For not only was the sacrament not yet instituted, but the whole context plainly shows that Christ is speaking of faith in the Word made flesh…

(Martin Luther, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520), trans. A. T. W. Steinhaeuser; In: Works of Martin Luther: Volume II, [Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1915], p. 178.)

Cf. John Calvin:

Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man. …this discourse does not relate to the Lord’s Supper, but to the uninterrupted communication of the flesh of Christ, which we obtain apart from the use of the Lord’s Supper.

…And I will raise him up at the last day. It ought to be observed, that Christ so frequently connects the resurrection with eternal life, because our salvation will be hidden till that day. No man, therefore, can perceive what Christ bestows on us, unless, rising above the world, he places before his eyes the last resurrection. From these words, it plainly appears that the whole of this passage is improperly explained, as applied to the Lord’s Supper. For if it were true that all who present themselves at the holy table of the Lord are made partakers of his flesh and blood, all will, in like manner, obtain life; but we know that there are many who partake of it to their condemnation. And indeed it would have been foolish and unreasonable to discourse about the Lord’s Supper, before he had instituted it. It is certain, then, that he now speaks of the perpetual and ordinary manner of eating the flesh of Christ, which is done by faith only.

(John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to John: Volume First, trans. William Pringle, [Edinburgh: Printed for the Calvin Translation Society, 1847], on John 6:53, 54, pp. 265, 266.)

Cf. Ulrich Zwingli:

…when Christ referred to eating his flesh and drinking his blood he simply meant believing in him as the one who has given his flesh and blood for our redemption and the cleansing of our sins. In this passage he is not speaking of the sacrament, but preaching the Gospel under the figure of eating and drinking his flesh and blood.

(Ulrich Zwingli, On the Lord’s Supper, The Second Article; trans. LCC, 24:199.)

Cf. Thomas Cranmer:

…Christ, in that place of John, spake not of the material and sacramental bread, nor of the sacramental eating, (for that was spoken two or three years before the sacrament was first ordained,) but he spake of spiritual bread (many times repeating, “I am the bread of life, which came from heaven,”) and of spiritual eating by faith, after which sort he was at the same present time eaten of as many as believed on him, although the sacrament was not at that time made and instituted. And therefore he said, “Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and died; but he that eateth this bread shall live for ever.” Therefore this place of St. John can in no wise be understood of the sacramental bread, which neither came from heaven, neither giveth life to all that eat it. Nor of such bread Christ could have then presently said, This is my flesh, except they will say that Christ did then consecrate, so many years before the institution of his Holy Supper.

(Thomas Cranmer, A Defence of the True and Catholick Doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ, [London: J. Rivington, 1825], Book II, Chapter X, pp. 77-78.) Return to Article.

[33.] Cf. Stephen Charnock:

Secondly, The power of God is abused, as well as contemned. 1. When we make use of it to justify contradictions. The doctrine of transubstantiation is an abuse of this power. When the maintainers of it cannot answer the absurdities alleged against it, they have recourse to the power of God. It implies a contradiction, that the same body should be on earth and in heaven at the same instant of time; that it should be at the right hand of God, and in the mouth and stomach of a man; that it should be a body of flesh, and yet bread to the eye and to the taste; that it should be visible and invisible, a glorious body, and yet gnawn by the teeth of a creature; that it should be multiplied in a thousand places, and yet an entire body in every one, where there is no member to be seen, no flesh to be tasted; that it should be above us in the highest heavens, and yet within us in our lower bowels; such contradictions as these are an abuse of the power of God. Again, we abuse this power when we believe every idle story that is reported, because God is able to make it so if he pleased. We may as well believe Æsop’s Fables to be true, that birds spake, and beasts reasoned, because the power of God can enable such creatures to such acts. God’s power is not the rule of our belief of a thing without the exercise of it in matter of fact, and the declaration of it upon sufficient evidence.

(Stephen Charnock, Discourses Upon the Existence and Attributes of God: A New Edition, [London: Henry G. Bohn, 1845], Discourse X: On the Power of God, p. 457.) Return to Article.

[34.] Spiritus est qui vivificat, caro non prodest quidquam. Paulo ante dixit: Nisi manducaveritis carnem Filii hominis, et biberitis ejus sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobis; et modo dicit: Caro non prodest quidquam, id est, si carnaliter vultis intelligere quæ dico, caro non prodest quidquam; si sic carnaliter intelligitis, manducandum sicut alium cibum, sicut carnes quæ emuntur in macellis, Spiritus enim est, qui vivificat. Per spiritum prodest caro, quæ per se ipsam non prodest; quia littera occidit, Spiritus autem vivificat (II Cor. III). Nam per carnem spiritus aliquid pro salute nostra egit caro vas fuit quod habebat, per quam spiritus salvavit nos, utens organo carnis ad salutem humani generis, quia diabolus utebatur serpente, quasi organo, ad subversionem primi parentis nostri (Gen. III). Spiritus est, qui vivificat, caro autem non prodest quidquam. Sicut illi intellexerunt carnem, non sic ego do ad manducandum meam carnem. Return to Article.

[35.] Alt. Trans. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (c. 35-108/40 A.D.):

(Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans (Shorter), 7; PG, 5:693; trans. ANF, 1:77.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (c. 35-108/40 A.D.):

Alt. Trans. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (c. 35-108/40 A.D.):

(Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Philadelphians (Shorter), 5; PG, 5:828; trans. ANF, 1:82.) See also: ccel.org. Return to Article.

[36.] Cf. John Henry Hopkins:

(John Henry Hopkins, The Novelties which Disturb Our Peace: Letters Addressed to the Bishops, Clergy, and Laity of the Protestant Episcopal Church, [Philadelphia: Herman Hooker, 1844], p. 55.) Return to Article.

[37.] Cf. Helmut Hoping (Roman Catholic Theologian):

Origen (d. 254): The second great Alexandrian theologian also distinguishes between sacramental Eucharist and the Eucharist of knowledge. This reinforces the tendency toward a spiritualization of the Eucharist. For Origin, the Eucharist is above all a verbal event; this becomes particularly clear in his commentary on the Last Supper account in Matthew… The actual sacrament (mysterium) is therefore the Word; bread and wine are visible signs which in themselves are neither beneficial nor harmful. For through the word spoken over the bread and wine, the souls of men are supposed to be “eucharistized”. The proclaimed word therefore must not be considered less important than the Eucharistic body. For “the word of God too is bread for us”, is Eucharistic food. For the spiritual man, the word, as opposed to the visible sign, is even the more suitable presence of the divine Logos.

(Helmut Hoping, My Body Given for You: History and Theology of the Eucharist, trans. Michael J. Miller, [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2019], pp. 97, 98.) Preview. Return to Article.

