< Early Christians and the Lord’s Supper

March 21, 2026

The Use of Metaphors in the Bible

Can you draw a picture of Jesus? Here is some help from the Bible. Jesus looks glorious. Jesus looks like a rock, a cornerstone, a light, a shepherd, a lamb, a lion, a door, a physician, a high priest, a vine, and bread. Jesus has a sword coming out of His mouth, and out of Him flows water. God the Father left-handed; - because Jesus is sitting on His right one. Are you having any trouble drawing this picture? That is because these are not literal pictures, but figurative metaphors for us to learn and remember. To remember who Jesus is, His role and character.

The Old Testament too is filled with metaphors of God. The ancient world, not only Jews and Christians, were well-acquainted with metaphors.

Non-Falsifiable Statements

A non-falsifiable statement, also called a non-verifiable statement, is a statement that can never be proven or disproven. For example, what if someone told you that dirt turns blue when no one is looking at it or detecting the color. How could you prove that wrong? How could you prove that true? Does it matter? One thing we can say about non-falsifiable statements is that they don’t matter, because they are not relevant to anything.

The Roman Catholic church said that the bread and wine are transubstantiated to be no longer bread and wine but the body and blood of Jesus – in substance. But they still appear as bread and wine, and people who have done scientific tests on them see no difference between when they are transubstantiated. They is called the “accident” or the observed effects and properties. These dichotomy of substance vs. accidental effect is a legacy of Aristotelian thinking; it is found no where else. So Roman Catholics would have to admit that the undetectable “substance” of the body and blood is a non-falsifiable statement. Is your “substance” a human that turned into a tree, water, a rock, or a slime? If your “substance” is undetectable, and does not affect anything, then you can say your “substance” does not matter, it is a non-falsifiable irrelevance. So whatever substance the bread and wine become should not matter either.

Ah, but it does actually matter in one way. If the bread and wine change their substance to Jesus’ body and blood, then people will worship what is indistinguishable from bread and wine. But if the bread and wine do not change their “substance”, then God seeks people who worship Him in Spirit and truth, and people have turned aside to worship bread and wine instead, calling those God.

Four Views of the Lord’s Supper

Are the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper a metaphor like Protestants say, or literal and not a metaphor like Roman Catholics and some Eastern Orthodox say? Actually there are not just two views; there are four.

The bread and wine a “remembrance”, a figurative symbol of what Christ did for us. Bread and wine should not be worshipped. (Non-Lutheran Protestants)

The bread and wine changed to become Christ’s body and blood, but they are still bread and wine, not to be worshipped. (This is called consubstantiation, and this is the view of Lutherans.)

The bread and wine “transubstantiated” into Christ’s body and blood, and they are no longer bread and wine. Since they are really Christ’s actual body and blood, and they only have the appearance and properties of bread and wine, they should be worshipped. (Roman Catholics and some Eastern Orthodox)

Is it a mystery and we don’t know? (Some Eastern Orthodox)

The first two views have in common “still bread and wine”. The second and third views have in common “real presence”.

Why don’t we see an answer of what early Christians believed on this? Well, the early Christians did not agree on this either. The following is what they did teach.

Teachings with a white background had a consensus of 4 or more Christian writers affirmed and none denied. There are actually 1,224 of these; a few are shown here. Teachings in pale yellow did not have a consensus. Teachings in bright yellow background were not taught by any known Christians prior to 325 A.D.

THE LORD’S SUPPER

-Ls1. No Transubstantiation or Transmutation (3-1)

-Ls2. Real Presence: The bread and wine is real body and blood (7-3)

Di24. The Lord’s Supper is a Remembrance, figure, or type (6-0)

-Ls3. Worship what was bread and wine (0)

-Ls4. Must take Eucharist at least once to be saved (0)

-Ls5. Eucharist invalid if not given by a priest (0)

-Ls6. Eucharist not for Transubstantiation deniers (0)

-Ls7. Priest must consume all excess bread/wine (0)

-Ls8. Mention of the word “Mass” (0)

-Ls9. Pay a priest when receiving Eucharist (0)

-Ls10. Laity can only have the bread, not the wine (0)

The details of this are shown below and at www.BibleQuery.org/History/ChurchHistory/DifferencesInWhatChristiancesTeach.html

The LORD’s SUPPER

There are four views today:

Transubstantiation: Real presence of Christ, no longer bread and wine (Catholics and some Orthodox)

Consubstantiation: Real presence, but still bread and wine (Lutherans)

Remembrance: A symbol and still bread and wine. (Other Protestants)

A Mystery: (Some Orthodox)

As an aside, pre-Nicene writers used the word in English “transmute” at least 17 times, but none of them were in the context of the Lord’s Supper, except for Justin Martyr.

