YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY THE DOCTRINE THE REAL PRESENCE. THE DOCTRINE THE REAL PRESENCE, AS CONTAINED IN THE FATHERS FROM THE DEATII OF S. JOHN THE EVANGEUST TO THE FOURTII GENERAL COUNCIL, VINDICATED, IN NOTES ON A SERMON, " THE PEE8ENCE OE CIIEIST IN THE HOLY EUCHAEI8T," PREACHED A.D, 185S, BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD. BY THE niSV. E. B. PUSEY, D.D. llliOIUS I'BOI'ESSOIl 01' UKbUEW ; CANON OP CllBlST CHURCH; lATB I'ELLOW OF ORIEL COLLEGE. PRINTED FOE JOHN HENRY PARKER, OXFORD, & 377, STRAND, LONDON : BOLD ALSO BY l<\ & J. RIVINGTON, WATERLOO PLACE, LONDON. MDCOCLV. TABLE OF CONTENTS. Note A. — Tlie belief that the Elementt remain after ConsecratUm in their nalund substances was not supposed of old to involve any tenet of ConsubUantiation .... Charges made by Guitmundus Doctrine imputed to Rupertus Statemonti* in Aquinas OpiniouB mentioned t>y Cardinal Bonaventura Durandus Occam Innocent III. . Scutus Peter d' Ailly . Cardinal Caietan Hurtado . Note B. — Consubstantiation was nut lield by the Lutheran body statement of the belief expressed in the Lutheran Articles and held by Luther ....... Variations of Luther ..... Noi i; C. — On the miracles if our Lord's passing through the closed tomb and the closed dujrs, after the resurrection, and His birth illassa virginitate Note D. — Il is a first principle of law, that in Testaments, the plain meaning of words is not to be departed from . Note E. — Against the attempt to explain away the force of ihe words, " This is My Body!' by the introduction of " a figure" Passages misunderstood — Gen. xli. 26 Ezek. xxxvii. II S. Matt. xiii. 88, 39 Rev. i. 20 . I Cor. Y. 7 S. Matt, xi (jv.x\. ix. 9 . Gen. xvii. 10 U PAGE 1 25 9 10 II 14 17 18 222729 32 42 56 60 6164 ib. ib. 65 ib.ib. ib. ib. VI CONTENTS. Ex. xxxi. 16 ...... • Ex. xii. 11 Ex. xxiv. 8 Note F. — The bearing of our Lord's words, "I will drink no more of this fruit of the vine" on the doctrine ofthe Holy Eucharist Note G. — The Fathers speak of the continued existence of the elements in their natural substances, most especially when they PAGE 65 6667 69 are speaking accurately in their controversies with heretics . 75 Tertullian . 76 S. Ephrem . 77 Adamantius . 82 S. Chrysostom . . 83 Theodoret . 85 Pope Gelasius . . 88 Facundus .... . 89 Ephrem of Antioch . . ib. Note H. — The consecrated elements are said by the Fathers not to be bare elements 91 S. Cyril of Jerusalem ib. S. Justin Martyr 92 S. Irenaeus ib. S. Athanasius ib. Jerome of Jerusalem . 93 Note I. — On the titles, types, antitypes, figures, symbols, images. as applied to the Holy Eucharist 94 S. Clement of Alexandria . 97 Tertullian ib. Origen ..... ib. Eusebius 98 Adamantius 99 Eustathius .... ib. Clementine Constitutions . 100 S. Cyril of Jerusalem 101 S. Epiphanius .... ib. S. Ephrem .... 102 S. Gregory of Nazianzum . 103 S. Macarius .... 104 ib. 105 S. Ambrose Author of De Sacramentis . S. Jerome . . . _ 106 CONTENTS. VH page S. Gregory of Nyssa 107 S. Augustine ib. S. Chrysostom . 108 PaUadius . 109 Pseudo-Dionysius 110 Hilary the Deacon ib. S. Gaudentius ib. Victor of Antioch Ill S. Cyril of Alexandria ib. Theodoret ib. Pope Gelasius . 113 Procopius . ib. Eutychius . ib. Andreas Cretensis 114 338 Bishops of Council of Constantinople, a. d. 754 1 15 Note K. — The coal in Isaiah's vision a type of the outward and inward part of the Holy Eucharist . . . . .119 S. James of Sarug 121 S. Ephrem .... ib. S. Chrysostom .... 124 Author of Homily on Repentance 126 Theodoret .... 127 Liturgy of S. James . 128 S. Cyril . ib. QuEsstt. et Responss. ad Orthod. 129 John Damascene 130 Note L. — On the terms, " in, under, with, the bread and wine," as used by the Fathers Tertullian . S. Ephrem S. Augustine S. James of Sarug S. Cyril of Alexandria S. Hilary . S. Epiphanius S. Cyjirian Bede 131 132 ib. ib. ib. ib. ib. 133 ib.ib. Note M. — Our Lord's ivords, " I willdrink no more of this fruit of the vine," ivere taken by the Fathers, from the first, to mean literally wine . . . . . . . . .134 S. Justin 135 vm CONTENTS. S. Ireiiffius S. Clement of Alexandria S. Cyprian S. Hilary . S. Clirysostoin . S. Victor of Antioch . S. Epiphanius S. Augustine S. Eucherius Juvencus S. Basil . S. Gregory of Nyssa . Note N. — Thc belief of the early Fathers that the Holy Eucharist nourished implies that the natural substance remained S. Justin Martyr S. IrcnsEUS S. CloHicut of Alexandria Julius Firmicus . OrigenS. Epiphanius Hom. on Repentance in S. Chrysostom Dillicultics of the opposite theory Note Q. — On the words used by the Fathers, which Roman con troversialists quote as implying the doctrine of Transubstan- tiaiion .......... Admission of Suarez ...... Change in physical object docs not imply alteration of substance, from Tertullian ........ S. Cyril of Alexandria S. Epiphanius I. Transmakc as used in S. Gregory of Nyssa ...... Used by him of changes not physical . By other Fathers Used only in interpolated Greek Liturgy II. Transelement as used in S. Gregory of Nyssa ...... Used of changes non physical by S. Gregory PACE 136 ib. 137 ib. 138 ib. 189 ib.ib.ib. 140 ib. 141 143144 146147 ib. 149150154 )G-2167 172174179 ib. 181 189193195197 CONTENTS. IX By other Fathers S. Cyril of Alexandria Theophylact III. Re-order in S. Chrysostom Used by him of any change By other Fathers IV. Transform or transfashion in S. Chrysostom Used by him of changes not substantial By other Fathers V. Transfer, translate 225 PAGE 201 202 208 211 212 217219220 221 VI. Transfigure in S. Ambrose VII., VIII. Become, changed : Transubstantiation properly not change " The Word became Flesh " in S. Athanasius ....... S. Gregory of Nyssa Simplest words used in Liturgies Note R. — The illustrations employed by the Fathers in reference to ihe consecration of the Holy Eucharist imply supernatural operation, not a physical change of the elements S. Chrysostom . Theophilus of Alexandria S C.vril of Jerusalem Author of De Sacramentis S. Amlirose S. Ephrem Various opinions as to the remaining of the natural sub stances : Cardinal Henri of Segusio Occam Canus G. Biol Bassolis Ciisenus Alph. de Castro Summary 229 232 234238251 264 276277 ib. 281288 298 301 302 ib. 303 ib. 305306 ib. CONTENTS. Note S. List of Ancient authorities from the Apostles' time to A.D. 451 (the 4th General Council) on the Real Objective Presence in the Holy Eucharist S. Ignatius S. Justin Martyr S. Irenseus Strange agreement of Marcus, Gnostic Heracleon . S. Melito . Tatian S. Clement of Alexandria Theodotus, heretic Tertullian . Author of Carmina adv. Marcionem Inscription at Autun . S. Hippolytus Origen S. Firmilian S. Dionysius of Alexandria S. Cyprian Synodical letter with forty- S. Cornelius S. Lawrence Magnes S. Peter of Alexandria Eusebius of Csesarea Council of Nice Adamantius Eustathius . S. James of Nisibis S. Athanasius Anonymous Author . Juvencus . Theodorus Heracleotes, Arian S. Julius Council of Alexandria Julius Firmicus . S. Theodore SS. Thecla, Maria, &o. S. Cyril of Jerusalem . S. Gregory of Armenia Liberius one Bishops 315317 318 320325 326 ib. 327 ib. .331 ib. 336 337 338 340 348 ib. 354 355362363 ib. 365 366369 ib.ib. ib. 372378380 ib. 381382883885 ib. 386 390 392 CONTENTS. XI PAGE S. Hilary 393 Ariau Council of Philippoli . 899 Hilary, the Deacon . ib. Marius Victorinus . 402 Titus of Bostra . . 403 S. Damasus . 404 S. Epiphanius . 405 S. Optatus . 408 S. Pacian . 409 S. Ephrem . 411 S. Basil . 423 S. Gregory of Nyssa . . 430 S. Gregory of Nazianzum . 435 Cffisarius . . 438 S. Amphilochlus . 440 Apollinarius . 441 S. Didymus of Alexandria . ib. Es.;ias Abbas . 443 S. Macarius . 444 Eusebius of Ale.\audria . 449 S. Ambrose . 454 Author of De Sacramentis . 467 S. Jerome . . 470 S. Siricius . . 483 Theophilus of Alexandria . ib. Jerome of Jerusalem . . 485 S. Gaudentius . 486 S. Isaac the Great . 493 S. Paulinus of Nola . . 494 S. Maruthas . 497 S. Augustine . ib. S. Chrysostom . . 543 Council of Carthage . . 597 Philo Carpasius . . 598 Victor of Antioch . 600 Mark the Hermit . 60-2 Apollo . 603 S. Chromatius . . 604 PaUadius . . 605 Apostolical Constitutions . . ib. Pseudo-Dionysius . 610 Prudentius . . 613 xu CONTENTS. PAGE S. Cyril of Alexandria 614 S. Isidore of Pelusium 664 Theodotus of Antioch 668 S. Paulinus . . . • 669 S. Maximus, Bishop of Turin ib. Theodoret 672 Theodotus of Ancyra 683 S. Peter Chrysologus . ib. S. Proclus 689 Sedulius . . . . ¦ 693 S. Leo the Great 694 Salvian 700 S. NUus 701 S. Prosper 706 African Author de Promiss. et prsfid. Dei 708 Basil of Seleucia 712 Zacchaeus or Evagrius ib. The Author of Prcedeslinatus, Pelagian 714 Conclusion .... 715 ERRATA ET ADDENDA. Page 77, note '\for 20 read 40 — 132, note ',for 119—131 read 121—124 — 147, line 1 1,/or acts read arts — 173, on Victor of Antioch, see further. No. 64, p. 600 Page 467. To the passages quoted from S. Ambrose, this should have been added : " Let the triumphant victims [the martyrsj enter the place where Christ is lhe Sacrifice. But He upon the Altar, Who suffered for all ; they under the Altar, who were redeemed by His Passion. This place I had destined for myself. For it is meet that a Priest should rest there where he was wont to offer. But I yield up the right side to the holy victims : that place was due to Martyrs." S. Ambros. Ep. 22, ad Marcellin. soror. Page 614. The lines in which Prudentius speaks of the Martyrs under the heavenly Altar are — Hgec sub Altari sita sempUerno Lapsibus nostris veniam precetur Turba, quam servat procerum creatrix Purpureorum. Peristeph. Hymn. 4, fin. THE DOCTRINE, 4-c. NOTE A. On p. 6. The belief that the Elements remain after Consecration in their natural substances was not supposed of old to involve any tenet of Consubstantiation. The term " Transubstantiation " was a term, alto gether new, framed by those who believed the doc trine which it was intended to express, in order to express what they believed. The term "Consub stantiation " was a term invented by persons to stigmatize a doctrine which they rejected, and, as mis-stating that doctrine, has never been accepted by those wliose belief it was meant to stigmatize, and did misrepresent. Moreover, although a new form of word, it still was necessarily connected with a Theological term, of very defined and familiar, but wholly distinct meaning, " Consubstantial." It could not then fail, in popular usage, to partake of the meaning of that term ; and yet, as far as it was understood to have a kindred meaning, it was, ipso facto, misunderstood. But for this, "Consubstan tiation " might perhaps have been taken simply to B 3 The belief in the Real Presence together with signify " causing two substances to co-esist, or exist simultaneously." But since "Consubstantial " meant " of one and the same substance with," " Consub- stantiality" "the being of one and the same sub stance," it could not but be that " Consubstantiation " would be taken to mean "making two substances to be blended into one." " Consubstantiate " is accordingly now too taken to mean, "to unite or co-exist in the same substance." Whereas the doc trine which it was in later times intended to im pugn, was, "that the outward elements not being destroyed, the Body and Blood of Christ, by virtue of our Lord's words of consecration, came to be present there, where wei'e the bread and wine in their natural substances." " Co-existence," the term which Occam uses, would have been the natural term to adopt, had people wished to express the truth, not to throw a slur upon a doctrine which they rejected. By employing the word " Consub stantiation," opponents have succeeded in raising an almost insurmountable prejudice, that to believe the presence of " the Body and Blood of our Lord under the forms of bread and wine" is, not simply to believe their simultaneous existence there, but to introduce some sort of confusion or admixture be tween our Lord's Presence and the earthly elements. Guitmundus, writing against Berengarius, speaks against those who, allowing that " the substance of the Body of Christ is in the food of the Lord, yet. no ways believing that the bread and wine are, by the substance of the elements, not Consubstantiation. 3 the words of the Saviour, changed into His Body and Blood, but commingling Christ with bread and wine {Christum pane et vino comfniscentes), framed another and subtler heresy'." These seem to have used a priori arguments. But it is not clear whether Guitmundus' statement expresses his own deduction only or their meaning. He says (p. 461), " That Christ should be incarnate, the ground of man's redemption demanded. The Prophets foretold that it should be. That it was, Christ showed, Apostles preached, the world believed. But that Christ should be impanate or invinate, no ground requireth, nor did Prophets foretel, nor Christ show, nor Apostles preach, nor the world (except those very few heretics) believe. The whole world sings in unison, 'as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is One Christ.' No one dareth to say, so God and Man, and bread and wine is one Christ. Whence then have they this new companation ? " If such had been the meaning of those against whom Guitmundus wrote, their belief would be that which has been spoken of as " assumption," i. e. that by some sort of analogy with the Incarnation, our Lord took the bread and wine to be personally united with Himself. But Guitmundus shows in the sequel, that what he is really opposing is, the belief — not ' De Euch. Saer. iii. BibL Patr. t. 18, p. 460. Quoted by Hospinian, Hist. Saer., \. iv. p. 306, who says that Guitmundus took his language from Lanfranc, de Euch. eont. Berengarium. But there is no sueh language in that book. B 2 4 The belief in the Real Presence together with that there was any Consubstantiation, or blending of substances, but "that the elements remain in their natural substances," unaltered as to that substance by the Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ. For in opposing authorities to those whom he con demns, this is the point which he specifies. Thus he quotes the author of the " de Sacramentis" as teaching, not that " the Body and Blood of Christ lie hid ('latere') in the bread and wine, but that the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord^" And again, "These His impa- nators the Lord Jesus slays with the word of His mouth, when, taking bread, and giving thanks, and blessing. He says, ' This is My Body.' He does not say, 'In this My Body lieth hid.' Nor did He say, ' In this wine is My Blood,' but ' This is My Blood.' " " Whence the Church of God too in the Canon of the Mass, itself from Apostolic tradition, prays — not that the Body and Blood should lie hid in it, nor that the Body and Blood should come into it, but that the oblation itself should become both the Body and Blood." To the first argument from our Lord's words Durandus answers, that in whatever way the word " this " is explained, if the accidents only are sup posed to remain, in that same way it may be ex plained, if the substance remains. The words of the ' The author of the De Sacramentis did believe that the natural substances reniained. The passage will be considered below, in Note O. the suhitltmc.c. of the elements, not Consuh.^lnntiation. 5 prayer, " that this oblation may liecoino to us tho Body and IMood of thy iiioHt-beloved Son our Lord .losus (!liriHt" imply an t)l)joctive l*rcsciico, not a ])]iyHic!il cliiiiigo. But each several instance shows that what tlioso to whom lio imputes "impanation" and "invlnation" roiilly hohl, was that the Body and J3Ioo(l of Christ was jirostMit " under tho form of broiid and wine," those "remaining in thoir natural BubstuncoH." This samo conception is imjiuted by Bollaniiine to Uii|)ertus Abbas, a.d. 1111. llo says, "The" error of Ituportus lies in tiiis, that ho thought that when the I'iuciiarist is consecrated, the bread is not convortod into tho Body of Christ but that it is as.suiiied by tho Divino Word as tho Humanity was assumed." 13aronius says, without any sucli infer ence, "Ho' fell incautiously into the error of assert ing that tho very entire Body and Blood of Christ woro, in such Avise, truly present in tlie most holy Sacrament of tho I'iUcharist, that yot the subslance itsolf of tlio bread and wino also remained entire." The passage to which Baronius refers is ex])re.>^sed in a. V(u-y ungnardod way. Yet wt> may fairly su]i- pose that llupertus Mas only illustrating, in such manner as he inight, tho sacramental Presonce, not ex|)lainiiighis belief throngh that illustration. Klso his M'ords would e.\])ress not a l^'osonco itndrr the elements, but (as Bellarmine ascribes to him) an " Dc Sciipll. I'.itIcs. ill Kupiito. * A. 11. 1111. fm. 6 The belief in the Real Presence together with hypostatic union with the elements. And yet it is incredible that he should have thought this; and similar language is used by a contemporary writer, Odo, Archbishop of Cambray, a.d. 1105, who believed the annihilation of the physical substance of the elements. He paraphrases the words, " Fac, Domine, nostram oblationem ascriptam, i. e. scriptam verbo ascriptam, — that it may become the precious Body of Christ, united to the Word of God, and conjoined in unity of Person ^" The passage of Rupertus is, " ' But* ye shall eat it,' he saith, ' only roast with fire,' that is, ye shall attri bute the whole to the operation of the Holy Spirit, the effect of which is not to destroy or corrupt the substance which He takes to His own use, but to the good of the substance, remaining what it was, to add in an invisible manner what it was not. So He destroyed not human nature, when by His operation God conjoined it, from the Virgin's womb, to the Word in Unity of Person. So the substance of bread and wine, subjected, as to the outward form, to the five senses. He doth not change or destroy, when He conjoins them to the same Word in the unity of the same Body which hung on the Cross, and of the same Blood which He shed from His Side. So, again, as the Word sent down from above became Flesh, not ' Saer. Can. Expos. B. P. xxi. p. 224. He is quoted by Waterland, "The Sacramental Part ofthe Eucharist explained," vol. 8, p. 248. Ed. Van Mild. ° In Exod. ii. 10, fin. the substance of the elements, not Consubstantiation. 7 changed into flesh, but taking flesh : so both bread and M'ine, raised from beneath, become the Body and Blood of Christ, not changed into the taste of flesh, nor into the terrific form of blood, but assuming, invi sibly, the truth of the immortal substance which is in Christ, both Human and Divine. Accordingly, as we truly, and as Catholics, confess that Man, Who, born of a virgin, hung on the cross, was God, so we truly assert that that which we receive from the holy altar is Chnst, the Lamb of God." Rupertus expresses himself in the like way as to the remaining of the elements in the De Div. Off. ii. 9. Yet, again, it does not seem that he thought of any Personal union of our Lord with inanimate matter, nor does his language imply more than that our Lord vouchsafes to use it, as an instrument, whereby He. conveys His Presence. " The matter or substance of the Sacrifice, which then was, and now is, in the hands of our High Priest, is not simple, as neither had our High Priest Himself only a Divine, or only a Human, Substance. For in the High Priest and in the Sacrifice alike there is a Divine and an earthly Substance. The earthly in each is that which can be seen corporally or locally; the Divine, in each, is the invisible Word, Who was in the beginning God with God. For when the great High Priest, holding the bread and wine, said, 'This is My Body,' 'This is My Blood,' it was the Voice of the Incarnate Word, the Voice of Him Who was from everlasting, the Voice of the Counsellor of old. The Word which had 8 The belief in the Real Presence together -with taken human nature abiding in the flesh, took the substance of bread and wine, [Himself, Who is] the Life intervening, joined bread with His Flesh, wine with His Blood. As in earthly thoughts, the tongue interveneth between the mind and the bodily air, and joining both, maketh one discourse, which, being transmitted into the ears, is soon consumed, and passes away, but the meaning of the discourse abides whole and unconsumed, both in him who speaketh and in him who heareth ; so the Word of the Father, intervening between the Flesh and Blood which He had taken of the Virgin's womb, and the bread and wine which He took from the altar, maketh one sacrifice, which when the priest distributeth into the mouths of the faithful, the bread and wine is con sumed, and passeth away ; but That which was born of the Virgin, together with the Word of the Father united with It, abideth both in heaven and in men, whole and unconsumed. But into him, in whom faith is not, besides the visible species of the bread and wine, nothing of the sacrifice cometh. — He who eateth the visible bread of the sacrifice, and by not believing repelleth the invisible from his heart, slayeth Christ, because he separateth life from that which is enlivened, and with his teeth teareth the dead body of the sacrifice, and is thereby guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord '." ' A third passage to the same effect, in Joh. L. 6, is quoted by Bellarmine (de Saer. Euch. iii. 11). Rupertus is also attacked as Walerannus by Thom. Wald., (de Saer. Euch. e. 47,) defended by Gerberon, Apol. pro Rup. et Blanciotti notse fus. ad Th Wald the substance of the elements, not Consubstantiation. 9 It is the more probable that Rupertus intended only the co-existence of the Body and Blood of Christ with the substance of the bread and wine, because his statement reappears afterwards. Aquinas mentions and rejects the opinion of the co-existence of the bread and wine with the Body and Blood of Christ, yet without calling it heresy. " Some ^ have laid down that the consecrated bread and wine can be converted into something else, and so can nourish, because the substance of bread re mains together with the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ." "This," he says, "is repugnant to the words of Scripture. For that which the Lord said, ' This is My Body,' would not be true ; since ' this' which is so pointed to, is bread ; but it ought rather to be said 'here,' i.e. in this place, is My Body." Yet when St. John Baptist pointed to our Lord, " Behold the Lamb of God which taketh aw-ay the sins of the world," he so pointed to Him, not withstanding His dress. The outward raiment with which He was covered, formed no hindrance. The outward part of the elements no more interfere with the "inward part," the Body and Blood of Christ, than the raiment which He wore, with His Presence in the Flesh. His garment was the means of com municating the indwelling Virtue which went forth from Him, because He so willed. The outward sign of the Sacrament conveys, by His appointment, His * In 1 Cor. c. xi. Leet. v. p. 75. 10 The belief in the Real Presence together with Presence, wliich He has been pleased, by virtue of the consecration, to place there. At the same time Card. Bonaventura ' mentions different opinions on this subject. " It was the opi nion of some (which yet the Master [P. Lombard] does not put down, because it is an opinion of mo derns, or perhaps because it is not very probable), that the whole bread is not changed according to its substance, but some essential part remains. For it is plain that the accidents remain according to their being and operation. Because it appears that they remain according to their being, there have been who said that the matter also remains, which sup ports them, and the form passes away. But this is nought, for the matter is not formed to sustain the accidents nor to be in act, save in the form. Others, seeing that the accidents have their operation, and all operation has its origin from the substantial form, said that the matter passes away and the form re mains. But this again is nought, because the form only acts in matter. Wherefore, although that Sa crament is full of miracles, yet since those miracles only are assumed, which relate to. the truth of the Sacrament and its concealment, therefore doctors commonly lay down that the whole passes into the whole, the accidents only remaining as a necessary and useful cause. Wherefore, leaving the first opi nion, which takes away the conversion of the mat- ^ Mv. dist. ii. p. i. art. i. q. 2 (quoted by Field, App. to B. iii. the substance ofthe elements, not Consubstantiation. 11 ter, and the other, which takes away the conversion of the form, let us hold the more Catholic [opinion] that the whole bread is converted into the Body of Christ, and that conversion is best called transubstan tiation." Durandus, as is well known, even declares that this supposition, viz. that the elements remain in their natural substances, but that the Body and Blood of Christ are present under them, has the fewest diffi culties. " The '" first question is, whether the Body of Christ be in this Sacrament through the conversion of the substance of bread into It, or whether after the con secration the substance of the bread and wine re mains. It is argued that the substance of the bread and wine do remain, because that is the rather to be chosen, whence fewest difficulties ensue. But if it be supposed that the substance of the bread and wine remains, there ensueth one only difiiculty, and that not very great, nor insoluble, viz. that two bodies exist together. Whereas, if it be supposed that the substances do not remain, many difiiculties follow, viz. how such accidents can nourish or be corrupted, and how any thing can be generated from them. "Moreover, that only is effected in this Sacra ment, which is "expressed by the form of the words. But by these words, 'This is My Body,' the exist- " In iv. dist. xi. q. 1. He was made Bishop of Meaux by the Pope A. 1326, and of Annecy, in 1327. 12 The belief in the Real Presence together with ence or presence of the Body of Christ in this Sacra ment is alone expressed, and there is altogether no mention whatever of the ceasing of the sub stance of bread, and of its conversion into the Body of Christ. Therefore it is uot to be laid down." Durandus then sets down the three objections, the two philosophical difficulties, (l)That two bodies cannot be in the same place. (2) Aquinas' abstract argument, that a thing cannot, even through miracle, be where it was not before, except by change in itself, or of another into itself. (3) The argument from the words " This is My Body." He himself held the doctrine of Transubstantia tion, as being determined by the [Western] Church. Yet he says : — " It is not to be denied, that another mode is pos sible to God, viz. that God could effect that the Body of Christ should be in the Sacrament, the sub stance of bread remaining. For all hold that God can do whatever does not imply a contradiction. But, that the Body of Christ should be in this Sacrament, without conversion of the substance of the bread into Itself, no more implies a contradiction, than that it should be in the Sacrament, the conver sion having taken place. As then one is possible, so is the other." For the only grounds, he says, are in one of the above arguments. "But (1) in the first, the argument [that two the substance ofthe elements, not Consubstantiation. 13 bodies cannot be in one place] destroys itself. For the Body of Christ, which can exist together with a quantity foreign to Itself, can exist together with the substance subject to that quantity. For there is no hindrance to the co-existence of two bodies, save by reason of the quantity, whose property it is to exclude another quantity from the same site. But the Body of Christ can co-exist with the quan tity of bread. For this is presupposed by every opinion which supposes that the true Body of Christ is in this Sacrament. Therefore as easily can It co exist with the substance of bread, remaining under its own quantity." (2) Of Aquinas' abstract argument about a body being where it was not before, Durandus denies both premisses. The major, because there can be change which is not conversion ; the minor, be cause the Body of Christ, being anew in the Sacra ment, is not where it was not before ; because to be in the Sacrament is not to have a new where [i.e. local ity]. He says, "It seemeth toderogate from the bound lessness of the Divine power to say that God could not cause His Body to be in the Sacrament in any other way, than by the conversion of the substance of the bread into itself; especially since, granting that the conversion does take place, it is most diflR- cult to see, in what way this contributes to the pre sence of the Body of Christ in this Sacrament. It is plain (he subjoins) that it is rash to say, that through the Divine power the Body of Christ cannot 14 The belief in tlie Real Presence togetlier with be present in the Sacrament, save through the con version of the bread into It." (3) To the argument from the words, " This is My Body," he answers that the words "This is My Body" remain equally true, whether the substance or the accidents only be present; for the word "this" no more specifies the substance than the accidents, but may in either case equally apply to the Body of Christ then present. He subjoins the remarkable avowal, "If this mode [the substance remaining] were true in fact, many doubts which occur as to this Sacrament, when it is held that the substance of bread does not remain, would be solved. For it is doubted how any thing can be nourished from this Sacrament, or the species can be corrupted, or any thing can be generated from them ; all which would be saved according to nature in that other way, as they would be saved if the nature of bread and wine were not assumed to the nature of the Sacrament. For they are supposed to remain after the consecration." Durandus concludes by submitting himself to the determination of the [Western] Church. Shortly afterwards, Occam maintained the possi bility of the co-existence of the substance of the elements with the Body and Blood of Christ, in language which was subsequently in great measure adopted by Cardinal d'Ailly. He made a distinc tion between the "substance" and the "primary substance," and so gave as one mode of explanation, the substance ofthe elements, not Consubstantiation. 15 " that the substance of the bread remains there, and therewith that the Body of Christ co-exists with the substance of the bread, so that the primary substance forsakes the accidents, not the secondary, but co-exists only '." "This explanation," he says, "is evident ; since it can take place through the simple co-existence of the true Body of Christ with the substance of the bread, because quantity is no less repugnant to quantity, or substance to quantity, than substance to substance. But quantity can co- exist in the same place with other quantity, as is clear as to larger bodies existing in the sam-e place. In like way sub stance can co-exist in the same place with another quantity. This is clear as to the Body of Christ. The other therefore is possible." He then continues in language which will be given below, but slightly altered by Cardinal d'Ailly, and sums up, " Yet since there exists a determina tion of the Church to the contrary, as appears, ' Ex tra, de summa Trinitate et fide Cath. ^, et de celebr. miss. ^' and commonly Doctors hold that the sub stance of bread does not remain there, therefore I too hold the same." ' In iv. q. 6, init. " ^ The decree of Innocent III. in the Fourth Lateran Council in Deer. Greg. I. 1. This was clearly no part ofthe Couneil itself. It does not occur in the Greek, and contains the doctrine of the double Procession, in the form which the Greeks would not have received. In the Decretals it is quoted " Innocentius III. fra Concilio generali." ' Innocent III. in Deer. Greg. III. 41. 6. 16 The belief in the Real Presence together it;ith Occam speaks more clearly, in his " Centilogium Theoloo'icum ' :" "The third opinion is that which lays down that the bread of the Host is tran substantiated into the Body of Christ, not that it is in any way converted into the Body of Christ, as the first opinion supposes, nor that the bread ceases to be, as the second supposes. But, according to that way of understanding it, this transubstantiation into the Body of Christ is nothing else than that the Body of Christ, by virtue of the sacramental words, as a whole and with each part thereof, co-exists with each part of the bread ; and then, according to that opinion, the accidents of the Host do not exist without any subject, after consecration, but they are in the bread as their subject, as before. And they who so think say, that it is not an article of faith to believe that the bread through transubstan tiation ceases to be, but that it is so, to believe that the true Body of Christ through transubstantiation exists in the consecrated Host. And the Master [P. Lombard] touches on that opinion in the 4th book, and does not much disapprove it. And according to that opinion, all appearances would be easily solved, i. e. nourishment from the consecrated Host, and corruption of the Host from length of time, and so as to many others. But because that opinion is not commonly held, the conclusion has been laid down according to the second opinion, which by moderns chiefly is accounted contrary to the rest." * Concl. 39. the substance ofthe elements, not Consubstantiation. 17 Innocent IIL, whose decree at the Fourth Late ran Council contains the statement on Transubstan tiation, subsequently appealed to, does, in his own work on the Holy Eucharist, speak of those as here tical who supposed the bread to be a mere figure ^ but does not in any way blame those who said that it remained. " ' He ^ brake.' Many inquire, few understand, what Christ then brake at the table, and what the Priest now breaketh at the altar. There were who said, that as the true accidents of bread remain after consecration, so also the true substance of bread. For as a subject cannot subsist without accidents, so accidents cannot exist without a subject ; because the being of an accident is nothing but the being in another thing. But the substances of the bread and wine remaining, the Body and Blood of Christ do, at the utterance of those words, begin to be truly under them, so that under the same accidents Both are truly received, the bread and the Flesh, and the wine and the Blood, of which sense proves the one, faith believes the remainder. These say that the substance of the bread is broken and crushed, alleg ing to this end what the Apostle says, ' the bread which we break,' and Luke, ' on the first day of the week when we meet together to break bread.' These easily solve that question, ' What is eaten by a ° De Myst. Missse, c. 7, noticed by Mr. Palmer, On the Church, b. iv. e. xi. s. 2. ' Ib. c. 9. C 18 The belief in the Real Presence together with mouse, when the Sacrament is gnawed?' For according to them, that substance of bread is eaten, under which the Body of Christ forthwith ceases to be." Scotus, nearly a century after the Council of Lateran, sets down strongly the principles in favour of the opinion that the substance of bread remains '. " In matters of faith, more things are not to be laid down, than can be evinced from the truth of what we believe ; but the truth of the Eucharist can be maintained without that transubstantiation ; there fore, etc. This last can be proved, because for the truth of the Eucharist there is required a sign and a thing signified, really contained. But the substance of bread, with its accidents, may be a sign as well as the accidents alone, nay more. For the sub stance of bread under the species is nourishment more than the mere accidents ; therefore it repre sents the Body of Christ in regard to spiritual nou rishment. That also which is contained, viz. the true Body of Christ, can equally be maintained with the substance of the bread as with the accidents ; for it is no more inconsistent that substance should co-exist with substance, than with the quantity of that substance." " 1. This is confirmed, in that the fewest miracles are to be assumed, which may be. But by supposing that bread remains together with its accidents, and that the Body of Christ is truly there, fewer mira- ' In iv. dist. xi. q. 3. n. 3. the substance of the elements, not Consubstantiation. 19 cles are assumed, than by supposing that the bread is not there. For then an accident without a subject would not be assumed. " 2. (which comes to the same,) In matters of be lief, handed down to us generally, a mode is not to be fixed upon, which is most difficult to understand, and which is attended by most inconveniences. But that the Body of Christ is delivered in the Holy Eucharist, is a truth delivered to us generally. But this way of understanding it, that the substance of the bread is not there, seems more difficult to main tain, and fewer inconveniences follow thereon, than if we suppose that the substance of the bread is there. Therefore, etc. The principle above stated is proved, because, since the faith has been given to us to be a way to salvation, it ought, as it seems, so to be determined and held by the Church, as most tends to salvation. But to lay down any way of under standing it, which is above measure difficult and which evidently involves inconveniences, becomes an occasion of repelling from the faith all philosophers, nay, almost all who follow natural reason. At least, it becoraes an occasion of hindering them from being converted to the faith, if it be told them that such things belong to our faith. Nay, it would seem that a philosopher or any one who followed natural reason would regard what is here laid down, in denying the substance of the bread, a greater inconvenience than he would find in all the articles c 2 20 The belief in the Real Presence together with which relate to the Incarnation. And it seems strange, why in one article which is not a main article of faith, such a way of understanding it should be asserted, as lays faith open to the con tempt of all who follow reason. "3. Nothing is to be maintained as of the sub stance of faith, except what can be expressly derived from Scripture, or has been expressly declared by the Church, or which evidently follows from some thing plainly contained in Holy Scripture or plainly determined by the Church. This principle seems adequate. For a man would have no ground for exposing himself to death for any thing else ; while for all which belongs the substance of the faith, he would laudably expose himself to death. It would too seem to betray levity, to believe firraly what is in none of these ways certain. For if there be none of these grounds, there is no sufficient authority or reason. But it does not seem to be contained expressly, that the substance of bread does not exist there. For John 6, where the truth of the Eucharist is greatly set forth, is clear, where Christ saith, " I am the Bread of life ; he that eateth of this bread," &c. ; and Paul says (1 Cor.), " The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the Body of Christ ?" nor is any place found, where the Church solemnly determines this truth, nor does it appear how it can be evidently inferred frora any thing evidently believed. the substance of the elements, not Consubstantiation. 21 " If you say, as one doctor saith ^ that ' when He saith, This is My Body, he expressly implies that the bread does not reraain, for then the proposition would be false,' this has no constraining force. For, granting that the substance of bread remains, the substance of bread is not pointed out, but what is contained under the bread; as now the accidents are not pointed out, for then the proposition would be false. But the meaning is, ' This which is con tained under this visible sign is My Body,'" Also, in sacraments of truth, there ought to be nothing untrue. But those accidents naturally imply the substances which they assert. And if their sub stance be not there, this which they naturally desig nate will be false. This is an inconvenience. If you say that they signify the Body and Blood of Christ, and this signification is true, still, the natural signification is not changed on account of a signifi cation annexed by the institution. So then those accidents naturally signify what they signified before. So then, on that side, there will be soniething false in the natural significancy, unless the things signified exist under the signs. But provided that they do so exist, then the natural signification of the accidents remains true. Scotus answers at length the objections raised by Aquinas to the belief that the elements remain. To the argument from the words, "This is My ' Aquinas, hie. art. 1. q. 1, and 3 p. q. 75. n. 2. 22 The belief in the Real Presence together with Body," he answers. Both are true, ' this is My Body,' and 'here is My Body;' but then 'this' is not this accident, but this which is contained under the acci dent. In the same way, if the bread were, not ' this which is the substance of the bread ' would be ' the Body,' but this which is contained under the bread is 'the Body,' But the Saviour willed to use this word this, rather than here, because the truth is more fully expressed, although either way of speaking would be true. Scotus sums up, " it is commonly held, that neither does the bread reraain (against the first opinion), nor is it annihilated or resolved into primary matter (against the second), but is converted into the Body of Christ." This he grounds chiefly on the decree of Pope Innocent in the Fourth Lateran Council. His arguments all turn on the supposition that nothing could be evidently proved from Holy Scripture (which he still held), or had been clearly laid down by the Church. They admitted then of a ready answer, on the supposition that the Church had decided, although the fact seems very ques tionable, whether the decree at the Council of La teran was intended to assert any thing more than the Real Presence. At the close of the same century, the celebrated Peter d'Ailly still speaks of the remaining of the elements as an open question, although he himself held the contrary, thinking that the Church leant that way. He became Bishop of Cambray a.d. 1396, the substance of the elements, not Consubstantiation. 23 and was made Cardinal a.d. 1411. He was present at the Council of Pisa ; and " President ' at the 3rd session of the Council of Florence, and for three whole years a very influential member of it." He says, then, in his work on the " Sentences '," " As to the third article, whether the bread is tran substantiated into the Body of Christ, you must know, that although Catholics are agreed herein that the Body of Christ is truly and principally in the sacrament under the forms of bread and wine, or where the forms are visible, yet, as the Master recites ^ and the gloss ' de celebr. miss, cum MarthcB,' there were divers opinions as to the mode of sup posing this. " The first was, that the substance of the bread becomes the Body of Christ. And some of those who hold this, said that although the bread becomes the Body of Christ, yet it is not to be granted that that substance is any way the flesh of Christ, be cause, as they say, the substance of the bread, after it is made the Flesh of Christ, is not the substance of bread but the substance of Flesh. " But this opinion cannot be sustained. And first as to the first part. It is plain that it is not intel ligible, unless it be laid down that thebread becomes part of the Body of Christ, as it is said, ' the farina becomes bread,' because it becomes part of it, &c., » Cave, A.I). 