[38.] Alt. Trans. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):

Therefore, the Church also, seeing so much grace, urges her sons, urges her neighbors to come together to the sacraments, saying: ‘Eat, my neighbors, and drink and be inebriated, my brethren.’ What we eat, what we drink, the Holy Spirit expresses to you elsewhere, saying: ‘Taste and see that the Lord is sweet: Blessed is the man who trusts in Him.’ Christ is in that sacrament, because the body is Christ’s. So the food is not corporeal but spiritual. Therefore the Apostle also says of its type: ‘Our fathers ate the spiritual food and drank the spiritual drink,’ for the body of God is a spiritual body; the body of Christ is the body of the Divine Spirit, for the Spirit is Christ, as we read: ‘The Spirit before our face is Christ the Lord.’

(Ambrose, The Mysteries, 9.58; PL, 16:408-409; trans. FC, 44:27.) Return to Article.

[39.] Alt. Trans. Ratramnus [Bertram] of Corbie (c. ?-868 A.D.):

And the same Doctor in the words following, saith, What it is that we eat, and what it is that we drink? The Holy Ghost hath in another place declared by the Prophet, saying, Taste ye, and see how gracious the Lord is: blessed is the Man that trusteth in him. Doth that same Bread, think you, being tasted bodily, or that same Wine, being drunk corporally declare and shew forth how sweet the Lord is? No verily: For whatsoever is pleasing to the taste, is bodily, and delighteth the Palate and the Throat. Shall we think that this is to taste the Lord, to wit, to feel and savour some bodily thing? Therefore he invites them to discern by their Spiritual taste, and not to think of anything Corporally in that Drink, or Bread, but understand the whole Spiritually, because The Lord is a spirit, and blessed is the Man that trusteth in him.

And again, afterwards he saith thus; Christ is in that Sacrament, because it is the Body of Christ: Wherefore it is not bodily meat, but Spiritual food. What could be spoken more plainly, more manifestly, or more heavenly? For he saith, Christ is in that Sacrament: And yet he saith not, that that Bread and that Wine is Christ, which if he should say, he should set forth Christ, as though he were corruptible and subject to Mortality (which be it far from us to think, much more to speak) for it is certain, that whatsoever in that meat, is either bodily seen, or bodily tasted, all that is subject to corruption. The Doctor addeth these words, Because it is the Body of Christ. But perhaps here some Man will stand up and say: Behold he manifestly and plainly confesseth, that that Bread and that Wine is Christ’s body. But withal mark, I pray thee, how presently he addeth, That it is not bodily meat, but spiritual food. Bring not with you therefore the sense and feeling of the flesh, for by that, nothing either is, or can be perceived in this mystery. It is indeed Christ’s body, howbeit, not Corporal, but Spiritual. It is Christ’s blood, but not his bodily blood, but his spiritual blood. Wherefore nothing here is to be judged, felt, or perceived bodily, but spiritually. It is Christ’s body, but it is not his body, bodily; and it is Christ’s blood, but yet it is not his blood, bodily.

Also afterwards the same Father saith, Whereupon the Apostle Speaking of the Figure of Christ, saith, that our Fathers did eat the same Spiritual meat, and did drink the same Spiritual drink: For the Lord’s body is a spiritual body, and the body of Christ is the body of the Divine Spirit. For Christ is a Spirit as we read in the Lamentations of Jeremy: Christ the Lord is a Spirit before our face. He hath most plainly taught us, how we should understand the mystery, of the body and blood of Christ. For when he had said, that our Fathers did eat spiritual meat, and did drink spiritual drink, (whereas notwithstanding, there is none that doubteth, but that the Manna which they did eat, and the Water which they did drink, were bodily things) he addeth concerning the mystery, which is now administered in the Church, shewing and determining in what, respect it is Christ’s body: For the Lord’s body (saith he) is a Spiritual body. Christ also is indeed God, and the body which he took of the Virgin Mary, the body that suffered, that was buried, and rose again, was certainly a very and true body, and the same also remained visible and palpable, that is to say, might be seen and felt, but that body which is called the mystery of God, is not bodily but spiritual, and if it be spiritual, then it is not visible or palpable, that is, it cannot be seen or felt. Hereupon blessed Ambrose addeth, saying, The body of Christ is the body of the Divine Spirit: Now the Divine Spirit is, not anything that is bodily, is not anything that is corruptible, or anything that is palpable and, may be felt. But this body which is Celebrated and administered in the Church, is, in respect of the visible kind and form, both corruptible and palpable. Tell me then how it can be said, to be the body of the Divine Spirit? Verily no other way, than in this respect, that it is spiritual, that is to say, in this respect, that it cannot be seen or felt, and therefore incorruptible.

(Ratramni Corbeiensis Monachi, De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, §§. LVIII-LXIII; PL, 121:151-153; The Book of Bertram the Priest, Concerning the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament, trans. Humphrey Linde, [London: Printed by B. Griffin, 1687], pp. 54-59. Cf. E. B. Pusey, The Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, [Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1857], pp. 206-208.) Return to Article.

[40.] Cf. William Wilson:

Cassiodorus says that he had in his translation corrected what he considered erroneous in the original.

(William Wilson, ANF, 2:571, fn. 2.) Return to Article.

[41.] Cf. Bede the Venerable (c. 672/3-735 A.D.):

If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world. How could the flesh grasp this when he said the bread was flesh? It is called flesh, but flesh does not grasp it; and for this reason, flesh does not grasp it, because it is called flesh. This is what they were horrified by, this is what they said was a simulation, this is what they thought could not happen. My flesh, he says, is for the life of the world. The faithful know the body of Christ, if they do not neglect to be the body of Christ; let them become the body of Christ, if they wish to live by the Spirit of Christ. No one lives by the Spirit of Christ unless they are the body of Christ. Whoever wishes to live must believe in Christ, must spiritually eat the spiritual food [manducet spiritualiter spiritualem cibum]. Let them be incorporated into the body of Christ, and not be a putrid member, one deserving to be cut off: let them be beautiful, let them be healthy, let them be fit for their own head. [Si quis manducaverit ex hoc pane, vivet in æternum. Et panis quem ego dabo, caro mea est, pro mundi vita. Hoc quando [F. quomodo] caperet caro, quod dixit panem carnem? Vocatur caro, quod non capit caro: et ideo magis non capit caro, quia vocatur caro, hoc enim exhorruerunt, hoc adsimulatum esse dixerunt, hoc non posse fieri putaverunt. Caro mea est, inquit, pro mundi vita. Norunt fideles corpus Christi, si corpus Christi esse non negligunt; fiant corpus Christi, si volunt vivere de Spiritu Christi. De Spiritu Christi non vivit, nisi corpus Christi. Quisquis vivere vult, credat in Christum, manducet spiritualiter spiritualem cibum. Incorporetur corpori Christi, et non sit putridum membrum, quod resecari mereatur: sit pulchrum, sit sanum, sit aptum capiti suo.]

