tfofci of tin fatbtrt J LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. J ! -»^ J i # # ! UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.! LETTERS ON The Bucharest, ADDRESSED TO A Member of the Church of Rome, FORMERLY A PREACHER IN THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, / BY E. O. PHINNEY, A. M., M. D. 'Opa£ yap ug on irspi fjjxpojv iitfiv tjjxIv 6i X6yo»* 'aW ov tivol ^pi7 rpoVov •ffSTio'Tcuxsvai • xai yap ou^ev 6/^ai too'outojv xaxwv dv^pw'7rw ygvsV^ai , otfov 'cctto "This do in remembrance of me," and, "I will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the vine," &c. The principal objections advanced by Dr. Wise- man, as designed to prove a want of parallelism, in the several passages cited, to the words of insti- tution, have now been considered. Those that re- main are undeserving a serious refutation. To his repeated endeavors to range the doctrine of transubstantiation by the side of Christ's divin- ity, it is enough, at present, to reply, that the for- mer has no Scriptural authority, according to the opinion of several distinguished divines of his own church; whereas the latter is clearly and fully taught in the Word of God, as he himself more than intimates, when he says: "The texts whereby any dogma is proved, may be so clear, that they demonstrate it, at first sight, yet may consistently be submitted to the most rigid examination. For instance, is not the Divinity of our Lord so clear in the Scripture, that an unprejudiced mind is satis- fied with the simple recital of the texts relating to it?" (p. 43.) I apprehend the two doctrines have nothing in common, except a lodging-place in the mind of their common advocates. Finally, I have abundantly proved what was proposed to be done in the early part of this communication, namely, 88 ON THE EUCHARIST. that from Scripture usage the words of the eucha- ristic institution may be understood figuratively. The necessity of such an interpretation will con- stitute the subject of my next. With sentiments of esteem allow me to subscribe myself as heretofore. Yours truly, E. 0. P. LETTER VI. NECESSITY OF THE FIGURATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION SHOWN. Dear Brother: — We have now arrived at the point in our discussion which I regard as the most important. It is not enough for us to show from Scripture usage, that the words of our Lord may be understood in a figurative sense ; in order to decide the matter it is necessary to prove, that to avoid great difficulties and plain contradictions, we are compelled to adopt this figurative interpretation. If I succeed in doing this, you will perceive that a point of no small importance is gained in our favor : for your church has defined, that these words teach the doctrine of transubstantiation. Indeed,, the Council of Trent declares it to be " a most heinous crime, that they should be turned by certain con- tentious and wicked men into pretended and imag- inary figures, to the denial of the truth of the flesh and blood of Christ." 1 And Dr. Wiseman says: " We entrench ourselves behind the strong power of our Saviour's words, and calmly remain there, till driven from our position." (p. 168.) These words understood literally, are, therefore, regarded by your church, as the strong defence of the doc- trine in question. Safe, however, as you may feel behind this your fancied "strong power of our Saviour's words," I shall venture to approach, and prove the strength of your position by wielding a few of those weapons which the God of battles has 1 Sess xiii, cap. 1, De Reali Praesentia Domini nostri, etc. 8* 90 ON THE EUCHARIST. put into the hands of his militant followers, pre- mising a few general propositions, as forming a sort of groundwork of much that may follow. 1. The Being whom we call God, is an uncaused, unonginated, and, by consequence, eternal exist- ence ; all his attributes, both those called natural, and moral, are likewise eternal, infinitely perfect, and therefore unchangeable. 2. It necessarily follows from his eternal and immutable perfections, that there are some things which are morally, and, therefore, naturally impos- sible to be done by God ; for we cannot supjDose that his omnipotence can consistently be exerted to do what is repugnant to his eternal and infinite holiness; because, if it could, he might be at vari- ance with himself, and, therefore, imperfect. Hence, God cannot lie ; which necessarily implies, that He cannot make that which is essentially and eternally wrong, to be essentially and eternally right; He cannot contradict himself, either in his Word, or his Works ; He cannot make that which is already made, for that would imply that it was not made, though it was made ; He cannot make things which are essentially different the one from the other, to be essentially the same ; He cannot make a part of a thing equal to its whole, at one and the same time, otherwise he might operate contradictions, which is impossible and absurd. 3. More particularly : A revelation for the good of his creature, man, proceeding from this infinitely good and perfect Being, must be perfectly consistent with all his attributes, adapted to the nature and wants of the being to be benefited, and consistent in all its parts. Having stated these fundamental truths, I pro- ceed to notice the difficulties which forbid the literal interpretation of our Lord's words, at the institu- tion of the Eucharist. And this I will endeavor to THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION. 91 do, with special reference to the doctrine of transub- stantiation in general, and to those consequences and teaching, in particular, which necessarily or constructively result from it. For I regard this doctrine and its appendants, as standing or falling with the literal interpretation of the words of in- stitution, or its opposite. 1. The words themselves do not indicate any change whatever. They are declarative of what already exists, but not effective of what is not. We might as well argue from the expressions, "It is the Lord's passover," "the ten horns are ten kings," that some change was effected by virtue of them, as to affirm, that by the words, " this is my body," a change of substance is effected. But no one con- tends, that the pronunciation of the former op- erated any change of substance ; so we affirm, that the enunciation of the latter, is not operative of any change whatever. Had our Lord intended by words to transubstantiate the bread in his hands into his own body,, it is reasonable to suppose, that he would have said, "Let this become my body," or some other equivalent words. From an, expres- sion of this kind, we might argue for some kind of change. When God displays his omnipotent en- ergy through the medium of words, His language is indicative of something effected. Thus he says: "Let light be," "Lazarus, come forth," " Tabitha, arise," and the like. If words simply declarative of a fact, like those of our Lord, may be supposed to indicate a new creation, then I see no reason, so far as the mere words are concerned, against supposing a change, or new crea- tion of substance, wrought in virtue of the words of the paschal institution, and the numerous other passages already cited in the connection ; which is not true. Nay, might we not bring into the cate- gory those words of the beloved disciple, when giv- 92 ON THE EUCHARIST. " ing expression to the unerring spirit within him, In the beginning was the Word, and argue thence the creation of the second person in the Trinity ? It is doubtless true, that Christ's whole act, in taking bread, blessing, breaking and distributing, did constitute the consecration of the bread, or setting it apart for sacred use, and* that the words, This is my body, are to be considered as expressive of what was already effected. I can therefore see no reason for the teaching of your church, when she declares, that Christ, in virtue of these words of consecration, transubstantiated the bread and wine into his own body and blood. Moreover, admitting for argument's sake, that the transubstantiation is effected by the words under consideration, it will thence follow that the change or conversion must follow their use; for all effects must of necessity follow their causes. Now, how- ever closely this conversion may follow, it is certain that it cannot exist prior to its cause, that is, before the utterance of all the causative words. Hence, our Saviour affirmed the eucharistic elements to be his body and blood, before they were his body and blood. Your doctrine therefore gives the lie to our Divine Master, and must therefore be rejected, as false and impossible. Do you reply, that the present is sometimes put for the future by the inspired writers, when the thing spoken of is near or certain? (See John, v : 25 ; xii : 23, 31 ; xvii : 4, 11, 12 ; Isa. liii : 3-10.) Such I admit to be a frequent usage when acts or events are the subjects of prophetic affirmation, but not when the esse of things real is spoken of. When God affirms of any substantial existence that it is this or that, he means that it is such when he speaks, and not that it will aftemvard be such. 2. The difficulty of the literal interpretation is increased, by the addition of the words, ivhich is THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION. 93 given, and which is shed, to those just considered. According to this exposition of his language, the real human body of Christ was actually given as a sacrifice, and his blood shed, when he instituted this sacrament ; but this is contrary to the history given by the Evangelists, and the repeated declara- tion of the Apostles. The same sacred historians that record the Saviour's own predicted delivery, (Matt, xx : 19, and Mark x: 33,) put this delivery subsequent to the eucharistic institution. (Matt, xxvii : 2, and Mark, xv : 1.) This delivery up to the Gentiles Peter associates with his crucifixion, (Acts ii : 23.) when he " bore our sins in his own body on the tree." (I Pet. ii: 24.) And the Apostle Paul teaches, that he " was delivered for our offencos ; " (Kom. iv: 25;) "for when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly/' (v: 6; viii: 32,) and thereby offered, through the eternal Spirit, a sacrifice, once for all, to God for us. (Heb. vii: 27; ix: 14, 27; x: 10.) When therefore our Saviour says, " This is my body which is given for you," and, " This is my blood which is shed for you," he is to be understood as saying: " This is my body which is offered for you upon the cross," and, "This is my blood which is there poured out for the world." But his real body was not then offered, nor was his real blood then shed, when he uttered these words. It follows hence that what he called his body was not his real and human body, but only a symbolical representation of it. This exposition of our Lord's words removes those diffi- culties which stand in the way of the literal inter- pretation ; for it is easy to understand, how the bread broken, and wine poured out, were a symbol of the crucified body and shed blood of Christ. The evident meaning of his words may be thus briefly paraphrased : " This bread now given you, to be distributed amongst yourselves, is a symbol of my 94 ON THE EUCHAKIST. body which is about to be given, as a sacrifice for you, upon the cross ; and this cup poured out is a symbol of my blood as being shed for you, for the remission of sins." So certain and present was the whole tragedy in the mind of the divine Saviour, that he speaks of the transaction as already taking place, whilst representing it by the symbols of bread and wine. So in another place, to which reference has been made, he speaks of having finished his work, and being no longer in the world, (John, xvii: 4, 11,) even before his crucifixion and ascent to heaven. Our exposition, therefore, harmonizes with Scripture usage, and agrees with the matter of fact in the case, but yours is repugnant to both ; for having affirmed the literal explanation to be the meaning of our Lord, when he says, This is my body, you cannot ascribe to the words, which is given or broken a future signification ; because, if what he cailed his body were his real body, it was then already broken and given ; which, as just shown, was not the fact. 3. At the institution of the Eucharist, Christ is represented by the first two Evangelists, Matthew and Mark, as saying of what was contained in the cup subsequently to its consecration, that he would no more drink of that fruit of the vine until that day that he should drink it new with them in the kingdom of God. That same substance which he had before called his blood, he afterward denomi- nated the fruit, or product of the vine. If the words, This is my blood, are interpreted literally, it is difficult to account for his calling that real blood of his the fruit of the vine. It is sheer sophistry to undertake to do away the force of these considerations, by affirming, that Christ spoke these words with reference to the nature of the wine prior to its consecration, because St. Luke arranges a like expression before the THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION. 95 words of benediction. In addition to the fact that Matthew and Mark place them after the words of consecration, so-called, you will observe that when Christ spoke of the fruit of the vine, he spoke of what was drank, which was no other than the liquid contained in the cup, after its consecration to the use of this holy sacrament. If then, what was drank by the twelve disciples, was the fruit of the vine, it could not, at the same time, have been human blood ; for they are not one and the same thing, either in their substance, or sensible proper- ties. But how perfectly does this expression of our Lord agree with the Protestant view, which re- gards the elements, not as the real, but symbolical body and blood of Christ. 4. The disciples were commanded to celebrate this institution of their Lord, in remembrance of him. Now memory never has respect to what is either present or future, but always refers to what is past. If the divine speaker used language in its ordinary acceptation, he could have meant no more in this injunction, than to command the Apostles, and with them the whole church, to celebrate this sacrament as a means of calling to mind, after- ward, certain truths or facts of which they had be- fore a knowledge, such as his incarnation and death as an atoning sacrifice upon the cross. But the literal interpretation of this text, makes Christ say: Do this, not as a remembrance of my incar- nation and death simply, but also, as actually making a repeated incarnation and perpetual sacri- fice of me; which is most evidently inconsistent with the express words of our Lord. Your church teaches, that Christ entire, embracing his body, soul and divine substance, is really and substanti- ally present in the Eucharist. According to this doctrine how can this sacrament be observed in remembrance of Christ, he being really and sub- 96 ON THE EUCHARIST. stantially present ? It is impossible to do so. The literal interpretation of the words of institution, I therefore conclude, to be quite irreconcilable with the proper signification of this term employed by the Saviour ; and, by consequence, such exposition must be false. In illustration, suppose your friends should gather about your person and perform certain kindly acts, and being interrogated by a friendly visitor about the significance of those ceremonies, they should reply, "we are doing this in remem- brance of our friend." Do you suppose that your guest would under- stand what was meant by such a reply ? Would you not even correct your friends for perverting the use of common and plain language? We have before remarked, that the passover under the Jewish, dispensation, was to be observed, as a memorial of the Lord's passing by the chil- dren of Israel; but no Jew ever supposed that anniversary to be the same day, in which they were preserved from the destructive plague. Why then should the Christian suppose the consecrated bread to be really Christ's body, when he expressly commands this sacrament to be observed in re- membrance of himself? 5. From the literal interpretation of Christ's words, we are compelled to admit the corruptibility of his real and true body. This is a matter of fact so undeniable, and cognizable by any man's senses, that your church does not attempt to conceal it, but, on the contrary, even makes provision how to dispose of it when corrupted. The Roman Missal teaches : " If the Priest vomit the Eucharist, if the species appear entire, they are reverently to be taken, unless nausea be produced ; in this case the consecrated species are to be carefully separated and laid aside in some holy place until they are THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION. 97 corrupted, and afterward cast into the sacristy. But if the species do not appear, [distinguishable from the other vomited matter] the vomit must be burned, and the ashes cast into the sacristy." l This is the language which Kome puts forth to the world, and which necessarily follows her literal exposition of the words of institution. How does it agree with the Holy Scriptures? David says: "Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth; my flesh also shall rest in hope. For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell ; NEITHER WILT THOU SUFFER THINE HOLY ONE TO SEE corruption." (Psal. xvi, 10.) At the very opening of the new dispensation, upon the day of Pentecost, 'Peter quotes this pass- age from David and observes, that he " being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, ac- cording to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne ; he seeing this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither did his flesh see corruption." (Acts, ii: 30, 31.) Observe, It was the flesh, of Christ which pro- ceeded from the loins of the patriach David that saw NO corruption ; but that body of Christ in the Eucharist continually sees corruption, in the pro- cess of human digestion and other animal processes, as also according to the ordinary laws of decompo- sition, recognized by your Missal. It follows hence, that what Christ called his body at the institution i Si sacerdos evomet eucharistiam, si species integrae ap- pareant reverentur sumantur, nisi nausea fiat; tunc enim species consecratae caute separentur, et in aliquo loco sacro reponantur donee corrumpantur, et postea in sacrarium projiciantur; quod si species non appareant, comburatur vomitus, et cinires in sacrarium inittantur. De Defectibus in Missa. Art. x, No. 14. 9 98 ON THE EUCHARIST. of the Eucharist, was not his real and substantial body, that body which proceeded from the loins of David, and was born of the Virgin Mary ; but it was his symbolical body. For he has no body holding a medium place between his human and sacramental body. Your literal interpretation ne- cessarily leads to consequences perfectly contradic- tory to plain explicit Scripture, and must therefore be false. 6. Whilst upon the earth, our divine Lord very plainly taught the doctrine of his omnipresence, when he promised his disciples, that " where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them:" (Matt, xviii : 20;) "and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." This must be understood of his di- vine and spiritual presence ; for, at another time, when speaking with reference to his human body, he says to the Jews: "Ye shall seek me and shall not find me." (John, vii : 34.) He afterward re- peats the same to his disciples, (xiii : 33.) Again he says: "Yet a little while and the world seeth me no more." (xiv : 19.) "For the poor ye always have with you, but me ye have not always." (xii : 8, Matt, xx vi : 11, and Mark, xiv : 7.) The comment of St. Augustine on these last words, is worthy of notice. " He speaks," says he, "of the presence of his body; ye shall have me according to my providence, according to my ma- jesty and invisible grace; but according to the flesh which the Word of God assumed, according to that which was born of the Virgin Mary, ye shall not have me; therefore because he conversed with his disciples forty days, he is ascended up into heaven, and is not here."' A But the doctrine of trans ubstantiation most un- qualifiedly contradicts these plain words of our A Aug. Tract. L, in Joan. tcm. ix, p. 152. THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION. 99 Lord, since it makes his real body and blood present in the Eucharist, whenever the words of consecration are canonically pronounced. Again, therefore, we affirm your literal interpretation to be false. Moreover, from these same Scriptures, we argue the non-multipresence of Christ's natural body. Our Saviour evidently teaches, that he is ever divinely present in the midst of his faithful ones, though his body be absent from the world ; from which we conclude, that there is no such inseparable and ne- cessary union between his divine and human na- tures, that the former cannot operate without the presence of the latter. This truth seems to me perfectly established by the words of Christ under consideration, which, at the same time, totally de- stroy your doctrine of concomitance. If then Christ is perpetually and divinely present with his Church on earth, but his body is perpetually absent from us in heaven, we may fairly infer, in the absence of contrary testimony, that his body is local in heaven and never elsewhere present Again, if we admit that Christ's natural body may be present in more places than one, at the same moment, then we must allow that it may be in a thousand, and consequently that it may be omnipresent and divine. Thus directly does the doctine of transubstantiation lead to the heresy of the ancient Eutychians, who taught that the human nature of Christ was destroyed by being taken up, or absorbed into his divine substance when he as- cended. This error, however, was opposed by the orthodox Fathers, and condemned by the Council of Chalcedon, which defined, that "the differences of the two natures in Christ were not destroyed by the union ; but that their properties were preserved distinct, and concur to one person." B B Concil. Chalcedon., Act. v, A.. D. 451. 100 ON THE EUCHARIST. Before you undertake, as some have done, to prove the multipresence of Christ's human hody from the exclamation of a dying Stephen: "Be- hold ; I seethe heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God;" (Acts, vii : 56 ;) you ought to be able to locate heaven, and make it appear, that Christ was not then in that place when Stephen saw him. This may be a se- vere task, like making brick without straw, but you must do it before you can prove, by this passage, the ubiquity of Christ's human body, which neces- sarily results from that favorite doctrine of a cor- poreal presence in the Eucharist. "7. Your church teaches that the eucharistic offer- ing, denominated the Sacrifice of the Mass, "is the sacrifice which was figuratively represented by the various sacrifices offered in the times of nature, and of the law ; since it includes every good which was signified by them, and is the consummation and perfection of them all." * " For the sacrifice which is now offered by the ministry of the priests, is one and the same as that which Christ then offered on the cross, only the mode of offering is different." 2 "And, Whoever shall affirm, that a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God in the mass, or that the offering is nothing else than giving Christ to us, to eat: let him be accursed." 3 iHaec denique ilia est, quae per varias sacrificiorum Natu- rae, et legis tempore, similitudinem figurabatur, utpote quae bona omnia per ilia significata, velut illorum omnium con- summatio et perfectio complectitur. Concl. Trident, Sess. xxii. cap. 1. 2 Una enim eademque est hostia, idemque nunc offerens saeerdotum ministerio, qui scripsum tunc in cruce obtulit, sola offerendi ratione diversa. Idem, cap. 2. 3 Si quis dixerit, in Missa non offerri Deo verum et propri- um sacrificium, ant quod offerri non sit aliud, quam nobis Christum ad manducandum dari ; Anathema sit. Sess. xxii, De Sacrificio Misbse, Can. i. THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION. 101 According to this the sacrifice of Calvary is repeatedly and continuously offered, and that too, " not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities of living believers, but also for the dead in Christ, who are not yet thoroughly purified." 1 By the a dead in Christ," is meant those detained in purgatory, not yet being fully purged. Let us compare this doctrine with the inspired word of God. St. Paul says, that Christ our high priest "needeth not daily, as those high priests, [under the law] to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's ; for this he did once, when he offered up himself." (Heb. vii: 27.) " Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." " For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true ; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of Grod for us: nor yet that he should offer himself, often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with the blood of others ; for then must he often have suffered since the foun- dation of the world ; but now once, in the end of the world, hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many ; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time, without sin, unto salvation." (Heb. ix: 12, 24-28.) And "We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." "For by one offering he hath perfected for 1 Quare non solum pro fidelium virorum peccatis, pcernis, satisfactionibua et aliis necessitatibus, sed et pro defunctis in Christo, nondum ad plenum purgatis, rite juxta Apostolorum traditionem, offertur. Ubi Sup. Cit. cap. 2. 9* 102 ON THE EUCHARIST. ever them that are sanctified. (ch. x: 10, 14.) From which we are clearly taught the following truths : 1. Christ needs not to offer up sacrifice for sin daily, or continuously, as the high priests did under the law. 2. When he offered himself upon the cross, that one sacrifice was the only proper sacrifice ever made, or that ever will be made for sin. 3. No other sacrifice is required for the putting away of sin, because by this he has "obtained eter- nal redemption for us/' and " perfected forever them that are sanctified." The Apostle makes it just as certain that Christ has been offered but once, as it is that it is appointed unto men to die once, and to be judged once. Your doctrine of the mass is, therefore, perfectly contra- dictory to that taught by an inspired Apostle, and, by consequence, false. Again, more particularly, the sacred penmen concur in teaching that no true and proper sacrifice for sins was ever made before Christ offered him- self upon the cross. By a true and proper sacrifice is meant, a full and perfect sacrifice, such as God is pleased to accept as an atonement for the sins of men. But the imperfection of the Jewish sacrifices is evident from the following: "Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams." (I Sam. xv: 22, compare Matt, ix: 13, andxii: 7.) Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire . . . burnt-offering and sin-offering hast thou not required." (Psal. xl: 6, compare li: 16, and Hoseavi: 6.) "Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins ; and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION. 103 winch they could not be justified by the law of Moses." (Acts, xiii: 38, 39.) "For by the law is the knowledge of sin, [but not a propitiation for it.] But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed [or testified to] by the [sacrifices of the] law and [the predictions of] the prophets. Even the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all, and upon all them that believe." "Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propi- tiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past." (Rom. iii: 20-25.) "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell ; and, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto him- self." (Colos. i: 14, 19, 20; compare Ephes. ii: 13-16.) "And every priest standeth daily minister- ing and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins ; but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, forever sat down on the right hand of God." . . . "Now, where remission of these is, there is no more offer- ing for sin." (Heb. x: 11, 12, 18.) "Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead, dieth no more ; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto [for] sin once." (Rom. vi: 9, 10.) "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quick- ened by the Spirit." (I Pet. iii: 18.) It is therefore plain that no true and proper sa- crifice for sin was made before Christ, " through the blood of his cross," offered that one sacrifice for 104 ON THE EUCHARIST. sins when " he suffered, the just for the unjust/' by "being put to death in the flesh." But the Eucharist was instituted before Christ's death ; it could not therefore have been a real and propitiatory sacrifice for sin ; hence your sacrifice of the Mass, which is confessedly but a repetition of that sacrament which Christ celebrated before his death, cannot be a true, proper and propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead, as you pretend. Your literal interpretation of our Saviour's words, therefore, which gives rise to the doctrine of the Mass, must be false. The Council of Trent holds the following lan- guage: "And since the same Christ who once offered himself by his blood on the altar of the cross, is contained in this divine sacrifice which is cele- brated in the Mass, and offered without blood, the holy council teaches that this sacrifice is really pro- pitiatory, and made by Christ himself. . . . And the fruits of that bloody oblation are plentifully enjoyed by means of this unbloody one." 1 And this unbloody sacrifice is said to be properly offered for the sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities of the living and the dead. In this remarkable article we are told, that "the same Christ, who once offered himself by his blood on the altar of the cross, is contained in this divine, propitiatory, and bloodless sacrifice of the Mass ; that it is the same sacrifice that was offered upon the cross." It is the same sacrifice offered in a dif- ferent manner only, and yet it is not the same, for the former was bloody, but the latter unbloody! It is said to be propitiatory, though bloodless, whereas the Holy Scriptures teach that " without shedding of blood there is no remission ! " Christ is said to 1 Cnjus quidem oblationis (cruentse inquam) frnctus per hare incruentam uberrimae percipiuntur. Sess. xxii, cap. 2. THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION. 105 offer this sacrifice of the Mass himself, whereas the Apostle declares that " after he had offered one sa- crifice for sins, he forever sat down on the right hand of God! " May the God of mercy and truth open the eyes of your Mass-worshipers, discover to them the folly of arraying the human against, the divine authority, and give them repentance unto life. 8. In order that the believers of transubstantia- tion be not naturally led to suppose this sacrament to contain nothing more than bread and wine, your church requires their minds to be withdrawn, as much as possible, from subjection to the senses, and excited to the contemplation of the stupendous power of God. But it has pleased God at divers times, to reveal his will to man, and, in so doing, to confirm the truth of his revelation by miracles. These supernatural proofs of the Divine Being, were so made, as to be cognizable by the bodily senses of those that witnessed them. He changes the rod of Aaron into a serpent, divides the waters of the Red Sea and of Jordan, raises the dead, feeds mul- titudes with a few loaves and small fishes, turns water into wine, and the like. For our knowledge of these divine pooofs of the truth of God's word, we are indebted to the testimony of the senses of those that witnessed them ; and our knowledge is certain, in proportion to the certainty and infalli- bility of the evidence of their senses. But God has not selected an insufficient and uncertain medium, through which to communicate a knowledge of his will to the world ; for the testimony of the senses is infallible. In this light the inspired writers themselves re- garded the evidence of the senses, as we learn from the following : " Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed amongst us, 106 ON THE EUCHARIST. even as they delivered them unto us, who were eye- witnesses and ministers of the word ; it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed." (Luke, i: 1-4.) " That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the Word of life ; that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that you also may have fellowship with us. And these things write we unto you that your joy may be full." (IJohn, i: 1,3,4.) From these passages it appears, that the things seen and heard, were most surely believed by the Evangelists and primitive Christians. Thomas was cured of his unbelief by seeing and feeling, and so might every Komanist in the world, if he would submit, like the first Christians, to the indubitable evidence of his own natural senses. And now allow me to inquire in the language of Archbishop Tillotson, "Whether it be reasonable to imagine that God should make that a part of the Christian religion, which shakes the main external evidence and confirmation of the whole, I mean the miracles which were wrought by our Saviour and his Apos- tles, the assurance whereof did at first depend upon the certainty of sense. For if the senses of those who saw them were or could be deceived, then there might have been no miracles wrought, and consequently it may be justly doubted, whether that kind of confirmation which God hath given to the Christian religion would be strong enough to prove it; for, supposing transubstantiation to have been a part of it, every man would have had as great evidence that it was false as that the Chris- tian religion is true. THE WORDS Of institution. 107 " Of all the doctrines in the world, this of transub- stantiation is peculiarly incapable of being proved by a miracle. For if a miracle were wrought for the proof of it, the very same assurance that any one could have of the truth of the miracle, he hath of the falsehood of this doctrine : that is, the clear evidence of his senses. For that there is a miracle wrought to prove that %ohot he sees in the sacrament is not bread, but the body of Christ, there is only the evidence of sense, and there is the same evidence to prove that what he sees in the sacrament is not the body of Christ, but bread. So that here would arise a new controversy, whether a man should rather believe his senses giving testimony against the doctrine of transubstantiation, or bearing wit- ness to a miracle wrought to confirm that doctrine ; there being the very same evidence against the truth of the doctrine which there is for the truth of the miracle. And then the argument for the doc- trine and the objection against it would balance one another, and consequently transubstantiation is not to be proved by miracles, because that would be to prove to a man by something that he sees that he doth not see what he sees. And if there were no other evidence that transubstantiation is no part of the Christian religion, this would be sufficient, that what proves the one doth as much overthrow the other ; and that miracles which are certainly the best and highest external proof of Christianity, are the worst proof in the world of transubstantia- tion, unless a man can renounce his senses at the same time that he relies upon them, for a man can- not believe a miracle without relying on his senses, nor transubtantiation without renouncing them. So that never were any two things so ill coupled together as the doctrine of Christianity and of transubstantiation, because they draw several ways and are ready to strangle one another; for the 108 ON THE EUCHARIST. main external evidence of the doctrine of Christ, which is miracles, is resolved into the certainty of sense, but this evidence is clear, and point-blank against transubstantiation." x 9. " Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord.'*' It is an argument of no small weight in favor of the truth and divine origin of our holy religion, that it is perfectly adapted to the physical, intellectual, and moral nature of man. Its holy requisitions are exactly suited to the constitution and laws of the human mind. Nothing short of omniscience could have devised, and nothing but omnipotence could have carried into effect, such a harmonious exhibition of creative power and wis- dom, as we find displayed in the economy of our whole man, and his redemption from sin. The Author of our being, and of the Christian religion, is that same God whose "way is perfect/' and "all whose works are done in truth." He cannot deny himself; his very nature requires him to act with perfect consistency in whatever his goodness moves him to do. He who adapted the eye to the light and the ear to sound, has, with, at least, equal wis- dom and benevolence, addressed his revealed word to the understanding of his rational creatures. Throughout the Bible man is regarded as a being of reason ; and the Author of this sacred book appears constantly to have had in mind this least impaired and noblest faculty of his intellectual creatures. True it is, however, that God, in his Word, has re- vealed to us truths, whose mode of existence and ultimate nature far transcend the comprehension of finite intelligences ; though the fact of their exist- ence is not repugnant to natural reason. For in- stance, we are taught that in the one divine nature, Jehovah, there are three persons, co-equal and co- i Tillotson ou Transub. Cited by Ousley, pp. 190-5. THE WORDS OP INSTITUTION. 109 eternal, yet not three and one in the same sense, hence not involving any contradiction, and there- fore not contrary to reason though ahove it. It being true, therefore, that God's revelation to man is addressed to him as an intelligent being, and adapted to his noblest faculty, reason, it must follow that if any doctrine be proposed for our belief as the Word of God which is repugnant to the very nature of this faculty, it is to be rejected as spu- rious and false. In this light I view the doctrine of tran substan- tiation ; for it involves the following impossibilities: that the natural qualities of bread and wine sub- sist without their subjects ; that the whole of a ma- terial thing is no greater than one of its parts when a separation is made ; that what is already made and perpetually remains so can be repeatedly made again ; that our Lord gave himself with his own hands to his disciples to be eaten and drunken, still keeping himself to himself; and, that his same numerical and material body may be in a thousand different places at the same time, and exist under as many different forms. All which is impossible even to God ; for he cannot do what he wills not to do ; and he will not work natural contradictions ; for this would be to act contrary to himself, con- trary to the fixed and immutable principles of Him who cannot lie. 10. It is in vain, therefore, for the advocates of this doctrine, to resort to the omnipotence of God, in order to prove its possibility ^ and screen it from the unpalatable charge of impossible, and absurd. This was the method employed by the ancient her- etics, who could not screen their errors, except by taking refuge under the broad cover of almighty power. And the reply given to them by the more orthodox Fathers of the church, may now be made, with great propriety, to the defenders of transub- 10 110 ON THE EUCHARIST. stautiation, a doctrine not excelled, in unreasona- bleness, by the most extravagant reveries of ancient heresy. Indeed, the uu likeness of this dogma to anything else within the range of human know- ledge, is clearly perceived and felt by those who at- tempt to shelter it from its confessedly apparent absurdities, by pretending the broad shield of God's omnipotence. Thus Paschasius Eatbert, the father of transubstantiation, in the very commencement of the first treatise ever written in defence of this doctrine, argues the omnipotence of God in its proof, in the following manner : " Since without the power of God nothing exists, therefore all things are pos- sible [to him.] For God the maker of all things has not so ordained the nature of things, that he should take from them his own volition: because every creature subsists by the same will and power from which it has its cause, not only that it should subsist as something, but also that it should so exist as the very will of God decrees, which is the cause of all creatures. In no other manner does any creature subsist, except by the will of Him from whom flows its entire being ; and therefore as often as the nature of the creature is changed, increased, or subtracted, it is not diverted from that Being in whom it exists ; because it so is, and is made as he in whom it exists, decrees. It appears therefore that nothing is possible without, or contrary to the will of God, but all things wholly obey him. And for this cause let no one be moved in regard to this body and blood of Christ, that it is, in a mystery, true flesh and true blood, whilst he who created so willed. For all -things whatsoever he hath willed, he hath done, both in heaven and in earth. And because he hath willed, although the figure of bread and wine are here, we are to believe that they are no other than the flesh and blood of Christ after consecration. Whence the Truth himself said THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION. Ill to the disciples: This is my flesh for the life of the world. And though I speak wonderfully it is plainly no other than what was born of Mary, suf- fered upon the cross, and rose again from the sepulchre. This, I say, is that very flesh which even to this day is offered for the life of the world and therefore it is Christ's." c Passing by the savor of fatalism in this passage, it needs no extraordinary skill in the art of reason- ing, to detect the fallacy of Paschasius' pretended argument. It is a simple begging of the question. For he assumes as true the very point to be proved ; namely, that it is the will of God to change the bread and wine into the real body and blood of Christ. The proof for God's will in any operation, either real or supposed, must be sought in his revealed word, or deduced from his works so inter- preted as not to conflict with other known truths, established principles, or certain phenomena. But we are not left to conjecture whether that doctrine be true and according to God's will, which contra- dicts plain Scripture, saps the foundations of Christi- anity, by rejecting the infallible testimony of the senses, sets reason at defiance, and challenges om- nipotence to measure the lists with eternal truth and divine propriety. In imitation of their illustrious hero, the modern champions of this doctrine still hold out this an- cient shield of their faith, time-worn, and pierced a thousand times, by the burning darts of truth. "To creatures deputed by God," says Mr. Hughes, "some power was given, but to Christ all power both in heaven and on earth : and it was in the eucharist alone that this all power was exercised." 1 De Corp. et Sang. Dom. in Eucli., lib. cap. 1, Edit. Paris, A. D. 1575. 1 Controversy with Breckenridge, No. xxvii, p. 220. 