Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadChurch Fathers: Post-Nicene Fathers Vol 03: 23.01.32 The Impassible Part 3
TOPIC: Post-Nicene Fathers Vol 03 (Other Topics in this Collection)
SUBJECT: 23.01.32 The Impassible Part 3
Other Subjects in this Topic:
Orth.-Both now and in our former investigations we have shewn that the soul does not share all the faculties of the body but that the body while it receives vital force has the sense of suffering through the soul. And even supposing us to grant that the soul shares in pain with the body we shall none the less find the divine nature to be impassible, for it was not united to the body instead of a soul. Or do you not acknowledge that He assumed a soul?
Eran.-I have often acknowledged it.
Orth.-And that He assumed a reasonable Soul?
Eran.-Yes.
Orth.-If then together with the body He assumed the soul, and we grant that the soul shared in suffering with the body, then the soul, not the Godhead, shared the passion with the body; it shared the passion, receiving pangs by means of the body. But possibly somebody might agree to the soul sharing suffering with the body, but might deny its sharing death, because of its having an immortal nature. On this account the Lord said "Fear not them which kill the body but are not able to kill the soul."hyperlink If then we deny that the soul of the Saviour shared death with the body, how could any one accept the blasphemy you and your friends presumptuously promulgate when you dare to say that the divine nature participated in death? This is the more inexcusable when the Lord points out at one time that the bodyhyperlink was being offered, at another that the soul was being troubled.hyperlink
Eran.-And where doth the Lord shew that the body was being offered? Or are you going to bring me once more that well worn passage "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up"?hyperlink Or with your conceited self-sufficiency are you going to quote me the words of the Evangelist? "But He spake of the temple of his body. When therefore He was risen from the dead His disciples remembered that He had said this unto them and they believed the Scripture and the words which He had said."hyperlink
Orth.-If you have such a detestation of the divine words which preach the mystery of the incarnation, why, like Marcion and Valentinus and Manes, do you not destroy texts of this kind? For this is what they have done. But if this seems to you rash and impious, do not turn the Lord's words into ridicule, but rather follow the Apostles in their belief after the resurrection that the Godhead raised again the temple which the Jews had destroyed.
Eran.-If you have any good evidence to adduce, give over gibing and fulfil your promise.
Orth.-Remember specially those words of the gospels in which the Lord made a comparison between manna and the true bread.
Eran.-I remember.
Orth.-In that passage after speaking at some length about the bread of life, he added, "The bread that I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world."hyperlink In these words may be understood alike the bounty of the Godhead and the boon of the flesh.
Eran.-One quotation is not enough to settle the question.
Orth.-The Ethiopian eunuch had not read much of the Bible, but when he had found one witness from the prophets he was guided by it to salvation. But not all Apostles and prophets and all the preachers of the truth who have lived since then are enough to convince you. Nevertheless I will bring you some further testimony about the Lord's body. You cannot but know that passage in the Gospel history where, after eating the passover with His disciples, our Lord pointed to the death of the typical lamb and taught what body corresponded with that shadow.hyperlink
Eran.-Yes I know it.
Orth.-Remember then what it was which our Lord took and broke, and what He called it when He had taken it.
Eran.-I will answer in mystic language for the sake of the uninitiated. After taking and breaking it and giving it to His disciples He said, "This is my body which was given for you"hyperlink or according to the apostle "broken"hyperlink and again, "This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many."hyperlink
Orth.-Then when exhibiting the type of the passion He did not mention the Godhead?
Eran.-No.
Orth.-But He did mention the body and blood.
Eran.-Yes.
Orth.-And the body was nailed to the Cross?
Eran.-Even so.
Orth.-Come, then; look at this. When after the resurrection the doors were shut and the Lord came to the holy disciples and beheld them affrighted, what means did He use to destroy their fear and instead of fear to infuse faith?
Eran.-He said to them "Behold my hands and my feet that it is I myself; handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have."hyperlink
Orth.-So when they disbelieved He shewed them the body?
Eran.-He did.
Orth.-Therefore the body rose?
Eran.-Clearly.
Orth.-And I suppose what rose was what had died?
Eran.-Even so.
Orth.-And what had died was what was nailed to the cross?
Eran.-Of necessity.
Orth.-Then according to your own argument the body suffered?
Eran.-Your series of arguments forces us to this conclusion.