(Bedæ Venerabilis, In S. Joannis Evangelium Expositio, Caput VI; PL, 92:717-718.) Return to Article.

[41.5] Prorsus panis ille sacrosanctæ oblationis corpus est Christi, non materie vel specie visibili, sed virtute et potentia spirituali. Neque enim in agro nobis corpus Christi gignitur, aut in vinea sanguis ejus exoritur, vel torculari exprimitur. Simplex e frugibus panis conficitur, simplex e botris vinum liquatur, accedit ad hæc offerentis Ecclesiæ fides, accedit mysticæ precis consecratio, accedit divinæ virtutis infusio; sicque, miro et ineffabili modo, quod est naturaliter ex germine terreno panis et vinum, efficitur spiritualiter corpus Christi, id est vitæ et salutis nostræ mysterium, in quo aliud oculis corporis, aliud fidei videmus obtentu; nec id tantum quod ore percipimus, sed quod mente credimus, libamus.

Full Text. Florus of Lyon [Florus Magister] (c. 9th Century A.D.):

Truly, that bread is the body of Christ in the most sacred offering, not in matter or visible species, but by spiritual virtue and power. For neither is the body of Christ generated in the field, nor is His blood produced in the vineyard, nor pressed out in the winepress. The bread is simply made from grains, the wine is simply drawn from grapes; to these are added the faith of the offering Church, the consecration of mystical prayer, and the infusion of divine power; thus, in a wondrous and ineffable way, what is naturally bread and wine from earthly seed becomes spiritually [spiritualiter] the body of Christ, that is, the mystery of our life and salvation, in which we see one thing with bodily eyes and another with the eyes of faith; and not only what we receive with the mouth but what we believe with the mind. Hence, we sincerely ask that what we touch with our mouth, we may receive with a pure mind, we honor. Therefore, this food is of the mind, not of the stomach; it is not corrupted but remains for eternal life, as it brings eternal life to the pious partakers. One partakes piously who, illuminated by the spirit of faith, hungers and thirsts for the virtue of intelligible grace in that visible food and drink; and perceives less of indulgence, and spiritual salvation... no pollution is to be thought or feared in this mystery. For Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God received therein; which wisdom, as Scripture testifies, is the brightness of eternal light and a certain emanation of God’s purity, and thus nothing impure reaches it, but it retains its purity everywhere. Therefore, as previously stated, the body of Christ is not in visible species but in spiritual virtue, nor can it be polluted by bodily dregs, which it is accustomed to cleanse from the vices of both souls and bodies. [Prorsus panis ille sacrosanctæ oblationis corpus est Christi, non materie vel specie visibili, sed virtute et potentia spirituali. Neque enim in agro nobis corpus Christi gignitur, aut in vinea sanguis ejus exoritur, vel torculari exprimitur. Simplex e frugibus panis conficitur, simplex e botris vinum liquatur, accedit ad hæc offerentis Ecclesiæ fides, accedit mysticæ precis consecratio, accedit divinæ virtutis infusio; sicque, miro et ineffabili modo, quod est naturaliter ex germine terreno panis et vinum, efficitur spiritualiter corpus Christi, id est vitæ et salutis nostræ mysterium, in quo aliud oculis corporis, aliud fidei videmus obtentu; nec id tantum quod ore percipimus, sed quod mente credimus, libamus. Unde et fideliter petimus ut quod, ore contingimus, pura mente capiamus. Mentis ergo est cibus iste, non ventris; non corrumpitur, sed permanet in vitam æternam, quoniam pie sumentibus confert vitam æternam. Pie autem sumit qui, spiritu fidei illuminatus, in illo cibo et potu visibili virtutem intelligibilis gratiæ esurit ac sitit; et minus indulgentiæ, et salutis spiritaliter percipit... nullatenus cogitanda vel metuenda est in hoc mysterio ulla pollutio. Christus enim Dei virtus, et Dei sapientia in eo sumitur; quæ sapientia, ut Scriptura testatur, candorem lucis æternæ, et emanatio quædam claritatis Dei sinceris, et ideo nihil inquinatum in illam incurrit, attingit autem ubique suam munditiam. Corpus igitur Christi, ut prædictum est, non est in specie visibili, sed in virtute spiritali, nec inquinari potest fæce corporea, quod et animarum et corporum vitia mundare consuevit.]

(Flori Diaconi Lugdunensis, Opuscula Adversus Amalarium, Cap. I, §. 9; PL, 119:77-78.)

Cf. Florus of Lyon [Florus Magister] (c. 9th Century A.D.):

The flesh and blood of this sacrifice were prefigured by victims before the coming of Christ, were rendered by the very truth in the passion of Christ, and are celebrated through the sacrament of remembrance after the ascension of Christ. [Hujus sacrificii caro et sanguis ante adventum Christi per victimas similitudine promittebatur, in passione Christi per ipsam veritatem reddebatur, post ascensum Christi per sacramentum memoria celebratur.]

(Flori Diaconi Lugdunensis, De Expositione Missæ, §. 4; PL, 119:20.) Return to Article.

[42.] Cf. Ratramnus [Bertram] of Corbie (c. ?-868 A.D.):

73. It must be considered that in that bread not only Christ’s body but the body also of the people believing on him should be symbolized by the many grains of flour of which it is made because the body of the people who believe is increased by many faithful ones through Christ’s word.

74. Wherefore, as in the mystery that bread is taken as Christ’s body, so also in the mystery the members of the people who believe in Christ are suggested, and as that bread is called the body of the believers, not in a corporeal sense but in a spiritual, so of necessity Christ’s body must also be understood not corporeally but spiritually.

75. As also in the wine which is called Christ’s blood mixing with water is prescribed, the one element is not allowed to be offered without the other, because the people cannot exist without Christ, nor Christ without the people, so also can the head not exist without the body, nor the body without the head. So then, in that sacrament, the water represents the people. Therefore, if that wine which is consecrated by the liturgy of the ministers is changed into Christ’s blood in a corporeal sense, the water, likewise, which is mixed with it, must of necessity be converted corporeally into the blood of the people who believe. For where there is one consecration, of a consequence there is one action, and where there is a like transaction, there is a like mystery. But we see that in the water nothing is changed with respect to the body, so also for this reason in the wine there is nothing corporeally exhibited. Whatever is meant in the water concerning the body of the people is accepted spiritually. Therefore it is necessary that whatever in the wine is suggested concerning Christ’s blood should be accepted spiritually.

