Skip to main content

Full text of "On eucharistic worship in the English Church"

See other formats


This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 

to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 

publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 
We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 

at |http: //books .google .com/I 














" Now, touching the adoration of the Sacrament, M. Harding is not able to show 
neither any commandment of Christ, nor any word or example of the Apostles or 
ancient Fathers, concerning the same. It is a thing very lately devised by Pope 
Honorius, about the year of our Lord 1226 ; afterward increased by the now solemn 
feast of Corpus Christi Day, by Pope Urbanus, anno 1264 ; and last of all confirmed 
for ever by multitudes of pardons in the Council of Vienna by Pope Clement V., anno 
1316. The Church of Asia and Orscia never received it until this day. The matter 
is great, and cannot be attempted without great danger. To give the honour of God 
to a creature that is no God, it is manifest idolatry." — Bp. Jewel. 

*' Adorari ubique Deum, ac presertim in sacris mysteriis oportere dubium non est. 
Neque ullam esse Ecclesiam arbitror, in qua non adhlbeatur solennis qusedam ut 
gratiarum actio, ita etiam et interior et exterior adoratio quum hsec mysteria tre- 
menda, quasi in coclis potius quam in terris, celebrantur."— Beza. 

** In adoratume Sacramenti, ad limen ipsum turpiter impingit. Sacramenti ait, id 
est Christi Domini in Sacramento, miro, sed vera modoprcesentis. Apage vero. Quis 
ei hoc dederit ? Sacramenti, id est, Christi in Sa^ramerUo. Imo Christus ipse Sacra- 
menti res, in, et cum Sacramento ; extra, et sine Sacramento, ubiubi est, adorandus 
est. Kex autem Christum in Eucharistia vere prcBsentem, vere et adorandum statuit, 
rem scilicet Sacramenti ; at non Sacramentum, terrenamscUicei partem, ut Irenaeus ; 

visibileni, ut Augustinus Nee carnem manducamus, quin adoremxLS prius, cum 

Augustine. Et Sacramentum tamen nulU adoramus Fiat, quod fieri voluit 

Christus cum dixit, Hocfacite ; nihil reliquiflet, quod monstret Sacerdos, quod adoret 
populus, de pyxide."— Bp. Andbewbs. 

" I may ask auy ingenuous man whether he ever heard (I do not say our Church, 
but) any approved Doctor therein, teach, that we do, or ought to kneel before the 
Sacrament ; that hy it, or in it, we may personally worship Christ, as if He were really 
present." (Bp. Morton's Defence of the Ceremonies, p. 285, London, 1619: ''Pub- 
lished by Authority.") 


In sending forth this, the last of this series of papers 
on the Doctrine of the English Church, I have been 
influenced not so much by the solicitation of others, as 
by my own strong conviction that, notwithstanding the 
recent publication of valuable works on kindred subjects 
(to which I owe many obligations), some such manual is 
one of the great wants of our Church at this time. 

Those among us who know enough of what is passing 
in the minds of the younger generation of educated and 
serious-minded Englishmen to enter somewhat into their 
peculiar difficulties and trials, can hardly be altogether 
without a feeling of sympathy with those among them 
who speak sadly of the want of anything like fixedness 
and certainty which seems to characterise so much of the 
religious teaching of our times. 

a 3 


They tell us that they have been brought to witness a 
review of the so-called Protestantism of our day, which, 
with its tendencies to various forms of neologian 
development — unlike the Protestantism of our fathers — 
is too often willing to break with the past and strike new 
lights for the future ; and they have turned away, they 
say, in disgust from the miserable march-past of a mere 
battalion of negations — in undisciplined disorder, yielding 
little obedience to the hesitating command of that which 
is merely subjective in religion, and recognising little 
of authority in the Divine ancf Scriptural dogmas of our 
most holy faith — the unchanging faith once for all 
delivered unto the saints. 

There are many such now asking for help in inward 
conflicts ; seeking guidance in the terrible perplexities 
which surround them, as they weary in the attempt to 
work out for themselves diflScult problems of religion 
and faith. 

To such minds it is no marvel that there is found 
a speciousness in the claims of Eomish teaching : an 
attractiveness in the dogmas propounded by Eomanisers 
as CathoUc truth, which is apt to have a very blinding 
influence on the examination of controverted questions. 


We may be very thankful to be assured that such 
minds, if they seek the light of Grod's Spuit in the study 
of His word, will assuredly be brought to rest in the 
truth, and to know how that truth is able to commend 
itself to every man's conscience in the sight of God. 

Yet some effort ought assuredly to be made to set 
before them the true merits of the controversy as between 
what is truly Scriptural and primitive and catholic on 
the one side, and what belongs to the addition of human 
superstition and corruption on the other ; and that not 
with any such animus as would seem to regard everyone 

who needs to be guided out of mists and clouds, and 
doubts and diflficulties, as either something less than 
human in intelligence, or else something more than 
human in depravity. 

' Such an effort this little manual professes to be in 
one particular branch, and I ventm-e to think the most 
important branch, of the controversy. 

I must add, that I do not pretend to have entered on 
the inquiry as to the history of Eucharistic worship with 
anything like an unprejudiced mind. 

Indeed, I cannot understand how it is possible for 
anyone to do this who has been a student of God's word, 

« • w 


and has learned with deep and ever-deepening conviction 
to prize as a whole the doctrinal principles of the 
English Eeformation. 

Nevertheless, I trust I have not been so led away by- 
prejudice as wilfully to misrepresent any matter of testi- 
mony, or to distort and disguise facts which bear on the 
subject. And, sensible as I am that the work may be 
marred by my own incompetence, and not improbably 
by errors which I shall be thankful to have corrected, no 
acknowledgment of my own deficiencies must be under- 
stood as implying anything like a secret misgiving of the 
ground I have undertaken to maintain. 

I beUeve that in answer to prayer there has been, and 
there will yet be, a bringing back of some who have been 
led astray by the fascinations of novel teaching. 

And I pray earnestly that God may graciously shine 

into the hearts of all who would know His truth, and 

scatter all mists of darkness which hinder the enjoyment 

of the true light of the knowledge of the glory of God in 

the face of Jesus Christ. 


Wymynswold Vicarage, 

Near Canterbury. 


The Vision of Juliana (p. 1 sqq.), 

Suggesting for consideration three Propositions : — 

(1) The introduction of the festival of Corpus Christl did make 
such a real marked addition to the reliRion of Western Christendom, 
as might not unsuitably be symbolised by the passing away of the 
moon's eclipse. (Pp. 6—10.) 

(2) This addition was but a marked and prominent act in a course 
of progress by which accretions had previously been forming around 
the religion of earlier times, in relation to the Eucharist. (Pp. 10—18.) 

(S) This marked and crowning addition was fitting and appropriate 
to the previous accretions ; so that, if they rested on a true doctrine 
of the Eucharistic Presence, this did but complete the glory of the 
Christian Church, and of the religion of Christ. (Pp. 15—15.) 

Hence the need of distinguishing the doctrine of the 
Eucharistic Presence — 

Which wiU not warrant the previous accretions (pp. 14 — 17), 
from that which does warrant and demand such a otUttis (pp. 
17 — 19), and which implies a marvel more wonderful than the 
Incarnation (pp. 19—28) ; 

And the importance of marking clearly (p. 28 sqq,) what 
is consistent with — 

(1) The hypothesis on the one side (pp. 81—38) ; 

(2) That on the other (pp. 88—89). 


The side taken by the Church of England. (Pp. 39—44.) 

Hasty assumptions that such was not the side of 
primitive Christianity (pp. 44 — 57) tested by the follow- 
ing questions : — 

(1) If this doctrine of the Real Objective Presence were a 
part of the faith of the early Church, how comes it to pass that 
among the accounts of early heresies and their refutations we 
never meet with a statement of the rejection of this doctrine 
marked among the heresies; and never find arguments for 
establishing it among their refutations? (P. 58 xciq.) 

I. For the doctrine could not have been held by 

a. The Docetsc (p. 68 sqq.). 

}>. The Eutychians (p. 63 sqq.). 

c. Those who denied our Lord's Divinity. 

II. And it is really irreconcilable (p. 64) with the language of 

a, Tertullian (pp. 66, 07, 72, 73, 92— 90). 
h. Augustine (pp. 68, 69, 72, 73, 76—89). 

c. Pi'ocopius (pp. 69, 70, 91, 92). 

d. Ephrem Syrus (pp. 70, 90, 91). 

e. Theodoret (pp. 71, 72, 73, 102—105). 
/. Origen(pp. 96— 102). 

g. Chrysostom (pp. 105—108). 
h. The " Opus Imperfectum in Matt." (pp. 108—112). 
i. Jerome (pp. 113—117). 
j. Facundus (pp. 117—122). 
k. ElMc (pp. 122—129). 
I. The Gloss on Gratian (p. 129). 
w. Erigena(pp. 130— 132). 

(2) How is it that no ancient creed ever expressed this doc- 
trine ? (Pp. 133—143). 

No satisfactory account can be given for this (pp. 138—141) ; 
Nor for the silence of Holy Scripture (pp. 141—143). 

(3) How is it that we have Patristic teaching concerning 
our Lord's human nature which is irreconcilable with this 
doctrine ? (p. 143 sqq.) as, e.g,, in 

a. Augustine (pp. 143—145). 

h. FulgentiuB (p. 145). 

c. Vigilius Taps. (pp. 145-146). 


d. Didymus Alex. (p. 147). 

e. Gregory Nys. (pp. 147- 148). 

And as clearly stated by 

a. Bishop Morton (p. 148). 

b. Richard Hooker (pp. 149—163). 

(4) How comes it to pass that early Christian Apologists are 
found ridiculing heathen idolatry in language which might 
readily have turned against such worship in Christian Churches? 
(P. 153 sqq.) 

(5) Did the Corinthian Christians in St. Paul's days believe 
the doctrine of the Real Objective Presence ? (P. 163 sqq.) 

(6) Did the Apostles understand the words of Institution 
as teaching the Real Objective Presence? (P. 106 sqq.) 

(7) For what purpose are we to believe this Presence in the 
Elements vouchsafed? (p. 176 sqq.) 

Conclusion. — The holding of the Real Objective Pre- 
sence, rather than its rejection, involves a low view (p. 
180 sqq.) of Christ's Eeal Presence (p. 191 sqq.) and of 
Christianity (p. 197 sqq.) ; and cannot be cleared from 
the charge of idolatry (p. 199 sqq.). 


Note A. — On the Testimony of the Fathers on the subject of 
Eucharistic Worship. (Pp. 203—224.) 

Note B. — On the Testimony of the Liturgies on the subject of 
Eucharistic Worship. (Pp. 225—238.) 

Note C. — On Elevation, and its Relation to Eucharistic Worship. 
(Pp. 239—263.) 

Note D.— Oq Interpretative Dicta of the Fathers. (Pp.^Sa— aek^.\ 


Note E. — On the Patristic Use of the Terras Figure, Type, and the 
like, as applied to the Eucharist. (Pp. 266 — 302.) 

Note F. — On the Res Sacramenti of the Eucharist, as in the con- 
dition of Death. (Pp. 303—316.) 

Note G. — On the Sayings of the Fathers concerning the Sacra- 
mental Body of Christ, and concerning His Church and His Poor. 
(Pp. 317—329.) 

Note H. — On the Teaching of the Fathers as to the Kes Sacramenti 
of the Eucharist being the object of Spiritual Senses. (Pp. 329 — 360.) 


The narrative I am going to relate is one which, though 
cursorily passed over, or but slightly alluded to in many 
Ecclesiastical histories, seems (if at all reliable) to de- 
serve a more prominent position among the records of 
the middle ages. 

In the thirteenth century there was a certain nun 
named Juliana, to whom, at the time of her prayers, in 
ecstasies and visions^ was continually shown a moon as 
with a limb obscured, or as with a dark rent or fissure in it. 
And afterwards was made known to her by revelation the 
interpretation of this vision. By it, we are to understand, 
was signified that there was something yet lacking in 
the Church on earth ; that because of this want there was 
an obscuring of her glory ; and that this eclipse of her 
light must continue until there should be given to her 
a special festival to be kept in honour of the Mystery 
of the Eucharistic Presence.* This led at first to a 

* See L'Aroque'e History of Eucharist, Walker's translation, 
pp. 579, 580 ; Albertinus, De Eucharistia, p. 973 ; and especially Dal- 
Iffius, De Cultus Bel. Objecto, pp. 282—285, Geneva, 1664. See also 


local festival in the Diocese of Liege. But after the 
death of Juliana, the matter was urged on by one of her 
friends named Eva, who had formerly been among the 
acquaintances of the ecclesiastic who then sat on the 
Papal throne. To him were communicated the vision 
and the revelation. Cardinals were consulted; and at 
last Eva received from the Pope an assurance that the 
lopging desire of her heart should be granted. 

The Pontiff wrote to her out of the fulness of his joy 
at being thus made an instrument of giving to the Church 
her full-moon splendour, bidding Eva to rejoice with 
great joy at the appointment of the festival of Corpus 

" Let thy soul," he said, " therefore magnify the Lord, 
and let thy spirit rejoice in God thy Saviour; because 
thine eyes have seen thy salvation, which we have pre- 
pared before the face of all people."* 

This was in the year 1264. After the death of Urban 
rV. the new festival was for a time discontinued, but was 
revived by Clement V. at the Council of Vienne, in 1811. 

It will hardly be supposed that such an account as this 
of the origin of one of the most important festivals of 

Hospinian, Hist Sacr., lib. iv. " De Corporis Christi Festo," torn. iii. 
pp. 826 8qq,t Op., Qenev. 1681 ; and Mosheim's Eccles. Hist, edit 
Soames, vol. ii. p. 669 ; Qieseler, Eccles. Hist., vol. iii. pp. 325, 326, 
edit. Clark; Canon Robertson's Hist of Oh. Ch., vol vi. pp. 444, 446, 
1874. At whatever date the story arose, it was certainly not the 
fabrication of Bale. The variations in the narrative are unimportant. 
"^ See Hospinian, Opera, torn. iii. p. 327. 


the Bomish Church should have been allowed to pass 
unchallenged. It does not appear to be found in any 
historical record for nearly a hundred years after the 
date at which the Festival was appointed.* 

* If Gieseler is right, it is first mentioned, and without details, by 
Johannes Hoesemius, Canon at Liege, about 1848 ; and the full nar- 
rative did not appear before the '' Hietoria Revelationis b. JulianaB '' 
of J. Blserus Diesthemius, in 1496. Afterwards appeared a '' Life of 
Juliana,'* professedly by a contemporary author. (See Oieseler's 
Eccles. Hist., vol. iii. p. 326, edit. Clark.) 

It may be thought, however, that Hoesemius oould hardly have 
been altogether wrong as to the festival having an origin connected 
with Liege. There may have been contemporaries of his there, to 
whose parents the circumstances might have been familiar, not to 
mention the probability of his having access to some local records. 

That ^gidius (closing his history in 1251) makes no mention of 
the festival oould only go to prove that its institution at Liege was 
somewhat later than the common opinion. 

The Bollandists (following Fisen, " De prima engine Festi Corp. 
Chr.") maintain the integrity of the narrative of Juliana and Eva, 
and that there is a MS. account by a writer of the same age. They 
add : ** Auctorem hunc Synchronum non longo intervallo (verba sunt 
BartholomsBl Fisen) secuti sunt Joannes Holsemius Oanonicus Leo- 
dinensis, Joannes Ultramosanus, et Joannes Wamantius, qui inter 
res a popularibus suis gestas historiam banc breviter sed diserte com- 
memorant : scripserunt autem sub annum mocgxxx. Ejusdem 
meminit auctor Magni Ghronici Belgici. . . . Sed hi omnes fere de 
Institutione festi Veuerabilis Sacramenti apud Leodienses agunt, 
absque singulari mentione Julianas Virginis ; ad quam ejus originem 
primam deduxit Joannes Diesthemius Blserus, Leodii ad S. Jacobi 
Prior e Benedictina familia ; qui anno mccccxcvi. scripsit de ea re 
commentarium." (Acta Sanctorum, Aprilis Tomus Primus, p. 436, 
Apr, 6.) 

Bishop Wordsworth says of the history of Juliana : " This account 
of the origin of the festival may be seen in a work, now in the thir- 
teenth edition, by Dom. Giuseppe Riva, Penitentiary of the Cathedral 
of Milan, a.d. 1862, p. 300." (Tour in Italy, vol. ii. p. 118.) 

B 2 

In the sixteenth century another history is found 
displacing it,* according to which we are given to under- 
stand that a certain priest, haying doubts of the truth 
of transubstantiation, was established in the faith by 
finding blood issuing from the host, which left an in- 
delible mark in the folds of the corporal. We are told 
that this blood-stained cloth, having been sent to the 
Pope, was preserved, and is yet to be seen in the Cathe- 
dral of Orvietot as a witness to the reality of the miracle 
of Bolsena. Thus, it is said, the Pope was moved to 
ordain an annual festival in honour of the Sacra- 

This second account, which we may observe has 
many counterparts J in the records of those dark 

* See Onuphrius Panvinius, Annotat. in Platina, Urban IV., pp. 
214, 215, edit. Cologne, 1626. 

t See Hospinian, Op., torn. iii. p. 326, 1681 ; Robertson's Hist, of 
Ch. Ob., vol. vi. p. 441, 1874. 

X Archbishop Ussher says : ''St. Augustine's conclusion may here 
well take place : ^ Let those things be taken away, which are fictions 
of lying men or wonders wrought by evil spirits. For either there is 
no truth in these reports, or if there be any strange things done by 
heretics we ought the more to beware of them ; because when the 
Lord had said that certain deceivers should come, who, by doing 
some wonders, should seduce, if it were possible, the very elect, He 
very earnestly commended this unta our consideration, and said 
Behold, I have told you before ; ' yea, and added a further charge 
also, that if these impostors should say unto us of Him, ' Behold, He 
is in secret closets/ we should not believe it ; which, whether it be 
applicable to them who tell us that Christ is to be found in a pyx, and 
think they have Him in safe custody under lock and key, I leave to 
the consideration of others." (Answer to Jesuits' Challenge, Works, 
edit. Eirington, vol. iii. pp. 78, 79.) 

ages,* appears to have been generally preferred to the 
older narrative.t 

But it may be noted that Lambertinus, afterwards Pope 
Benedict XIV., in his famous work on the Festivals, com- 
bines both narratives, regarding both as historical, though 
without enteiing into the details of the visions and reve- 
lations of Juliana. I 

Now, whatever we may think about these medisBval 
stories, there are four propositions which I think we may 
look upon as certain. 

(1) The festival of Corpus Christi did originate at 
this period. 

(2) Its introduction did make such a real, marked addi- 
tion to the religion of Western Christendom, as might 
not unsuitably be symbolised by the passing away of the 
moon's eclipse. 

(3) This addition was but a marked and prominent act 
— perhaps it should be added, a completing and crowning 
act — in a course of progress and change by which accre- 
tions had previously been forming around the religion 

* See Morton on Eucharist, book iv. ch. ii ; Robertson's History 
of Ch. Ch., vol. vi. p. 441, 1874; Ussher's Works, vol. iii. pp. 

f Panvinius says : " Quanquam non me lateat, quosdam esse, qui 
nescio quid de quadam muliere sancta Moniali reclusa nomine Eva 
fabulentur. Quorum sententiam nihil moror: cum, quod supra dixi, 
vulgarissimum sit." (In Platina, p. 215, edit. Cologne, 1626.) 

I See Lambertinus, de D. N. Jes. Chr. Matrisque Ejus Festis, 
et de MisssB Sacr., Patavii, 1745, Pars Prim. § dxxxii. — nxxxix. pp. 

of earlier times, in relation to the Sacrament of the 

(4) This marked and crowning addition was so fitting, 
suitable, and appropriate to the previous accretions, that 
if only it were granted that they formed a true part of the 
Christian religion, that religion might fairly be viewed as 
having been maimed and incomplete up to this date. In 
other words, if the Eucharistic teaching, such as the 
Church of Bome had before this attained to, were truth, 
devoid of superstition, then this addition really did, as it 
were, take away the darkness of an eclipse, which until 
now had overshadowed the Church of Christ, and kept 
from her the full measure of her light and glory. 

The first of these propositions is a fact of history, about 
which nothing further need be said. It is acknowledged 
that there was no festival of Corpus Christi before this.* 

Each of the three remaining propositions demands and 
deserves the earnest attention, and the most careful con- 
sideration, of those who would learn lessons from the 
history of the past to be applied to the questions and to 
the perils of the present. 

I. It is not very material to inquire whether or not the 
whole ceremonial now connected with the Festival of 
Corpus Christi formed a part of its original institution. 

* There may, however, douhtless have been before this some lesser 
ceremonies and processions, by which the way may have been pre- 
pared for the introduction of the new festival. (See Muratori, De 
Rebus liturgicis^ c. 285, 286.) 

It may, perhaps, be that the magnifloent pageant followed 
after some considerable interval of time.* Bat that it 
followed naturally and suitably will hardly be disputed 
by many. 

Now let anyone contemplate the religion of Borne as 
displayed in all the pomp and circumstance of this gor- 
geous and most attractive spectacle,! and let him com- 
pare the glory of this so-called Christian festival with 
the description of religious feasts among the heathen,! 
especially with the splendour of the ancient festival of 
Diana ;§ and then let him carry back his thoughts 

* "Dieeteim saith that it was Pope John XXTI. wbioh introduced 
this custom [of bearing the host in procession] ; but Bossius in bis 
Chronicles, and after him Genebrard, in his Ghronologj, book iv., 
place it much later, and say that it began 100 years after the institu- 
tion of the Holy Day, to be practised at Pavia ; from whence it spread 
itself abroad into all the Western Churches, and especially at Angers, 
where Bereugarius had been Archdeacon." (L'Aroque's History of 
Eucharist, Walker^s translation, p. 581. See also Albertinus, De 
Eucharisti^, p. 075.) 

