Sect. 256The Real Presence Proved from Holy ScriptureThe Real Presence Proved from Holy Scripture

“The holy Synod teacheth … that in the august (almo) sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the appearances (species) of those sensible things.… If any one denieth that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really, and substantially the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ (totum Christum); but saith that He is therein only as a sign, or in figure or virtually, let him be anathema” (Council of Trent, sess. xiii. ch. 1, can. 1).

We find the Blessed Sacrament plainly spoken of in three different parts of the New Testament. Our Lord promised to give His flesh as food and His blood as drink (John 6:48 sqq.). At the Last Supper He fulfilled this promise (Matt. 26:26–28; Mark 14:22–24 Luke 22:19, 20; 1 Cor. 11:23–25). And in St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians (10:16 and 11:27–29) we have an account of the belief and practice of the Apostolic Church concerning the sacrament. Any one of these passages, taken by itself, would be sufficient to prove the doctrine of the Real Presence; taken together, they form an overwhelming argument in its favour.

I. On the day after the feeding of the five thousand in the desert, our Lord delivered a discourse to the multitudes who had followed Him to Capharnaum. As was His wont, His words bore reference to the miracle lately wrought. He bade the Jews not to labour for the meat that perisheth, but for that which endureth unto everlasting life. “I am the Bread of life,” He said; “He that cometh to Me shall not hunger, and he that believeth in Me shall never thirst.” In the first part of the discourse (vv. 26–47) our Lord spoke of belief in Him when He made use of the metaphor of bread from heaven. At verse 48 (or, at least, at verse 51) there is a transition to something suggested, indeed, by what went before, but entirely different from it. A well-known instance of a similar transition is found in St. Matt. 24, where our Lord passes from the prophecy of the destruction of the Temple to the prophecy of the end of the world (v. 43). The passage of St. John is as follows:—

1. (a) “I am the Bread of Life,

(b) “Your fathers did eat manna in the desert,

2. (a) “This is the Bread

(b) “Which cometh down from heaven.

3. (a) “I am the Living Bread

(b) “Which came down from heaven.

“And the bread that I will give is My flesh [Gr., ‘which I will give’] for the life of the world.

“The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us His flesh to eat? Jesus therefore said to them, Amen, amen, I say to you, except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood hath everlasting life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood abideth in Me and I in him. As the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father, so he that eateth Me, the same also shall live by Me” (vv. 48–58).

These words of our Lord, taken in the literal sense, are a plain proof of the Real Presence. Our Lord has spoken, and we believe Him. Difficulties, indeed, there are in believing such a marvel, but “with God all things are possible.” Protestants, on the other hand, are so overwhelmed by these difficulties, that they think that our Lord must have meant something else. Hence they try to show that the passage is figurative. If so, our Lord either made use of a figure already known, or He introduced a new one. Eating a man’s flesh was a familiar figure among the Jews, but it meant to do a person a grievous wrong, especially by calumniating him (see Ps. 26:2; Job 19:22; Mich. 3:3; Eccl. 4:5). This meaning is therefore clearly excluded. And our Lord did not introduce any new figure, because He would not choose a known repulsive figure to convey an entirely new and endearing meaning. This view is strengthened by the fact that drinking blood was peculiarly abominable to the Jews (see Gen. 9:4; Lev. 7:10; 1 Kings 14:31; Judith 11:10, 11). Besides, there is nothing to show that our Lord was inventing a new figure. But the best answer to the Protestant interpretation, is the objection raised by the Jewish hearers, and our Lord’s reply to it. We should bear in mind that our Lord was wont to make two sorts of answers to objections against His teaching. When the objection arose from a difficulty in understanding His meaning, He used to explain. When the difficulty was not in understanding His doctrine, but in accepting it, He did not explain, but insisted all the more. Thus, when our Lord said, “Unless a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God,” Nicodemus, not understanding the meaning of our Lord’s words, asked, “How can a man be born when he is old?” Our Lord explained: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” John 3). But on another occasion, when our Lord said to the Jews, “Abraham, your father, rejoiced to see My day; he saw it and was glad,” they objected, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?” He did not explain, but insisted, “Amen, amen, I say unto you, before Abraham was made, I am” (John 8). In like manner, when the Jews objected, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” our Lord did not explain His words, and point out that they were figurative, but He insisted the more, “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, ye shall not have life in you.” The Jews therefore rightly understood our Lord as speaking literally; their only difficulty was in accepting what He said. Furthermore, our Lord embodies the doctrine in the form of a precept, which, as all will own, ought to be given in clear language. He makes use of the “Amen, amen,” which adds particular weight to what he says, and shows that His words are to be taken in their obvious meaning. Again, “My flesh is meat indeed (ἀληθῶς), and My blood is drink indeed,”—expressions which certainly do not look figurative. He does not even shrink from saying, “He that eateth Me,” which evidently shows that He meant literally what He said.