76. Likewise, things that differ from each other are not the same. Christ’s body which died and rose again, and having become immortal “will now not die again, and death will have no further dominion over him,” is eternal and no longer capable of suffering. That which is celebrated in the church is temporary, not eternal. It is corruptible, not incorrupted. It is on the road, not in its homeland. They, then, differ from each other, and are, for this reason, not the same.

77. But if they are not the same, how is it called the true body of Christ and the true blood? For if it is Christ’s body and the statement that it is Christ’s body is true, it is Christ’s body in truth; and if it is in truth the body of Christ, the body of Christ is both incorruptible and incapable of suffering, and therefore eternal. Therefore, this body of Christ which is enacted in the church must necessarily be incorruptible and eternal. But it cannot be denied that what is divided into bits to be consumed is corrupted, and when ground by the teeth is transferred into body. It is one thing, however, which is outwardly done, but another which through faith is believed. What pertains to the sense of the body is corruptible, but what faith believes is incorruptible. Therefore, what appears outwardly is not the thing itself but the image of the thing, but what is felt and understood in the soul [mente, lit. in the mind] is the truth of the thing.

(Ratramni Corbeiensis Monachi, De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, §§. LXXIII-LXXVII; PL, 121:159-160; trans. LCC, 9:138-140.) Return to Article.

[43.] Alt. Trans. Ælfric of Eynsham (c. 955-1010 A.D.):

This sacrament is a pledge and figure, the body of Christ is the truth. We observe this pledge until we shall have come to the truth, and then the pledge will be consummated. It is in truth, as we have already said, the body and blood of Christ, not bodily but spiritually; neither does it become us to inquire how this comes to pass, but to have firm faith that so it is.

(Ælfric’s Easter Homily. Vind. Cath. III. 350; trans. William Wigan Harvey, The History and Theology of the Three Creeds: Volume I, [London: John W. Parker and Son, 1854], footnote, p. 296. Cf. JHT-TCF, 253-254.)

Full Text. Ælfric of Eynsham (c. 955-1010 A.D.):

Cf. Ælfric of Eynsham (c. 955-1010 A.D.):

Christ himself hallowed the eucharist before his passion: he blessed the bread and broke it, thus saying to his holy Apostles, Eat this bread; it is my body. And he afterwards blessed a cup with wine, and saith thus to them, Drink all of this; it is my own blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins. The Lord, who hallowed the eucharist before his passion, and saith, that the bread was his own body, and the wine was truly his blood, he halloweth daily through his priests’ hands, bread for his body, and wine for his blood, in spiritual mystery, even as we read in books.

The lively bread is not, however, bodily, the same body that Christ suffered in, nor is the holy wine the Saviour’s blood that for us was shed in corporeal reality [Ne bith se liflica hlaf lichamlice swa theah se ylca lichama the Crist on throwode, ne that halige win nis thæs Hælendes blod the for us agoten wæs on lichamlican thinge]. But in spiritual meaning, both the bread is truly his body, and the wine also is his blood; even as the heavenly bread which we call manna, which forty years fed God’s folk, and the clear water that ran from the rock in the wilderness was truly his blood. Paulus, accordingly, wrote in one of his epistles, Oms patres nostri eandem escam spiritualem manducaverunt, et oms eundem potum spiritualem biberunt: et cetera All our fathers ate, in the wilderness, the same spiritual meat, and drank the spiritual drink. They drank of the spiritual rock, and that rock was Christ. The apostle said, even as ye now heard, that they all ate the same spiritual meat, and they all drank the spiritual drink. He does not, however, say bodily, but spiritually. Then Christ was not as yet born, nor was his blood shed, when the people of Israel ate the meat, and drank of the rock; and the rock was not Christ bodily, though he said so: these were merely the sacraments under the old law, and they spiritually betokened the spiritual eucharist of our Saviour’s body which we hallow now.

(Aelfric of Eynsham, Second Letter to Wulfstan [Wulfstanum]; trans. Henry Soames, The Anglo-Saxon Church: Its History, Revenues and General Character, [London: John W. Parker, 1844], pp. 322-323. Cf. JHT-TCF, 254.) See also: helsinkicorpus.arts.gla.ac.uk.

Alt. Trans. Ælfric of Eynsham (c. 955-1010 A.D.):

Christ himself consecrated the eucharist before his passion; he blessed bread, and brake it, saying thus to his Apostles, Eat this bread, it is my body; and again he blessed the cup, filled with wine, and spake thus to them, Drink ye all of this, it is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Our Lord, who consecrated the eucharist before his passion, and said, that bread was his body, and wine truly his blood, he also daily consecrates, by the priests’ hands, bread for his body, and wine for his blood, in a spiritual mystery, as we read in books. [Yet notwithstanding that lively bread is not the same body in which Christ suffered, nor that holy wine the blood of our Saviour (which was shed for us) in bodily thing (or sense, in re corporali), but in a spiritual sense (in ratione spirituali). That bread indeed was his body, and also that wine his blood, just as that heavenly bread which we call manna (which fed God’s people for forty years), viz. was his body, and that clear water was his blood that then flowed from the rock in the wilderness.] As Paul writes in his epistle, They all ate the same spiritual meat, and drank the same spiritual drink, &c. The Apostle that says what you have heard, They all ate, &c. he does not say, corporally, but spiritually. Christ was not as yet born, nor his blood shed; then it was the people of Israel did eat that spiritual meat, and drank of that rock; neither was that rock Christ corporeally, though he spake so. The sacraments of the old law were the same, and did spiritually signify that sacrament (or eucharist) of our Saviour’s body, which we now consecrate.

(Aelfric of Eynsham, Second Letter to Wulfstan [Wulfstanum]; trans. Edmund Gibson (Lord Bishop of London), gen. ed., A Preservative Against Popery, In Several Select Discourses Upon the Principal Heads of Controversy Between Protestants and Papists: Vol. IX., ed. John Cumming, [London: The British Society for Promoting the Religious Principles of the Reformation, 1848], p. 286.)

Cf. Mr. Patrick:

This last epistle Ælfric wrote first in the Latin tongue to Wulfstane, containing, though not word for word, yet the whole sense of the English epistle; and that paragraph of it which I have enclosed between two brackets, was looked upon as so disagreeable to the present faith of the Roman Church, that some had rased them out of the Worcester book; but the same Latin epistle being found in Exeter church, it was restored.

(Edmund Gibson (Lord Bishop of London), gen. ed., A Preservative Against Popery, In Several Select Discourses Upon the Principal Heads of Controversy Between Protestants and Papists: Vol. IX., ed. John Cumming, [London: The British Society for Promoting the Religious Principles of the Reformation, 1848], pp. 286-287.)