Muratori (De Bebus Liturgiois, c. 284, 285) considers that the 
procession was commenced at Milan in 1336. 

Lambertinus, however, seems to favour the opinion that the proces- 
sion is as old as the festival. (De Festis, par. i. § dxxxix. pp. 213, 214, 
edit 1746.) 

f A description of the festival, as seen in the year 1862, will be 
found in Bp. Wordsworth's " Tour in Italy," vol. ii. pp. 116—182. 
See also Plate in Elliott's Horas Apocalyptics, vol. iii. p. 185, 5th ed. 

t See Hospinian, Opera, torn. iii. pp. 320, 330, 333, 334, Geneva, 
1681, and Prebendary Payne in Gibson's Preservative, vol. x. p. 188, 
London, 1848 ; and Dr. Govel's Account of the Greek Church, pp. 
100, 101, 

§ Polydore Virgil, after describing the various festivities in his 
day observed in connection with Pentecost and Corpus Christi, addss 


to those earlier times when the remains of the 
Eucharist were sometimes distributed among school-chil- 

** Dii boni, qnot in nostra religione ritus babemus ab Ethniois trans- 
positos, quales procul dubio sunt pompa hsBO sacrorum, et omnia alia 
ad earn rem pertinontia?" (De Invent Rer., lib. vi cap. xi., as quoted 
by Albertinus, De Euch., p. 976.) 

In Hospinian (Opera, torn. iii. pp. 328, 320) may be seen the 
account given by Apuleius of the festival of Diana, compared with 
the description of the celebration of the festival of Corpus Christi, 

The very same resemblance is marked by a recent Italian writer, 
who adds : " Such is Apuleius's description of one of the processions 
of Paganism. Well, the procession of Corpus Demiaii, which is used 
in Italy, is it not exactly the same, word for word and point for 
point?'* (The Eeligion of Rome, by a Roman; London, 1873, 
p. 271.) 

It is added by Hospinian, after giving a similar description of the 
ceremony of the sacred fire among the Persians: *^ Manlius, torn. iii. 
Locorum Oomm. fol. 28 refert, Episcopum quondam, statim post 
suam electionem et confirmationem, in sua di<£cesi mandatum edidisse, 
cujus exordium fiierit, Siout Regem Persicum pracedebat equus ignem 
gestans, qui a Persis pro Deo adorabatur : sio nos pracedet conseerata 
hostiay quam ut verum Corpus Domini ooii et adorari ab omnibus 
nostris subditis, mandamus" (Ibid. pp. 329, 330.) 

Concerning the Romish adoration of the host, it has been said : 
** This adoration is not only in the time of communiou, when it is 
properly the Lord's Supper and Sacrament; but at other times out of 
it, whenever it is set upon the altar with the candles burning and the 
incense smoking before it, or hung up in its rich shrine and tabernacle 
with a canopy of state over it. And not only in the Church which is 
sanctified, they say, by this Sacrament, as by the presence of God 
Himself, but when it is carried through the streets in a solemn and 
pompous procession, as it is before the Pope when he goes abroad, 
just as the Persian fire was before the Emperor, merely by way of 
State or for a superstitious end, that he may the better be guarded and 
defended by the company of his god. In all these times it is to be 
worshipped and adored by all persons as it passeth by, as if it were 
the glory of God which passed by. They are, like Moses, to make 
haste and bow their heads to the earth and worship; but, above all, 


dren ; * or, in an urgent case, a portion sent by the hand 
of a boy to be given to a dying penitent ; f or still rather, 
to those earUer days when the profanity of certain neo- 
phytes in the Corinthian Church, who discerned not the 
Lord's Body, was sufficiently rebuked by an inspired 
Apostle in such words as these : ''As often as ye eat 
this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's 
death till He come.'* Let anyone, I say, compare the 
two, and say whether there is not here indeed a contrast 

npon that high day whieh they have dedicated to thk sacrament, as if 
it were some new deity — the Festum Dei^ as they call it — the Feast of 
God; er the Festum Corporis Ohristi, the Feast of th« Body of 
Christ ; for to call the Sacrament God is a general expression among 
them, as when they have received the Sacrament to say, * 1 have re- 
ceived my Maker to-day ;' and the person who in great churches is to 
carry the Sacrament to. the numerous communicants is •called Bajulus 
Deij the porter or carrier of God ; and they also account it, and so 
always reverence it — as Boileau falsely says the ancients did — as a 
present numen and Deity.* " (Prebendary Payne, in Gibson's Preser- 
vative, vol. X. pp. 136, 137, London, 1848.) 

On the gradual introduction of Pagan rites, '^., see Hospinian's 
Works, vol. ii. pp. 110, 116, 129, 146 ; Maitland-s Catacombs, pp. 306 
— 308 ; Gieseler's Eccles. Hist., vol. iil pp. 347 — 349, edit. Clark ; 
Elliott's Horae Apoc, vol. i. p. 341, 5th edit.^ Homilies of Ch. of 
Eng., p. 177, edit. 1844. 

* " Nicephorus Callistus, a. p. 1333, is -a witness to the continuance 
of this custom down to the fourteenth century. He affirms that, when 
a boy, he had often himself thus partaken of the remains of the con- 
secrated Elements." ^Scudamore's NetitiaEucbacistioa, p. 783.J In 
588 an attempt was made by the Council of Macon to introduce this 
Greek custom into France. (See ibid., pp. 783, 784.) 

t See Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., lib. vi. c. 44, Oxford, 1845, p. 219; 
Bingham, Ant., bookxv. cap. iv. sec. 9, London, 1844, vol. v. p. 189; 
Gibson's Preservative, London, 1848, vol. x. p. 143; Vegan's " True. 
Doctrine," p. 293. 


showing such a change in the religion of Europe,* that, 
if the addition be really an addition of light and glory, 
it might indeed very fitly be represented by the change 
from a moon partially overshadowed to a moon shining 
in its full brightness. 

n. But it must not be supposed for a moment that the 
change in the matter of the Eucharist from the religion 
of Apostolic and primitive Christianity to that of the 
later period of the middle age was effected by one step. 
Such an addition per saltwm is, indeed, utterly incon- 
ceivable. It had taken centuries f to bring the Church 
up to the point at which the appointment of such a 
festival as Corpus Christi was possible, t But the point 

*"So great an honour and regard had the primitive Church for the 
Sacrament, that as they accounted it the highest mystery and 
solemnest part of their worship, so they would not admit any of the 
penitents who had been guilty of any great and notorious sin, nor the 
catechumens, nor the possessed, and emrgumenir so much as to the 
sight of it ; the £7ro\//£a, and the particii)ation of this mystery, used 
always in those times to go together, as Cassander owns, and Alba- 
spinseus proves in his book of the Kucharist. And therefore as it is 
plainly contrary to the primitiTe practice to carry the sacrament up 
and down, and expose it to the eyes of all persons ; so the reason of 
doing it — ^thatit may be worshipped by all, and that those who do not 
partake of it may yet adore it — was, it is plain, never thought of in the 
primitive Church, for then they would have seen and worshipped it, 
though they had not thought fit that they should have partaken of it* 
(Prebendary Payne in Gibson's Preservative,. voL x. p. 144, London, 
1848.) f See Appendix, Note A. 

X *' It is clear," says Mr. Sadler, " that if all this " [the bringing 
Christ personally to be worshipped on our altars] " had been in the 
power of the Church, she could not have been utterly unconscious of 
it, as assuredly she was for above a thousand years." (The Church 
and the Age, p. 299.) 


had been reached which made this addition but one step 
— ^perhaps rather a high step, still but one step — fur- 
ther on in a course of progress which had commenced 
very early, and had latterly been advancing very rapidly. 

Not long before this had been introduced the custom 
of ringing the sacring bell • at the consecration of the 
elements, that all assembled might immediately foil down 
and worship the Saviour now believed to be present in 
the place of the bread and wine. The host was now to 
be elevated for purposes of adoration. 

It was borne in state with a burning light before it 
when taken to be administered to the sick, f 

Men had come to regard it as Immanuel, — God with 
man, Christ in the hand of the priest, Christ under the 
form of bread. 

The new uses of the Eucharist had multiplied since the 
fourth Lateran Council (1216), in which Innocent III. 
decreed the doctrine of transubstantiation. The adora- 
tion of the host had come into prominence since the 
condemnation of Berengarius. It is acknowledged that 
the liturgical ceremonies which express it had no place 
in the earlier part of the century which saw the birth of 
the doctrine of Paschasius. 

There is no trace of it in the ancient liturgies, t or in 
the parts of those liturgies which have any true claim to 

* See Scudamore's Notitia Eucharistica, p. 618, 2Dd edit, 
f See Hospinian, Opera, torn. iii. p. 819. 
I See Appendix, Note B. 


be accounted ancient ; but step by step, slowly at first 
but surely, the onward progress was made. Addition 
followed addition, ceremony followed upon ceremony, 
novelties afterwards crowded upon novelties,* till at 

* Cardinal Allen oonfesses: "Id soimus, non fuisse in primitiva 
Eoolesia horum periculorum earn curam aut cogitationem, ut prop- 
terea una pars Sacramenti deseretur a populo." (Libri Tres, p. 
496, Antwerp, 1-5760 

The following passage, read in the light of the truth that the 
opponents of Berengarius were the real innovators (see ^' Romish Mass 
and English Church,", 12,60-67), and that originally the reser- 
vation and elevation (whenever it arose) and mission of the conse- 
crated elements were altogether free from anything like the adora- 
tion of the host, contains a really interesting account of the onward 
progress of Eucharistic doctrine in the Church, and of the natural 
growth hy continual accretions round the doctrine of the Corporal 

Cardinal Allen says ; " Juvat plurimum intueri, quo modo ah illo 
tempore, quo hesresis et profanatio hujus Sacramenti per Berenga- 
rium et posteriores hsereticos csepta est, quantoque studio et animi 
contentione Ecclesia universa se opposuerit, elaboraveritque, ne quic- 
quam summi Sacramenti dignitati ac majestati decederet, quin potius 
(ut fit) ex contraria hseresi aliquid etiam venerationis accederet. Ergo 
quod antea semper et oonfectione, et perceptione, et reservatione, et 
elevatione, et vprivata portatura, et in alimento vitse, et in viatico 
migrationis, et missione ad absentes vel honoris ac pads communio- 
nisque EcclesiasticsB causa (quomodo olim teste Eusebio, lib. v. cap. 24, 
deferebatur ad extemos Episcopos Romam venientes) vel necessitatis 
gratia, ut adesgrotos, summo ac plane divinohonorecolebatur: idem 
nunc (rumpantur ut ilia Calvino et Sacramentariis omnibus) circum- 
gestatur in publico, ut oHm Area Testamenti ... ad pacem et 
misericordiam procurandam, ad debitum cultum exhibendum, ad 
protestationem fidei nostrsB omniumque Fidelium circa Eucha- 
ristiam contra Haereticos et perfidos JudsBos. . . . Hand Ita multo 
post ab Urbano IV. ad eundem cultum amplifioandum et extin- 
guendam Hseresin instituitur festum Corporis Christi celeberrimum, 
miris gratiis donatum. Cujus officium S. Thomas (qui et ipse regnans 


last Pope Urban crowned the pile by issuing the Bull 
which orders the perpetual observance of the festival 
of Corpus Christi. 

III. In view, then, of this marked addition to the 
religion of the West — an addition which, in outward 
appearance at least, tended so much to assimilate the 
Home of medisBval Christianity to the Home of Pagan 
idolatry — shall we speak of this annual festival, with its 
gorgeous apparatus of most imposing ceremonial, as 
effecting a real inward and essential change in the cultus 
of Boman Christ^idom ? Shall we regard it as a strange 
and discordant and unwarrantable, because unfitting and 
unsuitable^ accretion on the religjious ideas of the ages 
preceding ? Shall we look upon it as like the growth of 
a parasite on the branch of another tree of another and 
quite different kind ? 

To do this would be to make a great mistake. The 
inward and essential change had been made long before. 
What was added now was but a suitable supplement to 

nunc cum Ghristo per orbem fidelem colitur) ejusdem Fontificis jussu 
at Sp. Sancti afflatu conscripsit quo nihil uuquam veuit in sacrum 
officium doctius aut sanctius. Tum passim Sancto Sacramento fiunt 
vota, eriguntur Altaria, applicantur donaria, aooenduntur cerei, sol< 
vuntur orationum pensa diuma atque noctuma, exhibentur sacraB 
comoedise, instituuntur Collegia, dedicantur libri, et reliqua innumera 
pietatis officia constituuntur : at plane videamus omnem Novi Tester 
tnenti religionem Corporis et Sanguinis Christi cultu maxime contineri" 
(Libri Tres, pp. 386—387, Antwerp, 1576 ; De Eucb. Sacr., lib. i. 
cap. XXX.) 

See also Bellarmine, De Sacr. Eucharis., lib. iv. cap. xxx 


what had been added ahready. This is a point which is 

most important to be insisted upon. 

If the cultus and ceremonial which had been estab- 
lished before were right, if they were parts of true 
Christianity, they must have been so because of the truth 
of a doctrine concerning the Eucharist ; and if only this 
doctrine were true, nothing could be more fitting and 
suitable than the solemn, and public, and festive recog- 
nition of that doctrine in the annual celebration of the 
new festival. 

If the religion of Eome before this could suitably be 
compared in any sort to the glory of the moon,. then it 
may be fairly asserted that this addition was really 
needed to make that glory full. 

For let a distinct answer be sought to this question : 
What could warrant that innovation of ceremonial adora- 
tion, connected with that other innovation of elevation 
following consecration,* which had previously been 
admitted to form a conspicuous part in the celebration of 
the Mass ? The answer, I think, must be that nothing 
could warrant it short of an Objective Personal Presence 
of the Incarnate Godhead in some sort in or under the 
form or materies of the consecrated elements. 

Distinctions (if possible) between presence local and 
supra-local do not really affect the matter. It must be a 
Presence specially there where the species of bread is 
seen. However supra-local, it is a Presence there; 

* See Appendix, Note C. 

therefore in some sense certainly a local Presence, how- 
ever supra-local the manner. 

No efforts to draw a distinction between Presence by 
location and Presence by extension will avail anything at 
all. It is a Presence in that which is local, even though 
it be not by location. 

Neither is the real point affected by any attempts, 
possible or impossible, to draw a distinction between 
" real and essential " Presence and " corporal ** Presence. 
It is the real and essential Presence of the very Body and 
of the very Person of Christ, however spiritual and incor- 

Neither yet is the matter altered by anything which 
may be said about distinctions between spiritual and 
material conceptions of the Presence. Let the conception 
of the Presence of Christ there, under the forms of bread, 
and wine, be as spiritual, as immaterial, as incorporeal, 
as supralocal, as it is possible to be, the point to be 
insisted upon is simply this — ^that the visible species or 
substance of the consecrated elements must be regarded 
either as, in some sort^ clothing and hiding the present 
Saviour, or as forming with the very present Body and 
Person of Christ one * compound, adorable whole ; other- 
wise there would be no warrant for such adoration as 

* So Bellarminey De Euch., lib. iv. cap. xxix. ; De Oont., torn. iii. 
CO. OdO, 933 ; and Suarez, in Th. QusBst. 79 (quoted by Payne as 
below), and Heniiques and Gregory de Yalentia. See Dean Aldrich's 
"Reply to Two Disoourses," p. 42; and Prebendary Payne in 
Gibson's Preseryative, vol. x. p. 122, London, 1846. 



formed a part of the religion of the Mass before the 
festival of Corpus Christi was ever thought of. 

No conception of & Presence — if conceivable — of the 
Body of Christ as crucified and dead, and of the blood 
of Christ as poured out and shed, would have availed for 
the purpose. This has been acknowledged.* No concep- 
tion of spiritual union of the elements with the glorified 
Body of Christ in heaven would have availed. It is Christ, 

* See Freeman, PriBoiples of Divine Service, vol.. ii. part i. pp. 147, 
148. It is however denied by Bellarmine,. De Eucb., lib. iv. cap. 
xxix. ; De Gont., torn. iii. cap. 921. 

It is truly said, that when Christ's Soul was separated from His 
Body, His Divinity deserted neither soul nor body^ But this must by 
no means be understood as implying that Christ's lifeless Body was 
necessarily a proper object towards which adoration might be ad- 
dressed, though this is maintained by Bellarmine. 

The Divine Person of the Son, since the Incarnation, is not to be 
conceived of as apart from the human soul, which may now be said 
to be a very part of Himself. And when^ the human soul had left the 
Body, the Divine Person was not inhabiting that Body, as when the 
human soul inhabited and animated it. 

And whether in this condition it should be adored is, at least, very 
questionable. " We might," says Archbishop Wake, " have some 
cause to doubt whether, since we have received no command concern- 
ing it, it were our Saviour^s pleasure that His Body should be adored 
by us in that state ; so that there could be no sin in the not doing it." 
(See Gibson's Preservative, vol. x. p. 112, London, 1848.) 

See Vegan's True Doctrine, pp. 278, 600. 

Stillingfleet asks : " Since it doth not follow by virtue of the 
Hypostatical union, that wherever the Divinity is the human nature 
of Christ must be there also, how doth it necessarily follow, that 
wherever the Body of Christ is, the Divinity is so present as to make 
that Body become an object of Divine adoration ? . . . The Scripture 
is only pretended to speak of the Body of Christ, and not of His 
Divinity." (Works, vol. vi. p. 76.) 


Christ Himself, Christ in His very living Person — ^body, 
soul, and divinity — who was adored with adoration 
addressed to or towards the visible species. 

It must be the real Presence of the Divinci Person of 
Christ dwelling in His one human Body — and with that 
one human Body united — ^really made to be one with, or 
to be clothed upon with, the substance or the species of 
the sacramental elements, which alone can justify that 
Eucharistic adoration which is the presemt subject of 

No Presextee of virtue or equivalence as distinct frcon 
thifl, and no 0uoh notion of Presence aa may be reduoed 
to a relation, could possibly meet the requirem^ts of th« 

Now let us see how this ide^ of the Presenae to be 
adored in the Eucharist is expressed by a writer who ia 
believed to have influenced largely the novel opinions of 
1^ section in our own Church of England : — 

" The Eucharist ia frequentlj called the * Extension of the Incar- 
nation ; ' and the •xpression is significant and appropriate, not simply 
because the JKaohariat is the means of extending the henefita of the 
Incarnation to all time, hut heoause there is in hoth cases a real 
union hetween the earthly and the heayenlj: In the Incarnation 
between t\M Etarnal Word and man's nature, in the Euafaarist between 
the Person of Christ and the elements of bread and wine : so that it 
may be said without a metaphor, that there is a renewal or continua- 
tion of the Incarnation. What was done in the Incarnation is 
renewed in the Sacrament ; not in the same manner, but in a certain 
resemblance and proportion." . . . . '* In order to this union of the 
flesh of Ohnst with ours. He first Incarnates Himself in the hands 
of the priest; that is, at the moment of Consecration, Christ unites 


Himself, Body, Soul, and Divinity, in an ineffable manner, with the 
elements of bread and wine." . . . . " Both in the Incarnation and 
in the Eucharist the mystery is formed by the union of two natures, 
which remain distinct without mixture or confusion : in the Incarna- 
tion, the Divine Word united to the Body, which He took of the 
Virgin Mary, His Mother ; in the Eucharist, the glorified Body of the 
Lord joined to the earthly substance of bread and wine. But in each 
case both remain in their own nature; the Divine and Human in the 
Incarnation, and in the Eucharist the Person of our Lord and the 
nature of bread and wine. And yet, as the Divine and Human Nature 
in the Incarnate are called, and are, one Christ; so in the Eucharist 
the heavenly and the earthly substances, remaining each in its own 
nature, when united by Consecration are called, and are, the Body of 

The view expressed here is one which would no doubt 
be regarded by the writer as separate from what he and 
others would regard as the distinctively Eoman doctrine 
of the Presence. 

This may perhaps be fairly spoken of as the minimum,^ 
while the full Eomish doctrine of transubstantiation is the 
maximvm. The maximum doctrine, in destroying the very 
substances of bread and wine, and leaving only species 
to deceive the sight and exercise faith in rejecting the 
evidence of the senses, creating the prodigy of accidents 
without substances, does indeed add to the marvel of the 

But we may be contented to take the minimum — ^the 
minimum of that which can warrant the adoration of the 

* Tracts for the Day, pp. 232, 233 : 1868. 