112 ON THE EUCHARIST. And Dr. Wiseman labors hard to make it appear that the Apostles, "simple minded men/' having witnessed the miracles wrought by their Master, would not have used, "to interpret his simple words, ( This is my body/ any idea of the impossi- bility of their literal import." * To the propounders of such reasonings we may reply, as did Tertullian to those who affirmed, that "because the things which are impossible, with men are possible with God, it was not difficult to Him that he should make himself both father and son, contrary to the form delivered to human things." He answers: "Plainly nothing is diffi- cult to God. But if we make use of this opinion so inconsiderately in our presumptions, we shall be able to pretend anything whatever respecting God, as if he would do it because he has the ability. But not because He can do all things are we there- fore to believe that he has done all things ; nay, the question is not what he might do, but whether he will do it. God could, pardon me the expression, have provided man with wings for flying as he has furnished them to birds ; nevertheless, not because he could, did he forthwith do it. He could have immediately extinguished Praxeas and all heretics in like manner ; nevertheless, not because he could, did he put an end to them In this manner there will be somewhat that is difficult even to God ; to wit, whatsoever he will not do; not because he could not, but because he would not: for God's POWER IS HIS WILL, AND NOT TO HAVE POWER IS NOT TO WILL." D So Origen says: "We do not retreat into that most absurd subterfuge, saying that all things are possible to God .... We say that God cannot act i In Op. Cit., pp. 211-218. D Adv. Praxeain, cap. x, p. 505. THE WORDS OF mSTITIJTION. 113 wickedly, otherwise he who will be God, is not God and we affirm that God will not do those THINGS WHICH ARE CONTRARY TO NATURE, nor those that spring from wickedness and folly. But if things are done according to the word of God and his will, THEY ARE OF NECESSITY NOT CONTRARY TO NA- TURE; NEITHER ARE THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE WROUGHT by God contrary to nature; although they may be paradoxical, or seem paradoxical to some. But if we must specify, we will say that, as to our nature, considered in its impure state, there are some things which God does that are above nature, when he elevates man above his human nature, and causes him to change to a nature better and more divine." E No labored argument will be required, I appre- hend, to show that the proper instrument by which to ascertain what is " according to the word of God and his will" what is " above nature" and what is " contrary to it," is the human reason. It is by the exercise of this faculty, that we have endeavored " to discover the truth," according to the rule of Clemens Alexandrinus, "by considering thoroughly what is perfectly proper and fitting to the Lord and to God the Creator, and by confirming each of those things demonstrated according to the Scriptures from those Scriptures which again are similar." We have also endeavored to show the correctness of that other proposition included in the same rule, namely, that "by changing the signification of things," they, [who advocate the literal interpre- tation of Christ's words,] "do overturn all true doctrine." You will also doubtless recollect that, according to the rule given by Horne, " The literal meaning of E Contra Celsum, lib. v, No. 23. Opera, vol. 1, p. 595. Edit Paris, A. D. 1759. 10* 114 ON THE EUCHARIST. words is to be given up, if it be either improper, or involve an impossibility ; or when words, properly taken, contain any thing contrary to the doctrinal or moral precepts delivered in the other parts of Scripture." That all these difficulties necessarily follow the literal interpretation of our Saviour's words, has been clearly and fully shown ; it must therefore be given up. And so fully persuaded am I, that this your exposition is wrong, that I could just as soon believe that God can be guilty of falsehood or self-contradiction, as believe your doctrine. 11. In conclusion, several very distinguished divines in your own communion, have acknow- ledged that the doctrine of tran substantiation is not taught by the word of God. Cardinal Alliaco says, "It appears that this doc- trine [which teaches that the substance of bread remains after consecration] is possible; nor is it repugnant to reason or the authority of the Bible, nay, it is easier to be understood and more reasona- ble than any other. " F Scotus says, " There is no place to be found in the Scripture that may compel a man to believe the transubstantiation had not the church so deter- mined it." 2 Cardinal Bellarmine admits this declaration of Scotus to be "not altogether improbable ; for though the Scripture we have alleged seems to us so plain that it may compel a man not frcward, yet it may be justly doubted whether it be so, when the most learned and acute men, such especially as Scotus, held a contrary opinion." G F In Sent, iv, qu. vi, art 2. Cited by Ousley, p. 198. 2 In Dist. xi, qu. 3. G Lib. iii, cap. 33, de Eucharist. THE WORDS OF INSTITUTION. 115 Cardinal Cajetan, in his notes on Aquinas, re- marks: "The other point which the Gospel has not expressly unfolded, we have received from the church, that is, the conversion of the bread into the body of Christ, we have not plainly in the Gospel." Again, "there appears from the Gospel nothing which compels to understand these words This is my body, in a proper sense. Nay, that presence in the sacrament which the church holds, cannot be proved from these words of Christ, unless the decla- ration of the church be also added." H And Fisher, Bishop of Kochester, and a martyr of your church, affirms, "That there is not one word in the institution, from which the true pres- ence of Christ's flesh and blood, in our mass, can be proved." 1 Yasquez, 2 Ogham, 3 Alphonsus de Castro, 4 Du- rand, 5 Gabriel Biel, 6 Melchior Canits, 7 and Car- dinal Contarenus, 8 also agree with the foregoing, that the doctrine of transubstantiation cannot be proved from the Holy Scriptures. It is proper here to remark, that these authors flourished in those ages when the authority of the Church of Rome stood higher in the public estima- tion than at the present day. Intelligent men are now losing their undue regard for the mere author- ity of their predecessors, and are beginning to look for themselves into the grounds of their faith ; and it requires not the spirit of a prophet, to forsee the fate of the doctrine in question, when mankind shall have burst those spiritual bonds, which, for H Cajet. in Thorn, p. iii, q. 75, art. 1. 1 Contr. Captiv. Babylon, cap. x, No. 2. 2 Part, iii, Disp. 180. 6 In Canon. Miss. Lect. 43. 3 Sent, iv, q. v. .7 Loc. Theol. lib. iii, cap. 3. 4 De Hasres. lib. viii. 8 De Sacram. lib. ii, cap. 3. 6 In Sent. lib. iv, dist. 11, q. 1. 116 ON THE EUCHARIST. many ages, have bowed their souls to the authority of a human institution. How significant is the testimony of these dis- tinguished writers. It is no other than a plain confession that their church obliges them to a doc- trine which is not taught in the Gospel, and there- fore to a new doctrine, a heresy ! ! ! And this is a doctrine that occupies no ordinary place in your creed. Indeed, Mr. Hughes in his controversy acknowledges, that the sacrifice of the Mass is the principal business of Romish priests. Can it be true, that the chief employment of your clergy is no other than the celebration of a mere human institution? And is it possible, as you inform me, that your "heart burns for the conversion of your dear friends" to such a faith, and to the observance of such an unscriptural ceremony, as the sacrifice of the Mass?' I greatly suspect that you never re- ceived your fire from heaven's altar. Beware, I entreat you, lest that come upon you which was long since threatened to all those " that kindle a fire, that compass themselves about with sparks;" (Isa. 1 : 11,) and to such as trust in man and make flesh their arm. (Jer. xvii: 5.) That we may be found in the day of eternity the true worshipers who worship in spirit and in truth, is the sincere desire and humble prayer of him who subscribes himself, Your friend and brother, E. 0. P. LETTER VII. VIEWS OF THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS RESPECTING THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST IN THE EUCHARIST. Dear Brother : — Having shown from the sacred writings of the New Testament, the earliest and most authoritative history of the primitive church, that the doctrine of transubstantiation is not dedu- cible from our Saviour's language, either in his discourse to the Jews at Capernaum, or to his dis- ciples at the institution of the Eucharist, it remains for me to verify my early affirmation, that "the Fathers of the first six or seven centuries, speak of the eucharistic elements as the figure of Christ's broken body and shed blood." But in what light are we to regard the writings of the early Fathers of the Christian Church? From the acquaintance which I have been able to make with them, I make free to say, that I re- gard the Fathers as very unsafe guides, in many matters relating to the Christian religion. Their interpretations of Scripture are often wanting in sound judgment, fanciful, and even puerile. At no very remote period from the ascent of our Lord, superstitious usages and heathenish practices began to make their appearanee in the church ; among which may be enumerated, the signing of the cross on the forehead in baptism, the mixing of water with the sacramental wine, reserving a part of the eucharistic bread to send to the sick, the using of holy water, incense, and tapers, the adoption of monasticism, and the honoring of deceased martyrs by ceremonies performed at their graves. Of this 118 ON THE EUCHARIST. class of disciplinary usages says one, " If you de- mand Scripture authority, you will find none. Tradition is pretended as their author, custom their confirmer, and faith their observer. " A None but vague tradition could be found capable of measur- ing back their years ; and even he refuses to tell their age, or birth-place ; custom however had given them confirmation, and faith in their supposed utility, had secured a cordial observance. No won- der when such usages had become common in the church, that the dove-like spirit .of a true and rational piety fled from the society of professing Christians, and left them to a cold and formal ritualism, to a lifeless sacramentarianism : So that "the Church of God and spouse of Christ had fallen to that state of evil, that, for celebrating the heav- enly sacraments, light borrowed discipline of dark- ness, and Christians did what anti-christ prac- tised." 3 Notwithstanding these disciplinary cor- ruptions, it is doubtless true that, for several ages after Christ, the fundamental doctrines of Christi- anity, as now held by the Protestant Churches, continued to be the creed of the ancient Christians. The Holy Scriptures were their only and sufficient rule of faith. But laxity of discipline did not long exist, without being followed by laxity and innova- tion in doctrine. The very questionable practice of praying for the dead was succeeded by praying to the dead; the employment of images as aids and incentives to devotion, was at length followed by their worship ; and clerical celibacy, at the first approved and lauded only, has in the Church of Rome passed into an unyielding law. The same law of progressive development, is observable in other doctrines and institutions of the ancient A Tertul. de Cor. Milit., c. iv, p. 102. B Cyprian, Epist. 74, ad Pompeium. VIEWS OF THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS. 119 Church, especially in the value and necessity of the sacraments. Convinced, therefore, as we are, of the errors of the early church, we do not embrace their doctrines and adopt their usages any farther than they are found to agree with those of the New Testament Scriptures. The revealed word of God is our rule of Christian faith ; and from this we make no ap- peal to the Fathers, as possessing any decisive au- thority in the premises. We do not refer to them as our judges, but as credible witnesses of usages practiced, and doctrines believed, in their own times. We do not try the Scriptures by them ; but we try them by the Scriptures, as they did one an- other. "Not as Peter and Paul do I command you," says Ignatius. "They were the Apostles of Jesus Christ, but I am the least." To a supposed objector to his explanation, says another : " I do not require any belief in these my words, unless I shall give suitable witnesses. I will give you the Lord himself, even our Saviour Jesus Christ as their witness and author." "Believe me not," says Cyril, " simply deliver- ing these things to thee, unless thou find the proof of those things spoken, in the divine Scriptures: for the preservation of our faith is not grounded upon the eloquence of language, but upon the proofs derived from the divine Scriptures." 15 Augustine, speaking of those books which we write, says: "As for this kind of books, we are to read them, not with the necessity of believing, but with the liberty of judging them In no way do they equal that most sacred excellence of the canonical Scriptures, although in some of them c Epist. ad Rom. No. 38, p. 85. Ed. Oxen. 1644. D Origen, Horn, vii, in Levit., No. 5. E Cyril. Hicros. Catech. Ilium, iv, c. 12, p. 56. 120 ON THE EUCHARIST. the same truth is found, nevertheless, they are of very unequal authority. Therefore, if hy chance we here meet with such things as seem contrary to the truth, because they are not understood, the reader or hearer has the liberty to approve what he likes, or to reject what offends. And therefore, unless all things of this kind be defended by some certain reason, or canonical authority, and it be made to appear, that what is disputed or narrated, either really is, or might have been, he that shall be displeased or not believe the same, is not to be reprehended." F Writing to Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria, Jerome says : " I know that I hold the Apostles in a rank distinct from other writers ; the former always speak truth, the latter sometimes err, as they are men." G Again, "Some, both Greeks and Latins, have erred in points of faith ; whose names I must not produce, lest we might seem to defend Origen by the errors of others, rather than by his own worth. " H Much more might be cited from these Fathers themselves, and from several distinguished writers of your own church, to prove that the writings of the ancients possess no decisive authority, in mat- ters of Christian doctrine ; but thus much will suf- fice to show, in what light we are to consider their productions. From the nature of the case, therefore, ours must be regarded as a historical inquiry, not of mere curiosity, but of intense interest^ and no inconsid- erable degree of relative importance. For, although the Fathers were fallible men like ourselves, and may have entertained many errors in discipline and F Aug. Ep. ad Hieron. lib. xi, contr. Faust, cap. 5. G Hieron. Epist. lxii, ad Theopli. Alex. H Idem, Ep. lxv, ad Punem. et Oceanum. VIEWS OE THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS. 121 doctrine, nevertheless, being credible historians, if they generally concur in recording the existence of any usage or doctrine, in preference to another -and totally different, we are not only bound to believe their testimony, but we must also admit that such concurrent evidence, in regard to a Scriptural mat- ter, of a disputed, yet practical nature, is an im- portant aid in arriving at the truth in the case. II. Let us then see what they say in regard to the eucharistic sacrament, and ascertain whether they speak of the elements employed as the figure of Christ's broken body and shed blood. 1. In the few epistles left by Ignatius, we find but little that relates to the Eucharist; and this seems to have been chiefly written by way of ex- hortation to its use as a means of grace,, whereby the love and unity of believers is to be promoted. "Hasten therefore," says he, "to come together more frequently to the Eucharist of God, and unto glory ; for, when the same is continually done, the powers of Satan are destroyed, and his weapons, burning unto sin, are turned back ineffectual ; for, your concord and consonant faith are his destruc- tion, and the torment of his armor-bearers." 1 And near the close of the same epistle, he again exhorts : "Stand firm, therefore, brethren, in the faith of Jesus Christ, and in his love, and in his passion and resurrection. And do ye all assemble in the grace of his name, in the one common faith of God the Father, and Jesus Christ his only-begotten Son, and the first-born of every creature; but, according to the flesh, of the race of David. Directed by the Comforter, do you obey your bishop and the pres- bytery, with undistracted mind, breaking one bread which is the medicine of immortality, the antidote, that we should not die, but live in God through iEp. ad Ephes. No. 56, p. 10. 122 ON THE EUCHARIST. Jesus Christ." J "Do you therefore, resuming a gentle forbearance, renew yourselves in faith, which is the flesh of the Lord, and in charity, which is the blood of Jesus Christ. Let no one of you have aught against his neighbor." K By the expression, breaking one bread, we are without doubt, to understand Ignatius, as exhorting to use one Eucharist, and thereby preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bonds of Christian love : and when he denominates it the medicine of immor- tality, the antidote against death,he attributes to the outward sacrament, or sign, the immortalizing quali- ties of the thing signified, whose purifying and preserving influence is thereby procured and main- tained in the soul in an eminent manner. This being the meaning of the author, the term bread must be taken in its literal sense, otherwise we cannot properly connect with it the word breaking. For, if we suppose the term bread here to signify spiritual food, then it were wholly unwarrantable to exhort those addressed to break, or impart it, because this is God's prerogative. If therefore the term bread be used here in its proper sense, as it evidently is, then it is certain that Ignatius had no idea of its being Christ's real body, but his symboli- cal body only. 2. Justin, who was martyred about the year 167, and sixty years after the death of Ignatius, has, in his first Apology to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, for the Christians, left us a somewhat minute de- scription of the manner in which the early church celebrated the Eucharist. After mentioning the prayers made at the introduction of one newly baptized, he continues: " When we have made an end of these prayers, we embrace one another with J Idem, No. 94, p. 46. k Idem, Ep. ad Trallasios, No. 72, p. 208. VIEWS OF THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS. 123 a kiss. Then is brought to the president of the brethren "bread, and a cup of water and wine mixed ; and he, receiving it, sends up praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of his Son, and the Holy Spirit ; and he gives thanks at much length, that we are thought worthy of these things from him. He having made an end to these prayers and giving of thanks, all the people present respond, saying, Amen. Amen signifies in the Hebrew language, So let it be. When the presi- dent has given thanks, and all the people responded, those called by us deacons, give to each of those present to partake of the bread, for which thanks have been offered, and the wine and water ; and they send it to those not present. And this food is called by us the Eucharist, of which it is permitted to no other to partake, except him who believes those things taught by us to be true, and has been baptized for the remission of sins, and unto regen- eration ; and so lives as Christ has delivered. For we do not receive these as common bread and com- mon drink, but as our Saviour Jesus Christ, who was made flesh by the word of God, took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food for which thanks have been made by the prayer of his word, and by which our flesh and blood are nourished in the change, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the Apostles, in the memoirs which were made by them and called Gospels, have so delivered, that when Jesus had taken bread and given thanks, he gave them command, saying : ' Do this in remembrance of me, this is my body ; ' and in like manner, when he had taken the cup and given thanks, he said: 'This is my blood.' And to them only did he im- part [them.]" L L Justin. Mart. Apol. I, pro Cliristianis ad Ant. Pinm. Ed. Lond. 1732, pp. 95-07. 124 ON THE EUCHARIST. Iii regard to this passage I remark. (1.) Our author denominates the eucharistic elements, both before and after the prayer of consecration, by the same terms, bread, and wine and water. (2.) He says, " We do not receive them as common or or- dinary bread and drink;" which implies, that, although they were not common bread and wine, yet they were really bread and wine. (3.) By these elements, he affirms that our flesh and blood are nourished in the change which they undergo, after being received. On the supposition that transub- stantiation be true, our flesh and blood are nourished, according to Justix, either by the mere accidents of bread and wine, which is impossible, or by the real body and blood of Jesus Christ, which is blas- phemous. From these considerations it appears perfectly certain, that Justin Martyr could have had no idea of a corporeal presence in the Eucharist. 3. Irex^us, who lived till the year 202, uses, in several places, language similar to that just quoted from Justin Martyr. He remarks: "Since then we are Christ's members, and are nourished by the creature; but he gives us the creature, making his sun to rise and sending rain as he will; that cup, which is of the creature, he confessed [to be] his own blood, by which our blood is increased, and that bread which is of the creature, he confirmed [to be] his own body, by which our bodies are in- creased. "When, therefore, the mixed cup and the wrought bread receive the Word of God, they be- come the Eucharist of the blood and body of Christ, and by these the substance of our flesh is increased and consists." M In order properly to understand this and like passages from several others of the Fathers, we M Ireii. Adversus Hsereses, lib. v, cap. li, Edit. Lond. 1702. VIEWS OF THE ANIE-NICENE FATHERS. 125 must have in mind the ancient heresy against which they were writing. This passage was penned against those who denied the proper humanity of Jesus Christ. In a former hook, this author tells us of " some, who suppose that Christ was man- ifested as a transfigured man, hut was neither horn, nor incarnated. But others say that he did not assume the form of man, hut that he descended like a dove upon that Jesus who was horn of Mary." 1 They said that the flesh in which Christ appeared was not his own, but belonged to some other than the proper Christ. And they not only denied the proper incarnation of Christ in particu- lar, but in general they also "denied the salvation of the flesh, scoffed at its regeneration, and said that it was not capable of incorruptibility." It was against these fundamental errors, that our author penned this chapter ; and he shows, that, according to this, the Lord has not redeemed us by his own blood, neither is the cup of the Eucharist the com- munication of his blood, nor the bread which we break, the communication of his body." From these observations we see the propriety and force of the words his and his own, as used in connection with the terms, body, and blood. Hence, also, the appropriateness of the words, he confessed to be his blood and confirmed to be his body ; by which he intended to indicate the certainty of these eucha- ristic elements representing the body of Christ himself and of no other. That Iren^eus does not intend the proper and real body and blood of Christ, when he designates the eucharistic elements by those epithets, is evident from the latter part of the passage cited, wherein he expressly declares the bread and cup to be the Eucharist of his body and blood, by which the sub- 1 Lib. iii, cap. xl, p. 219. 11* 126 OX TIIE EUCHARIST. stance of Our flesh is increased, and consists. In- deed, it was the opinion of Iren^eus, together with several others of the Fathers, that Christ himself drank of the cup at the institution of this sacra- ment. Thus he says: " When he had given thanks, taking the cup he drank of it, gave it to the disci- ples, and said to them : Drink ye all of it." n He could not therefore have believed that cup to be the real and proper blood of Christ ; for, the idea of Christ's drinking his own blood, is too abhorrent for a sane mind to entertain for a moment. Every nobler feeling of our nature repels the thought. 4. The force of the remarks which have been suggested, as explanatory of the passage cited from Irekeus, will farther appear from a few passages from Tertullian, his contemporary. This author also wrote largely against Marcion, who, as Irekeus tells us, in the twenty-ninth chapter of his first Book against Heresies, blasphemed God, rejected the Gospel according to Luke, and those parts of our Lord's discourses "in which he manifestly declared his Father to be the maker of the world." "And, in like manner, he cut from the Epistles of Paul the Apostle, taking away whatever was said manifestly by the Apostle of that God who made the world, that he is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; and whatever the Apostle taught from the prophecies which foretold the advent of the Lord." In short, he emphatically denied Christ's incarna- tion and his passibility, or capability of suffering. To him, therefore, Tertullian objects: "'For unto us a child is born, and unto us a son is given/ What know I if he does not speak of the Son of God, whose government was laid upon his shoulder? Who bears a kingdom, the sign of his power, upon his shoulder, and does not also bear either a diadem N Adv. Hseres., lib. v, cap. 33. VIEWS OF THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS. 127 upon his head, or a sceptre in his hand, or some proper mark of dress? But Christ Jesus, the only new King of the new dispensation, has borne upon his shoulder the power and sublimity of his new glory, to wit, his cross; so that, according to the above prophecy, the Lord henceforth reigns from the tree. This tree Jeremiah also intimates to thee when speaking of the Jews who said, 6 Come let us cast away the tree with the bread of it/ with his body assuredly. For in your Gospel also God has revealed it calling bread his body, that you may understand, that he has given to the bread to be a figure of his body; whose body the prophet had before figured by bread ; the Lord himself being about to interpret this sacrament afterward." "But indeed he does not, even to this present time, reject the water with which he washes his people, nor the oil with which he anoints them, nor the union of honey and milk with which he feeds his infant ones, nor the bread with which he repre- sents his own body, even in his own sacrament needing the beggarly things of the Creator/' 1 * Again he says: " The bread which he took and distributed to his disciples, that he made his body, by saying, 'This is my body/ that is, a figure oi my body. But it would not have been a figure, un- less his body had been a true one. But a void thing, as a phantasm, cannot take a figure. More- over, if he had feigned bread for his body, because he was destitute of a true one, then he ought to have delivered bread for us. That bread had been crucified, would have been practising after Mar- cion's vanity. But why does he call bread his body and not rather [call it] the gourd— pepowem — which Marcion had in the place of a heart, not un- ° Adv. Marcion, lib. iii, cap. 19. p Id., lib. i,cap. 1-1. 128 ON THE EUCHARIST. derstancling that this was an ancient figure of Christ's body; who said by Jeremiah: 'Against me have they devised devices, saying ; Come let us cast away the tree with the bread thereof;' to wit, the cross with his body. And thus the illu- minator of antiquity sufficiently declared what he then wished to signify by bread, calling his body bread. So also by the mention of the cup, when he constituted the testament sealed with his blood, HE CONFIRMED THE SUBSTANCE OF HIS BODY. For of no body can there be blood, except of flesh. And if any kind of body not fleshly be opposed to us, cer- tainly it shall not have blood except it be fleshly. Thus the proof of the body depends upon the testi- mony of the flesh, and the proof of the flesh upon the testimony of the blood. " q You see that Ter- tullian was not very well versed in the doctrine of the unbloody sacrifice of the body of Christ in the Mass. He lived too early to be initiated into its mysteries. The whole scope and design of Tertullian, in the passages quoted, is evidently to prove the re- ality of Christ's human flesh, against the error of Marcion, from those Scriptures which point to his flesh and blood by certain figurative expressions, in which the term bread was understood to indi- cate the body of Christ, and the term wine his blood. R In doing this he makes use of the words of institution. This is my body, and the passage of Jeremiah to prove the same thing, namely, that bread is a figurative representation of the body of Christ. And he produces the mention of the cup, at the eucharistic institution, together with two other passages from the Old Testament, immedi- ately following the last passage above cited, to show Q Adv. Mar., lib. iv, cap. 40, p. 457. R Idem, lib. v, cap. 8, p. 470. VIEWS OF THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS. 129 that by the Scriptural use of the term wine the blood of Christ is figuratively indicated. Nothing therefore can be more evident than the meaning of Tertullian, which is, that the bread and wine of the Eucharist, are the figure or symbol of Christ's real body and blood. And we can no more sup- pose, that he understood the words of Christ liter- ally, than we can, that he understood, in their literal sense, the passages referred to in the Old Testament. Besides, Iren^us, in reference to the Valen- tinians and Marcionites, says: "According to no opinion of the heretics, was the Word of God made flesh. For, if any one will examine their rules, he will find that the Word of God is repre- sented by them all as without flesh, and impassi- ble." 1 And Tertullian says that "Marcion pre- fers to believe Christ to be a phantasm, altogether scorning the verity of his body.' ;S A phantasm is something that appears to be what it is not. As here used it indicates, that Marcion believed the human body of Christ to be not real, but only apparent. Now had Tertullian been a transubstantiation- ist, that part of his argument which relates to the Eucharist, would have been irrelevant ; and Marcion might have replied to his confusion: "Hold, sir, your argument to prove the verity of Christ's body and blood from the eucharistic elements avails you not ; for if your doctrine of this sacrament be true, then, so far from demonstrating Christ's body to be real, you rather prove, that the outward appear- ances of things are not certainly indicative of their interior nature, and, therefore, what appeared to be a real human body of Christ, might not have been 1 Adv. H seres., lib. iii, cap. 11, p. 219. s De Anima liber, cap. xvii, p. 27G. 130 ON THE EUCHARIST. such. We stand on common ground. You teach that what appears to the sight, touch, smell and taste, to be real bread and wine, is not real bread and wine ; and I believe that what appeared to the sight and touch, to be a real human body, was not real, but only apparent." 5. Clement of Alexandria, says : " The blood of Christ is two-fold ; for, the one is his fleshly, by which we have been redeemed from corruption, but the other is his spiritual, that is, by which we have been anointed. And this is to drink the blood of Jesus, to partake of the Lord's incorruption. But the strength of the word is the spirit, as the blood is of the flesh. Analogously, therefore, wine is mingled with water, as the spirit is with man ; and the mixture of wine and water feeds unto faith, but the spirit leads unto incorruption, and the mixture of both the drink and the word has been called the Eucharist, that is, a bestowal of distinguished thanks, of which they who partake by faith are made holy, body and soul, the Father's will together with the spirit and Word mystically mingling the divine mixture, man." 1 In pursuing the subject of his discourse he after- wards remarks: a The Scythians, Celtas, Iberians, and Thracians, all which are warlike nations, are especially addicted to drunkenness ; and they con- sider it a pleasant and happy thing to exercise themselves in the pursuits of life. But we, a peace- ful people, living together for enjoyment not for injury, drink sober draughts to one another, that our friendships may in reality be shown suitable to our name. How think ye the Lord drank when he was made man ? So shamefully as we do ? Did he not do it with urbanity and with becomingness? Did he not do it considerately ? For know ye well, t Paedagog. lib. ii, cap. 2. Oxon. 1715, pp. 177, 178. VIEWS OF THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS. 131 he also partook of wine, for he also was a man. And he blessed the wine, saying, Take ye and drink; this is my blood, the blood of the vine. As to the word, 'shed for many for the remission of sins/ it allegorically signifies a holy stream of gladness. And, that it is necessary that he who drinks should do it temperately, he clearly showed by what he taught at the feast, for he taught not being drunken. But that what was blessed was wine, he again showed when he said to his disciples : 'Of this fruit of the wine I drink not, until I drink it with you in my Father's kingdom/ Moreover, that what was drank by the Lord was wine, he again says concerning himself when upbraiding the Jews* hardness of heart: 'For the Son of man, says he, came, and they say, Behold a man who is a glutton and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans/ Let this be firmly fastened by us upon those called Encra- tites." u In the chapter from which the above passages are selected, Clement discourses upon the manner in which we are to conduct ourselves in the use of wine; Pos to poto prosenekteon — and argues that although " water is the natural, and, therefore, the sober drink for the thirsty," nevertheless the mode- rate use of wine has been sanctioned by the exam- ple of Christ and his Apostles. In proof of this, he refers to the miracle wrought at the marriage, in Cana of Galilee/ (John ii,) to the words of Christ, when he upbraided the Jews (Matt: ii, 19,) to the exhortation of the Apostle Paul to Timothy w (I Tim. v: 23,) and especially, to the employment of the '^ blood of the vine" at the institution of the Eucharist by Christ, which he proves to have been wine, after it was blessed, from the words, "Of this u Idem Paedogog. lib. ii, cap. 2, p. 186. v Ib. p. 184. wib. p. 177. 132 ON THE EUCHARIST. fruit of the vine I will not drink, until I drink it with you in the kingdom of my Father." Add to this, the pointed application of his whole argument to the Encratites, who held wine in such abhorrence, as to use mere water in the Lord's supper, and we have from this author, a most conclusive testimony against transubstantiation. 6. In opposition to the Marcionites, Origen asks: " But if, as they say, Christ was destitute of flesh and blood, of what kind of flesh, or of what body, or of what kind of blood, did he give as images the bread and the cup, and command his disciples by these to make a remembrance of him? " x In another place he undertakes to show, that Christ, our High Priest, abstained from wine when he approached the altar of his cross, in the same manner as did the high priest under the law, when about to go into the tabernacle of the congregation, (Levit. x : 9,) and observes : " The Saviour came into this world, that he might offer his flesh a sacrifice to God for our sins. Before he made this offering, whilst engaged in his dispensations, he drank wine. In fine, he was called a gluttonous man, and a wine-drinker, a friend of publicans and sinners. But when the time of his crucifixion drew near, and lie was about to come to the altar, where he should immolate the sacrifice of his flesh, taking the cup, he blessed, and gave it to his disciples, say- ing : l Take ye and drink of this.' He said, do you drink who are not now about to come to the altar. But he, as it were about coming to the altar, says concerning himself: 'Verily, I say unto you, that I will not drink of the fruit of this vine until I drink it with you new in my Father's Kingdom.' " x x Dialog de recta in Deum tide, Sect, iv, torn, i, p. 853, Paris, 1759. Y In Levit., Hoinil. vii, No. 1, torn, ii, p. 220. VIEWS OF THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS. 133 From these remarks Origen obviously believed that the Apostles drank wine but not blood in the Eucharist; otherwise the passage has no meaning. Indeed, he puts this beyond all controversy, by going on to show the propriety of Christ's abstain- ing then from wine "which makes glad the heart of man/' inasmuch as he was affected with sadness for the sins of men. Again, "If all that enters into the mouth goes into the belly, and is cast out into the draught, then even the food which is sanctified by the word of God and supplication, according to that which is material, goes into the belly, and is cast out into the draught : but, according to the prayer which is made over it, and the proportion of faith, it becomes profitable, and is the cause of that clear-sightedness of the mind which discerns unto profiting. And it is not the matter of the bread, but the word spoken over it, that profits him who eats worthy of the Lord. And thus much concerning his typical and symbolical body." 2 Most certain, therefore, is it, that he did not con- sider that "which was sanctified by the word of God and prayer," to be the real body and blood of Christ. For, besides the irreconcilable disagreement between his words and such a belief, he elsewhere teaches, that Christ's body " after its resurrection, was, as it were, in a certain state, between that grossness of body which it had before its passion, and the manifestation of a soul destitute of such a body." 2 To say that such a heavenly and glorified body, enters the mouth, passes into the belly, and is cast out into the draught, would become a de- mentate better than a Christian philosopher. z Com. in Matt. torn, xi, No. 14. 2 Contra Celsum, lib. 2, p. 434, No. 62. 12 134 ON THE EUCHARIST. 7. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, in a letter to Cascilius, writes very decidedly against those hereti- cal Aquarians who used water only in the Lord's Supper. A few passages from this epistle will suf- fice to show the author's views, respecting the nature of the element used in the Eucharist. He argues, with more zeal than wisdom perhaps, that water should he mingled with the wine, in order to represent the union "between Christ and his people, the wine answering to the hlood of Christ, and the water to believers. He says : " You know that we have been admonished, that in offering the cup, the tradition of the Lord should he preserved ; neither should any thing be done by us different from what the Lord first did for us ; so that the cup which is offered in his memory, should be offered mixed with wine. For when Christ says, ' I am the true vine/ the blood of Christ is not water assuredly, but wine. Nor can his blood, by which we have been redeemed and quickened, seem to be in the cup, when the wine is wanting in the cup, by which is represented the blood of Christ." He then speaks of Noah and Melchisedec as types of Christ, who drank and offered wine, and adds : " Who is more eminently a priest of the Most High God than our Lord Jesus Christ who offered a sacrifice to God the Father, and offered this same that Melchisedec offered, that is, bread and wine, to wit, his body and blood." . . . Again, " ' I say unto you, that I will not henceforth drink of this creature of the vine, until on that day in which I will drink the new wine with you in my Father's kingdom.' In this place we find that the cup was mixed [?] which the Lord offered, and that it was wine which he called his blood. Whence it appears, that the blood of Christ is not offered, if wine is wanting in the cup." . . . "And because Christ, who has borne our sins, has borne us all, we see by the water, that the people are understood, VIEWS OF THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS. 135 but by the wine, the blood of Christ is shown forth. And when water is mixed with wine in the cup, the people are united to Christ, and the multitude of the faithful, are coupled and joined to him in whom they have believed. This coupling and uniting of wine and water, is so mingled in the cup of the Lord, that this mix- ture cannot be separated. Whence, nothing can separate from Christ the Church, that is, the people in the Church, established in the faith, and firmly persevering in what they have believed, that love should not always draw them together and remain inseparable. Thus, in the sanctification of the Lord's cup, water alone cannot be offered, as neither wine alone can be; for if any one offer wine alone, the blood of Christ is without us ; but if the water be alone, the people are without Christ." . . . "But the discipline of all religion and truth is subverted, unless that which is spiritually commanded, be faithfully preserved, if in the morn- ing sacrifices any one fears, lest by the savor of the wine he smell of the blood of Christ." A From all our sins may Christ's atoning blood cleanse you and Your Brother, E. 0. P. A Cyprian, Epist. lxiii, ad Csecilium de Sacram. Doni. Cali- cis, torn. 1, pp. 146-150. LETTER VIII. VIEW OF THE POST-NICENE FATHERS RESPECTING THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST IN THE EUCHARIST. Dear Brother: — In my last, I examined in a manner somewhat circumstantial, the testimony of the most distinguished Fathers of the ante-Nicene Church, and found them, in letter, spirit and de- sign, adverse to your modern doctrine of the Eu- charist. In producing similar evidence from the later writings of the church, it will not there- fore be necessary to quote in detail, or indulge in lengthened remark. 1. Eusebius holds the following language: "He delivered to his disciples the symbols of the divine economy, commanding the image of his body to be made." A And, "They received a command, ac- cording to the institution of the new dispensation, to celebrate the remembrance of that sacrifice, by the symbols of his body and saving blood. " B 2. Macarius of Egypt asks: "What are those things which eye hath not seen nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man ? An- swer. At that time the great and just, and kings and prophets knew that the Redeemer would indeed come; but that he would suffer and be crucified, and his blood shed upon the cross, they neither knew nor had they heard ; neither had it entered into their hearts, that there would be the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and, that in the A Euseb, Demonstrat Evang., lib. viii, c. 1. B Idem, Demonstr. Ev., lib. i, c. ult. TESTIMONY OF THE POST-NICENE FATHERS. 137 church there would be offered bread and wine, the antitype of his flesh and blood, and that they who partake of the visible bread would spiritually eat the flesh of the Lord." 3. Cyril of Jerusalem exhorts: "Wherefore, with all assurance, let us partake of the body and blood of Christ; for in the type of bread his body is given thee, and in the type of wine his blood is given thee; so that, partaking of the body and blood of Christ, thou mayst be made, of the same body and blood with him." D 4. Gregory Nazianzen, speaking of the Eucha- rist, says : " We shall now partake of the passover, typically indeed, yet more evident than the old ; for the legal /passover, I dare say, was a more ob- scure type of a type." E 5. Ambrose, in his fourth book of the Sacraments, says : " Grant that this oblation, which is the figure of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, may be ascribed to us as reasonable and acceptable." F 6. Jerome teaches that "the flesh of Christ is understood in two ways; either it is that spiritual and divine flesh of which he says : my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed ; and except ye shall eat my flesh, &c; or that flesh which was crucified, and that blood which was shed by the spear of the soldier." G "It is indeed lawful to eat of this sacrifice which is admirably made in remem- brance [of Christ,] but of that which Christ offered upon the altar of the cross, according to itself, it is permitted to no one to eat." H . We are permitted c Macar. Homil. xxvii. D Catech. Mystagog. iv, § 1, Opera Lond. 1703, p. 29. E Orat. ii in Pasch., torn, i, p. 692, Paris 1630. F Lib. iv, cap. 5, de Sacram. G Hieron. Com. in Ep. ad Eplies. i, torn, iii, p. 960. 