No wonder that our Lord’s words should have been the occasion of difficulty to his hearers. Many even of His disciples said, “This saying is hard (σκληρός), and who can hear it?” A word from Him explaining that He spoke figuratively, would have removed their objections. But no such word came, and many of them “went back and walked with Him no more.” The Apostles, however, remained firm. “To whom shall we go?” Peter exclaims; “Thou hast the words of eternal life.” They humbly accepted the doctrine, in spite of its difficulty, just as Catholics do now.

It is sometimes objected that our Lord pointed out the figurative meaning when He said, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life” (v. 64). We reply that the words “flesh” and “spirit” in the New Testament never mean “literal” and “figurative,” but the natural and the spiritual man, or human nature as left to its own impulses and human nature as ennobled by grace (Rom. 8) Hence our Lord’s meaning here is, “My words are spirit and life,” or “the spirit of life” (hendiadys); they are such as the mere man cannot receive, but which man endowed with grace can receive (cf. Gal. 5:13–26; 1 Pet. 4:6, etc.).

II. The words of institution.

Matt. 26:26–28.

Mark 14:22–24.

And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed and broke, and gave to His disciples and said: Take ye and eat; THIS IS MY BODY. And taking the chalice, He gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of this; for THIS IS MY BLOOD of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessing, broke and gave to them, and said: Take ye, THIS IS MY BODY. And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And He said to them: THIS IS MY BLOOD of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many.

Luke 22:19, 20.

1 Cor. 11:23–25.

And taking bread, He gave thanks, and broke, and gave to them, saying: THIS IS MY BODY which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of Me. In like manner the chalice also, after He had supped, saying: THIS IS THE CHALICE, THE NEW TESTAMENT IN MY BLOOD, which shall be shed for you.

(Jesus) took bread, and giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat; THIS IS MY BODY, which shall be delivered [Greek, broken] for you; this do for the commemoration of Me. In like manner, also, the chalice, after He had supped, saying: THIS CHALICE IS THE NEW TESTAMENT IN MY BLOOD: this do ye as often as ye shall drink for the commemoration of Me.

It is evident that the important words in these passages are, “This is My body.” We take these words in their plain literal sense. They are the very simplest words in the language. No explanation can make them plainer. Our Lord says that what He holds in His hands is His body, and we humbly believe Him. Those who do not accept the literal sense must show that our Lord did not mean His words to be so taken, and that, in fact, the Apostles did not take them so. The literal sense holds the field until it is driven out. If we can beat off the attacks upon it, it must be held to be the right interpretation. Our adversaries say (1) the word “is” may mean “represents;” and (2) it must have that meaning here.

I. The texts usually quoted to prove that the verb “to be” sometimes means “to represent,” may be grouped in four classes:—

(a) “The seven good kine are seven years” (Gen. 41:26, 27); “The ten horns are ten kingdoms” (Dan. 7:24); “The field is the world” (Matt. 13:38, 39); “The rock was Christ” (1 Cor. 10:4); “These are the two covenants” (Gal. 4:24); “The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches” (Apoc. 1:20).

(b) “I am the door” (John 10:7); “I am the true vine” (John 15:1).

(d) “This is the Lord’s Passover” (Exod. 12:11, Angl. version).

If these texts are carefully examined, it will be seen that the only real difficulty is in group (a). In the others the verb “to be” does not signify “to represent.” E.g. “I am the door” does not mean “I represent, or am the figure of the door.” Again, circumcision, referred to in (c), was not only a sign, but the instrument or record of the covenant. In the last passage the verb “is” must be taken in its literal meaning; the real translation is, “This is the feast, or day of Passover, sacred to the Lord.”