Orth.-Consider this too. Now I will be questioner, and do you answer as becomes a lover of the truth.
Eran.-I will answer.
Orth.-When the Holy Ghost came down upon the Apostles, and that wonderful sight and sound collected thousands to the house, what did the chief of the apostles in the speech he then made say concerning the Lord's resurrection?
Eran.-He quoted the divine David, and said that he had received promises from God that the Lord Christ should be born of the fruit of his loins and that in trust in these promises he prophetically foresaw His resurrection, and plainly said that His soul was not left in Hades and that His flesh did not see corruption.hyperlink
Orth.-His resurrection therefore is of these.
Eran.-How can any one in his senses say that there is a resurrection of the soul which never died?
Orth.-How comes it that you who attribute the passion, the death and the resurrection to the immutable and uncircumscribed Godhead have suddenly appeared before us in your right mind and now object to connecting the word resurrection with the soul?
Eran.-Because the word resurrection is applicable to what has fallen.
Orth.-But the body does not obtain resurrection apart from a soul, but being renewed by the divine will, and conjoined with its yokefellow, it receives life. Was it not thus that the Lord raised Lazarus?
Eran.-It is plain that not the body alone rises.
Orth.-This is more distinctly taught by the divine Ezekiel,hyperlink for he points out how the Lord commanded the bones to come together, and how all of them were duly fitted together, and how He made sinews and veins and arteries grow with all the flesh pertaining to them and the skin that clothes them all, and then ordered the souls to come back to their own bodies.
Eran.-This is true.
Orth.-But the Lord's body did not undergo this corruption, but remained unimpaired, and on the third day recovered its own soul.
Eran.-Agreed.
Orth.-Then the death was of what had suffered?
Eran.-Without question.
Orth.-And when the great Peter mentioned the resurrection, and the divine David too, they said that His soul was not left in Hell, but that His body did not undergo corruption?
Eran.-They did.
Orth.-Then it was not the Godhead which underwent death, but the body by severance from the soul?
Eran.-I cannot brook these absurdities.
Orth.-But you are fighting against your own arguments; it is your own words which you are calling absurd.
Eran.-You slander me; not one of these words is mine.
Orth.-Suppose any one to ask what is the animal which is at once reasonable and mortal, and suppose some one else to answer-man; which of the two would you call interpreter of the saying? The questioner or the answerer?
Eran.-The answerer.
Orth.-Then I was quite right in calling the arguments yours? For you, I ween, in your answers, by rejecting some points and accepting others, confirmed them.
Eran.-Then I will not answer any longer; do you answer.
Orth.-I will answer.
Eran.-What do you say to those words of the Apostle "Had they known it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory"?hyperlink in this passage he mentions neither body nor soul.
Orth.-Therefore you must not put the words "in the flesh" in it,-for this is your ingenious invention for decrying the Godhead of the Word-but must attribute the passion to the bare Godhead of the Word.
Eran.-No; no. He suffered in the flesh, but His incorporeal nature was not capable of suffering by itself.
Orth.-Ah! but nothing must be added to the Apostle's words.
Eran.-When we know the Apostle's meaning there is nothing absurd in adding what is left out.
Orth.-But to add anything to the divine words is wild and rash. To explain what is written and reveal the hidden meaning is holy and pious.
Eran.-Quite right.
Orth.-We two then shall do nothing unreasonable and unholy in examining the mind of the Scriptures.
Eran.-No.
Orth.-Let us then look together into what seems to be hidden.
Eran.-By all means.
Orth.-Did the great Paul call the divine James the Lord's brother?hyperlink
Eran.-He did.
Orth.-But in what sense are we to regard him as brother? By relationship of His godhead or of His manhood?
Eran.-I will not consent to divide the united natures.
Orth.-But you have often divided them in our previous investigations, and yon shall do the same thing now. Tell me; do you say that God the Word was only begotten Son?
Eran.-I do.
Orth.-And only begotten means only Son.
Eran.-Certainly.
Orth.-And the only begotten cannot have a brother?
Eran.-Of course not, for if He had had a brother He would not be called the only begotten.
Orth.-Then they were wrong in calling James the brother of the Lord. For the Lord was only begotten, and the only begotten cannot have a brother.
Eran.-No, but the Lord is not incorporeal and the proclaimers of the truth are referring only to what touches the godhead.
Orth.-How then would you prove the word of the apostle true?