1396. ' Cameracensis in iv. sent. q. 6. art. 2. f. 265. = Dist. xi. 24 The belief in the Real Presence together with which no one supposes. Secondly, as to the second part. This is simply intelligible, because if that which was bread is the Body of Christ, it follows that bread is the Body of Christ, which it implies. Whence ao-ainst this opinion would be that rule, that every affirmative proposition, in which that term, 'the Body of Christ,' is predicated of that term ' bread,' is false, whether the copula be the verb is, or can, or he- comes, as 'this bread is the Body of Christ,' or 'may be' or ' may become the Body of Christ,' or ' the bread be comes the Body of Christ.' And if any such be found in the sayings of the saints, they are false in matter of language, but are to be understood in a good sense, which will appear in the clearing up of the last opinion. "The second opinion was, that the substance of bread does not remain bread, and yet does not simply cease to be, but is reduced into matter, subsisting by itself or receiving another form, and this whether in the same place or in another, and that the Body of Christ co-exists with the accidents of bread, and this opinion could not be disproved either by evident reason or by cogent authority of scripture, as is plain if we consider it. " The third opinion was, that the substance of bread remains, and this may be imagined in two ways. In one way, as the Master rehearses, that it remains there where the Body of Christ begins to be, and thus the substance of the bread would be said to pass into the substance of the Body, because where the substance of the elements, not Consubstantiation. 25 this is, the Body beginneth to be. In another way, it might be imagined, that the substance of bread suddenly retires from its own place to another place, and the accidents would remain in the same place without a subject, and the Body of Christ would co-exist with them there. " This opinion, as to the first mode, is possible ; because it is exceeding (valde) possible that the substance of the Bread should co-exist with the substance of the body, nor is it more impossible that two substances should co-exist than two qua lities. Wherefore, &c. But whether the Body of Christ could co-exist with the substance of the bread by union, is doubtful. And it might be said, that if it be possible that one creature should sustain another (as some say, and it is apparent that there is no repugnance, nor does it seem that it could be disproved by evident reason), then it is possible that the Body of Christ might assume the substance of bread by union. But, however this may be, it is plain that this mode is possible, nor is it repugnant to reason or to the authority of the Bible. Nay, it is easier to understand, and more reasonable than any of the others, because it supposes that the substance of bread conveyeth (deferat) the accidents, and not that the substance of the Body of Christ doth so. And thus it does not suppose accidents without a subject, which is one of the difficulties here supposed. " But if it be said, that it seemeth a greater dif ficulty that two bodily substances should be toge- 26 The belief in the Real Presence together with ther, I say no. For it is not more difficult than that two quantities or qualities should be together, or one substance and a quantity. And that species of the Host is not more compatible with {compatitur) another Host, than a substance with species is with another Host or substance; because that consecrated Host excludes {repugnat) another Host'. And sono inconvenience seemeth to follow from that first raode of supposing, if yet it would agree (concordaret) with the determination of the Church. " But also the aforesaid opinion, as to the second mode, is possible, because it is not impossible to God that the substance of bread should suddenly be else where, the species remaining in the sarae place and the Body of Christ co-existing with them. Yet this mode would not be so reasonable as the first; because it would suppose accidents without a subject, and a motion of the bread on a sudden, and the substance of bread without accidents, and that it suddenly had new accidents, which things are dif ficult. Wherefore, &c. " 4. The fourth opinion is more common, that the substance of bread doth not remain, but simply ceases to be. The possibility whereof is plain. For it is not impossible to God that that substance should suddenly cease to be, although it is not possible The argument seems to be, "on the supposition that the substance ofthe elements upon consecration ceases to exist, there would be in two Hosts only the accidents of the bread, and our Lord's Body in both." Therefore on this belief the aecidenta alone, without the substance, exclude the presence of each other. the substance of the elements, not Consubstantiation. 27 through created power. And although it does not follow evidently from Scripture that it is so, nor either, as far as I can see, from the determination of the Church, yet since the Church rather favours it, and the common opinion of saints [fathers] and doctors, therefore I hold it. And according to this way, I say that the bread is transubstantiated into the Body of Christ in the meaning set forth in the description of transubstantiation." Soon after this, Cardinal Caietan* distinguishes the two questions, one that the Body of Christ is under the consecrated Host ; the other as to the conversion of the substance of the bread into the Substance of the Body of Christ. Of the first he says, "we all confess tbat the Body of Christ, before not contained under this Host, is now truly contained, although about the mode in which it is contained there are (as will be said hereafter) various opinions. On the second, he says, although all affirm in words a conver sion de novo, yet in substance, many, not thinking that they do so, deny it. And these are divided mani foldly, in that some understand by conversion iden tity of place, so that the bread should be said to become the Body of Christ, because where the bread is, there is the Body of Christ" (as P. Lombard ' quotes and rejects). Others understand by the name of conversion, an order of succession, as the Master [P. Lombard] mentions there, that the bread may ? In p. 3. q. 75. art. 1. " iv. dist. xi. 28 The belief in the Real Presence together with be said in that sense to be converted into the Body of Christ, because after consecration the Body of Christ is under the accidents under which the bread was, which bread they said was annihilated or re solved into the fore-existing matter. This opinion Scotus in the main follows, though more cautious in opining, laying down that the bread is incidentally reduced to nothing, and he calls the conversion ad- ductive of Christ's Body thereto that It is present to the accidents of bread. But as to the substance, it comes to tbe same with the opinion raentioned by the Master, because in reality the bread is not converted into any thing, but parts into nothing, and therefore in name only he lays down the con version of the bread into the Body of Christ. But some admit the conversion, both in name and sub stance, yet partially; of whom is Durandus, who lays down that the matter of bread is turned into the Body of Christ, because it begins to be informed with the forra of the Body of Christ, as nourish ment is informed with the forra of the person nou rished, but the form of bread ceaseth to be (rejected as erroneous by Pet. de Palude). Some, wholly ad mitting both name and substance of conversion, say that the bread is converted into the Body of Christ, not according to its substance, but according to its sacramental being. This opinion Pet. de Pal. holds, without liowever asserting it. " This," Caietan says, " is alien from the truth, because it retains the word transubstantiation in name only, because, in fact, the the substance of the elements, not Consubstantiation. 29 substance of bread is turned into accident, and not into the substance of the Body of Christ. The com mon sentiment is, that the substance of the bread is converted into the substance of the Body of Christ, without any addition, without any increase in the substance of the Body of Christ." Hurtado^, early in the 17th century, (a.d. 1628,) sums up the question clearly, even on Roman ground. After raentioning briefly Bonaventura', Capreolus', Marsilius", and Ferrariensis'", as taking the ground of Aquinas, he adds, " Scotus ", however, Durandus '^ Richard'^ [a Media Villa,] Sotus'S Caietan'^ Suarez'«, Vazquez ", teach, that the Body of Christ, being in Heaven or in another place, and continuing there, could at least sacramentally be present under the species of bread, the proper substance of bread remaining under those species ; because there is in this no contradiction nor repugnance. For if there were such, it would be either (1) that the Body of Christ, being and abiding circumscriptively in Heaven or in any other place, should be at the same time present in another; or (2) that two substances ^ De Euch. Disp. 4. diff. xi. ' 4. dist. xi. p. 1. ' q. 1. art. 3. " 4. q. 8. " c. Gent. 4. 63. " 4. d. 10. " Dist. xi. q. 1. " Art. 1. q. 1. " Dist. 9. q. 2. art. 2. " q. 75. art. 1. " Disp. 49. 1. Suarez says that "this is the raore common opinion of Theologians," on iv. d. 10, and adds the names of Gabriel, Major, and others, Ledesma, q. 16, art. 2, and claims also Ferrar. ad iv. Scoti eont. 2 diet. D. Thomse. " Disp. 182. 30 The belief in the Real Presence together with should be present in the same place ; or (3), specially, that a distinct substance should be present together with accidents, whose own substance is and con tinues present. But there is no repugnance (1) that the Body of Christ, existing and continuing circum scriptively in Heaven or in another place, should at the same time becorae present, at the least sacra mentally in another; because, in fact, being and continuing circumscriptively in Heaven, it becomes sacramentally present with the quantity and other accidents of bread existing in each. Nor (2) that two substances should be present together in the same place; because that happened, even circum scriptively, in the Birth of Christ of a Virgin, when the Body of Christ was penetrated together with the Body of the Virgin, and in the Ascent of Christ into the Heavens, wherein the Body of Christ was penetrated together with them. Nor (3) that a distinct substance should become present to acci dents, where one substance continues to be present ; because there is no solid ground for saying that God cannot make a distinct bodily substance present to accidents whose own substance continues to be present, because the proper substance and one distinct can be present together in the sarae place ; for the distinct substance, if it does not, by reason of its accidents, remain cognizable by raen, will be hidden under the accidents of the other substance. " I add, that the Body of Christ not only can become present under the species of bread, the the substance ofthe elements, not Consubstantiation. 31 substance of the bread abiding under them, but moreover while it abides, it can be united with them." The remaining, then, of the " elements in their natural substances" was an open question at the beginning of the fifteenth century, and, so far from being supposed to involve any bad consequences, was rather held to remove difficulties. In all these discussions the term Consubstantiation was not used. Suarez even admits that the " old opinion was " (what he sets down as an error), that "the matter of bread remains '." The term was invented by the Zwinglians, who believed no sacred Presence at all, and was used as a term of reproach against any belief in an Objective Presence of "the Blessed Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ under the form of Bread and Wine," such as is recognized in our Book of Homilies. ' To be the subject of the accidents, and of the whole eon- version. He refers for his statement to Bonavent. d. 11. art. 1. q. 2 ; and Scot. q. 3. art. 2 ; and says that " it is attributed to iEgidius, Theorem. 1 and 2." 32 Consubstantiation not held by the Lutheran body. NOTE B. On p. 16. Consubstantiation was not held by the Lutheran body ; statement of the belief expressed in the Lutheran Articles and held ly Luther. The doctrine of the Real Presence was stated in the first German Confession in words resembling those used in our Homilies. " Of the Supper of the Lord, it is taught that the very Body and Blood of Christ are verily present in the Lord's Supper under the form of bread and wine, and are distributed and taken in it." In the Confession of a.d. 1530, the important words " under the form of bread and wine " were omitted, but the Real Presence was still stated. " Of the Supper of the Lord, they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed to Communicants [vescentibus] in the Supper of the Lord, and they disapprove of those who teach otherwise." The "Apology for the Confession" added the word " substantially," and defended the doctrine by Holy Scripture, and by the consent of the Latin and Greek Churches ^ "The tenth Article is approved, in which we confess that we think, that in the Supper of the Lord, the Body and Blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly exhibited with Tittman, Libri Symbolici, p. 123. Consubstantiation not held by the Lutheran body. 33 those things which are visible, the bread and wine, to those who receive the sacrament. This judgment we, having diligently considered and agitated the matter, steadfastly maintain. For whereas Paul says, that the bread is the communion of the Body of Christ, it would follow that it is a communion, not of the Body, but only of the Spirit of Christ, unless the Body of the Lord were truly present. And we learn that the Roman Church is not alone in affirming the corporal presence of Christ, inasmuch as the Greek Church both now so holdeth, and held so formeriy. For the Canon of the Mass among them so attests, wherein the priest distinctly prays, that the bread being changed, it may become the Body of Christ. And the Bulgarian, [Theophylact,] no mean writer, (we think,) says plainly, that the bread is not a figure only, but is truly changed into flesh. And S. Cyril teaches at length, on John, chap. 13, that Christ is exhibited to us corporally in the Supper. For he saith, 'We do not deny that we are spiritually united with Christ by faith and sincere love; but we deny altogether, that there is no union with Him according to the flesh. This, we say, is altogether alien from the Divine Scriptures. For who doubts but that Christ is thus also the vine, we the branches, who thence gain life to ourselves? Hence Paul's saying, that we are all one body in Christ, because, although many, we are yet one in Him. For we are all partakers of that one bread. Thinketh he that the virtue of the mystical blessing [Eucharist] is D 34 Consubstantiation not held by the Lutheran body. unknown to us ? But this, coming to be in us, doth it not, by the communication of the Body of Christ, cause Christ to dwell in us, corporeally, too? ' And a little afterwards, ' Whence we ought to consider that Christ is in us, not only by that relation which is through love, but also by a natural participation.' These things we have recited, that whoever reads may clearly perceive that we maintain the doctrine received in the whole Church, that in the Supper of the Lord, the Body and Blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly exhibited together with the things which are seen, bread and wine. We speak of the Presence of living Christ. For we know that death shall no more have do minion over Him." In the Articles of Smalcald, a.d. 1537, it is said, " vi. Of the Sacrament of the Altar, we think that the bread and wine are the very Body and Blood, and are given and taken not only by pious, but also by impious Christians." Communion under one kind is rejected, as not being " the whole ordi nation and institution, made, delivered, and cora manded by Christ," although it is adraitted that " it may perhaps be true that there may be as much under one kind as under both." Transubstantiation is rejected, as stating that " bread and wine quit and lose their natural substance, and that only the appear ance and colour of bread,and not true bread remains^" In the Lesser Catechism, it is taught, "The Sacra- ' lb. p. 254. Consubstantiation not held by the Lutheran body. 35 raent of the Altar is the Very Body and Very Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under bread and wine, in stituted by Christ Himself, for us Christians to eat and drink." In the Larger Catechism, Luther varies his state ment but little : "The Sacrament of the Altar is the very Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus, in and under bread and wine, through the word of Christ, instituted and coramanded to us Christians to eat and drink." Here again he maintains that the wicked really receive the Body and Blood of Christ. " Although the most abandoned profligate minister the Sacra ment to others, or himself receive it, yet still he receives the Sacrament, i. e. the Body and Blood of Christ, no less than he who should receive and take it most reverently and worthily of all ; for it depends not upon human holiness, but upon the word of God. And as no saint on earth nor angel in heaven can change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, so no one can make it otherwise, although he abuse it most unworthily. For on account of the unworthiness and unbelief of the person, the word whereby the Sacrament was made or instituted does not become false nor void. For neither did He say, ' When ye believe and are worthy, then shall ye have My Body and Blood,' but ' Take, eat, drink, this is My Body and My Blood ;' and again, ' This do ye,' i. e. what I am now doing, instituting, reaching to you to eat and drink. This is as if He had said, ' Whether thou be worthy or unworthy, thou hast D 2 36 Consubstantiation not held by the Lutheran body. here My Body and Blood, by virtue of these words, which are added to the bread and wine '.' " Yet I would not deny, that despisers or brutish livers re ceive it only to their hurt and damnation*." The " Formula Concordise " enforced the same belief. VII. Aff. 6 : "We believe, teach, and con fess that the Body and Blood of Christ are received with the bread and wine, not only spiritually by faith, but by the mouth also ; not, however, as the Caper- naites, but in a supernatural and heavenly manner, by reason of the sacraraental union. " 7. We believe, teach, and confess, that not those only who truly believe in Christ, and who approach worthily to the Lord's Supper, but the unworthy also and unbelieving receive the true Body and Blood of Christ ; yet so, that they derive thence neither con solation nor life, but that rather that receiving turns to thera to judgraent and damnation, unless they are converted and repent. For although they repel from them Christ as a Saviour, yet, although raost unwill ing, they are corapelled to admit Him as a severe Judge. But He, being present, no less exercises His judgment on those impenitent guests, than, being present. He worketh consolation and life in the hearts of true believers and worthy guests °." In all these, the authorized statements of the Lutheran body, there is not a trace of a doctrine of Consubstantiation. As expressing the belief of the Lutheran body, ' Pp. 424, 425. ' Ib. p. 433. = Ib. p. 462. 'Weakness in the Lutheran system. 37 these formulae should be taken as a whole. For they collectively expressed the Lutheran belief, as long as it lasted. The words, " under the form of bread and wine," which are important as designating an Objective Presence in the Holy Eucharist, were retained through the two catechisms of Luther, even while they were dropped from the Confession of Augsburg. The Apology added the word " sub stantially." The belief that the wicked too receive that which is sacramentally the Body and Blood of Christ, even while they can in no wise be partakers of Christ, implied a firm belief in the Objective Presence of that Body and Blood. This was expli citly stated in the Smalcald Articles, the Larger Catechism of Luther, and the Formula Concordise. The belief in the Objective Presence raay indeed be maintained without it, if it be held that God with draws that Presence in such cases, as if through care lessness (as has often happened when the Sacrament has been reserved), the consecrated element be devoured by an animal. The weak point in the Lutheran system is, that the only office assigned to the Sacrament is to kindle faith ; so that according to them, if this lan guage was pressed, God did not " work invisibly in us through the Sacraraent," but rather on occasion of the Sacrament kindled faith, of which faith grace was the reward. According to the most natural interpretation of their words, they believed, not that God gave to faith through the Sacraraent the gifts peculiar to the Sacrament, but through the Sacra- 38 Weakness in the Lutheran system. ment He awakened faith, which asked for and ob tained the promises of God. Thus the Body and Blood of Christ were not according to them, the inward part of the Sacrament, or God's gift through it ; but they were supposed to be given with a view to produce a further result, faith. The Body and Blood of Christ were, according to them, not gifts to faith, but gifts to excite faith. They were onli/ raeans to an end beyond themselves. The Zuinglians, then, rightly urged, " All ^ other places of the Confession wherein the Sacraments are treated of, confirm our opinion, and manifestly exclude that of the Lutherans or Ubiquitarians. For the thirteenth Article stands thus, — 'Of the use of the Sacraments, they teach, that Sacraments were instituted, not only to be tokens of profession between men, but rather to be signs and witnesses of God's will towards us, set forth to excite and con firm faith in those who use them '. We must then in such wise use Sacraments, that faith should be added, which may believe in the promises which are exhibited and shown through them.'" And again, " Through ' the word and Sacraments, as ^ Hosp. ii. 157. ' The framers of our Articles, while using the words of this Article, in the hope of winning the foreign Protestants, supplied what was lacking in these words, " Sacraments — be certain sure witnesses and effectual [efficacia'] signs of grace and God's good will towards us, by the which He doth work invisibly in us," The statement thus filled up developes the meaning of the old saying, that " Sacraments are visible signs of invisible grace." It adds that they are signs of that sort, by which God works that grace. ' Art. 5. Weakness in the Lutheran system. 39 through instruments, the Holy Spirit is given. Who produceth faith, where and when He wills." This faith, so to be produced through Sacraments, is not faith that God will give through His Sacraraent, the gifts which He has promised through His Sacrament, but faith "that God through Christ justifies the sin ner who believes that he is justified." So the faith worked through the Sacraments is explained to be " that God, not for our merits, but for Christ, justi fies those who believe that they are received into grace for Christ's sake." Belief in our Lord is, of course, in those who are capable of that belief, required in order that Sacraments should be bene ficial to us ; it is not the fruit of the Sacraments. It is the condition of their efficacy; antecedent to their healthful operation in us ; a grace in us, with out which we cannot be " partakers of Christ." It, with all other graces, is strengthened through union with Christ by His Sacraments. But union with Christ is the end of Sacraments and the reward of faith ; faith is not the object of Sacraments. Again it is stated, as the benefit of Sacraraents, that the recipient thereby reraembers the benefits of Christ. " The ' Mass was instituted, that in those who use the Sacraments, faith may recall to mind what benefits it receives through Christ, and may raise and comfort the timid conscience. For to remember Christ, is to remember His benefits, and to feel that they are really exhibited to us." " Remission of sins " is represented as the one end of the Sacraments. So ' De Abusu Missee, ib. p. 25. 40 Weakness in the Lutheran system. that the end of the reception of the Body and Blood of Christ is not (according to them) that " we raay dwell in Christ and Christ in us, we may be one with Christ and Christ with us," but that our faith may more readily believe that our sins are forgiven to us. " Sacraments ' are signs of promises. So then in their use, faith ought to be added. As, if any use the Lord's Supper, he should use it thus, ' Since this is a Sacrament of the New Testament, as Christ clearly says, let him be assured that the things pro mised in the N. T. are offered to him, i. e. free for giveness of sins. And this thing let him receive with faith, raise the timid conscience, and feel that these testimonies are not fallacious ; but as certain as if God by a new miracle from heaven were to promise that He would forgive.' " And " on the use of the Sacrament," it is laid down, " In the Sacra ment, there are two things, the sign and the M'ord. The word in the N. T. is the promise of grace added ; the promise of the N. T. is the promise of forgiveness of sins, as the text here says, ' This is My Body which is given for you,' ' This is the Cup of the N. T. with My Blood, which will be shed for you for the remission of sins.' The word thus offers remission of sins. The ceremony is as a picture of the word, as Paul calls it, showing the promise." The Lutheran doctrine then had two opposite elements ; the one, the acceptance of the letter of our Lord's words, " This is My Body," the real Ob jective Presence ; the other, the theory that the Sa- ' Apol. Conf. on Art. xiii. fin. p. 157. Weakness in the Lutheran system. 41 crament had its efficacy as a picture to confirm faith. These two could not long co-exist. Christians could not long believe that they really received their Lord, His Body and Blood, and yet believe that the only end of this Great Gift was — not union with Himself, but a confirmation of their faith that He forgave them their sins. Hence the importance of the seemingly slight variations in the Co7ifessio variata of Melancthon, A.D. 1 540. He^ omitted the words " are present and distributed," and substituted the vague word " exhi bited," of which it is difficult to know, whether it means " are given " by God, or " are set forth " only. "Of the Lord's Supper, they teach that with the bread and wine, the Body and Blood of Christ are verily exhibited to communicants in the Lord's Sup per." The words, "They disapprove of those who teach otherwise," were omitted. The altered for mula, at most, need express no more than an act of spiritual, as opposed to sacramental communion. At best it expressed only the simultaneous Pre sence of the Body of Christ, as received by the communicant, but not as given to him in the dis tribution. The former word, " distributed," expressed not merely that the communicant becomes, by grace, a partaker of the Body and Blood of Christ, simul taneously with the reception of the consecrated elements; but that in the ancient language, those who administer the consecrated elements, "minister, 2 Hosp. ii. 302. 42 Weakness in the Lutheran system. distribute" the Body and Blood of Christ^ This statement corresponded with our own Article, " The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner''." It is given in a spiritual, not carnal, manner ; as spi ritual, not carnal, food. But it is given (as Mr. Knox remarked) by the Priest, taken by the people. It must be there, then, invisibly " under the form of bread and wine," to be given by the Priests, not simply comraunicated by God to the souls of the receivers. The word " exhibited " had been substituted for " distributed " in the Concordia of Wittemberg, while the statement of the Real Presence had been strengthened. " They ° confess, according to the words of Irenseus, that the Eucharist consists of two things, an earthly and a heavenly. They hold, then, and teach, that with the brea:d and wine, the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and substantially present, exhibited and received." Luther's own statements vary considerably. He speaks positively of the Eucharistic presence. In this alone he was consistent, " We cleave simply to the words of Christ, willing to be ignorant what takes place there and content that the true Body of Christ, by virtue of the words, is present tbered" See Sermon, p. 57, and the Fathers there quoted. i. e. not carnally, see below, Note P. ' In Hospin. ii. 243. " De captiv. Babyl. quoted by Hospin. Hist. Saer. P. 2. p. 5. Luther's statement of his belief. 43 So believing, he set himself to show, not only that the Body of Christ was there, but that the Bread itself v?as the Body of Christ. " I, although I cannot attain to know how the bread is the Body of Christ, will yet take captive my understanding to the obe dience of Christ, and, cleaving simply to His words, firmly believe, not only that the Body of Christ is in the bread, but that the bread is the Body of Christ." "In the Sacrament, in order that there be true Body and true Blood, it is not necessary that the bread and wine be transubstantiated, in order that Christ be held under both; but both remain ing together, it is truly said, 'This bread is My Body, this wine is My Blood and conversely.' " This he held to be by virtue of the consecration. " If we pronounce these words over the bread, the Body of Christ is really present '," This Co-existence he defended, a.d. 1522, by the illustration, "The' Body of Christ is (the bread still existing) in the Sacrament, as fire is in iron, the substance of the iron existing, and God in man, the human nature existing, — the substances being in each case so united, that each retains its own operation and proper na ture, and yet they constitute one thing." It would not be fair to press such illustrations as these, more especially, when brought by such a rough, indefinite mind as Luther's, By both illus trations he probably meant only to show, how the ' Serm. eont. Swermer. A. 27. Ib. ° Cont. Henrie. Reg. Ang. Ib. p. 8. 44 Luther's statement of his belief. outward and inward parts of the Sacrament might co-exist in the same space. The likeness of the fire in iron he frequently repeated. In other places he uses the likeness of the sword in the scabbard, the liquid in a vessel, the " dove," " wherein," he says, " was the Holy Spirit ^." Elsewhere, again, he ad duces the instance of our Lord's passing through the closed tomb or the closed doors, or His birth illcesa virginitate. " As the stone of the tomb re mained sealed, and the closed door unchanged, and yet the Body of Christ was together there where were the stone and wood ; so also in the Sacrament the Body and Blood of Christ are, where the bread and wine are, which remain unchanged '." " Chris tum per clausum uterum virginis in lucem pro- diisse. Nam hoc modo usus esse putatur, cum e virgine natus est *." At another time, he explicitly puts aside the doc trine of the ubiquity of our Lord's Body by which he himself elsewhere defended this belief. " Here occurs the question. How can Christ be in the Sacrament corporally, since one body cannot be in several places at one and the same time ? To this I answer, Christ said that He willed to be present there. Therefore He is truly in the Sacrament, and that corporally; and therefore He is truly there, nor ought any cause of that corporal presence to be sought than that only. For the words mean this; therefore what they mean, must be. But as to the Body Itself, ' Hosp. ii. 125. ' lb. p. 89. * lb. p. 91. Luther's statement of his belief. 45 Christ can be where He wills, every where and in all places, and therefore the case as to Him is other than as to our body. Of ubiquity, or presence in all places, we ought not to dispute. For in this case it is wholly different. For the Schoolmen too say nothing of ubiquity, but retain the simple meaning of the corporal presence of the Body of Christ \" Then, again, he refers to the mere power of God. Thus, in the Conference of Marpurg, a.d. 1529 : " I confess that the Body is in Heaven. I confess also that it is in the Sacrament. I care not that it is against nature, so that it be not against faith *." And again : " When he was asked, ' how the Lord was present and was eaten in the Eucharist,' he answered, 'That he knew well that the very Body and very Blood of the Lord was present and was eaten in the Sacrament, but in what way this took place, he coraraended to Christ, and should never scrutinize '.' " At other times, he states a doctrine of the Ubiquity of Christ's Body which nearly in volves Eutychianism. " The Body and Humanity of Christ are within and without all creatures, as God Himself is. For since Christ is One Undi vided Person, wheresoever He is according to His Divinity, there He also is at the same time according to His Humanity, or our faith is false '." And yet more offensively. "He is present in all creatures, so that I could find Him in straw, fire, ' Opp. viii. f. 375 in Hospin. pp. 108, 109. « lb. p. 125. ' lb. p. 217. ' Ib. p. 91. 46 Luther's statement of his belief. water, or even a rope ; for certainly He is there. Heaven and earth are His sack; as the corn fills the sack, so He fills all things*." In this way, while thinking that he was defending the doc trine of the Real Presence, he was really aban doning it. For he regarded the Holy Eucharist as an arbitrary symbol only, where He has told us that He is. Who is every where. " As if He said, 'Seek Me here; lay hold of Me here.' For this that He said, ' This is My Body,' is to be accounted as if He had said, Where the bread is, there is My Body'." Hence he says, "If God set a crab^ before rae, I would eat it spiritually. For wherever the Word of God is, there is spiritual eating. When then He added bodily eating, saying, 'This is My Body,' it must be believed. We 'eat by faith His Body, which is delivered for us. The mouth receives the Body of Christ. The soul believes the words, because it eats the Body ^" Again, " To take up a piece of straw at God's coramand, is spiritual." When he was asked, " For what end was Christ present and eaten," he answered, " As a pledge and testimony that He died to redeem us, and had sacri ficed this His Body and Blood to the Father for us V Thus, when he explained the doctrine which he believed, in the highest sense, it amounted to little more than that the Holy Eucharist was a sign to which remission of sins was attached. " In this lb. p. 70. ' Ib. ' The sour apple, so called. Ib. p. 124. * Ib. p. 217. Luther's statement of his belief. 47 Sacrament is remission of sins, and Christ has placed the power and might of His Passion in the Sacra ment, so that we should there fetch and find it '." But it had this gift annexed, not through the union of the communicant with Christ, but because God had annexed the promise to the condition of receiving it. It may be doubted, then, whether there was any real change from the earlier time, when his language was very little distinguishable from the Zuinglian. Then he likened the Holy Eucharist to the rainbow or Circumcision. " God," he says, A.D. 1520, "in all His promises added to the word a sign also for the greater certainty and confirmation of faith. Thus to Noah He gave the rainbow, to Abraham circumcision. Thus did Christ in this Sacraraent. For we poor men, since our life employs the outward senses, need, at least, some outward sign, annexed to the words; yet so that that sign should be a Sacrament, i. e. that it be outward and yet have and signify spiritual things ^." And again : " ' This is My Body.' This is a sign and pledge of the promise. Such is the counsel of Divine Goodness, to seal His promises with some seal. So Circumcision was a seal of a Covenant ; so seals are appended to letters ; stipu lations are made," &c.' In a yet fuller passage, a.d. 1519 : "We all partake of that true Bread. This is the spiritual and inward signification of the Sacrament. » lb. p. 54. ' Serm. de N. T., a.d. 1520. Ib. p. 11. ' De abrog. Miss. Priv., a.d. 1521. Ib. 48 Luther's statement of his belief. And so to receive the Sacrament in bread and wine, is nothinq else, than to receive a certain sign of this communion and incorporation with Christ and all His saints and faithful. As if a sign, handwriting, or some symbol were given to a citizen, whereby he was to be certainly persuaded, that he was received as a citizen, a member of the state, and was a sharer and partaker of all those things, which of right were his ; whereof Paul speaketh to the Corinthians, ' We are all one bread and one body, who partake of the one bread.' This spiritual communion is, in the Sacrament of the Supper, promised, given, and made over to us, as in a sacred and certain sign. For it is expedient and necessary, that this communion with Christ and all saints should take place, secretly, invi sibly, in Christ Himself, and that only a corporal, visible, and outward sign of it should be given to us V . In another place he separates the inward from the outward part, so as to make the gift previous to the reception of the Sacraraent. " As in the Sacrament there are two things, the sign and the thing signified, so also communion is twofold, of which the first is inward, spiritual, unseen, which takes place and is received in the heart, when one by right faith, love, and hope is incorporated into the communion of Christ and His saints, such as is signified and exhi bited in the Sacrament, and is the very virtue and operation of the Sacrament. But this communion ' Serm. de Sacram. Corp. Christi. Ib. p. 10. Luther's statement of his belief. 49 must needs be distributed into the hearts of the faithful by God Himself only through the Holy Spirit, in the rigbt faith of the Sacrament. The other and subsequent communion is outward, corporal, and visi ble, which takes place through the participation of the Sacrament, and this is the sign of that prior inward and spiritual communion ^" In another place, he mentions the outward ele raents and the promise as the only two parts of the Sacrament, and says that the promise is the essential part. " As in every Sacrament, two things ought to be considered, the word and the sacred signs, so also in the Sacrament of the Mass, or the Supper, there are words and bread and wine. The words are a Divine proraise and Testament ; the signs are Sacra ments, i.e. sacred signs. As then rauch more lies in the Testament than in the Sacrament, so there is much more of moment in the word than in the signs. For the signs may even not be, and yet a man may sus tain himself by the Word, and so may be saved without the Sacrament, but not without the Testament'"." Again, " The bread on the altar is only a sign, and proraiseth nothing, unless the true Bread have been eaten within "." Again, " In the Sacraraent of the Altar there are only two things, the word of proraise, whereby the Body and Blood of Christ are promised, and the faith in the word which requireth nothing ' Serm. de Excomm. Ib. '° Serm. De Morte et praep. ad Euch. Ib. p. 13. " Ib. p. 12. B 50 Luther's statement of his belief. save faith '." Again ; " Sacraments are notMng ehe than signs which confirm faith, and which invite us to believe, and without faith, profit nothing ^ [Without faith, where, by reason of age, there can be faith, nothing, of course, profits ; but this has siraply no connexion with what he had just said, that sacra ments ' only confirm faith.'] Hospinian further quotes Luther as saying that^the words of consecration are " words of promise and of faith, to which are annexed the outward signs of the Sacrament;" and, "In the Sacrament of the Eucharist, nothing more is found than a promise andfaith^T He explains spiritual eating and drinking, of belief only. " Of this faith, [of the Israelites,] that corporeal Rock, from which they drank water cor poreally, was a sign : as we, by taking corporeal bread and wine on the Altar, eat and drink true Christ spiritually, i.e. hy eating and drinking mt- wardly, we practise faith within ^" And again : — "He Himself [our Lord] saith afterwards, 'The flesh profiteth nothing,' and again, ' My Flesh giveth life to the world.' How shall we distinguish these things? The Spirit distinguisheth this. Christ meaneth, that the bodily eating of the Flesh of Christ profiteth nothing; but to believe tbat the Flesh is the Son of God, Who for us came down from ' De Abusu Missse priv. Ib. p. 13. ' Serm. De Morte et praep. ad Euch. Ib. De Abrog. priv. Miss. c. 7, et alibi. Ib. p. 92. Dom. Septuag. sup. i. Cor. 10. Ib. p. 11. Luther's statement ofhis belief. 51 heaven, and shed His Blood for us. Wherefore to eat the flesh of the Son of God, and to drink His Blood, is nothing else than that I should believe that His Flesh was given for me, and His Blood shed for me, and therefore there ought to be this spiritual eating. But the Papists attempted to adapt this to the sign of the true Food, as though the sign ought to feed. But Christ did not deliver or say these things of outward food ; but of that eating which takes place in the heart, that thus we may be fattened ; else to receive without and not within is not truly to be fed\ And again, ' No eating quickens except of faith. For this is truly spiritual eating and life. For sacramental quickeneth not, since many eat unworthily, so that He cannot be understood to have spoken this of the Sacrament of bread ^.' " This he afterwards retracted, confessing that by the words, " the flesh profiteth nothing," was meant not the Flesh of Christ, of which He had said, " My Flesh is meat indeed," but the fleshly mind, fleshly understanding '. There was scarcely a question upon the Sacrament in which he did not vary. In 1623, he said Ana thema to those who held transubstantiation ; before and after, he taught that it was indifferent whether it was held or no '. He contended that the wicked really ate the Body and Blood of Christ; and again he denied that those who disbelieved the " In Joh. 6. lb. p. 12. « De Captiv. Bab. Ib. ' Ib. p. 54. » Ib p. 9. E 2 52 Luther's statement of his belief. real Presence received it. " Whereas the fanatics believe that there is mere bread and wine only, assuredly so it is. As they believe, so they have it, and they eat there mere bread and wine : the Body of the Lord they have neither spiritually nor cor poreally '." He held communion in one kind to be unim portant, because he held all actual communion un important. " I should be glad, if a general Council should restore both kinds to the people ; not that it has any need of both or that one did not sufiice, but for the fuller significancy. It has need of neither, but of faith only. Both kinds are no more necessary than immersion in Baptisra. One kind only signi fies one part of the Sacraraent, and therefore cannot signify the whole Communion of Saints '." " Christ enjoined neither one, nor both kinds, and therefore the faithful may abstain frora both ^" " They have taken away the 'kind' of wine altogether from the Church, although it matters little, for more lies in the words than in the signs '." Again, he says, that, although needless, to forego it willingly, is to deny Christ. "I say, if any one knowingly orait, at least to desire the other part of the Sacrament, although neither is necessary, he is irapious and denies Christ V And " If any Council ° Quod Christi verba, &c. Ib. p. 18. ' Serm. de Saer. a.d. 1519. Ib. p. 17, ' Serm. de Euch. a.d. 1520. Ib. ' Serm. de N. T. Ib. * Assert. Artie, a Pap. damn. Art. 16. Ib. Luther's statement of his belief. 