Cf. Ælfric of Eynsham (c. 955-1010 A.D.):

The holy housel should be kept with great care, and not be retained; but other new be hallowed for sick men, always every seven days, or fortnight, that it may not at least be mouldy; because the housel that was hallowed to-day is just as holy as that which was hallowed on Easter day. The housel is Christ’s body, not bodily but spiritually; not the body in which he suffered, but the body about which he spake, when he blessed bread and wine for housel, one day before his passion, and said of the blessed bread: ‘This is my body;’ and afterwards, of the hallowed wine: ‘This is my blood, which shall be shed for many, in forgiveness of sins.’ Understand now, that the Lord, who could, before his passion, change the bread to his body, and the wine to his blood spiritually, that the same daily blesses, by the hands of his priests, the bread and wine to his spiritual body and blood. But the priest shall purely and carefully do God’s ministries, with clean hands and with clean heart; and let him see that his oblations be not old-baken, nor ill seen to; and let him always mix water with the wine; because the wine betokens our re demption through Christ’s blood, and the water betokens the people for whom he suffered.

(The Canons of Ælfric, 36 (cf. Aelfric of Eynsham, Letter to Wulfsige [Wulffinum]); trans. Ancient Laws and Institutes of England: Volume the Second, [Printed by Command of His Late Majesty King William IV. Under the Direction of the Commissioners of the Public Records of the Kingdom, 1840], p. 361. Cf. Ancient Laws and Institutes of England, [Printed by Command of His Late Majesty King William IV. Under the Direction of the Commissioners of the Public Records of the Kingdom, 1840], pp. 449-450. Cf. JHT-TCF, 254.) See also: helsinkicorpus.arts.gla.ac.uk. Return to Article.

[44.] Full Text. Alt. Trans. Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux (c. 1090-1153 A.D.):

Person He has promised that He will shew to all the elect not ‘to-day,’ but ‘for ever.’ ‘Yesterday’ had passed away, and our ‘to-day’ had dawned, when the Apostle spake, ‘Although we have known Christ after the Flesh, we now know Him no more.’ Yet in the dawn, something of the Flesh of the Lamb seemeth to be retained; but ‘the residue’ is already given to the fire; because even unto ‘to-day’ is the Flesh exhibited to us; but spiritually, not carnally. Nor ought we to complain, that either that manifestation, made to the Fathers of the Old Testament, is denied to us, or that Presence of His Flesh which was exhibited to the Apostles. For the true Substance of His Flesh is present with us now also; beyond question, it is in the Sacrament.

(S. Bernardi Abbatis Claræ-Vallensis, In Festo S. Martini Episcopi Sermo (De exemplis obedientiæ), §§. 10-11; PL, 183:494-495; trans. E. B. Pusey, The Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, [Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1857], pp. 208-209.) Return to Article.

[45.] Itaque, si hæc omnia feceris sicut dixi, poteris accedere ad fontem vivum, id est ad Christum, qui est fons omnium bonorum. Ipse etiam ait de se ipso: Ego sum panis vivus qui de cœlo descendi (Joan. VI, 51). De hoc pane dicit David in Psalmis: Panem Angelorum manducavit homo (Psal. LXXVII, 25). Alioquin esca illa licet de cœlo venerit, et potus, quia corporeus erat, Angelis non congruebat: sed utique ille panis, et potus qui per hoc præfigurabatur. Christus vero panis est Angelorum, et Sacramentum hoc vera caro ejus est, et verus sanguis: quod Sacramentum spiritualiter manducat et bibit homo. Ac per hoc unde vivunt Angeli in cælis, inde vivit homo in terris: quia totum spirituale et divinum in eo quod percipit homo. Return to Article.

[46.] Cf. Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 A.D.):

“Is there any other matter, my friends, in which we are blamed, than this, that we live not after the law, and are not circumcised in the flesh as your forefathers were, and do not observe sabbaths as you do? Are our lives and customs also slandered among you? And I ask this: have you also believed concerning us, that we eat men; and that after the feast, having extinguished the lights, we engage in promiscuous concubinage? Or do you condemn us in this alone, that we adhere to such tenets, and believe in an opinion, untrue, as you think?”

(Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 10; trans. ANF, 1:199.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 A.D.):

And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds—the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh—we know not; but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions.

(Justin Martyr, The First Apology, 26; trans. ANF, 1:172.) See also: ccel.org. Return to Article.

[47.] Cf. Theophilus, Patriarch of Antioch (c. ?-183/5 A.D.):

Consider, therefore, whether those who teach such things can possibly live indifferently, and be commingled in unlawful intercourse, or, most impious of all, eat human flesh, especially when we are forbidden so much as to witness shows of gladiators, lest we become partakers and abettors of murders.

(Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, 3.15; trans. ANF, 2:115.) See also: ccel.org. Return to Article.

[48.] Cf. Athenagoras of Athens (c. 133-190 A.D.):

Three things are alleged against us: atheism, Thyestean feasts, Œdipodean intercourse. But if these charges are true, spare no class: proceed at once against our crimes; destroy us root and branch, with our wives and children, if any Christian is found to live like the brutes. And yet even the brutes do not touch the flesh of their own kind…

(Athenagoras of Athens, A Plea for the Christians, 3; trans. ANF, 2:130.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Athenagoras of Athens (c. 133-190 A.D.):

For we cannot eat human flesh till we have killed some one. The former charge, therefore, being false, if any one should ask them in regard to the second, whether they have seen what they assert, not one of them would be so barefaced as to say that he had. …For when they know that we cannot endure even to see a man put to death, though justly; who of them can accuse us of murder or cannibalism?

(Athenagoras of Athens, A Plea for the Christians, 35; trans. ANF, 2:147.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Athenagoras of Athens (c. 133-190 A.D.):

But they have further also made up stories against us of impious feasts and forbidden intercourse between the sexes, both that they may appear to themselves to have rational grounds of hatred, and because they think either by fear to lead us away from our way of life, or to render the rulers harsh and inexorable by the magnitude of the charges they bring.

(Athenagoras of Athens, A Plea for the Christians, 31; trans. ANF, 2:145.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. B. P. Pratten:

“Thyestian feasts” (p. 130, supra); a charge which the Christian Fathers perpetually repel. Of course the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper lent colour to this charge; but it could not have been repelled, had they believed the material body and blood of the “man Christ Jesus,” present in this sacrament. See cap. iii., note.

(B. P. Pratten, ANF, 2:145, fn. 5.) See also: ccel.org. Return to Article.

[49.] Cf. Gloss. in Succah, fol. 52.:

האכילהו לחם “Feed him with bread, that is, Make him take pains in the warfare of the Law, as it is written, ‘Come, eat of my bread.’”