I Yet there are some statements in the extract which, in their 
natural, unmodified sense, would hardly, perhaps, be accepted by some 
Bomish divines. 


middle ages. We must regard this with attention. We 
must compare with it the adorable mystery of the Incar- 

Why ! If only this be true there is nothing but the In- 
carnation which can be compared to it, and even the 
Incarnation itself in the blessedness of its glory must 
pale before it. That tells indeed of a union once effected 
between the invisible and the visible, the infinite and the 
finite, the Divine and the Human; yes, between the 
Divine person and the Human nature of the Lord Jesus 
Christ. But this tells of union effected every day, and 
thousands of times in every day, between the same Divine 
Person and the bread and wine, or the species of bread and 
wine, on the altar, causing as real a Presence in the hand 
of the priest as was the Presence of the Holy Child Jesus 
in the manger of Bethlehem;* and with the further 
miracle that this union, and this Presence — ^this Presence 
of the very Divine Person and Human Body of Christ — is 
effected without any advent or coming from heaven t to 
earth, and without any leaving of the throne of His 

* See Dr. Pusey's '^Beal Presence the Doctrine of the English 
Church," p. 829. 

f Some, however, if I have heen rightly informed, do not hesitate 
to use popular language suggestive of such a descent. The diversity 
of view formerly held in the Eomish Church is well known. *' Quod 
manifestum arbitratus est Thomas, Christum non per localem motum 
a CsbIo adduci, aliis exagitatum est Notum est quid senserit Scotis- 
tarum Schola, et quantopere reproductionis ThomisticsB com men turn 
derideant." (PrcBfatio Hist, to " Determinatio Jo. Parisiensis," p. 
45, London, 1686.) 


glory aibov^, »nd jret without that human body ceasing to 
beiA%iH)i€U!i^bofly, with human flesh and bones, and all 
things appertaining to the perfection and completion of 
man's naiture. And that the union is not a hypostatical 
one * seems irather to add to than to take from its mar- 
^vt^ous ^haracfter ; ^ai^oially since it is held thai; as % 

* <<The haman nature itself of Christ, considered alone, and being « 
mere creature, is not an object of worship, as St. Augustine says, but 
only as it is hypostatically united to the Divine nature, i.e. so inti- 
imately and ri tally united to it as to m^e oue person with it, with 
God Himself, one Oedvdpwn'OSf and so one object of worship; and if 
the sacramental symbols or species are to be adored with true latria, 
!ttot per ee, or upon their own account, but by reason of the intimate 
4inion and conjunction which they have with Christ, as they eay, not 
only with Christ's Body, for that alone is not to be worshipped, much 
less another thing that is united to it; but with Christ's Person, 
and then there must be as many Persons of Christ as there are ccmse- 
crated wafers ; then these species being thus worshipped upon the 
same account that Christfs humanity is, as Gregory de Valentia owns 
they must {* This worship,' says h% * belongs after a certain manner 
to the species, as when the Pivine \6yog is worshipped in the 
humanity which he assumed ; the Divine worship belongs also to the 
created homfiniiy.' cPeritmetjferitceidens mw qitodam nwdo ea venerea 
tio ^ species, Quemadmodum stto modo, etiam hoc ipso quod adoratur 
Divinum verbum in humanitate assumpta, pertinet ^usmodi Divinus 
eultus ad iUam humanitatem oreatam secundario, neque in hoo est 
aliquaidohUttrid), must be also united to Christ the same way that 
His humanity is united to His Divinity, so as to become with that one 
cmtire object of worship, as the species are, according to them, with 
Ohrist in the Euchafist; that is, they must become one suppositum, 
Xft one person, wilih Christ. This is so weighty a difficulty, as -msCkes 
*tiie greatest A'tiases df the Roman Ohurch not only Bweat, btrt «ink 
nnder it. ^alenfeia owns the wonderful conjunction the species have 
'with Christ, but denies their being hypostatically united to Him. But 
then, faotr are they to De worshipped ? Since it is owned by him and 
the schoolmen that the very humanity of Christ is to be worshipped 


resttli of ti:ie imion th€^ preeeni. Cbriiyk beooxoudi subj/Qot 
ittpcurt to> tbo^ e^nditioiia atad iii^aj)ai(uti<ei9 which belong:, 
to- tbe natore^ of bread. 

only ixpon the aoooant of its hypostJeitiofld union ; and though God be 
very nearly and intimately present in other creatures, yet t^ji are not 
to be worshipped, notwithstanding that Presence, because they do not 
make one suppositum or hypostasis with Him, or are not hypostatioally 
united to Bim^ Bellarmine bding pinched on this aide, remoTee the 
burden to ther other. That is as sore, and can as little bear it 
* Christ/ says he, ' is much otherwise in the Eucharist than God is in 
other things ; for in the Euoharist lAiere is but only one mippositum, 
and that Divine; all other things tiiere present belong to and make 
one thing with that.' If they do so, then sure they are hypostatic ally 
united with Christ, as * T. G*s ' learned adversary charges upon 
Bellarmine from this place ; if they make one sttpposittwi- with him,, 
and but one with him, let it be in what manner it will, they must be 
hypostatically united to Him. Bellarmine's Liost non eodem modo, 
though not after the same manner, is both unintelligible, and will not 
at all help the matter ; it is only a confession from him, that at the 
same time that he says they are hypostatically united to Christ and 
make one suppositum with Him, and one objeot of worship, that he 
does not know how this can be, and that his thoughts are in a great 
strait about it, so that be doubts they are not hypostatioally united at 
the same time that hey^t says they are so ; for this is no w«y imposed 
upon him, as 'T. G.' say s^ notwithstanding his mon eodem modo. If 
in the Incarnation of Christ one should say that the Soul and Body 
of Chidsi ara both united to His- Divinity, but that bothi were not. 
united after the same manner; but the soul in suoh. ». naaiiner' aa 
being a spirit, and the body in another,, yet so, that bath made butt 
one suppositum with it, and that Divine ; and that all His human 
nature belonged to that,, and made one with that, though, not atfter 
the same manner; would not this: be still, an owning the hypostai- 
tical mioai between Christ's Divinitji^and His 9eul and Body ? And 
80 must tike other be between Christ'a Dftvinity and His< Body,, and 
the speoie% if they make one sutpposUutn^ and: aa», as they told, to be; 
worshipped aa such.'* (Prebendary Payna'si Diaoeurse; ooneeming thei 
Adoration of tiie Host, in Gdibaon's Sre^ejpfiatiTe, tqI. x. pp. Id9«-*- 
12ft, London, 1848.) 


In the Incarnation we see the Son of God taking upon 
Him man*s nature, bo that God and man are one Christ. 
In the Eucharist we see this same Christ in some sort 
taking upon Him every day the nature, or the suhstance, 
or the form of hread, so that Christ and the consecrated 
element, or the species of the element, are one host. 
Moreover, the Incarnation was the union of a Divine 
Person with the nature of that conscious and intelligent 
being, which (though fallen indeed) was created in the 
image of God. But this Eucharistic Presence is the 
result of a union of Christ with a senseless product of 
vegetable creation given to be to man for meat. 

It detracts nothing from the infinite condescension of 
the Incarnation of Christ to say that it may not be put 
on the same footing at all with any kind of impanation of 
Christ^s Body, or Eeal Presence of Christ in and under the 

Perrone answering the objection, ** Eodem oultu deberemus pro- 
sequi creaturas omnes, cum in omnibus Deus sit substantialiter 
prsBsens,'* says : " Neg. paritatem. Nam in Eucbaristia unum solum 
est suppositum divinum, Gui tribuimus adorationem; in creaturis 
adest quidem Deus substantialiter prsBsens, sed non est cum illis 
unum suppositum, neque Deus et creatursB unum wmtper hypostasis 
unitatemJ* (J. Perrone, PrselectJones TheoL, vol. iii. p. 203, Paris, 

Dean Aldrich says : " They " [the Papists] " hold the species united 
in the Body to make one entire object of adoration ; which cannot be 
without a hypostatioal union. Wherefore Bellarmine and Valentia, 
though they do not use the term " [hypostatioally], " yet find them- 
selves obliged to say the thing, and explain the union of the species to 
the Body in the same manner as they do the hypostatioal union/' 
(Reply to Two Discourses, p. 42 ; see also p. 47, and especially p. 44; 
see Woodhead's Two Discourses, p. 16. 


form of bread. In the Incamation the Son of God took 
npon Him a nature which in us had become sinful, fallen, 
and lost, but which, spite of all, has Divine affinities. It 
was the nature of those whom He came to redeem. 
And it was in order to this redemption that He clothed 
Himself with it. It is the nature of those whom He would 
have to be loved, even with the love wherewith He Him- 
self is loved of the Father. It was the nature of those, 
that great multitude which no man can number, whom 
He would have to be with Him where He is, who will see 
Him as He is, and be made like unto Him in His glory. 
*' God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself.*' 

Can any of these things be predicated of the union of the 
Body of Christ, and Christ Himself, with the form or the 
element of bread ? The very asking of such a question 
has surely a sound too nearly bordering on the profane. 
It can be justified only by the necessity which arises of 
showing the contrast between Divine doctrines and 
human inventions, the wondrous unspeakable love of 
the one, and the incongruous— may I not say, speaking 
under the full conviction of its earthly origin?— the 
monstrous character, which might be likened to some 
strange and hideous deformity, of the other. 

In the Incamation we behold a Divine Person once for 
all taking upon Him the form of a servant, and made in 
the likeness of men. In the Mass we are taught to con- 
template this same Divine Person, every day on ten 
thousand altars, taking upon Him the form of a wafer. 


and found in tiie likenass of bread.i' And yet, while bow- 
ing down before the Presence of Chriet with His Body 

* So the hymn attrihuted to Thomas Aquinas : *' Visus, tactus, 
gnstus in te fallitor, Sed auditu solo tuto creditur. . . . /n cruce 
laUitat sola DdUoit At hie laUt mmul et humamtiu. . . . Plagas sicut 
Thomas, non intueor, Deum tamen meum te oonfiteor. . . • Jesu, 
quern yelatum nunc aspicio, Oro iiat iUud, quod tarn sitio. Ut te 
reyelata oernens facie, Yisu dim beatus tun glori»." (See Dallseus, 
De Cultas Bel. Objecto, p. 287 ; and Prebendary Payne, in Gibson's 
Preservative, vol. x. p. 135, London, 1848.) 

Tertullian speaks very differently : " Non Hcet, non licet nobis in 
dubium sensus istos devocara, ne et in Ohristo de fide eorum dellbere- 
tur. . . . Fidelis fuit et visus et auditus in monte : fidelis et gustus 
vini illius, licet aquse ante, in nuptiis Galileess: fidelis et tactus, 
exinda oreduli ThomsB. Bedta Joannis testationera : Quod vidi- 
mus, inquit, quod audivimus, oculis nostris vidimus, et manus nostrse 
contrectaverunt, de sermone vitse. Falsa utique testatio, si oculorum 
et aurium et manuum sensus natura mentitnr.*' (De Anima, cap. 
xvii., Op., p. 276, edit. Rigalt, 1680.) 

But that which must be especially noticed, in order to see the con- 
trast between the teaching of Tertullian and Aquinas, is this — that 
Tertullian, after saying '* we may not call in qiiestion our senses/' 
goes on to give reasons — ^lest there should be a deceit in various par- 
ticulars of our Lord's history, which were the objects of the senses. 
And he concludes this list of parfciciilarB with the ** taste of the wine 
which He consecrated to be a memorial of His blood '* [" Alium 
postea vini saporem, quod in Sanguinis sui memoriam consecravit."] 
{See below^ Appendix, Note E, under <^iHgnus et memoria.") If, 
AS in Aquinas's view, the consecration turned the wine into Christ's 
blood, instead of the memorial of His blood, leaving only the sapor 
vini, without the rtnum, then indeed would there be in the sapor that 
daoeit expressed in the words ** Visus, tactus, gustus in te fallitur." 
And thus Tertullian's redtKstio ad absurdum is seen to be brought 
up just to that point of absurdity at which it meets the conception 
to which afterwards man's thoughts brought up the faith of the 
Bomish Church. 

It has been well said : " Miracles, in the nature and use of them, 
are not contradictions to sense, but appeSations to sense ; and the end 

and Blood under the form of breads we are to believe that 
Christ's Body remaijos locally present at Qod'a right hand' 
in heaven, and does not in any way desoend,. or come 
from thence to be present in the Eucharist. Not only so, 
but the very Incarnation and Atonement are in some sort 
subservient to this daily mystery of the Eucharistie 
presence^ and would indeed be fruitless without it. 

of them is by the eyidence of our sense to convince our understand- 
iag.*' (Bishop M(»rley, Treatises, ''Against Transubstantlation/' p. 9.) 

Another has said : " So long as I retain the use of my understanding, 
I cannot but proceed to the extent which I am now about to mention. 
Ohristianity was, by dirine appointment, founded on miracles — that is, 
on eyents of the truth of which the senses of mea were the judges. 
I should, therefore, beforehand very improbable that the reli- 
gion so founded on the testimony of the senses would contain any- 
thing relating to the objects of the senses which could not be belleyed, 
but in contradiction to the senses ; because in that case the religion 
would have the appearance of undermining the ground upon which it 
had to rest." (Dr. Turton's Reply to Wiseman, p. SOO.) 

Far more primitive and truly Catholic, and far more coasonant with 
the language of the Fathers than the saying of Aquinas, is the teach- 
ing of Zwingle : ** Cum ista [Hoc est Corpus meum, Ac] auditus 
acoipit, an non totus consternatur, et admirabundns in hoc unum 
quod pr0Bdioatur intentus est? Cum I>eum audit, eum amorem 
illius, eum Filium pro nobis neoi traditum ? At eum hue intentus 
est, an non idem faeit quod fides? Fides enim est qiiie Deo per 
Christum nititur. Auditus ergo cum ad idem speetat, jam fidei 
ancinatnr, jam fidem non molestat suis frivells istis oogitationibus ae 
studiis. Yisus cum panem yidet et calioem, quo yio^ Obristi ut Illius 
bonitatem ingeniumque sigidficent, an non et ille fidei obsequitur? 
Ohristum enim yelut ante ooulos oonspicit, quern mens ejus inflam- 
mata pulehritudina depetit. Taotus panem in manus sumit, qui jam 
non paais, sed Christus est rignificatione. Gustus olfactnsque et 
ipsi hue adiyoeantur, ut odorent quam suayis sit Dominus, quamque 
beatus sit qui in illo fidit" (Fid. Ohr. Exp., Opera, Tig. 1581, torn, 
ii. fo. 556.) 


This is the Presence, then, for which adoration is 
claimed, and it is readily granted that to the Saviour so 
present in the elements Divine adoration would un- 
doubtedly be due. Nay, on the theory of such a Presence 
having been in mercy given, it would not only follow 
that the Sacrament ought to be adored, but, when the 
adoration had been given, another consequence would 
seem to be almost a necessity. On this point, indeed, I 
would speak perhaps with somewhat more hesitation; 
yet, it will hardly, I think, be disputed that this further 
result would follow most naturally. I mean, that this 
doctrine should be regarded as bringing to our prayers a 
presence of the Saviour receiving our adoration (in some 
sense or in some way), objectively nearer and more 
accessible to us than any we could otherwise have ; so 
that the Sacramental Presence would come to be con- 
sistently viewed as a real and material assistance to 

* In the Romish Church men are certainly taught to regard this 
presence as having not only an attraction, hut a claim and a call al- 
together heyond that of Christ's spiritual presence. 

Thus in " The Roman Missal for the Use of the Laity," 1867, p. 
704, we find a prayer (in the " Litany of the Sacred Heart ") in which 
these words occur : " Accept, I heseech Thee, my poor desire to visit 
Thy divine Majesty in every temple throughout the Christian world, 
where Thou art present in the hlessed Sacrament ; thus to invite, by 
my humble example, all creatures to correspond by frequent visits to 
the excess of Thy love. But as I cannot effect this, I profoundly 
adore Thee here really present, and I adore Thee in spirit wherever 
Thou art in the most holy Sacrament" 

See also Papers on the Euoharistic Presence, pp. 587, 588. 


The very acknowledgment of such a Presence would 
seem to require that our Lord's words, " It is expedient 
for you that I go away," should be understood as supple- 
mented by such words as these : " Yet it is expedient for 
you also that, though absent in the natural mode of the 
Presence of My Body, I should still in a supernatural 
way be present among you, with Body, Soul, and Divinity, 
under the form of bread, that so you may continually adore 
Me, and recognise Me there as a present Saviour, ever 
ready to hear and receive and answer your prayers.** 

So also in reading the inspired words, " Seeing that 
we have a great high priest, that is passed into the 
heavens, Jesus the Son of God," the doctrine of such a 
Presence would seem to demand of us that we should 
somehow supply such words as these : " And seeing 
also that we have Him continually present sacramen- 
tally and supralocally on our altars as really here as 
there ; let us not only come boldly to the throne of grace, 
but let us be diligent also in constantly drawing nigh 
to the consecrated host, to worship, and offer our prayers 
to our Lord there present under its form, that so we may 
obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." 

Surely it is scarcely possible unduly to magnify the 
importance which should belong by right to such a Pre- 
sence in the scheme of Christian doctrine. 

Should, then, the Christian Church keep festival in per- 
petual memory of the birth of Christ, and a yearly com- 
memoration of Christ's dying on the Cross, and not give 


4 day on wliififa to do honoiir to the marvel and the 
mysteiy of the miracle of the Saccam^it of the altar ? 
Givea thai Presemce^* that ad(»atioii is a CSuristiaii 

* It BUTf be idleged dimt in tiie Lvthertn seheFine ef doctrine there- 
is fonad the Beel ObjeotiTe IVeaeBoe; bat that adormtioii is rejected 
on the gronnd that the Sacrament was not ordained for the purpose 
of adoration. 

But the inoonsisteBey ef tUs has beoa felt bj manj^ and seems to 
be Tirtiianj acknowledged bj some among Lntheran divines. 

It is obyioos, indeed, to replj that neither have we anj sufficient 
intimation that the Incarnation was for the purpose of adoradon. 
Bnt who will thersfors deny adoration to the Incarnate Savioiir? 

The tnith is self-evident, that if a tme Presence of Christ (Body, 
Sou), and Divinity) in the Elements be acknowledged, adoration 
addressed to Christ as so present most be admissible; and if admis- 
sible, it mnst be due ; and if due, it ought to be paid. 

We never ask — in the case of the presence of any prince or poten- 
tate of this worid, in view of the faonomr or homage soitable to bis 
position — whether the pmrpose of his presence was to receive this. 
However alien may be the object of his coming, we inquire only what 
is dne to him, and when in his presenoe we mler ourselves accord- 

Nor most it be forgotten that the Lntheran teaching as to the Beal 
Presence is teaching nncertain, confused, indistinct — full of strange 
ineonsisteneies ; and that, as most fully developed in the doctrine of 
the Ubiquitaries, it makes as real a Presence in any flower of the 
field as in the consecrated elements. (See Papers on Encharistic 
Vtesenec'p. 724.) 

Moreover, Lutheran doctrine did not commonly uphold the Pre- 
sence extra usum. And in the use some Lutherans allowed and 
required the adoration. (See BeBarmine, DeEuch., lib. iy. cap. xxix. ; 
Do Controw, torn, iii c. U2CL) 

Indeed, at one time it appears that Luther taught that the eleva- 
tion of the Sacrament was useful as a witness to the Real Plresence ; 
and that, being elevated, it ought to be adored. (See Consensus 
Orthodoxus, p. 411, 1605 ; and Ho^inian, Hist Sacram.^ part ii 
p. 19.) 

(See abo ChemnitB, as quoted by Dr. Pussy in ** Beal Presence 

duty, and that hi^ festival at leaBt hae a suitable and 
fitting plaoe in the Church's calendar. 

But on the oHier hand, that Pvesence rejected, Eucha- 
rietie adoration with all its attendant ceremonies must 
€b11 to the ground. 

No doubt there are yery many shades of view on the 
subject of the Eucharist. But one clear^ broad line of 
demarcation must for ever separate them into two dis- 
tinct classes. 

On the one side are those who hold, and on the other 
side are those who reject, the doctrine of a real Per- 
sonal Preseisbce of the Man Ohrist Jesus, in or under the 
elements or their forms. 

Not» of course, that the human nature of Christ is 
the proper oibjeot of Adoration.^ But since the Incar- 

the Dootrme of the English Ohureh/' pp. 334, S85 ; sleo the words of 
the Ministers of Zurich, iaveighing agaiiust .the inoonsistency of 
Lather, Ibid. p. 333.) 

As to the argument that the Presence may be analogous to the 
fMogtiHo of ft prince, end therefoce adoration should be withheld 
(see Prebendary Payne, in Gibson's Preserrative, vol. x. p. 126, 
London, 184S), it seems sufficient to reply that when a prince 
travels ineognito his desire is that his presence may not generally be 
known. But all who believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the 
Eucharist believe that presence to be an objeet of isdth, to be recog- 
nised and known of all His faithM people. 

'* If," says Mr. Yogan, ** He is there [In or under the form of the 
elements He claims as high honow, as absolute adoration there at 
ean be giten to Him anywhere else." (True Doctrine, p. 278. See 
also Papers on Eucharistic Presence, p. 587.) 

On Lutheran adoration see Turretin, De Necees. Secess., Dii^. iii. 
i xxiv. pp. 74, 76, Geneva, 1688.) 

* "Neque hominem cum verbo adorandum dioimrus, sed nnum 


nation of the Eternal Word, the Divine Person of the 
Son cannot be adored as apart from the nature which 
He has asBumed.* God and man are now one Christ. 
And it is the One Christ to whom adoration is to be 
addressed. Nor, I believe, can our hearts (under ordi- 
nary circumstances) rightly address adoration to Him — 
directed to any circumscribed locality — except as to 
where His Body is, nor towards any visible object, except 
as, in some way, inhabited by or identified with His 
living Body, and that Body animated with His human 

And it is not only important that this should be clearly 
seen in these times, when in the interest of an innovating 
party special efforts seem to be made to obliterate the 
true, grand boundaries of Eucharistic doctrine ; but it is 
also most important that we should be led to mark well 
and carefully what is really consistent with the doctrine 

eimdemque, ne illud cum verbo aliquam divisioneB imaginationem 
meriti objiciat." (Gone. Ephes., torn. i. c. xii.) ** Adoratione yero 
non seorsim Deum, nee seorsim hominem, sed unum Christum.'' 
(Ibid,, torn. iv. o. xxvi. See Morton on Eucharist, p. 542.) 