11 Dist. Can. de hac in Levit. 12* 138 ON THE EUCHARIST. to eat of the one, but not the other. Why not, if the sacrifice and victim are the same ? Because the former is typical, the latter was a real sacrifice of Christ, as he himself elsewhere says: "For a type of his blood, Christ offered^ not water, but wine." 1 7. Augustine, speaking of Christ's forbearance, says : "So great and so marvelous was the patience of our Lord, that bearing with Judas, though not ignorant of his purpose,, he called him to the feast in which he commended and delivered to his disci- ples the figure of his body and blood. " J And, "The Lord did not hesitate to say, This is my body, when he gave the sign of his body/' K He urges the necessity of a spiritual participa- tion of the body and blood of Christ, as follows : "This then shall be, that is, the body and blood of Christ shall be life to every one, if what is visibly taken in the sacrament, be in very truth eaten and drunk spiritually. " L 8. Facuxdus says : " The sacrament of adoption may be called adoption, just as the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, which is in the con- secrated bread and wine, we are wont to call his body and blood. Not indeed that the bread is properly his body, or that the wine is properly his blood, but because they contain in themselves the mystery of his body and blood. Hence it was that our Lord denominated the consecrated bread and wine which he delivered to his disciples, his own body and blood. " M I cannot conceive how words can be arranged so as to deny more explicitly the doctrine of a corpo- real presence. 1 Idem, lib. ii, adv. Jovinian. J Aug. in Psal. iii. K Idem, contra Adimant. cap. xii. L Idem, Serin, cxsxi, vol. v, p. 924. ^ Lib. ix, Defens. iii, cap. 5. TESTIMONY OF THE POST-NICENE FATHERS. 139 9. Isidore of Seville gives the following reasons for denominating bread and wine the body and blood of Christ: " Because bread strengthens the body, therefore it is called the body of Christ ; but wine, because it operates blood in the flesh, is therefore referred to the blood of Christ. Now these two are visible, but being sanctified by the Holy Spirit, they pass into the sacrament of his divine body." N The venerable Bede says: "In the place of the flesh and blood of the lamb, Christ has substituted the sacrament of his flesh and blood, in the figure of bread and wine." "He gave to his disciples at the supper, the figure of his most holy body and blood. " p I have now produced from the records of the ancient church a "cloud of witnesses" all bringing in the same testimony substantially in proof of my assertion, "that the fathers of the first six or seven centuries after Christ, speak of the eucharistic ele- ments as the figure of Christ's broken body and shed blood." And in examining the Ante-N"icene Fathers, I showed from their language together with its scope and design, that they could not have believed the doctrine of Christ's bodily presence in the Eucharist, as now taught by the church of Kome. In order to place the testimony of the later ecclesiastical writers in the same impregnable posi- tion, I will cite a few other passages, in which they ' expressly teach: II. That the elements of bread and wine do not lose their proper nature in virtue of consecration. 1. Epiirem of Antioch undertakes to prove the two natures of Christ from the words of St. John : That which was from the beginning, which we have N De Eccles. Offic, lib. i, cap. 18. °Com. in Levit. xxii. p Idem, in Psal. iii. 140 ON THE EUCHARIST. seen and our hands have handled of the Word of life. He argues hence, that he was both palpable and impalpable, and affirms that " No man of sense can say that the nature of that which is palpable and that which is impalpable, of that which is vis- ible and that which is invisible, is the same. In the same manner the body of Christ, which is taken by the faithful, does not depart from its sensible substance, and it remains inseparable from intelli- gible grace. And baptism, moreover, being made all spiritual, and being one, also preserves the pro- priety of its sensible substance, I speak of the water, and does not cease to be what it was." Q In the same manner are we to understand Fa- cundus, the African bishop, in the passage cited above, p. 138, as teaching the persistence of the nature of the bread and wine after consecration, when he says, "that the bread and wine are not called the body and blood of Christ because they are properly such, but because they contain in them- selves the mystery of his body and blood." 2. Chrysostom writes against the Apollinarians : "Christ is G-od and man; God on account of his impassibility, man on account of his passion. One Son, One Lord, the very same possessing, without doubt, one dominion, one power, in his united natures, although they exist not consub- stantial ; and each [nature] preserves the acknow- ledgment of its propriety unmixed, and because they are without confusion, I say they are two. For as before the bread is sanctified, we call it bread, but being sanctified by divine grace, through the medium of the priest, it is liberated from the appellation of bread and dignified with the name of the Lord's body, although the nature of bread QEphrem Theopolitani, in Pliotli Bibliotheca, Dis. 229 p. 794. TESTIMONY OE THE POST-NICENE FATHERS. 141 remain" in it and is declared to be not two bodies, but one body of the Son, so also here, the divine nature residing, that is, pervading his body, these both make one Son, one person." R " When this passage was first produced by Peter Martyr," says Bingham, "it was looked upon as so unanswerable, that they of the Komish Church had no other way to evade the force of it, but to cry out, It was a forgery. Peter Martyr left it in the Lam- beth Library, but it was ravished thence in the reign of Queen Mary. Bigotius, a learned French Papist, published the original, but the whole edi- tion was suppressed. Yet, Le Moyne published it again in Latin among his Varia Sacra. And a learned Prelate, who now so deservedly holds the primacy in our own church, and whose indefatiga- ble industry against Popery will never be forgotten, having procured the sheets which the Sorbon Doc- tors caused to be suppressed in Bigotius' edition of Palladius, published it in our own tongue, with such of the Greek fragments as are now remaining. And in these monuments it will stand as the unan- swerable testimony of St. Chrysostom, and a key to explain all other passages of the Greek writers of that age, who were undoubtedly in the same senti- ments, of the Bread and Wine still remaining un- alterable in their substance." 1 3. Gelasius, chosen Bishop of Pome near the close of the fifth century, has left a treatise on the two natures of Christ against Nestorius and Euty- ches, in which he uses the following language. " Certainly the sacraments of the body and blood of Christ which we take, are a divine thing ; for which cause we also by the same, are made partakers K Ep. ad Cesarium contr. Hseres. Apol. 1 Bingham -s Antiquities of the Christian Church, vol. i, book xv, chap, v, sec. 4, p. 791, Lond. 1727. 142 ON THE EUCHARIST. of the divine nature ; nevertheless, the substance or NATURE OF THE BREAD AND WINE CEASE NOT TO EXIST ; and truly, the image and similitude of the body and blood of Christ, are celebrated in the perform- ance of the mysteries. Evidently, therefore, is it sufficiently shown by us, that this which we pro- fess, celebrate, and take in his image, is to be thought in regard to Christ the Lord himself; so that as they [the bread and wine] pass into this, that is to say, into a divine substance by the efficacy of the Holy Spirit, their nature, never- theless, remaining in its own propriety, so as to this principle mystery itself, [of the unity of Christ's two natures,] whose efficiency and virtue they, [the consecrated bread and wine,] truly represent to us, it is evident from their remaining properly such, that Christ is one, because he remains entire and true." s 4. Theodoret opposed the same heresy of Euty- ches in the form of dialogue between Orthodoxus and Eranistes, the former being the advocate of the Catholic doctrine, the latter being the Euty- chian representative. In Dialogue I, we read as follows: " Orthodoxus. — Do you know that God called his body bread? " Eranistes. — I know it. " 0. — He elsewhere also calls his flesh wheat. "E. — I know that also; unless a grain of wheat fall into the earth, &c. "0. — But in the delivery of the mysteries, he called the bread, his body, and that which is mixed, his blood. " E. — He did so call them. a 0. — But that which is his body by nature — hata pliusin to soma — is also to be called his body, and his blood is to be called blood. s De duabus Naturis in Christo. TESTIMONY OF THE POST-NICENE FATHERS. 143 " E. — It is confessed. " 0. — But our Saviour clianged the names, and to his body he gave the name of the symbol, and to the symbol, the name of his body; and so having called himself a vine, he called the symbol, blood. «E. — Very right. But I desire to know the reason of this change of names. « 0. — The scope is manifest to those that are ini- tiated in divine things, for he would have those that partake of the divine mysteries, to attend, not to the nature of those things that are seen, but, upon the changing of the names, to believe the change made by grace. For he who called his body, which is so by nature, wheat and bread, and again termed himself a vine, has honored the visible symbols with the appellation of his body and blood, not changing their nature but adding grace to nature.'' T Dialogue II. — "0. — Pray tell me, of what are the mystical symbols offered to God by the priests, signs? " E.— Of the body and blood of the Lord. " 0. — Of his body truly, or not truly such? "E. — Of that which is truly [his body.] " 0. — Very well ; For there must be an original of an image ]—tes eikonos archetupon — for painters imitate nature, and draw the images of visible things. " E.— True. a 0. — If then the divine mysteries are antitypes of a real body — tou ontos somatos antitupa — then the Lord's body is still a real body, not changed into the nature of the Deity, but rilled with divine glory. a E. — You have seasonably introduced the dis- course of the divine mysteries ; for thereby I will TDial I, Opera Paris, 1642, torn, iv, pp. 17, IS. 144 ON THE EUCHARIST. show that the body of the Lord is changed into another nature. Answer my question therefore. "0.— I will. "E. — What do you call the gift which is offered before the invocation of the priest ? " 0. — I may not openly declare it, for perhaps some here present may not be initiated. "E. — Answer enigmatically then. "0. — I call it the food that is made of a certain grain. " E. — How do you call the other symbol ? " 0. — By a common name that signifies a kind of drink. "E. — But how do you call it after consecration? "0.— -The body and blood of Christ. "E. — And do you believe that you partake of Christ's body and blood ? "0. — Yes, I do believe it. "E. — As then, the symbols of Christ's body and blood are one thing before the invocation of the priest, but after the invocation are changed and become something else ; so, the body of the Lord, after his assumption, is changed into a divine essence. " 0. — You are caught in a net of your own weav- ing. For, after sanctification, the mystical symbols do not depart from their own nature ; for they REMAIN STILL IN THEIR FORMER SUBSTANCE, AND FIGURE, and form, and may be seen and touched such as they were before. But they are understoood to be what they are made and are believed and venerated, as being those things which they are believed to be." u Here then we have the concurrent testimony of these distinguished Fathers of the Asiatic, Euro- pean, and African churches, expressly teaching the uDial. II, pp. 84, 85. TESTIMONY OF THE POST-NICENE FATHERS. 145 non-departure of the substance of the bread in the Eucharist. Should it be objected that the Fathers often mean by the terms nature and substance no more than the qualities of things, which we grant; nev- ertheless, we affirm the objection to be not well made; for the dispute with the Eutychians was not about the qualities of Christ's body, but about its substance, and therefore Gelasius and Theodoret must have intended the substance of Christ's body. Otherwise their arguments were entirely inappro- priate, and they failed to prove what they under- took to do. The same remarks apply, essentially, to the error of the Apollinarians, and Chrysostom's reasoning against them; for the Eutychians were, after Chry- sostom's time, condemned by the Council of Chalce- don for following the doctrine of Apollinaris; and this Council declared in opposition to these errors, "That one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, is to be acknowledged as being perfect in his Godhead, and perfect in his humanity, truly God and truly man, with a rational soul and a body; that the two natures were unconfounded, unchanged, undivided and inseparable; that the distinction of the two natures was not at all done away by the union ; but rather that the peculiarity of each nature was preserved and concurred to one substance." (Acts, v.) It was therefore the de- nial of these two distinct, substantial natures in the one person of Christ, by the ancient heretics, that called forth the language above cited ; so that, when they undertake to prove this unchangeable- ness in the natures of Christ, by adducing as ex- amples the bread and wine of the Eucharist, and the water of baptism, we are to understand them as teaching, that although a divine and spiritual grace is imparted to these elements^ in virtue of 13 146 ON THE EUCHARIST. consecration to a holy use, nevertheless, they pre- serve their former and proper substance, "uncon- founded and unchanged." Moreover, had these ancient Fathers believed the doctrine of a physical change in the bread and wine, it would have been easy and very natural for these heretics to reply to their assailants: "Honored Sirs, This illustration of yours rather strengthens our conviction of the truth of our doc- trine. For you maintain, that, after the consecra- tion of the bread and wine., these substances no longer remain in their proper nature, but are changed into the real body of Jesus Christ ; in like manner do we believe that the human nature of Christ was, after his assumption, changed into the divine, being wholly absorbed by it." Now, had these keen-sighted defenders of the orthodox belief held such a doctrine, they would certainly have anticipated such an overAvhelming reply ; and common prudence would have restrained them from thus exposing themselves to be vanquished by their enemies. But that they did thus argue against the error of their enemies, and because no such reply was ever made, it follows, impliedly, that they did not believe any change of substance to be effected in the bread and wine of the Eucha- rist, in virtue of consecration. III. Several of the ancient Christian writers com- pare the change wrought in the eucharistic ele- ments with other like changes, in which, confess- edly, no transmutation of substance takes place. 1. Iren^eus, when speaking of the Eucharist in opposition to the errors of the Marcionites and Valentinians, says: "This oblation the pure Church alone offers to the Maker, offering of his creature to Him with thanksgiving. But the Jews do not now offer it, for their hands are full of blood ; neither do they receive the Word through VIEWS OF TIIE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS. 147 whom it is offered to God. Neither do all the here- tics ; for some of them call another the Father he- sides the Maker ; and, therefore, when they offer to him those things which, according to us, are his creatures, they represent him as greedy of what belongs to another. — But how shall it appear to them, that this bread, by which thanks are given, is the body of their Lord, and that cup his blood, if they deny him to be the Son of the Maker of the world, that is, his Word, by whom the tree bears its fruit, and fountains send forth their streams, and the earth gives, at first, the blade, afterward the ear, then the full grain upon the ear? But again, how say they that the flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, passes to corruption and does not take life? Either, therefore, let them change their opinions, or abstain from offering those things which are commanded. But our opinion is agreeable to the Eucharist, and the Eucharist, on the other hand, confirms our opinion. For we offer to Him the things which are his, fitly declaring the communi- cation and unity of the flesh and Spirit. "■For, as the bread which is of the earth, taking the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two things, the earthly and the celestial ; so also, our bodies taking the Eucharist are no longer corruptible, having hope of a resurrection." 1 In order to be rightly understood, this passage- re- quires some explanation. It appears from what Ire^^us here and elsewhere says: 1. That the heretics against whom he writes, taught that God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is a being distinct from the Maker of the world, whom they denominated Demiurgus. Nev- v Iren. Adv. Haeres, lib. iv, cap. 34, pp. 326, 327, Oxoa. 1702. 148 ON THE EUCHARIST. ertheless, they continued to offer to God the Father, the sacrifice of the Eucharist, consisting of bread and wine, the creatures of Demiurgus, and thereby, as Iren^eus declares, " offered the fruits of ignorance and passion and weakness, and sinned against the Father, reproaching him more than giv- ing him thanks," inasmuch as they offered to him what belonged to Demiurgus by right of creation ; and thus they represented the Father of Christ as requiring an offering to himself of that which belonged to another. These errorists, therefore, were guilty of the grossest inconsistency, nay blasphemy; for while they professed to honor God the Father by the ob- servance of the Eucharist, they dishonored him by representing him as covetous of what had been created by another, and to whom it properly be- longed. Our author therefore, very pointedly re- bukes them by exhorting either to change their opinion, or abstain from offering the sacrifice of the Eucharist to the Father of Christ. Now had Ieen^us held the doctrine of a physical change in the bread and wine,, this rebuke of his would have been wholly irrelevant, and the accused heretic might have replied: "But, according to your own doctrine, these elements of bread and wine are transubstantiated into another and different substance, and therefore what is offered to God the Father does properly and emphatically belong to him, he being the author of this change or new creation ; so that, we are consistent in our doctrine and practice." Such a reply would have completely silenced our orthodox objector, his whole argument being overthrown by his own doctrine. (2) Equally would Irekeus have placed himself in the hands of his opponents, had he been a tran- substantiationist, by demanding, u How it should appear to them, that the bread and cup are the body TESTIMONY OP THE POST-NICENE FATHERS. 149 and blood of their Lord, if they deny him to he the Son of the Maker of the world." As if he had asked, " How shall the creatures of Demiurgns ap- pear to he the body and blood of the Son of another being, entirely distinct from this Maker of the world." Answer. " Being transubstantiated by God the Father's omnipotence, they are no longer the creatures of Demiurgus but of the Father." Thus would this learned Father of the church have been caught in his own net, and held at the mercy of his enemies. (3) Again, these enemies of true Christianity, denied the body to be capable of a future resurrec- tion to eternal life, being by nature corruptible. Our author undertakes to meet this error by stating their common doctrine, viz., that in the Eucharist our bodies are nourished by the bread and wine, to wit, the body and blood of Christ, which consists of two things, the one earthly, the other heavenly; and arguing hence that our bodies, being made the re- cipients of this gift and grace of God, have there- fore, hope of a future resurrection to immortality. Thus, he in another place says, that "our bodies are not only a temple, but also the temple of Christ," and asks, "if it is not the part of the greatest blasphemy, to say that the temple of God in which dwells the Spirit of the Father, and the members of Christ, participate not of salvation, but are re- duced to destruction." 1 And in order to prove this precious doctrine of Christianity, he selects his argument from the doc- trine of the Eucharist, as admitted by his very oppo- sers, and affirms : "As the bread, which is of the earth, taking the invocation of God, is no longer common bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things, the earthly and the heavenly, so also, our ^ l Lib. v, cap. vi, p. 408. 150 ON THE EUCHARIST. bodies taking the Eucharist, are no longer cor- ruptible, having hope of a resurrection." His reasoning seems to be substantially as fol- lows : " You admit that the bread and wine, which are by nature corruptible things, become, in virtue of God's benediction, the body and blood of Christ consisting of the earthly bread and wine, and the spiritual grace communicated by God ; so do we affirm that our bodies, being made partakers of the Spirit of God, by a right participation of the Eucharist, are capable of the gift of God which is life eternal." Now the force of this illustrative comparison, depends upon the implied truth, and acknowledged belief of the persistence of the sub- stance of the bread and wine of the Eucharist after consecration. Otherwise it would have been wholly inapposite ; nay, it would have conduced greatly to strengthen the objection against the resurrection of the flesh, which was founded upon the supposi- tion, that the substance of the flesh could not con- sist with the spirit in another life, and therefore that the former must be abolished. If therefore, they had believed a total abolition of the material bread and wine in the Eucharist to take place, then the heretics, not Iren^ius, could say, "our opinion is agreeable to the Eucharist, and the Eucharist, on the other hand, confirms our opinion." Moreover, Iren^us says: "When Christ had given thanks, taking the cup, he drank of it ; and he promised to drink of the fruit of the vine with his disciples hereafter, proving both the earthly inheritance in which the new fruit of the vine should be drank, and the carnal resurrection of his disciples. For the flesh which rises again new, is the same as drinks the new cup. But he cannot be understood as drinking the fruit of the vine again, when constituted in his heavenly place with his disciples ; neither, on the other hand, are they who TESTIMONY OF THE POST-NICENE FATHERS. 151 drink it without flesh, for it is proper to flesh, not to spirit, to drink of the vine." 1 ^ He evidently understands Christ to have taught his disciples, that the fruit of the vine which he would drink with them in his earthly kingdom after the resurrection, would be a new fruit, such, how- ever, as would be adapted to their new resurrection flesh. If therefore, Iren^us be supposed to believe that Christ drank of his own real blood with his disciples at the last supper, then he must also have believed this most absurd consequence, that Christ's real blood would be renewed after the general resur- rection! which is impossible. Hence he must have believed that Christ drank the proper fruit of the vine with his disciples, but not his own reaL and substantial blood. 2. Cyril of Jerusalem says : " But ye are anointed with ointment, and are made the partakers and consorts of Christ. But see, lest you suppose that to be mere ointment; for as the bread of the Eucha- rist, after the invocation of the Holy Spirit, is no longer mere bread, but the body of Christ, so also this holy ointment is no longer mere ointment, nor, as one might say, common, after the invoca- tion, but the chrism of Christ." w Again: "For, as the bread and wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity, was mere bread and wine, but the invoca- tion being made, the bread becomes the body of Christ, but the wine the blood of Christ, in the same manner the foods of this kind, of the pomp of Satan, being by their own nature mere foods, are defiled by the invocation of demons." 2 In another place he exhorts : " Come to baptism, not as to mere 1 Lib. v, cap. 33, p. 453. wCateches. Mystag. iii, §3, p. 289. Ed. Oxon. 1703. 2 Idem, Catech. Mystag. i, §.4, p. 281. 152 ON THE EUCHARIST. water, but to spiritual grace given with the water. For, as the simple offerings upon the altars are defiled by the invocation of idols; so, on the con- trary, the simple water receives a power by the invocation of the Holy Spirit and of Christ, and acquires sanctity." 3 By these several comparisons, he evidently ascribes a like change to the bread and wine of the Eucharist, the ointment of chrism, the water of baptism, and the foods offered to idols, in virtue of the invocations made over them respectively. But, confessedly, no other than a change of quality can be allowed to take place in the last three; therefore, no other than a change of quality can be allowed according to Cyril, to take place in the consecrated bread and wine of the Eucharist. 3. Gregory of Nyssa, when speaking of the water of baptism, as the medium by which the body is cleansed, observes: "And the water that washes confers a blessing on the body that is baptized. Wherefore despise not the divine bath, nor lightly regard it as something common, because water is used. For that which operates is great, and won- drous effects arise from it. For this holy altar before which we stand, is by nature common stone, nothing differing from other flat stones which enter into the construction of our walls, and beautify our pavements, but when it has been consecrated to the service of God, and has received the benediction, it is a holy table, an immaculate altar, no longer being handled by all, but by the priests only, and they with feelings of veneration. Again, the bread is previously common bread, but when the mystery has devoted it to holy use, it is called, and is made the body of Christ. In the same manner, the mystical oil, and the wine, are things of little worth 3 Idem, Catecli. illnminat. iii, § 2, p. 34. TESTIMONY OF THE POST-NICENE FATHERS. 153 before the benediction, but after the sanctification which proceeds from the Spirit, each of these oper- ates in an excellent manner. The same power of the word also makes a priest august and honorable, being separated from the community of the multi- tude, by the newness of the benediction. For, he was, until of late, one of the multitude and of the people, but is now suddenly set forth as a leader, a president, a teacher of piety, an instructor in the secret mysteries. And these things take place whilst he suffers no change of body or form, but he is in his appearance what he was, having, by some invisible power and grace, been changed in soul, for the better." x Here Gregory illustrates the change supposed to be wrought in the water of baptism, by like changes believed to be effected in the stone of an altar or table, the bread and wine of the Eucharist, the oil of chrism, and a priest, when consecrated for their respective places in the worship of God. And in regard to the cleric he expressly teaches, that no change either in his body or form was effected in virtue of consecration. This he undoubtedly believed to be true of all the other things men- tioned in the category ; otherwise, his illustrative comparison has no application, or force. 4. Theodotus says: "Both the bread and the oil are sanctified by the power of the name, nor are they the same as by their appearance they are taken to be, but they are changed by the power into a spiritual power. So also the water which is purified from evil and made baptism, not only con- tains the less, but also takes sanctification." Y In x Greg. Nyss. in Baptism. Christi, Opera torn, iii, pp. 369, 370. Paris, 1638. Y Theodot. Epitom. ad finem Operuni Clement. Alexand., p. 800. 154 ON THE EUCHARIST. conclusion: From the foregoing communications, I trust I have fairly and clearly proved, that the early church knew nothing of the doctrine of tran- substantiation, as now taught in your church. The Fathers of the first six or seven centuries speak of the eucharistic elements, as the figure of Christ's broken body and shed blood. In doing this I have not only cited their mere words, but have also shown from the scope and design of their writings, that they necessarily teach a persistence of the na- tural substance of the consecrated symbols. Very truly, therefore, did Cardinal Cusanus write, that " certain of the ancient Fathers are found of this mind, that the bread in the sacrament is not tran- substantiated, nor changed in nature." * God grant that you also may be enabled to un- derstand and duly appreciate the numerous testi- monies adduced. To your careful and impartial consideration, therefore, the foregoing "cloud of witnesses" is submitted. remain yours, E. 0. P. 1 Cusan. Exerc, lib. vi, cited by Breckinridge, Controv. o. 34, p. 283, No. 34 LETTER IX. SECRET DISCIPLINE OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH. Dear Brother : — Your recent communication is a remarkable specimen of the expedients, to which men sometimes resort, in order to extricate them- selves from the difficult position, into which they may have brought themselves, by their imprudence. Apparently full of confidence in the infallibility of the declarations of your church, and of the perfect truthfulness of whatever drops from the lips, or flows from the pen of your teachers, you make no scruple to deny in toto, that the Fathers speak of the eucharistic elements, as the figure of Christ's broken body and shed blood; but now, when stub- born facts press heavily upon you, the attempt is made to rid yourself of their burden, by feeble attempts at explanation, and by pressing into your service the "Secret Discipline" of the ancient church, thinking this may furnish you with a solu- tion of all your difficulties. Nay, you seem to fancy that in this ancient usage you have found the key that interprets all the figures, symbols, and enigmas of the Fathers; a powerful telescope, that pierces the dark vista of many ages ; and presents to your imagination a harmonious and charming system of Christian doctrine, in their too often fam ciful and discordant productions. And, so com- pletely are you dazzled by this discovery, that you beg me, "in the name of Jesus Christ, not to pass it lightly over ; for a knowledge of it will fully and satisfactorily explain everything obscure and enig- matical in the writings of the Fathers, during the 156 ON THE EUCHARIST. period that it was in force.'' And again you en- treat me, as I value my immortal soul, to give this thing a particular and thorough investigation ; and you assure me, that it will furnish "a full solution of all the apparent leanings of the Fathers toward Protestantism." Why, my dear Brother, I have already given some attention to this ancient usage, and have formed some idea of its origin, nature and use ; but it never occurred to me that my soul's salvation depends, in the least, upon a full and perfect un- derstanding of the matter. And here permit me to -say, that the representation which you have made of this subject, is altogether one-sided, and the conclusion which you have drawu from it, wholly unwarranted from the facts in the case. For your entire argument proceeds upon the false assumption, that there was one grand secret ob- served by the ancient church, and no other. And this* is more than intimated by you in the very statement of the subject, when you denominate it, "The Discipline of the Secret." That secret is no other, according to you, than transubstantiation, a doctrine so full of mystery, incomprehensibility, and divinity, that it could not with safety be di- vulged to the Christian novices, lest perchance they should be offended at it, and turn back to idolatry. This appears to be the substance of your reasoning. As you have therefore treated this whole subject in a manner so partial and unsatisfactory, it de- volves upon me to present it in its true light, and thereby show you the falsity of your deductions. This topic I find ably and somewhat fully dis- cussed by Bingham in his "Antiquities of the Christian Church : " I propose therefore to present you with this disquisition with such modifications as seem proper to its full comprehension, and ap- propriate to a fraternal correspondence. THE SECRET DISCIPLINE. 157 I. He observes: a As to its original tlie learned Albaspin^eus (a bishop of the Romish church, who rejects the Secret Discipline of the ancient church as an insufficient proof of the doctrine of transub- stantiation,) has rightly observed, 'that in the Apostolic age, and some time after, they were not so very strict in this discipline of concealing their sacred mysteries from the knowledge of the cate- chumens.' For he thus argues against the an- tiquity of the book called the Apostolic Constitutions: 'The last words/ says he, 'which forbid these eight books do plainly show that they were not written m the first age; for the Christians of the first age did never make any scruple of publishing their mysteries, as appears from the writings of Justin Martyr.' A " Mr. Albertine observes the same out of Atiie- nagoras and Tatian. 1 And Daille joins in opinion with Albaspin^us, and cites his authority with ap- probation. 2 And Basnage is so far from thinking that the Apostles concealed their mysteries from catechumens, that he supposes they administered the sacraments in their presence. 8 "The beginning of this discipline seems to have been about the time of Tertullian ; for he is the first writer that makes any mention of it. He says, there was a 'secrecy and silence observed in all their mysteries.' And he blames the heretics of his own times for not regarding something of this discipline." c II. Having learned something of the origin of this discipline, our next inquiry may very properly be: What were the tilings concealed? A Albasp. Observat., lib i, cap. 13, p. 38. . 1 Albertin. de Eucharist, lib. ii, p. 709. 2 Dalleus de Scriptis Ignatii, lib. i, cap. 22, p. 142. B Basnag. Excrcitat. in Baron., p. 419. c Tertul. Apol., cap. 7. 14 158 ON THE EUCHARIST. 1. The manner of administering baptism was one of them. This appears from a canon of the first Council of Orange, in which it was ordered that "Catechumens are never to be admitted to the bap- tistry." And Basil mentions the triple baptizing and the other rites of baptism, as things "which it was not lawful to the uninitiated to look upon." E Augustine asks: "What is that which is kept secret and not made public in the church ? The sacrament of baptism, and the sacrament of the Eucharist. Even the pagans may see our good works, but the sacraments are concealed from them." F In like manner, Gregory Nazianzen, speak- ing of baptism, says: "You have heard so much of the mystery as we are allowed to speak publicly in the ears of all; and the rest you shall hear pri- vately, which you must retain secret within your- self, and keep under the seal of baptism." From which it appears, "that although the ancients acquainted the catechumens with the doc- trine of baptism, so far as to make them understand the spiritual nature and design of it, yet they never admitted them to the sight of the outward ceremony, nor so much as to hear any plain discourse about the manner of its administration, till they were fitted and prepared for the actual reception of it." 2. The same discipline of secrecy was observed in reference to the unction of chrism, sometimes called confirmation. Basil mentions it in connec- tion with baptism and the Eucharist, all of which it was not deemed lawful for the catechumens to look upon. H And Innocent I, writing to another d Concil. Arausicanum I, Can. 19. e Basil, de Spiritu Sancto, cap. xxvii, p. 76. Bened. Edit Paris, 1839. f Aug. Com. in Psal. ciii. <*N"az. Orat. xl, torn. 1, p. 672. B Basil, Ubi Supra citat. THE SECRET DISCIPLINE. 159 bishop about confirmation, and the form of words used in the administration of it, says: u I cannot speak the words lest I should rather seem to betray the mystery than answer the question pro- posed." 1 3. a A third thing which they concealed from the catechumens was the ordination of priests. The Council of Laodicea has a canon to this purpose, ' that ordinations should not be performed in the presence of the hearers,' that is, the catechumens. 1 And Chrysostom, speaking of this office and the solemn prayers used at the consecration, delivers himself in an obscure and covert way, because of the catechumens 'He that ordains,' says he, ' in- vites the prayers of the church, and they join their suffrages, and echo forth what the initiated know ; for it is not lawful to disclose all things before the uninitiated.' " J 4. "A fourth thing which they concealed from the catechumens, was the public Liturgy, or solemn prayers of the church ; for one rank of the catechu- mens, the audientes or hearers, were permitted only to stay and hear the sermon, but not any prayers of the church. Another sort, called kneelers, or prostrators, had the prayers of the church particu- larly for themselves, but no others. And the Com- petentes stayed only to hear the prayers offered up for themselves and the Energumens, 2 and then were dismissed. They might not stay to hear so much as the prayers for the Penitents, much less the prayers for the church militant, or any others pre- 1 Innocent, Epist. i, ad Decentium Eugubin, cap. 3. 1 Concil. Laodicen, Can. 5, Binii Hist. Gen. Concil., torn, i, p. 242. J Chrys. Horn, xviii, in 2 Cor. § 3, torn, x, p. 670. Paris, 1838. 2 The Energumens were persons supposed to be troubled by evil spirits. 160 ON THE EUCHARIST. ceding the communion. But before all these, the usual word of command was given by the deacons, or sacred heralds of the church, Ne quis audientum, or Ite, missa est. Catechumens, depart. "From this it is easy to collect farther, that the solemn office of the absolution of penitents was never performed in the presence of the catechumens. For the time of absolution was not till all others were dismissed, except the penitents themselves who were to be absolved, which was immediately before their going to the altar to begin the communion service, as seems to be clear from those words of Optatus; 1 where he speaks of it as the common custom, both in the church and among the Dona- tists, to give imposition of hands for absolution im- mediately before their going to say the Lord's Prayer at the altar. All these things therefore were kept secret from the catechumens ; for they were never suffered to be hearers or spectators of any part of them." According to the Apostolic constitutions the cate- chumens, energumens, and those about to be bap- tized, were all dismissed before the prayer for the penitents and their restoration to the blessing of the church. 2 5. As the Eucharist was the great mystery in the Christian service, so the ancients were very careful to conceal the manner of its celebration from the catechumens. This is evident from those pas- sages of Augustine and Basil before quoted, and from Chrysostom, who says: "We shut, the doors when we celebrate the mysteries and exclude the uninitiated." K " Moreover let the door be watched, i Optat. contra Parmen, lib. ii, p. 57. 3 See Apostolic Constitutions, book viii, chapters, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Edited by Irah Chase, D. D., 1848. K Homil. xxiii al xxiv, in Matt. torn, vii, p. 327, § 3. THE SECRET DISCIPLINE. 161 lest there come in any unbeliever, or one not yet initiated; 1 and let the Deacons stand at the doors of the men, and the Sub-Deacons at those of the women, that no one go out, nor a door he opened, although it he for one of the faithful, at the time of the oblation." 2 Bingham tells us that Casatjbon makes the follow- ing observation upon this topic, which the learned Albertixe takes from him and defends strenuously : " That whereas there are three things in the Eucha- rist: 1. The symbols, or sacred elements of bread and wine, 2, The things signified by them, and 3, The rites of celebration; that which the ancients labored chiefly to conceal from the catechumens, was not the things signified, but only the symbols or outward signs, and the rites and manner of cele- bration. For they made no scruple to call the Eucharist by the name of Christ's body and blood before the catechumens, at the same time that they would not call it bread and wine, or speak particu- larly of the form and manner of administering it, as Albertinus proves out of Theodoret and many others. Which shows, that the reason of concealing the mystery from the catechumens was not the belief of transubstantiation, as the Komanists pre- tend ; for then they would have chosen rather to conceal the names of Christ's body and blood than the names of the outward symbols, and the mystical rites of celebration ; the latter of which they studi- ously concealed, but not the former." 6. The ancients also concealed from the know- ledge of the more imperfect catechumens, the more sublime doctrines of Christianity ; such as the mystery of the Trinity and incarnation of Christ, 1 Apostolic Constitutions, book ii, ch. 57. 2 Idem, book viii, ch. 11, Chase's Edition. Vide et Epi- phan. Haeres. 42, No. 3; Hieron. Com. in Gal. vi; et alios passim. 14* 162 ON THE EUCHARIST. the creed of the church, and the Lord's prayer, which the catechumens did not learn till just before their baptism. Thus Theodoret says: "We do not teach this prayer to the uninitiated, but to the Mystagogi. For no one that is not baptized can presume to say : Our father who art in heaven, not yet having received the gift of adoption. But he that is made partaker of baptism may call God his father, as being adopted among the sons of grace." L Chrysostom also expresses himself very clearly on this point, saying: "He who calls God, father, confesses by one and the same epithet; the remis- sion of sins, removal of punishment, righteousness, sanctiiication, redemption, adoption, the inherit- ance, brotherhood with the only-begotten and the abundant supply of the spirit, For it is not possi- ble that he who has not obtained all these good things should call God, father." M "For that this prayer belongs to the faithful, both the laws of the church and the beginning of the prayer teach ; because the uninitiated cannot call God, father." N For such reasons they never taught the Lord's prayer to any of the catechumens, except the most advanced of them, the competentes, a few days before their baptism; as we learn from Augustine, who exhorts: " Learn therefore this prayer which ye are to repeat eight days hence when ye are to be baptized." 4 Sosomen gives it as a reason why he did not insert the words of the Nicene Creed into his history, "that probably many uninitiated persons might read his book, who ought not to read or hear the l Theodoret, Heeret. Fabul. lib. v, c. 28, torn, iv, p. 316. m Chrys. Hornil. xix al xx, in Matt. § 4, torn, vii, p. 284 NIbid. §5, p. 287. 4 Aug. Homil. xlii, ex. 50, tom. x, p. 195. THE SECRET DISCIPLINE. 