Eran.-By saying that James was of kin with the Lord according to the flesh.
Orth.-See how you have brought in again that division which you object to.
Eran.-It was not possible to explain the kinship in any other way.
Orth.-Then do not find fault with those who cannot explain similar difficulties in any other way.
Eran.-Now you are getting the argument off the track because you want to shirk the question.
Orth.-Not at all, my friend. That will be settled too by the points we have investigated. Now look; when you were reminded of James the brother of the Lord, you said that the relationship referred not to the Godhead but to the flesh.
Eran.-I did.
Orth.-Well, now that you are told of the passion of the cross, refer this too to the flesh.
Eran.-The Apostle called the crucified "Lord of Glory,"hyperlink and the same Apostle called the Lord "brother of James."
Orth.-And it is the same Lord in both cases. If then you are right in referring the relationship to the flesh you must also refer the passion to the flesh, for it is perfectly ridiculous to regard the relationship without distinction and to refer the passion to Christ without distinction.
Eran.-I follow the Apostle who calls the crucified "Lord of glory."
Orth.-I follow too, and believe that He was "Lord of glory." For the body which was nailed to the wood was not that of any common man but of the Lord of glory. But we must acknowledge that the union makes the names common. Once more: do you say that the flesh of the Lord came down from heaven?
Eran.-Of course not.
Orth.-But was formed in the Virgin's womb?
Eran.-Yes.
Orth.-How, then, does the Lord say "If ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where He was before,"hyperlink and again "No man hath ascended up to heaven but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven?"hyperlink
Eran.-He is speaking not of the flesh, but of the Godhead.
Orth.-Yes; but the Godhead is of the God and Father. How then does He call him Son of man?
Eran.-The peculiar properties of the natures are shared by the person, for on account of the union the same being is both Son of man and Son of God, everlasting and of time, Son of David and Lord of David, and so on with the rest.
Orth.-Very right. But it is also important to recognise the fact that no confusion of natures results froth both having one name. Wherefore we are endeavouring to distinguish how the same being is Son of God and also Son of man, and how He is "the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever,"hyperlink and by the reverent distinction of terms we find that the contradictions are in agreement.
Eran.-You are right.
Orth.-You say that the divine nature came down from heaven and that in consequence of the union it was called the Son of man. Thus it behoves us to say that the flesh was nailed to the tree, but to hold that the divine nature even on the cross and in the tomb was inseparable from this flesh, though from it it derived no sense of suffering, since the divine nature is naturally incapable of undergoing both suffering and death and its substance is immortal and impassible. It is in this sense that the crucified is styled Lord of Glory, by attribution of the title of the impassible nature to the passible, since, as we know, a body is described as belonging to this latter.
Now let us examine the matter thus. The words of the divine Apostle are "Had they known it they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory."hyperlink They crucified the nature which they knew, not that of which they were wholly ignorant: had they known that of which they were ignorant they would not have crucified that which they knew: they crucified the human because they were ignorant of the divine. Have you forgotten their own words. "For a good work we stone thee not but for blasphemy, and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."hyperlink These words are a plain proof that they recognised the nature they saw, while of the invisible they were wholly ignorant: had they known that nature they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
Eran.-That is very probable, but the exposition of the faith laid down by the Fathers in council at Nicae says that the only begotten Himself, very God, of one substance with the Father, suffered and was crucified.
Orth.-You seem to forget what we have agreed on again and again.
Eran.-What do you mean?
Orth.-I mean that after the union the holy Scripture applies to one person terms both of exaltation and of humiliation. But possibly you are also ignorant that the illustrious Fathers first mentioned His taking flesh and being made man, and then afterwards added that He suffered and was crucified, and thus spoke of the passion after they had set forth the nature capable of passion.
Eran.-The Fathers said that the Son of God, Light of Light, of the substance of the Father, suffered and was crucified.
Orth.-I have observed more than once that both the Divine and the human are ascribed to the one Person. It is in accordance with this position that the thrice blessed Fathers, after teaching how we should believe in the Father, and then passing on to the person of the Son, did not immediately add "and in the Son of God," although it would have very naturally followed that after defining what touches God the Father they should straightway bare introduced the name of Son. But their object was to give us at one and the same time instruction on the theology and on the oeconomy,hyperlink lest there should be supposed to be any distinction between the Person of the Godhead and the Person of the Manhood. On this account they added to their statement concerning the Father that we must believe also in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Now after the incarnation God the Word is called Christ, for this name includes alike all that is proper to the Godhead and to the manhood. We recognise nevertheless that some properties belong to the one nature and some to the others, and this may at once be understood from the actual terms of the Creed. For tell me: to what do you apply the phrase "of the substance of the Father"? to the Godhead, or to the nature that was fashioned of the seed of David?