53 decreed or allowed both kinds, we would not use either, but in contempt of the Council and its decree, we would use one or neither or both, cursing all who used both on the authority or decree of the Council '." In 1520 he said that "whole Christ was received under each kind ;" afterwards he is said to have ridiculed and denied it ^ The " elevation " of the Sacraraent he taught, a.d. 1544, " to be piously retained, as a witness of the real and corporal Presence in the bread ; as though, when the Priest made this elevation, he said by the very act, 'See, Christians, this is the Body of Christ which was given for you ;' " he " opposed it only out of dislike to the Papists," and retained it out of dislike and contempt of Carlstadt (who held it to be idolatrous). Christian freedom, as he thought, required " that it should be retained where it was prohibited as impious, and abolished where it was enjoined as necessary '." He held it not to be heretical either to adore or not to adore the Sacrament. He says, " Whoso believes not that Christ is present in the Sacrament by His Body and Blood, does rightly not to adore it either spiritually or carnally. But whoso believes this (as it has been shown more than enough that it ought to be believed), he cannot in any wise deny vene ration to the Body and Blood of Christ without sin '." ' In Form. Miss. Ib. ' Ib. p. 18, ' Ib. p. 19. ' Lib. ad Wald. Ib. 54 Summary of Lutlieran doctrine. The Lutheran doctrine, as it settled in that body, until faith as to Sacraments gave way, is fairly repre sented by Joh. Gerhard, a learned and pious Lu theran. " On ' account of the calumnies of the opposite party, we again call to mind that we lay down neither impanation, nor consubstantiation, nor any other physical or local presence, but we believe, teach, and confess, that according to the institution of Christ Himself, in a way known to God alone, but incomprehensible to us, the Body of Christ is truly, really, and substantially present to the Eucha ristic bread as a medium appointed by God; and that in the same way the Blood of Christ, truly really and substantially present, is joined to the Eucharistic wine : so that, in transcendent mystery, we take, eat, and drink with that bread the real Body of Christ, and with that wine the real Blood of Christ. This Presence is called Sacramental, not in the sense in which the opponents use the word, for a relative {ay^iTin^) presence, suggestive to the mind only, but because a heavenly thing is, in this mystery, given to and set before us in this mystery through the medium of outward sacramental sym bols. The Presence is called 'true and real,' to exclude the fiction of a figurative, imaginary, and representative Presence ; it is called a ' substantial ' Presence, to preclude the subterfuge of opponents, De S. Coena, c. xi. n. 98. Summary of Lutheran doctrine. 55 as though there were nothing present in this mys tery besides an ' efficacy ' of the Body and Blood of Christ. The Presence is called ' mystical, super natural, and incomprehensible,' because the Body and Blood of Christ are not present in any manner of this world, but in that which is mystical, super natural, and incomprehensible. Some of ours, fol lowing Cyril, [on John 13,] have called the Presence ' corporal,' respect being had to the object, but by no means to the mode. What they wished to say was, that not only the virtue and efficacy but the substance itself of the Body and Blood of Christ are present at the Holy Supper. — For they used this word in opposition to the spiritual Presence, as defined by opponents, but did not at all mean that the Body of Christ is present in a corporeal way by which a body exists in quantity. So Hilary ' asserts that ' the Flesh of Christ remains in us naturaUter, in a way of nature ;' which he there thus explains, ' That Christ is in us by the truth of nature, not only by the harmony of the will' " Gerhard's language as to the mode of the Presence, " being known to God alone," corresponds remarkably with the first stateraent ofthe Council of Trent, which declares only the Real Presence ^ : " In the sacred Sacraraent of the holy Eucharist, after the consecra tion of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and Man, is truly, really, and substantially ' De Trin. 1. 8. ' Sess. 13, c. I. 56 Miraculous co-existence of our Lordes Body contained under the species of those sensible things. For neither are these things mutually repugnant, that our Saviour Himself ever sitteth at the Right Hand of the Father in Heaven, according to the natural mode of existing, and that, nevertheless. He be in many other places sacramentally present unto us in His own substance, by that manner of existing which, though we can scarcely express it in words, we yet can, by the understanding illuminated by faith, suppose, and ought most faithfully to believe, to be possible unto God." NOTE C. On p. 23. On the miracles of our Lord's passing through the closed tomb ani the closed doors, after the resurrection, and His birth illaesa virginitate. a) It is plain from S. Matt. 28. 2 — 6, that our Lord was risen, before the angel descended from Heaven to roll away the stone. For the angel descended when the women were there, to tell them that our Lord " was risen, as he said." So S. Chry sostom '. S. Jerome ^, " Let us not think that the angel came to open the tomb and roll back the stone for the Lord, rising again ; but, after the Lord ' On S. Joh. Horn. 85, § 4, p. 764, Oxf. Tr. and on S. Malt. Hom. 89, § 2, p. 1160, Oxf. Tr. ' Ep. ad Hedib. q. 6. with material substances. 57 had risen, at the hour at which He willed, and which is known to no man, the angel pointed out what had been ; and by the rolling away of the stone and his own presence, he showed the empty tomb." S. Fulgentius, " If ^ the angel descended not, would Christ not rise from the tomb ? or did the stone hinder the Lord, unless it were removed by the angel ? Yea, the Lord was risen, so that the angel was not needed. He was there in reverence, not to help." S. Fulgentius goes on to compare the two following miracles, as do Eusebius Gall.*, and the author of Serra. 163, in App, S, Aug, S. Greg, of Nyssa ^ " The angel, having rolled away the stone, found the Lord risen, He having quitted, in a Divine manner, the tomb closed and raade sure with seals and kept by the guard of soldiers, in like way as, entering the house while the doors were closed. He came to the disciples. Wherefore also the angel said, 'He is not here. He hath risen (j7-y£p0j/),' showing that the Saviour's wondrous Resurrection had taken place before his own coming. He having, as God, fulfilled it by His own power, executing the dispensation without need of angelic co-operation. For had this not been so, he would have said, ' Lo, He riseth {tytiptrai),'' pointing to what was then taking place. But since it had preceded, he said, using the past time, ' He is not here. He hath risen (riyepOri).' " ' Horn. 42 (de januis clausis), B. P. ix. 138. * Hom. 9, de Pasch. B. P. vi. 642. ' In Christi Res. Orat. 2, t. iii. p. 401. 58 Miraculous co-existence of our Lord's Body S. Chrysologus ', " Him Whom closed virginity, had brought to this present life, tlie closed tomb gave back to life everlasting. It is a mark of Divi nity ' clausam virginem reliquisse post partum ;' to have gone forth with the body from the closed tomb is a mark of Divinity ^" The author of the Quaestt. et Resp. ad Orthod. q. 117, " Not for the sake of the Resurrection did the removal of the stone from the tomb take place, but that the Resurrectiofl might be made known to the beholders." The author of the Christus Patiens in S. Greg. Naz,' speaks of it as a miracle. b) The miracle of passing through the closed doors is dwelt upon or alluded to by S. Amphilo- chius *, S. Epiphanius ^ S. Chrysostom ^ S. Am brose ', S. Cyril of Jerusalem S S. Augustine °, S. Cyril of Alexandria'", S. Jerome", Theodoret"', S. Chrysologus '\ S. Leo'*. The miracle is compared with our Lord's birth ' ex utero clauso' by S. Augus- ' Serm. 75, B. P. vii. 904. ' Add Serm. 77, p. 906, col. 2, Serm. 80, p. 908. ^ App. v. 2243-5. * Ap. Theodoret. Dial. 2, T. iv. p. 152, 3, ed. Sch. ¦' Haer. 20, § 3 ; 64, § 64 ; 77, § 29. ° Hom. 87, in S. Joh. ' In S. Luc. c. ult. § 168. ' Leet. xiv. § 11, 12. ' Serm. 277, § 12, T. v. p. 1119. '° In S. Joh. L. xii. p. 1090-2, et 1107. " Adv. Jovin. L. I.e. 36, p. 295, ed. Vail. " Dial. ii. p. 118. " Serm. 81, B. P. vii, p. 909. '* Ep. 28, ad Flav. c. 5. with material substances. 59 tine ', S. Jerome ^ (perhaps with reference also to His rising from the closed tomb), S. Gaudentius ^ S. Fulgentius*, Theodoret \ S. Hilary" (somewhat ob scurely, yet certainly, as to the Birth ; at length, as to the closed doors), the author of the Christus Pa tiens in S. Gregory of Nazianzum ', Theodotus of Ancyra \ Eusebius Gall. °, S. Gregory the Great '°. It is remarkable that the same coraparison is re tained even in the Lutheran Formula Concordise ". A synod of Milan under S. Ambrose condemned Jovinian's denial of our Lord's Birth, ' utero clause,' as heretical, contrary to the Apostles' Creed '\ as had Siricius generally in a Roraan Presbytery". S. Au gustine mentions it among Jovinian's heresies '*. The ancient belief is explicitly stated in the Formula Concordise'-'', " The Son of God even in His Mother's womb showed His Divine Majesty, that He was born of a Virgin 'inviolata ipsius virginitate.' Whence also she was truly Seotokoc, i. e. ' Dei genitrix,' and yet remained a virgin." ' In. S. Joh. Tr. 121, § 4, Epist. 137, § 8. Serm. 247, § 2, de Ag. Christ, e. 24. ^ Ep. 48, ad Pammach. de err. Joh. fin. ' Tract, 9, B. P. v. 956. * 1. c. ' Dial. 2. p. 118, ed. Sch. ^ De Trin. iii. 19, 20. ' v. 2495—2500. ' Hom. in Nat. Dom. in Cone. Eph. Act. 3, c. 9, p. 1512, ed. Col. ' Serm. Dom. 1, post Pascha, B. P. vi. 759. '" Hom. 26 in Evang.. § 1. " c. 7 (Tittman, Libb. Symbol, p. 577). " S. Ambr. Ep. 42, § 4, 5. " Ib. Ep. 41. " Haer. 82. " P. 586. eo Words of a Testament NOTE D. On p. 29. It is a flrst principle of law, that in Testaments, the plain meaning of words is not to be departed from. Geehakd (Loci 22, c. 10, ^ 73) quotes the follow ing "imperial laws or responses of lawyers (1. Ille aut ille, 25, ff. de legatis 3), " When there is no ambi guity in the words, no question of will should be admitted." (1. Non aliter, 69, ff. de legatis et fidei commissis 3, in princip.), " It is not right to depart from the raeaning of words, save when it is manifest that the testator meant soraething else." (1. La- beo 7, § 2, de supellect. legata), " Of what use are names, except to point out the will of the speaker? truly, I do not think any one will say what he does not think." (See Vigil, in § 1 inst. de pupill. et vulgari substitut. Tiraquell. in 1. si unquam verb. Libertus, n. 17, Cod. de revoc. donat. Tilemann. p. ii. disp. 7, W. th. 31, Godd. ad 1. 219, de V. S. Stephan. de Phedericis tract, de interpr. legum, p. 155, and also the sayings of lawyers.) " If the tes tator meant the contrary, there was no difficulty in so disposing it." " The words of a testator are to be considered carefully, lest while we use over-much subtlety as to meanings of such sort, the intentions of the testators be defrauded." " In a dubious point, it is safer not to depart from the words, but to keep to them rigidly, without any foreign interpretation." to be taken literally. 61 " Words should be weighed more than an iraaginary and uncertain raeaning." " The words of the testa tor must not be departed from, because the intention is presuraed to have been such as the words properly mean." " It is not to be believed that the testator willed what he has not said." " We ought to be content with the limitations of the words, because no disposition goes farther than the words bear : the reader then of a deed has the solution of what he seeks." " What the testator does not say, he is presumed not to will." " When a thing is ex plained manifoldly, its meaning is unknown." " Many are deceived who do not weigh the words of testa ments, which in theraselves bear great weight in finding out what the raeaning is." " Unless the contrary meaning be unquestionably evident, the proper signification of the words is not to be set aside." NOTE E. Onp. 31. Against the attempt to explain away the force of the words, " This is My Body,'' by the introduction of " a figure." In a figurative sentence, the figure raust lie either (1) in the thing spoken of, or (2) in that which is spoken ofit, or (3) in the word by which these two are connected. Siraple as this statement is, the neglect of it has introduced rauch confusion. People have 63 A figure in a sentence must seen that there is a figure somewhere in such a sentence as, " I am the Door," " I am the Good Shepherd," " I am the True Vine," and so have been open to the argument, " then there may be a figure in the words, ' This is My Body.' " If there had been, it must have lain in the word "This," or in the words " My Body," or in the word " is," whicb joins these together. The whole cannot be figura tive, unless there be a figure somewhere in the parts. I have pointed out in the sermon itself ' that, most comraonly, the figure lies in that which is affirmed of the subject spoken of; in logical language, the predicate. This is so in the words, " I am the Door," " I am the Good Shepherd," " I am the True Vine, and My Father is the Husbandman." The words "Door," "Good Shepherd," "True Vine," "Husbandman," &c., are metaphors, or figura tive language. Our Lord means by them to picture to us, that when we would enter into the Church or the Kingdom of Heaven, it is through Him, that we are to find entrance. Wherein we need care, He is to us, as a shepherd is to his sheep. We have our life and strength from Him, as the branches derive theirs from the stock whence they issue. This sort of language must (as I have said) pervade Holy Scripture, whenever God would speak to us of His relations to us ; because, as we know Him not yet "as He is," we can only understand Him through ' pp. 29—31. lie in some of its parts. 63 things which we do know. But in all these cases the figure lies in the word spoken of our Lord, ¦whether (as I said) it be Vine, Door, Shepherd, King, Judge, Merchant-Man, Priest, Prophet, Lamb, Light, Mountain, Corner Stone, Tower of Strength, Head, Captain of our Salvation, Physician, Bridegroom, Sun of Righteousness, Worm, the Way. This is obvious, as soon as it is stated. Such passages, then, as " I am the Door," " My Father is the Husband man," in which the words Door and Husbandman are figurative, metaphorical, picture-words, form no plea for taking the words, " This is My Body which is given for you," figuratively. For the words, " My Body which is given for you," are not like the words " Door" and " Husbandman," figurative, but they speak of a true Body which for us was nailed upon the Cross. As plainly there is no figure in the word This. Neither does any figure ever lie in the word is. It simply serves to join the two parts of the sen tence together, whether there be a figure or no. It simply expresses that the two ideas thus cora pared bear a certain relation to one another, that they agree together. If they do not agree, we insert the word "not." In Hebrew the simple word "is" is not expressed at all. "All flesh grass," " thou My servant," " I thy God," express in Hebrew without ambiguity what we express, with the inser tion of the substantive verb, " All flesh is grass," "thou art My servant," "I am thy God." The 64 Figures in Holy Scripture not to be assumed, metaphor cannot then lie in a word, which is not essential to the sentence, and which in Hebrew is not expressed at all. In the words, " all flesh is grass," "The Lord is the portion of mine inheritance and of my cup," " The Lord is King," " The Lord is my shepherd," the metaphor lies in the words " grass," " portion," " shepherd," " King," not in the word ^¦5, In the Psalm, "The Lord is my Rock, and my Fortress, and my Deliverer, my God, my strength, in whom I will trust, my buckler and the horn of ray salvation, and my high tower," the word is joins alike the words rock, fortress, buck ler, horn, tower, in which there is a figure, and those, " my God," " my Deliverer," in which there is none. But, further, God does not leave us doubtful whether, in Holy Scripture, He is speaking to us plainly or figuratively. Where there is a figure, God shows plainly that there is one. In the pas sages comraonly quoted by Calvinistic interpreters, to prove that the Holy Eucharist is a raere figure, Holy Scripture itself deterraines that there is a figure, wherever there is one. Thus, (1) Gen. xli. 26, " The seven good kine are seven years ; and the seven good ears are seven years." It is the expla nation of a dream, in which Joseph said, " God hath showed unto Pharaoh what He is about to do." (2) Ezek. xxxvii. 11, "These bones are the whole house of Israel," is the explanation of a vision. (8) S. Matt. xiii. 38, 39, " The field is the world," is our unless marked in Holy Scripture itself. 65 Lord's exposition of a parable: and (4) Rev. i. 20, "The seven stars are the angels of the seven Churches, and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven Churches," are our Lord's expo sition of a vision. (5) 1 Cor. v. 7, " Christ our Pass over, is sacrificed for us," refers to the types of the 0. T., just as when S. John Baptist said, "Behold the Lamb of God." (6) S. Matt. xi. 14, " If ye will receive it, this was Elias which was for to come." S. John Baptist was no figure of Elias, but Elias of S. John. But the metaphorical meaning of Elias, i. e. a Prophet " in his spirit and power," had already been given in S. Luke i. 17. In other places which these interpreters allege, they have simply misunderstood Holy Scripture. (7) Gen. ix. 9, The " bow " is not (as they say) called " the covenant" of God, but it is three times called " the token of the covenant" (ver. 12, 13, 17). The covenant itself (ver. 9) is, that God will no raore destroy the earth with a flood. (8) Gen. xvii. 10, it is not said, " Circuracision is My covenant," whereas in ver. 11, "circumcision" is expressly called the " token of the covenant." In ver. 10 there is no figure of speech whatsoever. God says, " This is My covenant between Me and you, and thy seed after thee ; every raan child among you shall be circumcised." This was His covenant itself; not any figure of a cove nant. (9) In like way, Ex. xxxi. 16, it is not said that " the sabbath is a covenant; but it is said (ver. 1 7) that it is "a sign." The words, "for an everlastino- F 66 Is does not stand for " is a figure of." covenant," are added (as in Gen. xvii. 7, Lev. xxiv. 8 also, or other equivalent words, " an ordinance for ever," Ex. xii. 14, 17, xxvii. 21, xxviii. 43, xxx. 21. Lev. iii. 17, vi. 18), declaring this to be a binding ob ligation, so long as the ritual system was in force. This is said plainly, without any figure. (10) Ex. xii. 11, " It is the Lord's Passover," does not raean, "it is the sign of the Lord's passing over." The "'blood" was a token, and is so called (ver. 12). The whole festival was a memorial, and is so called (ver. 14); or a sign (Ib. xiii. 9, 16). The lamb was not a sign, and is not so called. The Hebrew nD£3 is used in different places for (1) the whole festival, (2) the Paschal larab; in both cases it is elliptical; in neither figurative. PIDD in the one case stands for HDDn jn, feast ofthe Passover (Ex. xxxiv. 25), in the other, for PDDn n^T, "sacrifice ofthe Passover," which occurs ver. 27. Both idioms are comraon; to " keep the Passover," " the statute of the Passover," of the feast ; to " slay the Passover" (Ex. xii. 21) ; "sacrifice the Passover" (Deut. xvi. 2, 5. 2 Chr. xxx. 15, 17, &c.) ; "eat the Passover," 2 Chr. xxx. 18, of the victim. Again, the idiom, "keep the Passover to the Lord" (Ex. xii. 48), occurs of the festival ; to " sacrifice the Passover to the Lord," of the Paschal lamb (Deut. xvi. 2) ; as there are also the idioms, " a sabbath to the Lord" (Ex. xx. 10) ; "a feast to the Lord." Nor is this use of the name of the feast, for the animal sacrificed at the feast, any special or insulated idiom. The common word for Is does not stand for " is a figure of." 67 " feast," jn, is used for the sacrifice, in Ps. cxviii. 27. Ex. xxiii. 18. Mal. ii. 3. There is, then, absolutely nothing reraarkable in this idiom, which Zuingli relates to have come to him in a dreara ', as an illustration of our Lord's words, " This is ray Body," and which others have copied frora him. (11) Exod. xxiv. 8, "Behold the blood of the cove nant," has been rais-translated, " this blood is the covenant." Two other passages are cited, in consequence of the rejection of true doctrine by those who cite them. Albertinus^ says, "baptisra is called the washing of regeneration (Tit. iii. 5) and burial with Christ" (Rom. vi. 4, and Col. ii. 1 2). But, according to the faith which came from the Apostles, baptism is called "the washing of regeneration," not as being a bare sign of it, but as the Sacrament, whereby Almighty God is pleased to work it. Nor, accord ing to the sarae faith, is baptism any mere sign of "burial with Christ," but God's appointed means, whereby He conveys to the soul the inward spiritual^ grace, "a death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness." "As the Death of Christ in the flesh was real, so is one's to sin real," says S. Chrysostora '. ' Coronis de Euch. Opp. ii. 249. ' DeSaer. Euch. 1. 11. p. 58. ' See further Scriptural Doctrine on Holy Baptism, pp. 93—109. 124—133. F 2 63 Outward signs are figures, It is quite true that the outward elements are a figure of the inward substance. They bear that same relation to the body, which the inward sub stance bears to the soul. They nourish and sustain the body, as union with Christ through the inward gift in the Holy Eucharist, the Body and Blood of Christ, sustains and gives life to the soul. The question as to the elements themselves is not whether they are a figure of His body broken, and of His Blood shed for us. The very action of the Holy Eucharist shows that they are. The question so far is, whether they are figures of what is pre sent, although unseen, or of what is absent. But in these words of our Lord, " This is My Body," the question is, whether our Lord meant to express a spiritual reality, or whether, while He appeared to be speaking of a gift which He was bestowing. He meant that He gave to His Apostles and to us only a shadow, a rite as outward as any of the law, which He Him self came to fill up and to fulfil. He Himself was the substance of the shadows of the law. He did not come to give us fresh shadows, instead of reaUties, The argument from language is conclusive. There would be endless confusion, and our whole faith might be turned into a figure, if men might assume as they pleased, that this or that, which they did not like to take literally, was a figure. The Docetse might equally interpret, "The Word was made flesh" as a figure, and contend that S. John's words did not establish that our Lord had real flesh. not mere figures. 69 Nor has one who interprets as a figure, " This is My Body," auy answer to make to them. But to save us frora this uncertainty, all figures which occur in Holy Scripture, are of two sorts. Either they carry with them their own evidence, that they are figures (as in what is plainly picture-language), or Almighty God directly tells us that they are a figure. Until some distinct case be adduced, in which proper terras used to designate an actual subsisting thing, are, without any hint or notice, to be under stood unreally, we shall not be justified in so tam pering with the Word of God ; and they who do so tamper, prepare the way for the denial of truth, which they themselves believe. NOTE F. On p. 34. The bearing of our Lord's words, " / will drink no more of ihis fruit ofthe vine," on the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist. Our Lord, according to S. Matthew, spoke the words, " I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom," after the consecration of the Cup. " Drink ye all of it, for this is My Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth, &c." (xxvi. 27 — 29.) Each part of these words suggests an argument for our 70 "This fruit ofthe J^ne" the consecrated belief. Our Lord as distinctly says, " this fruit of the vine," as He says, " This is My Body." He calls that which He had consecrated, and of which He had said, "This is My Blood of the New Testa ment," by the narae of the natural element, "the fruit of the vine," as S. Paul calls the other eleraent, after its consecration, by its natural name, " bread." All the Fathers, then, who believed these words to have been spoken by our Lord, in the place where S. Matthew and S. Mark distinctly place them, i. e. after the consecration of the Cup, believed certainly that our Lord gave to the conse crated element the name of its natural substance, " the fruit of the vine," as much as He called it His Blood. Again, the words, " until I drink it new in the kingdom of God," are most naturally understood to include our Lord's condescending again to eat and drink after His Resurrection. The Apostles lay a stress on the fact, in proof of the reality of His Re surrection ; — " who did eat and drink with Him after He rose from the dead" (Acts x. 41). Our Lord may have meant His words to embrace also that Feast of the Gospel, in which He drinks this fruit of the vine in His members who worthily communicate, as He is persecuted in those who suffer for His Name. He may speak, too, as do the Prophets, of Heaven as a feast, and of the torrent of pleasure in the richness of His House. All these may be meant by the words, and the sarae Father may interpret the element in its natural substance. 71 words of all. But if any Fathers hold that our Lord did mean to speak of natural drinking of wine after His Resurrection, then they must have understood Him to speak of that which He had consecrated to be His Blood, as being in its natural substance, wine. When He said, " I will no more drink this fruit of the vine, until I drink it new," &c., we cannot suppose, that if He meant it of the natural substance after His Resurrection, He meant it of what was not a natural substance then. That which is natural is the basis of that which is meta phorical. It is obvious, then, to pass from the natural meaning of the word to the metaphorical ; it will not be intelligible, if one, after having cited a word in a merely spiritual sense, were then to use it, without explanation, of the physical object, without marking that he was no longer speaking of the same thing. It is very conceivable that our Lord should pass from this mention of the natural substance, or from Sacraraents, to that Feast where His saints shall behold Him with unveiled face, and be satisfied with His contemplation, and be filled by the indwelling of God. It is quite inconceivable that, if our Lord meant in the second place to speak of ordinary eating and drinking of natural food. He should not also, in the first instance, have been speaking of what was, in its natural substance, food. Elsewhere, our Lord said, "Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness and are dead," and then went on to speak of Himself as the " true Bread of life," 73 " This fruit ofthe Vine " the consecrated Or from the well of Samaria, He took occasion to speak of the " living water." But if that further drinking of which he speaks, be of the natural " fruit of the vine," i. e. wine, after the Resurrection, it is contrary to the analogy of His mode of speaking, to interpret the words, as He then used them, of what was not the natural substance. If by " the Kingdom of God," our Lord meant iu part Heaven, then since our bodies there wilinot be supported by elements of this world, the feeding of which He speaks, must, by the very nature of the case, be wholly spiritual. There can be no ambi guity. But if by the Kingdom of God He means, at least in its beginning, that kingdom upon which He entered after His Resurrection, when He says, " All power is given to Me in Heaven and in earth," and by the drinking wine He means in part, the taking natural food with thera in proof of His Resurrection, then it would be unnatural to under stand Him, as not speaking of what was there before Him, as a natural substance. We could not para phrase His words, " I will not drink of this, which was wine once, but is so no longer, until I drink it new in its natural substance after My Resurrection," although there is no difficulty in conceiving our Lord to go on from speaking even of Sacraments here, to that blessed state, when we shall need no veils nor sensible media, but eye to eye shall behold Him, and be satisfied with the unceasing influx of His love. element in its natural substance. 73 Roman controversialists show by the variety aud contradictoriness of their answers, that they feel the difficulty. Thus some, and perhaps the raost ', allow that the words, " fruit of the vine," mean wine in its natural sense, but deny that it is used with reference to the Holy Eucharist at all ; others allow it to have reference to the consecrated Cup, but say that it does not mean wine, but only the accidents of wine ; one even says, that the fruit of the vine, or of this vine, means the Blood of our Lord, as being the True Vine, for which, however, he is blamed by others, as exposing the doctrine which he defends weakly. The use of similar words in S. Luke cannot change the raeaning of those in S. Matthew and S. Mark. The words in S. Matthew, " But I say unto you" (Kiyu) Se), can only be interpreted of that, in connexion with which they are said, the Eucharistic Cup. On the contrary, the words in S. Luke stand naturally, not as a mere anticipation, but in con nexion with the earnest desire which our Lord had to celebrate that His last Feast with them, in which He was in a closer and raore inward way, about to unite them to Himself for ever. He says, "Earnestly have I desired to celebrate this My parting Feast ' Albertinus, p. 1 09, quotes Maldonatus in Matt. 26. Lucas Brugensis, ad loe. p. 475 ; Stapleton, Antid. Ev. in Matt. 26. p. 118 ; Becanus, de Saer. in Spec., a Lapide [in S. Matt, and] in 1 Cor. 11. So also Dion. Carthus., de Lira, Caietan, Sa, Sylveir. ad loe. 74 S. Luke speaks of the same as S. Matt. with you ; the close of all before, tbe beginning of all to come; the source of salvation of the world, For verily I say unto you, I will no raore eat or drink again with you, until in My new life after the Resurrection, I drink in a new way, in a Body which will need no renewal." And then He de scribes the Feast which He so desired, the Holy Eucharist. Any how, the plain meaning of the words in S. Matthew and S. Mark must stand. Those Evangelists, recording the words as spoken after the consecration of the new Feast of the Gospel, and in direct connexion with the consecra tion of the Cup, cannot have meant them of the typical Passover, which has passed away. So to interpret would be to trifle with Inspiration and God's Word. On the other hand, not only are the Fathers agreed in supposing the words to be used of the consecrated elements ^ but later writers also adduce the words in proof that wine is to be used in the Holy Eucha rist ' ; or that our Lord Himself first tasted before He gave to His disciples *. ' See Note M. ' Innocent iii. 27, Aq. ad loe, who also admits it to be a proof that our Lord ate and drank after His Resurrection, although it was to prove the truth of His Resurrection, not any need of Nature, e. Gentil. iv. 83 ; so in the East the Council in Trullo, c. 32, against the Armenians. * Salmeron. T. 9, Tr. 15, p. 106, &c. Aquinas. 3, p. q. 81. Art. 1, fin. follows Eusebius in explaining Lnke xxii. 15, of our Lord's sacramental eating. Arguments from H. Eucharist against heretics. 75 NOTE G. On p. 37. The Fathers speak of the continued existence of the elements in their natural substances, most especially when they are speak ing accurately in their controversies with heretics. All faith harmonizes together. Every portion of the faith bears upon others. Hence heresies, seem ingly unconnected, are brought in sudden contact with each other. Or one heresy ramifies into others. They have a secret sympathy with each other. A heresy sends out its knotted roots underground, and shoots up in another form, and in a distant spot, which, looking along the surface, one should not know how it reached. And so, it is even strange, at first sight, how very distinct and various or oppo site heresies are met by the true doctrine of the Holy Eucharist. But it has been, of old, observed that almost all he resies are,in some way, directed against the doctrine of the Incarnation, the belief in our Lord Jesus Christ, God, for us and for our salvation, become Man. It is in harmony with this, that heresy should founder on the true belief in the Holy Eucharist, through which the fruits of the Incarnation especially accrue to us, and by which He conveys to us, through His Body and Blood, that union with Himself which it was one object of His Holy Incarnation to impart. S. Irenaeus employs against the heretics who de- 76 Arguments drawn against different heretics nied the resurrection of the body, the argument from the adaptation of the Holy Eucharist to our twofold nature. He regards the Holy Eucharist (as do many other Fathers) as a means of immor tality to the body also. It nourishes the body by virtue of its earthly part ; but being the Body and Blood of Christ, It nourishes it to life immortal. If the natural substance were not present, it could not nourish; whence some in later days have denied that It does strengthen and refresh the body. "How' say they, that the flesh passeth to corruption and partaketh not of life, which is nourished from the Body of the Lord and His Blood ? Either let them change their mind, or abstain from offering the things above spoken of. But our meaning is in harmony with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist again confirms our meaning. And we offer to Him His own, carefully teaching the communication and union, and confessing the resurrection, of the flesh and spirit. For as the bread from the earth, receiv ing the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two things, an earthly and a heavenly, so also our bodies, receiv ing the Eucharist, are no longer perishable, having the hope of the Resurrection to life everlasting." Tertullian again argues from the Holy Eucharist, against the Gnostics, that Christ had a real, not (as their phrensy was) a fantastic body, and that the * iv. 18. 5. from the natural substances in the Eucliarisi. 77 God of the New Testament is the same as the God of the Old. " Having ^ declared, ' With desire have I desired to eat this Passover,' as His own (for it were unworthy that God should desire any thing not His own). He made the bread which He took and distributed to the disciples that His own Body, say ing, ' This is My Body,' i. e. the figure of My Body. But it would not be a figure, unless His Body were a true Body. But an empty thing, as a phantom is, can admit of no figure of itself." S. Ephrem uses the same argument against the Do- cetse in his day.' He argues from the real substance of the matter of the Sacrament, to the real substance of our Lord's Body which it figured and conveyed. " Sons ^ of truth, give praise. For your persecutors are your preachers, your haters are your guarantees. For they have guaranteed, and written, and set to their hands, that true and life-giving to all is the Body of the Christ. For a roll, on bread which they brake, have they written it ; without ink, in wine have they marked it, to themselves, shame ; to you, a crown." And more fully : — " The brides * of the daughters of the Hebrews, their glory is in their veils. Lo in our veil is our ^ Adv. Marcion. iv. 20. ' Adv. Hser. Rh. 45. init. ii. 539. Here, and throughout, the Syriac works of S. Ephrem are alone quoted, as being alone genuine. * Adv. Hser. Rhythm 47. ii. 542, 3. 78 Arguments drawn against different heretics glory, the Blood of Christ, which is above all price. The congregations of the infidels, in their veils there is for them no true Blood of Christ. They have [but] a likeness of blood, who own not the Body of Christ. Where is the true Body, there is also the true Blood. If, because the body is defiled and hateful and loathsome, the Lord abhorreth it, so is the cup of rederaption in the house of the infidels. And how did He loathe the body, and clothe Himself with bread, whereas, lo ! bread is the brother of weak flesh ! And if durab bread pleases Hira, how much raore the speaking body ! Bread also the Lord used as a likeness, Who accepted the shewbread at His table. The feast of Cana they have despised, that far should it be from the Lord to approach unto it. The Church they call the bride, and our Lord the true Bridegroora ; and the figure of the wine of the feast is in their cups ; lo ! a type of the feast is in their festivals. Teaching, divided against itself, evermore reproveth one, though he doth not perceive. For how infidel are their words, their deeds reprove them. The infidels, sons of hell, may they become, O Lord, servants of thy tabernacle ! " And if then the Infidel should say, ' As a figure we praise these things,' then in a figure and not in truth does your teaching stand. Let them then ho nour Satan a little ! But if there be one nature of the Evil one and bread, why is the Evil one defiled unto them, and bread, his brother, as a holy thing to them? Praise be to "Thee, O Lord, that, as from the natural substances in the Eucharist. 79 with a sword, the word of truth cut through, came forth. "For that bread, the shewbread, they offered honey and milk, and since these things are all pure, not even thus have they found a way to confuse. For honey suflSceth not for an offering, nor milk for sprinkling and drink offerings ; shewbread in a figure they offered, and blood and wine in type they sprinkled. The crucifiers and the teaching, the figure which Moses wrote, reproved. " What then constrained our Redeemer, that He brake bread ? Two things it was right that He should avoid, as a stranger to them : 1, He should teach that He had not clothed Himself with a de filed Body ; 2, that He was like unto the Creator to whom the shewbread did not ascend [as an obla tion], but was offered on His Table. To Thee be praise, that, as with a furnace, Thou hast revealed the brass of the foul doctrine 1 " If the Lord put on a Body in appearance, it were right that they should break a shadow; and if He showed the likeness of blood, let them put into the Cup the shadow of wine. But if they break true bread, which they truly touch, and it is not in appearance, the sinful woman who approached our Lord touched a true Body. Do thou bless Him who bade Thomas touch a Body, not a shadow." But both Tertullian and S. Ephrem would have exposed themselves to a terrible retort, had they held that the elements were as unsubstantial as the 80 Arguments drawn against different heretics heretics feigned our Lord's Natural Body to be. I see no way in which they could have answered the retort ; " True ! real substances would be, as you say, an unnatural figure of that which we believe to have been unsubstantial ; but a mere outward form without a substance is the natural figure of an unsub stantial body " TertuUian's own indignant irony against the Mar- cionites shows that he was alive to that argument. "And' so his Christ was not what he seemed, and what he was, he averred falsely ; flesh and yet not flesh ; man and yet not man ; and so Christ God and yet not God. For why should he not too have borne a phantom of God ? Shall I believe him as to his inward substance who deceived as to the out ward ? How shall he be accounted true in what is hidden, being found so deceiving in what was open ? " Tertullian also, on this very subject, appeals to the outward senses as to the outward elements. " We " may not, we may not, call in question those senses, lest their truth should be questioned in Christ Himself, lest it should be said, perchance, that He saw untruly Satan cast down from heaven; or heard untruly the voice of the Father bearing wit ness of Him ; or was deceived when He touched Peter's mother-in-law ; or perceived, as other than it was, the breath of the ointment which He accepted ' Adv. Marcion. iii. 8. " De Anima, e. 17. from the natural substances in the Eucharist. 81 for His burial ; or afterwards, the taste of the wine, which He consecrated to be a memorial of His Blood. For so Marcion too preferred to believe Him a phantom, disdaining in Him the truth of the whole Body." Again, against the Gnostics who rejected matter, he argues from our Lord's appointing the use of matter, as well in the two great Sacraments, as in other rites of the Church. This implies in a twofold way his belief in the continued existence of the elements. 1. The general argument implies that the matter continued. For if the matter had ceased to be, the Gnostics might have retorted the argument, and said, that it fell in with their view of matter, that matter was rejected in the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. 2. He refers naturally to the use of matter in both Sacraments, as being employed in both alike, as the instruments of the spiritual grace. " He ' hath not, until now^, rejected either the water of the Creator, wherewith He cleanses His own ; nor the oil, wherewith He anoints His pwn, nor the union of honey and milk, with which He nourishes His infants; nor bread, wherewith He maketh present ^ His own very Body, even in His ' Adv. Marcion. i. 14. ° The real question as to the meaning of" repraesento," as bear ing on the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, has been missed on both sides. The one adduces passages in which it signifies, G 82 Arguments drawn against different heretics own Sacraments needing to be a mendicant to the Creator." Adamantius (probably about the age of Constan- " makes present to the mind," the other, passages where it means, "makes actually present." It always means "makes present," but this^ either to the mind or in act, as the case may be. But in the one class of passages, the very subject itself implies that the ohject is present ; in the other, that it is not, The nature of the " presence," whether it be in act, or to the mind only, is determined by the context, or the subject, not by the force of the word " repraesento." Tertullian uses the word " to make actually present," in the following passages : De res. eamis, e. 14, " de totius hominis repraesentatione ;" c. 17, " carnem reprsesentandam ipso judicio;" "non egeat repraesen tatione carnis ;" c. 23, " contemplatio est speir — per fidem, nonre- praesentatio ;" c. ult. " ut ex ilia repraesentetur Adam." Adv. Marc. iv. 9, " curationem statim repraesentasse ;" iv. 16, " re praesentatione talionis quam repromissione ultionis ;" iv. 22, " repraesentans eum — quem repromisi ;" ib. 23, " repraesentat Creator ignium plagam ;" v. 12, "eorporum omnium repraesenta- tionem." De Or. e. 5, "regni Dominici repraesentatio." De Pat. e. 3, " coelestes ignes reprsesentari oppido." Adv. Prax. c. 24, " non ex personae repraesentatione," and " Filius repraesen- tator Patris." De Pudic. i. 6, " repraesentati judicii." On the other hand, it signifies " make present to the mind," or "repre sent," in the following, — Ad Nat. ii. 10, " ut sibi conlusorem repraesentaret." De poenit. c. 3, "animus sibi repraesentat." Apol. c. 15, "Herculem repraesentat;" c, 16, "aliqua effigie repraesentat ;" c. 23, " contemplatione et repraesentatione ignis illius." De spect. c. 17, " mimus repraesentat;" ib. fin, "per fidem, spiritu imaginante, reprsesentata." De Prsescr. n. 33, " repraesentantis faciem uniuscujusque." De jej. c. 13, " ipsa repraesentatio totius Christiani nominis," and " in spiritu invicem repraesentati." De Monog. 