** Non est par unio utriusque, nam respeetu camis cum Verbo est 
nnio hypostatica, sed respeetu symbolorum et Christi, tantum sacra- 
mentalis et relativa, qusB proinde non potest facere unum Supposi- 
tum. . . . Supponitur Camem esse proprium objectum adorationis, 
quod dici non potest, quando nihil creatum per se est adorabile ; 
Persona proprie adoratur, Causa propter quam adoratur est Divinitas, 
Caro est illud sine quo non adoratur." (Turretin, De Nece8& Secess., 
Disp. iii. § xii. p. 66, Geneva, 1688.) 

* See especially the ** Consensus Orthodoxus " of Herdesian, pp. 
244 — 247 ; and Prebendary Payne in Gibson's Preservative, vol. x. 
pp. 110, 123, 124^ London, 1848. 


which stands on the one side, and on the other side, of 
the one chief separating line of division. 

Take the hypothesis on this side, and you may indeed 
with perfect consistency take a high view of the Eucharis- 
tic elements as, in the truest sense, effectual proxies,^ 

* This is indeed nothing more than the true doctrine of the Beformed 
Ghnrcb. And if some writers have, in strong opposition to the Cor- 
poral Presence, seemed to fall short of this, or if others have some- 
times incautiously expressed themselves as if disallowing it, their lan- 
guage should receive a favourable construction, to bring it into har- 
mony with the more matured and more careful expressions of the 
truth. (See Papers on the Eucharistic Presence, pp. 807, 410, 722 — 
744 ; Doctrine of Sacraments in relation to Doctrines of Grace, pp. 
69, 70, 102—107.) 

Zwingle writes : " Teitia virtus [Sacramentorum]. Vies rerum sunt 
qoias significant, unde et nomina earum sortiuntur. . . . Corpus 
Christi omnia que in illo gesta cum oculis subjici nequeant, panis et 
vinum ifjus loeo edenda proponuntur. . . . Panis et vinum amicitisB 
illius quo Deus humano generi per filium suum reconciliatus est, sym- 
bola sunt, qu» non sestimamus pro materise pretio, sed juxta signifi- 
catsB rei magnitudinem, ut jam non sit vulgaris panis, sed sacer : non 
panis tantum nomen habeat, sed Corporis Christi quoque, imo sit 
Corpus Christi, sed appellatione et significations, quod recentiores 
vocant sacramentaliter. . . . Hoc est corpus meum, id est, hoc est 
sacramentum corporis mei, sive hoc est corpus meum sacra- 
mentale sive mystioum, id est, ejus quod vere assumpsi mortique 
objeci, symbolum, sacramentale et vioarium" (Zwingle, Fidei Chr. 
Expositio, Opera, tom. ii. f. 655, 556, 557, Zurich, 1581.) 

Hooker says : '' It seemeth therefore much amiss that against them, 
whom they term Sacramentaries, so many invective discourses are 
made, all running upon two points, that the Eucharist is not a bare 
sign or figure only, and that the efficacy of His Body and Blood is not 
all we receive in this sacrament. For no man having read their books 
and writings which are thus traduced, can be ignorant that both these 
assertions they plainly confess to be most true. They do not so in- 
terpret the words of Christ as if the name of His Body did impart but 
the figure of His Body, and to be were only to signify His Blood. They 



for all pnrposeB of participation and communion^ of 
those lifegiving things whose names they bear; and 
by reascm of their consecrated relation to things un- 
seen, yoa may fitly treat them 'with the reverence 
due to objects of worship — in the older sense of that 

It may eren be possible to go a step further than this, 
and to regard the consecrated elements as changed with 
an inbereni ohange (altogether beyond that change of 
use taught by our Reformers and our most esteemed 
Divines since the Beformation) ; a change by which they 
become possessed (in some sort) of spiritual efficacy, by 
the power of the Holy Ghost, or by the presence of life- 
giving virtae^ lor the purposes of Oommunion. Such a 
view, indeed, seems to me to go altogether beyond what 
i9 wftrrMited by Holy Soripture ; and I know no sufficient 
evidence to justify the assertion of its having formed 
any part of the primitive faith.* Moreover, it has been 
fiU by Ibose who have held it, to be not the doctrine, 
and by some to be not consistent with the doctrine, of 

groat IflMik IhsM holy myttwies reoeived in due manner do instm- 
mentally both make ud partakers of tbe grace of that Body and Blood 
wfakrii iMm ffif^n. for the life of the world, and besides also impart 
unto «f«iiQMi in true and real tboagh mystical manner the very per- 
son of (mr Lord Himself, whole, perfect, and entire, as hath been 
shewed." (fiooker> Eooles. PoL, book ▼. eh. ixvii. $ 8, edit. Keble, 
ynH, ii. p. BSS.) 

* Smm saoh notion, howe^r, has been supposed by some to ap- 
pear m eady as the writings oi Justin Martyr and Irenseus. See 
Bp. B«tt*a *' Corruptions of tbe Ghurch of Rome,*' sect. iii. Works, vol. 
ii. pp. 256, i5«, Ox. 1S46. But see b^ew, p. 04, 56. 


tlie JiingliBn v;nurcn.* And we may be very thankful 
to know that our Church has deliberately and carefully 
eluninated from her formularies whatever might have 
seemed to lend sanction to such an unscriptural 

Yet it may possibly be admitted that some such view 
might be held by those who stand on this side of the 
great separating boundary of Eucharistic doctrine. And 
such a view might justify even a higher degree of rever- 
ence for what is outward and visible in the Sacrament. 

But adoration, as implying the devotion due to 
Divinity alone, may not be directed towards the ele- 
ments. All true adoration must be regarded as a 
mistake, and a mistake to be carefully shunned by 
all who would shun the sin of idolatry. 

Take the hypothesis on the other side, and to be con- 
sistent you must indeed recognise the fitness of Eucha- 
ristic adoration addressed to that which is under the 
forms of bread and wine. But then you must also 
recognise Christianity as a changeful, growing thing, t 

* See Papers on the Eucharistic Presence, pp. 458, 459, and Ileal 
Objective Presence, p. 20. 

f It has of J ate been much observed that such phrases as ** real 
presence " are of modern origin. 

Examples may, indeed, be alleged of ancient language speaking of 
Christ as present iu the Eucharist; but none, I believe, which can 
be fairly understood as representing Hi in present in the elements. 

Indeed, when the Fathers do speak of the presence of Christ in 
the ordinance, I think it wiU be found that their language ruiher 
points to a presence of His person, as distinguished from His Body 
and Blood — as the res tacraiuenti represented by lh« elements ; and 



tery imperfect in its origin, subsequently by degrees 
developed, and not reaching maturity for thirteen cen- 
turies. You must regard it as at first like the streak of 

still more to a presence as quite apart from the elements themselves 
in the sacrament. 

He is said, indeed, by one to be present in the Sacrament because 
it is His body : " In illo Sacramento Ghristus est, quia corpus est 
Christi/* (De Mysteriis, cap. ix., in Op. Ambrosii, ed. Ben., torn. ii. c. 
841.) Compare Florus Magister : " Ubi corpus ejus, ibi Jesus est " (De 
Expos. Miss. § 67, Op., edit. Migne, c. 60), which perhaps suggested 
Bp. Andrewes's " Ubi corpus, ubi sanguis, ibi Ghristus,'' on which 
see Vegan's observations, ** True Doctrine of Euch.," p. 600. 

He is, indeed, in their view, the victim slain (representatively) in 
the Sacrament But much rather He is — ^not in representation only 
— the Mediator, the Lord of the feast, the Giver of His own sacrificed 
Body and Blood. (See Papers on Eucharistic Presence, p. 338.) 

In the Liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions the Deacon is directed 
to say, after the Consecration— ^Eri koI tri heriOwfiev rov Qeov ^ca 
TOv XpiffTOV avTOv vTTtp Tov dwpov Tov TTpoaKOfiiordiyToq Kvpi^ r&> 
0£^, OTTWC a ayadog Oeog Trpoordi^riTai avTO dia ttIq fiEcriTetag tov 
XpitTTOv aifTOv lie to iiroupaviov avTOv Ovaiafrniptoy, elg oafiriy 
evuf^tae. (Cotelerius, 1670, torn. i. p. 404. See Bomish Mass and 
English Church, p. 97.) 

Ambrose says : *' Hunc panem dedit Apostolis ut dividerent populo 
credentium, hodieque dat nobis eum, quern ipse quotidie sacerdos 
consecrat suis verbis. Hie panis factus est esca Sanctorum. Pos- 
sumus et ipsum Dominum accipere, qui suam carnem nobis dedit 
sicut ipse ait: Ego sum panis vitse." (Ambrosius, De Benedict. 
Patriarch., cap. ix. § 38, 39, Opera, ed. Bened., torn. i. c. 524, 525.) 

Chrysostom says: 'Op^c avTov KeifiEyoy fiaXXoy ^e Kai ^(oi/^c 
aifTOv CiKOveiQ, (pdeyyofxiyov avrov ^la rCty cvayycXiorwi/.** (In 
Matth. Horn. 1. al. li.. Op., edit. Montfaucon, torn. vii. p. 517.) 

Again : *0 yap to /JLEi^oy Eovg, Tovrimy eavToy TrapaOeiQf ttoXX^ 
fidWoy oIk ana^iworei Koi ^la^ovyai croi to crd/jLa. (Ibid. p. 517.) 

Again : *H Trpocrfopa fi avTti tffri, , , , fiv o XpiaroQ toIq fiadrj- 
rate t^wKe . . . to rrdy TiJG ir/orcwc ecrrly . . . kuI tovto Toiyvy aCjfid 
tOTt K^Keiyo' 6 ^e yofxi^wy tovto eKarroy iKeiro drai, ovk ol^ey oti 


lights as of the new moon in the dark heavens, gradu- 
ally waxing larger, yet still as partially dark until Pope 

6 XpioTog roc vvy ir&pe<rTi, teal vvv hipyeX. (IbicL in 2 Tim. i., 
Horn. 11., Op., torn. xi. pp. 671, 672.) 

Again (allading to Joseph and Pharaoh's butler) : Ai^oc 6 fiatri- 
Xevg £ic X^'ipo, T^y vfieripav luttrii to trarrfipiov to (^pucrov roi iroXX^c 
yilJLov Svvdfieiac, (Gateoh. ad illamin. i. § i., Op., edit Monti'aucon, 
torn. 11. p. 226.) 

Again: Tpairefa trapitm flatrtXlicrif AyyiXoi ^laKoyovfievoi kv 
TpawH^y, airros vapetrri 6 liatnXevc* (In Ep. ad Ephes., Horn. iii. 
§ 5, Op., edit. Montfaacon, torn. xi. p. 23.) 

Again : Tlap€<m koI vvv 6 Xpcoroc Ttjv TpaireZav KotrfiHv, (De 
Prod. Jud., Horn. ii. § 6, Op., edit. Montfaacon, torn. ii. p. 394.) 

Again : "^Qawep yap ^ irapovtria avrov . . . Tovg firj li^aixevovQ 
altrtlv fiaXKov KaT£Kpivev' ovrut koi tq fivarljpia fieil^ovoQ kiftolia 
KoXaaeufC yiviTai toIq ava^iiag fierixovtri. (In 1 Cor., Horn, xxviii. 
§ 1, Op., edit. Montfaucon, torn. x. p. 261). 

[The author of the *' Opus imperfectum in Matth." says of Christ : 
** 8i sit prsesens, non oreditur, sed videtur : cum autem absens fuerit, 
non videtur, sed creditur." (Horn. liii. ex cap. xxv.. In Op. Chrysost., 
edit Montfaucon, tom. vi. App. p. ccxxi.)] 

Proclus says : " PrsBsepis vice, altare veneremur ; pro infante, 
pauem per infantem benedictum [tov ^m tov fipiipovg elXoyovfuvov 
&pTov] complectamur." (Proclus, Orat xvii. in Biblioth. Max. 
Patr. Lugd., tom. vi. 1677, p. 609. See Albertinus, De Euch., p. 773.) 

Cyril of Alexandria says : Xpicrrdg iffidg trfffitpov e(rTidTui, 
Xptoroc fujiit^ trfifiepov ^laKovtV* (Horn. Div. x., Op., edit. Migne, 
tom. X. c. 1017). 

The venerable Bede says : ** Elac ergo frequentia corporalis su88 
manifestationis ostendere voluit Dominus, ut diximus, in omni loco 
se bonorum desideriis divinittu esse prsssentem. . . . Apparuit in 
fraotione panis his, qui se peregrinum esse putantes ad hospitium 
Tocaverunt: aderit et nobis cum peregrinis et pauperibus, qusBcunque 
possumus, bona libentur impendimus. Aderit et nobis in fractione 
panis, cum sacramentum corporis ejus, videlicet panis vivi, casta et 
simplici conscientia sumimus." (Homil. iEstiv. de Tempore Feria 
8exta Pasob. Matth. 28, Opera, edit Cologne, 1688, tom. vii. C..16.) 



Urban gave it its full splendour by appointing the novel 
festival of Corpus Christi — even as in our own days 
we have seen a further development of Eoman Chris- 
tianity in the Dedication of the Church by the Pope to 
the Sacred Heart — in consequence of the mystical visions 
and supposed revelations made to an ecstatic devotee or 
a hysterical nun.* 

"Jesus, qui altaribus sacrosanctis inter immolandum, utpote pro- 
posita consecraturus, adesse Don dubitatur." (Hincmar Rem., Ep. ii. 
Ad Car. Calv. Reg., De Cavendis Vitiis, § xi., Opera, edit. Paris, 1645, 
torn. ii. p. 88.) 

Let the reader be asked to consider whether these passages, fairly 
interpreted, are suggestive of any other view of Christ's presence in 
the Eucharist than that which was acknowledged by Zwingle in the 
words — "Christum credimns vere esse in ccena, irao non credimus 
esse domini ccenam nisi Christus adsit." (Opera, Tiguri, 1581, torn. ii. 
io, 56:ia.) 

It must be remembered, too, that in this matter of Presence, as in 
other things, the Fathers used much licence of speech. 

Damascenus, speaking of tlie cross, says: "Ei^Oa yap Jjy to 
trrfiieiov, ekbI koi avrug Eorai. (De Fid. Orth., lib. iv. c. xii., Op., ed. 
Leqiiien, torn. i. p. 265.) 

Clirysostom spoke of seeing the King sitting on the throne of His 
Glory in the Gospel. (In Maith., Hom. ii. § 1, Op., edit. Montfaucon, 
torn. vii. p. 19.) 

Another said : " Sepulchrum Domini quotiescunque Ingredimur, 
toties jacere in sindoue cernimus sal valorem involutum." (See Alber- 
tinus, De Euch., p. 566.) 

Augustine says: " Si bonus es, babes Christum ... in prsesenti per 
fidem, in prsesenti per signum [i.e, crucem], in prsBsenti per baptis- 
matis sacramentum, in prsesenti per altaris cibuna et potum," (in 
Joan , Tract. 1., Op., edit. Ben. 1680, torn. iii. par. ii. c. 633.) 

* "Writing to you on the 17th of June |1875], I gave you a 
description of the religious revival going forward in honour of the 
Sacred Henrt ; the many services already held and to be held through- 
out the month in at least one hundred different churches in the city; 
the splendour with which those churches were decorated, and the 


And yet further, on this hypothesis, to be consistent, 
those who are seeking to introduce Eucharistic Adora- 
tion among us must not only seek to restore the Eastward 

crowd? of persons attending them. At the same time £ told you that 
OQ the 22nd of April the Pope had signed a decree dedicating the 
Universal Catholic Church to the Sacred Heart; that the dedication 
was formally made on the 16th June ; that on that day, and to that 
purpose, a special service had heen held, with unwonted pomp, iu the 
Church of the Gesu ; that the Te Deum had heen sung iu especial 
honour of the occasion at St. John Lateran, St. Peter's, and at the 
Gesu; and that the Act of Dedicatiou had heen publicly read iu 
those and in all the other principal churches of the city. The KUU 
of June was chosen for the dedication, as it was the second centenary 
of the miraculous manifestation said to have heen made to Marguerite 
Marie Alacoque, and the anniversary was celebrated in other places 
— at Paray le Monial and at Paris, where the foundation-stone of a 
church dedicated to the Sacred Heart was laid on Montmartre. It 
was in France this new religion had its origin and has become most 
extended ; and from France innumerable petitions have been laid at 
the foot of the Papal Throne praying for this very dedication, and for 
superior authorisation to justify the prayer, ' Dieu de clemence, Dieu 
protecteur, sauvez Rome et la France, votre Sacre CoBur.' Similar 
applications were received from other countries, and the reasons for 
the Pope first limiting the Dedicatiou to Italy are supposed to be that 
the visible devotions of the French Catholics to the mystical visions 
of the hysterical nun, Marie Alacoque, had at times taken forms which 
were rather startling than edifying. 

** On the 1st of June the Cardinal Vicar published an Invito Saoro, 
in which he says : — 

** * It is not, therefore, marvellous that this devotion, from Catholic 
France, where it had its origin, has been propagated and diffused in 
Italy, in all Europe, and throughout the entire world, and that to-day 
Bishops and faithful of all nations have turned to the sacred Apostolic 
See, confidently expressing their desire — uamely, that there is no other 
remedy against the many evils by which the human family is afflicted 
than to consecrate it whollv to the Holiest Heart of Jesus. For 
which reason, the Holy Father, in the desire to satisfy in some manner 
the common desire, has deigued, by decree of the Sacred Congregation 


position and the vestments — ^must not only desire to ele- 
vate with sound of sacring bell the host and the chalice ; 
they must also aim at providing in our churches con- 
tinual access to the Sacramental Presence as a perpetual 
object to which to address our prayers. It would be 
uncharitable and cruel to stop short of this. Nay, fur- 
ther ; they must seek to restore to us the festival and 
the ceremonial of Corpus Christi.* Our religion would 

of Rites, dated the 22Qd of April, to improve the formula of consecra- 
tion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, exhorting all the faithful throughout 
the Catholic world to recite the same, either in congregation or la 
private, on the 16th of this current June, the 30th anniversary of his 
assumption of the Supreme Pontificate, and second centenary of the 
revelation made hy the Divine Redeemer to the hlessed Marguerite, 
to propagate the devotion to His Sacred Heart." (Correspondence of 
the I'vFies from Rome.) 

* A recent writer of the Church of England (the Rev. F. G. Lee, 
D.C.L.), is quoted {Record, Nov. 29, 1875) as saying : " In countries 
which are specially and eminently Christian, .... where the Blessed 
Sacrament of the Altar, Grod manifest in the Flesh, reposing in the 
tahemacle, or home in triumph through aisle, and street, and garden, 
hallows and feeds the faithful, there the power and influence of the 
Evil One is circumscribed and weakened.'* 

If such language were according to the mind of the Reformed 
Church of England, it would seem as if but a few steps further on 
were needed to bring us to a desire for the restoration of the pro- 
cession belonging to the discarded Festival. 

But very different was the doctrine of such men as Bishop Gosin. 
" Quinetiam negamus sacramentum, extra usum a Deo institutum, 
rationem habere sacramenti, in quo Christus reservari aut circum- 
gestari debeat aut possit ; quum communicantibus tantum adsit. . . . 
Quod asserunt pontificii, — Christum dare nobis Corpus et Sanguinem 
suum, ore ac dentibus sumendum et comedendum, ita ut non solum 
degludiatur ab impiis, vera fide destitutis, sed etiam a muribus et 
gliribus, — id vero nos ore, corde, et mente penitus pernegamus." 
(Cosin, Hist. Trans., cap. iv. § v., Works, A. C. L., vol. iv. p. 49.) 


be lacking a suitable recognition of the majesty of this 
mystery without this. 

Before, howeyer, such an attempt is made, is it too 
much to ask that there may be a reconsideration of this 
whole subject ? 

Ministers of our own communion may at least be 
entreated to mark first how clearly and consistently this 
Reformed Church of England has taken her stand on the 
other side of the broad line of demarcation. 

"Blessed be God," says Archbishop Wake, "our 
Church is too well persuaded of the unlawfulness of 
such a worship, ever to require it of us."* 

I will not here appeal afresh to the details of the 
evidence furnished by her Articles and Liturgy,! but 
I will ask, What else can be the meaning of the rejection 
of elevation, reservation, and ostension ? How else can 
we possibly account for the reason given to justify 
kneeling reception ? Has she not plainly declared " that 
thereby no adoration is intended, or ought to be done,J 

Again: ** Gum poculum nonaisi sacramentali metonymia possit esse 
illud testamentum, planum fit, nee panem aliter esse posse Corpus 
Christi." (Cosin, Hist Transub., cap. v. § iv.. Works, A. C. L., voL 
iv. p. 58.) 

* See Gibson's Preservative, vol. x. p. 113, London, 1848. 

f See Papers on the Eucharistic Presence, Nos. vii. and viii. 