As regards (a), we observe that the passages are parallel to each other, but not to the words of institution. In these passages there is the explanation of some symbol, such as the interpretation of a vision, a parable, or a prophecy; and consequently the verb “to be” is rightly taken in the sense of “to represent.” But in the words of institution there is nothing to show that our Lord was speaking an allegory, and therefore we take the verb “to be” in its natural and literal sense. The force of this argument will be better felt if we examine one of the texts, e.g. “the rock was Christ.” Protestants rightly take this to mean, “the rock was a figure of Christ.” If a Socinian were to argue that the text “the Word was God” must therefore mean “the Word represented, or was a figure of God,” they would point to the difference in the context of the two passages. They would show that St. Paul was speaking allegorically: “All these things were done to them in figure, and they drank of the spiritual rock, and the rock was Christ;” whereas St. John’s context does not contain any allusion to an allegory. This is exactly what Catholics do in defending the literal sense of “this is My body.” This case is really far stronger when we compare the three passages—

“The Word was God.”

“The rock was Christ.”

“This is My body.”

The first two are clearly more like each other than they are like the third, especially when we remember that St. Paul tells us that Christ is “the Image of God” (2 Cor. 4:4; cf. Heb. 1:3). We suppose that no one will now make use of the once popular argument that the language which our Lord spoke contained no word for “to represent” except the verb “to be.” Cardinal Wiseman has shown that the Syriac language is peculiarly rich in such words (Horæ Syriacæ, pp. 18–53).

2. The opponents of the literal sense insist that the words must be taken figuratively on account of the philosophical difficulties involved in the doctrine of the Real Presence. This argument is based upon a principle that would be subversive of all belief in mystery or miracle. Are we to reject all interpretations that present philosophical difficulties? What would become of belief in the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Resurrection? We own that the Real Presence involves a suspension of the laws of nature; but we and our Protestant opponents hold that God who is the Author of these laws, is also Supreme Ruler of them (see Franzelin, De Euch., th. ii.). We must remember that our Lord’s words were spoken not to philosophers, but to Galilæan fishermen. He had shown them that the laws of nature were subject to Him: He had changed water into wine; He had fed five thousand with five loaves and two fishes, and four thousand with seven loaves and a few fishes; disease, and even death, were under His control; the devils obeyed Him; and He disposed of the keys of the kingdom of heaven. All power was given to Him in heaven, on earth, and in hell. Moreover, He had always encouraged unreasoning faith in His words, and had always condemned those who were captious or critical or doubted His power. The Last Supper was surely an occasion when He should have spoken plainly to the twelve chosen ones. Now, the Protestant argument is that the Apostles must have felt the force of the philosophical difficulties so strongly that they said within themselves, “He cannot mean His body, He means the figure of His body!” Our argument is that the Apostles, believing that our Lord could do all things, and that He taught them unreasoning submission to His words, humbly took our Lord’s words in their plain and simple meaning. The Catholic interpretation is based upon an exalted notion, of God’s power, and a lowly estimate of man’s knowledge. The Protestant sets limits to God’s power, making it extend only as far as man’s mind will allow. The pious Christian will not hesitate in his choice between the two.

III. “The chalice of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion (κοινωνία) of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking (κοινωνία) of the body of the Lord?” (1 Cor. 10:16)

“Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove (δοκιμαζέτω) himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment (κρίμα) to himself, not discerning (μὴ διακρίνων) the body of the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:27–29).

These two passages are evidence of what was taught and practised by the Apostles. In the former, St. Paul contrasts the Jewish and heathenish sacrifices and rites with those of the Christians. Our cup is a partaking of the blood of Christ, our bread is a partaking of the body of Christ. Now, if this was only figurative, wherein would the Christian have the advantage over the Jew?

But the second text is far more important. The Evangelists (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) have recorded the history of the institution. St. Paul, after narrating the story, goes on to the practical consequences of the Real Presence. If our Lord is truly present under the appearances of bread and wine, then it is clear that “whosoever shall eat this bread or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.” If our Lord is truly present, a man should “prove himself” before eating “of that bread” and drinking “of the chalice.” If our Lord is truly present, “he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself.” If our Lord is not there, all this has no meaning. Those who deny His presence are expressly condemned by the Apostle: “He that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body” (Revised Version).

We have said that, taken by themselves, the words of promise, or the words of institution, or the teaching of St. Paul, would be quite enough to prove the Real Presence. We can now see how strong our position is when all the passages are taken together. Let us allow, for the sake of argument, that our Lord might have spoken figuratively at the time of the promise; would He not have let fall some hint about the figurative meaning at the Last Supper? Would not St. Paul, in one or other of the texts quoted, have made some reference to it? On these four different occasions, our Lord and His Apostles, explaining different doctrines, speaking to different assemblies, under quite different circumstances, all agree in using certain words, without ever giving the smallest hint as to any figurative meaning. This is surely an unanswerable argument in our favour.