10, "omnia homini qua non habet, imaginario fructu repraesentat." Adv. Prax. c. 14, " omnes paene Psalmi Christum ad Deum verba facientem re- praesentant." In every place in which the word signifies " make from the natural substances in the Eucharist. 83 tine ^) uses the sarae argument against the Marcion- ites: "If", as these say, He wasfleshless and blood less, of what flesh, and of what body, and of what blood did He, giving the images, enjoin upon the disciples both the Bread and the Cup ? " S. Chrysostom in his letter to Csesarius ' employs present to the mind," the very context makes it quite clear that it is so. On the other hand, in all cases in which it is used absolutely, without any limitation frora the context, it signifies " make actually present." In another passage, Tertullian, in reference to the doctrine of the Incarnation, employs the word while insisting that God makes use of His creatures, material substances, in order to show His nearness to man, " For why did He not eorae in some other more worthy substance, and especially in His own, that He might not seem to have been in need of what was unworthy and another's ? If my Creator, through means of the ' bush' and ' fire,' and again afterwards, through the ' cloud' and ' pillar,' held converse with man, and used the bodies of elements, in making Himself present, these examples of Divine power show enough, that God did not need the apparatus of false or even of real flesh. If we look to certain truth, no substance is worthy that God should put it on. Whate- He puts on, He makes worthy, but without untruth. What a ' ing it were, that He should esteem true flesh, a greater disgrace than lying flesh !" (Adv. Marc. iii. 10.) In this, Ter tullian uses the word of God's becoming present in act, yet insists upon its being with true matter, not the appearance of it. ° See Benedictin. Praef. ap. Orig. Opp. T. i. pp. 800-2. '° Dial, de recta Fide, s. iv. p. 853, ib. ' This Epistle to Caesarius is quoted without doubt by Dama scene (a.d. 730) and the later Greek writers. Nor has any valid ground been brought against it. One ean hardly think that its genuineness would have been questioned, as it has been by Roman Catholics, had there not been a previous bias against it, as ex pressing our belief that the natural substances rerr;ain in the Holy Eucharist. When first the extract was produced, the very G 2 84 Arguments drawn against different heretics the same truth, the twofold substances of the Holy Eucharist, the earthly and the heavenly, against the existence of the treatise was denied. When this could not be denied, its genuineness was denied, on grounds whose validity would not have been admitted in another case. Le Quien's objection, that it is not quoted in the earlier writers, is not safe, being siraply negative. It might easily have escaped notice, being a short Epistle to a private person, and (if the title be true) written in exile. The arguraent for its antiquity, in that it mentions no later heretics than Apollinarius, is urged by R. C. critics, in behalf of other works. It is directed against the Apollinarian, which in many things anticipated the Eutychian, heresy, yet so as to use the terms which condemn the Nestorian. It seems then strange that Le Quien should so groundlessly call the writer a patron of the Nestorian heresy. (Diss. Damascen. p. xlix.) As for Le Quien's objection, that S. Chrysostom could not have objected to the expression, "Deum pertulisse" (p. 744, ed. Montf.), it is plain that he uses it in the sense of UtoTTji (p. 743). It has been observed that S. Athanasius objects to the phrase, "God suffered in the flesh," i. e. as used by the Apollinarians, e. Apollin. ii. 13, fin. (Treatises against Arianism, ii. 444, n. i. Oxf. Tr.), i. e. S. Athanasius objects to the very same phrase, as used by the very heretics against whom the letter is written, " How have ye written, that it was God who suffered through the flesh, and rose again ? For if it was God who suflTered through the flesh, ye will say that the Father and the Paraclete are liable to suffer, the Name being One, and One Divine Nature." Montfaucon shows (S. Chrys. Opp. iii. 738, 9) that the language against which the author writes was that used by Apollinarius, De Incarnat. (as quoted by Ephrem in Photius, n. 229), but therewith he cuts away the imputation of Le Quien, that it may have been directed against the language of S. Cyril. The condemnation of the Epistle as a forgery was still more hasty. For the Epistle is entitled "S. Chrysostom's" in the heading and the subscription only, which fonn no part of the Epistle. Even then, although it had not been S. Chrysostom's, it might still have been a real Epistle written by a defenderof the faith. from the natural substances in the Eucharist. 85 Apollinarian heresy : " For ^ as we call the bread, before it is sanctified, bread: but, when Divine grace has, through the intervention of the Priest, sanctified it, it is set free from the name, bread, and thought worthy to be called the Lord's Body, although the nature of bread remains, and we proclaim not two bodies, but the one Body of the Son ; so here too, the Divine Nature having come to indwell in the Body, they have together formed one Son, one Person." The sarae statement occurs in the Eutychian con troversy in Theodoret. The Eutychian is supposed to urge the sacred mystery of the Holy Eucharist, as an illustration how the Humanity of our Lord is, according to him, absorbed in His Divinity. Eran. " I will ' hence show then the change of the Lord's Body into another Nature. — How dost thou call these [the elements] after the consecration ? Orth. The Body of Christ and the Blood of Christ. Eran. And dost thou believe that thou partakest of the Body and Blood of Christ ? Orth. I do. Eran. As then the symbols of the Body and Blood of the Lord are one thing before the Priestly Invocation, and after the Invocation are changed and becorae others, so the Body of the Lord after the Ascension was absorbed into the Divine Substance. Orth. Thou art taken in the net which thou wovest. For nei ther after the consecration do the mystic symbols ' Opp. T. iii. p. 744, ed. Ben. ' Dial. 2. Inconf. p. 125, ed. Sch. 86 Arguments drawn against different heretics depart from their own nature. For they reraain in their former substance and figure and form, and can be seen and touched as before ; but in thought they are conceived and believed and adored, as being those things which are believed. Compare then the image with the Archetype, and thou wilt see the likeness. For that Body hath its former form and figure and circumference and, in a word, the substance of the Body. For It becarae Immortal after the Resurrection, and Incorruptible, and was exalted at the Right Hand, and is worshipped by all creation, as being entitled the Body of the Lord of Nature. Eran. But the mystical syrabol changes its former name. For it is no longer called what it was before, but ' Body.' So then the Truth must be called ' God,' not ' Body.' Orth. Thou seemest to be ignorant. For it [the Eucharist] is called not only Body but Bread of life. So the Lord Himself called it. And His Very Body we call the Divine Body and lifegiving, and Body of tbe Lord, teaching that it is not common with any man, but is of our Lord Jesus Christ Who is God and. Man." The whole argument requires that the words should be retained in their special sense. Body is contrasted with Body, form with form, substance with substance. The heterodox argues, that as after consecration the consecrated elements are and are called the Body and Blood of our Lord, so after the glorification, the Body of our Lord is and is to be called God. Theodoret's answer is, that in both from the natural substances in the Eucharist. 87 cases the natural substance reraains, and the narae also. The Bread is still called Bread, and, although raysticaUy the Body and Blood of Christ, does " not depart from its own nature ;" so neither does Christ, But had he thought of accidents without a sub stance, this would be analogous not to a real Body of Christ, but to a fantastic Body, such as the Gnostics fabled. Theodoret uses the same argument in the first Dialogue : " Orth. Thou' knowest that God hath called bread His own Body. Eran. I know it. Orth. And con trariwise He hath called the Flesh corn? Eran. I know this too (S. Joh. xii. 23, 24). Orth. But in instituting the mysteries He called the Bread 'Body,' and what is mingled, ' Blood.' Eran. He did so. Orth. But according to Nature, Body would be called body, and Blood, blood. Eran. Confessedly. Orth. But our Saviour interchanged the names ; and to the Body gave the name of the symbol, and to the symbol that of the Body; so, having called Him self a Vine, He, entitled the symbol Blood. Eran. Thou hast said truly. But I would know the cause of this change of names ? Orth. The object is plain to those admitted to the Divine mysteries. For He willed that those who partake of the Divine Mys teries, should not attend to the nature of the things seen, but through the change of name, should be lieve in the change which takes place in this through grace. For He who called the natural {(jivaii) Body ' T. iv. 25, ed. Seh, 88 Argumeuts drawn against different heretics corn and bread, and Himself again a Vine, honoured the symbols which are seen, with the title of bread and wine, not changing the nature, but adding grace to the nature." Towards the close of the same century, about a.d. 492, Pope Gelasius uses the sarae arguraent : " Cer tainly* the Sacraraent of the Body and Blood of Christ which we receive is a divine thing, wherefore also we are by the Same made partakers of the Divine Nature, and yet the substance and nature of bread and wine ceaseth not to be." "And certainly the image and likeness of the Body and Blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries. It is there shown us very clearly, that we must think of Christ the Lord Hiraself, the same which we profess, celebrate, and receive in His image, that as they [the elements] pass into this, i. e. the Divine substance, (the Holy Spirit perfecting this,) yet abiding in their own proper nature \ so also * " De duabus in Christo naturis adv. Eutychen et Nestorium," Bibl. Patr. viii. 703. Four passages out of it are quoted, about 507, by S. Fulgentius (de 5 quaestt. ad Ferrand. c. 18, as written by " Pope Gelasius of blessed memory," Bibl. Patr. ix. 187); one is quoted by Pope John II. between a.d. 532-5. There can then be no question of its genuineness, and Labbe (in Bellarmin.) has admitted it, and " plerique," according to Spon- danus, in Marg. Epitom. Baron, a.d. 496. (Baronius, Bellarmin., Suarez, Greg, de Valentia, and " orthodoxi una ferme sententia," according to Baronius, ad a.d. 496, n. 1, had denied it.) ° Inthe Bibl. Patr. ed. Lugd. 1677, it stands, " permanente tamen in suae proprietate naturae." For the construction we must read permanentes, or sua pr. natur*. The sense is the same. from the natural substances in the Eucharist. 89 that that chief Mystery Itself, whose efiiciency and virtue they truly represent to us, is out of those [two Natures] themselves continuing, whereof He is. One Christ, because they show that He abides perfectly and really." Of the same character is the language of Facundus (a.d. 540), in the same church of which Gelasius was a native. " Christ " vouchsafed to take upon Him the Sacrament of adoption, both when He was cir cumcised and when He was baptized; and the Sacraraent of adoption may be called adoption, as the Sacrament of His Body and Blood, which is in the consecrated Bread and Cup, we call His Body and Blood, not that the Bread is properly His Body, or the Cup His Blood, but because they contain in them the mystery of His Body and Blood. As then Christ's faithful, receiving the Sacrament of His Body and Blood, are rightly said to receive the Body and Blood of Christ, so also Christ Himself, when He had received the Sacrament of the adop tion of sons, could be rightly said to have received the adoption of sons." Ephrem, Patriarch of Antioch, a.d. 526 (who wrote against the Nestorians and Eutychians, and died in the year of the fifth general Council), uses the same argument as Theodoret. " S. John" [in his words, "That which was from the beginning, which we have seen and our hands have handled of the Word » Pro defens. 3. Capp. L. 9, c. 5. Bibl. Patr. x. 79. 90 Arguments drawn against different heretics, ^c. of Life"] " preaches that One and the Sarae bas a tan gible and Intangible substance. For in that he saith 'the Word,' he bare witness that the Intan gible may be touched, and in that he said ' have seen,' he announces that the Invisible is seen. So then he raakes known the One Christ, in substance both intangible and tangible, visible and invisible, and instructeth others to know this. For although each belong to one Person, yet no one in his right raind can say that the nature of the tangible and Intangible, visible and Invisible, is the same. Thus also the Body of Christ, which is received by the faithful, departeth not from the sensible sitb- stan/ie, and remains inseparable from the invisible grace. And Baptism, becoming wholly spiritual and being one, preserveth the property of the sen sible substance (I mean, the water), and loseth not what it is become." Consecrated elements said not to be bare elements. 91 NOTE H. On p. 39. The consecrated elements are said by the Fathers not to be bare elements. The early Fathers quoted by Roman controversial ists, in behalf of the physical change in the elements, say also that they are not " bare elements." But since they hold them not to be " bare elements," "common bread," and the like, it is plain that they must have held them to remain in some sense phy sically what they had been, bread and wine. No one would deny a substance to be merely, barely, that substance, who did not think it to be that sub stance at all. This is the more remarkable in S. Cyril of Jerusalem, because he so bids the commu nicants look away from the elements, that he has been quoted as denying their existence. Yet he bids his people not to look upon the elements as "bare elements," using the very same term whioh he uses of the water of Baptism or the oil of the Chrism. He says', that before consecration the bread and wine of the Eucharist were "simple (Xiroc) bread and wine ;" that, " after the Invocation of the Holy Ghost, it is no more simple (Atroc) bread." He bids the new communicant " contem plate the bread and wine not as bare elements" ' See the passages below in S. Cyril, Note S, No. 29. 93 Consecrated elements said not to be bare, mere, (wc ^Z-iXotc), but he says equally of the Chrism in Confirmation, " Beware ^ of supposing this to be simple {tpiXov) ointment ;" " this ointraent is no more simple [t/ziXw] ointraent, nor (so to say) common [koivoi'], after the invocation, but the gift of Christ," and of the water of Baptism, he says, "Re gard^ the sacred laver," "not as simple [AiT(f)J water; regard rather the spiritual grace given with the water : — plain [Xiroi^] water, after the invocation of the Holy Ghost and of Christ, and of the Father, gains a sanctifying power ;" and " Now then thou art to descend into the waters, consider not the bare element *, look for its saving power by the operation of the Holy Ghost \" In like way S. Justin Martyr says more briefly, " We * do not receive It as common \_icoivov] bread or as common [koivov] drink ;" and S. Irenceus, " As ' bread from the earth, receiving the invo cation from God, is no longer common [koivoc] bread, but Eucharist, consisting of two things, an earthly and an heavenly ;" and S. Athanasius, " As long as the prayers and supplications do not take place, it is mere \jpi\tiQ\ bread, and a mere \jpi\ov\ cup ;" and again, " this bread and this cup, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken ' Leet. Myst. 3, § 3, p. 268, Oxf. T. ' Leet. iii. 3, p. 26. * Tia ipi\^ Toi iiSaros. ^ lb. § 4. ° See the passage. Note S, No. 2. ' See ibid. No. 3. elements ; therefore held to be real elements. 93 place, are bare [i//tXa, bare elements '] ;" and at the close of the fourth century Jerome of Jerusalem says, " Whence ^" i. e. from the spiritual effects of the Holy Eucharist, " the Christian is fully con vinced that he doth not receive mere [i//iXov] bread and wine, but in truth th.e Body and Blood of the Son of God sanctified by the Holy Ghost." For he says, we experience no such effects " when we eat the bare \jpi\ov] bread and wine on our table." The force of the expression is illustrated by the contrast in the Homily on Penitence, inserted araong the remains of S. Amphilochius. " Some ' he [Satan] prepares to disbelieve and be troubled, and delay, as to the immortal, life-giving Corarau nion, saying that this is mere [^/.iXoi;] bread and mere [i/'tXov] wine, and nothing else." And S. Ambrose, in contrast with the invisible grace, denies that the water of Baptism is simple water. " Not ^ simple water then is the water of the heavenly mystery, whereby we attain to have our portion with Christ." « See ib. No. 20. ' lb. No. 55. ' Opp. S. Amphiloeh. p. 92. ^ De Sp. S. Praef. t. ii. p. 603. 94) The outward part ofthe H. Eucharist, called NOTE I. On p. 39. On the titles, types, antitypes, figures, symbols, images, as applied to the Holy Eucharist. The Sacraraent of the Holy Eucharist having two parts, an outward and an inward, and the outward part having been instituted by our Blessed Lord with a certain relation to the inward, and gifted with a certain significance of it, nothing is raore natural than that the titles, type, antitype, symbolj figure, iraage, should be given to the outward part. S. Augustine says of Sacraments (in his well-known words), " If ' Sacraments had not some likeness to the things whereof they are Sacraraents, they would not be Sacraments at all ; but from this likeness they for the most part also receive the names of the things themselves." There is, then, no even seeming difficulty in taking these titles, as used by the Fathers, in their natural and obvious sense. The Calvinist party inferred wrongly, that the Fathers who used these terms, thought, with themselves, that the outward or visible part was an emblera — not of the inward part or thing signified, but of an absent thing. Roman Catholic controversialists denied that there was any outwaid existing part, whicli was a symbol. The Roraan ' Epist. 98, ad Bonifae. § 9, a type, figure, symbol, image of the inward. 95 controversialists assumed that a thing which itself had no real substance, and so itself had no being, was the type, or representation of another. The Calvinists assumed that, itself existing, it was a type of something absent. Both, without real foundation, and against the natural meaning of the words. But with this exception, the words of Cardinal Perron correspond with thoae of our Catechisra. "The^ Sacrament of the altar has two natures, one outward, accidental, and visible ; the other, inward, essential, invisible. According to the former, it is a sign, figure, antitype ; according to the latter, it is verity, fulness, reality." Now, if by this, it was only in tended to affirm that the outward part was in itself nothing, and that of which it was the vehicle was all, there would be nothing which we could not accept. It is alike an assumption to say that the outward symbol is the figure of an absent Body of our Lord, or that itself is not. Rather, the Eucharistic ele ments are an outward reality, figuring to us that hidden reality, which sacramentally they convey to ua. This class of title, figure, type, image, symbol, were used by minds of every character in the ancient Church freely, naturally. The writers use them, moreover, not as if they were saying any thing of their own, but as employing a current language. It is, so to speak, almost a technical, certainly a received language. ' De Euch. L. 2, Auth. i. ap. Albert, ii. p. 274. 96 The outward part ofthe H. Eucharist, called Fathers use the words " symbols," "antitypes" in juxta-position with clear assertions of a real ob jective presence ; i. e. they assert the actual presence both of the inward and the outward part; the Sa crament and the " res Sacramenti ;" the eleraents in their natural substance, and the Body and Blood of Christ. There is no reason to question the genuine ness of the fragment of S. Irenseus in which the expression occurs. Corresponding language is used by Tertullian; aud the use of the term both in S. Basil's Liturgy and ApostolicConstitutions, makes it probable that it was a received expression. The whole passage is, — " Wherefore ^ the oblations are not according to the law, the handwriting whereof the Lord having blotted out, took away, but according to the Spirit. For we must worship God in spirit and in truth. Wherefore also the oblation of the Eucharist is not fleshly but spiritual, and thereby clean. For we offer unto God the bread and the cup of blessing, giving thanks unto Him, that He has commanded the earth to send forth these fruits for our nourish ment, and afterwards, having duly perforraed the oblation, we call forth the Holy Spirit that He would make this sacrifice and this Bread the Body of Christ, and the Cup the Blood of Christ, that they who receive these antitypes may obtain forgiveness of sins and eternal life." The language and doctrine altogether correspond ' Pfaff. fragm. Anecdota S. Irensei, pp. 26, 27. « type, figure, symbol, image of the inward. 97 with the well-known language of S. Irenseus, in which, with the same reference to the employment ofthe fruits of the earth, he distinguishes between the two parts of the Holy Eucharist, the earthly and the heavenly ^ S. Clement of Alexandria says, " The mystic symbol then of the Holy Blood, the Scripture hath called wine ^" TertuUian uses the corresponding Latin expres sion, when he says, "He made it that His own Body, saying, ' This is My Body,' i. e. the figure of My Body «." The outward part is a figure of the inward. He had used nearly the same words before ^ — " For so God revealed in your Gospel too ^ calling bread His Body, that hence too thou mayest at once understand that He ° gave to bread to be a figure of His Body, of which Body the Prophet aforetime spake figuratively as bread, the Lord Himself being about to explain this mystery after wards." Origen, having spoken of the bread as remaining, * See below, Note S, No. 3. ' Paedag. ii. 2, p. 68. " Adv. Marc. v. 40. ' Adv. Marc. iii. 19, p. 493-4, ed. Rig. In the adv. Jud. c. 10, p. 222 A, mpre briefly, — " For so Christ revealed, calling bread His Body, of whose Body afore the Prophet spake figura tively, as bread." ' S. Luke, which the Mareionites acknowledged. ' " Corporis sui figuram pani dedisse, cujus retro in corpus panem Prophetes figuravit." II 98 The outward part ofthe H. Eucharist, called says, " And '° it is not the substance of the bread, but the word spoken over it, which benefits hira who eateth it, not unworthily of the Lord ;" and con cludes, "and this maybe said ofthe typical and sym bolical Body." Eusebius uses the words " image," "symbols" ofthe outward, though consecrated, elements. In explain ing the prophecy of Jacob, he says ', " That ' his eyes are glad with wine,' and ' his teeth whiter than milk,' I think contain secretly the raysteries of the new covenant of our Saviour. That ' his eyes were glad with wine,' seems to me to signify the glad ness from the mystical wine which He gave to His disciples, saying, ' Take, drink, this is My Blood, shed for you for the reraission of sins ; do this in remembrance of Me." And that ' his teeth are whiter than milk,' the brightness and purity of the mysterious food. For again, He Himself delivered the symbols of the Divine dispensation to His own Disciples, bidding them make the image of His own Body. For since He no longer admitted the bloody sacrifices, nor the slaughter of various aniraals, pre scribed in the law of Moses, but ordained that they should use bread as the symbol of His own Body, well did He hint at the brightness and purity of the food by the words, ' his teeth are whiter than milk.' " And again : — " Having received that we ought to '° In S. Matt. T. xi. n. 14 ; see in the passage in the context below. Note N. ' Dera. Evang. viii. 1, fin. p. 380, ed. Col. a type, figure, symbol, image of the inward. 99 celebrate the memory of this sacrifice [that of the Cross] on the table through the symbols of His Body and saving Blood, according to the laws of the new Covenant, we are again instructed by the Prophet David to say, ' Thou hast prepared a table before me, &c. ^ ' " In like way, he uses the word " symbolize" {aWir- Tovrai), "represent in a hidden manner:" — "Our Saviour Jesus, the Christ of God, in the manner of Melchizedek, does yet now too perform through His servants the ofiice of the priesthood among men. For as he, being a priest of the nations, no where appeareth to have used bodily sacrifices, but blessed Abraham with bread and wine alone, in the same manner did our Saviour and Lord Himself first, then all the Priests from Him throughout all nations, performing the spiritual priestly act according to the laws of the Church, symbolize with bread and wine the mysteries both of His Body and saving Blood, Melchizedek having foreseen this by a Divine spirit, and having foreused the images of the things to corae I" Adamantius (about a.d. 320) uses the word "iraage*" ofthe Eucharistic elements. Eustathius, A.D. 325 (quoted in the second Council of Nice as "the stable defender of the Orthodox faith, and destroyer of the Arian frenzy"), " Speak ing by one and the same spirit" [he and S. Basil] = Eus. Dem. Ev. i. 10, p. 39. 3 j^j .y_ 3_ * See above. Note G, p. 83. H 2 100 The outward part ofthe H. Eucharist, called " the . one, Eustathius, explaining the words of Solomon in the Proverbs, ' Eat my bread and drink the wine which I have mingled for you,' says thus, ' by the bread and wine he preaches the types [avTtruTra] of the bodily members of Christ ^ The other (S. Basil) having drawn from the same foun tain (as all know who are partakers of the sacred worship), says to this effect in the prayer of the Divine oblation [after the words of Consecration], ' We approach boldly to the sacred altar, and having placed there the types of the Holy Body and Blood of Thy Christ, we pray and beseech thee I' " The Greek Scholiast, in answer to the statement in the Council that the elements were called types before consecration only, says, " the holy gifts are often found to be called types after consecration, as by Gregory of Nazianzum Theologus in his funeral oration and apology, in Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. Myst. 5, and others '." In the Clementine Constitutions there occur the words, " Moreover ', we thank Thee, our Father, for the Precious Blood of Jesus Christ shed for us, and His Precious Body, whereof also we celebrate these antitypes. Himself commanding us to shew forth His Death ;" and, " offer ' ye the acceptable Eucha rist, the antitype of the Royal Body of Christ, both in your Churches and in the cemeteries ;" and, ' Cone. Nic. ii. Aet. 6, tom. 3, fin. T. viii. p. 1100, ed. Col. ° Ibid. 7 jbid. ' vii. 25. » vi. 30. a type, figure, symbol, image ofthe inward. 101 " when ' He had delivered to us the Mysteries, anti- typical of His precious Body and Blood." S. Cyril of Jerusalem says, " in ^ the type {rvrrafl of bread is given to thee His Body, and in the type [rin-yj of wine His Blood." In the very appeal, not to trust our senses as if they were mere bread and wine, he tells them, " trust ^ not the decision to thy bodily palate [which could only tell us of the earthly and outward part], for when we taste, we are bidden to taste, not bread and wine, but the antitype [avrirvn-ou] of the Body and Blood of Christ." In like way he had called " oil" in confir mation, " the antitype * [avn'ruTrov] of the Holy Ghost," and said that Baptism was " the antitype ' [avriVurrov] of Christ's sufferings." S. Epiphanius speaks of Melchizedek, as prefigur ing by his oblation, the mysteries, which were the antitypes of our Lord, antitypes of His Blood. " When * Abraham was eighty or ninety years old, more or less, then Melchizedek met him, and brought forth bread and wine, prefiguring the mys teries of the Sacraments, the antitypes (avn'ruTra) of our Lord, Who said, 'I am the living Bread;' antitypes {dvArvira), too, of the Blood from His pierced Side, which flowed forth for the purification of those who communicate (/cE/coivw/^ivwv), and for the cleansing and salvation of our souls." ' V. 14. ' Leet. xxii. 3. See Note S, No. 29. ' Leet. xxiii. 20. * I^ect. xxi. 1. » Leet. XX. 6. ' Haer. 55, n. 6, T. i. p. 472. 102 The outward part ofthe H. Eucharist, called S. Ephrem speaks of the Holy Eucharist as " the Image of His Truth, and as shadowing forth Christ," " the Image of Christ," in a very remarkable passage in which he regards it as displacing heathen idola try, and speaks of our Lord as invisibly present " in the Bread." The words are spoken by the Blessed Virgin to our Lord. " In ' Thy visible Form I see Adam, and in Thy hidden Form I see Thy Father, Who is blended with Thee. Hast Thou then shewn me alone Thy Beauty in two Forms? Let Bread shadow forth Thee, and also the mind ; dwell also in Bread and in the eaters thereof. In secret and openly too may Thy Church see Thee, as well as Thy Mother. He that hateth Thy Bread is like to him that hateth Thy Body. He that is far off" that desireth Thy Bread, and he that is near that loveth Thy Image, are alike. In the bread and in the Body, the first and also the last have seen Thee. Yet Thy visible Bread is far more precious than Thy Body ; for Thy Body even unbelievers have seen, but they have not seen Thy living Bread, Lo ! Thy Image is shadowed forth in the blood of the grapes on the bread ; and it is shadowed forth on the heart with the finger of love, with the colours of faith. ' On the Nativ. Rhythm xi. p. 50, 1. Oxf Tr. t. ii. p. 420, Syr. Albertin. Art. Ephrem, p. 450, quotes from the " de natura Dei euriose non scrutanda." " Behold diligently, how, taking in His Hands the bread. He blessed and brake as a figure of His immaculate Body, and the Cup He blessed and gave to His Disciples as a figure o/His Precious Blood." « type, figure, symbol, image ofthe inward. 103 Blessed be He that by the Image of His Truth caused the graven images to pass away." S. Gregory of Nazianzum, relating the miraculous cure of his sister Gorgonia, says, " Whatsoever ' of the antitypes \i. e. types] of the venerable Body or Blood her hand treasured," and even in the fervid appeal to the Magistrate for his people, " I offer ' to thee Christ and His emptying of Himself for us, and the Passion of the Impassible, and the Cross and the Nails, by which I was loosed from sin, and the Blood, and the Burial, and the Resurrection and Ascension, yea and this Table, which we approach in coramon, and the types of my salvation, which I consecrate with the same mouth wherewith I inter cede with thee, the holy Mystery which beareth us on high." Again, in contrast with that unveiled fulness of frui tion in heaven, he says, " We ^ shall partake of the Passover now indeed typically, even though more openly than the old Passover (for that of the law, I ara * Orat. 8, § 18, p. 229, ed. Ben. In Orat. 2, § 95, he uses the same word, ofthe Eucharistic sacrifice, as the type ofthe Sacri fice of the Cross. " I knowing these things, and that he is nowise worthy of the Great God and Sacrifice and Priest, who has not first offered up hiraself a holy living sacrifice to God, nor shewn the reasonable, acceptable service, nor sacrificed to God the sacrifice of praise and a broken heart, which sacrifice alone He who hath given all things demandeth back from us, how eould I dare to offer to Him the visible [sacrifice], the antitype ofthe great Mysteries ? " ' Or. 17, § 12, p. 325. ' Or. 45, § 23, p. 863. 104 The outward part ofthe H. Eucharist, called bold to say, was an obscure type of a type) ; but a little afterward, raore perfectly and purely, when tbe Word drinketh it new with us in the kingdora of the Father, revealing and teaching what He hath shewn in less measures." S. Macarius says of the ancient Fathers, " It ' had not come into their heart, that there shall be a bap tism of fire and of the Holy Ghost, and that in the Church Bread and Wine are offered, an antitype {dvTiTVTrov) of His Flesh and Blood, and that they who partake of the visible* bread spiritually eat the Flesh of the Lord." S. Ambrose, and the author of De Sacramentis who imitated hira, illustrate one another. Both aflftrm the Real Presence, but S. Arabrose speaks of the Body as signified, i.e. by the eleraents ; the other writer speaks of the " oblation " as " a figure of the Body and Blood of our Lord." S. Ambrose says, " Before the blessing of the heavenly words, another substance is naraed, after the consecration the Body is signified." He does not speak here of any change of the eleraents, but he says that, under the outward substance, that is signified which to the believer is his all, the Presence of Christ, of His Body and His Blood. " Before the ^ Hom. 27, p. 164. * ^aivofiivov, translated " visibili " by Joh. Picus. Turrianus interprets it wrongly, " apparent without the substance." See instances from S. Macarius in Suicer, v. ^alvo/iac and in Alber tinus, Art. S. Cyril. Jer. p. 429, 30, and S. Macarius, p. 437. a type, figure, symbol, image of the inward. 105 consecration," he would say, " another substance is spoken of; after it, the Body is signified." He speaks of it as signified, i. e. denoted by the sign. The author of the De Sacramentis, after stating, " Thou ' hast learnt then, that of the bread there becometh the Body of Christ, and that wine and water are put into the Cup ; but it becometh Blood by the consecration of the heavenly Word," still uses the words " likeness " and " figure." " But ® perchance thou sayest, It has not the matter' of blood. But it hath a likeness. For as thou didst receive [in baptism] the likeness of death, so also thou drinkest the likeness of the precious Blood, that so there should be no horror at gore, and yet the price of our redemption should operate. Thou hast learnt then, that what thou receivest is the Body of Christ." " Wouldest ' thou know that it is consecrated by heavenly words? Hear what the words are. The Priest says, ' Make to us this Obla tion availing, valid, reasonable, acceptable, which * is the figure of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus ' iv. 4, § 19. " lb. 20. ' I have so translated " speciem," both on account of its use in S. Ambrose (de Myst. e. iv. § 25), whom this author imitates so closely, as on account of the contrast with " similitudo." Roman Catholics render it "outward appearance." ' iv. 5, § 21. " " Quod figura est Corporis et Sanguinis Domini nostri Jesu Christi." This occupies the same place as the words " ut nobis Corpus et Sanguis fiat dilectissimi FiliiTu Domini Dei nostri Jesu Christi," in the old Roman Missal, Ass. Cod. Lit. iv. p. 160. 106 The outward part ofthe H. Eucharist, called Christ,'" &c. In commenting on this prayer, he says, "Before'" it is consecrated, it is bread; but when the words of Christ are added, it is the Body of Christ ;" and again, " Before the words of Christ, it is a cup full of wine and water ; when the words of Christ have operated, then the Blood of Christ is produced who redeemed the world.' S. Jerome, in his translation of the 2nd Paschal Epistle of S. Theophilus of Alexandria, uses the word " ostenditur " in the same way, of the conse crated elements, as signs of the unseen Presence of our Lord's Body. " For ' he [Origen] says that the Holy Ghost does not operate on things lifeless, nor come to things unendued with reason. In assert ing this, he does not remember that the mystic waters in baptism are consecrated by the coming of the Holy Ghost : and that the Bread of the Lord, whereby the Body of the Saviour is shewn, and which we break to our sanctification, and the Sacred Cup, which are placed upon the Church's altar, are sanctified by the invocation and coming of the Holy Ghost." S. Jerome accepts also without blame the state ment of Jovinian ^, that " the Lord offered not water, but wine, in the type of His Blood." '° lb. § 23. ' Ep. 98, i. 589, ed. VaU. ' Adv, Jovin. ii. 5, ii. 330, ed. Vail. S. Jerome, in his an swer to Jovinian's arguraent, incidentally substitutes the words, " excepting the mystery which He depicted as a type of His Passion " (p. 352), but not as a correction of Jovinian's language. a type, figure, symbol, image ofthe inward. 107 S. Jerome himself uses the word " type " in ex plaining Jerem. xxxi. 12, " They shall flow toge ther to the goodness of the Lord for wheat and for wine and for oil ;" " of which ^" he says, " the bread of the Lord is made, and the type of His Blood is fulfilled," &c. *S'. Gregory of Nyssa : — " But * we,^ — who have learned from the holy voice, that, ' except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God ;' and that ' he that eateth My Flesh, and drinketh My Blood, shall live for ever,' we believe that the mystery of godliness has its validity in the confession of the Holy Names ; I mean of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; and that our salvation is strengthened by participation in the mystical rites and -symbols." S. Augustine uses both the words " figure " and " sign " of the outward elements. " In ' the history of the New Testament, by that so great and so mar vellous patience of our Lord itself, that He bore so long with hira [Judas] as if good, although not igno rant of his thoughts, when He brought him near to that feast in which He commended and delivered to His disciples the figure of His own Body and The argument relates to the ordinary use of wine, not to the mystery of the Holy Eucharist. Either phrase is according to the received usage. ' Ad loe. t. iv. p. 1063, ed. Vail. ' Cont. Eunom. Orat. xi. T. 2, p. 704. ' InPs. 3, §1. 108 The outward part ofthe H. Eucharist, called Blood;" — and, "The^ Lord hesitated not to say, 'This is My Body,' when He gave a sign of His Body." And again, "These' things are therefore called Sacraments, because in them one thing is seen, another understood. What is seen hath a bodily form ^ what is understood hath a spiritual fruit." Again ; " This * Bread [' the Bread Which came down from Heaven '] the manna signified : this Bread the Altar of God doth signify. Those were Sacraments ; in signs they are diverse, in the thing signified they are alike." >S'. Chrysostom says, " For '" if Jesus did not die, " c. Adimant. Man. c. 12, § 3. ' Serm. 272, ad Inf p. 1104. ' " Speciem." Species is used by S. Augustine for the outward visible part, in Joann. Hom. xi. §. 4. p. 168. O. T. "If, then, the figure of the sea imported so much, what must the reality [species] of Baptism import? If what was done in the figure was the means, that the people, being brought over, came to the manna ; what shall Christ make good in the verity of His Bap tism, to His people through Him brought over?" And again, Hom. 26. § 12. p. 408, "'And did all drink the same spiritual drink.' They one thing ; we another ; but other, only in the visi ble object [specie visibili] which, however, should signify this same thing in its spiritual virtue.'' And from this very sermon, " that there may be the visible form [species] of bread, many grains are besprinkled into one.'' Albert, who quotes these (p. 518), adds from Arnob. in Psalm 104, "Rising from the dead, opening His storehouses. He succoureth there a thousand generations perishing with hunger, administering to them not only the kind [speciem] of corn but also of wine and oil." (Bibl. P. viii. 296.) ' Hom. 26 in S. John vi. 50. pp. 407, 408, O. T. '" On S. Matt. xxvi. 26, Hora. 82, § 1, p. 1084, Oxf. Tr. a type, figure, symbol, image of the inward. 109 of what are the rites the symbols ? " and " the " Priest only performs a symbol." PaUadius, a.d. 401, in his Life of S. Chrysostom, uses the word " symbols," where S. Chrysostom has spoken plainly of the "Blood' of Christ." "He^ (Acacius) rushed in shamelessly, like a wolf, parting the crowds with the flashing steel, and entering in, where are the holy waters, to hinder them that were being initiated into the resurrection of the Saviour : and having dashed with effrontery against the dea con, he overset the symbols : but the presbyters and other aged men, he having beaten about the head with clubs, sprinkles the font with blood." He. uses the word, as a received title of the consecrated elements. " Not ^ finding them, he burns with faggots their cells, burning along with them all the Canonical Scriptures, and religious books, and a little boy (as eye-witnesses said), and the symbols of the mysteries." And again : — " They * gave in the accusations, which himself had secretly dictated ; which had nothing true in them, except this, that he recom raended all, after the Communion, to take a little water, or piece of bread, lest involuntarily with the spittle or phlegm, they should spit out ought of the symbol." " Twice. Hom. 2, in 2 Tim. fin. p. 184, O. T. ' Ep. ad Innoc. iii. 519. See below. Note S, No. 61. ' Dial, de Vit. S. Chrys. c. 9, Opp. S. Chrys. xiii. 34; ' Ib. c. 7, p. 23. * lb. e. 8, p. 26. 