I '* We kneel, and the Papists kneel ; but we declare when we 
kneel, we intend no adoration to the Elements; but the Papists 
cannot deny that they do give proper adoration to that whioh is before 
them ; which we say is Bread, and they say, the Body of Christ 
under the species of Bread ; and yet not merely to the invisible Body 


either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily 
received, or unto any Corporal Presence of Christ's 
natural Flesh and Blood ?" And has she not added this 
further reason against such adoration : " The Sacramen- 
tal Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural 
substances, and therefore may not be adored ; * (for 

of Christ, but taking the species of Bread as united to that Body of 
Christ, and so directing their worship to these two together as the 
proper objects of Divine adoration. And to make this evident to you, 
their adoration is performed at the elevation of the Host ; and at the 
carrying it about in Processions, and at the exposing it on their 
Aitars; and not merely in the participation of it. Whence it is 
observable, that the Griurch of Home does not strictly require kneel- 
ing at the participation, which it would do if it looked on the kneeling 
at receiving as a proper act of Adoration. The Kubricks of the Mass 
do nor, that I can find, require the Priest to kneel in the act of 
receiving; and the Pope, when he celebrate;^, receives sitting. 
Espeneseus saith, in the Church of Lvons, many of the people did not 
receive kneeling ; and upon complaint made about it, they were by 
the advice of Two Cardinals left to their old custom. And I wonder 
your Brethren have not taken notice of the differeuce of kneeling at 
the elevatici. of the Host, and in the act of receiving it ; the one was 
required by the Constitution of Uonorius. and was intended for an 
act of Adoration to the Host: The other was derived from the 
AncientChurch, which although it did not always use the same posture 
of Adoration that we do ; yet it is bufficient for our purpose, if they 
received the Sacrament in the same posture in which they worshipped 
God. And this I could easily prove, if this were a place or season 
for it." (Stillingileet, Conferences concerning the Idolatry of the 
Church of Rome, Works, vol. vi. p. 14.) 

* " It is evident,*' says Dean Aldrich, ** that when we say Christ is 
present, or adorable in the Sacrament, we do not mean in the elements, 
but in the celebration. We affirm His natural body to be locally in 
heaven and not here ; and that we, who are here and not in heaven, 
ought to worship it as locally present in heaven, while we celebrate 
the Holy Sacrament upon earth." (Reply to Two Discourses, p. 1? .) 


that were idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful 

Above all, has she not added this declaration also: 
" The natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ 
are in heaven, and not here ; it being against the truth 
of Christ's * natural Body to be at one time in more 
places than one ? *' t 

^ Cbrist's natural body is distinguished from His mystical body 
(the Oburoh), and His sacramental body (t e. tlie sacrament of His 
body), and is not distinguished at all from any spiritual body of 
Christ. Indeed, it has been very truly observed by Mr. Milton : ** His 
natural and His spiritual body is one and tlie same — natural in the 
truth of our nature, spiritual in its risen and glorified condition." 
The term xf/vxiKoy (1 Cor. xv. 44) is not no^ applicable to our Lord's 
body, because it is the body of tbe resurrection. And of that natural 
-glorified spiritual body the * Declaration ' asserts that ' U is in heaven 
and not here."' (See Milton, Eucharist Illustrated, p. 77.) 

+ ** The Rubric saith expressly, T^/z/i^ it is against tlie truth of Christ's 
natural body to be at one time in more phices than one. It doth not 
say, against the corporeal presence of His natural body, but the truth 
of it. From whence it follows, that our Church believes the true 
natural body of Christ, which was born of the Virgin, suffered on the 
cross, and ascended into heaven, can he but in one place, which is 
declared in the foregoing words : And the natural body and hhod of 
our Saviour Christ are in heaven and not here ; i.e. in heaven ex- 
clusively from being in the Sacrament. Which are not true, if the 
same natural body of Christ could be at the same time in heaven and 
in the Host" (Stillingfleet, Works, vol. vi. p. 1».) 

** If any do seem to speak of the presence of the very same Body 
which is in heaven, I desire them, in the Jir»t place, to reconcile that 
doctrine with this dogmatical assertion at the end of this rubrivk ; that 
it is against tlie truth of Christ's natural body (not against tiie cor- 
poral presence of it), to be at one time in more places than one. Let 
men imagine what kind of presence they please of the same body, I 
only desire to know, whether to be in heaven, and to be in the Sacra- 
msni^ be to be in tbe same or distinct places ? If the places be distinct, 


Have we not here a rejection, not only of the adora- 
tion, but of the Presence which some are so earnestly 
contending for? And have we not also here a recog- 
nition of the truth that the question of adoration should 
be determined by the question of the Presence ? * 

as no doubt heaven and earth are, then our Church declares. That it 
is contrary to the truth of Christ's natural body to be in more places 
than one at one time" (Stillingfleet, Works, vol. vi., pp. 22, 23.) 

" The sense of the rubrick lies in these two propositions : 1. That 
it is idolatry to give adoration to the elements remaining in their natural 
substances, 2. That it is absurd to believe Chrises natural body to 
to be present^ because then it must he in more places tJian one, which is 
repugnant to the truth of a body. These things, to my apprehension, 
are the plain and natural sense of this rubrickJ' (Ibid., p. 16.) 

* On the change of the term •* corporal presence " to ** real and 
essential presence," at the last review, see Papers on the Eucharistic 
Presence, pp. 467—474, 578 — 586; Real Objective Presence, pp. 

The change of expression was desirable, because there is, in the 
teaching of Reformed theology, a real and essential presence to the 
soul, as distinguished from a corporal presence, which is a presence 
to the body. (See Real Presence of Laudian Theology, p. 62.) 

Archbishop Tennison says of the presence : " Real it is, if it be 
present in its real effects, and they are the essence of it, so far as a 
communicant doth receive it." (Discourse of Idolatry, London, 1678, 
p. 181.) ^ 

But the structure of the rubric itself renders a purpose of changing 
the doctrinal statement inconceivable. 

Let it be carefully considered what such a change would amount to. 
It would be a designed rejection of the previous statement, admitting 
its contradictory. 

But the contradictory of the previous statement would be that 
adoration may be done to a real and essential presence there being of 
Christ's natural flesh and blood — the amended statement still declaring 
that no adoration ought to be done to any corporal presence of Christ's 
natural flesh and blood. 

The effect of the change of statement would obviously be to make 


Surely, herein she has learned a lesson from the words 
of Cranmer, words never to be forgotten — those words 
of prophetic warning against the roots of error in the 
doctrine of Transubstantiation and the Beal Presence ; 
** which roots," he says, " if they be suffered to grow 
in the Lord's vineyard, they will overspread all the 
ground again with the old errors and superstitions." * 

a distinction betvireen a real and essential presence (not to the soul 
but upon tbe table), and a corporal presence there ; allowing adora- 
tion to the one, and refusing it to the other. 

But the whole argument of the rubric will be found to apply as 
much to tbe exclusion of adoration to the one as to the other. If the 
rubric allows adoration to a real and essential presence in tbe ele- 
ments, then the order of kneeling is certainly not well meant for a 
signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of tbe 
benefits of Christ given in the Lord's Supper to all worthy receivers : 
and fiirther, not only is it foolish to argue from the statement of Christ's 
natural body and blood being in heaven, but it is actually untrue to 
declare that they are in heaven and not here. And then, further still, 
it cannot be maintained that it is against the truth of Christ's natural 
body to be at one time in more places than one. 

On the hypothesis of tbe doctrinal statement being thus changed 
to admit of the teaching of the adorable presence of Christ's Body 
really and essentially present after the manner of a spirit in the ele- 
ments, it will be found that there is a cause for the statement appended 
to the statement, which alleged cause is not only inapplicable to the 
statement, but is actually destructive of it. 

But further : looking at the object of the rubric, it cannot be denied 
that, upon tb^ supposition of such an intentional change of the doc- 
trinal statement, the whole rubric would have been a miserable 
delusion, an attempt to put to rest men's suspicions by a declaration, 
which declaration in its changed form (with the change so understood), 
instead of removing suspicions, would not merely have aggravated them, 
but have raised the fiercest opposition. Such an attempt at public 
deception is not only incredible, it would have been worthy of infamy. 

* Preface to Answer to Gardiner, ed. 1550. 


Now, before we consent to be guided by a theology 
which has ah'eady bidden us regard Cranmer as a 
heretic,* which in consistency must teach us not only 
to condemn our Eeformers and our great Church of 
England divines, but also step by step to undo the work 
and undermine the teaching of our Eeformation, till we 
have restored to us the festival of Corpus Christi, let 
the question of Eucharistic Presence be carefully and 
thoroughly investigated. 

I can scarcely think it too much to say that the views 
of a considerable number of the younger generation of 

* Thus Dr. Pusey speaks of " the meaning of the Zwinglian school, 
into which Cranmer afterwards unhappily fell" (Kettl Presence 
the Doct, of the Eng. Ch., p. 159), and this, Iq the context imme- 
diately preceding, is called ** the Zwinglian heresy." 

So Dr. Neale, in his Preface to the ** Tetralogia Liturgica," uses the 
term " haeretici " to signify the " Reformed," and ** haerebis Z wingliana" 
to expiess their views. (See pp. xii. and xvii.) 

Nor is there in this anytliiug to be complained of. Rather it is de- 
sirable that it should be clearly seen that from the standpoint of 
those who hold the Real Objective Presence in the elements, those 
who reject that doctrine ought, ia charity as well as in truth, to be 
thus denominated. See Essays on the Reformation (Vivish, Maid- 
stone), pp. 18 — '45. 

The doctrine, when held in its distinctness, must in consistency 
have its claim admitted to be regarded as an article of the faith. And 
when it has been marked as *' of the faith," its repudiation must also 
be marked as heretical. 

See Dr. Pusey, as quoted in Dr. Harrison's " Challenge Answered/' 
vol. ii. p. 341 ; see also Papers on Eucharistic Presence, p. 687. 

'* If your assertion is correct," wrote Bp. Shuttleworth, in 1841, to 
one now a Romish priest, ** our Canons are heretical, the Prayer-book 
is heretical, St. Paul is heretical." (Last Three Sermons, Riving- 
ton, p. U4.) 


our clergy have been largely influenced—not to say 
grievously warped — ^by assuming that what is now called 
the doctrine of the Eeal Objective Presence has certainly 
been the teaching of the Catholic Church of Christ in all 
ages, and that the testimony of all the early Fathers is 
found clearly to support it. Indeed, I quite believe that 
a very considerable number of persons are even still 
persuaded that in shielding the Eucharistic doctrine of 
the extreme Eitualists, they are only defending the posi- 
tion of a continuous succession of our most honoured 
Church of England divines. And though this error is 
by degrees giving way, the result in too many cases, 
I fear, is simply that men fall back on the assumption 
that, at any rate, it is the doctrine of Christian anti- 
quity ; and therefore the Church of England, seeing she 
professes to seek the old paths, ought certainly to 
teach it. 

Such an assumption, indeed, might seem unaccount- 
able but for the confidence of assertion which may some- 
times seem to support it, and the facility with which 
passages — numbers of them — ^may be quoted, in which 
language is found, such as might safely enough be used 
before the idea of the Corporal Presence was ever dreamt 
of, but which, if employed after the birth of the Pas- 
chasian doctrine, might (it is readily granted) fairly have 
been regarded as tending rather to support it. 

It is, perhaps, scarcely to be wondered at, if contro- 
versialists have learned so to marshal these passages in 


order as to produce a really imposing effect. But it is 
to be regretted that they have also too often written as 
if they expected that, without further examination, all 
opposition must give way before them, and (except in 
cases of invincible prejudice) the question must be 
regarded as settled, and the victory won* — ^ignoring 

* This assumption is very observable in the works of some Roman 
Catholic divines. But some striking examples of it might be cited 
from publications of our own day, not written by Romanists. 

It is curious to observe how Dr. Neale writes, as if in the seven- 
teenth century Amauld had, in this controversy, won, with a master's 
hand, an easy victory over all opponents, and reduced to silence all 
enemies of the Komish doctrine. 

He says : " Nicole and Amauld laboured at their * Perpetuity of the 
faith of the Church concerning the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist,* 
in which the ablest of the Calvinist authors, Claude, Aubertin, and 
Blondel, were so thoroughly crushed and overwhelmed, that they never 
ventured to make head on that subject again." (Jansenist Church, 
Introduction, pp. 32, 33.) Did any divine of the Church of England 
ever express himself thus on this controversy before ? 

Dr. Neale cannot possibly have meant to convey such an impression. 
Yet his words might not very unnaturally (I think) lead the reader to 
suppose that no attempt even was ever made to answer ** I^a Perpetuite 
de la Foi ; " that the three champions of the Reformed faith looked on 
and saw a death-blow given to their belief; that they recognised in 
the work of their opponents a confutation of their writings which they 
ail felt to be unanswerable, or which, at any rate, they knew they had 
no power to reply to. 

It is, indeed, quite true that Aubertin (Albertinus) wrote no reply. 
He had been dead some years ; so also hstd Blondel. 

But it is well known with what vigour the controversy was carried 
on by Claude, whose ability has won the admiration of Romanists. 
See Walchii Bibliotheca Theol., torn. ii. pp. 232—236, 321, 322, and 
Chalmers's Biographical Dictionary, art. Arnauld and Claude. See 
also Claude's Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist, Pref., p. 1, En^. 
trans. (London, 1084). 

Claude's power was signally displayed in replying to the tracts 


the fact that side by side sometimes with such 
sayings of the Fathers may be found interpretative 

named by Dr. Neale, And that he suffered Nicole and Arnauld in 
their work '* La Response aux Passages Difficiles des Peres/* pub- 
lished in 1672. to have the last word, was certainly not because he 
yielded the yictory. See Walch, p. 233. In the following year he 
puhlished his '* Defence of the Reformation.*' See Walch, p. 821. 

Claude himself had been dead nearly twenty years, when, in 1704, 
the collected pieces of Arnauld and Nicole, in four yolumes, were pub- 
lished under the title, *' La Perpetuite de la Foi,** &o. See Deylin- 
gius, Obs. Sao., par. iy. p. 161. 

Moreover it was as his contribution to this controversy, and espe- 
cially as an antidote to the great fallacies which he saw ninning through 
the argument of Arnauld, that our own Bishop Gosin was induced to 
publish, in 1675, his valuable " History of Transubstantiation " (which 
he had written previously), in defence of the " Real Presence ** of 
Protestants (Continental as well as English, Reformed not less than 
Lutheran), i.e. of the primitive doctrine of the Eucharist, against the 
corraptions of the Romish doctrine. (See Durel's ** Preefatio,'' in 
Cosin's Works, A. 0. L., vol. iv. pp. 7, 8. See also Cosin's Letter to 
Blondel, lb., pp. 482, 483.) 

The great fallacy which Oosin observed in the argument of Arnauld, 
was the same which had appeared before in the book by which La 
Milletiere had, in his own judgment, triumphed so gloriously over 
Albertinus or Aubertin. (See Bramhall's Works, A. C. L., vol. i. 


Archbishop Bramhall (then Bishop of Derry) then wrote to him in 
reply : " Having viewed all your strength with a single eye, I find 
not one of your arguments that comes home to I'ransubstantiation, but 
only to a true Real Presence, which no genuine son of the Church of 
England did ever deny, no, nor your adversary [Aubertin] himself.'* 
(Works, A. C. L., vol. i. p. 8.) 

With reference to the controversy of the Jansenistn, our Archbishop 
Wake wrote: "The first attempt they [the Jansenistn] made was 
a little piece that has since given occasion to a very long controversy 
between Monsieur Arnauld and Monsieur Chiude, of tlie Perpetuity 
of the Faith as to the real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. 
A tract, which if we regard only the neatneBS and subtilty of the 
composure, it must bo avo.ved scarce an)- thing evei a]^^ft«Lt^\SLWivix^ 

dicta* before which the army with banners is seent 

worthy that applause it met with in the world. . . . But the sophistry 
of this method has been sufficiently exposed in the volumes composed 

on this occasion In effect the design of this first method 

amounted to this much ; that Transubstantpttion .... was visibly 
once the common doctrine of the Church : and 'tis impossible it should 
have been so then, had it ever been otherwise before. And this to 
be believed in the strength of a sophistical argument, notwithstand- 
ing all the evident instances of matter of fact which Monsieur 
d'Aubertine and others have at large collected to the contrary." 
(Defence of the Exposition of the Doct of the Ch. of E., 1686, Pref., 
pp. ii. iii.) 

* See Appendix, Note D. 

t It should be noted that not only have we interpretative dicta in 
the writings of the Fathers, but also illustrations of their language as 
applied to the elements drawn from their mode of speaking of other 

Thus Chrysostom affirms not only that the table on which he con- 
secrated was the same as that which Christ used, but that his church 
was that very same upper chamber where Christ and His disciples 
were when He instituted the Lord's Supper. (See Harrison's ** Dr. 
Pusey's Challenge Answered," vol. ii. p. 186.) Not only so, but the 
hand from which the elements are received is to be regarded as the 
hand not of the minister, but of Christ Himself (Ibid., p. 181) ; though 
elsewhere he says ** as from the tongs of the seraphim." (See 
Albertinus, De Euch., p. 678.) 

Moreover, he teaches Christians to believe that it is the very same 
Supper in which Christ reclined. (In Matt., Hom. 1. al. Ii., Op., ed. 
Montfaucon, torn. vii. p. 617, and in ii. Ep. ad Tim. cap. i., Hom. ii.. 
Op., torn. xi. p. 671.) All which is obviously untrue (as St Augustine 
teaches: see Albertinus. De Euch., p. 731) except to faith, to which 
" praiterita sunt prsesentia." 

St. Augustine says : ** Judex fuerat in prsecone. Quia et quando 
judex loquitur per prgeconem, exceptor non facit, Prseco dixit ; sed 
Judex dixit." (In Joan. Evang. cap. x., Tract, xlv., Op., edit. Ben. 
1680, torn. iii. par. ii. c, 398 ) 

•a /x>7 3t' o\(M}v tcrriv oirep \iyeraiy U KaraxpritT eujc c'xct r^v 
Kkiimv. (Gregory Nys., De Opificio Hominis, c. xv.. Op., edit.Migne, 
torn. i. c. 176.) 

so to melt away that its thinned ranks cease to be 

What we have to ask is, that thoughtful men, not 
trusting to the guidance of books written in the interests 

* As to that other class of extracts, in which the change of the 
Elements is spoken of, Bishop Cosin writes : ** Hio mire gloriantiir 
transubstantiatores, habere se consensum totius antiquitatis. Besp. 
At respondendum est, a non distributo ad distributum non valere 
consequentiam. . . . Quoniamigitur vulgaris panis per benedictionem 
converdtur in panem qui, a communi usu exemptus, in hune usum 
sacrum ex institute divino adhibitur, ut sit symbolum sacraroentale, 
per quod representetur Corpus Ohristi, in quo plenitudo Deitatis 
habitat corporaliter; atqueadeo, in alium ac nobiliorem statum trans- 
latus, fiat quiddam amplius quam quod erat antea; iude veterum 
nonnuUi panem mutatum et transmutatum esse dixerunt. Et est 
sane ilia mutatio vere magna, eaque non naturalis, sed supema- 
turalis. . . . Quid, quod ipsi etiam patres has easdem /i£ra/?o\^C, 
fierawodltretaCi et utTatrroiyfitniaiQ yoces usurpant, quum de rebus aliis 
loquuntur, qu8B substantiam suam minime vel amittunt vel mutant ? 
Sunt enim voces istSB tarn amplaB significationis, ut quamvis aliquoties 
denotent mutationem substantialem, plemmque tamen nonnisi mora- 
lem, aut mutationem qualitatum, conditionis, muneris, status, et id 
genus alias indicent." (Works, A. C. L., vol. iv. pp. 99, 100.) 

Some examples may be seen in the notes to Gosin, p. 101. 

Others will be found in Dr. Pusey's " Real Presence from the 
Fathers," Note Q, pp. 162 sqq. 

The reader may also be referred to Albertinus, De Eacharistia, 
(1) for the term fierawoieiaOai, p. 487 ; (2) for the term fieTaffroi- 
XCiovy, p. 488 ; (3) for the term /icropvO/i/f civ, p. 674 ; (4) for the 
term /icra/JoXXciv, p. 424 ; (6) for the term fi£Ta(TKtvd(eiv, p. 489. 

Let it suffice here to give one example of each : — 

(1) Gregory Nys. says of the shining of the face of Moses : 
OvTiif yiverai tov M(OV(ri(OQ fj ewi ro €V^oi6repov furairolriffic roiavTri 
Koi TOtravrriy u>q kyfapriTOV tlvat t^ Koria 6<pOaXfJL^ ttIv ttjc ^o^rjc 
UeivriQ c/A^avciav. (De Vita Moysis, Mystioa Interpretatio, Opera, 
torn. i. c. 397, edit. Migne.) 



of a party, will calmly, and not superficially, examine 
this subject for themselves. 

There ^ is, indeed, abundant evidence to show that 
Christians of old time did not regard the sacramental 
elements as bare signs ; that they did think of it as a 

(2) Cyril Alex, says of Baptism: "Omrep yap Tp&KOV to iv role 
Xifiiiaiy eic)(£6fi€yov vBwp rdiQ rov mtpoQ ofiiXfi jav aicfiaie rr^v If 
airrov Ivvafiiv avafiarreTai, ourai ^la rfjc rov UyevfiaroQ IvepyeiaQ to 
alcrOrjTdv vBufp irpog Beiav riya koI appriTOv avaaroi'^tunrrai [al. 
fUTa(TTOiyEUivTai\ ZvvayLiv^ ayiafci rt \oiirov tovq kv olc av yiyovro* 
(Iq Joan. Evang., Lib. ii. in Ob. iii. v. 5, 147, Opera, torn. vi. c. 245, 
edit. Migae.) 