Eran.-To the Godhead, as is plain.
Orth.-And the clause "Very God of very God"; to which do you hold this belongs, to the Godhead or to the manhood?
Eran.-To the Godhead.
Orth.-Therefore neither the flesh nor the soul is of one substance with the Father, for they are created, but the Godhead which formed all things.
Eran.-True.
Orth.-Very well, then. And when we are told of passion and of the cross we must recognise the nature which submitted to the passion; we must avoid attributing it to the impassible, and must attribute it to that nature which was assumed for the distinct purpose of suffering. The acknowledgment on the part of the most excellent Fathers that the divine nature was impassible; and their attribution of the passion to the flesh is proved by the conclusion of the creed, which runs "But they who state there was a time when He was not, and before He was begotten He was not, and He was made out of the non-existent, or who allege that the Son of God was of another essence or substance mutable or variable, these the holy catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes." See then what penalties are denounced against them that attribute the passion to the divine nature.hyperlink
Eran.-They are speaking in this place of mutation and variation.
Orth.-But what is the passion but mutation and variation? For if, being impassible before His incarnation, He suffered after His incarnation, He assuredly suffered by undergoing mutation; and if being immortal before He became man, He tasted death, as you say, after being made man, He underwent a complete alteration by being made mortal after being immortal. But expressions of this kind, and their authors with them, have all been expelled by the illustrious Fathers from the bounds of the Church, and cut off like rotten limbs from the sound body. We therefore exhort you to fear the punishment and abhor the blasphemy.
Now I will show you that in their own writings the holy Fathers have held the opinions we have expressed. Of the witnesses I shall bring forward some took part in that great Council; some flourished in the Church after their time; some illuminated the world long before. But their harmony is broken neither by difference of periods nor by diversity of language; like the harp their strings are several and separate but like the harp they make one harmonious music.
Eran.-I was anxious for and shall be delighted at such citations. Instruction of this kind cannot be gainsaid, and is most useful.
Orth.-Now; open your ears and receive the streams that flow from the spiritual springs.
Testimony of the holy Ignatius, bishop ofAntioch, and martyr.
From his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans:-
"They do not admit Eucharists and oblations, because they do not confess the Eucharist to be flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins and which of His goodness the Father raised."hyperlink
Testimony of lrenaeus, bishop of Lyons.
From his third book against heresies (Chap. XX.):-
"It is clear then that Paul knew no other Christ save Him that suffered and was buried and rose and was born, whom he calls man, for after saying, `If Christ be preached that He rose from the dead,'hyperlink he adds, giving the reason of His incarnation, `For since by man came death by man came also the resurrection of the dead,'hyperlink and on all occasions in reference to the passion, the manhood and the dissolution of the Lord, he uses the name of Christ as in the text, `Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died,'hyperlink and again, `But now in Christ ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh in the blood of Christ,'hyperlink and again, `Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.'"hyperlink
Of the same from the same work. (Chapter xxi.):-
"For as He was Man that He might be tempted, so was He Word that He might be glorified. In His temptation, His crucifixion and His dying, the Word was inoperative; but in His victory, His patience, His goodness, His resurrection and His assumption it was co-operative with the manhood."
Of the same from the fifth book of the same work:-
"When with His own blood the Lord had ransomed us, and given His soul on behalf of our souls, and His flesh instead of our flesh."
The testimony of the holy Hippolytus, bishop and martyr.
From his letter to a certain Queen:-
"So he calls Him `The firstfruits of them that slept,'hyperlink and `The first born of the dead.'hyperlink When He had risen and was wishful to show that what had risen was the same body which died, when the Apostles doubted, He called to Him Thomas and said `Handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have.'"hyperlink
Of the same from the same letter:-
"By calling Him firstfruits He bore witness to what we have said, that the Saviour, after taking the flesh of the same material, raised it, making it firstfruits of the flesh of the just, in order that all we that believe might have expectation of our resurrection through trust in Him that is risen."
Of the same from his discourse on the two thieves:-
"The body of the Lord gave both to the world,-the holy blood and the sacred water."