(Gloss. in Succah, fol. 52; trans. John Lightfoot, Horæ Hebraicæ et Talmudicæ: Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations: In Four Volumes: Vol. III, [Oxford: At The University Press, 1859], p. 308.)

Cf. Chagigah, fol. 14. 1.:

כָּל־מִשְׁעַן לֶחֶם The whole stay of bread, Isa. iii. 1. אילו בעלי תלמוד “These are the masters of doctrine; as it is written, ‘Come, eat of my bread,’ Prov. ix. 5.”

(Chagigah, fol. 14. 1; trans. John Lightfoot, Horæ Hebraicæ et Talmudicæ: Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations: In Four Volumes: Vol. III, [Oxford: At The University Press, 1859], p. 308.)

Cf. Sanhedr. fol. 98. 2.:

“Rabh saith, עתידין ישראל דאכלי שני משיח Israel shall eat the years of Messiah.” [The Gloss is, “The plenty and satiety that shall be in the days of the Messiah shall belong to the Israelites.”] “Rabh Joseph saith, ‘True, indeed: but who shall eat thereof? חילק ובילק אכלי לה Shall Chillek and Billek [two judges in Sodom] eat of it?’ We must except against that of R. Hillel, who saith, אין משיח להם לישראל שכבר אכלוהו בימי חזקיה Messiah is not likely to come to Israel, for they have already devoured him in the days of Hezekiah.”

(Sanhedr. fol. 98. 2., cf. fol. 99. 1; trans. John Lightfoot, Horæ Hebraicæ et Talmudicæ: Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations: In Four Volumes: Vol. III, [Oxford: At The University Press, 1859], p. 308.) Return to Article.

[50.] Adam Clarke:

Verse 53. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man] Unless ye be made partakers of the blessings about to be purchased by my blood, passion, and violent death, ye cannot be saved. As a man must eat bread and flesh, in order to be nourished by them, so a man must receive the grace and Spirit of Christ, in order to his salvation. As food in a rich man’s store does not nourish the poor man that needs it, unless it be given him, and he receive it into his stomach, so the whole fountain of mercy existing in the bosom of God, and uncommunicated, does not save a soul: he who is saved by it must be made a partaker of it. Our Lord’s meaning appears to be, that, unless they were made partakers of the grace of that atonement which he was about to make by his death, they could not possibly be saved. Bishop Pearce justly observes that the ideas of eating and drinking are here borrowed to express partaking of, and sharing in. Thus spiritual happiness on earth, and even in heaven, is expressed by eating and drinking; instances of which may be seen, Matt. viii. 11; xxvi. 29; Luke xiv. 15; xxii. 30; and Rev. ii. 17. Those who were made partakers of the Holy Spirit are said by St. Paul, 1 Cor. xii. 13, to be made to drink into (or of) one Spirit. This, indeed, was a very common mode of expression among the Jews.

(Adam Clarke, The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ: Authorized Translation: Including the Marginal Readings and Parallel Texts, With a Commentary and Critical Notes: Volume I: Matthew to the Acts, [New York: G. Lane & C. B. Tippett, 1846], on John 6:53, p. 563.)

Cf. Michael P. V. Barrett:

To interpret this instruction literally would be linguistically absurd and theologically aberrant. The Lord is obviously making a comparison between eating physically and eating spiritually. Eating Christ is a spiritual act of faith, not a physical act of chewing and swallowing. The point of correspondence is not in the mechanics of the eating process, but in the consequence. Eating is a fitting figure of appropriating to oneself what is necessary for life. As we believe Christ and His gospel we receive life and enter into a mutual bond with Christ: ‘He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him’ (emphasis mine).

(Joel R. Beeke, Michael P. V. Barrett, A Radical, Comprehensive Call to Holiness, [Glasgow: Bell & Bain, 2021], p. 43.) Return to Article.

[51.] Cf. Edward Harold Browne:

In juxtaposition then, and immediate comparison with these feasts on Jewish and heathen offerings, St. Paul places the Christian festival of the Eucharist; and as he tells the Corinthians, that the Israelites in their feasts were partakers of the altar, and the heathen partook of the table of devils, so he says, Christians partake of the Lord’s table. But more than this, he asks, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a joint partaking (κοινωνία) of the Blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a joint partaking of the Body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread” (vv. 16, 17). The natural signification of the word κοινωνία, and the sense deducible from the context, require that it should be rendered, as above, joint partaking or joint participation. The parallel is between partaking of idol sacrifices, partaking of Jewish sacrifices, and partaking of the Christian Sacrifice, i.e. Christ. And the 17th verse is added to show, that by such participation there is a joint fellowship, not only with Christ, the Head, but with His whole Body the Church.

Now, what must we infer from this teaching? Does it not plainly tell us, that the feeding at the Lord’s table corresponds with the feeding at the Jewish altar and the heathen idol-feasts. That, as the latter gave them participation in their sacrifices and their demon-gods, so the former gives us participation of Christ’s Body and Blood! This much we cannot, and we would not deny. The bread and wine are to us means or instruments, whereby, through God’s grace, we become partakers of the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ. But, on the other hand, must we therefore infer, that we partake of Christ’s Body, naturally and materially? The very words appear to teach us otherwise. If there were a real change of the elements into Christ’s natural Flesh and Blood, it seems altogether unaccountable, that the force of the argument should have been weakened by the introduction of the word κοινωνία participation. If the bread be literally and substantially the Body, it would have been more natural to say, “Is not the bread which we break, Christ’s Body?” And the inference would be immediate; Can we eat Christ’s Body and demon-sacrifices together? The word κοινωνία, on which the peculiar strength of the passage depends, whilst it clearly points to the Eucharistic elements as ordained means to enable us to partake of the Body and Blood of Christ, yet shows too that they are means of partaking, not themselves changed into the substance of that which they represent. They are ordained, that we may partake of Christ; but they are not Christ themselves.

(Edward Harold Browne, An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles: Historical and Doctrinal: The Tenth Edition, [London: Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer, 1874], pp. 728-729.) Return to Article.

[52.] Cf. Ethelbert William Bullinger:

53 eat . . . drink, &c. The Hebrews used this expression with reference to knowledge by the Fig. Metonomy (of the Subject), Ap. 6, as in Ex. 24.11, where it is put for being alive; so eating and drinking denoted the operation of the mind in receiving and “inwardly digesting” truth or the words of God. See Deut. 8.3, and cp. Jer. 15.16. Eze. 2.8. No idiom was more common in the days of our Lord. With them as with us, eating included the meaning of enjoyment, as in Ecc. 5.19; 6.2; for “riches” cannot be eaten; and the Talmud actually speaks of eating (i.e. enjoying) “the years of Messiah”, and instead of finding any difficulty in the figure they said that the days of Hezekiah were so good that “Messiah will come no more to Israel; for they have already devoured Him in the days of Hezekiah” (Lightfoot, vol. xii, pp 296, 297). Even where eating is used of the devouring of enemies, it is the enjoyment of victory that is included. The Lord’s words could be understood thus by hearers, for they knew the idiom; but of “the eucharist” they knew nothing, and could not have thus understood them. By comparing vv. 47 and 48 with vv. 53 and 54, we see that believing on Christ was exactly the same thing as eating and drinking Him.

flesh . . . blood. By the Fig. of speech Synecdoche (of the Part), Ap. 6, this idiom is put for the whole Person. See note on “flesh”, 1.13, and cp. Matt. 16.17. 1Cor. 15.50. Gal. 1:16, Eph. 6.12. Hebr. 2:14.