(3) Gregory Nys. says Baptism is received kin avaKuivia^ kcli 
ry fisrafioXy r^c ^uerfoic ^/iwy. (Orat. Catecb. c. xl., Opera, torn. ii. 
c. 101, edit. Migne.) 

(4) Clemens Alex, says : Ai^a^^i; fieTdppvBfii^Ei rov AyBpunrov, 
(Stroraat., lib. iv. § xxiii. Op., torn. i. p. 631, edit. Potter, Venice, 

(5) Clemens Alex, says : MsTatTKevaare rag yvpoiKac eic wdpyag 6 
wpoaywyoQ ovtoq Bpaxutv, (Psedagogus, lib. iii. cap. ii., Op., torn. i. 
p. 253, edit. Potter, Venice, 1757.) 

Bishop Cosin adds : *' Talem omnino permutationem, sacramentis 
omnibus communem, hie fieri intellexerunt [Patres] qua externa 
symbola in res ipsas divinas conversa esse non aliam ob causam 
dicuntur, quam quia vere et efficaciter illas reprsesentant, et fideles 
vere illarum participes fiunt, dum ea ore percipiunt; eamque, ex 
Spiritus S. virtute, et Christi Domini instituto, prserogativam divinam 
acquirimt, quam ex natura sua non habent " (p. 95). See Waterland's 
Works, vol. iv. p. 598, edit. Oxford, 1843, and Morton on Eucharist, 
p. 494, edit. 1635. 

Very hyperbolical language is used sometimes by the Fathers, of 
the change of the water of Baptism. In some Eastern offices are 
found not only prayers for this change in very remarkable language, 
bat prayers also for the return of the water afterwards to its natural 
condition. (See Neale's Hist, of Holy Eastern Church, Introduction, 
pp. 970—977.) 


part of Christian duty to receive them as made to them 
the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ. And 
it is readily granted that the Fathers have many times 
spoken of the Eucharist in highly rhetorical language — 
in language sometimes which, literally understood, would 
seem to suggest such materialistic views as are repu- 
diated even by Bomanists."^ Nay, more: it will be 
found, if I mistake not, that at an early date a super- 

* Such, I mean, as (unexplained) migbt, at firat sight, seem to imply 
a notion approaching to that conveyed in the literal meaning of the 
following words as understood in their gross and carnal sense : '* Corpus 
Domini Jesu Ohristi, quod accepimus, et sanctus sanguis Ejus, quern 
potayimus adhsareat visoeribus nostris/' (Mozarabic L. in gale's 
Tetralogia Liturgica, pp. 106, 196.) 

Bishop Morton says : " Sometimes the Fathers are found, in this 
Sacrament, to speak &Kpi/3aic, that is exactly and precisely, and some- 
time &jcvpa>c, and oiKovofjiucioQ, improperly. When they speak of a 
Corporal Conjunction with Christ's Body, exactly and simply so taken, 
80 often they appear to deny it absolutely from point to point. As (I) 
by their No bodUy touch of Christ after His resurrection. So Ambrose 
[Serm, 58 : " Non super terram, neo in terra, nee secundum carnem, 
debemus qu»rere Salvatorem*']. (2) No meat for teeth. So Augustine 
[Serm. 33 de v. Dom, : " Non dentis cibus "]. (3) Not to be devoured 
with throat. So Jttalas the Martyr. (4) Not for the heUy. So 
Cyprian {Pseudo-Cyprian^ De Ccena Dom,: "Non ventris cibus"]. 
(5) Not for bodily ConQunotion ofPersons, nor for union of substances. 
8o also the same Father [Pseudo- Cyprian, De Ccena Dom.]. (6) Not 
to be oast into the draught. So CyriL of Hierusalem [phK etc KoiKLav, ohK 
ilc &jtE^pwva, Myst. 5]. Whereunto you may add, as the complexion 
and comprehension of all the rest, that of Chrysostom concerning this 
Sacrament, ovSey aapiciicoy e^ovra, oS^e &Ko\ov6iay jtvtrtKtiy, that is. 
Having no fleshly thing, nor yet that hath any naturaloonsequence thereof, 
namely, of fleshly union. In which you have all as flat negatives to 
your Romish Corporal Union, by your Bodily Touch, whether by hand, 
mouth, or belly, as the ancient Fathers could have given, if they had 

E 2 


stitions * regard for the elements was fonnd adhering to 
the earlier and Scriptural view which looked upon them 

concluded their jadgments in a synod. . . . First then the Fathers, in 
their sjmholieal language, hare called Bread the Body of Christ, 
only saeramemtaUy, because it is a Sacrament and Sign of Christ's 
Body: which was the conclusion of our Second Book. II. They 
have not spared to call the change of bread into our bodies, a change 
of Christ's Body into oars, in alike Sacramental signification, as hath 
been shown in the Third Book. HI. Upon the same sacramental 
and analogical reason, they have used to say that we see, touch, 
taste, and eat Christ's Body, albeit improperly, as hath been plentifully 
declared, and confessed in this Fifth Book. lY. (Because eating 
prodnceth a nourishing and augmentation of the body of the eater, 
by the thing eaten) they have attributed like phrases of our Bodily 
nourishment and augmentation by Christ's Body ; which you your- 
selves have confessed to be most improperly spoken; in the same 
book. v. Almost all the former unions corporal of our bodies with 
Christ, have been ascribed by the same Fathers unto the Sacrament 
of Baptism ; wherein there cannot properly be any corporal touch, or 
conjunction at all." (Bp. Morton on Eucharist, book y. ch. ix. § 3, 4, 
pp. 370, 371, London, 1636.) 

** His Body and Blood are considered as intermingled with ours, 
when the symbols of them really and strictly are so : for the benefit 
is completely the same." (Waterland, Works, vol. iv. p. 694, 
Oxford, 1843. See his Notes, pp. 594, 595.) 

The subject is very fully and ably argued in Chamier, Panstratia 
Gatholica, De Euch., lib. xi. c. viii. ix. t. ii. pp. 304-316, ed. 1627. 

Hooker says : " Christ is both as God and man that true vine 
whereof we both spiritually and corporally are branches. The mixture 
of His bodily substance with ours is a thing which the ancient Fathers 
disclaim. Yet the mixture of His flesh with ours they speak of, to 
signify what our very bodies through mystical conjunction receive 
from that vital efficacy which we know to be His ; and from bodily 
mixtures they borrow divers similitudes rather to declare the truth, 
than the maimer of coherence between His sacred Bodyand the sanc- 
tified bodies of Saints." (Eccles. Pol., book v. ch.lvi. § 10, edit. Eeble, 
vol. ii. p. 252. See notes there.) See also Papers on the Fucharistic 
Presence, p. 141. 

• I may mention, as an example of this superstitious regard, the 


as effectual signs indeed, but still as signs, and figures, 
and symbols of the orucified Body and the outpoured 

wearing of the Sacrament as a preservative against perils by land or 
by sea (see Arcudius, De Concordia, lib. iii. cap. lix. p. 899) ; also 
the practice, obtaining in different parts of the world — ^Africa and 
France, as well as apparently the East — of giving the consecrated 
bread to the dead, which was censured by St. Ghrysostom and con- 
demned in the Councils of Carthage III., Auxerre, and in TruUo. 
(See fiingham. Antiquities of Ghr. Ch., book xxiii. sect. xiv. vol. vii. 
pp. 432, 433, 1844.) 

So St Basil is reported, after receiving one part of the Sacrament, 
to have waved another part over the altar, and to have desired that 
another part should be buried with him. (See Taylor's True Doctrine 
of Euch., p. 221.) 

Gregory the Great teUs of a young man dying without receiving the 
Sacrament (DM., lib. ii. cap. xxiv.. Op., edit. Benedict., torn. ii. c. 
M)y whom the grave would not retain till the Lord's Body was laid 
on his breast. But such customs are now spoken of by Komish 
divines as " cum institutione et majestate EucharistiaB parum 
conformes.'' (Muratori, De Rebus liturgicis, o. 283.) 

Later than this we have examples of the consecrated wine being 
mixed with ink for solemn uses, as when, in 870, the Bishops at 
the Fourth Council of Constantinople subscribed the deposition 
of Phptius. See Taylor's True Doctrine of Euch., p. 223, and 
Hospinian*8 Works, vol. iii. pp. 244, 245, and Carranza, tom. ii. p. 493. 
The Scriptiiral .word " mystery," though at first (we may believe) 
adopted to signify Christian Sacraments, with no such view (see 
Harrison's " Dr. Pussy's Challenge Answered," pp. 241 — 246), seems, 
in the progress of this superstitious growth, to have assimilated to 
itself the ideas which belonged to the " mysteries " of the heathen. 
And, as a consequence of that assimilation, the Eucharist seems to 
have acquired that character of concealment, and made that demand 
of secrecy in respect of the uninitiated, which clung to it for centu- 
ries. (See Albertinus, De Euch., p. 703 sqq,) 

Indeed, it is very observable, and very suggestive as to the causes 
at work in the corruption of Christian truth, that Tertullian (and 
the practice of secrecy seems to be not much older than his time) 
urges the example of the EleUsinian mysteries as a reason for the 


Blood of Christ; that upon this followed afterwards a 
conception of the consecrated elements* as united by 

silence of Christians. He writes : *' Yel ex forma omnibus mysteriis 
silentii fides debeatur. Samothracia et Elensinia reticentur, quanto 
magis talia, quao prodita interim etiam bumanam animadyersionem 
provocabunt, dum divina serratur ? Si ergo non ipsi proditores sai, 
sequitur ut extranei : et unde extraneis notitia? Gum semper etiam 
pise initiationes arceant profanos, et arbitris cayeant*' (Tertul. 
Apologetious, cap. yii., Opera, p. 8, edit. Rigalt, PariB, 1689.) 

* I submit for consideration (not without diffidence) whether this 
doctrine of adoption, or spiritual union, or augmentation, or some- 
thing like it, or approaching towards it, was not the most natnral 
first step in the falliog away from the primitiye doctrine of the 
Eucharist; and whether it did not prevail to a wider extent than has 
generally been supposed ; and whether it does not afford the most 
natural interpretation of some of those passages, to be found espe- 
cially in the writings of the later Eastern Fathers, which seem, at first 
sight, to embody some sort of materialistic notion. 

Possibly, also, some sort of approaches to this doctrine may haye 
found place at an earlier period than has been usually thought. 
Such a yiew may, no doubt, take the form of an impanation and 
invination of the Second or Third Person of the Holy Trinity. (See 
Vogan's True Doctrine, p. 325.) And I conceive that it probably did 
amount to this, as the doctrine of Transubstantiation was nearly 
approached. But it is also quite possible, I think, that some such 
view may have been held without a conception of anything amount- 
ing to this, or anything like this. 

It must, however, be remembered, in interpreting the language of 
the Fathers which seems to imply an inherent Divine efficacy im- 
parted to the Eucharistio symbols, that the same sort of language is 
freely used also concerning the water of Baptism. And whatever 
abatement is required by the analogy of faith in the sense given to 
such language in the case of the one Sacrament, may not unfairly be 
applied to the similar case of the other. (See Goode on Eucharist, i. 
pp. 403-409, 411.) 

It is well known also that similar language is used of the Chrigm, 
Indeed, the change in the Eucharistic elements is paralleled by the 
change in the ointment. (See Gk)ode, pp. 410, 414 ; see also Harri- 
son's " Dr. Pusey's Challenge Answered," pp. 277 — 279.) 


the Spirit to the Body of Christ ; so that they might be 
more fitly called the Body and Blood of Christ than 
symbols of that Body. But it is not, I believe, till the 
ninth century* that we have any traoe of the doctrine 


* Tbe doctrine of Paschadus was indeed a startling innovation, 
and took long to establish itself as tbe belief of the Western Church. 
(See Romish Mass and English Ohurcb, pp. 11, 12, 65 — 67.) More- 
oyer, in his own day, and in his own teaching, it had scarcely 
hardened into that distinctness of shape which it afterwards assumed. 
But it would scarcely have been possible for it to obtain a footing 
at all, if there had been before his time no falling away from the 
doctrine of St. Augustine. Doubtless, that Father's vast authority in 
tbe West had done much in tbe way of restraining tendencies to 
saperstition and quasi-materialistic conceptions of Eucharistic doc- 
trine. Yet, if I mistake not, the Churches of the Roman Communion 
had— to some e^itent^been brought up to the point at which the step 
to Paschasian doctrine was possible, by gradual approaches (made, 
perhaps, in the mist of the vaguest theories) towards some such doc- 
trine of spiritual incorporation of the elements into the Body of 
Christ as had been propounded by Damascenus, and had to a great 
extent taken hold of the mind of the Eastern Church. (See Romish 
Uaas and English Church, p. 62.) 

When, by another step downwards, men came to believe that the 
consecrated bread was called Christ's Body — not because of its being 
an effectual proxy, nor yet because of its being spiritually united or 
incorporated into Christ's Body, but because the bread was substan- 
tially changed into flesh, their faith was at first truly and naturally 
expressed in the language of Berengar's confession : *^ Verum corpus 
et sanguinem domini nostri Jesu Christi esse: et sensualiter non 
solum sacramentum, sed in veritate manibus sacerdotum tractari 
frangi, et fidelium dentibus atteri." (See Anselro, Epist. cvii.. Op. 
p. 453, Paris, 1721, who leads the way to scholastic distinctions.) 

It was not till after this, when the new doctrine had been scientifi- 
cally dissected by the skilful hands of Scholastic divines, and put 
under the microscope of Angelical doctors, that the distinction came 
out clearly between the substance of Christ's Body, which is eaten, but 
not divided by the teeth, and the accidents of bread and wine, which 


which, on the supposition of its being true, would justify 

alone are the subjects of lesion and mastication, and which alone can 
bare to do with nourishing or entering into the substance of our 
bodies. Then it became necessary to gloss the words approved by 
Pope Nicholas and the Sacred Synod, and published as the faith of 
the Church through the cides of Italy, Germany, and France. Then 
the so-caUed Catholic faith was defended by the note, " Nisi sane 
intelligas verba Berengarii, in majorem inddes bseresin quam ipse 
fuerit: et ideo omnia referas ad species ipsas. Nam de Ghristi 
corpore partes non fadmus." (In Gratian, De Cons., Dist. ii., can. xlL) 

The dominant party in the time of Berengarius had known nothing 
of the need of this caution. They had proclaimed aloud, and pub- 
lished abroad, as containing the faith which was to confound heresy, 
language which spoke naturally of the substance, but which, if under- 
stood of the substance, was more heretical than Berengarius, from 
the standpoint of later developments. 

In truth, however, this later development, with all its subtil ties 
and niceties of distinction, fell into a pit, from which the grossness of 
the doctrine, as put into the mouth of Berengar, was free. For the 
doctrine had been built up on the literal interpretation of figurative 
and sacramental sajiogs, both in the New Testament and the 

The Fathers had spoken sacramentally of eating Christ's Body. 
Therefore, because such language must not be figuratively under- 
stood, Christ's Body must be really eaten with the mouth. 

But then the ancient Fathers spoke also of Christ's Body as being 
torn with our teeth and as nourishing our bodies. To understand 
this literally would be heresy, according to, the Scholastic divines. 
Yet the whole theology of which this is the crowning arch, rests 
only for its foundation on the assumption that such sayings concern- 
ing eating must be literally understood. 

This is admirably enforced by Bp. Bilson in his " True DiflPerence," 
pp. 769—772. 

I give the following brief extract : — " Theophiltis the Christian. — 
How think you? Must this [the language of tiie Fathers asserting 
nourishment by the Body of Christ] be referred to the natural and 
true Body and Blood of Christ, or else to the signs bearing those names 
when once they be sanctified ? Philander the Jesuit. — ^No doubt to 


and require the Eucharistic adoration which is now in 

It would, however, be travelling beyond the purpose 
of the present paper to enter more particularly into the 
discussion of Patristic teaching, and the gradual de- 
velopment of the doctrine of the Presence. 

I must content myself with asking a few ques- 
tions, the answers to which (though pointing only to 
a portion of the evidence on the subject), I cannot but 
think, would suffice to justify our Church in rejecting 
Eucharistic adoration (as now taught)^ and rejecting it 

the signs. Theoph. — ^And were it not open madness to avouch it to 
be really true of the things themselves whose signs those are? 
PhUand. — It were. Theoph. — Why, then, since corporal eating 
serreth only for corporal nourishing, and hath a continual and natu- 
ral coherence with it, do you confess the truth in the latter and not as 
well in the former part of the action ? Why do you not expound them 
both alike ? PhUand, — To say the immortal flesh of Christ is con- 
certed and turned into the quantity and suhstance of our mortal flesh 
is an horrible heresy. Theoph. — ^And to say that His flesh is eaten with 
our mouths and jaws, and lieth in our stomachs, is the very pathway 
and right introduction to that heresy, or at least to as brutish and 
gross an error as that is. Philand. — The Fathers affirm that His 
Body IB eaten with our mouths. Theoph, — And so they affirm that 
His Body and Blood do increase and augment the substance of our 
mortal and sinful bodies." (True Difference, pp. 770, 771, Oxford, 

* Even as regards Paschasius himself it may perhaps fairly be 
doubted whether adoration, apart from partaking, could consistently 
be connected with his doctrine, if his teaching were consistent with 
itself. (See Soames's Latin Church during Anglo-Saxon Times, 
pp. 407, 408.) Nor, as a matter of fact, have we any sufficient reason 
to believe that Eucharistic adoration followed at aU closely on the 
acceptance of his view. (See below, Appendix, Notes A, B, & C.) 


on the ground that the Body of Christ is in heaven, 
and not here. 

In these questions I designedly aim at meeting oppo- 
nents on their own ground. 

(1) The first question is : If this doctrine of the Pre- 
sence were indeed a part of the faith of the early 
Church, how comes it to pass that among the accounts 
of early heresies and their refutations, we never meet 
with a statement of the rejection of this doctrine marked 
among the heresies, and never find arguments for esta- 
blishing this doctrine among their refutations ? 

It must be obvious that if this doctrine were regarded 
as true its importance must have been regarded as great. 

Yet it can hardly be maintained that some at least, 
among the early Christians, did not hold, and teach, 
the doctrine of the Eeal Absence of our Lord's Body 
and Blood in respect of the Eucharistic elements. 

How, then, on the hypothesis of our new teachers, is it 
to be accounted for that none of them at the time seem 
to have been charged on this account with heresy, or 
false doctrine ? 

Thus, for example, the Docetas, and kindred sects in 
the early Church,* could not possibly have held any such 
Eeal Presence of Christ's Bodyt in the Eucharistic 

* See Hagenbaoh's History of Doctrines, vol. i. p. 48, edit. Clark, 
f Tertullian indeed says: ** Aut si propterea panem corpus sibi finxit 
quia corporis carebat veritate ; ergo panem debuit tradere pro nobis. 


And there is found, indeed, one single and noteworthy 
statement,* pointing to the defect of their faith as it 

Faciebat ad yaDitatem Marcioois ut panis crucifigeretur." (AdTers. 
Marci., lib. iv. § xl. p. 468, edit. Rigaltius, 1689.) 

And these words suggest tbe thought that Marcion held the Bread 
of the Eucharist to be Christ's Body, or rather to be to Christ instead 
of a real Body. If such were the opinion of the Phantasiasts 
generally, it might perhaps deduct something from the force of the 
ai]gfument in the text, so far as it is concerned with this form of 
heresy. This, however, does not appear to be the case. (See Alber- 
tinns, De Euoharistia, pp. 800 and 828.) 

In any case the argiunent from the use made of the Eucharistic 
doctrine by the opponents of the heresy remains in full force. 

* It is a passage in the Epistle to the Smyrnsaans attributed to 
Ignatius, in which certain heretics are denounced ** who abstain from 
the Eucharist and prayer, because they confess not that tbe Eucharist 
is the Flesh of owe Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins." 
But tbe heretics alluded to would appear to be the Phantasiasts, who 
denied a true Body to our Lord, and therefore could not hold any 
eommunion or partaking of His flesh and blood in the Eucharist. 

And that the denial of this — not of the Real Presence in the 
elements — ^is the error attributed to them in this Epistle— may be 
confirmed by observing that the words (with a slight change) are 
adopted by Tbeodoret in his controversy with the Eutycbians, where 
he certainly does not employ them to establish such a Heal Pre- 
sence. (See Appendix, Note E, and Cosin's Hist. Transubst., cap. vi. 
§ xi. p. 107, A. G. L. See also Albertinus, De Eucharistia, pp. 286, 
287 ; and Waterland*s Works, vol. iv. pp. 680, 581 ; and Harrison's 
Reply to Dr. Pusey's Challenge, pp. 587, 588 ; but especially Jacob- 
son's Patres Apost, torn. ii. pp. 429, 480, Oxon. 1840.) 

As to the charge against the Messalians, see Hospinian, Works,, 
tom. iii. p. 149. 

The Ebionites are condemned by Irenseus for using water only in 
the Eucharist, " not receiving God to their commixture." (Cont. 
Hffir., lib. V. cap. L, Op., edit Migne, c. 1123.) 

Irenseus dwells also on the difficulty which they, who do not believe 
Christ to be the very Word of God, through whom all things were 
made, must experience in receiving the truth that the bread over 


affected the matter of the Eucharist. But the words' of 
the writer, if I mistake not, may very well be understood* 
as implying such a Beal Presence only as need be, and 
ought to be, no matter of controversy. And with this 
solitary t exception (an exception which may be said to 
make the rule only more remarkable) the want of faith in 
the Eucharistic Presence is never, I think, laid to their 
charge among the accusations of their opponents. 