Of the same from the same discourse:-
"And the body being, humanly speaking, a corpse, has in itself great power of life, for there flowed from it what does not flow from dead bodies-blood and water,-that we might know what vital force lies in the indwelling power in the body, so that it is a corpse evidently unlike others, and is able to pour forth for us causes of life."hyperlink
Of the same from the same discourse:-
"Not a bone of the holy Lamb is broken. The type shews that the passion cannot touch the power, for the bones are the power of the body."
Testimony of the holy Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, and confessor.
From his book on the soul:-
"Their impious calumny can be refuted in a few words; they may be right, unless He voluntarily gave up His own body to the destruction of death for the sake of the salvation of men. First of all they attribute to Him extraordinary infirmity in not being able to repel His enemies assault."
Of the same from the same book:-
"Why do they, in the concoction of their earth-born deceits, make much of proving that the Christ assumed a body without a soul? In order that if they could seduce any to lay down that this is the case, then, by attributing to the divine Spirit variations of affection, they might easily persuade them that the mutable is not begotten of the immutable nature."
Of the same from his discourse on "the Lord created me in the beginning of His ways":hyperlink -
"The man Who died rose on the third day, and, when Mary was eager to lay hold of His holy limbs, He objected and cried `Touch me not.hyperlink For I am not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brethren and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.'hyperlink Now the words `I am not yet ascended to my Father,' were not spoken by the Word and God, who came down from heaven, and was in the bosom of the Father, nor by the Wisdom which contains all created things, but were uttered by the man who was compacted of various limbs, who had risen from the dead, who had not yet after His death gone back to the Father, and was reserving for Himself the first fruits of His progress."
Of the same from the same work:-
"As he writes he expressly describes the man who was crucified as Lord of Glory, declaring Him to be Lord and Christ, just as the Apostles with one voice when speaking to Israel in the flesh say `Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made that same Jesus, Whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.'hyperlink He so made Jesus Christ who suffered. He did not so make the Wisdom nor yet the Word who has the might of dominion from the beginning, but Him who was lifted up on high and stretched out His hands upon the Cross."
Of the same from the same work:-
"For if He is incorporeal and not subject to manual contact, nor apprehended by eyes of flesh, He undergoes no wound, He is not nailed by nails, He has no part in death, He is not hidden in the ground, He is not shut in a grave, He does not rise from a tomb."
Of the same from the same book:-
"`No man taketh it from me. ...I have power to lay it down and I have power to take it again.'hyperlink If as God He had the double power, He yet yielded to them who were striving of evil counsel to destroy the temple, but by His resurrection He restored it in greater splendour. It is proved by incontrovertible evidence that He of Himself rose and renewed His own house, and the great work of the Son is to be ascribed to the divine Father; for the Son does not work without the Father, as is declared in the unimpeachable utterances of the holy Scriptures. Wherefore at one time the divine Parent is described as having raised the Christ from the dead, at another time the Son promises to raise His own temple. If then from what has previously been laid down the divine spirit of the Christ is proved to be impassible, in vain do the accursed assail the apostolic definitions. If Paul says that the Lord of Glory was crucified, clearly referring to the manhood, we must not on this account refer suffering to the divine. Why then do they put these two things together, saying that the Christ was crucified from infirmity?"
Of the same from the same work:-
"But had it been becoming to attribute to Him any kind of infirmity, any one might have said that it was natural to attach these qualities to the manhood, though not to the fulness of the Godhead, or to the dignity of the highest wisdom, or to Him who according to Paul is described as God over all."hyperlink
Of the same from the same book:-
"This then is the manner of the infirmity according to which He is described by Paul as coming to death, for the man lives by God's power when plainly associated with God's spirit, since from the preceding statements He who is believed to be in Him is proved to be also the power of the Most High."
Of the same from the same:-
"As by entering the Virgin's womb He did not lessen His power, so neither by the fastening of His body to the wood of the cross is His spirit defiled. For when the body was crucified on high the divine Spirit of wisdom dwelt even within the body, trod in heavenly places, filled all the earth, reigned over the depths, visited and judged the soul of every man, and continued to do all that God continually does, for the wisdom that is on high is not prisoned and contained within bodily matter, just as moist and dry material are contained within their vessels and are contained by but do not contain them. But this wisdom, being a divine and ineffable power, embraces and confirms alike all that is within and all that is without the temple, and thence proceeding beyond comprehends and sways at once all matter."