163 Creed." 1 And Jerome says: "There is a custom amongst us of this kind, that we publicly teach for forty days the holy and adorable Trinity to those who are to be baptized." 2 "It is not lawful," says Clement of Alexandria, "to relate to the profane the mysteries of the Word." 3 III. What were the true reasons of this secret discipline of the ancient church ? 1. "And the first is that the plainness and sim- plicity of the Christian rites might not be despised by the uninitiated, or give occasion to scandal to them before they were thoroughly instructed in regard to the nature of the mysteries. For both Jews and Gentiles, from whom Christian converts were made catechumens, were apt to deride the nakedness and simplicity of the Christian religion, as void of those pompous ceremonies and sacrifices, with which the pagan religions abounded. The Christian religion prescribed but one washing in water, and one oblation of bread and wine, instead of that multi- tude of bloody sacrifices, which the other religions commanded. Therefore, lest the plainness of these few ceremonies should offend the prejudiced minds of the catechumens, before they were well instructed about them, the Christian teachers usually adorned these mysteries with great and magnificent titles, such as would convey noble ideas to the minds of men concerning their spiritual effects, but conceal- ing their other names, lest the simplicity of the things should offend them. When they spake of the Eucharist, they never mentioned bread and wine, but the sacrifice of the body arid blood of Christ ; and styled baptism, illumination and life, 1 Sozomen, lib. 1, cap. 20, et Hieron. Epist. 61, ad Pamruach, cap. 9. 2 Hieron. Epist. CI, ad Pam. cap. 4. s Clem. Alex. Stromut. lib. v, cap. 9, p. 680. 164 ON THE EUCHARIST. the sacrament of faith and remission of sins, saying little in the meantime of the outward elements of water. This was one plain reason why they denied catechumens the sight of their sacraments, and always spoke in mystical terms before them." In proof of the correctness of these remarks of the learned Bingham, the following ancient testimonies may he offered. After quoting our Saviour's words, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine/' Chrysostom observes : " They feign gentleness that they may learn [our secret myste- ries ;] but when they learn thein, being different from other people, they turn them into ridicule, make a mock of them, and laugh at us as deceived. . . . Wherefore it is no small advantage that they re- main in ignorance ; for then they do not despise in the same manner. But if they learn, the injury is two-fold; for they do not thence bear fruit, but are injured the more ; and to thee they furnish innu- merable troubles. Let them hear, who shamelessly couple all things together and make things vener- able to be despised. For when we celebrate the mysteries, we for this reason shut the doors and exclude the uninitiated ; not that we find any in- firmity in the mysteries, but because the multitude are yet too imperfectly disposed toward them." Athanasitjs, writing in opposition to some who made a public display of the eucharistic sacrament, regards the practice as a violation of our Lord's command, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine," and adds : " We must not make a public display of the mysteries to the uninitiated, in order that the Greeks, being kept in ignorance, may not ridicule, o Chrys. Horn, xxiii, al xxiv, in Matt. § 3, torn, vii, pp. 326, 327. Paris, 1836. THE SECRET DISCIPLINE. 165 and that the catechumens may not he scandalized through curiosity." p " These mysteries," says Cyril of Jerusalem, " the church now relates to him who has changed from the catechumens. Nor is it a custom to relate them to the heathen; for we mention rot the mysteries of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, to a Gentile; neither do we speak clearly of the mysteries in the presence of the catechumens ; but we often say many things covertly, that the faithful who know may understand, and that those who are ignorant may not he injured." Q " But if any one he a partaker [of the Eucharist] through ignorance," says the Apostolic Constitu- tions, "instruct him quickly, and initiate him, that he may not go out a despiser." And the fourth Council of Toledo orders : " That henceforth no Jew should he obliged by force to believe." "But those who have some time since been compelled to come to Christianity, — as was done in the times of the most religious prince, Sise- but, because they have evidently been associated with the divine sacraments, have received the grace of baptism, have been anointed with chrism, and made partakers of the Lord's body and blood, — ■ must be compelled to hold fast the faith which they have received, whether by force or necessity, that the name of the Lord be not blasphemed, and the faith which they have received be esteemed vile and contemptible." 11 2. A second reason for this discipline was, that a greater veneration might be conciliated for the p Athanasii Apolog. ad Imp. Constant, vol. i, p. 731. Paris. 1627. Q Cyril, Hierosol. Catech. Ilium, vi, p. 60. Paris, 1631. ^ R Concil. Toletannm iv, Canon 56; Binii Histor. Gen. Con» ciliorum, torn, ii, part 2, p. 354. 166 ON THE EUCHARIST. mysteries in the minds of men on account of their ignorance of them, as we learn from Basil, who says : " The Fathers knew well that the veneration of the mysteries was preserved by silence. — Moses, the great counsellor, did not make all parts of the sanctuary accessible to all, but kept the profane without the sacred enclosures, — well perceiving by his wisdom the real contempt had for what was trite and of itself apprehensible, but that the greatest regard was somehow naturally joined to what was most removed and rare. In the same manner, the Apostles and Fathers who from the beginning [?] enacted those things pertaining to the churches, preserved the veneration for the mys- teries by secrecy and silence. For that which is exposed to the popular and vulgar ear, is no mys- tery at all. The reason of the delivery of these without writing is this, that the knowledge of the dogmas which appears very contemptible to the multitude, may not be despised on account of famil- iarity." s And Augustine says: "You ought not to won- der, dear brethren, that in these mysteries we say nothing concerning the mysteries ; that we do not immediately interpret what we deliver. For in things so holy and divine, we observe the honor of silence." 1 3. Another reason given by Augustine why the sacraments were not delivered to the catechumens was, that their curiosity might be excited, so that they should the more ardently desire them, and hasten to come to an experimental knowledge of them. He asks: "Why then could not the disci- ples bear aught of those things which were written s Basil liber de Spiritu Sancto, cap. xxvii, vol. iii, pp. 76, 77, Paris, 1839. 1 Aug. Sermo. i, mter. 40, Edit, a Sirmondo, torn. x. THE SECRET DISCIPLINE. 167 after the ascension of the Lord, although the Holy Spirit was not yet sent to them, when now the cat- echumens may bear all things, the Holy Spirit not yet being received? Because, although the sacra- ments of the faithful are not delivered to these, it is not for this, that they cannot bear them, but< that they may so much the more ardently desire ' them as they are the more honorably concealed 1 , from them." T Again: "The Jews see that the] priesthood according to Aaron has now perished ; and they acknowledge not the priesthood according to Melchisedec. To the faithful I speak; if the catechumens do not understand this, let them put away their slothfulness and hasten to a knowledge of it. There is no need therefore of disclosing the mysteries ; the Scriptures intimate to you what is the priesthood according to the order of Melchis- edec." u 4. From the passages cited from Jerome and Cyril of Jerusalem, we may infer as a fourth reason of this ancient ecclesiastical usage, that the inex- perienced minds of the Gentile converts, were not well qualified to receive the more profound doc- trines of the Christian religion, such as the Trinity and the Incarnation. 5. Some of their sacred things were kept from the knowledge of the uninitiated, because the Christian teachers considered them inapproriate to the condition of those who had not yet been in- troduced into the church by baptism. Such were the Lord's Prayer and the Creed. 6. From the passages cited from Chrysostom, Athanasius, Cyril, and other authorities, we farther collect, that this secret discipline was observed by T Aug.. Expositio in Evang. loan., Tract, xcvii, torn, ix, p. 190, Paris, 1635. u Enarratio in Psal. cix, torn, viii, p. 527. 168 ON THE EUCHARIST. the early Christians, both for the good of those who were excluded from the sight of their sacra- ments, and to save themselves the annoyance of the despising heathen. Such, my Brother, was the origin, nature, and rea- sons of the secret discipline, as we gather from the records of the ancient church. In concluding the dis- cussion of this subject, it only remains to us to deter- mine, from these data, what bearing the discijplina arcani has upon the testimonies produced from the ancient Fathers, and briefly to consider the conclu- sion deduced from it by yourself. 1. We have seen that this discipline of secrecy cannot, according to the opinion of several learned men, both Eomanist and Protestant, be traced be- yond the age of Tertullian, who flourished about two hundred years after the Christian era. Justin Martyr, who preceded Tertullian only about fifty years, in his Apology for the Christians to Anto- ninus Pius, makes no scruple to describe very clearly to the Emperor the manner of celebrating the Eu- charist, and the accompanying prayers, and even to repeat the description. Nay, he speaks of bap- tism with water and the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. This quite spoils that fancied rea- soning of yours, wherein you attempt to fasten this discipline of " utmost secrecy" upon the Apostles themselves. 2. We cannot urge the secret discipline of the ancient church, in proof of the Fathers speaking of the doctrine of the Eucharist in a manner obscure and enigmatical ; for it was not so much the doc- trine of this sacrament that was concealed as the manner of celebrating it, and the nature of the ele- ments used. Besides, if we introduce this usage as an essential element in interpreting their descrip- tions of the Eucharist, then it is but fair to extend its application so as to use it in the exposition of THE SECRET DISCIPLINE. 169 what they say in regard to all those other things which were secretly observed, such as the doctrine of the Trinity, the incarnation of Christ, baptism and the rest. Now if it he confessed as a general truth, that these ancient writers spoke in language "ambiguous and enigmatical" when they dis- coursed upon the Trinity, the incarnation of Christ, baptism, the ordination of the clergy, the Lord's Prayer, the Creed of the church, and those other kindred subjects which have been enumerated, then the darkness of uncertainty broods over the whole face of patristic literature; and it may be justly doubted whether Ave now have any correct know- ledge of the faith of the ancient church. For if we must not take their language in its ordinary and proper sense, when they call the eucharistic bread and wine the figure, symbols, image, type, antitype and signs of Christ's body and blood, and further attribute to these emblems such qualities as pertain only to the earthly and corruptible, and even de- clare that they do not depart from their natural and proper substance; how shall it appear that they must be understood literally and properly, when they assert the consubstantiality of the three persons in the Godhead, the incarnation of Christ, or the baptism with water? If the language of the Fathers which I have cited, does not prove their belief of a figurative presence of Christ's flesh and blood in the Eucharist, then I affirm that their words prove just nothing, and therefore their testi- mony is unreliable and valueless on any point of controverted doctrine. For they affirm nothing in plainer terms than they do, that the eucharistic ele- ments are the figure of Christ's broken body and shed blood. But, believing the Fathers to have been men of intelligence and moral honesty, I con- clude that when they give a sober delineation of the Eucharist, or anv other Christian doctrine, they 15 170 ON THE EUCHARIST. used words in their common acceptation, and in- tended to be understood as meaning what they taught. Again, were we to allow that the Fathers spoke in language obscure and unintelligible, when they addressed the unbaptized,, this would by no means prove a general ambiguity in their words upon other occasions. Some of their lectures were origi- nally addressed to the initiated, where no such ambiguousness was required, or would have been appropriate. Other parts of their productions were written in the form of commentary, where sound sense and sober description are especially called for : other works of theirs are elaborate defences of the Christian religion against the artfully subtle and malignant objections brought against it by its bitterest enemies: others also were written in the form of friendly and argumentative epistles to brother bishops and beloved churches. In such productions, intended for the instruction and use of all advanced Christians, the Fathers did doubt- less intend to give, according to their respective ability, a truthful and intelligible representation of Christian doctrine. I do not mean to say, how- ever, that they were always methodical in the arrangement of their thoughts, consistent and clear in their reasonings, or convincing in their conclu- sions ; but I do insist, that on the subject of the Eucharist, they did not so depart from their usual style and mode of argumentation, as to form a general exception to their ordinary method of treating all the. other leading doctrines of Christi- anity. The representation which has now been made of the " Secret Discipline," might seem incomplete, were the passages quoted by you^ and the conclu- sions deduced from them, to be unnoticed. Let us therefore consider those of them which relate to the THE SECRET DISCIPLINE. 171 Sacrament of the Eucharist. 1. Tertullian is cited, as saying of those who unjustly accused the early Christians of perpetrating horrible crimes in their secret assemblies: "Who are those who have made known to the world these pretended crimes ? Are they those who are accused? But how could it be so, since it is the common law of all mysteries to keep them secret? If they themselves made no discoveries, it must have been made by strangers: but how could they have had any knowledge f them, since the profane are excluded from the sight of the most holy mysteries, and those carefully selected who are permitted to be spectators." And to a wife he says: " You would by marrying an in- fidel fall into this fault, that the pagans would come to the knowledge of our mysteries. Will not your husband know what you taste in secret before any other food ; and if he perceives bread, will he not imagine that it is what is so much spoken of?" 2 2. The Synod of Alexandria, held A. D. 340, in their sy nodical letter to the orthodox, say: "They (the Eusebians) are not ashamed to celebrate the mysteries before the catechumens and perhaps even before the pagans; forgetting that it is written, that we should hide the mystery of the king ; and in contempt of the precept of our Lord, that we must not place holy things before dogs, nor pearls before swine. For it is not lawful to show the mysteries openly to the uninitiated; less through ignorance, they scoff at them, and the catechumens be scandalized through indiscreet curiosity." 3 3. St. Basil you quote as asking, " Which of the Saints has left us in writing, the words of invoca- i Tertul. Apol. cap. vii, p. 674, Paris, 1580. 2 Idem, ad Uxorem. lib. ii, cap. 5, p. 430. 3 Concil. Gen., torn, ii, p. 547. 172 ON THE EUCHARIST tion in the consecration of the bread, and of the eucharistic cup ?" 2 4. And St. Leno, saying to the Christian women : "Know you not that the sacrifice of the unbe- liever is public, but yours secret ? That any one inay freely approach his, whilst even for Christians, if they are not consecrated, it would be a sacrilege TO CONTEMPLATE yours ? " 2 5. Also, St. Augustine saying to the catechumen Honoratus, that, " When once he has been baptized, he will know where, when, and how the great sacrament, the sacrifice of the new law is offered. Ask a catechumen if he eats the flesh of the Son of man and drinks his blood ? he knows not what you mean. The catechumens know not what the Christians receive ; the manner in which the flesh of our Lord is received is a thing concealed from them." 3 6. And Gaudentius discoursing, "We shall at present speak only of those which cannot be ex- plained before the catechumens, but which notwith- standing it is necessary to disclose to the newly baptized. — This splendid Easter night requires our instruction to be adapted rather to the circum- stances of the time, than to the lesson of the day, in order that the neophytes may, for the first time, be taught in what manner we partake of the paschal sacrifice." 4 These are the only passages cited which appear to have a reference to the Sacrament of the Eucha- rist. You will perceive that I have taken the liberty to capitalize those words which seem to in- dicate the nature of the secrecy spoken of, which 1 Basil de Spiritu Sancto, cap. 27, torn, iii, p. 55. 2 De Continentia. 3 Aug. Tract, xi, in loan., torn, ix, Paris, 1536. 4 Gaudent. Explan.Exod. ad Neophyt. THE SECRET DISCIPLINE. 173 most plainly consists of a concealment of the ele- ments used, and of the rites and ceremonies em- ployed in their consecration and administration ; but not one word is said in them all of the incom- prehensibility of the doctrine involved, or of the intellectual inability of the catechumens to under- stand them; which difficulties certainly should have been mentioned, had they been believed to exist. St. Augustine, however, settles this point when he says: "The sacraments of the faithful were not delivered to the catechumens, not because they could not bear them, but that they might so much the more ardently desire them, as they were the more honorably concealed from them." I greatly wonder that such passages as you have quoted, should be produced, in order to account for the Fathers calling the eucharistic elements of bread and wine, the figure of Christ's broken body and shed blood; when not one of them ever thought of offering this secret usage as the reason of so de- nominating these emblems. From the representation which has now been made, you cannot but perceive your utter failure at proof, in your attempt to account, from the secret discipline of the ancient church, for denominating the eucharistic elements the figure of Christ's broken body and shed blood. For your whole argument proceeds upon the as- sumption, that there was but one thing kept within the veil of secrecy, and that one thing was the doc- trine of the Eucharist; which was deemed too unintelligible and mysterious to be understood by the inexperienced catechumens. But your premises being proved untrue, your conclusion also must be false. You must therefore consent to interpret the Fathers as we do other ancient writers ; by com- paring one passage with another of the same writer, one author with another, and all of them with 15* 174 ON THE EUCHARIST. reference to the general scope and spirit of their productions. We must not select a few such pas- sages only, as seem to favor our preconceived opin- ions, and neglect others of a different kind, if we wish to arrive at just results in our examinations ; but we must take them together, and give them such an exposition as shall best accord with their general scope and design ; otherwise, we shall fail to ascertain their true meaning, and he very likely to attribute to these ancient writers consequences false and contradictory. Be your interpretation of the writings of antiquity what they may, let us ever have it in mind, that truth is eternal, and therefore incapable of being changed, much less destroyed by the instrument through which it is viewed. Your true Friend and Brother, E. 0. P. LETTEK X. SEVERAL TERMS APPLIED TO THE EUCHARIST NOW USED BY ROMANISTS IN A SENSE DIFFERENT FROM THAT GIVEN THEM BY THE ANCIENT FATHERS. Dear Brother: — In the same communication in which you undertake to account from the secret discipline, for the Fathers' "use of enigmatical and ambiguous language, known and perfectly understood by the initiated, and at the same time, dark and mysterious to those who were not," you are pleased to inform me, that " in a certain sense, and so far as it does not affect or qualify the belief in a Keal Presence, the Catholic may, with perfect consistency, apply the words, figure or symbol to the Eucharist, seeing that every sacrament as such, must be an outward sign, and consequently a figure or symbol." But if the sacrament of the Eucharist " must be an outward sign, and consequently a figure or symbol," how do the Fathers speak "ambiguously and enigmatically" when they so denominate it? What need is there to introduce the secret disci- pline of the ancients to account for ambiguities and enigmas that have no existence? For if the sacra- ment of the Eucharist must be a figure or symbol, then it is properly such, and it is no ambiguity or impropriety so to call it. "And so far as it does not affect or qualify the belief in a Real Presence, the Catholic may, with perfect consistency, apply the words Figure or Symbol to the Eucharist." But suppose that it should so affect his belief in a Real Presence, that he can neither understand nor be 176 ON THE EUCHARIST. made to believe that the Eucharistic elements are "both the real body and blood of Christ, and, at the same time, a figure or symbol of them ; must he, as your language intimates, cease to apply these words to them? Must he cease to call things by their proper names, if by so calling them his faith is endangered? And does your doctrine require the signification of things to be changed ? By so doing, Clement tells us that all true doctrine is over- turned ; and I fully believe it. Or do you mean that the signification of the terms figure and symbol, as applied to the Eucharist, depends upon the doctrine of the "Real Presence ? If so, you equally disturb the foundation of intelligible faith, and unsettle and overturn all true doctrine. For if language has no stable meaning independent of Christian doctrine, then I know of no way by which to arrive at any determinate knowledge of what is taught in the New Testament Scriptures. But you do not claim the honor of being the ori- ginal propounder of the evident incompatibility of denominating the Eucharistic elements the real body and blood of Christ, and, at the same time, a figure or symbol of that body and blood ; for you quote the "clear words" of Pascal, which, you think, "cannot but be interesting to me, and will help to elucidate my objections." He says:' "We believe that the substance of bread being changed into that of the body of our Lord Jesus Christ, he is really present in the Holy Sacrament. This is the Catholic faith which comprehends those two verities which seem opposed. The heresy of the present day, does not conceive that this sacrament contains altogether both the presence of Jesus Christ and his figure, and that he is both a sacri- fice, and a commemoration of the sacrifice; it believes that we cannot admit the one of these veri- ties without excluding the other. For this reason THE TERMS FIGURE, SYMBOL, &C. 177 they strongly urge that this sacrament is figura- tive ; and in this they are not heretic. They think that we exclude this verity, and thence it conies that they make us so many ohjections upon those passages of the Fathers which say thus. In fine, they deny the Real Presence, and in this they are heretics." These words, I admit, are " clear" enough ; hut they contain nothing but mere asser- tion, and serve not in the least to remove the " objections" alluded to. There is no need how- ever of crossing the Atlantic to find a "clear" asser- tion of a reputedly able man. Mr. John Hughes furnishes us with the same sort of argument, in his controversy with Mr. Brecken- ridge, when speaking of Protestants, he says: " They may say that the Fathers often applied the terms, figure, sign, symbol, antitype, bread and wine, to the Eucharist even after consecration. It is true they applied these terms to the exterior appear- ances — but this only proves that under these signs, symbols, &c, they believed the substantial existence of the thing signified, viz: the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ." II. The application of these terms by the Fathers to the Eucharist after consecration being confessed, my task is limited to the consideration of the affirmation, "they applied these terms to the exte- rior appearances ;" which necessarily implies that they did not apply the terms, figure, symbol, type, antitype, image and sign, to the substance of the elements. In the first place I remark, that such an appli- cation of the terms under consideration is unsus- tained by any conventional and proper signification common to them all. I say, common to them all; for these several terms being indiscriminately applied to one and the same thing, are evidently employed in some sense in which they all agree. 178 ON THE EUCHARIST. Now the only signification which they all can possi- bly be allowed to bear as applied to the Eucharist, is evidently that of symbolical, or typical representa- tion. 2. In this sense the Fathers use these same words when applied to other things besides the Eucharist. Thus, Justin Martyr calls the paschal lamb a type of Christ ; the offering of fine flour which was made for those who were cleansed of their leprosy, a type of the Eucharist; and the twelve bells upon the High Priest's garments, a symbol of the twelve Apostles. A Clement of Alexandria tells us that "in Diospolis, a city of Egypt, there was delineated upon the temple called Pylon, a boy, which was a symbol of generation ; an old man, which was a symbol of corruption ; and a hawk, which was a symbol of God." * Origen regards Joshua as the type of Christ, 2 and the body of Christ as a type of the Church. 3 And Cyril of Alexandria calls Jonah a sign of Christ's resurrection. 4 It is needless to multiply examples in a matter so plain. No one for a moment can suppose these respective authors intended to say that Christ existed under the appearance of a lamb ; the Apos- tles under the appearance of tinkling bells ; God under the appearance of a hawk ; or the resurrec- tion under the appearance or history of Jonah. 3. These terms the Fathers apply to the substance of the bread and wine, and not to their mere ap- pearances, or accidents. Tertullian says : " The bread which he took and distributed to his disciples, a Justin Martyr, Dialog, cum Tryphone, pp. 218-220. Lond. 1732. 1 Clement, Alex. Stromat, lib. v, cap. vii, p. 670. Oxon. 1715. 2 Origen, Com. in Joan, torn, vi, No. 26. 3 Idem, torn, x, No. 20. 4 Cyril, Alex. Com. in Joan, lib. v, c. 4. &c. 179 that he made his body, by saying, ' This is my body/ that is, a figure of my body." 1 According to Mr. Hughes, Tertullian is made to say : " The bread which he took and distributed to his disciples, that he made his body, by saying, ' This is my body,' that is, an exterior appearance of my body ;" which is futile and false. For Tertullian is proving the reality of Christ's body against the error of Marcion, by showing that the real bread which he called his body, required that the thing symbolized by it should be real also. This is evident from what fol- lows : " But it would not have been a figure, unless his body had been a true one." But Mr. Hughes' interpretation makes Tertullian say: "But it would not have been an exterior appearance unless his body had been a true one." "Hold," says Marcion : "it would not have been an exterior appearance merely unless his body had been & false one— a mere phantasm." According to Mr. Hughes' version, therefore, nothing could have served better to con- firm Marcion in his error than Tertullian's argu- ment. For, like Marcion, the believer of a real presence rejects the external appearance as a certain indication of a corresponding substantial reality. Eusebius says: "He delivered to his disciples the symbols of the divine economy, commanding an image of his own body to be made." 2 According to Mr. Hughes, "He delivered to his disciples the exterior appearances of the divine economy, com- manding an exterior appearance of his own body to be made ! " How very exterior is this religion of ours, if it consists only of an external appearance. " Our Lord did not doubt to say, < This is my body,' when he gave the sign of his body," 3 says St. Augus- l Tertull. adv. Marcion., lib. iv, cap. 40. 2 Euseb. Dera. Evang., lib. viii, cap. 1. [See above, p. 136.] 8 Aug. contra Adimant, cap. 12. [See above, p. 138.] 180 ON THE EUCHARIST. tine. " When he gave the exterior appearance of his body/' says the transubstantiationist ; who, after all, by his interpretation of the ancient Fathers, resolves Christ's body in the sacrament into a mere appearance. "In holy baptism," says Theo- doret, "we see the type of the resurrection, but we shall then see the resurrection itself; here we see the symbols of the Lord's body, we shall there see the Lord himself." 6 In this passage the terms type and symbols have a corresponding meaning, both signifying a typical representation. The distinction between the symbolical and real presence of Christ is very marked. On the words of Jeremiah, " They shall flow unto the goodness of the Lord, for wheat, and wine, and oil," ch. xxxi, v. 12, Jerome re- marks : " Of which the bread of the Lord is made, and the type of his blood is filled, and the blessing of sanctification shown forth." Macarius of Egypt says: "In the church is offered bread and wine, the antitype of Christ's flesh and blood, and they that eat the visible bread do eat the flesh of the Lord spiritually." 1 Theodoret remarks: "If the Lord's flesh be changed into the nature of the divinity, wherefore do they partake of the antitypes of his body ; for when the truth is taken away the type is super- fluous." 2 Cyprian says: " Our Lord, at the table where he participated in the last feast with his disciples, gave, with his own hands, bread and wine; but upon the cross he delivered his body into the hands of the soldiers to be wounded, that sincere truth and true sincerity, being more deeply impressed upon the Apostles, might make known to the Gen- b Theodoret Com. in I Cor., xiii. c Tom. ii, p. 648. iMacar. Homil. xxvii. [See above, p. 136-7.] zRecapit. in fine Dialog, iii. THE TERMS FIGURE, SYMBOL, &C. 181 tiles how bread and wine became his flesh and blood, and in what manner causes agree with their effects,, and the names or species of things diverse are referred to one essence, and the things signify- ing and those signified are understood by the same terms." "And he offered the same that Melchis- edec offered, that is, bread and wine, to wit, his body and blood." "Nor can his blood by which we have been redeemed and quickened, seem to be in the cup when wine is wanting in the cup." 1 " Neither did he reject bread by which he represents his own body," 2 says Tertullian. St. Augustine asks : " How is the bread his body, and the cup, or what the cup contains, his blood ? These things, my brethren, are therefore called sacraments, because in them one thing is seen, another is understood." 3 And, "the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ which is in the conse- crated bread and wine, we are wont to call his body and blood. Not indeed that the bread is properly called his body, and the cup his blood ; but because they contain in themselves the mystery of his body and blood." These passages suffice to show that when the Fathers apply the terms figure, image, sign, symbol, type, antitype, bread and wine, to the consecrated elements, they employ them with reference to the substance of those elements, and not to their mere external qualities, or accidents. Their plain mean- ing therefore is, that these elements are the sym- bolical representatives of Christ's real flesh and blood; for that interpretation which refers these D Opera, p. 473. 1 Cyprian, Epist. lxiii, ad Csecilium. 2 Adv. Marcion, lib. i, cap. 14. 3 Aug. Serm. ad recent Baptizat. 4 Facund. Defens. Concil. Chalced., lib. ix, cap. 5. (Vid. p. 138.) 16 182 ON THE EUCHARIST. terms to the exterior appearance only, makes the Fathers chargeable with the most frivolous non- sense and seli : contradiction. 4. Not only do the Fathers make a distinc- tion between the image, figure and type of a thing constructively, but they also do the same defini- tively, as we conclude from the following: "The image will not in every respect be equal to the truth ; for it is one thing to be according to truth, and another to be the truth itself." E "For no one is an image of himself." F And, "No one can be an image of himself." 6 Because "It would be no longer an image if it were altogether the same as that of which it is an image." H Nay, "What more absurd than to be called an image with re- spect to one's self." 1 "Nor is a figure the truth, but an imitation of the truth." J "A type is not the truths but rather introduces the likeness of the truth." K And, "A pledge and image belong to something else, that is, they look not to themselves but to something else." 1 They make a type, sign, image, and symbol inferior to that of which it is a type ; and a sym- bolical representation of what is absent from the sign. Chrysostom observes : " Well did the Apostle say, 'In righteousness and true holiness,' Eph. iv : 24. There was once a righteousness and holiness amongst the Jews ; but that was not true but typical right- E Tertull. contra Marcion, lib. ii, cap. 9. F Hilarius de Synodis. G Ambros. de fide, lib. i, c. 4. H Greg. Nyssen, de Anima et Resurrectione. 1 Aug. de Trinit, lib. vii, c. 1. J Gaudent. Tract, ii, in Exod. K Cyril. Alex, in Amos vi. L Bertram, de Corp. et Sang. Dom. THE TERMS FIGURE, SYMBOL, TYPE, ETC. 183 eousness. For the being pure in body was a type of purification ; it was a type of righteousness, not true righteousness." M "It is as much inferior to it as a sign is of the thing of which it is a sign." N "Here is the shadow, here the image, there the truth. The shadow was in the law, the image is in the gospel, the truth is in the heavens." ° " Therefore ascend, man ! into heaven, and you shall see those things of which the shadow and image were here." p " For after his coming there will no longer be any need of the symbols of his body, his body then appearing. " Q And Maximus, the interpreter, of the spurious Dionysius, speaking of bread and wine which he calls "holy gifts," says: "They are the symbols of things above that are more true." R ""For the things of the old dispensation were a shadow, those of the new, an image, but the condi- tion of things to come is the truth. " s III. Again : Your church employs the term spe- cies to designate the exterior appearances of bread and wine in the Eucharist, to the exclusion of their substance. 1 The Fathers apply the term to the substance of these elements. When speaking of the bread in the sacrament, Augustine says: "When by the hands of men it is brought to that visible species, it is not sanctified that it should become so great a M Chrysost. Horn, xiii, in Ep. ad Ephes. N Idem, Horn, viii, in Ep. ad Rom. p Idem, in Psal. xxxviii. Ambros. de Offic, lib. i, cap. 48. QTheodoret in I Cor. xi. 26. R Hierarch. Eccles. c. 1. s Idem, c. 3. 1 See Council of Trent, Sess. xiii, canon 2. (Cited above, p. 22.) 184 OX THE EUCHARIST. sacrament except by the invisible operation of the Spirit of God.'' T Also, speaking of the Jews, he says: u Behold the signs are varied, faith remaining the same. There, the rock was Christ; to us, that which is placed upon the altar of God is Christ ; they drank the water flowing from the rock for a great sacra- ment of the same Christ. "What we drink the faith- ful know. If you regard the visible species, it was another thing, if the intelligible signification, they drink the same spiritual drink." u Gaudextius says: "By the species of wine his blood is rightly expressed ;. for when he says in the gospel, / am the true vine, he fully declares that all the wine which is offered in a figure of his pas- sion, is his blood. " Y Here the species of icine in the first clause is equivalent to all the wine in the lat- ter. Kupertus Abbas teaches, that "nothing of the sacrifice enters into him who is destitute of faith,, except the visible species of bread and wine."' w Walprtdus Strabo says, that " Christ delivered to his disciples the sacraments of his body and blood, in the substance of bread and wine." And adds ; "that nothing could be found more suitable than these species, to signify the unity of the head and members. " x IV. The Catechism of the Council of Trent has the following language, in reference to the bread and wine of the Eucharist: "The accidents which present themselves to the eyes, or other senses, exist in a wonderful and ineffable manner without T Aug. de Trinit. lib. iii, c. 4. u ^ Idem, in Joan. Tract, xlv. v Gaudent. Tract, ii in Exod. w Rupert, de Offic, lib. ii, cap. 9. x De Rebus Eccles., cap. 16. THE TERM FIGURE, SYMBOL, TYPE, ESC. 185 a subject. The accidents of bread and wine we see ; but they inhere in no substance, and exist indepen- dently of any. The substance of bread and wine is so changed into the body and blood of our Lord, that they altogether cease to be the substance of bread and wine." 1 The eucharistic elements are, therefore, made an exception to the general laws of matter, inasmuch as the properties of bread and wine are affirmed to subsist without the presence of these substances. On the contrary, the Fathers affirm the insepa- rability of substances from their accidents, not ex- cepting the Eucharist, as a few examples will show. Thus, "Water cannot be understood without mois- ture, nor fire without heat, nor a stone without hardness. For these are united to one another: the one cannot be separated from the other, but they always coexist."* "Every quality is in a substance." 2 "There being no substance quality is annihilated." 3 And, "Quality cannot be separated in its hypostasis from matter." 5 "But if by your reasoning you distinguish figure from a body, na- ture admits not the distinction, but the one is un- derstood in conjunction with the other." 6 " As that is not a body which has not color and figure, solidity, space and weight, and other properties ; so, where these which have been mentioned do con- cur, they produce a bodily subsistence." d Gregory Nazianzen, when arguing the person- ality and divinity of the Holy Spirit, says: "He is i Roman Catechism, p. 207, cited by Elliott, vol. 1, p. 247. Y Iren. adv. Hseres. 1. ii, c. 14. z Athanas. Orat. iv, contra Arianos. a Isidor. Pelusiot. lib. ii, Epist. 72. b Methodius apud Photium, codic. 232. c Basil. Epist. xliii. d Greg. Nyssen. de Opificio Horn. cap. 24. 16* 186 ON THE EUCHARIST. to be supposed to belong either to those things which subsist by themselves, or to those which are observed in something else ; the former of which, those skilled in those things, call substance, the latter, accident. If, then he be an accident, this would be the power of God." e He assumes that accidents must have some subject to which they belong. "It is monstrous and the farthest from truth," says St. Augustine, "that that which would not be unless it were in a subject, would be able to exist when that subject, should cease to be." f "When the subject is changed, every thing in the subject is necessarily changed." g And, "Take away bodies from their qualities, and there will be nothing where [these qualities] should be^ and therefore they will necessarily cease to exist." h Cyril of Alexandria teaches the same. In his dia- logue concerning the Trinity, he asks, "Do you suppose that black and white can subsist by them- selves? By No Means." 1 He calls it madness to affirm that the essence of the Son consists in sub- jection to the Father. For, he asks: "How can subjection be conceived to subsist by itself without existing in anything real?" And afterward: "If there be no subject, and nothing pre-exists in which those things are wont to be done, how can those things exist by themselves which are understood and defined in the order of accidents ?" 1 And in another place when arguing that the Son, though proceeding from the Father, is inseparable from him, he illustrates by the inseparability of accidents from their subjects, as follows: "We see heat in separably proceeding from fire, but it is the fruit e Greg. Naz. Orat. xxxvii. f Aug. Soliloq. lib. ii, c. 12. s Idem, de Imrnortalitate Animae, cap v. h Idem, Epist. lvii, ad Dardanum. 1 De Trinitat. Dial. ii. 1 In Joan, lib. 4 r cap. i. ACCIDENTS CO-EXIST WITH THEIR SUBJECT. 187 of the very essence of fire, proceeding inseparably from it; as also splendor is the fruit of light. For light cannot subsist without splendor, nor fire without heat; for what is begotten of them does always adhere to such substances." j Thus did the ancient Fathers undertake to prove the personality of the Holy Spirit, and the eternity of the Son of God from the inseparability of acci- dents from their subjects. One of them goes so far as to say, that if God himself had accidents they would exist in his substance. * It appears therefore, if their reasoning be correct, that the doctrine of the Trinity and the dogma of Transubstantiation are defended by arguments based upon evidence quite contradictory ; so that we are in little danger of making shipwreck of the former, by rejecting the latter. From the evidence collected under this head, we may fairly conclude, that the ancient defenders of the Christian faith would never have used such arguments in proof of the Trinity, had one of their principal doctrines required for its very existence, evidence of a perfectly opposite character. I believe they were men of too much common sense, thus to array the evidences of the truth of Christb anity in fatal conflict, the one against the other. V. Your church differs from the ancient Fathers, in ascribing to the eucharistic elements properties and mode of being which they deny all bodies, not excepting the Lord's glorified body. The Council of Trent says: "If anyone shall deny that in the venerable sacrament of the Eucha- rist, whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species- when a sepa- ration is made; let him be anathema." 3 i Idem, Thesaur. Assert. 16. 1 Vide Atlianas. Orat. iv, contra Arianos. 2 Sess. xiii, Can. 3. (See above p. 22.] 188 ON THE EUCHARIST. The believer of transubstantiation is therefore compelled to admit, 1. That a body can exist in more places than one at the same time: for, according to his theory, the same body of Christ is in every place where the consecrated elements exist. 2. That such a body exists within itself and con- tains itself; otherwise we cannot well account for the alleged fact, that when a separation is made, the whole body of Christ is contained in every frag- ment, however minute. 3. That his body exists in an invisible and im- palpable manner, like a spirit, although it be pres- ent before us. 1. Augustine says: "You must not doubt that Christ entire is everywhere present as God, and is in the same temple of God as an inhabiting Deity, and is in a certain place of heaven by reason of the measure of his true body." k "Our Lord is above; but truth, the Lord, is also here. For the body of the Lord in which he arose, must be in a place ; his truth is everywhere diffused." 