110 The outward part ofthe H. Eucharist, called The reality both of the Symbols and of the Gift conveyed through them is expressed at once by the Pseudo-Dionysius. '' Vae^ venerakAe symbols, through which Christ is signified and partaken, being placed on the Divine Altar;" and then he has, "in pre sence of the most holy symbols ^" which S. Maximus explains, " The Body ' and Blood." S. Hilary the Deacon ; " As * a type whereof [of the Blood of Christ] we receive the mystical Cup of Blood for the defence of our body and soul." S. Gaudentius uses the same word as Tertullian and S. Augustine, " figura." " The ' toils of the Passion of Christ, both kings (the highest order of Priests), and each of lower degree, following them, whether of the Levitical order [Deacons], or the faithful of the people, we offfer for the well-being of our common life, in the figure of His Body and Blood (in figura Corporis Ejus et Sanguinis)." In harmony with this, he calls the Holy Eucharist "the pledge of our Lord's Presence." If Christ were not present, the Eucharist could be no "pledge of His Presence ;" if there were not something dis tinct, it would not be a pledge. Thus far Bertram says truly, "a' pledge and image are of another thing, i. e. they look not to theraselves but to some- tUv oefiatTjiiwv avixflokojv. De Eccl. Hier. e. 3, § 9. M 10. ' Ad loe. Ib. p. 311. ' In 1 Cor. xi. See the context, Note S, No. 32. ° Serm. xix. Bibl. P. iv. § 75. de Corp. et Sang. Dom. ap. Albert, p. 518. a type, figure, symbol, image ofthe inward. Ill thing else ; for a pledge is of that thing for which it is given." S. Gaudentius says, "This^ (the Holy Eucharist) is truly the hereditary gift of His Testa ment, which on the night when He was delivered to be crucified, He left as a pledge of His Presence." Victor of Antioch, about a.d. 400, uses the word "type," quoting an older Commentator, "Another^ says, that Judas went out before [the mysteries] ; for that the minister of the putting of Christ to death, would not have received the type [tuttov] of the saving Communion." Victor says also of that which our Lord blessed, that He " delivered to them these symbols [of the dispensation of His Passion] to celebrate." S. Cyril of Alexandria. " That * the Communion of the mystical Eucharist is a sort of confession of the Resurrection of Christ, will very readily become clear to any one, by what He Himself said when He accomplished in His own Person the type of the mystery. For having broken the bread," &c. Theodoret, in one and the same context, calls that which we receive, both the symbols of the Lord's Body, and His Body. " After ' His Coming," he says, explaining 1 Cor. xi. 26, " we shall no more need the ' de Pasch. Tr. ii. See raore fully Note S, No. 56. ' In Cramer Cat. in Marc. xiv. 24, p. 422. See more fully Note S, No. 64. * In S. Joh. L. xii. p. 1104, 5. See the context in Note S, No. 66. ' In 1 Cor. ad loe. 112 The outward part ofthe H. Eucharist, called symbols of His Body, when His Body Itself appear eth. Wherefore he saith, ' until He come ;' " and then on v. 27, " That ' he shall be guilty of the Body and Blood,' shews that, as Judas betrayed Him and the Jews insulted Him, so they who receive His all-holy Body in unclean hands, and place It in a defiled mouth, dishonour Him." I have already ^ quoted his words, where he says, " He gave to the symbol the name of the Body," and again, in the 2nd Dialogue ' : " Orth. The mystical symbols offered to God by the priests, whereof are they the symbols ? Eran. Of the Body and Blood of the Lord. Orth. Of that which is indeed a Body or no ? Eran. Of that which is indeed. Orth. If then the Divine mysteries are antitypes of that which is indeed a Body, then now too the Body of the Lord is a body, and is not changed into the nature of the Godhead, but is filled with Divine Glory." And again in the Srd Dialogue ; — " Eran. A Body ' then hath obtained salvation for us. Orth. The Body of no mere man, but of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God. But if this appear to thee small and worthless, how dost thou suppose that its type would be holy and saving? but of that whose type is an object of worship and holy, how could the archetype itself be despicable and mean ? " " p. 87. ' p. 125, ed. Seh. ' Dial. iii. Irapat. T. iv. p. 191. a type, figure, symbol, image of the inward. 113 And again: — "And' when He delivered the Divine mysteries, and had broken and distributed the symbol. He subjoined, ' This is My Body.' " And, " The ' Church offers the symbols of His Body and Blood, sanctifying the whole lump through the first fruits." Pope Gelasius \ when he states that the elements " abide in their own proper nature," spea.ks also of " the image and likeness of the Body and Blood of Christ in the action of the mysteries." Procopius, A. D. 520, says, " No ' longer admitting the bloody sacrifices of the law, He gave to His disciples the image, or efiligy, or type of His Body." Eutychius (a. d. 553), while asserting that our Lord gave Himself to His disciples in the Last Supper states carefully (for he does it more than once) that He did so in the " type " of bread. " He * sacrificed Himself then raysticaUy, when, after supper, having taken the bread in His own Hands, having blessed, He presented [avk^Hit] and brake it, having mixed Hiraself in the antitype [ek/x/^oc iavrov rJJ ayririin-y]. In like manner also, having mingled and blessed the cup of the fruit of the vine, and presented it to God the Father, He said, ' Take ye, eat ye,' and ' Take ye, drink ye,' 'This is My Body,' and 'This is My ^ Ep. 145 ad Mon. Constant, p. 1251, ed. Sch. ' In Ps. 109 (no) 4, i. 1397, ed. Sch. ^ See above, p. 88. ' In Gen. 49, p. 206. * In Lue. ap. Mai Auctt. Class, x. 490, 1. I 114 The outward part ofthe H. Eucharist, called Blood.' So then every one receiveth whole the holy Body and the precious Blood of the Lord, although he only receive a portion of them. For He is divided indivisibly in all, on account of the immingling {inm^iv']. As also one seal iraparts to the things which receive it, all its irapressions [ek- TvttwfxaTu'] and forms, and itself remains one, and even after the imparting is neither lessened nor changed toward the things which share it, although they be many : or as one voice, sent forth by any one and poured into the air, both remains whole in him who sent it forth, and, when in the air is wholly laid up [ivavtAQri] in the hearing of all, none of those hear ing receiving more or less than the other, but it is whole, indivisible, and entire with all, although those hearing be ten thousand or more ; and yet it is a body, for a voice is nothing else than stricken air. Let none then doubt that the Body and Blood of the Lord, incorruptible after the raystical Conse cration and the holy Resurrection, and iraraortal and holy and life-giving, inserted in the antitypes [roic avTiTVTToiQ £vri0£(U£voi'] through the consecration, impresses thereon [kva7rofx6pyvvaQai~\ its own powers, any less than in the aforesaid examples ; but is found whole in the whole of them. For in the Lord's Body Itself ' dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead,' of God the Word ' bodily,' i. e. essentially." Andreas Cretensis, a. d. 635, unites the words "symbols" and "antitypes," meaning by "symbols" the sacred elements, imaging the sacrifice of the a type, figure, symbol, image ofthe inward. 115 Cross. " If then to-day, going to meet Christ, we submit ourselves to Him, we too shall be able to receive Him wholly in ourselves, continually immo lated unimmolated for us {for He is immolated in the symbols antitypal, sacrificed for us), and we may bring Him under our roof substantially, being eaten as bread, conceived as a lamb ' ;" and "make '^ thy heart the upper room furnished, that thou mayest receive Christ with thee to eat that supper ; not that of Lazarus, but the mystical, which expresseth in a type the image \kKTvirovv rrjv eikovo] of that spiritual sacrifice." The 338 Bishops of the Council of Constantinople (a. d. 754) alleged (as is well known) that " the ' true image" [ei/cwv] of our Lord is the Holy Eucharist, " which He Himself, our High Priest and God, having taken our substance wholly, did, at the time of His voluntary passion, deliver as a most evident type and memorial to Flis disciples. For when He was about to give Himself up voluntarily to that His memorable and life-giving Death, having taken Bread, He blessed, and having given thanks. He brake, and distributing, said, ' Take, eat, for the re mission of sins. This is My Body.' In like way, having distributed the Cup also. He said, 'This is ' In Ramos Palm. p. 81. ° lb. p. 90. ' Quoted in the Concil. Nic. 2, which rejected it, Aet. 6. T. viii. p. 1097, ed. Col. It is said in the answer, p. 1100, that some of the Fathers used the word types, but before con secration; which is confessedly an entire mistake. I 2 116 The outward part ofthe H. Eucharist, called My Blood ; do this in remembrance of Me ;' as though no other form or type [eiSouc ^ tvttou] had been chosen by Him under Heaven, which could image \_iiKoviaai] His Incarnation. . . So then this is the Image of His Life-giving Body, forraed pre ciously and honourably. For what did the all-wise God purpose in this? No other than to show and delineate plainly to us men the mystery worked in His dispensation, that as what He took of us was matter only of human substance, altogether perfect, not expressing any distinct person, lest there should be an addition of a Person in the Godhead, so also He ordained that the image, chosen matter, viz. the substance of bread, should be offered, not figuring the form of man, lest idolatry should be introduced. As then the natural Body of Christ is holy, as being deified, so it is plain that that which is by institution His Body, i.e. His Image (ei/cwv), is holy, as being deified by the grace of a certain sanctification. For this, as we said, the Lord Christ provided, that as He deified the flesh which He took, by a holiness belonging to It by Nature, from its very union, so also He was pleased that the Bread of the Eucharist, as being no untrue image of His natural Flesh, being sanctified by the descent of the Holy Ghost, should become a Divine Body, with the intervention of the Priest, who makes the oblation, transferring what is common to what is holy. But the rational Flesh of the Lord, having a soul and mind, was anointed by the Holy Ghost with the Godhead, In like way. a type, figure, symbol, image ofthe inward. 117 too, the God-given image of His Flesh, the Divine Bread, was filled with the Holy Ghost, together with the Cup of the Life-giving Blood of His Side. This, then, is shewn to be no untrue image of the Incarnation of Christ our God, as aforesaid, which He Hiraself, the true Quickener and Maker of nature, delivered with His own Voice'." It is reraarkable that a defender of iraage wor ship, Stephanus Stylites, still allows the same title of Antitype, upon which the Council of Bishops had raised their argument. He addresses the Emperor Constantine, "Wilt' thou also proscribe from the Church the antitypes of the Body and Blood of Christ, as having an image dM^L true figure of them ? " In the Western Church the same language is used, down to Bede, as faithfully imitating S. Augus tine. " The ' solemnities of the old passover being ended, which were observed in memory of the ancient deliverance out of Egypt, He passed over to the new, which the Church longeth to solemnize in memory of her redemption ; that is to say, that He, giving in place of the flesh and blood of the lamb the Sacrament of His own Flesh and Blood in the figure of bread and wine, might show that He it is to Whora ' the Lord sware and will not repent ; ' In Concil. Nic. 2, Aet. 6, Tom. iii. ; Cone. viii. 1096-8, ed. Col. " Vit. Steph. ap. Surium. Nov. 28, e. 36, quoted by Alber tin. p. 913. ' InS. Luc. xxii. p. 331, ed. Gil. 118 The outward part ofthe H. Eucharist, S^c. Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of Mel chizedek.' But Himself breaketh the bread which He giveth, that He may show that the breaking of His Body would not be without His own free-will." In the same general sense of a real substance shadowing what is unseen, I doubt not, the word " antitype" is to be taken, in the author of the Homily on our Lord's Resurrection, formerly ascribed to S. Epiphanius. " Be ^ ye renewed this day, and renew ye a right spirit in your hearts, that ye may receive the mysteries of the new and true feast, and that ye may enjoy this day that indeed Heavenly delight, and may depart having been enlightened with the antitypal ra'^steries {nvarvpia avTiTvira), which was not old, of the new Passover instead ofthe old." The word must here be used ofthe Sacrament of Baptism^ but its meaning is still " a type corresponding to the invisible grace typified by it." The word, I doubt not, is not here used in our sense of antitype, " the substance corresponding to the type." The contrast between " the old and the new Passover" has been already expressed ; the antitype, then, I cannot doubt, expresses something further, the relation of the outward part of the Sacraraent to the inward unseen grace. ' Opp. S. Epiph. ii. 278. ' On account ofthe word " enlightened." Coal of Isaiah. 119 NOTE K. On p. 28. The coal in Isaiah's vision a type ofthe outward and inward part ofthe Holy Eucharist. The characteristic of the coal in Isaiah's vision ', as a type of the Holy Eucharist, is that there is a bodily substance, whose virtue and power come wholly from that within, which penetrates and fills it. It is employed as a type also of the Divine and Human Nature of our Lord. For His Human Nature would have been the nature of a mere man, unless it had been hypostatically united with the Godhead. The point of comparison is not the union, but the Pre sence of that which is higher within that which is inferior, through which that which is higher operates and is eifective. Our Lord worked that for which He became Man, through His Manhood, His Person being Divine. S. Cyril of Alexandria notices this characteristic of the comparison, although he applies it only to the Divine and Human Natures of our Lord. "As^ the coal is wood by nature, but is wholly, throughout its whole self, filled with fire and hath its power and eflScacy, in like way, I conceive, may our Lord Jesus Christ be rightly thought of. For the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us. But even though, according to the dispensation, 1 Is. vi. 6. ' Ad loe. ii. 107, 108. 130 Coal in Isaiah's vision said to be type of He was seen as Man among us, yet the whole fulness of the Godhead dwelt in Him, in the way of union. In this way He is seen to have had, through His own Flesh also, the most Divine powers of ope ration '. Thus He touched the bier, and raised the dead son of the widow. And having spat. He gave sight to the blind, anointing the eyes with clay." In his treatise against Nestorius, he places pro minently the same symbol, how although the God head and Manhood in our Lord, are, by nature, essentially different, yet of both is One Christ, the Godhead and Manhood meeting together by a true union. But in this very comparison, although writing against Nestorius, he guards against opposite heresy, insisting that the inferior substance, although penetrated and influenced by the higher, still re mained. " But ¦* He is likened to a coal, because He is understood to be of two unlike substances, which, however, so come together as to be in truth all but bound together in oneness. For fire, having entered into wood, transelements it after a fashion into its own glory and power, albeit retaining what it was." The Fathers, then, were familiar with the thought that the coal was a symbol of the union of two unlike substances, as unlike as the Godhead and the Manhood joined together by an union, whether Personal as relates to our Lord's Divine and Huraan deoTrpcTrtoTciTag rat Evcpyttng. £iC otKetay avro fiETauTOixiti Tpoirov rivU l6i,av te Kal Bviafiii: Adv. Nest. 1. 2, vi. 32. outward and inward part of Holy Eucharist. 121 Natures, or Sacramental, but the lower nature also reraaining in its natural substance and identity. "Araong the Syriac titles of the Eucharistic bread (Assemani ^ says), the most celebrated is qmurto, which signifies ' coal.' " " The coal ^" says S. Jaraes of Sarug, " is a type of the Body of the Son of God. There was shown to him an image of what was to be on the earth, how the mercies should dawn, which should cleanse all sinners. Of the pearl which is here laid on the table, the coal which the Seraph gave to Isaiah was a figure. The prophet saw the whole type of things to come, bow and by Whom the guilt of the world is purged. The Seraph took It not in his hands, that he might not burn ; and the Prophet received It not in his mouth, that he raight not perish. He took not, and he ate not that Glory. Because It was incorporeal. It was neither handled, nor eaten. Because this Coal was seen in a bodily form, lo ! It is eaten from the table of the Deity." S. Ephrem not only directly speaks of the living coal as a type, but that type is the groundwork of the expression by which he so commonly designates the Real Presence, as " Fire in the bread," " in the wine," "in the cup." By both he designates an inward spiritual Presence, beneath an outward substantial form. In the following passage he combines both ; ' Bibl. Or. i. 79. ' Inserted in the Syriac of S. Ephrem, ad loe. ii. 30. 122 Coal in Isaiah's vision said to be type of "In'' Thy visible vesture tbere dwelleth an hidden power. A little spittle from Thy mouth became also a great miracle of light in the midst of its clay. In Thy Bread is hidden the Spirit that cannot be eaten ; in Thy Wine there dwelleth the Fire that cannot be drunk. Thy Spirit in Thy Bread and the Fire in Thy Cup are distinct miracles, which our lips receive. When the Lord came down to the earth unto mortal men. He created them a new creation, as in the Angels He mingled Fire and the Spirit, that they might be of Fire and Spirit in a hidden manner. The Seraph did not bring the living coal near with his fingers ; it did not come close up to Isaiah's mouth ; he did not himself lay hold of it or eat it; but unto us the Lord hath given both of them. To the Angels which are spiritual, Abraham brought bodily food, and they ate. A new miracle it is, that our raighty Lord giveth to bodily creatures Fire and the Spirit, as food and drink. Fire came down upon sinners in wrath, and consumed them. The Fire of the Merciful in bread cometh down and abideth. Instead of that fire wbich devoured men, ye eat a Fire in bread, and are quickened. As fire came down on the sacrifice of Elijah and consumed it, the Fire of Mercy hath become to us a Living Sacrifice. Fire ate up the oblations, and we, 0 Lord, have eaten Thy Fire in Thine oblation. " ' Who hath taken the Spirit in the hollow of ' Adv. Scrut. Rhythm 10, § 3. 5. 7, pp. 146, 147, Oxf. Tr. T. iii. p. 23, Syr. outward and inward part of Holy Eucharist. 123 his hand ?' Come and see, O Solomon, what the Lord of thy father has done ! Fire and Spirit against its nature. He hath mingled, and hath poured them into the hollow of the hands of His disciples. 'Who hath bound the waters in a garment?' he asked. Lo the fountain is in a garment, the skirts of Mary. From the Cup of life, the distilling of life, within the veil, do Thine handmaids take. "Oh Might, hidden in the veil of the Sanctuary, Might which the mind never grasped. It hath His Love brought down ; and It descended and lighted upon the veil of the altar of propitiation. Lo ! Fire and Spirit in the bosom of her that bare Thee ! Lo ! Fire and Spirit in that river wherein Thou wert baptized ; Fire and Spirit in our baptism ! In the Bread and the Cup is Fire and the Holy Ghost. Thy Bread hath killed the greedy one who made us his bread ; Thy Cup destroyeth death which swal lowed us up. We have eaten Thee, O Lord, yea, we have drunken Thee, not that we shall make Thee fail, but that we might have life in Thee." S. Ephrem interprets in the same way the coals of fire, in Ezekiel's vision, which the Cherub took and scattered over the city : — " Those ' ' coals,' again, and the man clothed in linen, who bringeth them forth and scattereth thera upon the people, are a type of the priest of God, through whom the living coals of the life-giving ' On Ezek. X. 2, T. ii. p. 175. 124 Coal in Isaiah's vision said to be type of Body of our Lord are given. But this, that another Cherub stretched out and placed them in his hand, this is a type that it is not the priest who can of bread make the Body, but Another, who is the Holy Spirit." To give another instance of the mention of fire as a symbol of the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, " Thy " garment, seeing that it was the covering of Thy Human Nature, and Thy Body, seeing that It was the covering of Thy Divine Nature, coverings twain they were to Thee, Lord, the garment and the Body, that Bread, the Bread of life. Who would not marvel at Thy changes of garment ? Lo ! the Body covers Thy glorious fear ful brightness; the garraent covered Thy feebler nature ; the bread covereth the Fire which dwells therein" Hence, also, in one of the many places in which he speaks of the Holy Eucharist, often and holily received in life, as a safeguard in death, he speaks of It as a Fire within us quenching the fire of hell. " Lo ! Gehenna "" looks to torment me, and yet Thy life-giving Body was mingled in me. I ara clothed with the garment of the Holy Ghost, that I may not burn. When the stream of fire roareth for ven geance, may a fire from me extinguish it, when the smell of Thy Body and Blood striketh it." S. Chrysostom compares the Holy Eucharist both " Rhythm 19, init. p. I70, O. T. iii. 35, Syr. '" Parsenes. 23, T. iii. 458. outward and inward part of Holy Eucharist. 125 with the coal in Isaiah's vision, and with fire, in the same way as S. Ephrem ; and the use of the image is too extensive both in Greek and Syriac, to allow ofthe supposition that it either originated with S. Ephrem, or was simply borrowed from him by S. Chrysostom. S. Chrysostora, in his Commentary ', simply mentions the interpretation as that of others, himself keeping to the letter. " Some say that these things, the Altar, the Fire placed upon it, the ministering power, the being placed in the mouth, the cleansing of sins, are symbols of the Mysteries to come. But we, for the present, keep to the history, &c." He hiraself expands it in his Homilies on the passage of Isaiah : — "The ^ Seraphim cried the one to the other. Holy, holy, holy ! Recognise ye this voice ? Is it ours, or the Seraphim's ? Both ours and the 'Seraphim's through ' Christ, Who took away the middle wall of partition, and reconciled the things in heaven and the things on the earth, even through Him Who made both one.' For before [His Incarnation] this hymn was sung in heaven alone ; but since our Lord hath deigned to tread on the eartb, He hath brought down this melody to us. Wherefore also this Great High Priest, when He standeth by this holy table, presenting the spiritual service, and offer ing the unbloody sacrifice, doth not only invite us to this holy minstrelsy, but having first spoken of ' Ad loe. § 4, T. vi. p. 69. '' In illud Vidi Dom. Hom. 5, § 3, T. vi. p. 141. 1 26 Coal in Isaiah's vision said to be type of the Cherubim, and brought before our minds the Seraphim, He so exhorts us to send up those most awful words ; bearing up our minds from earth through memory of these our fellow-choristers, and almost saying to each of us, with piercing voice, ' With the Seraphim thou singest, with the Sera phim take thy stand ; with them stretch thy wings ; with them fly circling round the Royal throne.' And what marvel, if thou standest with the Se raphim, since those things which the Seraphim dared not touch, these God hath given thee with all confidence ! For he saith : ' There was sent to me one of the Seraphim, having a coal of fire, which he took with the tongs from the altar.' That altar is an image and likeness of the altar ; that fire, of this spiritual fire : but the Seraphim dared not touch it with the hand, but with the tongs, but thou re ceivest It in the hand. Were you indeed to regard the dignity of what is there placed (rdiv ¦ir^oKunivii)v), it is far too great even for the touch of the Se raphim." From this same likeness, he speaks both of the Table as " full ' of spiritual fire," of the Holy Eucha rist as " making our mind gleam more than fire ;" of our returning from the Altar as " lions breathing fire." The writer of a Homily on Repentance * follows the glowing language of S. Chrysostom, « Where- ' See Note S, No. 61, S. Chrysostora. ' Hom. 9, De Poenit. ap. S. Chrys. ii. 350. outward and inward part of Holy Eucharist. 127 fore also, when ye approach, think not that ye receive the Divine Body as from man ; but as from the Seraphim themselves, with the tongs of fire which Isaiah saw, think that ye receive the Divine Body; and as touching with the lips the Divine and Unpolluted Side, so let us receive the Saving Blood." He follows S. Chrysostora also in the image of "spiritual fire." " When ' the mystical table is pre pared, the Lamb of God slain for thee, the priests labouring for thee, spiritual fire bursting from the Undefiled Side, the Cherubim standing by, the Se raphim flying, the six-winged covering their faces, all the incorporeal powers, with the priest, praying for thee, the spiritual fire coming down, the Blood in the Cup for thy cleansing, emptied frora the Unde filed Side, fearest thou not, art thou not ashamed, at that fearful hour too, to be found a liar ? " Theodoret says briefly, " The Seraphim ^ although having his name derived from fire, and accounted worthy of Divine ministry, not with bare hand, but with the tongs [XajSiSt], took the live coal, and having placed it on the mouth of the prophet, he indicated to him the remission of sin. But by these things is moreover described and fore-typified the participation of our blessings, the remission of sins through the Body and Blood of the Lord." = lb. p. 349. ° Ad loe. T. ii. p. 210, ed. Sch. 128 Coal in Isaiah's vision said to be type of " Both ' Greeks and Copts have a sacred vessel which they call ky'ia \a(3iQ, as being a type of the forceps, wherewith the Seraph took the coal from the altar and touched Isaiah's lips. For they call Christ a living Coal, full of the power of Divinity." Another Syriac commentator says, — " The ' coal which Isaiah saw, what does it pourtray? Isaiah saw in his mind the Divine revelation to come, and pictured it to himself in his thought, the Divine Nature and the Only Begotten Word, the Living immaterial Fire. But that it was with the forceps, is, that by the union with the Body, God the Word was apprehended and received. But that it was ap proached to the lips of the Prophet, this was, that He was united to our nature, and also becarae a hallowing food of our souls. The altar figured that which was to be, whereon was mystically ministered the mystery of the Body and Holy Blood, and the Seraphim was a type of the consecrating priest." Mention is also made of this type in a prayer of the consecrating priest in the Liturgy of S. James, — " The ' Lord bless us and make us worthy to take with the pure ' tongs' of our hands the fiery Coal, and to place it on the mouths of the faithful, for the cleansing and purifying of their souls and bodies, now and ever." And more at length in the Liturgy of S. Cyril, — ' Renaudot. i. 195, ad Lit. Copt. S. Basil. ' Ad loe. ap. S. Ephr. ii. 31. ° Ass. Cod. Lit. T. v. p. 56. outward and inward part of Holy Eucharist. 129 " As ' Thou didst cleanse the lips of Thy servant Isaiah the Prophet, when one of the Seraphim took with the forceps a live coal off the altar, and came to him, and said to him, ' Behold this hath touched thy lips, and thine iniquity shall be taken away, and all thy sins purged,' so also do to us poor sinners. Thy wretched servants. Vouchsafe to sanctify our souls, our bodies, our lips and hearts ; and give us that true Coal, which giveth life to our souls, bodies, and spirits, that is, the holy Body and precious Blood of Thy Christ ; not to our condemnation, nor that we should incur judgment." Renaudot says generally, " That coal also whereby in the vision the lips of Isaiah were touched and purified, is commonly said, in the prayers of the Easterns, to have been a type of the Eucharist ; and it is often said in their hymns which are sung at the distribution, that mortals receive fire in bread through the communion of the mysteries ^" The same interpretation occurs in the Qusestt. et responss. ad Orthod. (probably at the beginning of the fifth century). " Through ^ the vision according to the Prophet Isaiah, He showed tbe ' mystery of Christ, sitting on the throne of glory, and through the eating of His Holy Flesh, cleansing the sins of men [once] ungodly, who in the whole earth glorify the Holy and Coequal Trinity for the greatness of ' Renaudot. i. 49, 50. See also the Coptic, Ib. 54. ' Ib. i. p. 325. ' Resp. 44, ap. S. Justin M. App. pp. 457, 458. K 130 Coal in Isaiah's vision type of twofold nature of Eucharist. the Divine gifts; in Whose Name being baptized they were justified, receiving the hope of the participation of the heavenly and eternal goods. For the coal which the Prophet saw brought to his unclean lips, for the purifying of iniquities and sins, indicated the Flesh of the Lord, cleansing frora all ungodliness the conscience of those who eat Him." And later, even in John Damascene, — " Where fore * with all fear and a pure conscience and un wavering faith, let us approach ; and it shall be to us in every respect, according as we beHeve, nothing doubting. Let us honour it with all purity, both of soul and body. For it is twofold. Let us approach it with a burning desire, and placing our hands in the form of a cross, let us receive the Body of the Crucified ; and having signed eyes and lips and brow, let us receive the Divine Coal, that the fire of our longing, having received the enkindling ofthe Coal, may consume our sins, and enlighten our hearts, and that by the presence of that Divine fire, we may be enkindled and deified. Isaiah saw the coal ; but coal is not mere wood, but wood united with fire ; so, too, the bread of the communion is not mere bread, but united to the Divinity. But the Body being united with the Divinity, there is not one nature ; but that of the Body is one, that of the Divinity united with It is another ; so that they both are not one nature, but two." * De Fide, iv. 13, pp. 271, 272. In, under, with, the bread and wine. 131 And later yet, Euthymius, " Isaiah ' saw the Coal. But a coal is not simply wood, but wood ignited in the fire. It enlightens the worthy; it burns the un worthy, according to the twofold energy of fire. It burns by punishing and consuming." NOTE L. On p. 40. On the terms, " in, under, with, the bread and wine," as used by the Fathers. The term "in," as used by the Fathers, does not express any " local " inclusion of the Body and Blood of Christ; it denotes their presence there after the manner of a Sacrament. Gerhard observes that Holy Scripture says "Christ dwells in our hearts by faith," Eph. iii. 17. " God walketh in us," 2 Cor. vi. 16. " The Holy Spirit dwelleth in us," 1 Cor. xiii. 16. Holy Scripture does hereby tell us, that Father, Son, and Holy' Ghost actually dwell in us. It does not, of course, imply local inclusion, nor any personal union with us, as our Lord, God and Man, was One Divine Person. Again, in some way, the Holy Ghost descended at our Lord's Baptism "in a bodily shape, like a dove," but there was no local inclusion of God the Holy Ghost in that bodily form. These are instances of the presence of God, as God. Yet the Presence of our Lord's Body and On S. Matt. xxvi. 26, p. 1015, ed. Matth. k2 132 In, under, with, the bread and wine Blood in the Holy Eucharist is in a supernatural. Divine, ineffable way, not subject to the laws of natural bodies. The word in, like the word of our Book of Homilies, "under the form of Bread aud Wine," only expresses a real Presence under that outward veil. But the term does imply the existence of the elements, in which the Body and Blood of our Lord are said to be. Passages from Tertullian, from *S'. Ephrem^ re peatedly, from S. Augustine, S. James of Sarug, have already been given in the Sermon itself. In like way also S. Cyril of Jerusalem says, " In the type of bread is given to thee His Body, and in the type of wine His Blood." S. Augustine says again, " Receive ye that m the Bread, which hung on the Cross; receive ye that in the Cup which flowed from the Side." S. Augustine again, as quoted in the ' Sen tences of Prosper,' " We drink His Blood under the form and flavour of wine." S. Cyril of Alexandria, "In the life-giving Eucharist, we receive in bread and wine His Holy Flesh and precious Blood V And Theophylact, "In the Flesh and Blood of Christ the human mind receiveth nothing bloody, nothing corruptible, but a life-giving and saving sub stance in the bread and wine." S. Hilary says, " We truly receive the Word made flesh through the See these more at large in the context, above, Note K, pp. 119—131. Ep. ad Calosyr. Opp. vi. 365. used by the Fathers, as under in the homilies. 133 Food of the Lord " (vere verbum carnem factum cibo Dominico sumimus), " we receive truly under the mystery the flesh of His own Body ;" and speaks of "the flesh to be comraunicated to us under the Sacrament." Tertullian again : " He ' consecrated His Blood in wine." S. Epiphanius says, " The * Bread indeed is food ; but the might in it is for giving of life." The " Cup," in tbe Fathers is altogether equiva lent to the eleraent of " wine," so that the " Cup" stands for the one element as much as the Bread for the other. It is in the same sense that S. Chrysos- tome says, " This ^ which is iti the Cup is that which flowed from the Side, and thereof do we partake ;" and " the Blood in the Cup is drawn for thy cleans ing from the undefiled Side ;" and S. Cyprian *, — "Nor can His Blood whereby we have been re deeraed and quickened, appear to be in the Cup, when the Cup is without that wine, whereby the Blood of Christ is set forth, as is declared by the mystical raeaning and testimony of all the Scrip tures." Bede, following S. Augustine, says, " The ' poor, i.e. those who despise the world, shall eat really, if this be referred to the Sacraments, and shall ' Adv. Marc. iv. 40, fin. ' ExpdS. Fid. c. 16 init. See Note N. ' In 1 Cor. 10, Hom. 2-1. § 3, p. 326, O. T. ' Ep. 63, ad Csecil. § 1, p. 182, O. T. ' In Ps. 21, quoted by Albert, p. 910. 134 The Fathers understood " / will drinlc be satisfied eternally, because in the bread and wine visibly set before them, they shall understand another invisible thing, i.e. the very Body and Blood, which are true meat and drink, wherewith not the belly is distended, but the mind is enriched." The same is expressed in a different idiom by Isychius. "That* mystery is at once Bread and Flesh." Some old Scholia on S. Matthew eraploy " through" in the same sense. " After ^ eating the Passover of the law, i. e. the lamb. He then delivers the Passover of grace through the bread (Sia tov aprov)." NOTE M. On p. 41. Our Lord's words, " I will drink no more of this fruit ofthe vine,'' were taken bythe Fathers, from the first, to mean literally wine. OuE Lord's words, " until I drink it new," were taken frora tbe first in their literal sense, since they were, S. Jerome says, the groundwork of the belief that wine should be drunk, whether sacramentally or car nally, in the Millennium. " From ' this place some ° In Lev. c. 8. The above passages are mostly quoted by Gerhard de S. Coena, c. x. p. 76. ' Scholl. Vett. in Matth. 26, 27, in Maii Auctt. Class, vi. 483. ' Epist. 120, ad Hedib. q. 2, i. 817, ed. Vail. no more of this fruit ofthe vine," of real wine. 135 build a fable of 1000 years, in which they contend that Christ shall reign in the body, and shall drink wine, which from that tirae unto the consummation of tbe world He had not drunk." Among these Millenarians he counts in different places " many '^ of the ancients," " many of our people," and, in his own tirae, " a very great multitude." Especially he names Papias, Tertullian, Victorinus (whom he praises highly), Lactantius, Severus, Nepos (whom S. Dionysius of Alexandria much reverenced^), and these as eminent only among others *. Both S. Justin Martyr * and S. Irenseus " bear witness to its being a very prevailing doctrine. Eusebius says that it had been embraced by "far the greatest number of Church- writers '." I have shown elsewhere ' that S. Jerome is historically wrong in attributing to S. Irenseus and Tertullian, and probably to Nepos, the doctrine of a carnal Millennium. But S. Justin and S. Irenseus do, as he says, look upon a literal eating and drinking as a fulfilment of our Lord's words. S. Justin says, " He ^ said that He should come again ^ " Multorum veterum," Prsef. L. 18, in Is. " Multi nos trorum," in Ezek. 36, init. " Plurima multitudo," Id. in Is. 1. c. ' In Euseb. H. E. vii. 24. * On Ezek. 1. c. he says, " Of the Greeks, to join the first and last, Irenseus and Apollinarius." He omits S. Justin and, seemingly, S. Melito. ' Dial. §80. ' V. 31, 4.35. 1. ' irXriv KOA. To'iQ jUET aiiTOV [Papias] irXtitTTOiq oaoiQ riov eKicXri- aiaariKbiv. H. E. iii. 39. ' Note D, on Tertullian, pp. 120, sqq. Oxf. Tr. ' Dial. § 51. See further on Tert., Note D, p. 124. 136 The Fathers understood " / will drink to Jerusalem, and there again eat and drink with the disciples." S. Irenseus, " He ' promised to drink of the fruit of the vine with His disciples, showing forth both the inheritance of the earth, in which the new fruit of the vine is drunk, and the resurrection of His disciples in the flesh. For the new fiesh which rises is the same as that which receiveth the new cup. For not above, in the place above the heavens, can He be understood as drinking the fruit of the vine with His disciples ; nor, again, are they without flesh who drink it ; for the drink which is received from the vine belongs to the flesh, not to the spirit." I cannot doubt that those Fathers meant, not ordinary, but Eucharistic, eating and drinking ^ yet still they meant such Eucharistic eating, as implied the reception of the natural sub stances of bread and wine. And so S. Clement of Alexandria appeals to the passage as well as to the words of consecration, in proof that wine raay be used, because our Lord used it. " How ' think ye that our Lord drank, when for us He became Man ? For know well, He too par took of wine ; for He too was Man. And He blessed the wine, saying, ' Take ye, drink, this is ' V. 33, 1. ' Tert., Note D, p. 122. This is mueh confirmed by the dis covery of the Clavis of Melito, who interprets in an Eucharistic sense, symbols used by S. Papias (see Spicileg. Solesmens. pp. V. vi.). " Paedag. ii. 2, i. 186, ed. Pott. no more of this fruit of the vine," of real wine. 137 My Blood,' [being] blood * of the grape. He alle- gorically speaks of the Word, who was poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins, the holy Fount of joy. But that what was blessed was wine. He showed again, saying to the disciples, 'I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, &c.' But that what was drunk by the Lord was wine. He Himself says of Himself, upbraiding the Jews with hardness of heart" (quoting S. Luke, vii. 34). S. Cyprian employs the passage in proof that wine must be used at the celebration, and as proving that that was wine which He calls His Blood, teaching, as our Church teaches after him, that it is both. "Wherein^ we find that the Cup which the Lord offered was mixed, and that that was wine which He called His Blood. Whence it is apparent that the Blood of Christ is not offered, if there is no wine in the Cup ; nor the sacrifice of the Lord celebrated by a legitiraate consecration, unless our oblation and sacrifice corresponds with His Passion. But how shall we drink new wine of the fruit of the vine with Christ in the kingdom of the Father, if in the sacri fice of God the Father and of Christ, we do not offer wine, nor mingle the Cup of the Lord accord ing to the Lord's institution?" S. Hilary speaks of it as the Consecrated Cup, and yet by its natural name. " Nor * could he * S. Clement adopts this construction to avoid separating our Lord's words, else it is " This" blood of the grape " is My Blood." ' i. e. in this passage. Ep. 63, § 6, p. 186, Oxf. Tr. ° Ad loe. cap. 30, p. 740. 138 The Fathers understood " I vnll drink [Judas] drink with the Lord, who was not to drink in the kingdom, whereas He promised that all who then drank of that fruit of the vine should drink with Him afterwards." S. Chrysostom regards our Lord's words, both as referring to the proof which He afterwards vouchsafed to give, that He arose in a real Body and as establishing the use of wine in the Holy Eucharist. " Wherefore ^ did He drink, after He was risen again ? Lest the grosser sort raight suppose that the Resurrection was an appearance. For the common sort made this an infallible test of His having risen again. Wherefore also the Apos tles, too, persuading them concerning the Resur rection, say this, ' We who did eat and drink wiih Him.' (Acts x. 41.) To show therefore that they should see Him manifestly risen again, and that He should be with them once more, and that they themselves should be witnesses to the thingsthat are done, both by sight and by act. He saith, ' Until 1 drink it new with you, you bearing witness.' And wherefore did He not drink water, after He was risen again, but wine ? To pluck up by the roots another wicked heresy. For since there are certain who use water in the mysteries ; to show that both when He delivered the mysteries He had given wine, and that when He had risen and was setting before them a mere meal without mysteries. He used wine, ' Of the fruit,' He saith, ' of the vine '. But a vine produces wine, not water." S. Victor of Antioch supposes in like way that ' Hom. 82, p. 10S5, Oxf. Tr. no more of this fruit ofthe vine," of real wine. 139 our Lord refers to this proof of His Resurrection. " For ^" he subjoins, " He was about to rise again, and, having risen, to eat and drink with the disci ples; so that a greater and truer belief in the Resurrection might be implanted in them. For He called the Resurrection ' the kingdom of God ' the Father, because from it the kingdom came, and the participation of it to other men. When He said then, ' I will not drink, &c. until,' He pointed out, not the Resurrection only, but the nearness of the Passion, in that He should not have time any more to partake with them of food and drink — 'Until I shall drink it new,' with you attesting. For ye shall see Me, when risen. But what means ' new ? ' Unused, in that He had a body not liable to suffering, but immortal and incorruptible and not .needing nourishment." S. Epiphanius adduces the words against the Encratites, as clearly ' convicting them for not using wine in the Mysteries. S. Augustine says on them, that our Lord, " through ' the Sacrament of wine, commends [to us] His Blood." S. Eucherius, " The ^ kingdom of God, as the learned interpret, is the Church, in whicb, daily, Christ, through His saints, drinketh His own Blood, as the Head in His mera bers." Juvencus ^ interprets it like S. Chrysostora, « In Cat. ad Mare. 14. 26, p. 314. ' Hser. 47, § 3. ' Quaestt. Evang. L. i. q. 43. ' Quaestt. N. T. ad Matt. 26, 29. Bibl. Pat. vi. 848. ' L. 4. Bibl. Pat. iv. 75. 140 The words " the fruit of the wine " signify real wine. of drinking it after our Lord's Resurrection. The author of the Synopsis of Holy Scripture in S. Athanasius, speaks of it, in reference to the conse cration of the Eucharist. " He * delivereth the Mystery ; afterwards He says, ' I will not drink of the fruit of this vine.' " S. Basil alleges it in illus tration against the heretic Eunoraius, that inani mate ' productions are called by this name (yEvvijjua), whereas animate are not so called, but sons; and S. Gregory of Nyssa, against the same heretic, that he would gain nothing by ascribing that title \_-^tvvr\fia, ' product, offspring '] to the Son. " For ^ although wine is called by Scripture, ' fruit, product of the vine,' yet that neither so was sound doctrine in jured. For that although, according to the lan guage of the adversaries, the Son is called ' Produce' \_^kvvr)fxa], we do not the less hereby, too, learn how His Essence is altogether the own Essence of the Father. For whereas wine is called * the fruit of the vine,' in respect of humidity it is not found alien from that natural property inherent in the vine." S. Jerome himself understood the words of the Holy Eucharist ^ * On S. Matt. T. 2, p. 180. The Benedictines, who question its being S. Athanasius', speak of it as " admirable, composed with the greatest care, wisdom, and learning," p. 125. * C. Eunom. ii. 8, T. 1, p. 244. ' C. Eunom. iii. p. 518. ' Ep. 120, ad Hedib. Nourishment through the outward part. 141 NOTE N. On p. 41. Tke belief of the early Fathers that the Holy Eucharist nourished implies that the natural substance remained. Difficulties of the opposite theory. Holy Scripture itself has been understood to iraply that our bodies are nourished by the consecrated elements, i. e. that the substance of the natural ele ment is turned into the substance of our bodies. But the substance must be there, in order to be so turned. The commencement of this change of the material substance, and its power of affecting the huraan body, is in the case of the one element instantaneous. And it is precisely of this element, that Holy Scripture has been understood incident ally to speak. Aquinas himself, in answer to the doubt whether the consecrated elements can nourish, appeals to Holy Scripture, where "the Apostle, speaking of this Sacrament, says ' the ' one is hungry, the other is drunken.'" The "Glossa Ordinaria," to which Aquinas appeals, says, " He censures those who, after the sacrifice was finished, took back for themselves the gifts which they offered to the altars for making the sacrifice, and did not allow them to be imparted to others who had them not, so that they even ' P. 3, q. 77, art. 6. ' 1 Cor. xi. 21. 