Of the same from the same work:-
"But if the sun being a visible body, apprehended by the senses, endures everywhere such adverse influences without changing its order, or feeling any blow, be it small or great; can we suppose the incorporeal Wisdom to be defiled and to change its nature because its temple is nailed to the cross or destroyed or wounded or corrupted? The temple suffers, but the substance abides without spot, and preserves its entire dignity without defilement."
Of the same from his work on the titles of the Psalms of Degrees:-
"The Father who is perfect, infinite, incomprehensible. and is incapable alike of adornment or disfigurement, receives no acquired glory; nor yet does His Word, who is God begotten of Him, through whom are angels and heaven and earth's boundless bulk and all the form and matter of created things; but the man Christ raised from the dead is exalted and glorified to the open discomfiture of His foes."
Of the same from the same work:-
"They however who have lifted up hatred against Him, though they be fenced round with the forces of His foes, are scattered abroad, while the God and Word gloriously raised His own temple."
Of the same from his interpretation of the 92nd Psalm:-
"Moreover the prophet Isaiah following the tracks of His sufferings, among other utterances exclaims with a mighty voice `And we saw Him and He had no form nor beauty. His form was dishonoured and rejected among the sons of men,'hyperlink thus distinctly showing that the marks of indignity and the sufferings must be applied to the human but not to the divine. And immediately afterwards be adds `Being a man under stroke, and able to bear infirmity.'hyperlink He it is who after suffering outrage was seen to have no form or comeliness, then again was changed and clothed with beauty, for the God dwelling in Him was not led like a lamb to death and slaughtered like a sheep, for His nature is invisible."
Footnotes
77 Matt. x. 28.
78 Heb. x. 10.
79 John xii. 27.
80 John ii. 19.
81 John ii. 21, John ii. 22.
82 John vi. 21.
83 Matt. xvii. 26. Mark xiv. 22. Luke xxii. 19. I. Cor. xi. 24.
84 Luke xxii. 19.
85 I. Cor. xi. 24.
86 Matt. xxvi. 28 and Mark xiv. 24.
87 Luke xxiv. 39.
88 Acts ii. 29 et seqq. and Ps. xvi. 10.
89 Ez. xxxvii. 7 et seqq.
90 I. Cor. ii. 8.
91 Gal. i. 19.
92 I. Cor. ii. 8.
93 John vi. 62.
94 John iii. 13.
95 Heb. xiii. 8.
96 I. Cor. ii. 8.
97 John x. 33.
98 Vide note on page 72.
99 See the Creed as published by the Council. p. 50.
100 The quotation is not quite exact, "'Euxaristiaj kai prosforaj ouk apodexontai" being substituted for euxaristiaj kai proseuxhj apexontai. Bp. Lightfoot (Ap. Fath. II. ii. 307) notes, "the argument is much the same as Tertullian's against the Docetism of Marcion (adv. Marc. iv. 40), `Acceptum panem et distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit. Hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est figura mei corporis. Figura autem non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset corpus, ceterum vacua res quod est phantasma, figuram capere non posset.
0' The Eucharist implies the reality of Christ's flesh. To those who deny this reality it has no meaning at all; to them Christ's words of institution are false; it is in no sense the flesh of Christ." Cf. Iren. iv. 18, 5.
101 I. Cor. xv. 12.
102 I. Cor. xv. 21.
103 Rom. xiv. 15.
104 Ephes. ii. 13. Observe slight differences.
105 Gal. iii. 13 and Deut. xxi. 23.
106 I. Cor. xv. 20.
107 Coloss. i. 18.
108 cf. Luke xxiv. 39. And for the application of these words to St. Thomas cf. page 210.
109 The effusion of water and blood is now well known to have been a natural consequence of the "broken heart." On the rupture of the heart the blood fills the pericardium, and then coagulates. The wound of the lance gave passage to the collected blood and serum. cf. Dr. Stroud's "Physical Cause of the Death of Christ," first published in 1847.
110 Prov. viii. 22, lxx.
111 i.e. literally, try not to lay hold of me.
112 John xx. 17.
113 Acts ii. 36.
114 John x. 18.
115 Rom. ix. 5.
116 Isaiah liii. 2, Isaiah liii. 3. Sept.
117 Isaiah liii. 3. Sept.