1 "According to his bodily presence, he cannot be at the same time in the sun, in the moon, and upon the cross." m Theodoret says of Christ's body after his resur- rection: "It is nevertheless a body having its former circumscription." n "Man ^ or any thing else like him," says Hilary, "when he is anywhere, is not then elsewhere; be- cause that which is there, is contained where it is ; so that he that is placed any where cannot be every where, on account of the infirmity of his nature." k Aug. Ep. lvi, ad Dardanum. 1 Idem, Tract, xxx, in Joan. m Idem, contra Faustum, lib. xx, c.. 11. n Theodoret, Dialog, ii. ° Hilarii, lib. viii, de Trinitate. HOW ALL BODIES SUBSIST. 189 From the foregoing, these writers evidently con- sidered Christ's human body as subject to the same absolute conditions of being, as all other bodies, not- withstanding its resurrection from the dead to a state of incorruption and glory. 2. The Bishop of Hippo also teaches, that " God entire is in heaven and entire on earth, not in al- ternate times, but both at the same time, which no corporal body is capable of." p Consequently, the body of Christ cannot be, at the same time, both in heaven and on earth in the sacrament. And, " However great or small a body may be, it occu- pies a space of place, and so fills that same place, that its whole is in no part of it." cl And again, "There can be no body, either celestial or terrestrial, aerial or humid, which is not less in its part than in its whole ; nor can it in any manner have another part in the place of this part." r Nazianzen asserts, that " a vessel of the capacity of one measure will not contain two measures, nor will the space of one body contain two or more bodies." 3 This he says when proving the two perfect natures of Christ, and thereby admits that if Christ's two natures were both corporeal, that he could not contain two perfect natures. Cyril of Alexandria repeatedly says that "nothing contains itself."* "He that dwells in the tabernacle," says the " golden-mounted " orator of Constantinople, " and the tabernacle itself, are not the same ; but one thing dwells in another — for nothing dwells in itself." u PAug. de Civitate Dei, lib. xxii, c. 29. 1 1dem, Epist. iii, ad Volusian. r Idem, contra Epist. Manichsei, c. 10. s Greg. Naz. Orat. li, torn. i ; p. 741. 1 Cyril, Alex. Dial. vi. Vide et Dial, v, et vii. u Homil. x, in Joan, citat. a Theodoret, Dial. ii. Vide et Irenaeiadv. Hseres. lib. ii,c. 1. — Tertull. contra Marcion, lib. i, c. 15 — etEpiplian, Hseres. xlii, sec. 7. 190 ON" THE EUCHARIST. 3. Tertullian says : " I understand nothing else to be the body of a man except what is seen and apprehended/' v " God is incorporeal and therefore invisible," w says Methodius. Gregory Nazianzen asks, "Whether God is a body, and how is it immense, unbounded, without shape, impalpable and invisible? This is not the nature of bodies,"* he replies. Gregory of Nyssen, — "That is not a body in which do not exist color, figure, solidity, space, weight, and the rest of its properties." 3 " Augustine, speaking of our Lord, says: "He is always with us by his divinity, but were he not corporeally absent from us_, we should always car- nally see his body." z Fulgentius makes use of the following remark- able language: " Every thing so remains as it has received of God that it should be, one thing in this manner, and another in that. For it has not been so given to bodies that they should exist as spirits have received." a From the passages cited in this communication it appears that the Fathers regarded all bodies, whether celestial or terrestrial, as subject to the following general laws: They occupy a certain space of place — are greater than their parts — can- not be contained in themselves — have necessarily certain sensible properties — and are limited to a single place at one time ; all which directly over- throws that most strange doctrine of transubstan- tiation, which is contrary to the fundamental prin- T Tertull. de Resurrec, c. 35. w Method, apud Photium, Cod. 234. x Orat. xxxiv, torn, i, p. 540. y Cry. Nyssen. de Opificio, Ham. c. 24. z Aug. de Verbo Domini, Serm. lx. ° Fulgent, de Fide ad Petr., c. 3. HOW ALL BODIES SUBSIST. 191 ciples of knowledge and repugnant to the common judgment of mankind. With the cordial regards of Yours sincerely, E. 0. P. LETTER XL THE TEEMS BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, AND THE EXPRESSION, MAKING THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, NOW USED IN A SENSE DIFFERENT FROM THAT GIVEN THEM BY THE ANCIENT CHURCH. Dear Brother : — When speaking of the eucha- ristic elements, it was usual with the ancients, to call them the body and blood of Christ. " Almost all/' says St. Augustine, "do indeed call the sacra- ment his body." A It is this undisputed usage upon which you seize, and which you press into your service as if decisive of your doctrine. But before you conclude from this kind of expression^ a phy- sical change to have been believed, you ought to show in what sense these words were used. As you have neglected to clo this, it devolves upon me to make such suggestions in relation to this phrase- ology, as shall enable us to form a right estimate of its true import. What then do the Fathers mean, when they call the sacramental elements the body and blood of Christ? You profess to believe, that nothing less than his real flesh and blood are in- tended; L, on the contrary, suppose them to intend no more than the sacrament of that real body and blood, to wit, bread and wine in their proper sub- stance, but sanctified by the invisible operation of the Holy Spirit, and thereby made the vehicles of spiritual grace to the worthy recipient. For the correctness of this view I offer you the following considerations: A Aug. de Verb. Dora. Serm. liii. THE TERMS BODY AND BLOOD. 193 1. When the Fathers call the consecrated Eucha- rist the body of Christ, they sometimes use certain restrictive terms, which indicate that they did not intend to call it his real and proper body. "But we/' says Origen, "giving thanks to the Maker of the universe, with prayer and thanksgiving for his gifts, eat the bread which is offered, and which by prayer is made a certain holy body, and sanctifies those that use it with good proposal." 6 Here the term certain plainly intimates that he does not use the word body in its proper sense, but with an accommodated or figurative signification. For, as no one would call pure gold, a certain gold, or pure silver, a certain kind of silver, so Origen is not to be supposed to designate the real and proper body of Christ by the expression, " a certain holy body." St. Augustine makes use of the qualifying term. " Christ took in his hands what the faithful know, and in a certain manner carried himself when he said, "This is my body.' " c And, " After a certain manner the sacrament of the body of Christ, is the body of Christ, and the sacrament of the blood of Christ, is the blood of Christ." D The venerable Bede also uses the same expression. "Christ, in a certain manner," says he, "was car- ried in his own hands." E The expression already cited from St. Augus- tine, " almost all do indeed call the sacrament the body of Christ," also shows these terms to be used in a catachrestic sense. For who would say that almost all call men, men, or a lion, lion? Do not all call them so ? Most certainly ; and that too B Origen, contra Celsum, lib. viii, No. 33. c Aug. in Psal. xxxiii. D Aug. ad Bonifac. Epist. xxiii. E B8eda in Psal. xxxiii. 17 194 ON THE EUCHARIST. because such are their proper names. But to say that almost all call rulers, gods, is equivalent to saying, that for certain reasons rulers are so called, hut not because they are properly such. 2. The Fathers well knowing the Eucharist to be, not the real and proper body of Christ, give several reasons for calling it his body. From its similitude, in some sense, to those things of which it is a sacrament. St. Augustine says: "If the sacraments had not some similitude of those things of which they are sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all ; but from this like- ness they also take, for the most part, the names of the things themselves." F The author of the Book of Sacraments under the name of Ambrose, remarks: "Perhaps thou sayest, I do not see the species of blood. But it has its similitude. For as thou hast received the likeness of his death, so thou drinkest the likeness of his precious blood." G Isidore of Seville says : " Because bread strength- ens the body, it is therefore called the body of Christ; but the wine, because it operates blood in the flesh ? is therefore referred to as the blood of Christ." H They called the Eucharist the body and blood of Christ, because it was considered as the symbol- ical representation of Christ. " Wherefore with all assurance," exhorts Cyril, " let us partake of the body and blood of Christ ; for in the type of bread his body is given thee, and in the type of wine his blood is given thee." 1 "When the Lord said, 'this is my body, and this F Aug. Epist. xxiii. Vide et Bsedam, in Epist. ad Rom., cap. vi. G Ambros. de Sacram., lib. iv, c. 4. HMdor. de Offic. Eccles., lib. i, c. 18. 1 Cyril, Ierosol. Catecli. Mystag. iv. THE TERMS BODY AND BLOOD. 195 is my blood/ it was fit that they who set forth the bread, should after the giving of thanks, reckon it to be his body and partake of it ; and account the cup to be in the place of his blood." I The author of the Commentaries attributed to Jerome, says "Christ left to us his last remem- brance, or memorial; just as if some one going a journey, should leave some pledge to one whom he loved, that as often as he should see it he might call to mind his favors and friendships." 1 And in general terms, Augustine says: "All things signifying seem in some manner to take the persons of those things which they signify, as it is said by the Apostle : The rock was Christ, because that rock of which this is spoken then signified Christ." 2 In this manner do the Fathers give us their reasons for designating the consecrated ele- ments, the body and blood of Christ; which shows that they did not consider them his natural and proper, but his representative body and blood. For it is not required to give reasons for calling things by their proper names. Who would think of giv- ing a reason for calling iron, iron, wood by the name of wood, or water by the name of water? Whenever their respective names are pronounced, no one thinks of giving a reason for thus calling them ; because they are understood to be properly what they are denominated. If therefore the ancients had, by universal consent, understood the consecrated elements to be the very substantial body and blood of Christ, it is difficult to account for their giving their reasons for so calling them. 3. When speaking of the sacramental body and blood of Christ, the Fathers, in their very language, point at something different from his proper blood. 1 Victor Antioch, in Marc xiv. 1 Com. in I Cor. xi. 2 Aug. de Civitate Dei, lib. xviii, c. 48. 196 ON THE EUCHARIST. Having formerly cited several passages to this effect, * I shall add but a few more. Chrysostom inquires, " What is the bread ? The body of Christ. What do they who partake be- come? The body of Christ. Not many bodies but one body." J " The bread being taken, and afterward the cup of wine, he testified that they were his body and blood," K says Tatlan the Syrian. " Who is more a priest of the Most High God than our Lord Jesus Christ? Who offered this same that Melchisedec offered, that is bread and wine, to wit, his body and blood." And "we find that the cup was mixed which the Lord offered, and that what he called his blood was wine." 2 "When our Lord reached the consecrated bread and wine to his disciples, he thus said, < This is my body.' " L And Jerome says : " Let us hear that that bread which our Lord broke and gave to his disciples, is the body of our Saviour." M Again, when speaking of those virgins who were reproved for drinking wine to excess; "they made this excuse, joining sacrilege to drunkenness, and said, far be it that I should abstain from the blood of Christ." N So common was it, in that age, to call wine the blood of the Redeemer. Leo the Great speaking of the Manichees, who through fear of the laws came to the communion of the Catholics, gives the following as a direction how to discover them. "They so conduct themselves in the communion of the sacraments, that they may JSee Letters vii and viii. J Chrysost. Honiil. xxiv, in I Cor. K Tatian Syrus. Harmon, in Biblioth. Patrum, torn. vii. 2 Cyprian, Ep. lxiii, ad Caecilium. (See above pp. 134-5.) LGaudent. Tract, ii, in Exod. M Hieron. Ep. ad Hedibiam. N Idem, Ep. ad Eustach. THE TERMS BODY AND BLOOD. 197 sometime be more safely concealed. With an un- worthy mouth they take the body of Christ, but altogether refuse to drink the blood of our redemp- tion." ° The reason why they would not partake of the cup was that the use of wine was altogether forbidden by them; as St. Augustine says : x "They drink no wine, saying, it is the gall of the princes of darkness." Facundus says : " Our Lord himself called the blessed bread and cup which he delivered to his disciples, his body and blood." p " This is my body, that is, in a sacrament," says Druthmarus. q And the Ethiopic churches are said to use this phrase. "This bread is my body." r The Council of Carthage decreed against the Armenians, that "nothing but the body and blood of the Lord should be offered, as the Lord himself delivered, that is, bread, and wine mixed with ivater." s 4. The Fathers also speak of Christ's body in the Eucharist as being sanctified by the Spirit of God. Isidore of Seville, "By his command we call this the body and blood of Christ, which being made of the fruits of the earth, is sanctified and made a sacrament by the invisible operation of the Spirit of God." T What they mean by the term sanctification, may be seen from the following: "To sanctify any thing, this is to vow it to God." u " That which is said to be sanctified does not partake of all holiness, but it rather signifies that which is devoted to God Leo Mag. Serm. iv, de Quadrag. 1 De Hseres, 46. p Facund. Defens. iii, lib. ix, cap. ult. Q Com. in Matt. xxvi. R Ludolph. iEthiop. Hist. lib. iii, c. 5, n. 56. s Pandect. Canon, p. 565. T Isidor. Originum, lib. vi, c. 19. u Origen, in Levit. Horn. xi. 17* 198 ON THE EUCHARIST. unto his glorjv" 7 Would it not be impiety to say that the glorified body of our Lord which is united to his divine nature, does not partake of all holi- ness? Again: "We say that a place, or bread, or wine is sanctified, which is set apart for God, and put to no common use." w And, " That which is sanctified and offered is sanctified because it is offered : therefore it was not holy before."* This cannot be true of the proper body of Christ which was always holy ; but only of the typical bread, which before consecration was common, or unsanc- tified bread. When therefore we hear St. Augus- tine saying : " That which is upon the table of the Lord — is blessed and sanctijied" Y we must not un- derstand him as meaning, "that Holy Thing' [Luke i, 35,] which was born of Mary, and is now in heaven, but the consecrated symbol of that holy and glorified body." For the sanctification here spoken of is actual — it is that which takes place through the agency of the creature, and not that which consists simply of a holiness as existing above and independently of us. The language of these Fathers very illyapplies to the doctrine of tran substantiation. For it is cer- tain that the " glorified body of the cross" does not depend for its sanctification upon being offered by us. Nor can it be true of this, that it was not holy before being offered. But with the Protestant view of this sacrament the language of these Fathers perfectly harmonizes. 5. The Council of Trent teaches that Christ en- tire is contained under every part of each species ; consequently, there is no such thing as breaking v Cyril Alex. Com. in Esaiam, lib. 1, Orat. vi, p. 178. w Jobius, apud Photium, Cod. 222. x Hesych. in Levit. lib. vii. Y Aug. Ep. lix, ad Paulum. THE TERMS BODY AND BLOOD. 199 the body of Christ in the sacrament, or taking a portion of it; because, however small the particle may be, it is said to contain whole Christ. This also disagrees with the teaching of antiquity. Origen says: "When ye take the body of the Lord, ye preserve it with all care and veneration, lest any little of it fall, lest any thing of the conse- crated gift should slip down [to the ground.] 2 Here the phrase any little of it y referring to the body of the Lord, plainly implies that the Lord's body in the sacrament may be divided into parts, otherwise no part of it could fall to the ground. And St. Augustine speaking of that which, upon the Lord's table, is blessed and sanctified, says: "It is broken into small parts to be distributed." 3 And elsewhere his expression is: "To take a part of the body of the immaculate lamb." b This can- not be true of the real body of Christ, as the Tri- dentine doctors very well knew. The foregoing representation sufficiently shows, that the ancients used the terms body and blood of Christ, when speaking of the Eucharist, in a sense entirely different from that in which your church employs them at the present day. It is therefore unnecessary to enter upon any particular reply to those passages cited by you, in which this kind of expression is used. In regard to the words used there is no dispute. Our business is, therefore, to ascertain the sense given them by their authors. But the sense given them by you leads directly to insurmountable difficulties, and makes them en- tirely nugatory. And the only meaning which can possibly be attached to the phraseology under consideration^ is that which contemplates the eu- zOrigen, Horn, xiii, in Exod. n. 3. a Aug. Ep. lix, ad Paulnra. b Idem, Ep. lxxxvi, ad Casul. 200 ON THE EUCHARIST. charistic elements as the.. symbols of Christ's real body and blood. II. Let us also consider that other kind of ex- pression in which the Eucharist is said to be made the body and blood of Christ; and if we succeed in proving their use to be contrary to that assigned them by your church, we shall as conclusively es- tablish the opposite or Protestant sense. When theologians of your communion speak of making Christ's body in the Eucharist, they are to be understood as meaning that same body that ap- peared upon the earth and was crucified. Cardinal Biel says: " He who created me, has, if it be lawful to speak it, given to me to create himself, and he who created me without me is created by my mediation." And in the same lecture he makes a comparison between the Virgin and the priests: "She by say- ing eight words, conceived the Son of God and Ke- deemer of the world ; they that are consecrated by the Lord, by Jive words daily call the Son of God and the Virgin bodily before them." And he then cries out, " Consider ye priests in what rank and dignity ye are placed." 11 To the same purpose we may quote that famous declaration of R abacus Maurus, archbishop of Mentz, who in the ninth century ojjposed the newly taught doctrine of a corporeal change. "Some persons of late," says he, "not entertaining a sound opinion respecting the sacrament of the body and blood of our Lord, have actually ventured to declare that this is the identical body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; the identical body, to wit, which was born of the Virgin Mary, in which Christ suffered on the cross, and in which he arose from the dead." 1 From c Id Canon. Missse, Lect. iv. d Ibid. 1 Ep. ad Heribald, cap. 33. MAKING THE BODY OF CHRIST. 201 which it appears, that when they speak of creating, or making Christ's body, they mean that same body which had a prior existence. The Fathers teach the contrary, as a few passages from their writings will show. " That which already has a being is not made, but that which has not an existence/' 6 "Nothing which has a fieri is without a beginning, but its beginning takes place when its fieri begins." f " Everything that is made, was not before it was made." s "What is made begins tobe." b "For to make is true of that which was not at all." 1 "To be made is wont to be the property of him who never subsisted before."- 1 "For that which already exists, cannot certainly be brought into being, but that which does not exist." k And, "those things which have already sprung up, can- not return again into that state that they should be generated by a new creation." 1 Such being the sense in which the Fathers use the expression to make, we have the means at hand of solving all those passages in which they speak of making the Lord's body in the Eucharist. Let us examine their phraseology by their own general principles. Gregory of Nyssen's Eule is: "If he made it, he made that which was not at all. " m Applica- tion : "It was common bread before, but when the e Athenag. de Resurrect. f Tertull. lib. contra Hermog., c. 19. s Hilar, de Trinit, lib. xii. h Ambros. de Incarn., lib. iii. 1 Aug. de Moribus Manich, cap. vii. i Vigil., lib. iii, contra Eutycli. k Cyril. Alex. Thesaur., Assert. 20. 1 Cassian de Incarn., lib. vii, c. 2. m Greg. Nysseni contra Eunom., lib. iii. 202 ON THE EUCHARIST. mystery lias consecrated it, it is called and is made the body of Christ." n In the first passage he tells us that to make is to produce or bring into being a new existence ; but in the latter, he says the bread after its consecra- tion is made the body of Christ. But the proper and real body of Christ had an existence before the consecration of the Eucharist. How then was it made the body of Christ ? Not substantially, be- cause, as we have just said, his real body has a real existence previously to the consecration of the bread. Plainly therefore, Gregory must have meant the making it not a substantial, but a symbolical body ; for this it had not before, as common bread, but was made such by consecration. And here, without departing from this general rule of Greg- ory, there may be a successive and continual mak- ing of Christ's symbolical body ; for it is according to the nature of a symbol to be brought into exist- ence at the will of the operator, and to cease to continue such, when the purposes for which it was made have been accomplished. Again, our author says a little after : " We sub- mit to the Holy Spirit that we may be made that which he is and is called." That is, that we be made morally pure and holy like the Holy Spirit, be created anew in righteousness and true holiness, but not made what the Holy Spirit is in substance ; for the Holy Spirit most certainly has a substantial being before we submit to him ; and therefore, ac- cording to Gregory's rule, we cannot be made what he is in substance, because this would be equivalent to a new creation, or making of the Holy Spirit. Tertullian also gives it as a general rule, that, " What is made has its beginning ivhen it is made" n Idem, de Baptismate Christi, torn, iii, p. 370. ° Page 372. MAKING THE BODY OF CHRIST. 203 He makes the fieri and the esse co-existent. Else- where he says: "The bread which was taken and distributed to his disciples, that he made his body." 1 Augustine says : " To make is true of that which was not at all." Again, "Not all bread, but that which receives the benediction of Christ is made his body." p And, "Our bread and cup are made mys- tical to us by a sure consecration, and do not grow so." 2 In the same manner are we to understand like expressions, to be found in the writings of others of the ancients; thus, "when the invocation is made, the bread is made the body of Christ, and the wine the blood of Christ." q And Ambrose says: "This body which we make is of the Virgin ;" which he explains by another accompanying expression: "It was the true flesh of Christ that was crucified and buried: it is therefore truly the sacrament of his flesh." 1 * He makes a very marked distinction be- tween Christ's true or natural flesh and that which is sacramental. The same distinction he elsewhere makes, as do others of the Fathers ; but the pas- sages quoted are sufficient to show in what sense we are to understand the phraseology considered. In the above citations, which have been made as containing a general principle, there is, however, one idea implied which it is proper to notice, before taking leave of this topic. It is this : That no one and the same thing exists manifold at the same time. For very truly and philosophically do the Fathers teach, that when any thing is made, it then begins to exist. But as one thins: can have but one » 1 Tertull. adv. Marcion, lib. iv. c. 40. [See above, page 127.] p Aug. Serm. ixxxvii, de Diversis. 3 Idem, contra Faustum, lib. xx, c. 13. i Cyril, Ierosol. Catech. Mystag i, § 4. r Ambros., lib. de iis qui initiant., c. 9. 204 ON THE EUCHARIST. creation, so it can have but one existence. Observe also : this is laid down as a universal law ; and from this law you may not except the mystery of the Eucharist, without first showing that the Fathers make such exception. But they no where do so ; consequently they utterly condemn that doc- trine, which teaches that the same real body and blood of Christ existed in a myriad of places, under as many forms, at one and the same time. Accept these considerations with assurances of the continued friendship of Your Brother, E. 0. P. LETTEK XII. SEVERAL OTHER POINTS RELATING TO THE EUCHARIST IN WHICH THE ANCIENT CATHOLIC AND THE PRESENT ROMAN CHURCHES DIFFER. Dear Brother: — In my last I discussed those kinds of expression in which the consecrated ele- ments are said to be, and to he made the body and blood of Christ. Closely allied to the latter of these is that other kind of phraseology, wherein these ele- ments are said to be changed into the body and blood of Christ. These also you cite as proving, that in the mind of antiquity, a physical change was intended. The nature of this change, as taught in your church, is expressed in the second canon of thirteenth session of the Council of Trent, as follows : "If anyone shall say that in the most holy sacra- ment of the Eucharist the substance of the bread and wine remains, together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and shall deny that won- derful and singular conversion of the whole sub- stance of the bread into his body, and the whole substance of the wine into his blood, the species of bread and wine only remaining, which conversion the Catholic Church most fitly terms transubstan- tiation ; let him be anathema." l Very fitly did the doctors of Trent call this affirmed change wonderful and singular ; for it is plainly no other than a destruction or annihilation of the substance of the bread and wine and the crea- 1 See above, Letter ii, p. 22. 18 206 ON THE EUCHARIST. tion of another substance of an entirely different nature. _ That the ancient Fathers of the church had no idea of any such change in the consecrated elements is evident from the following: 1. They distinguish the change or conversion of a thing from the abolition of its substance. Tertullian urges it as a great absurdity against certain errorists, that, according to them, "to be changed is to perish wholly from what it was before." 1 They denied the rising again of these same bodies at the resurrection ; to which he urges the language of the Apostle Paul [I Cor. xv,] to prove that there will be a change, but not a de- struction of our flesh. He affirms : "A change is one thing, destruction another. But the flesh will perish when changed if it shall not remain the same in the change as shall be exhibited in the resurrec- tion As therefore, that which is destroyed is not changed, so that which is changed is not destroyed. For to perish is altogether not to be what it had been ; but to be changed is to be otherwise than what it was. Moreover whilst it exists otherwise it can still exist, for it has a being which does not perish, for it surfer ed a change, but not destruction." A When controverting the error of the Eutychians, who thought the human nature of Christ was converted into his divinity, so that nothing of its substance remained after its assumption, Gelasius says: " By a union with the Deity, our condition would not seem to be glorified, but rather con- sumed, if in glory it does not subsist the same, but the Deity existing alone, the humanity now ceases to be there: ... in this manner, it will not be found to be sublimated, but rather abolished." B i Quasi demutari, sit in totum et de pristino perire. Tertull. de Resurrec. Carnis, c. 55. a ibid. B Gelas. de Duabus Naturis. CHANGE IS NOT DESTRUCTION. 207 Tertullian says to Marcion: "If thou defendest a transfiguration and conversion of any substance whatever, in its transition, then Saul also, when changed into another man, went out of his body. So it is possible, in the event of the resurrection, that with the preservation of the substance, there should be change, conversion and reformation." c They lay down as general rules: "To be made does not signify a change of nature entirely." " Whatsoever the Holy Spirit touches, that is sanc- tified and changed." E And, " By the fire of the Holy Spirit, all things that we think, speak and do, are changed into a spiritual substance." F "For such as is that by nature which is received, into this it is necessary that the partaker should be changed. Plainly and philosophically therefore does anti- quity teach that change is not a destruction of substance ; but it is such a modification of that sub- stance, by the accession of new qualities, that it passes into another condition, or mode of existence. Not even when they speak of a change of substance, that is, a change which affects the substance, are we to understand them as teaching an abolition of that substance essentially, and the creation of some- thing else. This is that wonderful and singular conversion called transubstantiation, a something unique in the known universe of things created; perfectly isolated; and refusing any community with all the rest of God's wonderful works ! It is the annihilation of one substance and the creation of another already having an existence, but pre- c Tertull. de Resurr. Carn. c. 55. D Cyril, Alex. Thesaur. Assert. 20. E Cyril, Ierosol. Catecli. Mystag. v. F Hieron. in Ezekiel xliii. G Greg. Nyss. Homil. viii, in Ecclesiast. torn, i, p. 456. 208 ON THE EUCHARIST. serving the same dimensions and weight, the same chemical and physical properties as the thing de- stroyed! Indeed, so entirely different is transub- stantiation from any known transmutation, that Scotus says: " Properly speaking, I say that tran- substantiation is not a change." H 2. The Fathers make use of the same terms, ex- pressive of change and conversion, when speaking of other things in which, confessedly, there is no change of substance, as they do when treating of the Eucharist. "Let them learn," says Ambrose, "that nature can be changed when the rock flowed with water, and the iron swam above the water." 1 And when speaking of the waters of the Ked Sea and the river Jordan standing in heaps, he says: "Is it not clear that the nature of the waves of the sea and of the course of the water was changed ?" J " The hand of Moses was changed into snow," K says Epiphanius. And Chrysostom speaking of the Babylonian furn- ace, says : " The elements unmindful of their proper nature were changed into what was more profitable to them ; and the beasts were no longer beasts, nor the furnace a furnace." L And St. Augustine is bold to say, " By sin man fell from the substance in which he was made." M "When speaking of regeneration the Fathers use language equally strong, representing it as capa- ble of "changing us into the Son of God." N H Dist. iv, Art. xi, Sec. 1. 1 Ainbros. in Hexsem., lib. iii, c. 2. J Idem, lib. cle iis qui initiat. c. 9. K Epiphan. Hseres. lxiv. L Chrysost. in Psal. x. M Enarrat. in Psal. lxviii, Serm. i, § 5. N Cyril, Alex. Dial, iii, de Trinit " CHANGE IS CONVERSION. 209 "Our souls" says Macarius, "must be altered and changed from their present condition into another and divine nature." ° Gregory of Nyssen says: "They are no longer men who are introduced into the mysteries of this book, [Song of Songs ;] but are changed in nature, through the discipline of Christ, into something more divine. " p As already stated, he lays it down as a general principle, that the partaker is changed into that of which he partakes; which he illus- trates as follows: "For he who loves good, will himself become good, the goodness of that which exists in itself changing him who receives it into itself. For this cause he who always is, has offered himself to us to be eaten, that we receiving him into ourselves may be made that which he is. For he says, c my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.'" 1 Again, "Paul did so manifestly imitate Christ, that in his own soul he showed his governing principle to have been changed, the very form of his soul being changed into the prototype, [Christ,] by the most exact imitation ; so that he no longer seemed to be that Paul who lived and spoke." 2 According to this., the imitators of Christ are changed into himself, being made partakers of the divine nature ; so that a Christian may as well be called Christ whole and entire, as the conse- crated Eucharist. When the ancient writers speak of our resur^ rection bodies and the incarnation of Christ, they deliver themselves in like terms. When speaking of the resurrection, Tertullian says: " We shall be changed, in a moment, into an °Macarii, Homil. xliv. p Greg. Nyss. in Cant. Horn. i. 1 Idem, in Ecclesiast. Horn. viii. 2 Idem, de Perf. Christi, torn, iii, p. 276. 18* 210 OX THE EUCHARIST. angelic substance. " Q He does not mean that the proper substance of our bodies will disappear, but only changed in its qualities so as to be like angels. Hilary expresses the same modification, as a " change of terrene bodies into a spiritual and ethereal nature." R Macarius speaking of the Saints says: "They are all changed into a divine nature." 8 "Let him come, let him come," says Chrysologus, speaking of Christ, "that he may repair our flesh, make our soul new, and change its very nature into a celes- tial substance." T Because at the resurrection there will be "Another form of this life, even a change of our nature." 17 "When our flesh is converted into the body of an angel. " v And " When it shall put on incorruption and immortality, it will no longer be flesh and blood, but will be changed into a celes- tial body." w .So of Christ, Gregory of Nyssen says : " After his resurrection he took a body transele- mented into incorruption." x And Chrysologus, speaking of his incarnation, says : " God is changed into man." Y To the water of baptism the ancients attri- buted the same change and efficacy, as they did to the bread and wine of the Eucharist. " The Ked Sea signified the baptism of Christ. Whence does the baptism of Christ look red unless Q Tertull. contra Marcion, lib. iii, c. ult. * Hilar, in Psal. cxxxviii. s Macar. Horn, xxxiv. T Chrysol. Serm. xlv. u Cyril, Alex. Orat. in Resur. Christi. v Aug„ Serm. xii, Edit. Sirmondo. w Aug. contra Adimant. c. 12. x Greg. Nyssen, in Cant. Canticorum, Horn. i. Y Chrysolog. Serm. xlv. WATER OF BAPTISM — HOW CHANGED. 211 consecrated by the blood of Christ." 2 "Through the energy of the Spirit, the sensible water is trans- elemented into a certain divine and unspeakable power." 8 Speaking of the Ethiopian eunuch, Jerome says: "Immediately he was baptized in the blood of the Lamb, about whom he was reading. The man de- served to be called an apostle; and was sent [as such] to the Ethiopians." 5 Laurentius Novarensis exclaims: "Thou shalt sprinkle me with water mixed with the sacred blood of thy Son." c And the writer, under the name of CaBsarius, says: " The soul goes into the living waters as if conse- crated red by the blood of Christ." d These passages show that, in the mind of these writers, the water of baptism is changed into the blood of Christ; that is, his efficacious blood, as will further appear from the following: "I am changed into Christ by baptism." 6 "He that is received by Christ and receives Christ, is not the same after baptism as he was before it ; but the body of the regenerate becomes the flesh of him who was cru- cified: this change is by the right hand of the Most High." f " The sensible water," says Cyril, as just quoted, "is transelemented into a certain divine and un- speakable power, and furthermore, sanctifies those upon whom it comes." g z Aug. Tract, xi, in Joan. a Cyril, Alex. Com. in Joan, iii, v. 5. b Hieron. Com. in Esaiam, liii, v. 7. c Laurent. Novar. Horn, i, de Poenitentia, Bibl. Patrum, torn, ii, p. 127. d Homil. v. e Greg. ISTazianz. Orat. xl. f Leo. Mag. de Passione Dom., Serm. xiv. g Com. in Joan. iii$ v. 5. 212 ON THE EUCHARIST. " The water differs from trie spirit only in our conception, for it is the same in energy/' says AMOMIUS. h And Leno Veronensis says : " Our water receives the dead and vomits them forth alive, they being made true men of animals, and shall pass from men into angels." 1 If this account be insufficient we may cite the rhetorical descriptions of St. John Chrysostom, who exclaims: "They who are baptized put on a royal garment, a purple dipped in the blood of the Lord." 1 Nay, "He who is baptized immediately embraces the Lord himself, is united to his body, and incorporated with that body which is seated above, whither the devil can have no access." 2 The correspondent efficiency ascribed to the two Christian sacraments by the ancients, will very clearly appear, if we oompare these passages with what they say of the effects of the Eucharist. Gregory of Nyssen : " As a little leaven, accord- ing to the Apostles, likens the whole mass to itself, so the body put to death by God, coming into our body, converts and changes the whole into itself." And, "His immortal body being in him that re- ceives it, changes the whole into its own nature." 3 "He that receives me by a participation of my flesh," says Cyril, "shall have life in himself, being wholly transelemented into me." j Leo the Great teaches that " we are the flesh of Christ taken from the womb of the Virgin," k h Amomius Catena, in Joan, iii, v: 1 Zeno. Ver. Serm. ii, ad Neoph. post Baptism. 1 Chrysost. Horn, lx, ad Illuminandos. 2 Idem, Horn, vi, in Coloss. 3 Greg. Nysseni, Orat. Catech., cxxxvii. J Cyril, Alex, in Joan., lib. iv, c. 3. k Leo. Mag. Serm. x, de Natur. Dom. WATER OF BAPTISM — EFFICACY OF. 213 Also, " The participation of the body and blood of Christ intends no other, than that we should pass into that which we take.'' 1 And, "In that mysti- cal distribution of spiritual food, this is imparted ; this is taken ; that receiving the virtue of the celes- tial food, we should pass into the flesh of him who was made our flesh." 1 And Fulgentius says : " No one of the faithful ought to be troubled about those who, with sound mind, are lawfully baptized, — although death over- take them before they are permitted to eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Lord — by reason of that declaration of our Saviour where he says : ' Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man/ &c. — For who- soever shall consider the truth of the mystery, will see that this is done in the baptism of holy regene- ration." 111 I have now shown from the usus loquendi of the ancients, that the terms change, conversion and their equivalents, do not signify, in their writings, any such transubstantiation of the eucharistic elements, as that now believed by Komanists to take place. All the change that was, in the early ages of the church, believed to be effected, was such a change of quality as was understood to take place in the water of baptism, the oil of chrism, and the like. Call this what we will, it was not considered as a change or destruction of the bread and wine, but only such a conversion, as was believed to be pro- duced by the descent of the Holy Spirit upon them, and so entering them and sanctifying them that they became the symbolical body and blood of Christ, and the vehicles of spiritual grace to the faithful. 1 Idem, Serm. xiv, de Passione Christi. 1 Idem, Epist. xxiii. See also a passage cited from Tlieo- dotus, above, p. 153. m Fulgent, de Baptism Ethiop., cap. xi, p. 611. 214 ON THE EUCHARIST. The above discussion of this phraseology of the Fathers is a sufficient reply to all those passages brought by you from the ancient Liturgies, in which this mode of speaking is of frequent occur- rence. The Fathers undoubtedly taught, in their public Liturgies, the same doctrine in regard to the Eucharist that they taught in their individual writings ; therefore, the remarks which have been made in this communication, upon the use of certain modes of expression, are applicable to those passages in the Liturgies, in which the same phraseology occurs. II. There are other considerations which may be offered in this connection, as confirmatory of the interpretation which, has been given of the lan- guage of the ancient Fathers. 1. Contrary to the express declarations of these writers, the advocates of transubstantiation teach, as a necessary consequence of this doctrine, that the wicked, equally with the good,, eat the real body of Christ in the Eucharist. Domino Soto says : " It is undoubtedly to be held that the body of Christ descends into the stomach, although it is taken by a wicked man." Aquinas teaches that " since the body of Christ always remains in the sacrament, until the sacra- mental species are corrupted, it follows also that wicked men eat Christ's body." a Aleusis also, noticing the opinion of some who thought that, as soon as the body of Christ was touched by a sinner's lips, it withdrew itself, says : 1 Est indubie tenendum quod corpus [Christi] descendit in stomachum, etiamsi ab iniquo sumatur. Dom. Soto in Dist. iv, quest. 12, art. 1, No. 3. 2 Cum corpus Christi in sacramento semper permaneat, donee species sacramentales corrumpantur, etiam injustos homines Christi corpus manducare consequitur. Aquin., Part, iii, quaest. 80, art, 3. WHO PARTAKE OF CHRIST'S BODY. 215 "This opinion is erroneous, and manifestly con- trary to the holy [doctors ;] and therefore it is com- monly held, that in this there is no difference between the just and the unjust, since both take that true body of Christ in the sacrament/' And a little after he adds : " Whence it is to be granted, that the wicked take the thing of the sacrament which is the true body of Christ, which was born of the Virgin." 1 So also they legitimately teach, that if " a dog, hog, or mouse eat the consecrated host, the sub- stance of Christ's body does not cease to exist under the species, so long as these species remain." 2 2. It follows also from this doctrine that the real eating of Christ's body in the Eucharist is insepar- able from the sacramental eating, but distinct from the spiritual. This is evident from the decree of the Trent doctors, who pronounce that: " If any one shall affirm that Christ, as exhibited in the Eucharist, is eaten in a spiritual manner only, and not also sacramentally and really ; let him be anathema." 3 All this is plainly different from the teaching of the Fathers. 1 Illud sentire erroneum est et manifeste contra sanctos; et ideo communiter teneturquod in hoc non est differentia inter justuni et injustum, quia uterque ipsum verum corpus Christi sumit in sacramento — Unde concedendum, quod mali sumunt rem sacramenti, quod est corpus Christi verum, quod natum est de virgine. Aleusis, Part, iv, qu. 11, memb. 2, art. 2, sec. 2. 2 Dicendum, quod etiamsi mus vel canis hostiam consecra- tam manducet, substantia corporis Christi non desinit esse sub speciebus, quamdiu species illse manent. Aquinas, Part iii, qusest. 80, art. 3. Si canis velporcus deglutinat hostiam consecratam integram, non video quare vel quomodo corpus Domini non simul cum specie trajiceretur in ventrem canis vel porci. Aleusis in loco cit. sec. 1. See also the Roman Missal. 3 Si quis dixerit, Christum in Eucharistia exhibitum, spiritualiter tantuin manducari, et nonetiam sacramentaliter ac realiter ; anathema sit. Sess. xiii, can. 8. 