142 Nourishment through outward part ofthe became drunk from them, while others were hun gry." Aquinas adds, " which could not happen, unless the sacramental species nourished." Alexander Alensis ^ quotes the beginning of the Gloss differently. "There the rich offered abun dantly bread and wine, that they might be sanctified by the benediction and sanctification of the priest, and be made the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord. But after the celebration of the sacred mystery, and the consecration of the bread and wine, they claimed their oblations, and, not irapart ing to others, took them alone, so that they even became drunk," &c. Alensis adds, as an objection, " But accidents cannot inebriate or ingurgitate nor fatten. For accidents cannot pass into substance." He answers as Aquinas. The earliest Fathers speak simply and naturally of the nourishment of the body through the Holy Eucharist. They knew well the philosophical state ment, that substance is changed into substance, and that accidents without substance do not nourish. Substance, in material objects, according to that philosophy, included in it "raatter." The early Fathers had exactly the same philosophical language as those in the middle ages. They and the later writers attached just the same ideas to " substance," "nature," "matter." They had the same philo sophical theory and distinctions as to substance ^ iv. q. 40, memb. i. art. 2. Sacrament, implies that the substance remains. 143 and accidents. But the Fathers had no misgivings about the statement, that the Holy Eucharist nou rished. Later writers at first denied it, and, when it could not be maintained against experience, they bad to devise different theories to account for the fact. Both the earlier and later writers believed that the substance alone nourished, according to the laws which God had assigned to His creation. Later writers, who believed that the natural substances no longer reraained, were obliged in consequence to resort to different and contradictory theories. The earlier Fathers had no such difificulties. Why, but that their belief was different ? Had they believed that the substance no longer remained, they would have had the sarae philosophical difificulties as the mo derns, and we should have had the same or similar solutions. We find, in fact, no such solutions, be cause they had no such difficulties. As to the fact, that the early Fathers did believe that the Holy Eucharist nourished, S. Justin Martyr says, " The * bread and a cup of water and wine is brought to him who presideth over the brethren. And he, receiving them, sendeth up praise and glory to the Father of all, through the Name of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and maketh at much length an Eucharistic prayer for having had these things vouchsafed to him. He who presideth having made this prayer, and all the people having assented, * Apol. i. § 65, 6. 144 Nourishment through outward part ofthe those called araong us 'deacons' give to each of those present to partake of the bread, and wine and water, over which thanksgiving has been made, and carry it to those not present. This food is by us called Eucharist." And having mentioned true faith. Baptism, and life according to Christ's commands, as prerequisites, he says, " For we do not receive these things as common bread and common drink ; but in what way Jesus Christ our Saviour, incarnate through the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so we have been taught that the food over which thanksgiving has been made by prayer in His words S from which [food] through transmutation ^ our blood and flesh are nourished, are both the Flesh and Blood of Him the Incarnate Jesus." I have quoted one passage from S. Irenseus '. He again employs this doctrine in proof of the immor tality of the flesh. The body is nourished by that which is the Body of Christ. It is not nourished by the Body of Christ Itself, for that is spiritual and incorruptible ; but our Lord gives through His Body that virtue to tbe consecrated elements that they impart to the body, the life which He Himself is. " Since ' we are His members, and are nourished ' cil' Ev\f}q \6ynv TOV irap' aiirov, lit. " through the prayer of the word which is from Him." ° i. e. the raaterial parts are changed into the substance of the human body. The Dublin Review, vol. xvi. p. 87, quotes this by mistake as an instance of the change of the elements into the Body and Blood of Christ. ' Above, Note G, pl 56. ' v. 2. 2 and 3. Sacrament, implies that the substance remains. 145 through the creature, and He Himself gives us the creature, making His sun to rise, and raining, as He willeth, He owned the cup, which is from the crea ture, to be His own Blood, from which He bedeweth our blood, and the bread from the creature He affirraed to be His own Body, from which He in creaseth our bodies. When then both the mingled Cup and the created bread receive the Word of God, and the Eucharist becometh the Body and Blood of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and consisteth, how do they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life — it [the flesh] which is nourished by the Body and Blood of the Lord, and is His member, as the blessed Paul saith, that 'we are all members of His Body, of His Flesh, and of His Bones,' not speaking this of some spiritual and invisible man, (for spirit hath not bones nor flesh,) but of the constitution as to the very raan, consisting of flesh and sinews and bones, which is nourished both from His Cup which is His Blood, and from the bread which is His Body. And as the wood of the vine laid in the earth bears fruit in its own season, and the corn of wheat, falling into the ground and dissolved, is raised manifold, through the Spirit of God, which holdeth all things together, and afterwards, through the wisdom of God, comes to the use of man, and receiving the Word of God becometh an Eucharist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ ; so also our bodies, being 146 Nourishment through outward part ofthe nourished from it [the Eucharist], and placed in the ground, and dissolved in it, shall rise again in their due season, the Word of God granting them the Resurrection to the glory of God the Father." S. Clement of Alex., explaining Gen. xlix. 11 (as do so many Fathers) in reference to the Holy Eucha rist, says, " The vine' bears wine, as the Word blood; but both to meat and drink unto salvation ; the wine, for the body, the Blood, for the spirit." The same combination ofthe material element with the spiritual gift in the Holy Eucharist, occurs in a later chapter on the use of wine. " Twofold ' is the Blood of the Lord. The one is His natural Blood, by which we have been redeemed from destruction ; the other spiritual, i. e. wherewith we are anointed. And this is to drink the Blood of Jesus, to partake of the im mortality of the Lord. But the virtue of the Word is the Spirit, as blood is of flesh. Analogously, then, the wine is mingled with the water, and the Spirit with the man. The one, the mingled drink feasteth unto faith ; the other, the Spirit, leadeth to iramor tality. And the mingling of both, again, of the draught and the Word, is called Eucharist, an admi- " Paedag. i. 5, p. 87, ed. Sylb. ' Paedag. ii. 2. Potter observes, " He says that the Logos [Word] was admingled with the wine, as he had said before that the power of the Word was the Spirit, as blood is the strength of flesh. Whence he adds a little after, that a man who worthily partakes of the Eucharist is a Divine raixture, in that God had united, and in a manner admingled hira with the Spirit and the Word." Sacrament, implies that the substance remains. 14!7 rable and beautiful grace, whereof they who partake, according to faith, are sanctified both as to body and soul, the Will of the Father mingling together mys tically the Divine mixture, man, with the Spirit and the Word. For truly is the Spirit united with the soul, which is borne along by it, and the flesh with the Word, for which the Word became flesh." The meaning must be the same, when the earthly substance is spoken of by the name of the heavenly. Then as J. Firmicus says, " We ^ know by what reme dies the poisons of your acts are overcome. We drink the iraraortal Blood of Christ ; the Blood of Christ is joined to our blood." Strictly speaking, it is the natural eleraent which is "joined to our blood," but it has virtue from the Divine. Origen has a statement^ to the same effect, in com menting on our Lord's words, " Not that which entereth into a man defileth a man." The prin ciples which he lays down broadly, are, that neither does any thing holy, in itself, without the holy action of the soul, hallow a man ; nor doth any thing pol luted, in itself, without any unholy action of the soul, defile the man. This principle he lays down, " Whoso well considereth this, will see then that it is possible that one who receiveth ill and with passion, what is accounted good, sinneth, and that it is pos sible that things called unclean, being used by us according to reason, are accounted clean." Origen " De err. prof. rell. p. 44, ed. Wouw. ' In Matt. Tom. xi. n. 12, T. iii. p. 494, ed. de la Rue. L 2 148 Nourishment through outward part ofthe applies this first to circumcision and uncircumcision, and afterwards in part to the Holy Eucharist. "As* it is not the food, but the conscience of him who eateth with doubt, which defileth the eater ; for he who doubteth, is daraned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith ; and as to the defiled and un believing is nothing pure, not in itself, but through the defileraent of the man, and his unbelief; so, that which is sanctified by the Word of God and by prayer, doth not sanctify the recipient of itself; for if so, it would sanctify even him who eateth unwor thily the Bread of the Lord, and no one would, through that Food, become weak and sickly or sleep, for so hath Paul established in the words, ' For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.' And in this Bread of the Lord there is profit to the recipient, when with un defiled and pure conscience he receiveth that Bread. So too, neither by not eating, simply '^ from the not eating of the Bread which is sanctified by the Word of God and by prayer, do we lose any good, neither by eating do we gain any good ; for the cause of our loss is our wickedness and sin, and the cause of our gain is our righteousness and uprightness, for this is what is meant by Paul in the words, ' Neither if ' lb. n. 14, pp. 498 — 500. i. e. without any qualification on his part. i e. if this be without any fault of ours, as in one not old enough, or hindered, as in the case supposed in the rubric of our Communion of the Sick. Sacrament, implies that the substance remains. 149 we eat are we the better, neither if we eat not are we the worse.' For if ' whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught,' and the food which is consecrated by the .Word of God and by prayer, doth, according to the material part itself, 'go into the belly, and is cast out into the draught,' but, according to the prayer which coraeth upon it according to the proportion of faith, becoraes beneficial, and the cause of the mind's per ception, as it looks to that which benefiteth them . also, not the matter of the bread, but the words spoken over it, is that which benefiteth him who eateth it not unworthily of the Lord. And this raay be said of the typical and symbolical body." S. Epiphanius speaks of the bread as still remain ing as our food, in the very same manner in which he speaks of the remaining of the element of water in Baptisra. " The ' might of the bread and the force of the water being here strengthened in Christ, that not bread may be might to us, but that there may be a raight of Bread. And the Bread indeed is food ; but the might in it, is for giving of life. And not that the water should alone cleanse us, but that in the force of water, through faith, and opera tion and hope, and accomplishment of the mysteries, and the naming of the Consecration, "it might be to us to the perfecting of salvation." Equally remarkable is the way in which another ' Expos. Fid. e. 16 init. i. 1098. 150 Nourishment through outward part ofthe writer * meets what must be a painful question, if people will think about it, what becomes of that part of the material substances which do not turn to the nourishment of the body. This writer, the author of a homily on Repentance, formerly attri-, buted to S. Chrysostome, meets the difficulty by affirming that the whole material substance is turned into the substance of the human body. His words are, " Behold ' not, that it is bread, nor think ' De Poenit. Hom. 9, t. ii. p. 350. The Benedictines say, " The style falls not a little short of the elegance of Chrysostome. So we leave these Homilies (de Poenit. 7—9) araong the genuine works of Chrysostome, not without sorae scruples. Yet we thought not good to separate them from the rest, since the style of the holy Doctor is not always equal." They speak of these Homilies as " at least suspected." Mr. Field, who has for some years been editing S. Chrysostome's works, has no doubt, on the ground of language, that the 9th Homily is not S. Chrysostome's. ' fifi OTI aproc kariv, 'icrj^. Albertinus (de Saer. Euch. ii. 9, p. 576) gives the following instances ofthis idiom in S. Chrysos tome : de B. Philogon., " Look not, that the time is short {/jfj on ppa-xyg 6 xpninCj i^j)c), but consider this, that the Lord is loving to mankind." In tit. Ps. 50, " Look not, (fjti t^jje oti) that I am little in form." De Cruc. et Latron. " Look not then, that {fjfj riiivvv iSj)c, oti) he was condemned below." In Gen. Hom. 29, " Consider not this then (/ii) toIwi' tovto V'^jje) that the just man was inebriated." De Anna Hom. 3, " For look not on this, that (ju)) ¦yap tovto Wjje, on) he did not slay [Isaac], but that he did the whole in will." In S. Matt. Hom. 48, § 6, " Look not at the poor, th^t (ju>) irplii; rot- Trt'cjjT-n 'iB-rjc, oVi)heis dirty and ragged." For the meaning he refers to S. Chrys. in 1 Cor. Hom. 7, § 1, " For I do not judge what I see by the sight, but by the eyes ofthe mind ;" and the author ofa Sermon on Baptism [S. Aug. T. vi. App. p. 289], " Ye ought not to estimate those waters by the sight, but by the mind" (both of Baptism). The three first instances are altogether the same idiom. Sacrament, implies that the substance remains. 151 thereon ^ that it is wine. For not, as other foods, does it go into the draught. Perish the thought. Think not this. But as wax, brought near to fire, wastes nothing of its substance ^ leaves nothing over, so here, too, suppose that the mysteries are consumed together with ' the substance of the body." ' Albertinus quotes S. Chrysostome in S. Matt. Hom. 19, fin. " Whereas we ought to stand in awe, nor think (yuijSt rojui- fEiv) that we are on the earth." De Bapt. Christi, " Who would not say it was a heart of stone, to think that he was then on the earth 1 " (ro vofji^eir eirl yije Eardvai.) In Col. Hom. 6 (of Baptism), " Since earth is subject to thee, think not that thou art on the earth ; thou art removed to heaven." De Sacerdot. L. iii. 4, p. 382, " Thinkest thou that thou art yet araong men (apa in jiet'ci avQpwTTtuv E'lvai vofiH^Eio), and standing upon the earth ? " In S. Matt. Hom. 50, n. 3, " Think not that it is the Priest who doeth this (jU]j tov lEpia vo^i'Ce tov tovto -KoiovvTa), but that it is the Hand of Christ which is stretched out." And in this Ho mily, " Think not that ye receive the Divine Body as from man {fxri i)Q Ei, avOpiiTTov vo)xiiTr]TE fxETaXafji^dvEiv) , but from the very Seraphim with tongs of fire." [See above, p. 126.] * a-irovaia is used in Agatharcides ap. Phot. cod. 250, c. 11, of the loss undergone by gold in refining, nirovcridiiu, is used of " parting with a person's very substance," in a very specific sense. ' Such is the only rendering of nvvavaXiaKEaQai consistent with Greek idiom. When construed with the dative, it can mean only " consumed, expended, together with." See the in stances in Albertinus 1. c. and Steph. Thes. p. 2006, ed. Valpy. Dr. Gaisford, on my applying to him, kindly answered rae, — " BvvarttX'KTKEaeaC] It appears to me that this word can only be explained by a periphrasis. The writer appears to me to mean that the elements are not thrown off like ordinary food, but that they become blended or assimilated to the body, and waste away as the body wastes away." Mr. Field gives the same meaning. 152 Nourishment through outward part ofthe The word " mysteries" here evidently (as through out S. Chrysostome, and indeed in every writer on the Sacraments) means and can mean only that which is already consecrated, which is already " rays terious." It cannot mean, by the very force of the word, the wwconsecrated eleraents, still less (if pos sible) the natural substance of those unconsecrated elements, as distinct from their accidents, or their accidents as distinct from their substance. The writer moreover is speaking of that which happens to the "mysteries," not of that act whereby they became mysteries. He is speaking of a time pos terior to consecration. The question is exclusively. What becomes of the consecrated elements, the outward part, when they are received by communicants ? The answer is, that they are taken into the substance of the body, and are consumed together with the body itself, wasting as the body itself does. The " body " here spoken of must be the body of the comraunicant, not the Body of Christ. For (1) the " mysteries " are, after and by consecration, spiritually, sacramentally, supernatu rally (although not carnally), the Body of Christ. There remains no further change, according to the belief of any one, through which they could be brought into nearer connexion with the Body of Christ. (2) The Body of Christ, i.e. the inward part, is not consumed ; but the process of which this writer speaks, is one in which the mysteries are con sumed, and that together with the body. The words Sacrament, implies that the substance remains. 153 adrait of no other sense. The point which the writer is anxious to secure is, that no disgrace should attach to the consecrated elements ; that nothing employed in the Holy Eucharist should, after consecration, share what God had allotted to ordinary food. To this he gives an answer peculiar to himself, and un philosophical ; still it is an answer, on the supposi tion that the material part is wholly absorbed into the human body : it is not an answer, upon any other supposition, except that the elements after conse cration were a mere phantom *. The same image of wax being absorbed in the fire, is used by Anastasius Sinaita of the bodily food which our Lord vouchsafed to take after His Resur rection. " Nor did He sleep, or thirst, or hunger, but after the Resurrection ate in such wise as fire consumeth wax, and as the Angels ate, who were entertained by Abraham." The same belief, without question, expressed by the same word (avaXtWovrat) re-appears in Euthy mius, in the twelfth century. "They^ [the elements] are neither corrupted nor pass into the draught, but are consumed into the essential substance of those who partake of them." The interpretation of Bellarmin is inconsistent and unidiomatic. He gives as the meaning, "The" * Hodeg. c. 23. B. P. ix. 856. ' elg avtrraatv avaXiaKovTai oh(Tii)Sr] t&v fiEraXanJiavovTtjv. (Euthym. in S. Matt. xxvi. 26, p. 1012, ed. Matth ) ' De Euch. iii. 20. 154 Nourishment through outward part ofthe whole substance of the mysteries, i. e. of the conse crated bread, is consumed by the coming ofthe Body of the Lord, as wax by fire, and yet there remains the external appearance of bread, as the senses themselves attest." In order to bear his raeaning, it must have been " the unconsecrated bread." In regard to the mysteries, i. e. the consecrated ele ments, there could be no further approximation of the Body of the Lord, and (as was said) the word here used must signify "consumed together witb," not " by," the body. It may yet be remarked that the writer inci dentally states, that when consecrated " it is bread." " Behold thou not, that it is bread," i. e. be not deceived by appearances, so as to look only on that which thou seest with the bodily eyes, that it is, as it is, bread, since it is also the Body of Christ. In the early Church, then, we find it assumed or urged without misgiving, that the consecrated ele ments nourished ; we find it even assumed that the whole material element was absorbed into the human body. In later times we find this denied altogether, or, when the fact that the elements do nourish, could not but be admitted, we find it ac counted for in most discordant manners. Two writers against Berengarius, a.d. 103.5, i.e. Guitmundus, A. D. 1066, and Algerus, a. d. 1130, and in later times Thomas Waldensis, a. d. 1409, denied that the Holy Eucharist nourished at Sacrament, implies that the substance remains. 155 all ^ Certain cases were excepted, in which it was supposed that the accidents nourished miraculously. This answer failing, different physical theories were devised, whose object it was to explain how, without having any substance, what seemed to be bread and wine could have the same physical effects as if the substance were there. It was then assumed (1) that a person was not really nourished, but comforted by the scent or alte ration of those accidents ' ; or (2) that the acci dents alone nourished ^ ; or (3) that by a super natural virtue they were turned into substance '° ; or (4) that God gave miraculously to the accident of quantity the properties of substance ' ; or (5) that ' Guitmundus, de Verit. Euch. L. 2. (Bibl. P. T. 18, p. 449.) Algerus, de Saer. Euch. Lib. 2, e. 1. (Ib. T. 21.) Thora. Wal densis (T. 2, de Sacram. c. 61) quoted by Suarez (Disp. 57. sect. 3). ' Mentioned and rejected by Alex. Al., Aq. Soto, Suarez. ° In Alex. Al. " Some say that as the species [accidents] are there without any subject, as though in the act of substance, so in nourishing they have the act of substance." (Alb. Mag. in iv. dist. 12, art. 16, ad 5, who allows of this equally with (10). It is held by Thom. de Argentin. ap. Major, who rejects it, as does Scotus. '° In Alex. Al. and Bonav. ; argued against at length by Alber- tus, Mag. in iv. dist. 12, art. 16, n. 13. ' Alex. Al. " As God conferred on these accidents the sarae power as substance, that of being or abiding without a subject, so He bestowed upon them to effect that which the substance of bread and wine would effect, if they remained, viz. to inebri ate, recruit, and the rest of this sort." Aq. q. 77, art. 5, ad 3. "The dimensive quantity retains the proper nature of bread and 156 Nourishment through outward part ofthe the accidents exist after the manner of substance ^ ; or (6) that at the moment of decay, quantity passes into matter ' ; or (7) that frora it matter is produced, into which form is induced * ; or (8) that the sub stantial form which remained, nourished ^ ; or (9) that matter was produced "frora the possibility of matter," which remained"; or (10) that the substance, which was there before, returned'; or (11) the same wine, and receives miraculously the force and property of sub stance, and therefore ean pass into both, i. e. substance and dimen sion," — " the opinion ofthe older Thomists, as Egidius, theorem. 44, 45." It is rejected by Soto, Suarez, and all the later writers. Suarez expresses it thus, " That the quantity alone suffices as a substratum to the substantial form supervening, whether educed from its potentiality or united through nutrition. This seems to be the opinion of S. Thom. here, which Ferrar. (c. gent. iv. 66) so explains and follows, and it is held by Henricus [de Gandavo], quodl. 8, q. 36. Vignerius Summa, v. 9, de Euch. Ruar. [Tapper] art. 14, § Accidentia." Itwas maintained by Greg, de Val. Disp. 6, qu. 5, de accident, reman, in Euch. punct. 4. ' Soto, dist. x. q. 2, art. 6, fin. ^ Caietan. * D. Soto, dist. 10, q. 2, art. 5, mod. 3. ' In Aq. q, 77, art. 6. Aq. denies that it remains, q. 75, art. 6, or that " form " nourishes. " Richard, dist. 12, art. 2, q. 2, rejected by Suarez. ' Innocent III. de Myst. Miss. iv. c. 11. Alex. Al. iv. q. 70, merab. 2, art. 2, § 2, who says, " the aet of [spiritual] feed ing being ended, it ceases to be a sacrament, and feeds corporally," and that " the substance so returning, nourishes naturally." Bonav. accepts either this or 3 equally ; iv. dist. 12, p. i. art. 2, q. 1. Dom. Soto (dist. 10, q. 2, art. 5) says, " All others condemn it, as may be seen in Richard [Middleton] dist. 12, q. 2, art. 2, and in Scotus, q. ult. S. Tho. (q. 77, art. 5), explodes it on the ground that, (1) as the substances of Sacrament, implies that the substance remains. 157 in kind, but not in nuraber * ; or (12) that the very sarae substance of bread and wine was anew created, on the decay of the accidents ^ Thus, when it could not be denied that the con secrated elements did nourish, and that accidents in theraselves did not nourish, a further miracle was bread and wine had been converted into the Body and Blood of Christ, they could not return unless the Body and Blood were again converted into the sarae substances, which is impossible ; for (2) that they could not return while the accidents are there, because then the Body and Blood of Christ are there ; nor afterwards, because then there would be substance without its own accidents." ' In Aq. q. 77, art. 5. Durand. dist. 12, q. 2, n. 10, says, " matter must be made there anew by Divine power, in order to nutrition." Coninck says, " At the instant that the species [accidents] are so altered, that the substance of bread and wine could no longer naturally be preserved under them, the Body of Christ ceases to be there, and God creates there raatter, and unites with it the quantity of bread and wine, together with the qua lities which inhere in it at that instant, through which it is now ultimately disposed to the reception of some substantial form, which at the same instant the agent produces, which would have produced it, if the substance of bread and wine had been there before," qu. 77, art. 5. Vazquez (Disp. 185, c. 3) sums up, " The more probable opinion is, that the substance which is produced afier the change of the species, and seeras to arise from them, is not produced from them (1) as though frora matter ; nor (2) from something holding the place of matter ; nor (3) by conversion of the species into its matter ; nor (4) by conversion into the substance itself; nor (5) generation by a created agent: but (6) through creation by God Himself, the dispositions which preceded in the quantity of the species in no way naturally concurring thereto. ' Biel. (Expos. Can. Miss. Leet. 45) accepts alike this or (10). Lugo, de Saer. Euch. Disp. 10, sect. 2, prefers this, and Suarez, Disp. 57, § 4. 158 Nourishment through outward part ofthe assumed to take place, to account for the conse crated elements having the physical efficacy of the natural substances. Of course (if God so willed and declared it) there would be no difficulty in be lieving that He annihilated the substance of bread and wine, while preserving every property of them to the senses, nor, again, that He should, if He so willed, re-create the substance of the bread and Avine, so that they should nourish the Communicant. But of this last miracle nothing is clairaed to be said either in Holy Scripture or in the tradition of the Church. There is no witness that God ever taught it. It is an acknowledged principle, that miracles are not to be needlessly multiplied. Aquinas himself says, " It '° doth not seem to be reasonably said, that any thing happens miraculously in this Sacra ment, except from the Consecration itself, from which it does not follow that matter is created or returns." But Greg, de Valentia answers fairly to this, that an ulterior miracle, beyond the iraraediate effect of the Consecration, is assumed by every Roman hypo thesis. For the immediate effect of the Consecra tion is supposed to be, not the Presence only of the Body and Blood of Christ, but " the existence of the accidents of bread without a subject. When then from those accidents soraething is generated [either '» 3. p. q. 77, art. 5. Sacrament, implies that the substance remains. 159 by nutrition or otherwise], then certainly, according to every opinion, soraething miraculous intervenes here above nature." " And therefore," he says, " a certain opinion of De Palude ' who said most falsely, that the matter itself is produced here by the natural agent, from the passive power of quantity, is exploded by all ^" And yet all this mass of physical difficulties, in volved in the belief that the substances cease to be, is, so to speak, gratuitously assumed. It is allowed, that, in itself, there is no greater difficulty in believing that our Lord's Body is present with or under accidents which retain their sub stances, than with or under accidents whose sub stance is destroyed. But, in order to make way for a certain interpretation of Holy Scripture, it is assumed that, upon the words of Consecration, the sub stances of bread and wine by miracle cease to be, and by rairacle are re-created as soon as the act of Communion is completed. The accidents, forra, colour, quantity are supposed to decay without the substance, whereas they do decay through the decay of the substance ; and when they so decay, the substance is supposed to return, not to be under the accidents, because they are decayed, and yet external to the human frame, into the substance of which it is to be converted. Certainly, it is much freer from difficulties to believe, what the words ' In iv. d. 10, q. 4. ' 1. c. 160 Nourishment through outward part ofthe alone express, the existence or presence of the Body of Christ in this Sacrament, there being no mention whatsoever of the ceasing of the substance of bread, or of its [physical] conversion into the Body of Christ. The Catechism of the Council of Trent appears to go back to the exploded opinion of De Palude, that accidents of bread have naturally the power of nourishing. For it says, "by'' this name [bread] the Eucharist has been called, because it has the appearance, and still retains the quality, natural to bread, of supporting and nourishing." If this be so, the statement of the change of sub stance would seem to become a name, since every thing would be supposed to remain, which the huraan mind can conceive of, as the " substance " of a physical object. And yet the belief that the sub stance of bread ceases to be, is required as an article of faith ; while yet it would be hard to imagine what that substance is, since it is no longer what the Schoolmen, who did attach a definite notion to the word, supposed it to be. In the mysteries of the Creed, we understand what is prescribed for our belief, although the sub ject of the mystery passes man's understanding. We know what we believe, when we confess that the Son is "of one substance with the Father," although, of course, we cannot understand the ' P. 2, e, iv. q. 38. Sacrament, implies that the substance remains. 161 nature of the Divine essence. But the question as to the substance of the bread belongs to our mate rial world. The Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ " under the form of bread and wine " is a miracle inscrutable to human reason. The "sub stance " of the bread and wine is a term of human philosophy, as to created things, and therefore, since its meaning appears to have undergone a change, subsequently to the tirae when it was introduced into raatters of belief in the Western Church, it may the rather be asked that that meaning should be defined. NOTE O. On pp. 42, 43. The passages which it was intended to place together here, are perhaps better seen in relation to other passages. They will be found then in other notes '. ' The words of S. Hilary, " We receive the Word, made Flesh, through the Food of the Lord," have been given in con nexion with similar expressions in Note L. p. 132. A passage from Origen, in which he speaks ofthe matter of bread remaining, after consecration, has been given at length in Note N. p. 148, 9, as also one from S. Epiphanius, p. 149, that from S. Augustine on the bodily form, in Note I. p. 107. The words of the author of the de Sacramentis, that the eleraents " both are what they were, and are changed into something else," will be considered better in Note R. M 162 On the words of the Fathers, quoted NOTE P. On p. 42. The passages in which Fathers speak of the Holy Eucharist as " spiritual " food will be given under the names of those Fathers in Note S. NOTE Q. On p. 44. On the words used by the Fathers, which Roman controversialists quote as implying the doctrine of Transubstantiation. It will perhaps be the best and plainest way, to place at the outset the argument of Roraan Catholic controversialists in their own words, and then to show -how that argument is neutralized, or rather turns against them. For myself, it is perhaps the simplest way to select a statement directly bearing on my own sermon, "The Holy Eucharist a comfort to the Penitent." A writer then in the Dublin Review ' brought two classes of arguments from the Fathers, founded on (1) The use of certain words; (2) certain illustra tions, which he gathered from four Fathers. Both ' Vol. xvi, 1844, on Dr. Mant's Romish Corruptions, p. 84, sqq. I did not see this article until some seven years after it was published. in support of Transubstantiation. 163 of these, he held to prove, that the Fathers believed Transubstantiation in the sense of the modern Roman Divines, i. e. that, at the time of consecra tion, the material Substance of the elements ceases to be, and is replaced by the Substance of the Body and Blood of our Lord, which Substance sustains the outward appearances of bread and wine, of which the substance had ceased to be. This language, he says, the writers of the English Church do not use, and therefore, he argues, our belief is different from that of the Fathers. The illustrations referred to will be the subject of the next Note. I will only here observe, that if the mere disuse of certain words or illustrations were to imply a difference of belief, it might just as easily be shown that the Roman Divines have not the same belief as the Ancient Church, since they too would not use the same language. In whatsoever way they raay explain it, they would not use the lan guage of Pope Gelasius, that " the elements abide in their own proper nature ;" nor would they say with S. Ireneus, that the Eucharist "consists of two things, an earthly and a heavenly ;" nor with other Fathers, that they are "symbols, types, antitypes, figures, images, of our Lord's Body and Blood ;" nor with Theodoret, that " neither after Consecration do the mystic symbols depart from their own nature ; they remain in their former substance." " He doth not change the nature, but adds grace to the nature." They are obliged to explain, and in some M 2 164 On the words ofthe Fathers, quoted cases, to apologize for this language. Thorndike ' observes,' as to Theodoret, " The preface to the Roman edition of these Dialogues saith, that Theo doret uses this language, because the [Roman] Church had as yet decreed nothing on this point." He subjoins, " That which was not contrary to the faith when Theodoret wrote it, can never be con trary to it." As long as they could, Roraan contro versialists denied the genuineness of the work of Pope Gelasius. The Dublin Reviewer does not appeal to the authority of the Roman Church, but to the Fathers. The writer wishes to establish a presumption against us, because we do not use certain language or illus trations of certain Fathers. We may thus far sim ply answer, " Neither do they." The writer proceeds, " Remarkable ' as this is in all the Anglican divines, it never struck us so forcibly as on reading Dr. Pusey's ser mon [that of 1843], and contrasting it with the ancient originals from which it is mainly taken, and whose lan guage, up to a certain point, it scrupulously adopts as its own. The sermon is, in truth, a string of quotations from the Fathers, from the beginning to the end ; but, although it is made up, text and notes, of an array of quotations, to prove the realitg of Chrisfs presence, and the complete ness and intimacy of the communicanfs union with Him, yet there is a scrupulous avoidance (even wheu the same discourse *, nay the same page, and almost the same pas- ' On the Laws of the Chureh, e. 4, p. 35. ' p. 85. As S. Chrys. Hom. de Proditione Judae, quoted in p. 20, S. Ambr. de Mysteriis, in p. 6, S. Gregory Nyssen, p. 9, &c. in support of Transubstantiation. 165 sage ', which he cites, contains it) of every word, and sen tence and illustration, which supposes or implies a cha.nge of substance, which would be construed into a sanction of the doctrine of Trent, or come into collision with the ill- omened twenty-eighth Article of England'." I have already mentioned, in the Preface to my present sermon, why I did this, simply that the question of the mode of our Blessed Lord's Pre sence in the Holy Eucharist was wholly foreign to ray subject. I was not writing or even preach ing on the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist in itself; I was inculcating simply one aspect of it, that which is stated in the Dublin Review, " the complete ness and intimacy of the communicant's union with Christ." This I wished to inculcate with all the depth and fervour and force which the glowing lan guage of the Fathers enabled me. This I wished to live in the souls of those I preached to. In order to bring this horae to people's minds and hearts, I avoided purposely every thing which might distract them frora it. Explanation, controversy, argument, such as I was obliged to resort to in the present sermon, are an evil in the pulpit ; nor could I have employed them even now, but as preparatory to what lay beyond them. The writer of this article arrayed the words, used by different Father^, with some rhetorical effect, forraing a sort of climax in what he believed to express the doctrine of Transubstantiation. (1) The ' As in the Liturgy of S. John Chrysostom. ' p. 90. 166 On the words of the Fathers, quoted Fathers say that the Eucharistic symbols are the Body and Blood of Christ ; (2) that they are " made " or " become " so ; (3) that the bread and wine are changed (/uerajSaXXovTai, mutantur, convertuntur) into the Body and Blood of Christ ; (4) that they are converted into the same {fXiQiaraaQai, fUTaaKiva^iaOai)', (.5) transformed, or transfigured {fiBrappvOfxllti, trans- figurantur) ; (6) transelemented (/uEratrToi^eiovvTai); (7) transmade (pira^KoiovvTai). As the writer thinks these two last the raost decisive, I will give his own words : — " We ' feel almost afraid of wearying and perplexing the reader by the copiousness and variety of the language em ployed by the Fathers to express the sacramental changes. Indeed it is not easy to follow in English the minute shades of varied meaniHg which the more delicate organization of the Greek language easily distinguishes from one another. Perhaps the phrase we are about to cite is less equivocal than any of those hitherto produced. It is one for which we have no English representative, but it will be equivalently expressed by saying that the sacred symbols are Irarts- elemented [fiiTaat6i\HovvTai^ , that is, their elements [cttoi- Xfia] are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ." " There ' remains yet another phrase, which we have reserved for the last place, to complete the climax of evi dence. It is one which well displays the copiousness and strength of the Greek language, and which cannot be ren dered faithfully but by the word now consecrated to Roman Catholic use, transubstantiation ". We have already seen ' p. 86. » lb. ° See the declaration of the Greek schismatical bishops on the subject of transubstantiation, appended to the " Perpetuite de la Foi," vol. i. p. 1199, and fol. Paris, 1841. in support of Transubstantiation. 167 that the Fathers familiarly speak of the bread and wine hdng made the Body and Blood of Christ. They go still farther, and declare that they are transmuted, or — to coin a word, for we have none to supply its place — ' trans-made ' (juETaTTotoiivrat), or made into a new substance, or transub stantiated. Perhaps there is none of the other forms of expression more common than this." The writer recapitulates thus, '¦ To ' recapitulate the singularly varied and expressive forms of language which they use, they declare, not only that the sacramental symbols are (class 1) the Body and Blood of Christ, and that what was bread has been made (class 2) His Body ; but they further define the mode in which this has taken place, insisting (against all the appa rent evidence of sense, on which, be it remembered, they never fail to dwell), and proving by illustrations and exam ples which have no meaning, except in the hypothesis of transiubstantiation, that the symbols are changed and con- wrted (classes 3, 4) into the Body and Blood ; that by this change they are not only transformed (class 5), or tra^ns- figured, but that their elements, or constituent parts are (class 6) changed ; and finally, to remove all possibility of doubt, that they are as it were (class 7), transwMde, made into a WW thing, or, in the apt language of the (Roman) Catholic dogma, transubstantiated.'''' Now, in contrast with all this, an older writer, of acknowledged repute as a Scholastic Divine and Controversialist, Suarez, owns that none of these words do adequately express this modern Roman doctrine. He admits that even the word "trans- elementing " (which he supposes to have, in comraon use, its etymological meaning, which it has not) does ' p. 92. 168 On the words of the Fathers, quoted not, of necessity, express the received Roman doc trine. He allows that these words are inadequate ; that the new word, " transubstantiation," was coined, on account of that inadequacy, and he apologizes for its introduction at so late a period in the Church. " As ^ to the name, the reason is, that since in this case the whole substance passes into the whole sub stance, which takes place in no other conversion, there was no name signifying other conversions which could indicate the special character of this conversion ; wherefore it was necessary to invent a new narae to explain it, both to enable us to speak siraply of this mystery, and to put a raark upon new errors which were rising about this raystery. Where fore, although the ancient Fathers used various names, as we saw, in explaining this mystery, yet they all are either general, as ' conversion,' ' change,' ' passing,' ' migrating ;' or are more adapted to a change of accidents, as ' transfiguring,' or the like. Only that name ' transelementing,' which Theophy lact used, seems to approach nearer to explaining the nature of the mystery ; because it signifies [etymologically, not in actual use] a change even to the first eleraents, even to the primary matter ; yet that word is both somewhat harsh, and not alto gether suitable. For it may signify the conversion of one element into another, or the resolving of a mixed substance into its elements, but transubstan- ' In 3 p. T. 3. Disp. 50. Seet. i. p. 594. in support of Transubstantiation. 