Historically, prior to Constantine, there are early Christians who (contrary to non-Lutheran, non-Catholic teaching) did believe in the “real presence of Christ.” There are also early Christians from the same time who (contrary to Catholicism) explicitly denied it, saying that it was “figurative” or a “symbol”. This is why, in the doctrines and practices in our video, we said the Lord’s Supper was one thing Christians all agreed on practicing, but we did not claim either that all Christians agreed it was the “real presence” and we did not claim all Christians agreed it was just a “remembrance.” Anyway, here are quotes from early Christians showing it was a “remembrance” and not a “real presence”. These are followed by quotes showing a “real presence.”

Note that Cyprian appears on multiple sides.

Ls1.No Transubstantiation or Transmutation (3-1)

X Justin Martyr (150 A.D.) “For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. … that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, ‘This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;’…” First Apology of Justin Martyr ch.66 p.185

Justin Martyr (150 A.D.) “We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” First Apology of Justin Martyr ch.66.

Irenaeus of Lyons (182-188 A.D.) See Ls2 below.

Clement of Alexandria (193-217/220 A.D.) See Ls2 below.

Tertullian (207/208 A.D.) See Ls2 below.

From the Council of Nicea I to the Council of Ephesus I (325-431 A.D.)

X Gregory of Nyssa (c.356-397 A.D.) “Gregory was the first Father who developed the view of transformation, for which transubstantiation was afterwards substituted to suit the mediaeval philosophy;” Ante-Nicene Fathers Second Series vol.5 p.13. See The Great Catechism ch.37 p.505-506. While he does not use the word “transubstantiation” per se, he uses the words “transmuted” and “transelements” and explains the concept.

From the Start of Muslim Conquests to the Fourth Lateran Council (634-1215 A.D.)

X Paschasius Radbertus (786-865 A,D,) was a strong proponent of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, that is, that the bread and wine actually become the physical body of Christ was no longer bread and wine.

Ratremus (744-868 A.D.) and Rabanus Maurus (c.776-856 A.D.) were famous disciples of Alcuin who stood up against Radbertus and transubstantiation. Both were “Calvinists before Calvin.”

Berengar of Tours (c.999-1088 A.D.) denied transubstantiation

X Hildebert de Lavardin of Tours (died 1133 A.D.) uses the term transubstantiation.

X The Fourth Lateran Council (1215 A.D.) said the bread and wine were “transubstantiated” into the body and blood of Christ.

X Council of Trent (Thirteenth session) (October 11, 1551 A.D.) defined transubstantiation

Ls2. Real Presence: The bread and wine is real body and blood (7-3)

Note that if it the real body, then it is no longer just the figure or metaphor of the body.

Ignatius of Antioch (c.100-117 A.D.) “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.” Letter to the Romans [shorter Greek version] ch.7 p.77

Ignatius of Antioch (c.100-117 A.D.) “The [heretics] stand aloof from such heretics”, because, among other reasons, “they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Letter to the Smyrnaeans [shorter Greek version] ch.7.1 p.89

(Quoted from another source) Letter of Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans ch.7.1 p.89 “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes”

Justin Martyr (150 A.D.) See Ls1 above.

Irenaeus of Lyons (182-188 A.D.) “He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” Irenaeus Against Heresies, book 5 ch.2.2 p.528

Irenaeus of Lyons (182-188 A.D.) (partial) "Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him? " Irenaeus Against Heresies book 5 ch.2.3 p.528

X AGAINST Irenaeus of Lyons (182-188 A.D.) fragment 13 p.570 “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. Then these latter, assuming such to be the case with regard to the practices of Christians, gave information regarding it to other Greeks, and sought to compel the martyrs Sanctus and Blandina to confess, under the influence of torture, [that the allegation was correct]. To these men Blandina replied very admirably in these words: “How should those persons endure such [accusations], who, for the sake of the practice [of piety], did not avail themselves even of the flesh that was permitted [them to eat]? ‘“

Irenaeus of Lyons (182-188 A.D.) (partial) “If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” Irenaeus Against Heresies book 4:33–32

Irenaeus of Lyons (182-188 A.D.) “He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).