216 ON THE EUCHARIST. I Origen, after speaking at some length of the partaking of the typical and symbolical body of the Lord, adds : "And much might be said concerning that Word who was made flesh, and that true meat which he that eateth shall live forever,, no vile per- son being able to eat this ; for if it were possible that he who still continues wicked should eat him who was made flesh, who is the Word and living bread, it would not have been written, that whoso- ever eateth this bread shall live forever." 11 Speaking of those who love pleasure more than God, Jerome says: "Whilst they are not holy in body and spirit, they neither eat the flesh of Jesus, nor drink his blood, concerning which he says: 'He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life.'" St. Augustine says : " Of that bread both Judas and Peter took part from the very hand of the Lord." p He means the sacramental bread without doubt ; for he elsewhere teaches that the disciples "ate the bread which is the Lord, but Judas the bread op the Lord, in opposition to the Lord ; they ate life, but he punishment.'" 1 Again he says: " The sacrament of this thing, that is, of the unity of the body and blood of Christ, is prepared upon the Lord's table, and is taken from the Lord's table, by some to life, by others to destruction. But the thing itself of which it is a sacrament, is for life to every man ; to no one whatever that partakes of it, shall it be for destruction." r Another passage cited by his disciple, Prosper, who gathered up the sen- tences of his master, is to the point : " He receives n Origen, Com. in Matt, torn, xi, No. 14. °Hieron. Com. in Esaiam lxvi, v. 17. p Aug. contra Donatist. cap. vi. «J Idem, Tract, lix, in Joan. r Tract, xxv i, in Joan. vi. WHO PARTAKE OF CHRIST'S BODY. 217 the food of life, and drinks the cup of eternity, who abides in Christ, and whose inhabitant is Christ. For he who disagrees with Christ, neither eats his flesh nor drinks his blood, although he daily take with indifference the sacrament of so great a thing, to the condemnation of his presumption." 3 Accordingly, the res sacramenti is received by the good only ; which flatly contradicts the lan- guage of transubstantiation. Indeed, the doctrine of antiquity is, that " the flesh of the Lord is the food of believers." 1 — "The meat of the saints." u — And "the bread of life." v For " he that receives this food is above death." w A passage or two from St. Augustine will further show, if need be, the distinction made by him between the sacramental and the real, or spiritual eating of Christ. " I have commended a certain sacrament unto you ; spiritually understood it shall quicken you. Although this must be cele- brated visibly, nevertheless it must be understood invisibly." x Having spoken of the healthful repast received, by a participation of the body and blood of Christ, he concludes: "But then, this shall be [the sum,] that is, the body and blood of Christ shall be life to every one, if what is visibly taken in the sacra- ment, be in very truth eaten and drank spiritual- ly." 7 Again, "When Christ says k He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him,' he shows what it is, not in sacrament s Lib. Sentent. ex Aug., sent. 341, vel. 339. 1 Hieron. in Oseam viii. u Isidor. Sevill., in Gen. xxxi. v Ambros. in Psal. cxviii. w Chrysost. in Joan vi,v. 49. 1 Aug. Enarrat. in Psal. xcviii, § 9. y Aug. Serm. cxxxi, torn, v, p. 924. 19 218 ON THE EUCHARIST. only, but really to eat the body and drink tbe blood of Christ." 2 And this he makes equivalent to Christ's saying, "he that does not abide in me and I in him, should neither say nor think, that he eats my body and drinks my blood." They also distingush the bodily from the sacra- mental presence. "The flesh and blood of this sacrifice, before the advent of Christ, was pro- mised by victims of resemblance ; in the passion of Christ it was made by the truth itself; since the ascension of Christ, it is celebrated by the sacra- ment of memory." a The author of the Comment, on the Epistles of Paul, in the works of Jerome, remarks upon these words ; He took bread, and after he had given thanks he brake it; "That is, blessing us even when about to suffer, he left to us his last remembrance or memorial. As if any one going into a foreign country, should leave some pledge with him whom he loved, that as often as he should look upon it, he might call to mind his favors and friendships; which he, if he loved him perfectly, could not be- hold without great affection and weeping." 6 Bede says : "As Moses bears witness of the tree of life being placed in the midst of Paradise, so by the wisdom of God, to wit, of Christ, the Church is quickened, of whom, even now in the sacraments of his flesh and blood, she receives the pledge of life ; and will hereafter be blessed with the sight of his presence." 1 3. The ancients teach that Christ is corporeally absent from the earth. "Ascend with us," says z Idem, de Civitate Dei, lib. xxi, c. 25. « Idem, contra Faust, lib. xx, c. 21. 6 Hieron. Com. in I Cor. xi. 1 Beda in Prov. lib. i, c. 3. Vide et Primasius in I Cor. xi, et Chrysost. in I Cor. xi. CHRIST CORPOREALLY ABSENT IN HEAVEN. 219 Ambrose, "that we may, with, our minds., follow thee whom we cannot see with our eyes. St. Paul has taught us how we should follow thee, and where Ave may find thee. ' Seek those things which are above where Christ sitteth,' &c. Therefore we ought not to seek thee upon the earth, nor in the earth, nor according to the flesh, if we would find thee Mary could not touch him because she sought him on the earth; Stephen touched him because he sought him in heaven ; Stephen among the Jews saw him absent." l Augustine assures us that "Our Lord absented himself in body from the whole church, and ascended into heaven that faith might be edified ; for if thou didst know nothing ex- cept what thou seest, where is faith." 2 " We believe in him who now sits at the right hand of the Father ; nevertheless, whilst we are in the body we are journeying in a strange country from him ; nor can we show him to those who doubt, or deny him, and say, where is thy God?" 3 "This," says Virgilius, "was to go to the Father and recede from us, to bear away from the world the nature which he took from us." 4 " When he was upon earth he was not in heaven; and now because he is in heaven, he surely is not upon the earth ; — and because the Word is everywhere, but his flesh is not everywhere, it appears that one and the same Christ is of both natures, and that he is everywhere according to the nature of his divinity, and is contained in place, according to the nature of his humanity. — This is the Catholic faith and confession which the Apostles delivered, the martyrs confirmed, and the faithful guard even now." 5 "When Christ was raised into heaven in 1 Ambros. Com. in Luc. xxiv. 2 Aug. de Tempore, Serm. cxl. 3 Idem, Serm. lxxiv, de Diversis. 4 Vigil. Taps, contra Eutych. lib. 1. 5 Idem, lib. 4. 220 ON TUB EUCHARIST. the presence of his disciples, he made an end of his bodily presence." For "Christ ascending to his Father as a conqueror after his resurrection, cor- poreally left the church, which he has nevertheless never left destitute of the aid of his divine presence, always remaining in it, even to the consummation of the world." d Nay more, "How did he bodily ascend into heaven and still be said to be in his faith- ful ones upon the earth, unless the immensity of the divinity which can till heaven and e'arth is in him ?" * " Though Christ be out of the world in the flesh, nevertheless, he is present with those who are in him ; and his divine and unspeakable nature knows the universe, being absent from no creature, nor leaving any one, but is every where present to all, and fills all." 2 If, according to these testimonies, Christ is both in heaven and on earth at the same time, only because he is divine, how shall his body be present- both in heaven and in the sacrament on earth, at the same moment, unless this also be divine? Your Brother, E. 0. P. c Leo Mag. Serai, ii, de Ascension Domini. d Beda, Com. in Marc xiii. 1 Fulgent, ad Trasimund, lib. ii, c. 18. 2 Cyril, Alex, in Joan ix, v. 5. LETTER XIII. EVIDENCE OF THE SENSES PATRISTICALLY CONSIDERED. Dear Brother: — -By your quoting that passage of Cyril of Jerusalem where he says : " That which seems to be bread is not bread, although perceptible to the taste, but the body of Christ ; and that which seems to be wine is not wine although to the taste it appear such, but the blood of Christ," * you confess the doctrine of transubstantiation to re- quire the rejection of the evidence, which the senses bear to the nature of the eucharistic elements. So the Roman Catechism admonishes : " The pastor will, first of all, impress on the minds of the faith- ful the necessity of detaching, as much as possible, their minds and understandings from the dominion of the senses ; for were they, with regard to this sublime mystery, to constitute the senses the only tribunal to which they are to appeal, the awful con- sequences must be their precipitation into the ex- treme of impiety. Consulting the sight, the touch, the smell, the taste, and finding nothing but the appearances of bread and wine, the senses must naturally lead them to think that this sacrament contains nothing more than bread and wine. Their minds, therefore, are as much as possible to be withdrawn from subjection to the senses, and ex- cited to the contemplation of the stupendous power of God." 2 1 Cyril. Ierosol. Catech. Mystagog. iv, cap. 3. 2 Roman Catechism, p. 206, cited by Elliott on Romanism, vol. i, p. 247. 19* 222 ON THE EUCHARIST. Having, in my sixth letter, made some general remarks on the testimony of the senses, and its im- portance in settling the foundations of the Chris- tian religion, I shall not here repeat what has been said, but will confine myself within the limits of such evidence as may be gathered from antiquity; especially, since you bring your appeal before the tribunal of the " Holy Fathers," and seem to pre- fer their judgment, before the decisions of reason and sense. And now I am bold to affirm, that the ancient Christian Fathers, rightly understood, do not reject the evidence which the senses bear, in regard to the physical properties of the eucharistic elements. In proof of this statement I offer you the fol- lowing: 1. They appeal to these senses when they argue for the reality of Christ's human body in opposition to the error of the Marcionites, Valentinians and other false teachers, who said that our Saviour ex- isted only in appearance, as a phantasm. iRENiEUS says : " These things were not done in appearance only, but in the reality of truth ; for if he appeared to be a man when he was not, he neither remained the Spirit of God, which he was in truth, since a spirit is invisible, nor was there any truth in him; for those things were not what they appeared to be." A So certain does he consider the evidence of the senses, that he does not hesi- tate to try the truthfulness of the Son of God by their testimony ; and he thereby shows a willing- ness for the whole cause of Christianity to stand or fall with such evidence ; which would be the height of temerity, were such testimony to be regarded other than infallible. Again ; " As Christ there- fore rose again in the substance of flesh, and showed A Iren. adv. Hares, lib. v. c. 1. EVIDENCE OF THE SENSES. 223 to his disciples the print of the nails and the open- ing of his side, but these are indications of his flesh which rose again from the dead, so also, he says, he will raise us by his power." l For the truth of the resurrection of Christ's flesh, the senses of his disciples are here produced as the witnesses ; and our certainty of a future resurrection of our bodies, is measured by the certainty of their testimony. Tertullian adopting Marcion's interpretation of the words of our Saviour to his disciples, " Behold it is I myself; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have," says, " Behold he cheats and deceives and circumvents the eyes, the senses, the approaches and touches of all men. Thou therefore shouldst not have brought Christ down from heaven, but from some company of jugglers." B "It is sufficient for me to define that which is agreeable to G-od, to wit, the truth of that thing which he has made an object of the three senses that bear testimony to it, namely, sight, hearing, and touch." Afterward he adds: "Now thou honorest thy G-od with the title of fallaciousness, if he knew himself to be something else than what he made men think he was." D Because he de- ceived their senses, which were their only medium of arriving at a knowledge of the reality of his body. Equally do Romanists, in rejecting the evidence of the senses-, attribute "the title of fallaciousness " to God the author of nature, who has made these ex- ternal senses the instruments by which we obtain a knowledge of the external world. And, "why does Christ offer to their inspection his hands and his feet, which members consist of i Idem, c. 7. BTertull. de Came Christ!, c. 5. c Idem, adv. Marcion, lib. iii, c. 10. D Idem, c. 11. 224 ON THE EUCHARIST. bones, if be bad no bones? Why did be add, 'And know that it is I myself/ whom they had be- fore known to be corporeal ?" E May we not with equal propriety ask: Why does he offer to our in- spection the accidents of bread and wine, if there be no bread and wine remaining there ; especially, since we have before known them to be bread and wine ? Augustine uses the following language: "Our eyes themselves do not deceive us; for they can report to the mind their own affection only. If any one think that an oar is broken in the water, and when removed thence, made whole again, he has not a bad reporter, but he is a bad judge. For the eye could not, according to its nature, perceive it otherwise in the water neither ought it : for if the air is different from water, it is just that it should be perceived in the air otherwise than in the water. Wherefore the eye sees rightly, for it was made only to see; but the mind judges wrongly." F Again he says: "There is no cause to doubt of Christ's resurrection, whose presence the eye re- cognizes, the hand handles, and the finger exam- ines If, perchance, we should say that the eyes of Thomas were deceived, we could not say that his hands were. For in the manifestation of his resur- rection, there might be uncertainty from the sight, but no doubt could arise from the touch." 6 More- over, "This which is like magic, ye are said to assert, that his passion and death were only in ap- pearance, and in a deceitful shadow, so that he seemed to die who did not die. From which it fol- lows that you say, that his resurrection also was shadowy, imaginary and fallacious; for there can E Idem, adv. Marcion, lib. iv, c. 43. F Aug. de Vera Religione, cap. xxxiii. G Idem, de Temp. Sermo. clxi. EVIDENCE OF THE SENSES. 225 be no true resurrection of him who has not truly died: So it would follow that he also showed false scars to his doubting disciples; nor did Thomas exclaim, 'My Lord and my God' because he was confirmed by the truth, but deceived by a fallacy." 11 And, " Who except demons that are the friends of cozenage, would persuade them that Christ suffered fallaciously, died fallaciously and showed his scars fallaciously?" 1 Chrysostom represents Christ as saying: "It does not belong to me to deceive mine with a phantasm ; if the sight is afraid of a vain image, let the hands and fingers prove the truth of my body. Some mist may possibly deceive the eyes, but a corporeal touch knows a true body." J Hilary says : " He takes away the foolish rash- ness of those who contend that our Lord was seen in the flesh in a deceitful and false body ; that the Father, by giving the lie to the truth, showed him in the habit of false flesh, [as Romanists profess now to show his body in the habit of false bread,] not remembering that after the resurrection of his body, it was said to the Apostles, who believed they saw a spirit; ' Why are ye troubled/ &c. ' Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself, touch me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have.' " K Epiphanius very largely argues the truth of Christ's body from what was sensibly done to it. His inquiry is: "How was he apprehended and crucified, who, according to thy saying, could not be touched ? For thou canst not define him to be H Idem, contra Faustum, lib. xxix, c. 2. 1 Idem, lib. xiv, c. 10. J Chrysost. de Resurrec. Horn. ix. K Hilar, in Psal. cxxxvii. 226 ON THE EUCHARIST. a phantasy who fell under the touch." L From the expression : " He was known to them in the break- ing of bread," he asks Marcion, "Whence was this breaking of bread ? Was it by a phantom or by a body bulky and truly acting ?' v:yi By a body truly acting as their senses could testify. In like man- ner may we affirm the eucharistic elements to be bread and wine but not flesh and blood. The general inference to be made from the fore- going testimonies is, that these Fathers could not have held and taught a doctrine which required them to reject the evidence of their senses ; for if they had, the errorists against whom they wrote would have replied to their discomfiture : " But you are not consistent ; you tell us not to trust to our senses when we approach the sacramental table of the Lord, assuring us, that although the consecrated elements appear to be bread and wine still, never- theless they are so changed into another substance, that the nature of the bread and wine is entirely lost. If therefore our senses may be deceived in a matter so common, and subject to the cognizance of thousands daily, through successive ages, as all believe, why are we charged with heresy for believ- ing that Christ came not into the world with real flesh and bones like ourselves, but only so in ap- pearance? You also teach the insecurity and dan- ger of trusting to what the senses report ; we there- fore, no more than yourselves, are guilty of the severe charge of absurdity, impiety and blas- phemy." But since no such objection was ever made by those most acute and subtle opposers of the Chris- tian faith, it is morally certain that the doctrine of transubstantiation was unknown to the ancient church. L Epiphan. Hseres. xlii, Refert. 4. MIdem, Ref. 77. EVIDENCE OP THE SENSES. 227 2. Nevertheless, it is objected, that some of the Fathers exhort to disregard the evidence of the senses, when we contemplate the mystery of the Eucharist. Thus Cyril of Jerusalem says : " That which seems to be bread is not bread, although per- ceptible to the taste, but the body of Christ; and that which seems to be wine is not wine, although to the taste it appears such, but the blood of Christ." l Chrysostom says : " The Word of God is superior to sight; and so should we do in the mysteries, not looking only upon those things which lie before us, but holding fast his words. For his word does not deceive, but our sense is easily led astray." 2 As these passages appear contradictory of those just produced, and seem to present an objection against the trust-worthiness of our bodily senses, in the testimony which they bear to the nature of the eucharistic symbols, it is important to give them a careful examination. In the first place, it may be remarked, that signs are of two kinds. The first kind has a conformity of lineament with the prototype, as the portrait of a man. The other has not this sensible conformity. Thus, the rain-bow is a sign that the earth shall no more perish by a flood. The former is significant, in proportion to the fitness and perfec- tion of the visible representation, and is a proper object of sense; the latter takes its significance from the will of the institutor ; and is not simply an object of mere sense. The first we judge by sense, the second we judge not by sense, but by that faith which we are enabled to exercise in the authority of the institutor. To this latter class, belong the eucharistic symbols. They have not the visible exterior lineament and shape of the being i Ubi Sup. citat. 2 chrysost. in Matt, Horn. 82 al 83, § 4. 228 ON THE EUCHARIST. represented, but they are signs of that being, because they have been constituted such by our Lord Jesus Christ. St. Augustine says: "These things, my brethren, are therefore called sacraments, because in them one thing is seen, another is understood." 1 And, " Because the sacraments are signs of things, they are one thing in their [visible] existence, another in their signification." N In giving a gen- eral rule in this case, he says: "I say this, treat- ing of signs, let no one attend to what they are in themselves, but rather to what they are signs of, that is, what they signify." 2 It was this invisible signification and sup- posed efficacy of the Eucharist which the ancients contemplated by faith, not by sense ; but they never deny the testimony of the sight, so far as it regards the external symbols of bread and wine. Chrysostom bears a lucid testimony to this effect. "It is called a mystery, because we contemplate not what we see; but we contemplate one thing, and believe another. For such is the nature of our mysteries. In regard to them, therefore, we are affected differently, I in one way, the unbeliever in another. When he hears of baptism, he thinks of the water simply, but I do not simply look at what is seen, but also to the cleansing of the soul hy the Holy Spirit ; he thinks that my body only is washed, but I believe that the soul is made pure and holy ; and I consider the burial, resurrection, sanctifica- tion, righteousness, redemption, adoption, the in- heritance, the kingdom of heaven and the gift of the Spirit. For I do not judge of the things which are indicated, by sight, but with the eyes of the mind. I hear, 'the body of Christ/ and I under- i Serm. ad recent Bap. apud Bedam et alios. N Contra Maxim, lib. iii, c. 22. 2 De Doctr. Christi, lib. ii, c. 1. EVIDENCE OF THE SENSES. 229 stand what is said in - one way, the unbeliever in another." This he admirably illustrates still farther, as follows: "And, as children looking upon books, know not the power of the letters, nor understand what they see ; nay, even though he be a man un- skilled in letters, the same thing will happen to him ; but the man of skill will discover much hidden power laid up therein, complete lives and histories. And when an unskillful man receives a letter, he supposes it to be paper and ink only; but he that has skill hears a voice and converses with him who is absent, and replies again by letters whenever he wishes. So also it is in a mystery ; the unbelievers, although they hear, yet seem not to hear, but the believers having skill by the Spirit, see its hidden power." 1 It appears, therefore, that in the sacrament of the Eucharist two things were considered, namely, the visible symbols of bread and wine, and their sacramental .reason, or signification, which is ac- quired by consecration. It is this latter element of the Eucharist to which both Cyril and Chrysostom refer when they teach that the sense is not to be credited when we look upon the elements, as will further appear. 3. From the fact that the Fathers use similar language when speaking of the water of baptism, and other things, in regard to which, no one doubts the correctness of the information obtained through the senses. G-elasius Cyzicenus says : " Our baptism is not to be contemplated with the eyes of sense, but with those of the mind." " You ought not," remarks Augustine, "to estimate these waters with your eyes, but with your mind." p 1 Chrysost. in I Cor. Homil. vii, § 1. °Gelas. Cyzicen. in Diatyposi, cap. 4. p Aug. Serm. xl, a Sirmondo Edit. 230 ON THE EUCHARIST. Ambrose observes: "As to what you have seen, to wit, the waters, and not those alone, but the Levites there ministering, and the bishops asking questions and consecrating ; first of all the Apostle has taught thee, not to contemplate those things which are seen by us, but those that are not seen; because those that are seen are temporal, but those that are not seen are eternal Do not therefore believe thy bodily eyes alone. That is rather seen which is not seen, because that is temporal, but this is looked upon as eternal, which is not com- prehended by our eyes, but is seen by our mind and understanding." Q So also the author of the Book of Sacraments in Ambrose speaks : " What you have seen you could behold with your bodily eyes, and with human sight; but you saw not those things which are operated, and are not seen. Much greater are those which are not seen, than those which are seen; because those that are seen, are temporal, but those not seen, are eternal." R Cyril of Jerusalem says: "Come not to baptism as to mere water, but as to spiritual grace given with the water. — The water indeed purifies the body, but the Spirit seals the soul. — Therefore, do not attend to the simple element of water." s Also, when speaking of chrism, he says: "But see that you do not consider that to be mere ointment. — This holy ointment is not mere, nor, so to speak, common ointment, after the invocation, but the grace of Christ and the Holy Spirit." 1 Chrysostom, when speaking of baptism, also says : " Let us believe the declaration of God, for this is Q Ambros. de his qui initiant., c. 3. K Lib. i, cap. 3. s Cyril, Ierosol. Catech. Illuminat. iii, § 2. 1 Idem, Catech. Mystagog. iii, § 3. EVIDENCE OF THE SENSES. 231 more credible than sight; for the sight is often de- ceived, but that cannot possibly fail." T This kind of expression is frequent with this writer. In one place he exhorts to give alms to the poor, "as if we were giving them to Christ; for his words are more credible than sight." And when a poor man is seen, he bids us "remember the words whereby Christ signified that he himself is fed. For al- though what is seen is not Christ, yet, under this form, he asks and receives alms." u The meaning of which is: "When you see a man apparently needy, give him alms, though you cannot, by his simple appearance, determine whether he is ac- tually an object of charity; for, in so doing, you will be certain to act according to the command of Christ, which is so plainly revealed, that it cannot be mistaken, though you may sometimes err in the selection of the object of your beneficence." In this sense he is doubtless right when he says, the word of God is more to be believed than our sight. In the same way are we to understand the Fa- thers, when they tell us not to believe our sight, in the matter of the sacraments. They mean, that we are not to form our judgment of their sanctifi- cation and efficacy from their visible appearance ; for the effect of the believed operation of the Holy Spirit upon them, was considered as something be- yond the province of sense. The mind only, they considered capable of contemplating the wonderful moving of the Spirit, in and by the symbols of the bread and wine of the Eucharist, of the water of baptism, and of the ointment of chrism. They did not, therefore, reject the evidence of the senses in matters properly cognizable by our corporeal or- T Chrysost. in Joan., Homil. xxiv. u Idem, in Matt, Homil. lxxxix. 232 ON THE EUCHARIST. gans; for this they deny, both in their reasoning with their opponents, as we have already seen. 4. In direct terms, when they unequivocally tell us, that the senses are faithful and infallible guides to the truth. Thus, Chrysostom defines deception to consist in a thing " not appearing to be what it is, but in appearing to be what it is not." v And in another place he declares, that "through these senses we learn all things accurately, and we con- sider them instructors worthy of belief in what we see or hear, seeing that they neither feign nor speak falsely." w Agreeably to the foregoing, another writer affirms, that "we know the whole world by the apprehension of sense ; and through that energy, which is according to our sense, we are led unto the conception of the thing and idea which is beyond the sense; and the eye is made to us the interpreter of the wisdom of the Almighty, which is everywhere seen, indicating through itself Him who embraces all things. " x "For what in our members is deserving of more honor than the eyes? Through these we apprehend the light ; by them we recognize those who are our friends and who our enemies; and distinguish what is our own from what belongs to another : they are the guides and teachers of every work, and the natural and inseparable conductors of an unerring journey." Y How comprehensive is this language; no less than the whole world is the field of our sensible apprehension ; nothing less is our eye than the in- terpreter of the wisdom of God, the guide and teacher of every work, and the conductor of the way, without error. But false, utterly false is all yChrys. in Ep. ad Eph., Horn. xiii. w Idem, in Joan., Homil. xxx al xxix, § 1. x Gregor. Kyssen, de Anima et Resurrec, torn, iii, p. 188. T Idem, Horn, vii, in Cantic. Canticorum, torn, i, p. 577. EVIDENCE OF THE SENSES. 233 this, if the eye, together with the other senses, is not to be credited in the interpretation which it gives of the nature of the eucharistic symbols. Should we travel back to a still earlier age of the Christian church, and visit that famous School of Alexandria, in Egypt, we might hear its learned master speaking as follows, when instructing his pupils about the nature of syllogistic reasoning, a notable method of ratiocination in the times of classic antiquity. " Either all things need to be demonstrated, or some are credible of themselves. But, if the former be true, we shall proceed to infinity in seeking a demonstration of each demonstration, and thus the demonstration will be destroyed ; but if the latter be true, then those very things which are of themselves credible, will constitute, the be- ginnings of the demonstrations. Now philosophers confess the beginnings of all things to be inde- monstrable; so that, if there be a demonstration, there is every necessity that, in the first place, there be something credible of itself, which is called prime, and indemonstrable. Every demonstration then, is reduced to an indemonstrable source of belief. But there are also other beginnings of demonstrations besides the fountain of belief, namely, those things which appear evident to sense and mental percep- tion. For those that meet the sense are simple and incapable of analysis; and those that appear to the mental perception, are simple, logical and prime." And he concludes by saying : "If any one begins with these things which are clear to sense and mental perception, and then brings a fit con- clusion, he truly demonstrates." 2 A little after when he treats of the analysis of the demonstration, he says; "Each of those things demonstrated, is demonstrated by certain other z Clement. Alex. Stromat. lib. viii, c. 3. 20* 234 ON THE EUCHARIST. demonstrations, and these previously demonstrated by others, until we run back to things of them- selves credible, or to those evident to sense and mental perception." 81 By "those things of them- selves credible" he means the axioms, or first prin- ciples of knowledge, which lie at the very founda- tion of science, such as, the whole is greater than its part; two things which are equal to a third, are equal the one to the other, and the like. And by his classing our perceptions by the senses with these elementary truths, and laying them at the bottom of all reasoning, he shows, like a true phi- losopher, the credibility of our external senses; nay, their absolute certainty of the things to which they bear testimony. Contemporary with Clemens Alexandrinus, flour- ished Tertullian in the Latin Church, well known as an eloquent and zealous defender of the Christian doctrines. In his book, "On the Soul," he makes a bold attack upon the Academicians who condemned the testimony of the five senses, because the ideas obtained through them, are sometimes found to dis- agree with the truth. They argued, that "to the sight, an oar partly under the water, appears bent or broken ; to the touch, the pavements appear less rough to the feet than to the hands ; to the hear- ing, thunder may be mistaken for a common vehi- cle, and vice versa; to the smell and taste, the same ointments and wines by subsequent use, appeared depreciated. Therefore they said; 'Thus are we deceived by the senses until we change our opin- ions/ ' : In reply, our author considers the decep- tion attributable, neither to the things themselves, nor to the senses, but to certain intervening con- ditions. "For," says he, "though in the water the oar appears bent or broken, the water is the cause of * ibid. EVIDENCE OP TEE SENSES. 235 the deception. In short, without the water the oar is to the sight whole; — In this manner, therefore, no mistake of the senses will be without its cause. Since, if the causes deceive the senses, and through the senses the opinions, the fallacy is to be attri- buted neither to the senses which follow the causes, nor to the opinions which are directed by the senses, following the causes. They are insane who see beings of one kind in those of another, as Ores- tes mistook his sister for his mother, and Ajax a flock of sheep for Ulysses, as Athamas and Agave, their children, for wild beasts. Will you reproach the eyes, or the Furies, with this deception?" He goes on to exculpate the causes from blame and adds: "If, therefore, even the very causes are ac- quitted of dishonor, how much more the senses which are preceded by the causes ; seeing that the verity, credibility, and integrity of the senses, are hence most effectually vindicated; since they do not report otherwise than what that condition demands, which causes something to be reported by the senses otherwise than it exists in the things. What doest thou, most malapert Academy? Thou overturnest the whole state of life, thou dis- turbest all the order of nature, thou darkenest the providence of God, who [according to thee] has placed the senses, deceitful and false masters, over all his works, in order to understand, inhabit, dis- pense and enjoy them. By these is not every con- dition served ? Through these does not favorable instruction also come to the world ? So many arts, so many devices, so many sciences, business, offices, commerce, remedies, counsels, solaces, provisions, dress, ornament and all things? They season ail the enjoyment of life ; so that through these senses man alone of all animals is distinguished as ra- tional, capable of intelligence and learning in sci- ence." He after this breaks out: " It is not lawful, 236 ON THE EUCHARIST. it is not lawful to us to call into doubt these senses, lest also a question arise concerning their credit in Christ, lest perchance it be said that he falsely beheld Satan cast down from heaven, or falsely heard the voice of his Father testifying of him, or was deceived when he touched the mother of Peter's wife, or afterward perceived another odor of the ointment which he accepted for his burial, and afterward perceived another taste of the wine which he consecrated in memory of his blood. For so does Marcion prefer to believe him a phantasm, scorning the verity of an entire body in him. But it was not his nature to play the mock upon the Apostles. Faithful was their sight and hearing upon the Mount; faithful the taste of that wine at the marriage of Galilee, although water before; faithful was the touch of Thomas, 1 who thenceforth believed. Kecite the testimony of John: 'What we have seen,' says he, 'what we have heard, and seen with our eyes, and our hands have handled of the word of life.' False therefore is his -testi- mony, IF THE SENSE OF SIGHT, HEARING AND TOUCH GIVES THE LIE TO NATURE." 5 Comment upon language so plain and decisive is needless. I will produce another short passage only from this author, who, upon the words " Wo unto them that make siveet, bitter, and put darkness for light," thus remarks: "The prophet doubtless designates those that do not preserve these words in their proper light ; that the soul is nothing else than what it is called, and flesh nothing else than what is seen, and God no other than he is declared 1 Origen, when writing against the infidel Celsus, argues the touch of Thomas, as proving that Christ suffered real wounds, and assumes the infallibility of the senses through- out. Vid. Orig. contra Celsum, lib. ii, § CO, et seq. b Tertull. lib. de AnimaB, c. 17. EVIDENCE OF THE SENSES. 237 to be." c He makes the sight the judge of what is flesh, and by consequence of what is not flesh, for it would be absurd to say that, the sight is compe- tent to determine what any one thing is, while it is incapable of distinguishing that given thing from other objects. So diametrically opposed to the dogma of Rome are the ancient Christian Fathers. Well may we conclude, that the unphilosophical doctrine of tran substantiation was altogether un- known, during the early ages of Christianity. 5. I will close my citations from the Fathers with a passage from St. Augustine, together with the remarks which the learned Bingham makes upon it. He says; "St. Austin uses the same ar- gument with Tertullian in one of his homilies to the newly baptized ; which, though it be not now among St. Austin's works, yet it is preserved by Fulgentius — de Bapt. iEthiop. c. xi, — Bede, in I Cor. x, — and Bertram, de Corp. et Sang. Dom. Here instructing them about the sacrament he tells them ; ' This which you see upon the altar of God, you also saw last night; but what it is, what it means, and of how great a thing it contains a sacrament, you have not yet heard. What you see therefore is bread and the cup, which your own eyes report to you. But that about which your faith requires to be instructed, is that the bread is the body of Christ. But such a thought as this will presently arise in your hearts: Christ took his body into heaven, whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead ; and there he now sits at the right hand of the Father. How then is bread his body? Or how is the cup, or what is contained in the cup his blood? These things, my brethren, are therefore called sacraments because in them one thing is seen, and another is understood. That c Tertull. de Carnc. Christi, c. 24. 238 ON THE EUCHARIST. which is seen has a corporal species, that which is understood has a spiritual fruit. If therefore you would understand the body of Christ, hear what the Apostle says to the faithful ; Ye are the body of Christ and his members. If, therefore, ye be the body and members of Christ, your mystery or sacra- ment is laid upon the Lord's table; ye receive the sacrament of the Lord. Ye answer, amen, to what ye are, and by your answer subscribe to the truth of it. Thou hearest the minister say to thee, ' The body of Christ/ and thou answerest, amen. Be thou a member of the body of Christ that thy amen may be true. " But why then is this mystery in bread ? Let us here bring nothing of our own, but hear the Apos- tle speak again. When therefore he speaks of this sacrament, he says, We being many are one Bread, and one Body. Understand and rejoice. We being many are unity, piety, truth and charity, one Bread and one Body. Recollect and consider that the bread is not made of one grain, but of many. When ye were exorcised, ye were then, as it were, ground; when ye were baptized, ye were, as it were, sprinkled, or mixed and wet together into one mass ; when ye received the fire of the Holy Ghost, ye were, as it were, baked. Be ye therefore what ye see, and receive what ye are." d Upon this passage Bingham makes the following appropriate remarks : " Here St. Austin first says plainly, that it was bread and wine that was upon the altar, for which he appeals to the testimony of the senses. 2. That this very bread and wine is the body and blood of Christ. Consequently it could not be his natural body in the substance, but only sacramentally. 3. He says, the natural body of d Aug. Serm. ad recent. Baptizat. apud Fulgent., Bedam et Bertram. EVIDENCE OF THE SENSES. 239 Christ is only in heaven ; but the sacrament has the name of his body, because, though in outward, visible and corporeal appearance, it is only bread, yet it is attended with a spiritual fruit 4. Lastly, he says that the sacrament is not only a representation of the natural body of Christ, but also of the mystical body, the Church ; and that as a symbol of the church's unity, it is called the body of Christ in this sense, as well as the other. So that if there were any real transubstantiation, the bread must be changed into the mystical body of Christ, that is, his Church, as well as into the body natural." 6. We have now seen that the Fathers regarded the evidence of the senses as infallible in all matters ]3roperly cognizable by them, and that when speak- ing of the sacraments, they exhort to discredit these senses, they have reference to their sacramental reason, but not to their material qualities. In order to render our discussion of this subject more com- plete, it seems highly proper to glance again briefly at those passages of Cyril and Chrysostom, which the abettors of transubstantiation produce to dis- prove the testimony which the senses bear to the nature of the eucharistic elements. For I suppose that any given passage of an author is to be inter- preted according to the evident scope and design, not only of all his written productions, but also of the context in which it is fouud, not by seizing upon isolated expressions and judging of them by their literal meaning, irrespective of what precedes or follows. A few passages from the Mystagogical lecture of Cyril, will enable us to see its general scope and design. He observes : "And this teach- ing of the blessed Paul, is sufficient to assure you con- cerning the divine mysteries ; being made worthy of which, ye were made the same body and blood with Christ. For he of late exclaimed, that 'in that night in which our Lord Jesus Christ was be- 240 ON THE EUCHARIST. trayecl, having taken bread and given thanks, he broke and gave to his disciples, saying, Take eat, this is my body. And having taken the cup and given thanks, he said: Take drink, this is my blood .... for in the type of bread his body is given thee, and in the type of wine his blood is given thee ; so that, partaking of the body and blood of Christ thou mayst be made the same body and blood with him. For so we are made Christ-bearers when his body and blood are imparted into our members, so that, according to blessed Peter, we are made partakers of the divine nature.' When Christ formerly addressed the Jews, he said: 'Except ye eat my flesh and drink my blood ye have not life in yourselves.' But they not understanding those things spiritually spoken, and being scandalized, went back, supposing they were exhorted to the eating of his flesh. There was under the Old -dis- pensation the shew-bread, but this has come to an end. But in the New dispensation, there are tbe heavenly bread and the cup of salvation which sanctify the soul and body. As bread is adapted to the body, so the Word is suited to the soul. Therefore consider them not as mere bread and mere wine. For they are, according to the word of the Lord, the body and blood of Christ. Although the sense suggest this to thee, nevertheless let faith, confirm thee. Nor shouldst thou judge the thing by the taste, but by a faith assured beyond a doubt, being accounted worthy the body and blood of Christ. And David explains to thee the force of this, when he says : ' Thou preparedst a table be- fore me in the presence of mine enemies.' What he says is something like this: Before thy advent demons prepared a table for men, which was polluted and defiled, and full of diabolical power ; but after thy advent, O Lord, thou didst prepare a table before me. When man says to God : ' Thou EVIDENCE OF THE SENSES. 241 hast prepared a table before me/ what else does he mean but that mystical and spiritual table which God has prepared for us in opposition and instead of that prepared by demons ? And very fitly so, for that had communion of devils, but this com- munion of G-od ' And thy cup which intoxicates me, how excellent.' You see here the cup is spoken of which Jesus took in his hands, and giving thanks, said: 'This is my blood which is shed for many for the remission of sins.' Therefore Solomon, obscurely denoting this grace, says in Ecclesiastes : ' Come, eat thy bread with joy,' that is, spiritual bread. Come, make a healthful and blessed invocation. 