169 tiation signifies most properly and suitably, transition or conversion of the whole substance into the whole substance." Suarez adds, in defence, that it is no new thing in the Church to invent new names in order to con fute heresies, as the words "Homoousios" and OeoTOKOQ ; and blames those Schoolmen who said that the doctrine of transubstantiation was not very old. But the words, ofiooiaiog and Osotoko^ were old words which had existed from the beginning, whereas the word " transubstantiation " does not occur, I believe, before the twelfth century. So far, then, from this variety of words, used to express the change of the consecrated elements, being any argument in favour of the modern expla nation of that change, it tells the other way. The very fact of this various use, shows that there was no one word appropriated to express that belief. The Fathers use words which do not express the doc trine now currently received ; they use words which only in a vague way express change, without in the least implying of what sort that change is ; still less implying any change of substance. They do not use the one word, now used universally in the Roman Church, which does express change of substance {fitTova'iuaiQ), or "transubstantiation." But further, all these various words, the use of which is alleged to show that the Fathers believed such a change, by which the fore-existing substance should cease to be, and they employ those terms as 170 On the words ofthe Fathers, quoted to other changes, which are not changes of substance, and in some of which to suppose a change of sub stance would be heresy. On the one side, many of the Fathers, as we have seen in the preceding notes, assert or imply that the natural substances remain. On the other, they do not use any one word Which, in its received meaning or usage, expresses change of substance. They do not appropriate any one word to express the Sacramental change. They do not stamp an ecclesiastical sense upon any word, as if to express that one change in the Holy Eucharist. All the words which they use of the Holy Eucharist they use as freely, and more frequently, of changes, in which, as I said, to suppose a change of substance, would be heresy, or, in some cases, blasphemy. But all arguments from words, implying mere change are, as Thorndike observes, and Bishop Pearson implies, beside the mark'. The whole ' " As it is by no means to be denied, that the elements are really changed, translated, turned, and converted into the Body and Blood of Christ (so that, whoso receiveth them with a living faith, is spiritually nourished by the same, he that with a dead faith, is guilty of crucifying Christ) ; yet is not this change de structive to the bodily substance of the elements, but cumulative of them, with the spiritual grace of Christ's Body and Blood; so that the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament turns to the nourishment of the body, whether the Body and Blood in the truth turn to the nourishment or damnation of the soul." (Thorn dike, "Ofthe Laws ofthe Church," chap. iv. p. 33.) " As therefore all the fiEraaToiyEiuxriQ of the sacramental ele ments maketh them not cease to be of the same nature which before they were ; so the Human Nature of Christ, joined to the in support of Transubstantiation. 171 question is, not whether there be a change, but whether that change be one, through which the natural substances cease to be. Before consecration, the elements are, of course, mere natural substances. After consecration, they are not (in the language of S. Cyril and S. Athanasius) " bare, mere, bread and wine." It is the belief of the ancient Church, that after consecration, they are in a Divine, ineffable, supernatural way, the Body and Blood of Christ. They are then what they were not. And since they are what they were not, they become by consecration what they were not. It is but saying the same thing in different Words. But it does not follow, that they are in no sense what they were. Even the Roraan Divines adrait that the form or accidents remain. Even the Romain Church has not defined (although this is comraonly understood, and, I am told, that the contrary would be accounted heresy) that the physical substance is changed. The Roman Church has not defined its own word "substance," whether it be physical or metaphysical. Even according to certain Schoolraen who have not been condemned by that Church, it is a simpler statement and exposed to fewer difficulties, to believe that while our Lord's Blessed Body and Blood are present, the natural substances remain. Roman Catholics assume that the " change" of a Divine, loseth not the nature of humanity, but continueth with the Divinity as a substance in itself distinct." (Pearson on the Creed, Art. 3, note p.) 172 On the words ofthe Fathers, quoted material object must necessarily be a raaterial change, a total change of its very substance. The whole strength of their argument lies in this assumption. Wherever a word implying "change" is used of the consecrated elements, they assume that this change must be a total change of its physical substance or matter, and that, a change into another substance, or rather, an annihilation of the former. The Fathers, on the contrary, at times are led to point out, that a change in a physical object does not imply any such alteration of substance. Tertullian does so with regard to three of the words selected by the Reviewer, "demutari, converti, transfigurari." He urges that words signifying change, cannot be bound down to mean change of substance, and that so to restrain them would involve an absurdity. Tertullian is vindicating our identity of substance after the Resurrection : — " We * will explain more fully the force and meaning of ' change ',' which almost yields a presumption of the resur rection of another flesh ; as though to be changed were to cease altogether, and wholly to perish. But cliange must be distinguished from every inference of destruction. For change is one thing, destruction another. Whereas, it were not another, if the flesh should be so changed as to perish. But, when changed, it will perish, if itself abide not in the change, which shall be shown forth in the Resurrection. For as it perisheth, if it riseth not, so even though it rise, if still it is withdrawn to change, equally it perishes. For * De res. earn. c. 55, 56, pp. 423, 424. ' Demutationis, demutari, &c. in support of Transubstantiation. 173 it will equally not he, as if it had not risen. And how absurd, if it rise, to the end that it should not be ! whereas it might not have risen and so not have been ; because it had already begun not to be. Things altogether diverse will not be mixed, change and destruction, as being different in their effects. The one destroys, the other changes. As, therefore, what is destroyed is not changed, so what is changed is not destroyed. For to perish is altogether not to be what it had been ; to be changed, is to be in a dif ferent way. Further, when it is in a different way, it may be the self-same thing ; for that which does not perish has being. For it has undergone change, not destruction. And therefore a thing can both be changed, and itself no whit the less be ; so that both the whole man in this life is indeed himself in substance, yet is manifoldly changed, both in habit, and in bodily size itself, and in health and condition, and dignity, and age ; in study, affairs, work, faculties, abode, laws, manners ; nor yet doth he lose ought of a man ; nor does he so become another, as to cease to be the same ; yea rather, he becometh not another being, but another thing. This kind of change divine proofs also attest. The hand of Moses is changed, and, indeed, become bloodless, as though dead, and from whitish, it became cold ; but, re covering heat again, and its glow poured anew through it, it was the same flesh and blood. Afterwards his face too is changed by brightness unbeholdable. But Moses, who was not seen, continued to be. So too Stephen had already put on angelic dignity ; but no other knees sunk under the stoning. The Lord also in the retirement of the mount had clanged His very raiment with the light, but preserved fea tures recognizable by Peter. Where too, Moses and Elias, the one in the image of flesh not yet restored, the other in the truth of flesh not yet dead, taught that the same fashion of body endured even in glory. By Whose example Paul too instructed, said, ' who shall transfigure our vile body, that it may be like unto His glorious Body.' But if you 174 On the words of the Fathers, quoted maintain that both transfiguration and conversion are a change of any one's substance, then Saul too, converted into another man, departed from the body : and Satan him self, when he is transfigured into an angel of light, loses his quality. I trow not. So too at the coming of the resurrection one may be changed, converted, reformed, without loss of substance. For how absurd, yea how un just, and, in both, how unworthy of God, that one sub stance should work, another be recompensed by the reward ; that this flesh indeed be shredded by martyrdom, another be crowned : this flesh again should wallow in defilement, another be condemned ! " S. Cyril of Alexandria observes the sarae of a fourth word, ' became.' He says expressly (as indeed is evident), that it does not always mean a change of nature ; " Having ' then ascribed to the Son so great glory, and having alleged of Him the very properties of the Nature of the Father, then he [S. Paul] saith, that ' He is made by so much better than the angels, as He hath a more excellent name than they,' as Son, and Heir, and Bright ness, and Express Image, and Likeness, andCo-enthroned, and Creator. But if, for these reasons, He be considered much better and more excellent than the angels, better therefore will be His Ministry than theirs. But the word * was made ' is very justly taken here, not to signify the process from not being to being. (For 'the Word was in the beginning.') Nor is the change from less to greater. For the Son was Perfect, of a Perfect Father. But, as it were, in comparison of glory and dignity, the appear ance was greater and better. For as if a man should be compared with a horse, and should be said to be better than it by those who estimated it, as being a reasonable " Thes. App. XX. t. V. 1, pp. 200, 201. in support of Transubstantiation. 175 creature: for that '¦becoming' (ysviaOai) does not wholly iraply a change of nature, will be evident, for that one says to God, ' Become Thou to me God my Shield.' And again, ' The Lord became to me a Refuge,' and, ' The Lord became my Salvation.' In point of ministry then, and glory, and not of nature, was the comparison of the Son with the angels." To these must be added another idiom, in which S. Cyril and others speak of the change in the Eucharistic elements, not into the Body and Blood of Christ, but into the energy or virtv£ of that Body and Blood. The passage is as follows ; — " He ' must needs then be in us through the Holy Ghost after a Divine sort ; and also be mingled, as it were, with our bodies, through His Holy Flesh and His Precious Blood ; Which we have also received for a Life-giving blessing, as in bread and wine ; for, in order that we should not be horrified, seeing flesh and blood set out on the holy tables of our churches, God, condescending to our infirmi ties, sendeth' forth a power of life into the elements, and tramfers them into the efficacy of His own Flesh ; that we might have them for life-giving participation, and that the Body of life might be found in us a life-giving seed. And doubt not that is true, since He clearly saith ; ' This is My Body,' and ' This is My Blood ;' but rather receive in faith the Word of the Saviour ; for being Truth, He doth not he." Now, accepting each of these ways of speaking as true, it remains to see how they are to be harmonized. ' On S. Luc. xxii. in Mai, Auctt. Class, x. 371-5. ' Eviriai To'ie irpoiCEifjiEvoig Svvafxiv ^larje Kal fitQioTriaiv avra irpos ivipyEiuv Tr)Q tavrov aapKOs. 176 On the words of the Fathers, quoted They are plainly not the same. The "energy," " operation," " power," of an operative substance is not the same as that substance itself. Now the two idioms can be reconciled, if by the words " becoming the Body and Blood of Christ" we understand tbat, where, before the consecration, there was only " common bread," afterwards there is, " under the outward form of bread and wine," the Body and Blood of Christ. On the other hand, if the Eucha ristic eleraents are " translated into the virtue of His Flesh," they are not, as far as they are symbols, trans lated physically into that very Body and Blood. The words express accurately our belief, not that of the modern Roman Divines. The Eucharistic sym bols, as symbols, are by consecration, " translated into ihe power of" the Body and Blood of Christ, because they are outward parts, through and under which that Body and Blood are present and are conveyed. But the very words express, that the outward part is dis tinct frora the inward. The language corresponds with other language of S. Cyril, as when he says, " The * smallest Eucharist iraraingles our whole body with Itself and fills us with its own efficacy (Evepyttac) ; and thus Christ cometh to be in us, and we in Him." Here, S. Cyril speaks of the outward part convey ing the "efficacy" of the inward; elsewhere he speaks of the inward part, putting forth its efficacy " In Joh. vi. 57, compared by Albert, p. 513. in support of Transubstantiation. 177 through the outward. "The' very Body of the Lord was sanctified by the power of the united Word ; and thus is made efficacious {wpjov) towards the mystical Eucharist to us, so as to be able also to implant in us Its own sanctification." The difference of the expression was felt by Aquinas, who both ^ in this passage of S. Cyril, and in one borrowed from it by Theophylact, substituted the word "verity" (veritatem), for "efficacy." S. Cyril's language does contain the doctrine of the real Presence. For the outward part could only be " changed into the efficacy of the Flesh of Christ," by conveying that Flesh to us ; but S. Cyril distin guishes the outward part from the inward, in that he says, the " efficacy," not the " verity." He dis tinguishes between that which conveys the outward elements and That which is conveyed, the Body and Blood of Christ. This appears to have been Ecclesiastical language before the end of the second century. For one can not account for the language of S. Cyril being anti cipated by the heretic Theodotus (a.d. 192), except on the supposition that Theodotus, after the wont of heretics, used studiously the language of the Church, in points which did not touch upon his heresy, or to veil it. He says, ' In S. Job. xvii. 23, p. 979. ' Catena Aurea, from Theophylact on S. Marc. xiv. 22, and S. Cyril on S. Lue. xxii. 19. Theophylact's word is 8vvai.iic, S. Cyril's is IvEpyeia. N 178 On the words of the Fathers, quoted " And ' the bread and the oil are sanctified by the power of the Name, not being, as they appear, the same as they were taken, but by Power they are changed to spiritual power *. In like manner the water too, which is exorcised and becometh Baptism, not only contains what is inferior, but also acquireth sanctifying." S. Victor of Antioch (if the Catenae are alto gether to be trusted), in the lifetime of S. Cyril, incorporated the above passage of S. Cyril (although without his name), into his Commentary '. The phrases occur at a later period, a.d. 787, in Elias Cretensis ", and, still later, S. Cyril is imitated by Theophylact '. With this language of S. Cyril, that an " energy " ' Excerpta Theod. n. 82, ad calc. S. Clem. Al. p. 988, ed. Pott. ¦* Bvva/JiEL £15 Siivajjiiv •KVEVfiariicfiv fiETaliEJi\r)vTni. ' In the Commentary, as edited by Dr. Cramer in his Catena (t. i. p. 213), S. Cyril is quoted simply with the words, " Another says." The two first lines of the passage, as they stand in this Commen tary, do not occur in S. Cyril on S. Luke, where the whole context fits together. The second and fuller publication of this Com mentary by Card. Mai (Patr. Nova Biblioth. ii. 417, ed. Mai) herein agrees with the former (Auctt. Class, x.). The introduc tion has been dove-tailed in from some other source. The words are, " Another saith. He teaches us not to look to the nature of the things placed there, but to believe that through tlie blessing coming upon them, they are those very things " (r«5ra ckem'o). The rest of the passage is made up of two quotations from S. Cyril on S. Luc. xxii. 19. The Commentary then is not S. Cyril's (as Dr. Cramer thought), nor has it come down quite free from interpolation. This passage of S. Cyril is quoted again, (with some variation in the turn of expressions,) as Origen, by Bulenger in Casaub. Diatr. 3, p. 178. ' In Naz. Orat. i. p. 201. ' On S. Mare. xiv. 22. • in support of Transubstantiation.— i. ' Transmake.' 179 is imparted to the elements, agree two passages of S. Epiphanius, in the one of which he speaks of the " raight ^ of Bread ;" in the other, that the eitement is, as far as we see, "insensate as to power." By both, he distinguishes the outward as really existing, from the inward part ; the outward being, to human eyes, " insensate as to power," but having that power as " strengthened in Christ " by His unseen Presence ". I will now give some of the evidence which has been collected, that all the words which any Fathers use of the chan ge which follows upon consecration, they also use of changes which are not changes of substance. I will take the words in an inverted order, putting first those which the Dublin Reviewer regards as the strongest. Their strongest word, then, be accounts to be HiTaitoiuaQai, which he renders " transmade," or " made into a new substance." The question is, whether the use of this terra implies a change in the physical substances, and that, such a change that those sub stances should cease to be. Passages in which this word is used, are quoted from the Catechetical Oration of S. Gregory of Nyssa, and from Theodoret's Greek translation of a passage of S. Ambrose. Yet it has been shown, not only that the word is used of changes not " substan tial," but that in the very passage of S. Gregory and the very context, and over-against that other use, « See above, p. 149. " See below, in Note S. No. 36. N 2 180 On lhe words of the Fathers, quoted • it is used of a change, which it would be blasphemy to think substantial. S. Gregory is treating of the Holy Eucharist as a principle of life to the body, whicb, through the poison of the forbidden fruit, had become subject to deatii : — " Since human nature," he says', " is twofold, commingled of soul and body, they who are saved must needs, by both, follow Him who leadeth unto life. Wherefore the soul, mingled with Him by faith, has thence the occasion of sal vation. For union with the Life hath participation of the Life. But the body cometh, in another way, to the partici pation and commingling with that which saveth. For ^ as they who through evil design have received deadly poison, do by some other medicine allay its destructive power ; and as the destruction, so also the antidote, must be received within the bowels of man, that through them the power of that which cometh in stead, may be distributed to the whole body, so must we, who had tasted that which dissolved our nature, need that also which should bring together what had been dissolved ; that such an antidote, coming to be in us, might, through its contrary force, expel the injury of the poison which had before been infused into our body. What then is this 2 No other than that Body which was shown to be mightier than death, and was the beginning of our life. For as ' a little leaven,' as the Apostle saith, assimi lates to itself ' the whole lump,' so that Body, gifted with immortality by God, coming to be in ours, transmakes and transfers {fiiTa-TroiA kcu fiSTaTiOrimv) the whole unto itself. For as, when the destructive is mingled with the sound, the whole which is commingled, is together spoiled, so also that immortal Body, coming to be in him who receiveth It, ' Orat. Catech. e. 37, t. iii. p. 102. The text of this part, as preserved in Theoriani Disp. cum Ners. (in Mai Scriptt. Vett. vi. 366 sqq.), is better than that in in S. Greg.'s works. in support of Transubstantiation.^'!. ' Ti-ansmake.' 181 transmade also the whole into Its own Nature {irpog ttjv lavTov (j>{iaiv koi to ttiiv jUtTETrotjjcrEi'). But indeed nothing can come within the body, which is not through food and drink commingled with the bowels. So then it is necessary to receive, in a way possible to nature, the life-giving power of the Spirit. But since that Body which received God, alone received that grace, and since it hath been shown that our body cannot otherwise attain to immortality save through communion with the Immortal, we must consider how that One Body, being ever distributed among so many myriads of the faithful throughout the world, can be entire in each individual, and Itself remain in Itself entire." Here, then, in the outset, S. Gregory twice uses the word, psTatrolriaiQ, of the change of our bodies, even while yet in the flesh, from being subject to mortality, to being immortal, through their hidden conforraity to the Body of our Lord which we receive in thera. Yet whatever tbat is which they acquire, plainly they do not part with any thing of their own substance, although he says, " His Body, coming to be in ours, transmakes and transfers the whole to itself," " transmakes the whole [of us] into Its own nature." After an explanation of the assimilating process in human digestion, S. Gregory resumes his question, " How the Body of Christ, in a man quickens the whole nature of man, in whom faith is, being distri buted to all, and itself undiminished." He himself does not seem altogether confident as to his answer, as also it stands alone in all antiquity. He says, " Perchance then we are near a probable account." Then follows bis statement. 182 On the words ofthe Fathers, quoted " If the substance of every body comes from nourishment; and this is food and drink ; and among food is bread, and among drink water sweetened with wine ; and the Word of God (as explained at first), being both God and Word, was commingled with human nature, and coming to be in our body, did not devise any new condition for human nature, but perpetuated His own Body by the wonted and befitting means, holding together its being by meat and drink, but the food was bread. As then (as I have often said already), in one case, he who sees bread sees in a manner the human body, because, being in it, it becomes it [the human body] ; so, in that case too, the Body which received God, having received the nourishment of bread, in a manner became the same with it, the nourishment (as was said) passing into the substance of the body (for that which is proper to all is confessed to be as to this Body, that It too was main tained by bread) ; but that Body, through the indwelling of God the Word, was transmade into the Divine dignity (to CE awfia Ty lvoiKi](su tov Qsov Xoyov Trpoc Trjv Oi'iKijv a^iav fiiT eiro iridri). Well then do I believe that now too, the bread, sanctified by the Word of God, is transmade (fiiTaTToitXaOai) into the Body of God the Word. For that Body [i. e. Christ's natural Body] was virtually bread [in that bread eaten passes into the natural Body] . But it was hallowed by the indwelling of the Word which tabernacled in the Flesh. Wherefore, whereby the bread being trans made (/jtETawoiitdt'ic) within that Body [our Lord's Natural Body] was removed into (/itTEorjj) a Divine power, thereby doth the like take place now. For both there [in our Lord's Natural Body] the grace of the Word hallowed that Body, Whose composition was from bread, and which Itself too was in a manner bread ; and here [in the Sacra ment] in like way the Bread (as the Apostle says) is hal lowed by the Word of God and prayer, not, through meat and drink, passing on into the Body of the Word, but transmade (/utTaTrotoujuEvoe) straight into the Body of the ^^'ord, as was said by the Word, ' This is My Body.' in support of Transubstantiation.— 'i. 'Transmakc.' 183 " But all flesh being nourished also through liquid (for our earthly parts would not, without the conjunction with this, abide in life), as through the firm and corresponding food, we support the firm part of the body, in the same raanner do we make an accession to the moist also from the homogeneous nature, which, coming to be in us, is, through the alterative power, made blood, and especially through wine it receives power to the iransmakioig (/iEraTroiijo-fv) into heat. Since then His Flesh, which received God, received this part also to its own constitution ; but the Word, made manifest, did therefore mingle Itself with the mortal nature, that, by participation of the Godhead, humanity might, with It, be deified ; therefore in all who believe the economy of grace. He inserts Himself through the Flesh, mingling Himself with the bodies of believers, which are composed of wine and bread, that through the inoneing with the Immortal, man too might become partaker of immortality. But these things He giveth, transelementing, by the power of the blessing, the nature of the visible things unto that." These last words will best be considered under their own (the next) head. But here we have the same word used of every sort of change ; (1) of our own bodies, while yet mortal and corruptible, so that they should, by union with our Lord's, have a principle of immortality; and of this he uses that strong language, "transmaking the whole into itself;" (2) of our Lord's Own Natural Body to a Divine Dignity : (3) the natural assimilation of food taken by our Lord, when in the Flesh, to His Human Body, (4) the Sacramental change of the elements. All these changes are essentially of different sorts. None of them can be the same as the others. Two 184! ()/; the ivords ofthe Fathers, quoted were certainly not physical ; a third, that of tho assimilation of our Lords Human Food into His Human Body, was cortiiinly ])hysical ; yet it was a physical change wholly distinct from any change which Roman Divines can believe of tho Sacra mental. For the substance of the food, with which our Lord vouchsafed to support His Bodily Frame, did pass into the substance of His Body. His Human Body received growth aud increase through that food. It ceased to be, as to outward form too, what it was; it became what before M'as not, that part of the Substance of our Lord's Human Frame, to which it became an accession. But it is con fessed that our Lord's Human Body can now receive no accession ; and Roman Divines, when they say that the substance of the broad is changed into the Substance of our Lord's Body, do not mean that it is changed at all, only that it ceases to be. In a chapter following immediately, S. Gregory, within a short paragraph, uses seven times this same word, " transmaking," ^EraTroifjcnc, of the change in raan through Baptisraal regeneration, saying dis tinctly that it was no change in human nature itself, nor in thc natural powers. Clearly then, jUCTaTroi'tiiric, "transmaking," has, in itself, no such meaning as " change of substance." With this word S. Gregory combines others, which will be to be considered here after, iu a sense purely spiritual. " The ' transmaking ((UtraTrofifme) of our lifo, which takes ' S. Greg. Nyss. Orat. Catech. e. 40, T. iii. p. 108, 9. ill support of TramuLHanUul'ion. - i. 'Tran.wiake.' 185 place through the regeiier;ition, would bo no fran.'^nMkiiig, if wo rouijiiiied in tho stnto iu wliieh wo .-irc. For I know not how wo ean think that ho has bocome another man, who abides in the same stato, iu which no cliaraoteiistic has been inntamddn (/(ErtTTot/jOij). For that tho saving birth is received in order to the reiuniition and c/iaiig,! of our nature (iVi avoKaiviofXiii Kui t(i /iEroj3oXy rf/e i^uo-ewv '1M<^'')> is evident to every ono. But the /iiiiiiaii. uaturo {avOpw- TrtJnjc) itself does not, itsolf iu itself, admit of any chaiino (jUErajSoXTji') from Haptisni ; nor doth tho reasi)uing, or inteliii;'out, or seiontitic power, or any other which properly ohnraetoi-izos human natiuv, undergo Iraiisiniik'iiia (iv ptra- Tro(i'|(TE( ylt'trai). For the trtniKiiKtkiii.ii (1/ jUETatroftjaic) would bo for tho worse, if any of these properties of nature wore oxeliauged away. If then tho birth from above is a n'finiiiilioii {avaaToi\tlu)(Tif;) of the man, and these things do not admit of a c/iaim'., we must consider, what being tramiiiadi' {tivoq ptTa^jroiTtOlvTog) tho graoe of regeneration is perlbot. It is plain that when the ovil eliaraeteristics of our nature have been oil'aeed, the fraiK'tlatioii {psTaaraaig) to what is better takes place. NN'lierofore, if, as the Pro- phot aays, washed in this mystical bath, wo beeoiue clean of purpose, washing away the wiekoduesses of our souls, we boeoiuo better, and are irait^iiiade to what is bettor (jusra- TreTroi/ljuEOo)." It has boon sho^yn long ngo '\ that S. Gregory of Nyssa usod this samo word " transmade" of the glorious nppoamnco of JNlosos' eountonauco, Avhcn ho canto from tho Presence of God ; tlio change of the soul to ffood, or ao-ain to that M-hieh is more Divine, through tho discipleship of Christ; of tho Christian elmraotor by tho abst-iu'o or tho presence of love ; that to listen to the prayer of the angry \vould imply ' Albertin. de I'.ucbar. Art. Greg. Nyss. p. 487. 186 On the words of the Fathers, quoted a change of character in God ; thrice it is used of the change of our Lord's Human Nature (after the Resurrection) " into the Divine Nature." These are varied uses of the word, showing its idiomatic meaning in the living language, that it is simply an energetic word, used of any change, whether it be of quality, Human or Divine character, or of appearance, and that it does not in any way specially denote any material change. I will first give instances from S. Gregory of Nyssa himself: — "When* this [love] is not, the whole character of the image is transmade (/iSTaTTETroi'rjrai)." " And ' so the t'ransmaking of Moses to a more glo rious appearance (17 etti to ivSo^oTspov /itraTroirnrte) was of such a kind and so great, that the manifestation of that glory could not be endured by the eyes of men." " There ° was one voice turned to God, ' He hath frans- made all things to good ' (Traira ttjOoc to koXov juErETroirjo-Ev)." " The ' goodness of Him Who cometh to him, trans making him into Itself {jtpoq Jaurjjv rov Se^o/ievov (usra- TTOtOUO'rjc)." " The * Divine gifts were amnesty of evils, removal of sin, transelementing of nature, transmaking of the corruptible to the incorruptible, delight of paradise, royal dignity, end less joy," " May ' the word teach us this one thing through the pre face, that those who are led into the sacred recesses of the mysteries of this book are no longer men, but are trans- * De Hom. Opif. e. 5, fin. p. 54. = De Vita Mos. i. p. 234. ^ In Ps. Inseript. L. i. c. 8, p. 280. ' Hom. viii. in Eccl. i. 457. * In Cant. Hom. i. p. 479. ' Ib. p. 482. in support of Transubstantiation. — i. 'Transmake.' 187 made in nature (furairoiriOrivai ry ^uaei) through the disci pleship of Christ to that which is more Divine." " The ' Word having bidden the soul, now amended, to come undoubting to Himself, she being strengthened by the command, became such as the Bridegroom willed, having been transmade to that which is more Divine {piTairoiriOttaa irpbg TO duoTepov), and from the glory in which she was, being by that good change transformed (p^Tapop^wOiTaa) to the higher glory." " In ^ the Passion of the Human Nature His Divinity fulfilled the dispensation for ug, having for a time disjoined His Soul from His Body, yet Itself separated from neither, with which It had been once commingled, and again join ing together what had been parted, so that It gave to the whole human race the order and beginning of the resurrec tion from the dead ; that all which is corruptible may be clothed with incorruption, and what is mortal with immor tality. Our Firstfruits having been, through the blending with God, transmade into the Divine Nature (ei? Qtiav <^vaiv ptTaTToirjOtiarir), as Peter said, ' That Jesus whom ye have crucified, God hath made Lord and Christ." " In ' the one place. He is said in the same way to be made ' Priest and Apostle,' as, in the other, ' Lord and Christ.' 'Priest and Apostle,' with reference to the dis pensation for us ; ' Lord and Christ,' on account of the change and transmaking of the Human Nature to the Divine (ttjv trpog to dslov tov avdpwTtivov /uETa/BoXijv te koi /uETajroiriaiv). For the Apostle expresses the transmaking (HiTairoi^ijiv) by the word ' making ' (Troirjdtv)." " For * we say, that the Body, in which He took on Him the Passion, being immingled with the Divine Nature, was made (¦imrotnaOai) through the immingling that which the ' Ib. Hom. viii. p. 596. ' Id. cont. Eunom. Orat. ii. p. 484. ' Ib. Orat. v. p. 587. * Ib. Or. iv. p. 581. 188 On the words ofthe Fathers, quoted Nature which assumed it is. So far are we from any poor thoughts of God the Only Begotten ; that even though, through the dispensation of loving-kindness towards man, this lower nature was assumed, we believe that this was transmade into the Divine and pure {/xeraTTtiroi'ntTOai irpog vn-/ v>/ _ XT) TO UllOV T£ Kai aKTjpaTOV). " He' hath through His immingling of it with Himself, transmade our mortality into a life-giving gift and power." " God ° is manifested in the Flesh. But the Flesh, which exhibited God in Itself, after It had fulfilled through Itself the great mystery of death, is transmade (peTaTroulTai) through the mingling, into the High and Divine, becoming ' Christ and Lord,' heing translated and cJianged {iiiTaTiOeim Kai aXXayEio-a) into that which He was. Who manifested Himself in that Flesh." " As ' He Who knew not sin, becometh (yivcTat) sin, that He may take away the sin of the world, so again the Flesh which received the Lord, becometh (yiviTai) Christ and Lord, which It was not by nature, being transmade (ptTa- TTOiovfiivrf) into It by the mingling. Whereby we learn, that neither would God have been manifested in the Flesh, unless the Word had become (eye'veto) flesh, nor would ^the flesh, around Him, of the Manhood, have been transmade (juet- iTToiijQn irpoQ TO dslov) into the Divine Nature, unless what was visible {to ^aivopevov) had become (tytvsTo) Christ and Lord." " This " [that God should listen to the prayer of the angry] would involve, that the Deity should fall into passion and be as man, and be transmade (iniTaTroii}6rjvaL) from a good nature into savage relentlessness." " For " that which was by nature Incorruptible and Un changeable, is always the same, not changed with our poor nature, when It came to be in it according to the Dispensa- ' Id. p. 586. ' Ib. p. 594. ' Ib. p. 595. ' De Orat. Serm. i. T. i. p. 418. ' Ep. ad Eust. Ambr. et Basil. T. iii. p. 658. in support of Transubstantiation. — i. ' Transmake.' 189 tion, as the sun casting its ray into darkness dulled not the light of the ray, but through the ray transmade the darkness into light (ro o-kotoc Zia ttiq oktivoc tie ^wf jUETETTOtijoEv) ; SO also the true Light having shone in our darkness, was not Itself overshadowed by the darkness, but by Itself lightened the darkness. But let no one, not duly receiving the words of the Gospel, think that our nature in Christ was, by a certain advance and course, transmade, little by little, to that which is more Divine (kot oXiyov trpog to Ouorepov ptTaTroiiiaOai). For ' the advancing in wisdom and knowledge and favour ' (;^apjT() is related by Scripture in order to show that the Lord truly was in our substance {(pvpapaTi)."" The same latitude of usage has been shown to occur in other Fathers, S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Basil, S. Gregory of Nazianzum, S. Chrysostom, and in a homily araong his works. It also occurs in S. Asterius. S. Cyril of Jerusalem uses it of the change of the body at the Resurrection, but expressly stating that the body remains "the very sarae," and illustrates it by fire penetrating iron. " This ' body is raised again, not remaining only such a weak [body], but it is raised this very same thing {avTo tovto), but being clothed upon with incorruption it is trans made, as iron when brought near to fire, becomes {yivirai) fire, or rather as the Lord who raiseth it up knoweth." S. Basil uses it of the changed appearance of the city and citizens in a religious festival. " The ' whole city is transmade (ptTaTmroiriTai) into a ' Cat. 18, § 18. ' De S. Mamante, § 2, 3. 190 On the words ofthe fathers, quoted feast." " He whose feast we celebrate, for whom we are all thus bright, for whom life is transmade.'" S. Gregory of Nazianzum employs it of change into good, or unchangeableness in good. " He ' who reverences and follows good for its own sake, since he loveth that which abideth, hath also an abiding desire for it. So, having in him the mind of God, he also may use the words of God, ' I am the same, and change not.' He then will not be transmade nor removed, &c. {ptTaTTOiri9rj(7eTai ovSe ptTaTiOfiasTai)." " Apprehending * spiritually that ointment which was poured out for us, let us smell it, so made and transmade by it, that from us too may be smelled a sweet smelling savour." In the same way, I doubt not, he uses it, in his glowing address to those recently baptized, of their union wdth Christ, and their power over their adver sary. "If° he [Satan] attack thee with covetousness, 'shewing thee all the kingdoms of the world in a motnent of time,' as belonging to him, and demand worship of thee, despise him as having nothing : tell him, emboldened by your seal (of bap tism), ' I also am the image of God, of the glory on high; not as yet have I been cast down, like thee, for pride ; I am clothed with Christ, I am changed" by Baptism into Christ, worship thou me.' Well 1 know, he will depart ' S. Greg. Naz. Or. 36, § 9. ' Id. Orat. 40, § 38. ' lb. § 10, p. 697, 8. " "^piuTuv Evlilvfxac '^pioTov fiETa-KE'wn'iripai. The Benedictines render, " I have laid claim to Christ by Baptism," but this would require a gen. not an ace. The single instance of an accus. alleged (Herod, ii. 178) is clearly an aee. absolute. " Bearing Christ (Xpiurn^dpoc) the baptized is, as to Satan, as Christ, Who ' bruises hira under his feet.' " in support of Transubstantiation. — i. 'Transmake.' 191 defeated and ashamed, as from Christ, the First Light, so also from those who have been enlightened by Christ." S. Chrysostom employs it of the working of leaven, in illustration of the working of the Gospel. " As ' the leaven is covered over, yet disappeareth not, but little by little transmakes all things to its own condition, in like way shall it come to pass in the preaching." S. Asterius, against divorce, uses it of habit being transmade into nature. " Where * is that lawful band, and the might of long habit which is both said proverbially and shown by ex perience to be transmade even into nature f'' {koI uq fvcriv jUETa7rot£t(T0at.)" In a homily on Repentance among those of S. Chrysostom, it is employed of " repentance trans making sinners." " Penitence," that writer says ', " is a medicine which taketh away sin ; it is a heavenly gift, a wondrous power, vanquishing by grace the course of laws. Wherefore it shaketh not off the fornicator ; it repels not the adulterer ; it turns not aside the drunkard ; it abhors not the idolater ; it drives not away the reviler ; it chases not away the blas phemer, nor the insolent, but transmakes (fxeTaTroitt) them all." Such being the variety of meaning in which this word is employed among the Greek Fathers, there cannot be a shadow of ground for inferring that ' In S. Matt. Horn. xlvi. (al xlvii.), § 2, p. 483. " It occurs again in S. Chrys. Hom ii. (al. i.) in S. Joh. viii. 15 D, but as a false reading for pETanEOE'iv." — Field. ' Hom. an liceat diraitt. uxor. " Hom. vii. de Poenit. T. ii. p. 327, ed. Bened. The Bene dictines and Mr. Field account it not to be S. Chrysostome's. 192 On the words of the Fathers, quoted Theodoret intended to express that there is a phy sical change in the Holy Eucharist, when he trans lated the " transfigurandum " of S. Ambrose by pira- noirivwg) by a dispensation, that He might assure the disciples, and through them all believers, that that very Body which suffered and was crucified, rose again, and no other than It, although It was transelemented into incorruption and impassibility [Trpoc d(l>dapa'iav koi dTra^Etav jUETEoroti^EttoSr)]." " Being ^ the first, not according to the Deity (God for- " Ep, ad Eust. Ambr. et Basil. Ib. 658, Besides the above, there are others, less evident, that " the universe shall be trans elemented into sorae other condition " (de Hom. Opif. c. 24), and (de Virgin, c. iv. t. iii. 127.) " All things necessarily expect the transelementing." (The matter of the universe, it was supposed, would remain.) De inscr. Ps. c. 8, p. 308, " The rod of iron, J. e. His immutable power crushing what was of earth and clay, trariselemented it into an incorrupt nature, teaching that to trust in Him is the only bliss" (where there is a metaphor, as also in Hom. vii. in Cant. p. 573), " We were in the hands ofthe work man, and He made us a ' chariot ' for Hiraself, transelementing the nature of wood through regeneration into gold and silver and bright purple and the lustre of precious stones." ' Euseb. Thessal. ap. Phot. cod. 162, fin. ' S. Chrys. de Incarnat. ap. Phot. cod. 277, and thence Opp. t. xiii. p. 268, ed. Ben. 303 On words of the Fathers, quoted in support of bid ! For it were an indignity to God to be called first of creatures, Who in an ineffable way and inconceivable emi nence is raised and set aloft above all nature), but He is first according to His Humanity, being the Foregoer of our Resurrection, and of the transelementing from corrup tion to incorruption." And another of a moral change : — " For ' this cause I [our Lord] allowed shrinking to the flesh, that I may transelement it to good courage." S. Gregory of Nazianzum eraploys the word, of the change in our nature through Christ. " He * [Apollinaris] affirms that the Flesh, which in the dispensation was taken to Him by the Only Begotten Son for the transelementing of our nature (etti piraaToixuixsti rriQ ^w(7£toc ¦hfit^'v) was not taken from without," &c. From S. Cyril of Alexandria, Albertinus quotes thirty instances in which the word is used of changes in which there is no material alteration ; of changing our flesh into life, all things to newness ; of man's being changed to his primaeval state ; by the Holy Spirit into all kind of virtue ; of the Gospel changing body, soul, and spirit, into its own quality ; the water of Baptism being changed into a Divine and ineffable power ; Israel into a new people ; our minds ; and even of our union with our Lord ; and our Lord's transelementing His own Human Body to glory. ' Quoted as S. Chrys. on S. Joh. xii. 27, in Cat. Cord. p. 311. ' Epist. 