And this is all the more observable because an argu- 
ment from the Eucharist is used against such views. 
The argument is that the Eucharist is a figure of Christ's 
Body, and that a figure implies the truth and reality oi 
the Body which it figures! — an argument strangely ex- 
pressed, surely, on the hypothesis of the Presence oj 
Christ's Body under the form of the elements. 

The argument § sometimes takes the form of thig 

which thanks have been given is the Lord's Body. (Haeres. iv. 18 
§ 4, Op., edit Migne, c. 1027.) 

* So it is said by the writer of the treatise " De Mysteriis : " " Ven 
utique caro Christi, quae crucifixa est, quae sepulta est; vere erg< 
oamis illius sacramentum est." (De Mysteriis, cap. ix. § 53, Am 
brosii. Op., torn. ii. c. 339, edit. Benedict. Paris, 1690.) 

It was doubtless just the denial of this which St Ignatius i 

In the next sentence it is declared " post consecrationem Corpu 

t If it should appear that other instances are to be found, they wil 
at least, I venture to think, be so few or obscure, as not ver 
materially to affect the argument. 

I See TertuUian adv. Marcionem, lib. iv. ch. xL, and lib. v. ch 
viii., Opera, edit Rigaltius, 1689, pp. 457, 458, 470. 

§ See Albeitinus, De Eucharistia, p. 287 ; Goode on Eucharist, i 
p. 264. 


question : — If Christ had not a real Body, of what are the 
elements the representative signs or symbols ? * — a form 

* It may be observed, that in respect of the use of this argument, 
&nd its applicability, the cases of the Phantasiasts and of the 
Sutychians stand on the same footing. Of the following examples 
those first cited were written with reference to the one, the remainder 
are applied to the other. 

(1) " Figura autem non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset corpus. Cete' 
fuiQ, vacua res, quod est phantasma, figuram capere non potest." 
(Tertuilian, Adv. Marcion., lib. iv. cap. xl. p. 458, edit. Bigaltius, 

(2)"Pani8 et calicis sacramento jam in Evangelio probavimus 
corporis et sanguinis Dominici veritatem, adversus phantasma Mar- 
cionis." (Ibid., lib. v. cap. iii. p. 470.) 

(8) £c l\ itfc ovTOi (l>air\v, &erapK(K Kol &vaifwg JjV irolae trapKOc 
^ TivoQ (mfiaTOQi rj volov oifinrtK elKdvaQ ^idoiig, Aprov re koi 
voriipioVf et'eriXKero toIq fiadriralg &a TovTtov t^v avafiyritriv ahrov 
Toitiadai ; <5v Kal 6 A'tr6aTo\6Q kfrrc fxaprvpGiv yap tovtoiq <l>ri<yl 
^iv re &pToy Kal ro varfipiov TiJQ ehXoylaQ KOivtoviav atfiaro^ re 
ffyai Kal erapKOQ. (Adamantius, in Op. Originis, tom. i. c. 1840, 
edit. Migne.) 

(4) So Ephrem Syrus speaks of the truth of Christ's Bodv as 
"written on bread," and ** marked on wine." (See Pusey*s"Real 
Presence from the Fathers," p. 77.) 

And the following words enforce more clearly his argument against 
the Docef SB : — 

(5) " If the Lord put on a Body in appearance, it were right that 
they should break a shadow ; and if He shewed the likeness of blood, 
let them put into the cup the shadow of wine. But if they break 
true bread, which they truly touch, and it is not in appearance, the 
sinful woman who apprehended our Lord touched a true Body. Do 
thou bless Him who bade Thomas touch a Body, not a shadow." 
(Ibid., p. 79.) 

(6) Ai' o5 awfiaroQ apx^^pfyQ f a* iLfroffToXoQ yiyovt icat i^prjfinTKTe' 
ii ov Trapi^toKcv fifxiv fivfrrriplov, Xcywv, tovto itrrl fiov to tr&fia to 
vwep v/i«v, Kal to cUfia r^c icatv^c ^laO^iciyc* oh Tfjg TraXatac* to 
vnip v/iwv €K\vv6fJLevov' OedTtig ^e ovtc aStfia ovte al/xa t^u* 


of which it may be said that it is perfectly consistent 
with the theory of the Eeal Absence from the elements^ 

(A.thanasiii8, Orat. de Fide, Fragment cited by Tbeodoret, Dial. ii. 
Inconfums, Opera, torn. iv. p. 138, edit. Schulze, 1772, in support of 
his argament against the Eatychians. See Athan., Opera, edit 
Bened., 1777, torn. i. par. ii., p. 1019.) 

(7) Et Toiyvv rov ovnog <rutfiaros avTinnrd Itrri ra Oeia fiinmipia, 
awfia ttjwi eoTi Kal vvv tov Af^iroroi; to awfiat ovk elc QtdrnToz fveriv 
fjLeTal3\rid£y. (Theodoret., Dial. ii. Inconfusus, Opera, torn. iv. p. 126, 
edit. Scbulze.) 

(8) 'Ed ^£ ft trhfi etc OiorriTOQ fUTefiXridii ^ucriv, ov ^rf j^aptv 
fieraXafifidvovaiv rdv ayriTvwtoy tov erwfiaTos ; irepirroQ yap 6 
Tvirog avyprifiiynQ Trjg aXtideiag, (Ibid. Demonstration Quod unio 
sit inconfusa. Opera, torn. iv. p. 269, edit Scbulze.) 

(9) TiVoc fiyy <rvfi(io\6y te koi tvttov rilv travayiav Tpoi^riv ; r^j 
Oe&rriroQ tov ^eairdrov Xpierrovy fj tov trw/xaTog Kal tov aifiaroc; 
(Ibid., Dial. i. ImmutabiliSy torn. iv. pp. 26, 27.) 

(10) 'O Kvpiog TO (TvfiPoKov Xaf^y, ovk elire, tovto ktmv // 
dtOTtiQ fwv' hXXa tovt6 ktm to aw/jid fwv. (Ibid.. p. 27.) 

Compare Cyril Alex. : El Oeov al/xa to ^ro^a, ovk apa Qeog yvfivog, 
. . . d\X' ivavQptowritrag Qtog Aoyog. (Homil. Div. x.. Opera, edit. 
Migne, torn. x. c. 1028-9.) 

It is impossible not to observe on these extracts how they imply 
the existence of the elements after consecration : indeed, the very 
argument actually requires the substantial reality of the bread and 
wine. If, according to tbe Komish doctrine, the substance of bread 
and wine were gone — their species only remaining — they might very 
fitly represent a Body having the species of a body only without the 
substance, such as the Phantasiaets imagined — a vaaua res, quod est 
phantasma. But the argument of these writers proceeds from the 
reality of the signs in the Eucharist to the reality of that which is 
signified and represented by them. (See especially the quotations 
from TertuUian and Ephrem Syrus.) 

And this being so, the bread and wine, according to the teaching 
of even Romish divines, can only be the Body and Blood of Christ 
typically and figuratively. (See Romish Mass and English Church, 
pp. 89, 90.) 


bat that it would hardly haye been naturally assumed 
upon the theory of a Real Presence in them. 

^he same may be said of the Eutychians, or those 
who held in their extreme form the doctrine by some 
attributed to Eutyches.* No other yiew than that of the 
Real Absence would seem to square well with their teach- 
ing concerning the nature of Christ ; yet they do not 
seem to have ever been accused of heresy on the subject 

of the Eucharist, t 

Again, how is it possible that those who refused to 
recognise Christ Himself as Divine should have paid 
Divine adoration to the consecrated antitypes of Christ's 
Body? And, if Christians generally did do this, how is 
it possible that the difference of practice should have 
been otherwise than marked and observable ? And is it 
likely that such a conspicuous matter of dissent from the 

* "Leotores autem hie rogo, ut mecum expendant quiddam ad 
Eutychianorum contra quos Leo disputat, Hseresin spectans, consi- 
deratione dignissimum. Haeretici enim illi, ex quorum sententia, ut 
ootat Leo, Verbi incamaUo non unitio est divinis humanaque natura, 
sed hoc ipso concurso, quod geminum est, factum est singulare, credere 
nullomodo poterant, panem et vinum in corpus et sanguinem Ghristi 
in Eucharistia substantialiter mutari, aut corpus et sanguinem Christi 
sub eorum accidentibus delitescere. Nihilominiis veteres eoriun 
heresin describentes, nunquam eos incusant negatse transubstantia- 
tionis aut prsesentiaB realis: quod procul dubio non omisissent, si 
hactenus quoque tam sacrilege errassent. Apertum ergo indicium est . 
transubstantiationem ac prsBsentiam realem, tunc non magis ab Eccle- 
sia quam ab ipsis Eutychianis fuisse creditas." (Albertinus, De 
Eucharistid.^ p. 840.) 

f See Aibertinus, De Eucharistia, p. 840 ; Hospiniani Opera, torn, 
iv. p. 119. 

nniversal rule of the Christian Church shonld not hav 
been urged by the orthodox as clear evidence of heresy 
Yet, when were these heretics ever assailed by any such- 
argument as this ? 

So, also,* when human ingenuity has done its best ix^ 
avoid the conclusion, it is impossible to deny that state- 
ments occur in individual writers which can never b^ 

* We learn from the writings of Cyril Alex. (Adver. Nestorium, 
lib. V. cap. yi.. Op., edit Migne, torn. ix. c. 202) that Nestorius, 
expounding the words of the Apostle *' as oft as ye eat this bread," 
added, by way of interpretation, the words ov etrri to o-cu/ia avrl- 
TVTToy. On which Albertinus writes : " Cum dicat. Corpus Domini 
esse panis iUius antitypum, hoc est, rem sen veritatem ab Ulo pane 
tanquam a typo suo figuratam, typusque (ut notat Cyrillus) non sit 
Veritas quam figurat, sed iUius simulaehntm ; per panem ilium non 
potest inteUigere proprium Domini corpus." (De Euch., p. 773.) 
Was Nestorius for this ever accused of heresy? It is confessed that 
between the Nestorians and the orthodox there was agreement on the 
doctrine of the Eucharist (See Albertinus, pp. 758, 772, 773, 777. 
See, however, Renaudot, Lit Orient C, tom. ii. p. 607, and Grakan- 
thorp, Def. Eccles. AngL, p. 516, A. C. L.) 

The rendering given by Auberttn here to avrinnrov is, no doubt^ 
unusual. Bellarmine says : " Vox anHtypon nunquam accipitur pro 
exemplari." (De Euch., lib. ii. cap. xv.. Op., tom. iii. c. 600, edit. 

Yet Suicer gives an example of this sense from Synesius (Ep. ad 
Theoph.), and it seems almost necessary thus to understand Nestorius. 
The Latin version of Agellius is" Cujus est ipsum corpus antitypum." 

Cyril, in reply, while arguing from the fact that the Eucharist is, 
and is called, the Lord's Body, not His Divinity, takes no exception to 
these words of Nestorius. Yet he could hardly have fisdled to do so 
if he had believed that the Eucharist was named the Lord's Body 
because of its being so qttXmc* 

The language of Nestorius is certainly most extraordinary language 
to use on the theory of the Real Objective Presence in the bread. 
And the argument of Albertinus seems to have very great weight. 


understood naturally as implying less than the denial of 
the doctrine of the Keal Presence in the Elements. And 
yet for this teaching the writers pass uncondemned and 

* There is a fragment of IrenaBus, in which he tells of the slaves of 

certain catechumens, who being put to torture by their Greek captors 

to compel them to reveal Christian secrets, declared that the Divine 

Commimion was the Body and Blood of Christ (lily delay fieraXrixl/tv 

aljua Kal (rtifia elvai Xpitrrov), And IrensQUS gives us to understand 

that they said this in consequence of what they had heard from their 

masters, thinking themselves that the Communion was in reality 

Blood and Flesh {avTol vofiieravrec Tf ovri al/xa koX crapKa el vac). 

Did IrensQus consider this report a true one ? His faith was very 
different from that of teachers of the Beal Objective Presence, if he 
did not. But he could hardly have written concerning these slaves 
as he does, if he did. He accounts for their report by saying they 
thought that the Communion was in reality flesh and blood. 

Bat Irenseus goes on to say that other Greeks being informed of 

this, two martyrs were compelled by torture to make confession 

[ofwXoyfjarai ^ta (iatravtov ^ydyKa^ov.] And what was the confession 

they made? Blandina, we are told, spoke out plainly, and to the 

point, saying : " How could these things be endured by those, who 

for religious exercise did not even allow themselves lawful meats?" 

(Olff evtrro^atQ BXay^lya CTrafJjOiyo'tao'aro, TlQg av, elwovaaf rovrtjjy 

avaa\oi.yTO ol fjirj^e rdv etjieifiiywy Kpewy ^i &(FKri<ny airoXavoyreQ ;) 

The fragment will be found in Migne's edition of Irenseus, c. 1236. 

Was Ireneeus of old time accounted a heretic for this ? Or was 

Blandina's confession ever condemned as containing either false 

doctrine or misrepresentation ? Yet are they not both found virtually 

denying what is now regarded as the Catholic faith of the Eucharist ? 

There is not a word to suggest or support the notion that in their 

view the slaves were only wrong in their conception of the mode of 

partaking ; nothing whatever to make us suppose that Blandina meant 

to express, or thatlrenseus would have thought her right in expressing, 

" Though it really is flesh and blood, yet it has no appearance of 

flesh and blood, but is received under the forms of bread and wine/' 

Yet, except on this supposition, it is absolutely impossible to escape 



Thus, for example, take the words of Tertullian, written 
very early in the third century: ''Acceptum panem, et 

the conclusion that in Irenaeus's view the Communion is no^ in reality 
the flesh and hlood of Christ, and that, therefore, he must have under- 
stood John vi. 53 as a figure, and could not have understood the 
words of institution in any other than a tropical sense. 

With this language of IrensBus may be compared that of Tertullian : 

' Quia durum et intolerabilem existimaverunt sermonem ejus, quasi 

vere camem suam illis edendam determinasset, ut in spiritumdisponeret 

statum salutis, praemisit : Spiritus est qui vivificat. Adque ita sub- 

junxit, Caro nihil prodest, ad vivificandum scilicet Itaque 

sermonem constituens vivificatorem, quia spiritus et vita sermo, 
eumdem etiam camem suam dixit, quia et sermo caro erat factus, 
proinde in causam vitsB appetendus, et devorandus auditu, et rumi- 
nandus intellectu, et fide digerendus. Nam et paulo ante camem 
suam panem quoque cselestem pronimciarat : urgens usquequaque per 
allegoriam uecessariorum pabulorum, memoriam Fatrum qui panes 
et carnes ZEgyptiorum prsBverterant divinee vocationi." (De Besur- 
rectione, cap. xxxvii., Opera, edit. Rigaltius, 1689, p. 847.) 

Here we have not only support for St. Augustine's interpretation of 
John vi. 53, but the clearest implication that they quite misunderstood 
Christ's words who supposed that His flesh was to be e&ten reaUy (vere). 

Is not Tertullian here standing by the side of IrensBus in regarding 
as a gross misrepresentation of the Christian belief just that which is 
now so loudly proclaimed as the ancient and unchanging faith of the 
Catholic Church concerning the Eucharist ? 

And, again, there is here not a word to indicate a solution of that 
which seemed hard in our Lord's discourse, by having recourse to a 
distinction in modes of eating. Nay, more. There is that which is sub- 
versive of such a theory. For the solution which Tertullian does give 
is one which, had he recognised that^ he never could have admitted. 
But all is in accord with the teaching of Tertullian elsewhere as to the 
figurative sense of the words of institution. (See below, pp. 72, 92, 94.) 

To the same efiect is the clear teaching of Origen : ** Si secundum 
literam sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictiun est 'Nisi manducaveritis 
camem meam, et biberitis sanguinem meum,' occidit hsBC litera." (In 
Levit., Horn, vii., Op., ed. Migne, tom. ii. c. 487.) 

So also we find Cyril of Jerusalem speaking of the Capemaites : 


distributum discipulis, corpus ilium suum fecit, * Hoc est 
corpus meum dicendo, id est figura corporis mei." (Adv. 
Marc, lib. iv. eh. xl., Op., pp. 457, 468, ed. Eigalt., 1689:) 

EkeIvoi fiij cLKtiKOOTEQ TTPevfiaTiKiiiQ TUfV Xeyofiivtoy, aKay^aXKrOiyreg 
ainiXdov els to, oiriffu^ yofilioyrec 6ti lirl trapKO^ayiay avrovc 

vporpiirirat, (Mystag. iv., sect iv. p. 321, edit. Bened,), where what 
Cyril says they thought 'is, according to Bomish teaching, what they 
ought to have understood, and what necessarily results from the 
literal sense of John yL 53, and of the words of institution. And, 
again, there is no hint of a supernatural mode of <rapKO<l>ayicL To 
understand spiritually, in Gyril's teaching, excludes all real eating of 
flesh. {See Waterland's Works, voL iv. p. 695, edit 1843.) 

So it is said hy St. Athanasius: Am tovto t^q eig ohpayovg 
ova/Jaff'eaic €fiyi9fi6yev<re rov viov rov &yBpd)7rov, iva rijc a-wfiariKfic 
ivvolaQ ahrovQ d^cXKueriy, Koi Xoiwoy r^y elprifiiyriy aapKa (ipGxny 
ivwdcv ohpayiov, koX iryevfianK^y Tpo(^^v Trap ahrov ^iZo^ivrfv 
fiadutny* & yap \f\a\iyKa, <l>ii<Tly, iffiiy, irytvfja Itrri koI Zuffj' Icoy 
Tf tlveiyj TO fiey deiKyvfxeyoy koI ii^ofjieyoy virep Tfjg rov K6<Tfiov 
ffwrijp/oc, corlv ^ <rap^ ijy ey(it <^p&* aAX* avrri vfiiy Kal to Taimfg 
olliavap*€fiov vyevfjiaTiKwg ^oO^fTerat Tpo(^ily wvTe TyevfiaTiKiHg ev Ik6,- 
(fTfif raimjv &ya^i^o<rdai, icai yiyetrdai wdtri (^vXaicHipioy elg aya<rra<ny 
(fafjq aluylov. (Athanas. Ep. 4, ad Serap. § 19, Op., ed. Ben., torn. i. 
Pt. 8, p. 668. See Theod. Heracl. in Corderius, Oat in Joan,, 
pp. 198, 197.) 

So also writes Eusehius: 'AW* eZ Wf, on to, prj/jLara fxov a 
XeXdXijjfo vfjuy, iryevfjid etrri Kal (tori cori* dtrre aifTa elyai to. 
pflpara Kal tovq X6yovg alrrov, Trjy trapKa Kal to alfia, Cjy 6 fitriyiov 
^i, iivaytl aprf ohpayl^ Tpt<ft6iitvoQ, t^q ovpaviov fiedi^ei Zwfji. 
(Eusebius Osesar, Contra MarcelL de Eccl. Theol., lib. iii. c. 12, ad 
fin. Demonst Evangel., p. 180, edit Paris, 1628.) 

Compare the following : " Quando dicit, qui non comederit carnem 
meam, et biberit sanguinem meum, licet et inmysterio possit intelligi, 
tamen verius corpus Ohristi et sanguis ejus sermo Scripturarum est, 
doctrina divina est." (Breviar. in Psalm., Ps. 147, in Opera Hieron., 
«d. Vallars., torn. viL, Appendix, pp. 630, 631.) 

* Muratori indeed says that one thing only is clear in the words of 


By the side of this I will set for the sake of compari- 
son the saying of St. Augustine : " Non enim Dominus 

TertuUian, which is " Panem ex verbis Domini fieri Corpus Christi." 
(liturgia Bomana Vetus, pp. 186, 187, Venice, 1748.) 

But for those who can see a clear and natural meaning in the 
yery plain declarations of Tertullian, it must be obvious that we 
have here his own interpretation of the phrase '' making the Body 
of Christ." 

And the words of Tertullian may very well be regarded as giving 
the true explanation of the language of subsequent Fathers, who 
speak of making the Body of Christ. Christ, according to Tertullian, 
made the bread His Body, by appointing it by His word to be an 
effectual sign or figure of His Body. 

In the same way Christ's ministers, obeying His command, in 
doing as He did, when they consecrate the bread by His word and 
by prayer, are setting apart the element for Christ's use in the 
Sacrament, that it may represent and be the Communion of His 
Body, and may thus be said also to make the Body of Christ 

Bp. Cosin writes (Hist. Trans, cap. vi. § vi., vol. iv. pp. 98, 99, 

A. C. L.) : '' Ad secundam classem ea pertinent testimonia, quibus 

TrpoEOTwrec, et presbyteri, Christi Corpus ore sacro conficere dicuntur : 

quemadmodum loquitur Hieronymus epistola ad Heliodorum; et, 

prsBter alios, S. Ambrosius de iis qui mysteriis initiantur. Besp. 

Nempe, ad presbyterorum preces et benedictiones, panis communis 

factus est panis sacramentalis ; qui, quando frangitur et manducatur, 

Koivwvia Corporis Christi est, adeoque sacramentaliter Corpus Christi 

recte dicitur: nam non solum Corpus Domini reprsesentat, sed (ut 

ssepiusjam dictum est)eo percepto vere quoque Corporis Ejus participes 

efficimur. Ita enim Hieronymus ad Evagrium : * Ad presbyterorum 

preces Christi Corpus Sanguisque conficitur '; id est, materia talis facta 

est, ut sumpta sit communio Corporis et Sanguinis Domini ; qualis 

non esset, nisi preces istse prsecessissent. Grseci dicunt KaTaaKtvaZeiv 

et lepovpyeltf to ^Cbfia Kvpiov, Bene vero hie ait Chrysostomus : 

'Non sunt opera humanse facultatis, quae proponuntur. Qui olim 

hsec in ilia ccena fecit, idem et nunc ea operatur : nos autem 

{vTrrfperiJv) ministrorum tanturn ordinem tenemus. Ipse vero est, 

qui ea sanctificat (/cat fxeraaKeva^iav) et transmntat." 