'And drink thy wine with a good heart,' that is, spiritual wine Having learned this, and having been as- sured that that which seems to be bread is not [mere] bread, although perceptible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that that which seems to be wine is not [mere] wine, although to the taste it appear such, but the blood of Christ; and that David of old time, spake in the Psalm concerning this : 'And bread strengthenth the heart of man, and with oil his face is gladdened;' do thou, partak- ing of this [bread] as spiritual, strengthen thy heart, and gladden the face of thy soul." l Such is the language of more than half of this short lecture of Cyril; and yet a single passage is selected from it, without regard to its general scope, to prove that our senses are not to be believed, in the testimony which they bear to the nature of the eucharistic elements; whereas, nothing can be more evident than the fact, that throughout this lecture, the author discourses of the spiritual manducation of Christ's body in the Eucharist, whose presence is not to be "judged by the taste, but by a faith assured beyond a doubt." I wonder that men of 1 Cyril, Ierosol. Cateeh. Mystagog.lv. 21 242 ON THE EUCHARIST. honest sincerity can make such a garbled use of the writings of the ancient dead. It must be a bad cause that requires such a perversion of their plain meaning. Let us pass to the golden-mouthed orator of Con- stantinople. "We believe God everywhere and contradict nothing, although what is said seem op- posed to our reasonings and sight; but let his word be superior to our reasonings and sight; and so should we do in the mysteries not looking only upon those things which lie before us, but holding fast his words. For his word does not deceive, but our sense is easily led astray. That has never failed, this is often deceived. Since therefore the word says, ' This is my body,' let us be persuaded and believe, and contemplate it with spiritual eyes. For Christ has delivered to us nothing [merely] sensible, but by things sensible he has delivered all things spiritual. For thus also in baptism, by a sensible thing, the gift of water is made ; but that which is wrought is spiritual, the birth and regen- eration, or renovation. For if thou wert incorpo- real he had delivered these gifts naked and incor- poreal; but since the soul is connected with a body, he has delivered to thee the spiritual in the sensi- ble. How many now say, I would see his form, his figure, his garments and sandals ? "Behold thou seest him, thou touchesthim, thou eatest him. And thou desirest to see his garments : but he gives himself to thee not to see only, but also to touch, and to eat and take within. " E This passage needs no explanation. Whoever reads may understand that Chrysostom speaks of the spiritual, but not the sensible part of the Eu- charist, when he says, "let his word be superior to and sight." The explanation which E Chrysost. in Matt, Horn, lxxxii al lxxxiii, § 4. EVIDENCE OF THE SENSES. 243 has been given above of the language of the Fathers is, therefore, fully confirmed by an impartial and candid examination of the context. I have dwelt upon this subject of the testimony of the senses, because of its importance ; and I have preferred to allow the Fathers to discuss it in their own language ; not because they speak more truly or more authoritatively than the true and Protes- tant Church of Grod now utters her caution against that fatal delusion, which requires the rejection of the evidence of the senses, in a matter as properly an object of their observation as any other, and in regard to which, their testimony is as reliable as it is respecting any thing else in nature. Indeed, no less do the principles involved in t ran substantia- tion, than those of the ancient school-men, " over- turn the whole state of life, disturb all the order of nature, and darken the providence of God." And we may acid, sap the very foundation of all revealed religion, by destroying the credibility of the testi- mony of those who heard the words of the Lord, and testified to the signs and wonders wrought in confirmation of their divine origin. Should it however be objected that " the senses cannot determine the composite nature of things, but only their tactual and apparent qualities;" we answer ; this only is their proper sphere of ob- servation. It is not necessary to the credibility of the senses, that they be able to determine the chemi- cal elements, or ultimate atoms of bodies: it is enough that they confine themselves to those prop- erties usually denominated natural. Otherwise we should be led into very strange and even absurd speculations respecting the general experience of mankind. If it be allowed that the senses are in- competent judges of things, because they cannot ascertain the nature of the ultimate particles of bodies, then it will follow, that for the thousands 244 ON THE EUCHARIST. of years preceding the revelations of modern science, the whole world has been unable to determine whether iron were gold, whether wood were stone, whether bread were flesh, or water were fire, or something else. Besides, if the senses must be re- jected because of this inability to scan the secret recesses of nature's laboratory^ then there is a ne- cessity of putting to the test of scientific analysis, every article of merchandise before the buyer can be absolutely certain that he is not deceived in the object of his purchase. Nay, he can never arrive at such certainty because the analysis cannot be made without their aid. But the general senti- ment of mankind is not yet prepared to adopt a principle so repugnant to universal experience. It is with the natural philosophy of bodies that the bodily senses are concerned ; and within this, their appropriate circle, they serve to discriminate and determine with a certainty that knows no su- perior within the created universe. Believe me yours truly, E. 0. P. LETTER XIV. HALF-COMMUNION. Dear Brother: — Having examined the testi- mony of antiquity in proof of a figurative presence of Christ's flesh and blood in the Eucharist, I pass to the consideration of several usages connected with the celebration of this sacrament, wherein the ancient Christians' differ from the present practices of the Papal church. The Council of Trent teaches very consistently with the doctrine of transubstan- tiation, and what appears to be a legitimate conse- quence of it, that "Christ entire is contained under every part of each species when a separation is made." If this be true, it is impossible to human reason to assign any sufficient cause, why commu- nion in both species should ever have been com- manded or practiced. The practice of your church of communicating the laity in one kind only, if not the direct and natural consequence of the doctrine in question, is certainly in perfect keeping with it, as the most common mind cannot fail to perceive. For if Christ entire is received under every part of each species, he cannot certainly be more perfectly received under both. But this usage is opposed to the express and plain command of our Saviour, and to the practice of the ancient church. On this latter point I offer you a few testimonies. Ignatius exhorts the Philadelphians "to use one faith, one preaching, and one Eucharist ; for the flesh of the Lord is one, and his blood which has been shed for us is one ; and one bread is broken to 21* 246 ON THE EUCHARIST. all and one cup distributed to all." A In this pas- sage there is no such confusion of the body and blood of Christ under a single kind, as is taught by the doctors of Trent. The bread and the cup are mentioned separately as being the separate and dis- tinct representatives of Christ's flesh and blood. And I know not of a single passage to be found in all the writings of antiquity, in which the sacra- mental flesh and blood of Christ are said to exist under a single species. In his Apology for the Christians to the Em- peror, Justin the Martyr says: "When the presi- dent has given thanks, and all the people resjjonded, those called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread, and wine and water of the Eucharist ; and to those not present they carry them." And a little after he repeats substantially the same thing, and assures us that "the impartation and reception of those things blessed, is made to each one; and to those not present they are sent by the deacons." * Iren^ius says that our flesh is fed by the body and blood of Christ, so that it is increased by them and consists of them. He argues the resurrection of our bodies to immortality, from their having been made the recipients of the sacrament of Christ's quickening body and blood. 2 But no one ever supposed, that Iren^us intended to argue for the resurrection of the priests only. If he did not thus argue, he must certainly have considered the body and blood to belong to the laity equally with the clergy. When writing upon the "resurrection of the flesh," Tertullian makes use of the same language : A Ignat. Epist. ad Philadelph. i Apol. i. (See above, p. 123.) lib. v, c. 2 ; et lib. iv, c. 34. HALF-COMMUNION. 247 "Our flesh is fed witli the body and blood of Christ." 1 And in his book to his wife he speaks twice of her taking the cup, which confessedly refers to the Eucharist. 2 Cyprian says, "We do not leave unarmed and naked those that we urge and exhort to the contest [of martyrdom] but we fortify them with the pro- tection of Christ's body and blood For in what manner shall we teach or incite them to pour out their own blood in the confession of his name, if we deny the blood of Christ to those about to en- gage in the contest? Or how shall we make them fit for the cup of martyrdom, if we do not first ad- mit them to drink, in the church, the cup of the Lord by right of communication?" 3 And in the Epistle to the people of Thibaris, which passes under his name, the author remarks: "Now the contest harder and fiercer threatens, for which the soldiers of Christ ought to prepare themselves by an incorrupt faith and strong valor; considering that for this reason they daily drink the cup of Christ's blood, that they may be able to pour out their blood for Christ. For this is to will to be found with Christ, to imitate what Christ taught and did." 1 Caro corpore et sanguina Christi vescitur. Tertul. de Resurrec. Carriis, lib. c. 7, p. 330. 2 Idem, ad Uxorem. 3 Quos excitamus et hortamur ad proelium, non inermes et nudos relinquamus, sed protectione sanguinis et corporis Christi muniamus Num quomodo docemus aut provoca- mus eos in confessione noniinis sanguinem suum fundere, si eis militaturis Christi sanguinem denegamus? Aut quo- modo ad martyri poculum idoneos facimus, si non eos prius ad bibendum in Ecclesia poculum Domini jure communica- tionis admittimus? Cyprian, Ep. liv, ad Cornell um. 4 Considerantes idcirco se quotidie calicem sanguinis Christi bibere, ut possint et ipsi propter Christum sanguinem fundere, etc. Idem, Ep. lvi, de Exhort. Martyr, ad Thibari- tanos. 248 ON THE EUCHARIST. Chrysostom says: "There are some things wherein there is no difference between the priest and the people ; as, when they are to partake of the tre- mendous mysteries ; for we are all alike admitted to them. Not as in the times of the Old dispensa- tion, when the priests ate one thing and the people another, and it was not lawful for the people to partake of what the priest did. It is not so now, but there is one body and one cup proposed to all." B Augustine tells the newly baptized, " That when they should prove themselves, then they should eat ol the Lord's table and drink of the cup." * And Jerome his contemporary says, " The priests serve the Eucharist and divide the Lord's blood to his people." 2 2. These testimonies are sufficient to prove the antiquity of a usage which is so clearly delivered, that you are not disposed to call it in question. Nevertheless, to acquit your church of the guilt of heresy and the crime of perverting any part of the Christian doctrine^ you are pleased to dignify this ancient practice — which is no other than the obe- dient performance of the divine, and almost dying command of our Lord and Saviour, " drink ye all of it," — with a place among those "forms or methods" which "are mere matters of discipline that may be changed or altered, as often as the wisdom of the church thinks necessary." Whatever Jesus Christ has taught us to believe and practice, I have always regarded as doctrine ; but the manner in which we perform his sacred in- junctions, I suppose may be regarded as belonging to B Chrysost, Horn, xviii, in II Cor. § 3. Opera Paris, 1838, torn x, p. 670. 1 Ut ciim seipsos probaverint, tunc de rnensa Domini man- ducent, et de calice bibant. Aug. de Fide et Operibus. 2 Sacerdotes Eucliaristise Serviunt, et sanguinem Domini populis ejus dividunt. Hieron. in Sophon. cap. 2. HALF -COMMUNION. 249 what is commonly termed discipline. And your learned Mr. Hughes repeatedly says, in his contro- versy with Mr. Breckenridge, that Jesus Christ taught no opinions, but all his instructions were doc- trines. How then comes it to pass, that our Lord's plain and positive injunction to drink of the cup, is only a mere matter of discipline that must bow to the will or caprice of men's changing opinions ? Will you, when you wish to insult the better informed judgmentof your neighbors, tell them that their faith is but a system of opinions, and that Jesus Christ delivered no opinions, but all doctrines ; and when you wish to excuse your abrogation of Christ's plain command, tell us that his divine injunction is no better than a mere "mode or method," which may be changed as circumstances dictate ? Is this worthy men of intelligence ? If there be any thing in the Gospel of God our Saviour that may be called a doctrine, it is that command of his to his Church, to drink of that cup which he instituted in memory of his bloody passion upon the cross. And if it be possible to fallen and rebellious creatures to dis- obey such command, and sacrilegiously pervert any divine institution, then has the church of Rome done thus in regard to the use of the cup in the Eucharist. As proof of this, I will offer you the testimony of several of the ancients, including some of those by you denominated Popes of the church. St. Cyprian, writing to Cracilius in condemnation of the practice of the Aquarians who used no wine, but water only, in the Eucharist, says: " Where- fore^ if Christ alone is to be heard, we ought not to heed what another before us may have supposed should be done, but what Christ who is before all, first did ; for it is not meet to follow the custom of man, but the truth of God If it is not lawful to break the least of the Lord's commandments, how much more is it not right to infringe commands so 250 ON THE EUCHAKIST. great, so grand, and so much pertaining to the very- sacrament of the Lord's passion, and our redemp- tion ; or by human tradition to change it into some- thing different from that which has been divinely instituted." 1 Upon this passage we may observe, that our author regards the full and proper exhibi- tion of the cup as essential to the full and proper celebration of this sacrament ; that the command to do this occupies a high position amongst the divine precepts of our Saviour, and, consequently, cannot be classed with those disciplinary regula- tions, which may be changed according to circum- stances ; and that the example and command of Christ in this matter, are superior to any human authority ; so that, notwithstanding the opinions and traditions of men, God's truth as contained in his word, is constantly to be followed. If then it be a culpable infringement of Christ's precept and example, to substitute water for wine, in the exhibi- tion of the cup, much more is it a gross violation of his divine command, to deny the people the cup altogether. Especially does this appear when we consider, that the universal participation of the cup is more expressly enjoined, than the use of the other species. "It is an indignity to the Lord," says Ambrose, " to celebrate the mystery otherwise than it was delivered by him. For he cannot be devout who 1 Qnare si solus Christus audiendus est, non debemns atten- dere, quid alius ante nos faciendum putaverit, sed quid, qui ante omnes est, Christus, prior fecerit. Neque enim hominis consuetudinem sequi oportet, sed Dei veritatem Quod si nee minima de mandatis dominicis licet solvere; quanto magis tam magna, tarn grandia, tarn ad ipsum dominicse pas- sionis et nostrae redemptionis sacramentum pertinentia, fas non est infringere, aut in aliud, quam quod divinitus institu- tum sit, liumana traditione mutare ? Cyprian, Ep. lxiii, ad Csecilium de Sacram. Domini calicis. HALF-COMMUNION. 251 presumes to give it in any other way than it was given by its author.'' Pope Julius, elected to the See of Borne, A. D. 337, says: " We have heard of some who, kept back by a schismatic disposition, have consecrated milk instead of wine in the divine sacrifices, contrary to the divine laws and apostolic institutions; and others also, who extend to the people the Eucharist dipped instead of the full communion How con- trary this is to the Evangelic and Apostolic doc- trine, and adverse to the custom of the Church, it is not difficult to prove from the very fountain of truth, from which proceeded these mysteries of the sacraments which have been ordained." 1 Pope Leo the Great, elected A. D. 440, speaks of those who "with unworthy mouth take the body of Christ but altogether refuse to drink the blood of our redemption ; . . . . Whose sacrilegious dissem- bling should be laid bold of, and themselves noted and prohibited from the company of the saints, should be expelled by sacerdotal authority." 2 Pope G-elasius, elected A. D. 492, also says: " We find that some, a portion of the sacred body c Ambros. in I Cor. xi. 1 Audivimus quosdam scismatica arabitione detentos, con- tra Divinos ordines, et Apostolicas Institutiones, lac pro vino in divinis sacrinciis dedicare: alios quoque intinctam eucha- ristiam populis pro complemento communionis porrigere . . . Quod quam sit Evangelicae et Apostolicae doctrine contra- rium, et consuetudini ecclesiastics adversum, non difficile ab ipso fonte veritatis probabitur, a quo ordinata ipsa sacramen- torum mysteria proeesserunt. Julii Epist. ad Episc. iEgypt. apud Gratian. de Consecr., dist. 2, c. 7. Cited by Bingham, bk. xv, ch. v, sec. 1. 2 Ore indigno corpus Christi accipiunt, sanguinem autem redemptionis nostrse haurire omnino declinant Quorum deprehansa fuerit sacrilega simulatio, notati et proliibiti a sanctorum societate sacerdotali auctoritate pellantur. Leo, Serin, iv, de Quadragesima. Cited by Bingham. 252 ON THE EUCHARIST. being received only, abstain from the cnp of the holy blood; . who doubtless, (because they are taught to be bound by what superstition I know not,) should either receive the sacraments entire or be kept wholly from them; because the division op ONE AND THE SAME MYSTERY CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITH- OUT GREAT SACRILEGE. " l So unqualifiedly do these ancient writers refute and condemn this modern and heretical notion of yours, which makes the communion of the cup a matter of mere discipline, and so little important that it may be indulged or forbidden by the church whenever she thinks proper. I dare say these an- cient Popes would expel you all "by sacerdotal authority,"' were they in a position so to do, unless you should speedily repent, and return to the an- cient doctrine and practice of the Church. 3. But the practice of communicating in both kinds, was not limited to the first five centuries after Christ. It has continued in the purer churches of the East until the present, and did not, in the Latin Church, go into general disuse during the period of more than a thousand years after Christ. Paschasius, A. D. 831, who is considered to be the father of transubstantiation, teaches the practice and necessity of receiving both species in the fol- lowing language: "But the priest, because he seems to act between God and the people instead of Christ, offers their vows and gifts to God by the hands of the angel, and renders back by the body and blood what is obtained, and distributes to every 1 Comperimus quod quidam sumpta tantummodo corporis sacri portione, & calice sacri cruoris abstineant. Qui procul- dubio (quia nescio qua superstitione docentur abstringi,) aut integra sacramenta pereipiant, aut integris arceantur : quia divisio unius ejusdemque mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio non potest provenire. Gelas. apud Gratian de c. 12. Cited by Bingham. HALF -COMMUNION. 253 one." 1 Again he says: "And therefore, it is he alone that breaks this bread, and, by the hands of his ministers, distributes to the faithful, saying, Take and drink ye all of this, as well ministers as the rest of the faithful, this i*s the cap of my blood of the New and eternal Testament." 2 And, "It is manifest and clear to all, that in this mortal life we cannot live without food and drink ; so there- fore we cannot come to life eternal, unless we are nourished to immortality by both these." 3 Algerus, a zealous defender of the doctrine of Paschasius, fully agrees with him, some three cen- turies afterward, in the necessity of communicating in both kinds. " Because," says he " we so live by food and drink that we can be deprived of neither one nor the other, he would [therefore] that both should be in his sacrament." 4 Again, he argues that "Christ has redeemed our lost body and soul oy his body and soul, and his body and blood are taken by the faithful, that by the body and soul of Christ our whole man may be quickened." 5 He 1 Caeterum sacerdos quia vices Christi visibili specie inter Deum et populum agere videtur, infert per manus Angeli vota populiad Deum et refert: Vota quidem offert et munera, refert autem impetrata per corpus et sanguinem, et distribuit singulis. Paschas. Ratbert. de Corp. et Sang. Dom., cap. xii. 2 Et ideo hie solus est qui frangit hunc panem, et per manus ministrorum distribuit cred entibus, dicens, Accipite et bibite ex hoc omnes, tarn ministri quam et reliqui credentes, hie est calix sanguinis mei novi et seterni testamenti. Idem, cap. xv. 3 Constat igitur et liquet omnibus, quod in hac mortali vita sine cibo et potu non vivitur, sic itaque ad illam seternam non pervenitur, nisi duobus istis ad immortalitatem nutriatur. Idem, cap. xix. 4 Quia potu et cibo ita vivimus ut alterutro carere neque- amus, utrumque in sacramento suo esse voluit. Algerus de Sacram., lib. ii, cap. v. 5 Nos qui corpore et anima perieramus, corpus per corpus, etanimam per animam Chriatus redimens, .... simul corpus 22 254 ON THE EUCHARIST. also quotes Augustine as teaching that " neither the flesh without the blood nor the blood without the flesh is rightly communicated ; " and that passage of Pope G-ELASius, which has just been cited. G-ratian, A. D. 1170, says: If, whenever Christ's blood is poured out, it is poured out for the remis- sion of sins, I ought always to receive it that my sins may always be forgiven me." 1 Aquinas, A. D. 1260, not so well instructed in transubstantiation as his successors, teaches that " Christ's body is not sacramentally under the spe- cies of wine, nor his blood sacramentally under the species of bread; therefore, that Christ may be sacramentally taken, it is necessary that he be re- ceived under both species." Again he says : " According to the ancient cus- tom of the church, all men as they communicated in the body so they communicated in the blood; which also to this day is kept in some churches." 2 About the same time, A. D. 1265 or 1266, we are told that one Decanus, with some associate monks, gave the body and blood of Christ to the army of Charles, King of Sicily, as they were about to go to battle against Manfred. 3 4. Communion in both kinds may be further proved from several practices formerly observed by Christians. et sanguis sumitur, a fidelibus . . . . ut sumpto corpore et aninia Christi totus homo vivificetur. Idem, cap. viii. Vide et Hugo de S. Victore, torn, v, cap. 6. l Si quotiescunque effunditur sanguis Christi in remis- sionem peccatorum effunditur, debeo ilium semper sumere, ut semper peccata mini dimittentur. Gratian. de Consecrat. dist. 2. D Aquinat, part iii, q. 76, art. 2. 2 Idem, Com. in Joan, vi, sec. 7. 3 Cum exercitu sesset in procinctu, Decanus Meldensem, associatis sibi Monachis, corpus et sanguinem Christi regiis HALF-COMMUNION. 255 The consecrated elements were held in great veneration by the ancients; and they took great care that no disrespect should befall them. In the time of Julius some were accustomed to clip the bread in the wine and give it. Both Pope and the Council of Braga, some centuries after, for- bade this practice in nearly the same words. Sub- sequently the Council of Clermont, taking notice of this same practice, decreed a that no one should communicate from the altar unless he took the body separately, and in like manner the blood, except through necessity and with care." 1 This intinc- tion was, however, generally forbidden except in some extraordinary cases. Thus the Council of Tours orders the sacrament to be administered to the sick dipped, "that the presbyter may in truth say to the sick man, the body and blood of the Lord be profitable to thee." 2 This practice is still observed by the Greek, Sy- rian and Armenian churches of the East, some of them giving the elements mixed in a spoon, others dipping the bread into the wine. 3 About the time of Beeengarius, it was the prac- tice to suck the wine from the cup through quills to prevent it from being spilt. This appears in the order of celebrating Mass by the Pope, taken from several books of the Ordo Homanus, in the Liturgies of Cassander, in which the arch-deacon is said "to receive a pugillaris from the regionary sub-deacon, militibus dedisse. Apud du Chesne, Hist. Franc, torn, v, p. 840, cit. Dalleo de Cult. Lat. lib. v, cap. 12. 1 Ne quis communicet de altari, nisi corpus separatim et sanguinem similiter sumit, nisi per necessitatem et per caute- lam. Apud Baron. Concil. Claramont, Can. 28. 2 Qua? sacra oblatio intincta esse debet in sanguine Christi ut veraciter presbyter possit dicere infirmo, Corpus et sanguis Domini proficiat tibi. Apud Burcliard, lib. v, cap. 9. 3 Southgate's Visit to the Syrian Church, 1841, p. 210. 256 ON THE EUCHARIST. with which he confirms the people." 1 And in his note on the word pugillaris, Cassander says, they were pipes or canes with which the blood was sucked from the cup of the Lord." 2 Again, "When the Pontiff has taken the body of Christ, the cardinal bishop reaches to him a pipe, which the Pope puts into the cup which is in the hands of the deacon, and sucks a part of the blood." E We may smile at this little superstition of the dark ages ; nevertheless, it shows that the people were accustomed to receive, in some way, that part of the Eucharist of which the laity of Rome now quietly allow themselves to be deprived. As further proof of communion in both kinds we might, if necessary, produce the ancient practice of some errorists, as noticed by Cyprian and Julius, who, by using milk instead of wine, plainly con- fessed the importance of two species to the perfec- tion of this sacrament. Indeed, I know of no others, except the present Papal church and the ancient Manicheans, that ever communicated in one species only; so that Rome can, in this respect, boast of standing side by side with those olden and notorious heretics. 5. Having sufficiently proved from antiquity the practice and necessity of communicating in both species, we may briefly notice the introduction of the contrary usage in the Latin communion, which, Elliott says was done by the Council of Constance, "But properly it was Innocent III, who made it a law ; for the Council of Constanee did not even act upon the decrees drawn up by the Pope ; and 1 Archidiaconus accepto a subdiacono regionario pugillari, cum quo confirmat populum. Cassand. Liturg in Ordine Celebrat. Missa? per Roman. Pontificem. Fistulas seu cannse, quibus sanguis e Dominico calice exugebatur. Ibid. E Idem, Sacrar. Cerimon. 1. 2. HALF-COMMUNION. 257 this candid Roman Catholics acknowledge, though some of them may deny it, and others are ignorant of the fact. Afterward the Council of Trent de- creed in favor of halt-communion. The Pope's faction was so powerful at that Council, that, con- trary to the institution of our Lord, they carried the measure which the Council of Constance had introduced." 1 The decree of the Council of Con- stance hy which communion in one kind was established, reads as follows: "Whereas, in several parts of the world, some have rashly presumed to assert that all Christians ought to receive the holy sacrament of the Eucha- rist under both species of bread and wine, and that also after supper, or not fasting, contrary to the laudable custom of the church, justly approved of, which they damnably endeavor to reprobate as sacrilegious; hence it is that this holy general Council of Constance, assembled by the Holy Ghost to provide for the salvation of the faithful against this error, declares, decrees and defines, that al- though Christ did after supper institute this holy sacrament, and administer it to his disciples in both kinds, of bread and wine, yet, notwithstanding this, the laudable authority of the sacred canons, and the approved custom of the church, hath fixed and doth fix that this sacrament ought not to be made after supper, nor received by the faithful not fasting. And as this custom has been reasonably introduced in order to avoid certain dangers and scandals, see- ing that, although in the primitive church this sa- crament was received by the faithful under both species, it was afterward received by the celebrants under each species, and by the laity under the species of bread only ; and since it is most certainly to be believed, and in no wise to be doubted, that 1 Elliott on Romanism, vol. 1, p. 294. 22* 258 ON THE EUCHARIST. the entire body and blood of Christ are truly con- tained as well under the species of bread as under the species of wine, [this custom] therefore being approved, is now to be held for a law. Also, in re- gard to this matter, this holy synod decrees and declares to the reverend fathers in Christ, patri- archs and lords, that they effectually punish the transgressors of this decree who exhort the people to communicate under both species of bread and wine/' F The Council of Trent declares that, "Although Christ the Lord did, at the last supper, institute this venerable sacrament and deliver it to the Apos- tles in the species of bread and wine, nevertheless it does notfollowfrom this institution and delivery, that all the faithful of Christ are bound by the statute of the Lord to receive both species." 1 " Moreover the Council declares that, although our Redeemer, as before said, did at that last suj)- per, institute and deliver to the Apostles this sacra- ment in two species, it must, nevertheless, be con- fessed that Christ, whole and entire, and a true sacrament, is taken under either species." 2 The Council also enacted the following at its 21st session: Can. 1. "If any one shall say that all and every one of the faithful of Christ ought by divine pre- F Concil. Constant. Sess. xiii, A. D. 1414. 1 Etsi Christus Dominus in ultima ccena venerabile hoc sa- cramentum in panis et vini speciebus instituit, et Apostolis tradidit; non tamen ilia institntio et traditio eo tendunt, ut omnes Christi fideles statuto Domini ad utraraque speciem accipiendam astringantur. Cone. Trident. Sess. xxii, c. 1, A. D. 1562. ! 2 Insuper declarat, quamvis Redemptor noster, ut antea dic- tum est, in suprema ilia coena hoc sacramentum in duabus speciebus instituerit, et Apostolis tradiderat; tamen fatendum esse, etiam sub altera tantum specie totum atque integrum Christum, verumque sacramentum sumi. Idem, cap. 3. HALF-COMMUNION. 259 cept, or, as necessary to salvation, to take both, species of the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist ; let him be anathema." Can. 2. "If any one shall say that the Holy Catholic Church had not just and reasonable causes to communicate the laity and even the non-celebrat- ing clergy under the species of bread only, or that she has erred therein; let him be anathema." Can. 3. "If any man shall deny that Christ, the fountain and author of all graces, is taken whole and entire under the one species of bread, because, as some falsely assert, he is not taken according to Christ's institution under each species ; let him be be anathema." 1 Plainly, therefore, do these Councils confess, 1. that Christ instituted this sacrament and delivered it to the primitive church in both kinds ; 2. that the Church of Kome has, for certain reasons, changed what Christ originally ordained and commanded to be done in memory of him, so that now she "decrees and declares effectual punishment" to be inflicted upon the transgressors of her law, and pronounces her dreadful curse upon all who dare oppose her assumptions and appeal to the authority of Jesus Christ, the divine author of the Christian religion. This assumption of more than divine exaltation is 1 Can. 1. Si quis dixerit, ex Dei prsecepto, vel necessitate salutis, omnes et singulos Christi fideles utramque speciem sanctissimi Eucharistise sacramentis sumeredebere; anathema sit. Can. 2. Si quis dixerit, sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam non justis causis et rationibus adductam fuisse, ut laicos, atque etiam clericos, non conficientes, sub panis tantummodo specie communicaret, aut in eo errasse , anathema sit. Can. 3. Si quis negaverit, totum, et integrum Christum omnium gratiarum fontem et auctorem sub una panis specie sumi, quia ut quidam falso aeserunt, non secundum ipsius Christi institutionem sub utraque specie sumatur; anathema sit. Concil. Trident. Sess. xxi. 260 ON THE EUCHARIST. a prominent mark of the "man" whose character the inspired penman most graphically describes in II Thess. ii. Bead it. From the evidence which has now been produced, it is certain that all Christian churches communi- cated in both species for more than a thousand years after Christ. It was about the beginning of the twelfth century that communion in one kind began to be practiced in some of the Latin churches, as we gather from the passage cited from St. Thomas Aquinas, and from the testimony of Bona, a Komish author of the seventeenth age,, who says: "It is certain that all, everywhere, both the clergy and laity, men and women, anciently took the sacred mysteries under each species when they were pre- sent at their solemn celebration ; and they made their offerings and participated of those things which were offered. But without a sacrifice, and without the church, communion was always and everywhere in use under one species. To the first part of this assertion all, as well Catholics as sec- taries, agree ; nor can he, who is imbued with the least knowledge of ecclesiastical affairs, deny it. For always and everywhere from the beginning of the church even to the twelfth age the faithful communicated under the species of bread and wine. In the beginning of this age the use of the cup began, by little and little, to pass out of use, the bishops for the most part forbidding it to the people on account of the danger of irreverence and of effu- sion." 1 1 Certum est omnes passim clericos et laicos, viros et muli- eres sub utraque specie sacra mysteria antiquitus sumpsisse, cum solemni eorum celebrationi aderant, et offerebant et de oblatis participabant. Extra sacrificium vero, et extra Eccle- siam semper et ubique commvmio sub una specie in usu fuit. Primae parti assertionis consentiunt omnes, tam Catholici, quam sectarii ; nee earn negare potest, qui vel levissima rerum HALF-COMMUNION. 261 6. The advocates of the innovation do, however, offer their arguments and reasons for communi- cating the people under one species only. "They say," says Elliott, "that the Apostles were commanded to take of the cup as well as the bread because they were clergymen ; To this we answer, that it was to the Apostles only he gave the bread also; therefore the laity should have neither bread nor cup_, if the objection be true. Besides, the Apostles though not officiating, received the cup; hence the non-officiating clergy are to have the cup also. Thus their doctrine has no support from the foregoing argument of theirs. But they have a strange quibble which they intro- duce in this place. They grant, indeed, that the Apostles were laymen, and represented the whole body of Christians, when they received the bread; bat when our Saviour said these words, Hoefacite — Do tliis, by these words he ordained them priests; and these words were spoken before lie gave them the cup. So that when he came to dispense the other part of the sacrament to them, that is, the the wine, they then did not receive as laymen, and the representatives of the people., but as clergymen. It appears the Council of Trent had reference to this quibbling sophism when they made the follow- ing canon: 'If any one shall say, that by these words, Do this in remembrance of me, Christ did not institute his Apostles priests, or did not ordain, that they and other priests should offer his body and blood; let him be accursed!'. 1 Ecclesiasticarnm notitia imbutus sit. Semper enim et ubique ab Ecclesise primordiis usque ad ssec.ulum duodecimnm sub specie panis et vini communicarunt fideles; ccepit paulatim ejus sseculi initio usus calicis obsolescere, plerisque Episcopis earn populo interdicentibus ob periculum irreverentiee et effu- sionis. Bona Rer. Liturg, lib. ii, cap. 18, No. 1, 1 Si quis dixerit, illis verbis, Hoc facite in meam commemo- rationern, Christum nou instituisse apostolos sacerdotes; aut 262 ON THE EUCHAKIST. 'But/ it is said, 'our Saviour himself, after his resurrection, administered the sacrament in one kind. For St. Luke says, that sitting down with his two disciples at Emmaus, he took bread and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them." But this was not administering the sacrament at all. It was a thanksgiving to God, as was usual at every meal, and as he did when he fed the multitudes with the loaves and fishes, according to the maner of the Jews, both at that time and since. They also argue, that in the Acts of the Apostles it is said 'that the disciples met together to break bread on the first day of the week.' (Acts ii: 42.) 'This/ say they, 'refers to the Eucharist, and the cup is not once mentioned as given/ But it is not certain that this refers at all to the sacrament. And supposing it does ; as in Scripture language common feasts are expressed by the single phrase of eating bread, which certainly does not prove that the guests drank nothing ; so neither does it prove, by a religious feast being expressed in the same manner, that the guests drank nothing. Besides, if there is no mention of the laity receiving the cup, there is none of the priests receiving it. Yet they think this absolutely necessary ; and if one may be taken for granted without being particu- larly mentioned, so may the other also. Add to all this, that where St. Paul speaks in form of this sacrament, he mentions the cup as a necessary part thereof. They also plead, 'that the laity, by receiving the body of Christ, receive his blood also ; for the blood is contained in the body.' But they ought to con- sider that the wine was intended to be a memorial of the blood shed out of the body; and therefore non orclinasse, nt ipsi, aliiqne sacerdotes offerrent corpus et sangtiinem suum ; anathema sit. De Sacrificio Missse, can. 2. HALF-COMMUNION. 263 they who do not receive the cup, do not make this memorial which Christ commanded. Besides, why did Christ institute the cup? If his disciples, in receiving the bread, had received both the body and blood, what need was there afterward in giving them the cup, and calling it the New Testament in his blood? Again, if partaking of the bread be the communion both of the body and blood of Christ, why did Paul make such a distinc- tion between the bread and the cup, calling one the communion of the body of Christ, and the other the communion of his blood? Lastly, if both the body and blood are received in the bread, what does the priest who administers receive when he takes the cup? They also urge, 'If any man eat of this bread he shall live forever,' (John vi: 51.) But they must first show that this verse, and indeed the con- text at large, relates to the Lord's Supper. And this they cannot do according to the principles of their church, which require that they ' receive and iuterpret Scripture not otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.' Now the Council of Trent (Sess. 21, c. 1,) acknowledge that the Fathers and Doctors gave various interpretations (varias interpretationes) of this portion of the sixth of John. We also insist that bishops of Rome, cardinals, bishops, and other doctors of their church, upward of thirty in number, deny that their doc- trine, with respect to the Eucharist, is to be collected from this chapter. From the phrase, as often as ye drink it, they argue that the cup in the Eucharist may sometimes be omitted. But it should be remembered that the same porase, as often as, is applied to the bread as well as to the cup. From the passage, c Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup unworthily,' (I Cor. xi: 264 ON THE EUCHARIST. 27,) Roman Catholics complain that the Protes- tants have corrupted the text, as both the Greek and Vulgate, instead of »*i, and et, and, have y, and vel, or: 'Whosoever shall eat this bread or drink this cup unworthily.' To this we reply, 1. This criticism gives no countenance to communion in one kind, because their own Greek, Latin, and English Testaments (I Cor. xi : 26, 28, 29; x : 16, 17,) no less than five tims use *«. : , and, in joining the bread and cup together, to be both received in remembrance of Christ. Therefore, to say the cup is not necessary, is to make the Apostle contradict himself, as well as our Lord's institution. 2. That kx , and, is the true reading, and not r, or, both MSS. and versions sufficiently prove; and that et, not vel, is the proper reading of the Vulgate, origi- nal editions formed by Roman Catholics themselves prove. See these points established by Dr. A. Clarke on I Cor. xi : 27, at the end of the chapter. 3. Besides, whatever may be the true reading, the doctrine of half-communion gains nothing ; because the Apostle plainly teaches that either to eat or drink unworthily was wrong. And that the Co- rinthians did drink of the cup, and that some of them did drink uniuorfhily, or in an irreverent man- ner, is plainly declared in the context." 1 7. Various reasons for this change are given, the principal of which are contained in the following passages from the Roman Catechism : " The church, no doubt, was influenced by numerous and cogent reasons, not only to approve, but confirm by solemn decree, the general practice of communicating un- der one species. In the first place, the greater caution was necessary to avoid accident or indig- nnty, which must become almost inevitable if the chalice were administered in a crowded assemblage. 1 Elliott, vol. i, pp. 291, 292. HALF-COMMUNION. 265 In the next place, the holy Eucharist should he at all times in readiness for the sick ; and if the spe- cies of wine remained long unconsumed, it were to be apprehended that it might become vapid. Be- sides, there are many who cannot bear the taste or smell of wine ; lest, therefore, what is intended for the nutriment of the soul should prove noxious to the health of the body, the church, in her wisdom, has sanctioned its administration under the species of bread alone. We may also observe, that in many places wine is extremely scarce, nor can it be brought from distant countries without incurring very heavy expense, and encountering very tedious and difficult journeys. Finally, a circumstance which principally influenced the church in estab- lishing this practice, means were to be devised to crush the heresy which denied that Christ, whole AND ENTIRE, 18 CONTAINED UNDER THE SPECIES OF BREAD WITHOUT THE BLOOD, AND THE BLOOD UNDER THE SPECIES of wine without the body. This object was attained by communion under the species of bread alone ; which places, as it were, sensibly before our eyes, the truth of the Catholic faith." 