X AGAINST Clement of Alexandria (193-217/220 A.D.) “elsewhere the Lord, … said: ‘Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood;’ describing distinctly by metaphor 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,”

X AGAINST Clement of Alexandria (193-202 A.D.) “And since the Word is the gushing fountain of life, and has been called a river of olive oil, Paul, using appropriate figurative language, and calling Him milk, adds: ‘I have given you to drink; ‘ for we drink in the word, the nutriment of the truth. In truth, also liquid food is called drink; and the same thing may somehow be both meat and drink, according to the different aspects in which it is considered, just as cheese is the solidification of milk or milk solidified; for I am not concerned here to make a nice selection of an expression, only to say that one substance supplies both articles of food. Besides, for children at the breast, milk alone suffices; it serves both for meat and drink. ‘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. Besides, also, the completion of His own passion He called catachrestically ‘a cup,’ when He alone had to drink and drain it. Thus to Christ the fulfilling of His Father’s will was food; and to us infants, who drink the milk of the word of the heavens, Christ Himself is food. Hence seeking is called sucking; for to those babes that seek the Word, the Father’s breasts of love supply milk. (new paragraph) 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, in as much 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. (new paragraph) 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.’” The Instructor book 1 ch.6 p.220-221

Clement of Alexandria (193-202 A.D.) “‘Eat ye my flesh,’ He says, ‘and drink my blood.’ Such is the suitable food which the Lord minsters, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children's growth." (The Instructor book 1 ch.6 p.220

Clement of Alexandria (193-202 A.D.) (alternate translation) “‘Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (The Instructor book 1 ch.6:43:3

X AGAINST Tertullian (207/208 A.D.) “Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, “This is my body,” that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say, ) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body,” Five Books Against Marcion book 4 ch.40 p.418

X AGAINST Tertullian (207/208 A.D.) “For so did God in your own gospel even reveal the sense, when He called His body bread; so that, for the time to come, you may understand that He has given to His body the figure of bread, whose body the prophet of old figuratively turned into bread,” Five Books Against Marcion book 3 ch.19 p.337

Tertullian (210 A.D.) (partial) “[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” The Resurrection of the Dead 8

Hippolytus of Portus (217 A.D.) “‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e.,
the Last Supper]” Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs

Origen (225-254 A.D.) “Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]” (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage (c.246-258 A.D.) “He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).

Cyprian of Carthage (c.246-258 A.D.) (partial) “He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (The Lapsed 15–16).

From the Council of Nicea I to the Council of Ephesus I (325-431 A.D.)

Council of Nicea I (325 A.D.) “It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]” (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).

Gregory of Nyssa (c.356-397 A.D.) See Ls1 above.

Aphrahat the Syrian (337-345 A.D.) “After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink” (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

Cyril of Jerusalem (c.349-386 A.D.) “The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” Catechetical Lectures 19:7.

(NPNF2 translation) Cyril of Jerusalem (c.349-386 A.D.) “For as the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the invocation of the Holy and Adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, while after the invocation the Bread becomes the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ, so in like manner such meats belonging to the pomp of Satan, though in their own nature simple, become profane by the invocation of the evil spirit.” Catechetical Lectures Lecture 19 ch.7 p.145-146.

Cyril of Jerusalem (c.349-386 A.D.) “Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” Catechetical Lectures Lecture 22 ch.6, 9.

(NPNF2 translation) Cyril of Jerusalem (c.349-386 A.D.) “Consider therefore the Bread and the Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord’s declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ; for even though sense suggests this to thee, yet let faith establish thee. Judge not the matter from the taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that the Body and Blood of Christ have been vouchsafed to thee.”