(Ethelbert William Bullinger, The Companion Bible: Being the Authorized Version of 1611 with the Structures and Notes, Critical, Explanatory and Suggestive and with 198 Appendixes, [London: Samuel Bagster and Sons Limited, reprinted 1972], on John 6:53, p. 1532.)

Note: Regarding “enjoyment/participation” cf. 1 Chronicles 11:16-19; 2 Samuel 23:14-17. Return to Article.

[53.] Thomas Coke:

Ver. 53. Then Jesus said, &c.] Our Lord, knowing how unreasonable his hearers in general were, did not think fit to explain himself more particularly at this time; but persisting in the same figurative way of expressing himself, he repeated and affirmed more earnestly what he had asserted before. His meaning appears to be, “Except you be entirely united to me, by a hearty belief, experience, and practice of my doctrine, and partake of the merit of that sacrifice which I shall offer for the sins of the world, continue in the communion of my religion, and receive spiritual nourishment by the continual participation of those means of grace which I shall purchase for you by my death, and bless to you by the communication of my Spirit,—you can never attain eternal life.” The flesh of Christ seems to be put here for the whole of his human nature; see ver. 51 as it is elsewhere in scripture; Ch. i. 14. Rom. i. 3. Wherefore, by eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, is not meant any corporeal action, but men’s receiving with thankfulness those spiritual blessings, to confer which our Lord assumed the human nature, and, consequently, their believing, with the heart unto righteousness, the revelation that he came to make concerning the merciful counsels of God; or, as he himself expresses it, very. 63. the words that he spake unto them; especially concerning his incarnation, and his dying to make atonement for sin. These articles of the Christian faith being particularly understood here, give peculiar propriety to the metaphors of eating Christ’s flesh, and drinking his blood, by which the whole of that faith, with all its divine fruits, is denominated. The reason is, of all the discoveries made by Christ, those concerning his incarnation, and the nature and ends of his own death, received and meditated upon by a lively faith, afford sovereign and salutary nourishment to the minds of sinners. They are as effectual for sustaining the spiritual life in the soul, as flesh, fitly prepared, is for nourishing the animal life in the body. Dr. Doddridge observes, that the phrase before us, except ye eat, &c. naturally expresses a lively and habitual regard to Christ as the great support of the spiritual life. The mention of his blood as naturally leads to the thought of his atonement; for we are elsewhere told, that we have redemption through his blood, Ephes. i.7. and boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, Heb. x. 19.

(Thomas Coke, A Commentary on the New Testament: Volume the First, [London: Printed for the Author, 1803], on John 6:53, p. 769.) Return to Article.

[53.5] Cf. N. T. Wright:

One of the most moving, and often forgotten, stories about King David concerns the time when he was fighting the Philistines, who had occupied his native town of Bethlehem. Among David’s fiercely loyal fighting men he had three in particular who were renowned for their bravery and their readiness to do whatever the king might ask. When he and his men were pinned down one day, David longed for a drink, and said out loud how much he would like to have water from the well at Bethlehem – which was of course inaccessible due to the Philistines. But that didn’t stop his three heroes. Off they went, broke through the Philistine army, got water from the well at Bethlehem and brought it back to David.

But David didn’t drink it. His shrewd sense of political judgment was even sharper than his thirst.

‘God forbid’, he said, ‘that I should drink the blood of these men, who went at the risk of their lives’.(2 Samuel 23.17; 1 Chronicles 11.19). He didn’t want to be seen to profit from their readiness to put their lives on the line for him. He poured the water out on the ground.

Fancy a Jew talking about drinking blood! One of the best-known of the many Jewish regulations about food and drink was that blood was absolutely forbidden (Leviticus 17.10-14 is the central statement of the principle). Indeed, the complex system of kosher butchering has this among its chief aims, that no blood should remain in the animal and so risk being eaten or drunk. And this, of course, was why David used the phrase. To drink this water would be the equivalent of drinking blood. He wouldn’t – he shouldn’t – he couldn’t do it.

But the fact that Jesus speaks of ‘drinking his blood’ in this setting gives us an all-important clue to what he means in this extraordinary passage. If you want to profit from what I’m doing, he says, you must ‘eat my flesh’ and ‘drink my blood’. If you do this, you’ll live for ever; I will raise you up on the last day. In the light of the David story, we can confidently say that the deep meaning of the passage is not that those who believe in him should become cannibals, still less that they should, in ‘eating’ and ‘drinking’ him, break the Jewish law against consuming blood. What he means is what David meant. He refused to ‘drink the blood’ of his comrades – that is, to profit from the risk of their lives. Jesus, as the true Messiah, is going one better again. He will put his own life at risk – indeed, he will actually lose it; and his comrades will profit from that death. They will ‘drink his blood’. They will have their thirst quenched by his death and all that it means.

(Tom Wright, John for Everyone: Part 1: Chapters 1-10, [London: SPCK, 2014], pp. 85-86.) Return to Article.

[54.] H. W. Watkins, Charles John Ellicott:

(53) Then Jesus said unto them.—This is hardly strong enough for the original. It is rather, Jesus therefore said unto them. The words follow upon those he has heard from them.

Some of them have spoken of eating His flesh. Others may even have pressed this to the reductio ad horribile. Eat His flesh? Shall we, then, drink His blood too? In no less than seven passages of the Pentateuch had the eating of blood been forbidden (Gen. ix. 4; Lev. iii. 17; vii. 26, 27; xvii. 10-14; xix. 26; Deut. xii. 16, 23, 24; xv. 23); and we find in later times the strength of the feeling of abhorrence, as in 1 Sam. xiv. 32, and Ezek. xxxiii. 25, and in the decree of the first Judæo-Christian Council (Acts xv. 29). In the fullest of these passages (Lev. xvii. 10-14), the prohibition is grounded upon the facts that the blood is the physical seat of animal life, and that the blood maketh atonement for the soul. It was the life-element poured out before God instead of the life of the soul that sinned. Such would be the thoughts of those who strove among themselves as to what His words could mean; and to these thoughts He speaks with the “Verily, verily,” which ever expresses a spiritual truth that He alone could reveal.

Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man.—The words point more definitely than those which have gone before to His death. The blood is spoken of as distinct from the flesh, and in this is involved physical death. The eating the flesh would itself involve, as we have seen above, the thoughts of sacrifice and of sustenance, the removal of the death-penalty attached to sin, and the strength of life sustained by food. But the spiritual truth is fuller and deeper than this; and the true element of life in the soul depends upon such communion with Christ as is expressed by drinking the blood itself: that is, by receiving into the human spirit the atonement represented by it. and with this the very principle of life. They may not receive into the human frame the principle of animal life, but no man really has spiritual life who does not receive into the inmost source of his being the life-principle revealed in the person of Christ. This is to pass through and through his moral frame, like the blood which traverses the body—hidden from sight, but passing from the central heart through artery and vein, bearing life in its course to muscle, and nerve, and tissue. It is to traverse the soul, passing from the Eternal Life and Love, which is the heart of the universe, through the humanity of Christ, and carrying in its course life and energy for every child of man.

Life in you.—More exactly, life in yourselves. This is more fully expressed in verses 56 and 57.

(Charles John Ellicott, ed., The Gospel According to St. John: With Commentary by the Venerable H. W. Watkins, [London: Cassell and Company, Limited, 1910], on John 6:53, pp. 149-150.) Return to Article.

[55.] Hic est panis qui de cœlo descendit. Hunc panem significavit manna; hunc autem panem significavit altare Dei. Sacramenta illa fuerunt in signis diversa sunt in re, quæ significantur paria sunt. Apostolum audi: Nolo enim vos, inquit, ignorare, fratres, quia patres nostri omnes sub nube fuerunt, et omnes per mare transierunt, et omnes in Moyse baptizati sunt in nube et in mari, et omnes eamdem escam spiritualem manducaverunt (1 Cor. x). Spiritualem utique, non corporalem. Alteram illi, quia manna, nos aliud; spiritualem vero eamdem quam nos, sed patres nostri, non patres illorum, quibus nos similes sumus, non quibus illi similes fuerunt. Hic est ergo panis de cælo descendens; ut si quis ex ipso manducaverit, non moriatur. Sed quod pertinet ad virtutem sacramenti, non quod pertinet ad visibile sacramentum: qui manducat intus, non foris; qui manducat in corde, non qui premit dente. Ego sum panis vivus qui de cœlo descendi. Ideo vivus, quia de cœlo descendi. De cœlo descendit et manna; sed manna umbra erat, iste veritas est. Return to Article.

[56.] Full Text. Origen of Alexandria (c. 184-253 A.D.):

(Origen of Alexandria, Commentary on Matthew, 11.14; PG, 13:948-952; trans. ANF, 9:443.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. William Goode:

(William Goode, The Nature of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist: Vol. I, [London: T. Hatchard, 1856], p. 114.) Return to Article.

[57.] Alt. Trans. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

(Augustine of Hippo, The City of God, 21.25; PL, 41:742; trans. LCL, 417:137. Cf. NPNF1, 2:473; FC, 24:397-398.) See also: ccel.org and loebclassics.com.

Full Text. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

And therefore neither ought such persons as lead an abandoned and damnable life to be confident of salvation, though they persevere to the end in the communion of the Church catholic, and comfort themselves with the words, “He that endureth to the end shall be saved.” By the iniquity of their life they abandon that very righteousness of life which Christ is to them, whether it be by fornication, or by perpetrating in their body the other uncleannesses which the apostle would not so much as mention, or by a dissolute luxury, or by doing any one of those things of which he says, “They who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” Consequently, they who do such things shall not exist anywhere but in eternal punishment, since they cannot be in the kingdom of God. For, while they continue in such things to the very end of life, they cannot be said to abide in Christ to the end; for to abide in Him is to abide in the faith of Christ. And this faith, according to the apostle’s definition of it, “worketh by love.” And “love,” as he elsewhere says, “worketh no evil.” Neither can these persons be said to eat the body of Christ, for they cannot even be reckoned among His members. For, not to mention other reasons, they cannot be at once the members of Christ and the members of a harlot. In fine, He Himself, when He says, “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him,”[John vi. 56.] shows what it is in reality, and not sacramentally [non sacramento tenus, sed re vera], to eat His body and drink His blood; for this is to dwell in Christ, that He also may dwell in us. So that it is as if He said, He that dwelleth not in me, and in whom I do not dwell, let him not say or think that he eateth my body or drinketh my blood.

(Augustine of Hippo, City of God, 21.25; PL, 41:742; trans. NPNF1, 2:473.) See also: ccel.org. Return to Article.

[58.] Et qui manducat meam carnem, et bibit meum sanguinem, in me manet, et ego in eo. Hoc est ergo manducare illam escam, et illum bibere potum, in Christo manere, et illum manentem in se habere. Ac per hoc qui non manet in Christo, et in quo non manet Christus, procul dubio nec manducat spiritualiter ejus carnem, licet carnaliter et visibiliter premat dentibus sacramentum corporis et sanguinis Christi; sed magis tantæ rei sacramentum ad judicium sibi manducat et bibit, quia immundus præsumit ad Christi accedere sacramenta, quæ alius non digne sumit, nisi qui mundus est; de quibus dicitur: Beati mundo corde, quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt (Matth. V). Return to Article.

[59.] Qui ergo corpus Christi vult accipere, prius studeat in Christi fide et dilectione manere. Hinc est quod ait Dominus in Evangelio: Qui manducat carnem meam, in me manet et ego in eo (Joan. VI, 57). Ac si diceret: Ille in me manet, qui in bonis operibus voluntatem meam adimplet. Alioquin nisi prius maneat in me per fidem, et ponam operationem, et ego in eo, carnem meam manducare non potest, nec sanguinem bibere. Quid est ergo quod manducant homines? Ecce omnes frequenter Sacramenta altaris percipiunt plane; sed alius carnem Christi spiritualiter manducat et sanguinem bibit: alius vero non, sed tantum Sacramentum, id est corpus Christi sub Sacramento, et non rem Sacramenti. Sacramentum hoc dicitur corpus Christi proprium de virgine natum, res vero, spiritualis Christi caro. Bonus igitur accipit Sacramentum, et rem Sacramenti: malus vero, quia manducat indigne, sicut Apostolus ait, judicium sibi manducat et bibit; non probans se prius, nec dijudicans corpus Domini. Return to Article.

καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν ~ Soli Deo Gloria

Monday, September 9, 2024

Transubstantiation and John 6: A Comprehensive Historical Refutation

Transubstantiation and John 6: A Comprehensive Historical Refutation