1 The capitalizing is ours of course. Such are the avowed reasons for half-communion. And the principal of these has its cause in the de- termination to "crush" forever the belief, — which is based upon our Saviour's words at the institution, and which prevailed for some twelve centuries after, even to the time of Aquinas, — that the species of bread answers only to the body of Christ, and the species of wine to his blood. Thus has Home corrupted the doctrine of our Saviour ; and then, to support and protect that corruption, she has perverted a plain and positive institution, and uttered her curse against those who dare renounce i Catechism, p. 228, cited by Elliott, vol. i, p. 295. 23 266 ON THE EUCHARIST. her novelties and embrace the pure gospel of Christ. 8. There are, without doubt, some things per- taining to the Eucharist which are only circum- stantial, and others which must be regarded as essential. The former are such as the place of celebrating, the time, the posture of the partici- pants, and their number. For no one supposes it necessary to the being of the sacrament that it be made in an upper chamber, in the evening, reclin- ing according to the ancient practice at an ordinary meal, or that there be just twelve to partake at a time. These are but accidental circumstances, and in no manner affect the essence of the sacrament. But it is necessary to the right and proper per- formance of this commemorative sacrament, that its spirit and design be maintained. Now its design evidently is, to perpetuate in the minds of men the sacrificial death of Christ upon the cross, by means of those sensible symbols of bread and wine which he did himself select, as the typical representations of his broken body and shed blood. It seems, therefore, necessary to the right observance of this sacrament, that the suitable matter, or material be employed, that there be something present which will answer to what was used by the Lord at its institution, and shall fitly point out the thing to be signified. And as this something derives its fit- ness and significance from the will of the institutor alone, it is evident that the emblems chosen and employed by him, are the only things that can be fitly employed by us. And as no human authority can substitute anything essentially different from what Christ used, so also it can neither increase nor diminish their number. I conclude, hence, that they who do not receive the essential matter of this sacrament as instituted by our Lord, and designed by him to be observed and perpetuated, do not re- HALF-COMMUNION. 267 ceive a full and proper sacrament. Such is the condition of the whole Romish laity. They do not receive the Eucharist properly and fully, and therefore, do they fail to show forth the bloody pas- sion of him who shed his blood for our redemption and salvation. The views of Dr. Adam Clarke are so forcible and pertinent to this point, that I will close this topic with an extract from his " Discourse on the Nature and Design of the Eucharist." He observes : " With respect to the bread, he had before simply said, Take, eat, this is my body ; but concerning the cup he says, Drink ye all of this ; for as this pointed out the very essence of the institution, namely, the blood of atonement, it was necessary that each should have a particular application of it ; therefore he says, Drink ye all of this. By this we are taught that the cup is essential to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper; so that they who deny the cup to the people, sin against God's institution ; and they who receive not the cup, are not partakers of the body and blood of Christ. If either could, without mortal prejudice, be omitted, it might be the bread ; but the cup, as pointing out the blood poured out, that is, the life, by which alone the great sacrificial act is performed, and remission of sins procured, is absolutely indispensable. On this ground it is demonstrable, that there is not a Popish priest under heaven who denies the cup to the people (and they all do this) that can be said to celebrate the Lord's Supper at all ; nor is there one of their vota- ries that ever received the holy sacrament ! All pretension to this is an absolute farce, so long as the cup, the emblem of the atoning blood, is denied. How strange it is that the very men who plead so much for the bare literal meaning of, This is my body, in the preceding verse, should deny all mean- ing to, Drink ye all of this cup, in this verse ! And 268 ON THE EUCHARIST. though Christ has in the most positive manner en- joined it, they will not permit one of the laity to taste it ! what a thing is man ! a constant con- tradiction to reason and to himself. The conclu- sion, therefore, is unavoidable. The sacrament of the Lord's Supper is not celebrated in the Church of Kome. Should not this be made known to the miserable deluded Catholics over the face of the earth?" Yours, with a whole Christianity, E. 0. P. LETTEE XV. SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. Dear Brother: — Closely allied to transubstan- tiation, is the modern doctrine of the sacrifice of the Mass, which you tell me was taught by the Fathers. For this piece of inform ation, I presume you are indebted more to the doctors of your church, than to the ancient Fathers. For you seem to content yourself with the bare affirmation, without even an attempt at proof. In reply I might simply repeat the words of the learned Chamiere, that " neither the name nor the thing was known for the first three hundred years." But you might justly accuse me of a want of Christian courtesy and moral courage, were I to adopt, without proof, a proposi- tion, at once so general and opposed to the opinions and practice of your church. I shall, therefore, add some considerations to those already suggested in a former communication on the Sacrifice of the Mass. [pp. 101-105.] In order, however, to have the doctrine in question more fully before our mind, we may premise the canons of the Council of Trent on this subject, which, together with the citations made before, [p. 100, et seq.~\ will afford a view of the doctrine sufficiently comprehensive for our present purpose. Canon 1. If any one shall say, that a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God in the Mass; or that what is offered is no other than giving us Christ to eat ; let him be anathema. Canon 2. If any one shall say that by these words, "Do this for a commemoration of me," 23* 270 ON THE EUCHARIST. Christ did not appoint his Apostles priests, or did not ordain that they and other priests should offer his body and blood ; let him be anathema. Canon 3. If any one shall say that the sacrifice of the Mass is one of praise and thanksgiving only, or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice made on the cross, but not propitiatory, or that it is profit- able to him only who takes it, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punish- ments, satisfactions, and other necessities ; let him be anathema. Canon 4. If any one shall say, that the most holy sacrifice of Christ, made on the cross, is blasphemed by the sacrifice of the Mass ; or that the latter dero- gates from the glory of the former; let him be anathema. Canon 5. If any one shall say, that to celebrate Masses in honor of the saints, and in order to ob- tain their intercession with God, as the church intends, is an imposture ; let him be anathema. Canon 6. If any one shall say, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and ought therefore to be abolished ; let him be anathema. Canon 7. If any one shall say, that the cere- monies, vestments and external signs which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of masses, are incitements to impiety more than helps to reli- gion ; let him be anathema. Canon 8. If any one shall say, that the masses in which the priest alone communicates sacrament- ally are unlawful and ought therefore to be abol- ished; let him be anathema. Canon 9. If any one shall say, that the rite of the Roman Church, by which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are uttered with a low voice is to be condemned; or that mass ought to be celebrated in the common tongue only ; or that water is not to be mixed with the wine in SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 271 offering the cup, because it is contrary to Christ's institution; let him be anathema. 1 Such is the doctrine you are required to believe or submit to the manifold curse of a Holy Mother." Was it a doctrine of the early Church of Christ ? I do not deny that the ancient writers often speak of the Eucharist as a sacrifice; and indeed, we Protestants agree with the Fathers in denominat- 1 Canon 1. Si quis dixerit, in missa non offerri Deo verura et proprium sacrificium, aut quod offerri non sit aliud, quam nobis Christum ad manducandum dari; anathema sit. Canon 2. Si quis dixerit, illis verbis, Hoc facite in meam commemorationem, Christum non instituisse apostolos sacer- dotes; aut non ordinasse, ut ipsi, aliique sacerdotes offerrent corpus et sanguinem suum; anathema sit. Canon 3. Si quis dixerit, missse sacrificium tantum esse landis et gratiarum actionis, aut nudam commemorationem sacrificii in cruce peracti non autem propitiatorium; vel soli prodesse sumenti ; neque pro vivis et defunctis, pro peccatis, poenis, satisfactionibus et aliis necessitatibus offerri debere; anathema sit. Canon 4. Si quis dixerit, blasphemiam irrogari sanctissi- mo Christi sacrificio in cruce peracto, per missse sacrificium, aut illi per hoc derogari; anathema sit. Canon 5. Si quis dixerit, imposturam esse, missas cele- brare in honorem sanctorum, et pro illorum intercessione apud Deum obtinenda, sicut ecclesia intendit; anathema sit. Canon 6. Si quis dixerit, canonem missa3 errores continere, ideoque abrogandum ; anathema sit. Canon 7. Si quis dixerit, ceremonias, vestes et externa signa, quibus in missarum celebratione Ecclesia Catholica utitur irritabula esse magis, quam officia pietatis; anathema sit. Canon 8. Si quis dixerit, missas in quibus solus sacerdos sacramentaliter communicat, illicitas esse ideoque abrogan- das; anathema sit. Canon 9. Si quis dixerit, Ecclesise Romanse ritum, quo summissa voce pars canonis et verba consecrationis proferun- tur, damnandum esse; aut lingua tantum vulgari missam celebrari debere: aut aquam non miscendam esse vino in calice offerendo, eo quod sit contra Christi institutionem; anathema sit. Concil Trident. Sess. xxii dc Sacrificio Missae. 272 ON THE EUCHARIST. ing this sacrament a sacrifice ; for the term sacri- fice and oblation is used, as well in Scripture as in antiquity, in a general and improper or metaphori- cal sense. In this manner it is applied to the in- ternal emotions of the mind, such as penitence and sorrow for sin. " The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart, God thou wilt not despise." (Ps. li: 17.) Also the more ex- ternal expressions of worship are designated in a like manner. " We render unto the Lord the calves of our lips," (Hos. xiv: 2,) and "offer unto God thanks- giving;" (Ps. 1: 14,) which the Apostle more fully expresses when he exhorts to "offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to his name." (Heb. xiii: 15.) Here the metaphor is kept up by a variety of phrase- ology ; and, in the next verse, it is applied to works of mercy and charity towards others. " But to do good and to communicate forget not, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased."' Elsewhere he calls the charity of the Philippians " an odor of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God." (Phil, iv: 15.) He also calls their faith in Christ a sacrifice and service, Xeirovpyicc, (Ch. ii: 17,) which latter term your advocates of mass-worship would have to signify sacrifice as they use the word. But this term gives them no support, for the Apostle makes the preacher of the gospel a Xsirovpyov, and the conversion of the Gentiles an offering acceptable to God. (Rom. xv : 16.) And a little after he tells the converted Romans that they ought to minister \stTovpyn Apim bovem adoratis et pascitis. Minut. Octav. p. 94. J Theodorei, in Quaest. in Gen. 316 ON THE EUCHARIST. same thing they so bitterly condemned in others, and which they accounted for only, by a reference to the great stupidity of the heathen. Had the ancient church worshiped the Eucharist, the Christian apologists never could have ridiculed the idols of the heathen, as being the work of the carver, or the painter, or as being such gods as were baked in the furnace of a potter ;* or as being gods of brass and silver. 2 Nor could they have in- dulged their cutting satire against their impotent and senseless deities, because they were liable to be stolen by thieves. K "How much more correctly," says Minutius, "do mute animals naturally judge of your gods, such as mice, swallows, amLeranes ; they know that they are senseless, they gnaw them, light upon them and sit; and unless you drive them away they build their nests in the very mouth of your god, and the spiders weave their web upon his face." L Had those Christians been believers of a real bodily presence, and worshipers of the Eu- charist, they never could have employed such bitter invectives against the gods of the heathen, without having their own argument retorted upon them- selves to their entire confusion. And this brings us to another consideration. The ancient enemies of Christianity never slan- dered the doctrine of the Eucharist, nor accused the Christians of worshiping this sacrament, which they most certainly would have done, had the an- cients believed and practised as Romanists now do. For "it is well known that the adversaries of Chris- tianity took all possible occasions to reproach the faith and worship of Christians, and make their names odious. Nothing that looked strange and 1 Amobius, contra Gentes, lib. vi. 2 Minut, Octav. p. 74. K Lactant. Institut. lib. ii, c. 4. L Minut. p. 75. SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 31 7 absurd in either, escaped the notice of such men as Celsus and Porphyry, Lacian and Julian, among the heathen, and Trypho among the Jews. They curiously examined and surveyed what they taught and practiced, and whatever they thought to be foolish and incredible, they with all their wit and cunning, endeavored to expose it. So they did with the doctrines of the Trinity, the eternal generation of the Son of God, his incarnation, his crucifixion especially, and our resurrection. Neither were they less prying into the Christian mysteries and worship, which they could not be ignorant of, there being so many deserters and apostates in those times of persecution, who were well acquainted with them ; and by threatening and fears of torment, if there were any secret things, were likely to betray them ; thus Julian the Apos- tate, who had been initiated into the- Christian mysteries, laughed in particular of their baptism, that Christians should fancy a purgation thereby from great sins." To the reproofs of the Christians they did indeed object the worship of Christ, as homage paid to a finite creature. " If Christians," said Celsus, "should worship no other except one God, they would perhaps have a valid reason against others. But now they wor- ship this man [Christ] who has lately appeared ; and nevertheless, they think they commit no offence against God, although his servant is worshiped." 1 Most certainly this learned and bitter enemy of Christianity would have objected against the Chris- tians, the worship of the Eucharist, had they prac- tised it, as an offset to their own idol worship. That neither he nor any other ancient infidel did so, is to be accounted for only from the presump- 1 Origen, contra Celsum, lib. viii. 21* 318 ON THE EUCHARIST. tion, that neither the doctrine of transubstantia- tion, nor the worship of the host, was known in the Church of God in the early ages. Indeed, soon after the Church of Koine set up this kind of wor- ship, we find Averroes the Arabian philosopher, in the thirteenth century, giving this character of the Christians: "That he had found no sect worse or more foolish than the Christian. Because they divide and devour with their teeth the God which they worship." 1 A later historian and traveler re- lates, that it was a common reproach with the Turks and Mahomedans, to call Christians, God- eaters. 2 And in a hook printed at Amsterdam, A. D. 1662, among other questions, this is put to the Christians ; "If the Host be a God, why does it corrupt and grow covered with mould? And why is it gnawed by mice?" 3 But why was not this kind of taunt always cast into the face of Chris- tians ? Was Averroes more sagacious than Celsus, Julian, or Lucian, that the former should account this a most foolish thing, but the latter never say one word about it. Believe it who can — I never. 4. From several considerations we may further learn, that the early church did not worship the Eucharist. The Fathers frequently teach that none but God is to be invoked in prayer or wor- shiped; 4 but they never speak of the Eucharist' as being an object of invocation, or as being God, we 1 Nullam se sectam Christiana deteriorem ant ineptiorem reperire. Quern colnnt Deum, dentibus ipsi suis discerpunt ac devorant. Apud Dionys. Carthus. in-dist. 4. 2 Bullaeus Gultius in Itiner. 3 Si Hostia Deus est cur situ obducta corrumpitur ? Cur S gliribus et muribus corroditur ? Lib. Quaest. et Respons. 4 Vide Justin Martyr. Apol. i. Tertul. ad Scapulam c. 2. Origen, contr. Celsum, lib. v, et lib. viii. Cyprian ad Fortunat. Athanas. Orat. iii, cont. Arianos ; et alios ubique. WORSHIP OF THE SACRAMENT. 319 therefore legitimately infer, that this sacrament was neither invoked nor adored by them. Augustine tells us, that Christians adore an in- visible God. "But now, brethren, we see not with our eyes him whom we adore, and yet we rightly adore. Much more is God commended to us as a being of power, because we see him not with our eyes. If we should see him with our eyes, perhaps we should despise him; for the Jews despised Christ seen ; the Gentiles have adored him not seen." 1 Evidently the object of worship with Au- gustine was an invisible God ; but not the visible bread and wine of the Eucharist. In commenting upon the work written by one against Origen's doctrine, that the Holy Ghost does not operate upon things inanimate, Jerome admired the profit the churches would derive from the work; "that they who are ignorant, being in- structed by the testimony of Scripture, may learn with what veneration they ought to receive holy things, and perform the service of the altar ; and that the holy cups and holy veils and other things that pertain to the worship of the Lord's passion, have not a sanctity such as things inanimate and wanting of sense, but from their fellowship with the body and blood of the Lord, are to be venerated with the same majesty with which his body and blood are venerated," 2 so that, if the holy cups and 1 Modd autem fratres, non videmus oculis quern adoramus, et tamen correcti adoramus. Multo magis nobis Deus com- mend atur potentior, quia- eum non oculis videmus. Si eum oculis videremus forte contemneremus. Nam et Christum Iudsei visum contempserunt, non visum gentes adoraverunt. Aug. Enar. in Psal. xlvi. 2 Ut discant qui ignorant eruditi testimoniis Scripturarum, qua, debeant veneratione sancta suscipere et altaris servitio deservire; sacrosque calices et sancta velamina, et castera quoe ad cultum pertinent Dominica? Passionis, non quasi in- anima et sensu carentia sanctimoniam n.on habere, sed ex con- 320 ON THE EUCHARIST. veils and other furniture are to be worshiped as God, then are the eucharistic elements also, but not without, Jerome being the judge. And the seventh Council of Constantinople declared that "Christ commanded to offer as his image a choice material, the substance of bread, not to make the form of a man ; in order that idolatry might not be intro- duced." M If it would be idolatry to worship the image of Christ in the Eucharist or elsewhere, were it in the shape of a man, it cannot be less idolatry to worship that image in "the substance of bread," not having the form of man. IV. Several passages have been cited from the Fathers, with a view to prove the practice of ador- ing the sacrament in their time; but they only prove, that they approached and received the Eu- charist with humility, and reverence, like humble worshipers, sorrowing for their sins, and loving and honoring the Saviour. In his laudatory oration, upon his sister Gorgo- nia, Gregory Nazianzen tells, that she being affected with disease, and ee rejecting all other remedies, fled to the physician of all ; and observing the mid- night hour, when her disease remitted a little, she cast herself before the altar, with faith, calling upon him who was honored upon it with loud cry and with all epithets, and reminding him of all those mighty deeds before wrought, (for she was wise in things both old and new,) she committed a certain unbecoming, yet pious and excellent act. She imitated the woman whose flow of blood was dried up by touching the hem of Christ's garment; she put her head upon the altar, with equal cries and tears, as one of old washed the feet of Christ, sortio corporis et sanguinis Domini, eadem corpus ejus et sanguis majestate veneranda. Hieron. Ep. ad Theoph. Alex. M Concil. Constanti. vii, act 6. WORSHIP OF THE SACRAMENT. 321 she threatened not to desist before she obtained a cure ; then mingling with her tears, marvellous ! Whatever of the antitypes of the precious body or blood her hand had treasured up, and anointing her whole body with this medicine of her own mak- ing, she immediately received a cure and departed." 1 So quick and marvellous was the reputed cure of Gorgonia, by means of a eucharistic poultice, of a singular disease, as it seemed to the medical men of that age, whose skill had been employed to no effectual purpose; and for whose cure, the tears of her parents, and public prayers and supplications, had been unavailingly poured out. By the host worshiper, Gorgonia is supposed to have worshiped the Saviour under the form of the eucharistic ele- ments, as it is said that she "called upon him who was honored upon the altar." But it is one thing to invoke the Eucharist as God, and another to call upon him who is honored by the celebration of this sacrament. The former is no less than idolatry, the latter, which is here mentioned, is a commend- able and Christian act. There is not, in the whole passage, the remotest intimation, that the Eucha- rist was invoked by Gorgonia. On the contrary, the asserted fact of her taking the sacramental em- blems which she herself had reserved for private use, mixing them with her tears, and applying the same as a medicine to her body, is wholly inconsist- ent with the belief of a real corporeal presence. When we find Chrysostom saying, " Thou seest him upon the altar," N we are to understand him as speaking figuratively, as does Ambrose when he says, that "Stephen being upon earth touched Christ in heaven." And when we meet with such 1 Greg. Naz. Orat. xi, in laudem sororis Gorgonise. NInlEp. Cor. x. °Ambros. Serm. lvi. 322 ON THE EUCHABIST. an expression as this, "that Christ is worshiped upon the altar, 7 ' 1 we are not to understand it as meaning that the Eucharist was worshiped there, but simply that Christ was worshiped in this sacra- mental act of devotion. Jerome tells us of some " Christians who went to Jerusalem, that they might adore Christ in those places in which the Gospel first shone from the cross." p He "worshiped him in the grave, and Paula worshiped him in the stall." 2 With equal propriety may we be said to worship him upon the altar., or in the sacraments, without adoring any visible representation there employed. The Fathers do indeed speak of coming to the sacraments in the manner of suppliants and wor- shipers^ for the purpose of honoring and adoring the Son of God, and offering him a lowly and sub- missive heart, but not for worshiping the elements used, for they believed them to be, not the real body and blood, but the symbolical body and blood of Christ. It is true, however, without doubt, that some of the ancients considered the human body of Christ to be an object of adoration, on account of its union with his divine nature. Augustine found some dif- ficulty in his Latin version of David's words, "Adore his footstool;" (Ps. xcix: 5,) and he endeavored to reconcile this with the command to worship and serve God alone. He says : " I inquire what is his footstool ; and the Scripture tells me, The earth is my footstool. (Isa. lxvi: 1.) In doubt I turn to Christ, because I seek him here ; and I find how 1 Chrysost. Horn, xxiv, in I Cor. p Ep. ad Marcel. 2 Idem, ad Paul, et Eustoch. Q Ohrys. Horn, vii, in Matt. Vide et Cyril, Hierosol. Catecli. Mystag. v. WORSHIP OF THE SACRAMENT. 323 without impiety, the earth is adored, without im- piety his footstool is adored. For he took earth from the earth ; because flesh is from the earth, and from the flesh of Mary he took flesh. And since he walked about in this flesh, and has given us this flesh to be eaten for our salvation ; but no one eats this flesh unless he has" first adored [it] ; it is found how such a footstool of the Lord is adored, and not only do we not sin by adoring, but we sin by not adoring." 1 Referring to the sixth of John he goes on to speak of the unprofitableness of a carnal mandu- cation; the foolishness of those who understood Christ to speak literally in this chapter ; represents our Saviour as saying to them, that they should not eat his visible body, nor drink that blood which was soon to be shed by the spear of the soldiers ; and as concluding by exhorting to a spiritual un- derstanding of his words, and affirming, that although this sacrament is to be visibly celebrated, it must be understood invisibly. 2 That the worship of the Eucharist is not taught by St. Augustine in this passage, I gather from the following considera. tions: 1, The flesh of Christ to be adored, is that which was born of the Virgin. But our author 1 Qusero quod sit scabellum pedum ejus ; et dicitmihi Scrip- tures : Terra scabellum pedum meorurn. Fluctuans converto me ad Christum, quia ipsum qusero hie; et invenio quomodo sine impietate adoretur terra, sine impietate adoretur scabellum pedum ejus. Suscepit enim de terra terram ; quia caro de terra est, et de came Marioe carnem accepit. Et quia in ipsa carne hie ambulavit, et ipsam carnem nobis manducandam ad salutem dedit; nemo autem illam carmen manducat, nisi prius adoraverit; inventum est quemadmodum adoretur tale sca- bellum pedum Domini, et non solum non peccemus adorando, sed peccemus non adorando. Aug. Enaratio in Psal. xcviii, §9. 2 See the closing part of this paragraph quoted above, p. 49. 324 ON THE EUCHAKIST. elsewhere teaches that Christ, "according to his bodily presence is now above the heavens at the right hand of the Father/'" 1 and therefore not upon earth in the sacrament. 2, He condemns the car- nal apprehension of Christ's words by those who were offended and receded from him, and teaches a spiritual and invisible participation of his flesh and blood in the Eucharist. 3, He affirms that "no one eats this flesh unless he has first adored [it,]" which would be untrue if he intended, in the Romish sense, the real flesh of Christ in the Eucha- rist ; for many ungodly persons, rejecters of Christ's divinity, and infidels, who worship not the flesh of the Lord in any proper sense, have always partici- pated of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The meaning, therefore, of St. Augustine evidently is, that no one eats the flesh of Christ spiritually in the Eucharist, unless he be a true believer, and has worshiped that Saviour who was born of the Virgin. More than the words of St. Augustine does the language of Theodoeet seem, at first sight, to favor the worship of the Eucharist, where he says: "The mystic symbols are understood to be what they are made, and are believed and venerated as being those things which they are believed to be." 2 The word we here render by the term venerate is the same as that which is commonly translated by the word adore. That this author does here mean ven- eration and not worship or adoration, in our accepta- tion of the term, is plain from the. fact, that he did not believe the bread and wine to pass out of their former and proper substance, as the connection ex- pressly declares. He means, therefore, that the elements are understood to be the sacramental 1 Idem, Serm. cxx, de Diversis. See also above, p. 220. 2 Theodoret, Dial. ii. WORSHIP OF THE SACRAMENT. 325 body and blood which they are made by consecra- tion, and are reverenced as such. 2. The Greek irpotfxyvijtfis and its corresponding Latin adoratio do not, when applied to creatures signify, among the ancient writers, that highest degree of religious worship which is now affirmed to belong to the Eucharist. "It is one thing to adore, and another to serve," [*. e. worship supremely,] says Origen; "For he who serves idols with his whole soul, not only adores, but he also worships them. And he who acts hypocritically because of the heathen, does not worship, although he adores them." R Again he says: "The abjurers of Christianity, at or before the tribunal, do not indeed worship, but they adore idols, taking the name of the Lord God in a vain and lifeless matter. And thus the people, who were denied with the daughters of Moab, adored their idols, but did not worship them ; therefore it is written in these words, that they called them to the sacrifices of their idols, and the people ate of their sacrifices, and they adored their idols, and Is- rael was initiated to Baalpeor. Observe, it is not said, And they worshiped their idols, for it was not possible, after such signs and wonders, that, in one moment of time, they would be persuaded by the women with whom they committed whoredom to think their idols were gods." s Also Cyril of Alexandria makes "adoration, as it were, the gate and way unto acts of worship, being the beginning of the service of God." T From which we may infer that the ancients did not generally use the term wpor\ (xovov to (poavof*,evov ecWet xut to ctopxrov ccvtov tfia-TSvcr- avreZ fjcothaa-tv, ori xtx>\ et Xeyei, ovx so-ti c-apxixct, ccKkot 7T]/Sv^xtixx, TLotfottf yoco v\px,Z\ ro crupet tfpog /3pwo"iv, net, 360 APPENDIX. xcci rov y,ocr^ov 7rocVTor rovro rpo(p7) ysvr\roc( ; AXX« diu reuro rye, Sig ovpuvovg ccvcc[3aaeu ^cfoatfiv a yap XsXesX?))c«, ' ctXX' Sv. LETTER IV. A Qv% r /]O0[AU\ rpocpy) cp§opcc5, ovds r^Sovoti^- rov (3iov rovrov etprov rov Qeov SeXw otprev ovpaviov, ciprov Zwr\Z o effrt Xoti °"«^*« 'opeyes xxi aifxa exyzei xxi ovdsv sir oty|-/)3*/v to/£ ttcsk^ojs' e v(5f i • oj rot» 7rxpxdo£ov fiv&Typiovl A7ro^v(fxT^!eti v\\y,tv j rpopyj twv vtjtjwv 6 Kup»o£. Tlvsv^ix xxi Ao^os-* tj Tpocfrj, tovso-ti Kvpiog Iyjg-ovG, tqvSo-tiv 6 Aoyogrov ©fof, Uvev^x )g xupjaxrjj fxSTaXa/3£«v 'a^^aptfjaj. APPENDIX. 363 M 'E» tj'vuv to fxsv yaXa, ffo£; x. t. A 'O SaJT^p (prjtf/v ST&> Sifc» 6 ap-tog © sx tou ot/pavou xtrafSag. Toutov ouv t«v apTov ^cSiov fxsv Trpo-repov ayysXoi, vuvi (5e xai avSpojTToi. To stf^isiv Svray^a to y»vojo*Xsiv tf^jxafvei* tooto yap Stf^iSi voug o OSyivadxit, xai touto ovx scT^is* o 6u ywatfxzt. p Ergo de litera quidem egredimur legis ; infra virtutem autem s]3iritalem legem constitui, spiritaliter celebrantes im- plemus omnia quae illic corporaliter celebranda mandantur. Expellimus enim vetus fermentum malitise et nequitiae, et in azymis sinceritatis et veritatis celebramus pascha, Christo nobiscum caepulante secundum voluntatem agni dicentis: Nisi manducaveritis carnem meam, et biberitis sanguinem meum, non habebitis vitam manentem in vobis. Q In occultis enim et in azymis invisibilibus epulantur sin- ceritatis et veritatis: manducant etiam pascha immolatum Christum pro nobis, qui dixit; Nisi manducaveritis carnem meam, non habebitis vitam manentem in vobis. Et per hoc quod bibunt sanguinem ejus verum potum, un- gunt superliminaria domorum animae suae, quserentes, non sicut illi, ab hominibus gloriam, sed a Deo occulta videnti. R . . . . Jesus ergo quia totus ex toto mundus est, tota ejus caro cibus est, et totus sanguis ejus potus est; quia omne opus ejus sanctum est, et omnis sermo ejus verus est. Prop- terea ergo et caro ejus verus est cibus, et sanguis ejus verus est potus. Carnibus enim et sanguine verbi sui tanquam mun- do cibo ac potu, potat et reficit omne hominum genus. s . . . . Est enim et in Evangeliis litera quae occidit, non solum in veteri Testamento occidens litera deprehenditur. Est et in novo Testamento litera, quae occidat eum, qui non spiritaliter quae dicuntur advertit. Si enim secundum literam sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum est: Nisi manducaveritis 364 APPENDIX. carnem meam, et biberitis sanguinem meum, occidit hsec lit- era. T . . . . Airodsiwvixev en oux av TotfouTov avarjTo/ rjtfav 61 axeuov«T££, (*>% wxo'ka^jSttMSiv on ^poxaXs/raj 6 Aeywv tou£ axpo- o.(Jts aura S/vai ? &*)£, Ilvet/fca yetp ^cifOTOiovv rj o*ap| £c*t/ Toy Kt/p/ot/. x . . . . E*f /vo/ fA>j axqKOoeg tfvevfixrixas tuv \syopcS\ietv xapi0rr]Sei(J'av Tpotpirjv, eg rjs a<(xa xai tfapxeg xara (xsrcc/ooXigv Tpstpovrai -i^fxojv, sxsivou ? T*jg tfapxos •yj/xwv virodTOLdtg. y Cum gratias egisset, tenens calicem, et bibisset ab eo, et dedisset discipulis, dicebat eis. Bibite ex eo omnes. ° . . . . Sic enim Deus in Evangelio quoque vestro revela- vit panem corpus suum appellans, ut et hinc jam eum intelli- ga9 corporis sui figuram pani dedisse cujus retro corpus in panem Prophetes figuravit, ipso Domino hoc sacramentum postea interpretaturo. p Sedille quidem usque nunc nee aquam reprobavit Crea- toris, qua suos abluit, nee oleum, quo suos unguit, nee mellis et lactis societatem, qua suos infantat nee panem quo ipsum corpus suum reprsesentat; etiam in sacramentis propriis egens mendicitatibus Creatoris. Q Acceptum panem, et distributum discipulis, corpus ilium suum fecit, hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est, figura corpo- ris mei. Figura autem non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset cor- pus. Ceterum, vacua res, quod est phantasma figuram capere non posset. Aut si propterea panem corpus sibi finxit, quia corporis carebat veritate: ergo panem debuit tradere pro nobis. Fa- ciebat ad vanitatem Marcionis, ut panis crucifigeretnr .... Itaque illuminator antiquitatum, quid tunc voluerit signifi- casse panem, satis declaravit, corpus suum vocans panem. Sic et in calicis mentione testamentum constituens sanguine 370 . APPENDIX. suo obsignatum, substantiam corporis confirmavit. Kullins enim corporis sanguis potest esse, nisi earn is. Nam et si qua corporis qualitas non carnea opponetur nobis, certe sangui- nem nisi carnea non habebit. Ita consistit j)robatio corporis de testimonio carnis; probatio carnis de testimonio sangui- nis. R Proinde panis et calicis sacramento jam in Evangelio probaviraus corporis, et sanguinis dominici veritatem, adver- sus phantasma Marcionis. s Marcion phantasma enm maluit credere, totius corporis in illo dedignatus veritatem. T Aittov 6s to ai,aa tov Kupioa" to fjisv yap stfTiv auTou dap- xixov Cj Trjg (pSopag XsXvrpu/^s^a' to de <7rvsufjt,aTixov, TeuetfTiv u xs^pitffXsSce. Kai tout' effTi ineiv to awjxa Toy Irjo-oy Tr\g xupiax7]g /xsTaXa/3siv oKp^ctpGias' iffyys Ss Toy Aoyou to tfvsufxa, wg cci^a Gxp'tog. AvaXoywg tivuv xipvaTai 6 jxsv oivog, tw u<5aTi* tw 8s av^pwrw, to crveufxa* xai to fxsv, gig <7rio J Tiv cuw^sj, to xpa.^ec* to 5c, sig a(p$apo"iav o<5v)ysi, to itvtv^o.* r\ Ss a/xpoiv au^ig xpatfig, iroTov ts xa» Aoyou, E y^apioVia xexkyTai, X a P'? saraivoufASv?) xai xaX?)* ^g oi xotTa critfTiv (A5T«eXafA/3avovT£g, ayia^ovTai xai tfwjxa xai -v^u^v to Ssiov xpafxa, tov av^pwrov, tou iraTptxov /SouX^a- Tog ^-vsu/tcaTi x#i Aoyw tfuyxipvouvTog /xytfTixwg. u . . . . Eu yap KjtS, |XSTsXa/3sv oivou xai etvTog, xai yap avSpwirog xai anTog. K-ai suXoyyjtfSv ys tov oivev, sittwv, Aa/3eTS, •ffiSTs* Toyro fj-ou sariv to aijxa, aifjta TV]g afj/jreXou. Tov Xoyov, tov crspi flfoXXwv cx^sojxsvov Sig apstfiv afJiapriwv, suppotfuvrjg ayiov «XXr/yopsi vafxet. K ^ T»/xoSsw u^po'jroTouvrj, &a c-TOfxa^ov tfou, pyja'iv 6 AffotfToXoff. X E»#\ wj ouroi paa'jv atfapxoj «ai ava<|xo£ ^v <7roias tfapxoc:, ^ tivo£ tfw/xaro?, ^ tojou ajjxaros sixova? ($»<5ou£, aprov ts xai tfoTT}- p»ov, svtsXXsto roi£ (xa^Tjrai^, &cx toutwv ttjv eeva|M/jjjxa 6ia. Xoyou ©SOU XOLl SVT5f£cW£, XtXT OLVTO (XSV TO t/XjXOV St£ T7]V XOlXjav ^Wp£l, xai s»g etysdpava. 5«/3aXXerar xcwa <5s ttjv £iriysvo[XSvriv olvtm su^jjv, x«t« tjjv avaXoyiav tjjj criflVswcr, wpsw£, opwvToj stti to cocpsXouv x#j oi% '/j uX»; tow aprov, aXK 6 sw' atiru s»pj?^svog Xoj/og go-T»v 6 »(psXwv tov fA'O avJifyus tou Kwpjov S0-S»ovTa otyTov. Kai ravra ^Sv itsot to*/ Tycrtxou, xai tfujx/BoXixoy tfoj^aroj. a . . . . Nam cum dicat Christus : Ego sum vitis vera ; san- guis Christi, non aqua est utique, sed vinum. Nee potest videri sanguis ejus, quo redempti et vivificati sumus, esse in calice, quando vinum desit calici, quo Christi sanguis ostenditur. .... Nam quis magis secerdos Dei summi, quam Domi- nus noster Iesus Christus? qui sacrificium Deo patri obtulit, et obtulit hoc idem quod Melchisedech obtulerat, id est, pa- nem et vinum, suum scilicit corpus et sanguinem Cse- terum omnis religionis et veritatis disciplina subvertitur, nisi id quod spiritaliter prsecipitur, et fideliter reservetur, nisi si in sacrificiis matutinis hoc quis veretur ne per saporem vini redoleat sanguinem Christi. LETTER VIII. A Ta Cu(x/3oXa Trig evSsou ojxovojxhxs tois aurou Traps6i6ou jxa&rj- rang Trjy sixova tou »5iou tfWfAttTog tfojSitfSai tfapaxtXst/ojxsvos. 372 APPENDIX. b Toutou §y\Tct tod &ujxaro£ ixuTog au-rou xai y\Ka(pr\rif\v ouoVxv S^cjv xou a-^r/Xouprjrov avsxr)pv|s .... AXX ovdiig av eiTSjv dvvura.1 vow £^wv ug r\ avrr\ (pvffig -^TjXoKpyjTou xa» a-^rjXa- (prjTOf, xai oparou xa» aoparou. Outoj xai to irupa tojv tjCtwv Xa(x/3avofA£vov tfw/xa XpjtfTov, xai <5wp xai to s|e ^xi£ofjosvov xai to [3aifrt(fu.a yivofASvov, ou jxovov p^wpsj to p^sipov, aXXa xai ayiatf/xov rfpog (XuCTaywyouf/.svoug (JtrSaffxoasv. Ou(5si£ yap t&jv ajxuijTwv Xsysiv 376 APPENDIX. ToX/xa, Tla.TSp ^fjt-wv 6 ev toi£ oupavoi£, (xn^w (5f|af/.£vo£ r^ i/ioSstfjag to ^apia^a. 'O (5s rrj? tou [3 atria pur og tstu^xws <5wpsag crarspa xaXsi tov ©sov. M . . . . Ov5s yap Svvarov xaX£rfa» liccrzpa tov ©gov, jxrj tfavTojv £xs»vwv StfJTu^ovTa twv ayaSwv. N On yap tfKfroig aurrj rj fl-potfeu^yj tfpotfrjxsi, xai o« vojxoj ttjj 'Exxkyariag 8t8a(fxov(ft f xat to crpooifAiov ](pSai tou <7ro($7jpo&£ tou a^»spsw£ o J jav. ovx sri XP Sia TWV ^jx/Jo- Xwv tou Cw/xaro^, au]g xaiv^^ o«a&*]X»]s, aX^Saa $e *j tojv (xsXXovrwv xariff-Tao'ij. T Quod cum per manus hominum ad illam speciem perdu- citur, etc. u .... Si speciem visibilem intendas, aliud est, si intell- igibilem signiricationem, eundem potum spiritualem bibe- runt. v Recte etiam vini specie turn sanguis ejus exprimitur. w In ilium in quo fides non est prseter visibiles species pa- nis et vini, nihil de sacrificio pervenit. x Corporis et sanguinis sui sacramenta panis et vini sub- stantia discipulis tradidit Nihil ergo congruentius his speciebus ad significandam capitis et membrorum unitatem, potuit inveniri. Y Non potest intelligi aqua sine humectatione, neque ignis sine calore, neque lapis sine duritia. Unita enim sunt invi- cem hasc ; alterum in altero sej3arari non potest, sed semper coexistere. APPENDIX. 379 z natia. yap tfoioT?]? sv outfia sj (pucig oy Trapads^srai ttjv (Wxc»]3'7j Suva&at; oudapus. i . . . . asi yap flrapa<7r?(puxs Ta»£ rojauraig outfioug ra s£ auTwv Tixrofxsva. k Ubique totum praesentem esse non dubites tanquam Deum, et in eodem Temj>lo Dei esse tanquam inhabitantem Deum, et in loco aliquo coeli, propter veri corporis modum. 1 Sursum est Dominus, sed etiam hie est Veritas Dominus. Corpus enim Domini in quo resurrexit, in loco esse oportet, Veritas ejus ubique diffusa est. m Secundum prsesentiam corporalem simul et in sole, et in luna, et in cruce esse non posset. n 2w^a 8s ofAwg S0T» tyjv irporspuv s^wv £. c Accepit in manus quod norunt fideles, et ipse se portabat quodammodo, cum diceret, hoc est corpus meum. D Secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est: sacramentum sanguinis Christi, sanguis Christi est. E Christus quodummodo ferebatnr in manibus suis. F Si sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum non haberent quarum sacramenta sunt, omnino sacramenta non essent Ex hac autem similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt. G Forte dicis, speciem sanguinis non video, sed habet sim- ilitudinem. Sicut enim mortis similitudinem sumpsisti, ita etiam similitudinem pretiosi sanguinis bibis. H Panis quia confirraat corpus, ideo corpus Christi nuncu- patur; vinum autem quia sanguinem operatur in came, ideo ad sanguinem Christi refertur. 1 Avrov (fufttx, vofM^siv .... To Ss rforriptov sv recgsi eti^aTog yyyeir^eu. J T; yeep eo-r/v 6 apror , SwfAce Xp/OVow. Tt Ss yivovrat oi liSTx\afA.l3xvovrsg $ 2w^a Xpicroy. Ovy^d^ccTcA^oKKcc, ukXoc K Accepto pane deinde vini calice, corpus esse suum ac san- guinem testatus. L Cum panem consecratum et vinum discipulis suis porrig- eret Dominus, sic ait, hoc est corpus meum. M Nos audiamus panem quem fregit Dominus deditque dis- cipulis suis esse corpus Salvatoris. 382 APPENDIX. N Ebrietati sacrilegium copulantes aiunt, absit ut ego me abstineam a sanguine Christi. °Ita in sacramentorum communione se temperant, ut inter- dum tutius lateant; ore indigno corpus Christi accij>iunt, sanguinem autem redemptionis nostra? haurire omnino decli- nant. p Ipse Dorainus benedictum panem et calicem quern discip- ulis tradidit, corpus et sanguinem suum vocavit. QHoc est corpus meum ; id est, in sacramento. R Hoc panis est corpus meum. 3 Mr)5sv /Ae6T» jva touto ysvu^e^u otfep stfTi y.cc\ XeySTCLi. PNon omnis panis, sed accipiens benedictionem Christi, fit corpus Christi. q E,tfixkri. E Ilavrws yay hv sxv ecpa-^airo to Ariov Hvsw^oe, touto v\y\a- crrai xxt iiSrx^3ef3X7}rai. F Per ignem Spiritus Sancti omnia quae cogitamus, loqui- mur ac facimus, in spiritualem substantiam convertuntur. G O»ov yxp ocv r\ t*j (pvtfsi to (UU£ts^o(X£vov, srpoS' tovto uvayxr] xai ro (juerf^ov (fv^srxTi^scf^sxi. H Dico proprie loquendo, quod transubstantiatio non est mu- tatio. 1 Discant naturam posse converti, quando petra aquae fluxit, et ferrum aquae supernatavit. J Nonne claret naturam vel maritimorum fluctuum vel ilu- vialis cursus esse mutatam ? K Ei£ ^»ova {ASv/a4 W^v asro rris vvv xa.7a.tr roLfSifiig eig £(pS?], xai sv ^■oryj^jov toi£ oXoi£ ^JcvsfjUTj^rj. B E<7ti £s offou oufo (SisaV^xsv 6 ispSug tou ap^o/xsvou* o«ov oTav atfo'kaveiv 8st) twv (ppiwwv fAuflTTjpiwv o|Aoioj£ yap tfavTSf a|iou/xsSa auTwv 6u xaSaorsp sti ttjs IlaXaiag, Ta (xsv 6 ispsus rjtfSric, Ta 6s 6 ap^efxgveg, xai &efAig oux •jgv tw Xaw jxsts^sjv cZiw fASTgi- ^sv 6 ispsu£. AXX ov vuv aXXa tf-atfiv sv tfw^a jv xai rjfjwv irapadovs avj Xo^ixrj XaTpsia ; Ta <$ioo ■^ux^Si Ta & a wsv^oLTGg. x. t. X. T Kai Xoiffov acroxo^rj wtiov. g Ttjv siti tou (JYaapou u-^wtfiv, xai tov gv auTw 3-avaTov xai auTTjv T7)v avatfTatfiv. H e O $' ispsug /xsTatf^wv twv a^iatfjxaTwv, tfpog to TrXyjSog gtfjrfTpsjv sixova uXtjv sfaipSTov, Tjyouv apTou outfiav, irpotfsrags tfpotfjv, iva (xorj si5wXoXaTpsia irapsio~a;)($7]. N Opa£ sv Sufl'iao'T^piw. ° Stephanas in terris positus Christum tangit in ccelo. p Ibant Christiani Hierosolymam ut Christum in illis ado- rarent locis in quibus primum Evangelium de patibulo corus- caverat. Q 2^y][jux ixstwv xai 5/jL£ia eysvSTo, to duTo av S^eVSTO. V LIBRARY OF CONGRESS mil 021 062 887 3 I