202, ad Nect. ii. 168, ed. Ben. Transubstantiation. ii. S. Gregory's ' transelementing.' 303 " Christ ' the First Born from the dead, to us the way of the Resurrection, Who transelemenieth to newness (Trpoc KaivoTjjra piTacrTOixiwv) and removeth decay." " The " Saviour likens to leaven, the excellent and bene ficial power of the Divine and Evangelic instruction, because its life-giving in-working, entering into the mind and heart, transelementeth soul and body and spirit into, as it were, its own quality (i/zu^iiv te Kal awpa Kai TTVEfi^ua Trpoc iBiav wairep TTOioTriTa ;uEraoTOt;^£toT)." " The new moon ' may be a type of the world to come, having, as a beginning, the Resurrection of Christ, through which we have passed to newness, enriched with the Spirit in the earnest of grace and with an unfailing hope of life immortal, transelemented into our primseval state {jitraaToi- ^E(ou/iEvot Tfjooe TO EV dp^atc), and going backwards as it were, conformed to the world to come.'" " Of ' His own free will too did the Only Begotten Word of God come among us .... in order that, having ap peared in a form subject to death, He might transelement it unto life." " They ° of Israel too have become children of the Church through faith in Christ, no longer reckoned to that old people, but rather transeletnenied {fUTaaroix'^iovpivoi lig veov) into the new, blended with those from the Gentiles." " But ' when our Lord Jesus Christ returned to life, and as a sheaf', presented Himself, the first fruits of our humanity, to God and the Father, then were we transele mented as it were to a new life (sic viav Sjaag) all things to a better state, and as it were renewing the face of the earth." " Things ' in Him are a new creation, as it is written, ' old things have passed away, and new have come,' through Him transelementing the things of man, and renewing them ; so that, again, all should be good (;uETa(rro(X£toi}vroc to dvBpwiriva)." " But ' the spirit of man is formed in Him, not called to the beginning of His being, although made by Him, but as it were transformed {pETapopSi. Gregory's ' transelementing.' 307 " That * He may bring us to the Father, having freed us from the charges of our old sins, and having transelemented us to newness of life in the Spirit (eic icatvoTijTa Z,wrig jitraaroixei^diuag ev trvtvpari)!'^ " The ' Word from God the Father was born among us according to the flesh, that we too might gain the birth of God through the Spirit, no longer being called children of the flesh, but rather transelemented to that which is above nature {ptTaaToixemvpevoi ug to. virep (j>v 2 312 On words ofthe Fathers, quoted in support of not man who maketh what lieth there to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but Christ Himself Who was crucified for us. The priest standeth, filling up a figure, speaking these words, the power and grace are of God. ' This is My Body,' He saith. This word re-ordereth what lieth there, and as that voice, ' increase and multiply and replenish the earth,' was spoken once, but throughout all time, in effect giveth power to our race to the procreation of children, so also that voice, once spoken, doth on every Table in the Churches from that time even till now, and unto His coming, complete the sacrifice." The object of S. Chrysostom's illustration is to show the power of God, either in strengthening the laws of nature, or above nature. He does not speak any thing of any physical change, but of the power of the Word of God in ordering or re-ordering as He wills. This is illustrated by the very instances in which he uses the word of a change in a physical subject, when God stopped the lions' mouths or restrained the violence of fire. In the lions there was no physical change ; the fire retained its own burning nature, for it slew the mighty men who came near its mouth. But God changed the will of the lions, and withheld the effects of the fire from passing upon the three children. Yet for both S. Chrysostom uses this same word, " re-order." " What ' wonder if they have mastered enemies, when ' Exp. in Ps. 10, init. T. v. p. 113. Transubstantiation. iii. S. Chrysostom's ' re-order.' 313 they have overcome the world itself? For the elements, forgetting their own nature, were changed {fitrefiaXXovTo) into what was profitable for them ; and the wild beasts were no longer beasts, nor the furnace, a furnace. For hope in God remodels all things (17 yap tig rbv Qeov iXirlg navTa perappvdpiZet). For there were sharpened teeth and a narrow prison, fierceness of nature, and hunger arming nature, and a fence no where, and mouths near the body of the prophet ; but hope in God, mightier than any bridle, falling upon their mouths, drevy them backwards." In like way, in another place, in which S. Chry sostom speaks of God's re-ordering nature, it relates not to any physical change in nature, but to a sus pension of its laws; and this, in answer to those who deified nature. Nature, he argues, cannot be God, because there is One who overruleth and re-ordereth nature. " Not ' only do they [the powers of nature] accomplish those things for which they are prepared, but even if He enjoin the contrary, here too there is great obedience. He commanded the sea, and not only did it not overwhelm, vvhich was its office, but lulling its waves, it transmitted the Jewish people more safely than a rock. The furnace not only burnt not, but yielded a whistling dew. The wild beasts not only devoured not, but held the place of a body guard to Daniel. The whale not only devoured not, but preserved its deposit safe. The earth not only bare not, but overwhelmed more grievously than the sea itself, when it opened and swallowed up Dathan, and covered the congre- ° In Ps. 110, n. 2, T. v. p. 267. In the sarae referenee S. Chrys. says, " God it is Who maketh and re-fashionelh all things, and re-ordereth all things at His Will" (6 Trciira iroiaiv khI [lETacTKEva^wv Kal pEToppvBpi^iDv). (In Gen. Hom. ii. 2, iv. 10, A.) 314 On words of the Fathers, quoted in support of gation of Abiram, and many other marvellous works might any one observe ; that those who are exceeding senseless, and deify nature, may learn that things are not hurried alonw by a tyranny of nature, but that all things give way and yield to the Will of God. For this is the Creator of nature, and at Its good pleasure It re-orders all the things which are, at one time retaining their bounds immoveable, and again when It wills, easily removing them, and changing to the contrary." On another Psalm ' he gives nearly the same in stances in correction of the same errors. " He bringeth forth substances which are not, and when produced He transposeth them {ptTaTiBtiai), and re-ordereth whereto He wills." He distinguishes. " Sometimes He changes the substances themselves, sometimes He transposes them, abiding, into another energy {elg eripav peTUTiOricrLv ivepyetav)." And SO he even insists on the abiding of the natural substances, " It was fire, and it burned not ; there was sea ; there was earth. There were lions in the case of Daniel, and they displayed the gentleness of sheep, their nature not being destroyed, but its operation changed." Elsewhere *, while using the word " re-order," he expressly denies any change of substance. Speaking of our Lord's coming to judgment, he says, " How doth He come ? The very creation being then transfigured {ixeTa(jx'niJ^a.TiZ,opivr]g), for ' the sun shall be darkened,' not destroyed, but overcome by the light of His Presence. ' And the stars shall fall.' For what need of ' In Ps. 147, n. 1, pp. 483, 4. ' Hom. 76, in S. Matt. xxiv. 29, p. 1013, 0. T. Transubstantiation. lii. S. Chrysostom's ' re-order.' 315 them any more, there being no night ? ' and the powers of Heaven shall be shaken,' very naturally, seeing so great a change coming to pass. For if when the stars were made, they trfembled and marvelled °, much more seeing all things remodelled, and their fellow-servants giving account, — how shall they but tremble and shake ? " Elsewhere, S. Chrysostom uses it of moral or spiritual changes. Thus, of man's re-formation in Baptism, the re-harmonizing of his being, the resto ration of that state in which he was in harmony with God and with himself. " When * he confessed (his behef) in the life everlasting, he confessed a second creation. He took dust from the earth, and formed man ; yet now, dust no longer, but the Holy Spirit ; with This he is formed, with This harmonized {pvOpiZerai), even as Himself was in the womb of the Virgin. He said not 'in Paradise,' but ' in Heaven.' For deem not that, because the subject is earth, it is done on earth ; he is removed thither, to Heaven; there these things are transacted, in the midst of angels ; God taketh up thy soul above ; above, He harmonizeth it anew. He placeth thee near to the kingly throne. He is formed in the water, he receiveth spirit instead of a soul." And of Christ's transforming power : " What ' sayest thou ? If I give mine enemy drink, do I then punish him ? if I let go my goods, do I then have them ? if I humble myself, shall I then be exalted ? Yea, saith He. For such is My power. By means of contraries, contraries are effected. I am wealthy and full of resources ; fear not. The nature of things followeth My own will, I ' Job xxxviii. 7, LXX. " Hom. 6, in Col. n. 4, p. 253, O. T. ' Hom. 25, in Ep. ad Heb. T. 12, p. 230. 316 On words ofthe Fathers, quoted in support of follow not nature. Therefore I can transmould and remodel these things {^lo koI juETavrXaTTEtv Kat ptTappvOpiZeiv avra. Svvapai). And again of Baptism : — " Great ' indeed is the might of Baptism. It makes them that partake of that gift quite other men. It suffer eth not men to be men. Make the Heathen believe that great is the power of the Spirit, that it hath re-formed, that it hath remodelled [ort ;U£rE7rXa(T£, oti ptTtppvdpi(je\!" " He ' loathed not her deformity [of that which He made the Church], but He changed, remoulded, remodelled {fiiTe(5aXe, peTtirXatTt, pereppvOpiaev) what was unpleasing, and forgave her sins." And oflove: — " Him ' do thou imitate ; remodel her [an ill-mannered wife] by goodness and tenderness, as Christ also did the Church." " Love ' is a great teacher ; and able both to withdraw men from error, and to remodel the character (TpoTrov ptTttppvdpiaai) ." And of the fruits of our Lord's passion : — " On ^ the Parasceue when thy Lord was crucified for the world, and such a Sacrifice was offered, and Paradise was opened, and the Robber brought back to the ancient home, the curse was dissolved, and sin was destroyed, and the long war was taken away, and God was reconciled with man, and all things were ^re-ordered'' (restored to their ancient order and harmony, Tra vra ptTtppvdpiZeTo).'" Of the hymns of Paul and Silas : — " Horn. 23, in Act. n. 3, p. 336, O. T. " Quales ducend. sunt uxores, § 2, iii. 214. ' Ibid. ' In 1 Cor. Hom. 33, n. 6, p. 468, O. T. ' Cont. Lud. et Theatr. vi. 273. Transubstantiation. iii. S. Chrysostom's ' re-order.' 317 " The * voice of those sacred hymns entering the soul of each of the prisoners, remoulded it, so to say, and re ordered it (lUETETrXaTTEv avTTJv, dig direXv, koi pereppvd- fti?£v)." Lastly, of the amending of laws : " But ° if some of them were dissolved, they were re modelled, not for the worse, but for the better." So again S. Clement of Alexandria : " Democritus ° says well, that nature and teaching are very near alike. And we have briefly added the cause. For instruction re-orders {ptrappvOpiZti) the man ; and, re-ordering {perappvBpovaa), imparts a nature {(pvaioiroitl). And it differeth nothing that he should be formed such by nature, or recast {ptrarvKoyBrivai) by time and learning. But the Lord gave both : the one by creation : the other according to the re-creation and renewal {avaKTiaiv te Kai avaveiDaiv) from the covenant." And Theodoret : " The ' nature of fire obeyeth thee not, nor doth it depart frora its native operation (for it is thy fellow- servant); but, obeying the will of its Creator, it is re ordered {fAtTappvOpiZerai), and the nature bearing upwards becomes down-bearing." And S. Cyril of Alexandria : " They ' [man's natural -powers] are remodelled to the use of virtue, and to the ministry of holiness {pirappvOpi- l^erat elg aoETtJc XP"'"''): ^^i surely, the golden and silver vessels of Egypt are pointed out as being useful for the fur nishing and completion of the holy tabernacle. ' In illud Diligentib. Deum, c. 3, t. 3, p. 154. ' InPs. 110, T.V. 274. ' Strom, iv. 23, ed. Pott. ' De Provid. Orat. i. p. 491, ed. Sch. ' De Adorat. L. i. T. 1, p. 46. 31 8 On words of the Fathers, quoted in support of " Moved ' by the spirit of the prophecy, and through it foreknowing things to come, the blessed prophet understood that the human race could no otherwise be saved, except only by the Epiphany of the Son of God, Who, without diffi culty, can re-order whereto He will (e^' oirtp av jSouAoiro ptTappvOpiZeiv l<7\vovTOg). " Wherein ' most of all, we should admire ahke the for bearance of our Saviour, and the power of Him who easily remodels even untutored understandings to an admirable frame. " Having ' once received this healing through faith, and having been remodelled' into newness of life, it was necessary that the old ness of the letter of the law should become of no effect. " All things * He transposed {fiiTeTiOei) for the better, and, remodelling ' the corrupted nature of man to newness of life, as being loosed from chains, He presented us free to the Father. " Having remodelled^ all things in us to a better order and firm condition. " It ' seemed good to Him, Who is good by nature, the Maker of all things, to transmould {ptTairXaTTtiv) the Hving creature to incorruption ; and by re-formations ' to godli ness, well to re-element them into that incorrupt beauty which was in the beginning. " In Joh. L. i.e. 3, p. 18. ' ros aiTailEVTOVQ liavoiuQ eIq a^icfYaarov e^iv evkoXwc fiETappvd- pi(ovTog. Ib. L. ii. c. 4, p. 184. ' Ib. c. 5, p. 209. £iC KaivoTrjTa fiETappvOfiiadiirag ^wrjg. ¦• De Fest. Pasch. vi. T. v. 2, p. 79. Tr)v KaTEipdapfiEvriv tov avdpwirov (pvaiv £(£ caoorijra piTap- pvd/xil^iov ^(iliJQ. iravra fiETappv9/j.-)'idapTov. Transubstantiation. iv. S. Chrys. 'transfashion.' 333 from corruptible to incorruption, being, from the old man, renewed according to the image of Him Who in the begin ning created the Divine likeness." And then having spoken of heresy as being " a denial of the Godhead revealed in this doctrine [of the Trinity]," he says, — " For we have once learnt from the Lord to what we ought to look, through what the transelementation {fiira- aToixei'omg) of our nature from mortal to immortal takes place ; and this is the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost." S. Gregory of Nazianzum : — " Approach * to the truth ; be ye at least thus late trans- formed^, honour God;" and "0° Lord of life and death; Guardian and Benefactor of our souls, Who makest all things and transformest {ptTaaKevdZ,(>iv) them in due season by the disposing Word, and as Thou knowest in the depth of Thy Wiisdom and Providence, now too receive Csesarius." St. Cyril of Alexandria uses the word of the re formation of our whole nature in the Person of Christ :— " The ' Only Begotten receiveth the Holy Spirit, not for Himself, for the Spirit is His and in Him and through Him, but because, having become Man, He had the whole [human] nature in Himself, that He might restore it all, transforming ' it to its ancient condition. " Incorruption " again is a good, proper to the Divine Nature. For the dead shall be changed, and the corruptible * Orat. 22, fin. p. 767. ' fiETaaKEvd^EadE oxpi yovv. ' Or. 7, p. 215. ' In S. Joh. vii. 39, p. 472. ' fiETaaKEvdaag tig to apya'tov. ' De recta fide ad Imp. T. v. P. ii. p. 92. 324 On words of the Fathers, quoted in support of shall put on incorruption, the Only Begotten having become as we, and having removed {ptdiaravTog) mortality into immortaUty, and transforming {peracTKevdZovTog) the corruptible to incorruption first in Himself. For thus He became a way to life to ourselves also. " When' the life-giving Word of God dwelt in the flesh. He transformed {pereaKevaaev) it into His Ovvn proper good, i. e. life. " Transforming ' {fieTaaKtvdZovTi) His own nature into its original state, and renewing it to incorruption." Or of the re-formation in ourselves personally : — " We ' were to become partakers of the Divine Nature of the Word, and quitting our own life to be transformed {peTaaKevdZeadai) to another, and to be transelemented {ptTatjTOLxeioixrdai) to a newness of God-loving conversa tion. " We * have been transformed {pereaKevdapeOa) to the newness of Evangelic life, and have been filled with the Divine learning. " Why ', then, does the Prophet attempt to transform them (juETatTKEva^Etv) by good admonitions ? " S. Cyril uses it again of fragrance imparting its own qualities where it is present : " For " if the fragrance of perfumes impresses its own power on dress, and in a manner transforms {peraaKevdZei) the things in which it is, to itself, how could not the Holy ' In S. Joh. vi. 51, 1. iv. c. 2, p. 354. '' Cont. Nestor. L. iv. p. 107. ' In S. Joh. xvi. 7, p. 919. * C. Julian, x. p. 346. = In Is. L. i. Orat. 1, p. 12. ° In S. Joh. xvi. 15. L. xi. c. 2, p. 932. S. Cyril uses the same expression of honey imparting its sweetness. Ib. L. iv. p. 376. Transubstantiation. v. ' Transfer, translate.' 335 Spirit, being by Nature from God, make those in whom it is, partakers of the Divine Nature, through Itself ? " v. The passages alleg;ed for the use of peBiarnpi, " transfer," speak, as was said ', of transference into Divine power. They do, as has been already shown, imply the continued presence of the consecrated eleraents, not their annihilation. For translation into a " Divine power" or " into the energy of His Flesh," implies that, in some way, the visible sub stances are endued with that power and energy, not that they are physically converted into those very substances. I will subjoin however two passages illustrating the use of the word. That frora S. Chrysostora will show how the Fathers speak of change of nature, when they raean only change of operation. S. Chry sostom supposes that the words, " Who laid out the earth above the waters," meant that the whole mass of the earth rested on water. He infers, " The * Creator of all maketh all things contrariwise to human nature, that thence too thou mayest learn His unspeakable power, and that, wben He wills, the very elements themselves, obeying the command of the Creator, display effects the very contrary to their proper eflScacity." He then instances, as before', the fiery furnace, into which the three children were cast, and the Red Sea. ' Above, p. 175. ' In Gen. ii. Hom. xii. 2, t. iv. p. 94. ' See above, p. 214. Q -1- 326 On the words of the Fathers, quoted in support of "The" substance of the fire, as it were, fulfilling obedience, and serving the command of the Lord, guarded, unscathed, and untouched, those wondrous children, and, walking as in a meadow or garden, they abode so securely in the furnace. And that no one should think that what was seen was not the efficacity of fire, therefore the loving Lord did not fetter its efficacity, but, having allowed its power of burning to remain in it, made His own servants superior to injury from it. But that they too who cast them in might learn, how great is the power of the God of all, the fire displayed against them its own efficacity : and that self-same (fire) surrounded those within it, but those who stood without, it burnt up and consumed. Seest thou, how, when the Lord willeth. He transformeth ' each of the elements into the contrary substance ? for He is Creator and Lord, and dispenseth all things after His Own Will. Would you again this same thing take place in water? As here the fire a,bstained from those within it, and forgot its own efficacity {'evepye'iag), but fulfilled its own office towards those without, so also we shall see the waters drowning the one, and giving way to others, that so they should pass through safely. So well did the ele ments know how to respect tbe Lord's servants, and to hold in their own impetuosity." And in the application to raan's angry tempers, "What is more, "' lb. n. 3. EKOoTov riov UTOiXEiiDv TTpog TT/v Evavrlav pEBidTTjaiv ovdiav. Transubstantiation. v. ' Transfer, translate.' 337 fire having this substance {ova'iav), I mean, burning, did not display its own efficacity {evepytiav) ! " Again, in his summary : " See ' how ' He founded the earth upon the waters,' whicb, apart from faith, human reasoning cannot receive, and prepares all substances {ovaiag) when He wills, to perform what is contrary to their own efficacity {svtpyelq)." S. Chrysostora strengthens the force of the word peB'iaTTiixi by adding, "into the contrary sub stance." The very fact that he so strengthens it, implies that it did not, in itself, signify a substantial change. And yet the whole context shows that S. Chrysostom did not mean, in any technical or physical way, to speak of a substantial change. In deed, he says the very contrary, that the substance of the fire retained its own efficacity, and held it in, and put it forth, at one and the same time, towards different persons, as God willed. The other passage is one, in which S. Cyril of Alexandria applies this terra also to our Lord's uniting with Himself our human nature. " In ^ an unspeakable manner, aud passing man's understanding, the Word being united to His Own Flesh, and having translated, as it were. It all into liimself (oXtjv looTrep tig tavTOV iieTaaTi\aag), according to that eflScacious power, whereby He can quicken things which need life, He expelled corruption from our nature, and took out of the way death, which of old prevailed through sin." " lb. p. 96. ' In Joh. vi. 55, t. iv. p. 363. q2 338 On the words of the Fathers, quoted in support of The converse of this expression occurs in a Gal lican Sacramentary, and in the writer called Eusebius Gallicanus. Tbe prayer in the Gallican Sacramen tary, is, " We * pray Thee, Almighty Father, that Thou wouldest infuse into these creatures placed upon Thy Altar the Spirit of sanctification, that through the transfusion of the heavenly and invisihle Sacrament, this bread changed into Flesh, and the Cup translated into Blood, raay be grace to all, and medicine to those who receive." This word, too, is used by Cassian in an idiom, so strongly expressing change of substance, that we must have understood him to mean entire change of substance, but that it would have been heresy. " This ' is to say, We have known Christ after the Flesh: as long as there was what could be known after the Flesh ; now we have known Him no longer, since it hath ceased to be. For the nature ° of the flesh is translated into a spiritual substance, and that which was once of man, is now become wholly of God. And therefore we know not Christ after the flesh ; because bodily infirraity being absorbed by the Divine Majesty, nought remained in His Holy Body, whence the infirmity of the flesh could be known therein. And thereby, whatsoever before was of double substance, was made of one virtue. Since in truth it is not doubtful that Christ, who was crucified through our weakness, wholly liveth by the Power of God." The words " the nature of the flesh is translated * Mone Messen. p. 21. = De Incarn. iii. 3, p. 700. Natura enim carnis in spiritualem est translata substantiara: et illud quod fuerat quondam hominis, factum est totum Dei. Transubstantiation. v. 'Transfer, translate.' 339 into a spiritual substance," are said so strongly, that the Benedictine editor is obliged to add, " Not that it ceases to be true and corporeal flesh in itself, but that it is made spiritual, that is, incosrruptible, and glo rious, and free from all infirmity : as saith the Apostle, ' It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.' ' For the resurrection of the Lord,' saith S. Leo ', ' was not the end of flesh, but its change [com- mutatio] nor was the substance consumed by the in crease of its virtue [nee virtutis augmento consumpta substantia est]. The quality passed away, the nature failed not; and the Body, Which could be crucified, became impassible : It became immortal, Which could be killed : It becarae incorruptible. Which could be wounded. And rightly is the Flesh of Christ said not to be known in that state, in which It had been known, because there remained in It nothing passible, nothing weak, so that It is Itself by essence, not Itself through glory. But what marvel, if he (the Apostle) professes this of the Body of Christ, which he says of all spiritual Christians : ' Therefore henceforth know we no man after the Flesh.' " vi. On the meaning of the word " transfigure," which S. Ambrose employs, Tertullian, cited above ^ will be a competent authority. S. Ambrose's words are: ' Serm. i. de Res. Dom. ' p. 172, sqq. 330 On the words of the Fathers, quoted in support of " So ^ often as we receive the Sacraments, which, by the mystery of the sacred prayer, are transfigured into Body and Blood, we show forth the Death of the Lord." And, " For '" although thou believe, that true Flesh was taken by Christ, and offer the body to the altars to be transfigured, but dost not rightly distinguish the nature of the Divinity and the Body, to thee too it is said, ' if thou rightly offerest, but dividest not rightly, thou hast sinned.' " The word " transfigure "" was already a well-known title to Christians, when S. Ambrose thus used it. It was the term appropriated to the manifestation of our Lord's hidden glory, in His " transfiguration." In the old Latin translation, it represented two words of Holy Scripture, which relate to changes which are not changes of substance. The readers of S. Arabrose were accustomed to hear of the " trans figuration " of our Lord. It was used contrariwise of Satan being " transfigured into an Angel of light," ° De Fide, iv. 10, n. 124, t. ii, 544. '" De Incarn. Dom. Saer. e. iv. n. 23, p. 709. " It stands for (1) /ueraaxjjjuar/fw in all five places, 1 Cor. iv. 6 ; 2 Cor. xi. 13 — 15 ; Phil. iii. 21 ; in S. Irenseus' old Latin Translation ; Tertullian and S. Hilary. See in Sabatier, ad Joe. (2) fiErai.iop(j)6ojxai, S. Matt. xvii. 2 ; S. Marc. ix. 2 ; and by Tertullian in 2 Cor. iii. 18. In Phil. iii. 21, the Vulgate uses " reformavit " for " transfigurabit," but then contrariwise, it sub stitutes " configuratum " for " conformatura." Transubstantiation. vi. 'Transfigure.' 331 false Apostles " transfiguring themselves into Apos tles of Christ," " the ministers of Satan being trans figured as ministers of righteousness." In the oldest translation, it was used of that change in the resur rection, " when our Lord Jesus Christ shall trans figure our vile body, conformed to His glorious Body." Tertullian uses it of our being "transfigured from glory to glory." Now, in the transfiguration of our Lord, the inward glory of the Godhead shone forth in that earthly form, which for us He vouchsafed to take. In the "transfiguration of our bodies" after the re surrection, the substances will be the same, but there shall be a glory from the Indwelling of the Spirit. In those false transfigurings of Satan and his ministers, there was an assumed glory, although not theirs. When then S. Ambrose employed the word " transfigured " of the Holy Eucharist, Chris tians were familiar with it, as expressing the presence of a hidden glory, although indeed manifested with out, also. The force of the word expressed, in no way, a change of substance, but the contrary. Its use in Holy Scripture forbad, as Tertullian had pointed out, that it should be used of " change of sub stance." So far then from the use of this word being an argument that S. Ambrose believed in a change of substance, it may rather be inferred that, had he meant to express a change of substance, he would have avoided the use of a term, which described a change not substantial. 232 On the words of the Fathers, quoted in support of vii. viii. The two remaining expressions are, that the elements (vii.) are "changed into," (viii.) "be come " the Body and Blood of Christ. Now, of course, since the eleraents were before Consecration mere bread and wine, and after Conse cration they are mere bread and wine no longer, but are, as I said, " not in any physical or carnal way, but really, spiritually, sacramentally. Divinely, mys tically, ineffably, the Body and Blood of Christ," plainly they become what they were not. There is a change of some sort. The question is not, whether there be any change, but Avhether it be a change by which they cease to be. It is confessed on all hands, that the phrases "become," "to be changed into," are not to be taken strictly. For, strictly speaking (as was said), one thing becomes another by being changed into that thing, which before was not. The water became wine, not only ceasing to he water, but becoming wine which before was not. It is a contradiction, that a thing should become a pre-existing thing '. " I say," says Scotus ^ " that, properly speaking, transubstantiation is not change;" and another ', " in transubstantiation, there is no change, properly so called, in respect of the bread." ' " Every thing, whatsoever is transfigured into another thing, ceases to be what it had been, and begins to be what it was not." Tert. adv. Prax. c. 27. ^ Ad iv. Dist. xi. q. 1, n. 10. ' Gamaeh. ad q. 75, c. 6, both quoted by Alb. i. 22, p. 136. Transubstantiation. vli. viii. 'Become, changed.' 333 Suarez ^ and Gregory de Valentia ^ speak of " a quasi-change," on this same ground, that all change implies, not only that " what is changed, so far as it is changed, does not abide," but that also, positively, "it, in some manner, becomes or passes into a new being." But it is confessed by all, that the bread does not pass into the Body of Christ. There fore, it is not, properly, change or conversion, in any physical way. Whence, consistently, some School men", as Gab. Biel, Major, Occam, Angelus, Scotus, in fact, Durandus, and Albertus Magnus, scrupled not to say, that the elements were annihi lated. The Fathers were familiar with this. But they were familiar also with a more popular use of the word " change," in which that word was used to ex press, that the object spoken of took to itself or acquired something which it was not, without ceasing to be what it was. Thus "the ' Word became Flesh," i. e. clothed Him self with Flesh, without ceasing to be the Unchange able God. On the other hand,God shall "transfashion^ {fitTatfyjipaTiati) our vile bodies, to be made like unto His Glorious Body ;" but, although filled with light, and incorruptible and spiritual, they shall be the same substance still. Our Lord was transfigured^ * Disp. 50, sect. 2, § Tertio, p. 596, quoted Ib. ' Disp. 6, q. 3, punct. 3. ° Quoted by Suarez, Ib. sect. 7. ' S. Joh. i. 14. ' Phil. in. 21. ' S. Matt. xvii. 2. 334 On the words of the Fathers, quoted in support of {(itTtnop^iiBri), but the same Flesh sufl'ered, which He took in the Virgin's womb. " We ' all," says S. Paul, " beholding, as in a glass, with unveiled face, the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image (rJ7v avrriv tiKova ptrapopt^ovfitBa) from glory to glory," " transformed," not essentially, as some mys tics have inferred, into the Divine Essence, but by partaking of the glory and brightness and holiness of God through Christ. But, this being so, why should the Fathers hesi tate to use words in this less rigid sense, since they were compelled by the Faith itself to use them in that same sense in Holy Scripture? The Fathers had often to insist that " the Word became Flesh," " not by conversion of the Godhead into fiesh, but by taking of the manhood into God." S. Athanasius urged this against the Arians ; " As ' when S. .Tohn says, ' the Word was made Flesh,' we do not conceive the whole Word Himself to be Flesh, but to have put on Flesh and become Man ; and on hear ing, ' Christ hath become a curse for us,' and ' He hath made Him sin for us Who knew no sin,' we do not simply conceive this, that whole Christ has become curse and sin, but that He has taken on Him the curse which lay against us, as the Apostle has said, ' has redeemed us from the curse,' and has ' carried,' as Esaias has said, ' our sins,' and as Peter has written, ' has borne them in the Body on the wood ;' so, if it is said in the Proverbs, ' He created,' we must not conceive that the whole Word is in nature a creature, but that He put on the created Body, and that God created Him for our sakes, preparing for Him the ' 2 Cor. iii. 18. ' Oral. ii. § 47, p. 347, O. T. Transubstantiation. viii. ' Become.' 335 created Body, as it is written, ' for us,' that in Him we might be capable of being renewed and made gods." And again : " If ' the Son be in the number of the Angels, then let the word become apply to Him as to them, and let Him not differ at all from them in nature ; but be they either sons with Him, or He an angel with them ; sit they one and all together on the right Hand of the Father, or be the Son standing with them all as a ministering Spirit, sent forth to minister Himself as they are. But if, on the other hand, Paul distinguishes the Son from things gene rate, saying, ' to which of the Angels said He at any time. Thou art My Son ?' and the One frames Heaven and earth, but they are made by Him ; and He sitteth with the Father, but they stand by ministering ; who does not see that he has not used the word ' become ' of the substance of the Word, but of the ministration come through Him ? For asj being the Word, He became Flesh, so when be come Man, He became by so much better in His ministry than the ministry which came by the Angels, as Son excels servants, and Framer things framed. Let them cease therefore to take the word become of the substance of the Son, for He is not one of generated things ; and let them acknowledge that it is indicative of His ministry, and the economy which came to pass If they carry on the contest, it will be proper, upon their rash daring, to close with them, and to oppose to them those similar ex pressions which are used concerning the Father Himself. .... Now it is written, 'Become my strong rock and house of defence, that Thou mayest save me.' And again, ' The Lord became a defence for the oppressed,' and the like, which are found in Divine Scripture. If, then, they apply these passages to the Son, which perhaps is nearest the truth, then let them acknowledge that the sacred ' Orat. i. § 62, p. 268, O. T. 336 On the words of the Fathers, quoted in support of writers ask Hira, as not being generate, to become to them a strong rock and house of defence ; and for the future let thera understand become, and He made, and He created, of His Incarnate Presence. For then did He become a strong rock and house of defence, when He bore our sins in His own Body upon the tree, and said, ' Corae unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.' " And then having instanced human benefactors, he adds, " As * then, should one and the other of these bene fited persons say, ' Such a one became an assistance to me,' and another, ' and to me a refuge,' and ' to another, a supply,' yet in so saying he would not be speaking of the original becoming or the substance of their benefactors, but of the beneficence coming to theraselves frora them, so also when the sacred writers say concerning God, ' He became,'' and ' Become Thou,' they do not denote any original becoming, (for God is unoriginate, and not generate,) but the salvation which is raade to be unto raen from Him. " This being so understood, it is parallel also respecting the Son, that whatever, and however often, is said, such as, ' He became,' and ' become,' should ever have the sarae sense ; so that, as when we hear the words in question, ' becorae better than the Angels,' and ' He became,' we should not conceive any original becoming of the Word, nor in any way fancy from such terms that He is generate ; but should understand Paul's words of His ministry and economy when He became Man. For when the Word became Flesh and dwelt ainong us, and came to minister and to grant salvation to all, then He became to us salvation, and became life, and became propitiation ; then His eco nomy in our behalf became much better than the Angels, * Ib. §§ 63, 64, pp. 270, 271, O. T. Transubstantiation. viii. 'Become.' 337 and He became the Way, and became the Eesurrection. And as the words, ' Become my strong rock ' do not denote that the substance of God Himself became, but His loving kindness, as has been said, so also here the having become ' better than the Angels,' and ' He became,' and ' by so much is Jesus become a better Surety,' do not signify that the substance o^ the Word is generate (perish the thought!), but the beneficence which towards us came to be through His Incarnation." Since then S. Athanasius had so often impressed upon others, that the word " became " did not neces sarily imply "a change of substance," we have no ground to infer from his merely using the word " became," that he meant to speak of any such change. Roman Catholic controversialists argue from the raere fact of his using this word, that he meant not a sacramental, but a physical, change ; not raerely that our Lord's Holy Body and Blood should be, where before They were not, but that the bread and wine should cease to be. The very context implies the contrary. For since (as I have said) S. Athanasius says this in contrast with what they were before, " mere bread and a common Cup," this implies that he believed them to be in some sense bread and cup still. " Thou ° wilt see the Levites [Deacons] bearing bread and a Cup of wine, and placing them on the table ; and so long as the supplications and prayers have not yet taken place, bare {ypiXog) is the bread and the Cup ; but when the ' Sermo ad Baptizat. Quoted by Eutych. de Pasch. in Card. Mai Biblioth. Nov. iv. 62 ; also in Scriptt. Vett. Vat. Coll. ix. 623. 338 On the words of the Fathers, quoted in support of great and wonderful prayers have been completed over it, then the bread becoraeth the Body, the Cup, the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ." And again, " Let us come to the consecration ofthe mysteries. This bread and this Cup, so long as the prayers and supplications have not yet taken place, are bare elements, but when the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent up, the Word cometh down into the bread and Cup, and His Body is produced (yivETot)." S. Gregory of Nyssa says in the same way as S. Athanasius, " The ^ bread again is thus far common bread, but when the raystery consecrates it, it is called, and it becomes, the Body of Christ." But S. Gregory of Nyssa, in the sarae way as S. Athanasius, urged against the heretic Eunomius, that our Lord became Man without being changed. " The ' Only Begotten God, He Who is in the Bosom of the Father, being Word and King and Lord, aud every high Name and Thought, lacketh not to become any good thing, being Himself the Fulness of all good. Into what can He be changed (6 Se t'lg t\ perajiaXXopevog) that He should become that which He was not before ? As then He Who knew no sin, becomes sin, that He may take away the sin of the world, so again the Flesh that received the Lord, becometh Christ and Lord, transmade into that which it was not by nature, through the comraingling (o prj ?v t^ fvaei tig TOVTO perairoiovpevi] 8(a rrig dvoKpairewg). Hence we learn, that neither would God have appeared in the flesh, unless the Word had become Flesh ; nor would the Human Flesh around Him have been transmade into Divinity " De Bapt. Christi, iii. 370. ' Cont. Eunom. Or. v. T. ii. p. 595. Transubstantiation. viii, 'Become.' 239 (ovt' ov pntiroir]dr\ irpog to dtlov), had not the Visible Nature (ro ^atvojUEvov) become Christ and Lord." Both these Fathers, S. Athanasius and S. Gre gory, contrast the change in the Holy Eucharist, not with the substance, but with the qualities of the elements ; not with their being bread and wine at all, but with their being any longer mere bread and mere wine, bare elements of this world. A change then there has been ; yet the very context leads us to think that it is not a change of their own physical substance, but an accession to it. S. Ambrose's dis ciple °, in answer to the question, " How can that which is bread be the Body of Christ?" says the same in other words, " How much more is the word of the Lord Jesus operative, that things which were should be, and should be changed into something else ? " They are what tbey were, in that, physically, they are bread and wine still; they are "changed into soraething else," in that they are no longer comraon bread and wine, but " under the forra of bread and wine, the Body and Blood of Christ." S. Athanasius urged, that when "the Word becarae flesh," His unchangeable Godhead did not change. He became flesh, without ceasing to be God. He veiled His Godhead under His Manhood, His Godhead being unchanged. And now He veils both Godhead and Manhood under those poor out ward forms, the forms of Bread and Wine. Yet those forms do not therefore cease to be. The Word became ' The author of the De Sacramentis. See Note R. 340 On the words of the Fathers, quoted in support of Flesh, yet was the Word still; so now the lower substance, the earthly part, the bread and wine become, in the language of S. Arabrose, S. Chrysostom, S. Athanasius, S. Gregory of Nyssa, " the Body and Blood of Christ," without therefore ceasing to be, as to the outward part, bread and wine still. The same principle is maintained by Tertullian as to the word " changed," speaking of a physical sub stance, our own bodies. There will not, he contends as a matter of faith, be at the Resurrection such a change, that the substance of the human body should cease to be ®. But then, this is decisive, that such is not of necessity the force of the word. And since the word does not, in itself, convey the idea of change of substance, such substantial or physical change cannot (it is obvious) be inferred frora the raere use of the word. Tertullian himself says, " Changed ^ in a raoment into the substance of Angels {demutati in Ange- licam substantiara), through that clothing-upon of incorruption we shall be removed into the heavenly kingdom." I have already * mentioned, under the word " re order," instances which show how S. Chrysostom speaks of God's "re-ordering nature," without thereby meaning that He in any way changed its physical structure. In exactly the sarae way, and of one of the same great miracles, he says, " nature ' See above, pp. 172 — 174. ' Adv. Marcion, iii. ult. ^ pp. 212—214. Transubstantiation, vii. ' Changed.' 341 « being changed," when he meant only that God par tially suspended its operation. He is speaking of " the three children." " The ' fire became a wall unto them, and the flame a robe ; and the furnace was a fountain ; and whereas it re ceived them bound, it rendered them free. It received bodies that were mortal, but abstained from them as if they had been iramortal ! It knew their nature, yet it reverenced their piety ! The tyrant bound their feet, and their feet bound the operation of the fire ! O marvellous thing ! The flame loosed those who were bound, and was itself after wards bound by those who had been in bonds ; for the piety of the youths changed the nature of things {fitrijiaXt TUV irpaypdruiv rriv