Ambrose of Milan (370-390 A.D.) Perhaps you will say, “I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ?” ... Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed. ... For that sacrament which you receive is made what it is by the word of Christ. But if the word of Elijah had such power as to bring down fire from heaven, shall not the word of Christ have power to change the nature of the elements? ... Why do you seek the order of nature in the Body of Christ, seeing that the Lord Jesus Himself was born of a Virgin, not according to nature? It is the true Flesh of Christ which was crucified and buried, this is then truly the Sacrament of His Body. The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: “This is My Body.” Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood. And you say, Amen, that is, It is true. Let the heart within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what the voice speaks.” On the Mysteries ch.9 no.50-54,58 p.324-325

(NPNF2 translation) Ambrose of Milan (c.387 A.D.) “Perhaps you will say, ‘I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ?’ And this is the point which remains for us to prove. And what evidence shall we make use of? Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed.” The Mysteries ch.9 no.50 [390 A.D.??]).

(NPNF2 Translation) Ambrose of Milan (c.387 A.D.) “In that sacrament is Christ, because it is the Body of Christ, it is therefore not bodily food but spiritual. When the Apostle says of its type: ‘Our fathers ate spiritual food and drank 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 Mysteries ch.9 no.58 p.325

X (denied, typified) Augustine of Hippo (388-430 A.D.) quotes Cyprian of Carthage (c.246-258 A.D.): “For as Christ says ‘I am the true vine,’ it follows that the blood of Christ is wine, not water; and the cup cannot appear to contain His blood by which we are redeemed and quickened, if the wine be absent; for by the wine is the blood of Christ typified, ...” On Christian Doctrine book 4 ch.21.45 NPNF first series vol.2 p.590

Augustine of Hippo (405 A.D.) “’And [Christ] was carried in His Own Hands.’ ; How ‘carried in His Own Hands’? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, ‘This is My Body [Matthew 26:26].’” ANF translation Expositions on Psalms Psalm 34 ch.1 p.73

Augustine of Hippo (411 A.D.) “I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” Sermons 227.

Augustine of Hippo (405 A.D.) “Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” On the Psalms 33:1:10.

Augustine of Hippo (405 A.D.) “What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (ibid., 272).

From the Council of Nicea I to the Council of Ephesus I (325-431 A.D.)

Apostolic Constitutions (compiled c.380 A.D.) book 8 section 2 ch.13 p.490-491 (partial) “Let the bishop give the oblation, saying, The body of Christ; and let him that receiveth say, Amen. And let the deacon take the cup; and when he gives it, say, The blood of Christ, the cup of life; and let him that drinketh say, Amen.”

From the Council of Ephesus I to the Start of Muslim Conquests (431-634 A.D.)

Council of Ephesus (431 A.D.) “We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving” (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).

From the Start of Muslim Conquests to the Fourth Lateran Council (634-1215 A.D.)

Paschasius Radbertus (786-865 A,D,) was a strong proponent of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, that is, that the bread and wine actually become the physical body of Christ was no longer bread and wine.

X Ratremus (744-868 A.D.) and Rabanus Maurus (c.776-856 A.D.) were famous disciples of Alcuin who stood up against Radbertus and transubstantiation. Both were “Calvinists before Calvin.”

X denied Berengar of Tours (c.999-1088 A.D.) denied transubstantiation

Hildebert de Lavardin of Tours (died 1133 A.D.) uses the term transubstantiation.

The Fourth Lateran Council (1215 A.D.) said the bread and wine were “transubstantiated” into the body and blood of Christ.

Thirteenth session of the Council of Trent (October 11, 1551 A.D.) defined transubstantiation

Orthodox Christians (partial) teach “the real presence” that the bread and wine are really the body and blood of Christ, but leave it a mystery as to how.

Among heretics

Theodore of Mopsuestia (405 A.D.) “When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit” Catechetical Homilies 5:1.

X AGAINST Tertullian (198-220 A.D.) “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.” On the Resurrection of the Flesh ch.37 p.572

X AGAINST Tertullian (207/208 A.D.) “Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say, ) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body,” Five Books Against Marcion book 4 ch.40 p.418

-Di24. The Lord’s Supper is a Remembrance, figure, or type (6-0)

Justin Martyr (135-165 A.D.) “Now it is evident, that in this prophecy to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks. And this prophecy proves that we shall behold this very King with glory;” Dialogue with Trypho the Jew ch.70 p.234

Irenaeus of Lyons (182-188 A.D.) fragment 37 p.574 says “And therefore the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes [antitopon] may obtain remission of sins and life eternal. Those persons, then, who perform these oblations 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.”

