Replies

St. Ignatius, St. Justin Martyr, and St. Irenaeus are then cited extensively for this literal view of the Eucharist as the body and blood of Christ. Stone continues concerning Tertullian’s view of the Eucharist and Sacraments —

“A very imperfect idea of the Eucharistic doctrine of Tertullian would be given if attention were confined to those passages in his writings in which he describes the Eucharist as the ‘figura’ of the body of Christ and the means by which our Lord ‘makes His body present.’ To understand it rightly, it must be viewed in the general setting of sacramental principle which Tertullian emphasizes. In his eyes the Incarnation has introduced new aspects of the relation of man to God. The human flesh which the Lord then took is an abiding reality. ‘That same Person who suffered,’ he declares, ‘will come from heaven; that same Person who was raised from the dead will appear to all. And they who pierced Him will see and recognize the very flesh against which they raged’ [De carn Christi, 24]. With this Christ, thus retaining His human body and blood, Christians are closely united. The baptised are clothed with Christ; in them Christ lives [De fug 10; De poen 10]. By the daily reception of the bread of life there is continuance in Christ and abiding union in His body [De orat 6]. Before the Incarnation the flesh was far off from God, ‘not yet worthy of the gift of salvation, not yet fitted for the duty of holiness’; but Christ’s work, accomplished in the flesh, has changed all that [De pud 6]. Since the Incarnation Sacraments have become necessary and effectual [De Bapt 11,13]; and that which in the ordinances of the Church touches the flesh benefits the soul [De carn res 8].

“It is in harmony with these general sacramental principles that Tertullian not only calls the Eucharist ‘the holy thing’ [De spectac 25], but also often and naturally refers to it as the body of Christ.” (Stone, vol 1, pg 36-37)

Stone then gives six clear examples of Tertullian’s literal view —

(1) It is a matter of anxious care that no drop of the wine or fragment of the bread should fall to the ground (De cor 3).

(2) It was the Lord’s body which the disciples received at the Last Supper (Adv Marc iv,40).

(3) It is the Lord’s body which the communicant receives in the Church or reserves for his Communion at home (De orat 19).

(4) It is the Lord’s body with the richness of which the Christian is fed in the Eucharist (De pud 9).

(5) It is Christ’s body and blood with which “the flesh is clothed, so that the soul also may be made fat by God” (De carn res 8).

(6) Even in unworthy Communions it is the body of the Lord which wicked hands approach, the body of the Lord which wicked men outrage and offend

for a more complete view of Tertullian and the Eucharist.
Zwingli and old school Baptists did not believe anything like this.

Zwingli and old school Baptists did not believe anything like this

I am sorry you think Tertullian and Ignatius are speaking in terms that would be unwelcome in Baptist/Zwinglian circles. I have been among the Baptists my whole life, and any one of these statements could have some currency among us, yet without reference to the false imagination of transubstantiation. I myself have experienced fear of mishandling the crackers or spilling the juice. It is a sacred time, and one does not wish to be clumsy with holy things.

But that in no way endorses the conscription of Aristotle to support a novel theory of substance swapping which is in fact alien both to Scripture and to any of the early Christian writers. For example, briefly returning to Tertullian we find this intriguing statement:

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 quickens;” and then added, “The flesh profits 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 hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.” John 5:24 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, John 1:14 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.

On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Chapter 37, available here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0316.htm

See how he dispenses with the misunderstanding in the Bread of Life discourse. They thought what Jesus said was harsh because they misunderstood Him, which misunderstanding Jesus undertakes to correct, not by confirming their literalist error, but by practically beating them over the head with the spiritual nature of the transaction. He then goes on to show the manner of consumption is not at all literal, but hearing the word of Christ is what leads to eternal life, that we "devour Him with the ear, and ruminate (chew) on Him with the understanding, and digest Him by faith. Tertullian gets it.

But what about all that seemingly realistic language he uses, that you are so convinced would never be heard in a Baptist church (though it often is so heard)? Anacronistic projection. I submit you are so conditioned to hearing these direct metaphors as literal, that it is very difficult for you to avoid confirmation bias. Yet in those early days the platonic model of type to archetype would account for such expressions without ever invoking a literal swapping of substances behind the accidents. You have to have that swapping to demonstrate transubstantiation, and it simply isn't present in these early writers.

Try this analogy (a metaphor about a metaphor? Oh noes!). I present you with a map of Texas, and I say, "This is Texas." Do you think the paper is literally Texas? No, you don't. You know better. In fact, you are hardwired to recognize I am using the paper to teach you something about Texas. If we had to slow down and "manually" process all the metaphors that hit us every day, we would be too bogged down to think clearly. Our brain instantly picks up the contrast between A and B, then searches for the overlap, the qualities they both share. That's the lesson of the metaphor. Jesus says, "I am the door," and we learn about Him as the only true passage to the Father. Jesus says, "I am the true vine," and we learn about our total organic dependency on Him. Jesus says, "I am the bread of life," and we learn that we must consume Him to have eternal life. But in what manner do we consume Him? Jesus makes it plain. It is not by the literal eating of things that merely look like bread and wine. It is by coming to Him, believing on Him:

John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

So Jesus did not hide His meaning from His listeners at all, but it is hidden in plain sight from those who are fighting the lesson of the metaphor. The fault is not in the Teacher but in the student.

Peace,

SR