Perhaps by Irenaeus of Lyons (182-188 A.D.) fragment 13 p.570 “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. Then these latter, assuming such to be the case with regard to the practices of Christians, gave information regarding it to other Greeks, and sought to compel the martyrs Sanctus and Blandina to confess, under the influence of torture, [that the allegation was correct]. To these men Blandina replied very admirably in these words: “How should those persons endure such [accusations], who, for the sake of the practice [of piety], did not avail themselves even of the flesh that was permitted [them to eat]? ‘“ (I called this uncertain authorship because this is a fragment from Oecumenius, a 10th century writer, said to be by Irenaeus of Lyons)

Clement of Alexandria (197-217/220 A.D.) “And since the Word is the gushing fountain of life, and has been called a river of olive oil, Paul, using appropriate figurative language, and calling Him milk, adds: ‘I have given you to drink; ‘ for we drink in the word, the nutriment of the truth. In truth, also liquid food is called drink; and the same thing may somehow be both meat and drink, according to the different aspects in which it is considered, just as cheese is the solidification of milk or milk solidified; for I am not concerned here to make a nice selection of an expression, only to say that one substance supplies both articles of food. Besides, for children at the breast, milk alone suffices; it serves both for meat and drink. ‘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. Besides, also, the completion of His own passion He called catachrestically ‘a cup,’ when He alone had to drink and drain it. Thus to Christ the fulfilling of His Father’s will was food; and to us infants, who drink the milk of the word of the heavens, Christ Himself is food. Hence seeking is called sucking; for to those babes that seek the Word, the Father’s breasts of love supply milk. (new paragraph) 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, in as much 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. (new paragraph) 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.’” The Instructor book 1 ch.6 p.220-221

Tertullian (207/208 A.D.) “Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, “This is my body,” that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say, ) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body,” Five Books Against Marcion book 4 ch.40 p.418

Tertullian (207/208 A.D.) “For so did God in your own gospel even reveal the sense, when He called His body bread; so that, for the time to come, you may understand that He has given to His body the figure of bread, whose body the prophet of old figuratively turned into bread,” Five Books Against Marcion book 3 ch.19 p.337

Tertullian (198-220 A.D.) “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.” On the Resurrection of the Flesh ch.37 p.572

Hippolytus (222-235/235 A.D.) “‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Proverbs 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e., the Last Supper]” Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs

Cyprian of Carthage (c.246-258 A.D.) “Also, the sacrament of the passover contains nothing else in the law of the Exodus than that the lamb which is slain in the figure of Christ should be eaten in one house. God speaks, saying, ‘In one house shall ye eat it; ye shall not send its flesh abroad from the house.’ The flesh of Christ, and the holy of the Lord, cannot be sent abroad, nor is there any other home to believers but the one Church. This home, this household of unanimity, the Holy Spirit designates and points out in the Psalms, saying, ‘God, who maketh men to dwell with one mind in a house.’ in the house of God, in the Church of Christ, men dwell with one mind, and continue in concord and simplicity:” Treatises of Cyprian Treatise 1 ch.8 p.424

From the Council of Nicea I to the Council of Ephesus I (325-431 A.D.)

(NPNF2 translation) Cyril of Jerusalem (c.349-386 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.” Catechical Lectures Lecture 22 ch.4 p.151-152

(NPNF2 translation) Cyril of Jerusalem (c.349-386 A.D.) “Wherefore with full assurance let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to thee His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that though by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, mayest be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to bear Christ in us, because His Body and Blood are distributed through our members; thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, we become partakes of the divine nature.” Catechical Lectures Lecture 22 ch.3 p.151

Augustine of Hippo (400 A.D.) quotes Cyprian of Carthage (AD 200): “For as Christ says ‘I am the true vine,’ it follows that the blood of Christ is wine, not water; and the cup cannot appear to contain His blood by which we are redeemed and quickened, if the wine be absent; for by the wine is the blood of Christ typified, that blood which is foreshadowed and proclaimed in all the types and declarations of Scripture....” On Christian Doctrine book 4, ch 21

Ratremus (744-868 A.D.) and Rabanus Maurus (~776-856 A.D.) were famous disciples of Alcuin who stood up against Radbertus and transubstantiation. Both were “Calvinists before Calvin.”

Berengar of Tours (c.999-1088 A.D.) denied transubstantiation