The words of St. Jerome may be specially observed : **De quo [fru- 


dubitavit dicere, Hoc est Corpus meuin : cum signun] 
daret corporis sui ; " * and that of the commentary 
attributed to Procopius of Gaza,t (following Eusebius I 

mento et vino] conflcitur panis Domini, et sanguinis ejus impletur 

typus." (In Jerem. lib. vi. cap. xxxi., Op., ed. Vallarsius, torn. iv. 

c. 1063.) 
Here the word conficitur is spoken not of the ** Corpus Christi " but 

of the **pahis Domini;" and the saying concerning the one element 

is paralleled by the declaration concerning the other, ** sanguinis 

Ejus impletur typus" 
MoreoYer both these assertions are made to stand as on a level 

with what immediately follows concerning oil ** et benedictio sanctifi- 

cationis ostenditur." (See below, Appendix, Note E, under tvttoq,) 
See also Dr. Harrison in "The Fathers versus Dr. Pusey," pp. 151 

-153, and " Answer to Dr. Pusey's Challenge," pp. 598, 599. 
Doubtless, however, in the progress of superstition towards the 

Paschasian doctrine, the expression conficere Corpus Christi gathered 
around it by degrees a more sacerdotal and mysterious sense than this. 

* Contra Adimant., cap. xii. § 3, torn. viii. c. 124, edit. Benedict., 
Paris, 1688. 

t "Indioatur et laetitia, quae capitur ex mystico vino, quod propi- 
nans suis discipulis profatur : ^ Accipite, bibete, hie est sanguis, qui 
pro vobis eflfunditur in remissionem peccatorum.' Simul quoque per 
ilia verba docet, quod valde bene vole respiciat oranes, quotquot in 
ipsum credunt. Proprium enim est quodammodo vini; ut blande ab 
hominibus aspiciatur. Ver. 12, Alhi dentes ejus, etc. Lac fortassis 
nobis demonstrat sinceritatem et puritatem mystic! alimenti. Dedit 
enim sui corporis imaginem vel effigiem aut typum discipulis, baud 
amplius admittens et acceptans legis cruenta sacrificia." (Procopii 
Gazeei, Comment, in Gen., cap. xlix.. Opera, edit. Migue, torn. i. p. 
502.) See Albertinus, De Eucharistia, p. 866, who (see margin) 
quotes the Greek from a MS. used by CofFetel, irapiluyKE yap tiKdva 
Tov i^iov <Tk}fiaTOQ fxadriTois- 

I Ahroc TO, trvfiftoXa rfjg IvQiov olKot'Ofiiac toIq avrov wape^i^ov 
fiaQriToiQi rrjr eMva tov Idlov afjjfiaTog Troielcrdai irapaKeXevofievog. 
'Ettci^j) yap oitKiri tciq ^t* aifidrwy Ovaiac, ovdi rag wapa Mwcel iv 
lia(^6pii)v (wit)v (T(j>aya'iQ yeyojioOerrifxiyaQ Trpoaiero, lipr^ ^e '^(pfiadai 


of CsBsarea), "Dedit proprii Corporis imaginem disci- 
pulis." * 

And I will add the parallel language of Ephrem 
Syrus, or of one in his name, " Attende, quomodo panem 
benedixit ac fregit in figuram {iv tvttS) immaculati 
Corporis Sui, calicemque in figuram Sanguinis Sui 
benedixit, deditque diseipulis suis ; " t and that of 

trvfi(i6\tp Tov i^lov (ritfiaroQ Tapedi^ov, eiKdrta^ icr.X. (Euseb. 
CsBsar. Demonst. Evang., lib. viii., A Genesi, p. 380, ed. Paris, 1628.) 

* So St. Jerome : ** Dominus mysterium corporis et sanguinis sui 
tradidit diseipulis " (In Ezekiel xli. torn. y. c. 498, edit. Yallarsius), 
where no doubt mysterium is equivalent to signum orfigura. So St. 
Augustine : " Idem in mysterio cibus et potus illorum qui noster" (in 
Ps. Ixxvii.), i.e. in signification; as he says, '^ Petra erat Ohrittusin 
signo'* (In Joan^ Tract 26). See Albertinus, De Eucharistia, p. 4. 
See also below^ p. 120. 

So also the Commentary on St. Mark which is found among the 
Works of St. Jerome (Op., tom. xi. par. iii. c. 118, edit. Vallarsius) 
says : '^ Benedicens fregit, transfigurans corpus suum in panem, quod 
est Ecclesia prsesens, quse accipitur in fide, benedicitur in nimiero, 
frangitur in passiouibus, datur in exemplis, sumitur in doctrinis ; " 
where the same word is used which Sf. Augustine uses in interpreting 
the words to Saul, " Why persecutest thou Me?" — ^'* Caput pro mem- 
bris clamabat, et membra in se caput transfigurabat" (In Ps. xxx. 
Enarr. ii.. Opera, edit. Benedict., Paris, 1681, tom. iv. par. i. c. 147. 
See Dr. Harrison's " The Fathers versus Dr. Pusey," p. 4.) 

+ Quoted from his Sermo (not found in the Syriac) : '* De eis, qui 
Filii Dei Naturam scrutantur," Opera, tom. i. p. 497, edit. Venice, 1755. 
See App., Note E. In the edition of Rome, 1732, the same Sermo 
will be found in vol. iii. p. 418. For an answer to the Romish evasions 
of Ephrem's teaching see Albertinus, De Eucharistia, pp. 450, 452. 

Other language of Ephrem has been cited as strongly support- 
ing Lutheran views, which again has been skilfully twisted into an 
assertion of transubstantiation. (See Antirrheticon adv. Kohlium, 
appended to vol. iu ofhia works, Venice, 175ft, i^^. 1, 2.) 
A truth the words alleged, thoug\i admitt\iig,iio ^W3\i\.,^\»Scketws 


Theodoret, who says, " Christ took the Symbol aud said, 

Now the common answer t of Romanists to the argu- 
ment derived from the frequent use of such words as 
I symbols, signs, types, antitypes, figures, images, when 
applied to the Eucharist, is that these words do not imply 
that the elements (or elemental forms) are only signs, or 
that the things signified may not be really present as 
well as the signs. § 

sense, may very well be understood as equivalent to the statement of 
IrensBus that the Eucharist consists of two things — an earthly and a 
heavenly (concerning which see Albertinus, De Euch., p. 300) — which 
by no means necessarily implies any real local inexistentia of the one 
in the other. See Gosin's Works, vol. iv. A. G. L. p. 48 ; and Papers 
on Eucharistic Presence, pp. 484, 485. 

* AafiifV TO trvupoKov £01/, tovto itrri to otHfia fwv, (Epist. cxxx. 
Op., edit Schnlze, torn. iv. p. 1218.) 

So again : To avfifioXoy KXatrae Kal havelfiag, iiniyaye' tovto 
fwv earl to (rCjfia, (Epist. cxlv., Op., edit. Schulze, torn. iv. p. 1251. 
See below, App., Note E. under 2v/ij3o\ov. 

t Some divines, however, in some cases, explain that the Body of 
Christ in its glorified condition, though under the forms of bread and 
wine, is to be understood as being the symbol and antitype of the 
same Body in its crucified condition : as a king, acting in a play a 
representation of a battle which he had fought, might be said to be a 
symbol or representation of himself in another condition. (See 
Bellarmine, De Sacr. Euch., lib. ii. cap. xv., Opera, tom. iii. c. 601, 
602, 1601; and Bibliotheca Maxima, Lugd. 1677, tom. viii p. 708, 
marg^, and Goar, Euchologium, p. 158. See also Albertinus, De 
Eucharistia, pp. 820, 329, 471.) 

It is scarcely needful to add, that such a notion is altogether alien 
to the teaching of Christian antiquity. (See Albertinus, pp. 451, 620, 
and Claude's Answer to Amauld, part ii. p. 243, London, 1684.) 

I See Appendix, Note E. 

§ See Aroudius, De Concordia, p. 301. 


But I would ask whether such an explanation can 
possibly break the force of the argument derived from 
these sayings* of Tertullian, and Ephrem, and St. 

* These sayings, and others like them, should he well weighed in 
view of the teaching that the two dicta ** The Word was made flesh," 
and " This is My Body" must he understood to be both equally literal. 
Dr. Harrison says : ** No orthodox Father ever said of the phrase 
' The Word was made flesh,' * that is, a figure of the flesh.* But 
Tertullian has said of the phrase * This is My Body,' * that is, a 
figure of My Body.* ... No orthodox Father ever affirmed * that 
St. John did not hesitate to say, The Word was made fleshy when he 
meant a sign of his flesh.' But Augustine has said, * The Lord did 
not hesitate to say This is My Body, when He gave a sign of His 
Body.* " (" Dr. Pusey s Challenge Answered," pp. 398, 399.) 

It is much more in accordance with the teaching of the Fathers to 
put together as parallel the two sayings, " T am the true Vine," and 
*' This [wine] is My Blood." (See Ibid., pp. 495—498.) 

Clemens Alexandrinus says : Tov Koafjioy o\oy, ai/jiaTi vXripwaact 
afiiriXov irorov aXridelag, to Kpdfia tov vofiov tov TraXaiov koI tov 
Adyov TOV viov . . . irapacrywv* fiverriKoy iipa trvfifioXoy if ypaibri 
oLfxaTOQ aylov, olvov utvofiatrtv* (Paed., lib. ii. cap. ii., Op., edit. 
Potter, torn. i. p. 184.) 

Again : Kai cvXoyjy^'c yf tov olvov, eiwii)v, Aa^crc, Trtfre* tovt6 
fiov ItTTiv TO atfua, cUfia Tfjg afiirekov' tov Aoyov, tov wept woXX&v 
£K\€6fAevov elc afetriv afiapTiutVf eix^potrvvrfg Hyiov aXXrjyopel vafia, 
(Ibid., p. 186.) 

And again : ^epei . . . dJvov rj dfiireXog, dte alfia 6 Xoyoc (Ibid., 
lib. i. cap. V. p. 107.) 

So Tertullian, explaining Genesis xlix. 11 : " Stolam et amictiun 
carnem demonstrans, et viniun sanguinem. Ita et nunc sanguinem 
Buum in vino consecravit, qui tunc vinum in sanguine figura- 
vit.'* (Advers. Marcion, lib. iv. § xl.. Opera, edit. Eigaltius, 1689, 
p. 458.) 

Cyprian says : " Cum dicat Christus Ugo sum vitis vera, sanguis 
Christi non aqua est utique, sed vinum." (Cyprian, Epist, ad 
Csecilium, Op., edit. Baluzius, p. 226.) 

Origen says : ** Hie sanguis qui nominatur uvse, illius uvae est quae 


Augustine ? It is a question which appeals very simply 
to candour and common sense. Let the passages be 
read carefully in yiew of such an interpretation. 

Dascitur ex ilia vite, de qua Salvator dicit * Ego sum vitis vera.' " 
(In Num., Horn, xvi, Op., edit. Migne, tom. ii. c. 702.) 

Again : " Tu es verus populus Israel, qui scis sanguiaem bibere, 
et nosti camem Verbi Dei comedere, et saDguinem bibere, et uvse 
saoguinem illius qu8B est ex vera vite et illis palmitibus quos Pater 
purgat, haurire." (Ibid., c. 702.) 

Again : " Fotus iste generatio vitis verae qu8B dicit : ego sum vitis 
rera. Et est sanguis uvse illius, quae missa in torcular passionis 
protulit potum hunc. Sic et panis est verbum Gbristi factum de 
tritico illo quod oadens in terram multum reddidit fructum." (Origen 
in Matth., Vet Interpr., § 86, Op., edit. Migne, tom. iii. c. 1734.) 

And yet again, in a very important passage, virhicb must be given at 

length : ** Si ergo et nos volumus panem benedictionis accipere ab Jcsu 

qui consuetus est eum dare, eamus in civitatem in domum cujusdara, 

ubi facit Jesus pascha cum discipulis suis prseparantibus ipsum notis 

ipsius, et ascendamus ad superiorem partem domus magnam, et 

stratam et praeparatam, ubi acoipiens a Patre calicem, et gratias 

agens^ dat eis qui cum ipso ascenderint, dicens : Bihite^ quia hie est 

languis mens tiovi testamentij qui et bibitur et effunditur: bibitur 

quidem a discipulis, efiiinditur autem in remissionem peccatorum 

commissorum ab eis a quibus bibitur et effunditur. Si autem quseris 

quomodo etiam effunditur, discute cum hoc verbo etiam quod scriptum 

est: Quoniam charitas Dei effusa est in cordibus nostris. Si autem 

sanguis testamenti infusus est in corda nostra in remissionem pec- 

catonun nostrorum, effuso eo potabili sanguine in corda nostra, 

remittuntur et delentur omnia quae gessimus ante peccata. Ipse 

autem qui aocepto calice dicit : Bihite ex hoc omnes^ nobis bibentibus 

non discedit a nobis, sed bibit eum nobiscum cum sit in singulis 

ipse : quoniam non possumus soli et sine eo vel manducare de pane 

illo, vel bibere de generatione illius vitis verae. Nee mireris quoniam 

ipse est et panis, et manducat 'nobiscum panem, ipse est et potus 

generationis de vite, et bibit nobiscum. Omnipotens est enim Verbum 

Dei, et diversis appellationibus nuncupatur, et innumerabilis est ipse 

secundum multitudinem virtutum, cum sit omnis virtus unus et ipse." 

(In Mattb., Interp. Vet, § 86, p. 899, Op., ed. Migne, tom. iii. c. 1736.) 


Now, let it be observed, I am not for a moment sup- 
posing that these writers held or taught that in the Holy 

Cyril of Jerusalem says : 'Ejcaor^ ^e ttoikiKoq 6 ^wrilp yirerai 
Trpoc TO avfJLipipov. toIq fxev yap ehfpoavyrif: ^pctav e^ovtriv a/xxeXoc 
ylverai. (Catecb. x. § v., Op., edit. Toutte'e, p. 188.) 

Compare Didymus : '££ d/x9re\ov olyoy tv^paivovra Kophiav 
avdpufTTOv Xafifiavtjy, (In Corderiiis, Cat in Joan. vi. vs. 69, 60, 
p. 169, Antwerp, 1630.) 

Theodoret says, speaking of Jacob's propbecy concerning Judah : 
OicrB* on AfiweXoy 6 KvpiOQ eatrroy Tpoerriyopevtrey ; . . . 'O ^£ Tfjg 
CLfiiriXov Kapnroq tuQeIq irolay e^ei trpotrriyoplay ; . . • Al/xa &pa 
OTa0t/X^C TO rov J^iorrjpoc TrpoariyopeviTty al/xa. €i yap dfiirekoQ 6 
^etnr&rrjc uty6iJia<rraiy 6 5c rfjc afiiriXov KopiroQ oJvog frpofrayopevercUf 
aifiaroc de koi vBarog iic Tfjg tov AcottcJtov TrXevpdQ Kpovyoi Trpty^t- 
diyrec 5ia tov Xoiirov aut/Maros iirl tcl Korti) ^ifjXdoy, eUorcjg &pa Kai 
irpofTi^opiitQ TpoeiTrey 6 Trarpiop^iyc, TLXvyei iv olvip rrfy otoXj)v avrov, 
teal iy alfiaTi araipvXfic rriy wepifioXrly avrov, &tm€p yap fifieig tov 
fivoTiKoy TTic ufiTreXov Kapwoy fiera Toy ayiaerfjoy al/xa ^e(nroTUc6y 
oyofiaZofiEy' ovtu) Tfjg aXridiyfjg afiwiXov to al/xa ora^vX^c «5vo- 
fiaaey aTfia. (Dial. 1., Immutabilis, Op., edit. Schulze, tom. iv. p. 25.) 

Again : 'Ev 5c ye Ty TtHy fivfnrjpiojy Trapaddaeif aHiia Toy &pToy 
iKoXetre Kal alfia to Kpafia . • ,*0 It ye ^laTrip o fifieTepog £v^XXa£e 
TCI oyofiaTa' koi t^ fikv awfiaTi to tov avfifioXov TiduKtv ovofia t^ 
Zt (TVfi(^6\tp TO TOV (TWfiaTogf ovT(i)g dfjiweXoy eavroy oyafidaagf al/xa 
TO ervfifioXoy wpoerrjydpevtrey. (Ibid., p. 26.) 

Ambrose says : ** Bibe Cbristum, quia vitis est . . . bibe Cbristam, 
ut bibas sanguinem quo redemptus es." (In Ps, i. § 33, Op., edit. 
Ben., tom. i. c. 764.) 

So the author of the " Interpretationes ex Vet. Test." found among^ 
the writings of Athanasius, explaining Gen. xlix. 11, says : Ta rara 
TOV wadovg tov Xpifrrov Xiyei, Kai to fiey <T(ofJLa (rroXijy oyo/ial^ei* to 
ie cUfxa oJyoy* kyreiZri Koi tov fAvtrriKoy oTvoy alfia K£KXr}K€y 6 

AccTTcJrijc* (Op. Athanas., edit. Benedict. 1777, tom. ii. p. 269.) 

On which Albertinus remarks : ** Patriarcha autem Jacobus san- 
guinem illius olim flgurate tantummodo vini et sanguinis uvse 


Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood there is the giving 
of nothing but bare, ineffectual signs and hollow, empty 

But, I ask, if St. Augustine had believed that the very 
Body of Christ was present under the form or sign of 

nominibus deooraverat. . Intelligit ergo Dominum similiter quoque 
figurata attributione sanguinis sui titulo et nomenolatura vinum 
honorasse, ao utrobique esse nominum permutationem absque ulla 
substantiali rerum lis affeotarum mutatione et oonversione." (De 
Euoharistia, p. 407.) 

Oaudentius says : ** Quod aooepis. Corpus est iUius panis coelestis, 
et Sanguis est illius saorsB yitis." (Gaudentius, Brin., serm. ii., Op., 
edit Galeardus, p. 87.) 

Again : '* Beote etiam vini specie sanguis ejus expriniitiu', quia 
cum ipse in Evangelio dicit: Ego sum vitis vera, satis deolarat 
sanguinem suum esse omne vinum quod in figura passionis ejus 
offertur." (Ibid., p. 88.) 

Hesyohius of Jerusalem writes : *' Vinea autem, Evangelioa sine 
aliqua dubietate praedicatio est: Ghristus enim ei oocasionem et 
materiam dedit, qui dixit : Ego sum vitis, .... Qusb est sanotifi- 
oationis uva: sciunt qui imbuti sunt Ghristi mysteriiun." (In Levit., 
lib. yii. cap. xxv., in Bibli. Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, torn. xii. p. 162a.) 

Isidore says: "Yinmn autem sanguis ejus est, et boo est, quod 
soriptnm est: Ego sum vitis vera" (Isidorus Hisp., De Eccles. 
0£Bicii8, lib. i. cap. xviii.. Op., edit. Migne, tom. v. c. 755.) 

Etherins and Beatus say: "Vinum autem sanguis ejus est. Et 
hoc est, quod scriptum est : Ego sum vitis.'* (Etherius et Beatus, 
Contra Elipandum, in Bib. Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, torn, xiii.p. 372.) 

Rabanus Maurus says : ^' Ergo panem infermentatum, et vinum 
aqua mistum in saoramentum corporis et sanguinis Ghristi sanotifi- 
cari oportet, quia ipsas res de se Dominum testificari Evangelium 
narrat. Ait enim ipse Dominus : Ego sum panis vivus . . . et item : 
Ego sum, inquit, vitis vera." (Rabanus Maurus, De Cierioorum 
Institut., lib. i. cap. xxxi.. Opera, edit. Migne, tom. i. o. 318.) 

Again: "Istudque vinum IsBtifioat cor bominis, quod ex vera vite 
processit." (Ibid., c. 318.) See Cyril Alex. Horn. Div. x.. Op., ed. 
Migne, tom. x. e. 1020, 1021. See also below, p. 92. 

the bread, could he naturally have said, " The Lord did 
not hesitate to say,/ This is My Body,' when He gave a 
sigQ of His Body ? '* 

Does not the saying become literally nonsense on such 
a suggestion? What room was there for doubting or 
hesitation if the thing given in the hand was indeed the 
very Body of Christ ? And to what purpose are the 
explanatory words, " when He gave a sign of His Body," 
as connected with the saying, '* This is My Body,'* if under 
the sign was the present Body itself ? * 

* The following observations of Albertinus on this passage from 
St Augustine are of great weight : '* Palmarium sane in rem nostram 
testimonium, et in quo tria sunt oonsideratione dignissima. Primo 
onim Augustinus ait, illud quod Dominus dahat cum dioeret, Accipitey 
edite, hoc est corpus meum, signum corporis ipsius fuisse. Unde sic 
argumentamur ; Nulla res alicujuSy ipsa est cujus est, ut observant 
Tertullianus et Athanasius jam supra citati. At id quod Dominus 
dabat cum diceret, AccipitCf edite, hoc est corpus meum, erat, juxta 
Augustinum res alicujus, videlicet, signum corporis ipsius : Ergo non 
erat ipsummet corpus. Secundo clarissime innuit hujusce proposi- 
tionis hoc est corpus m,eumy sensum ejusmodi esse, hoc est signum cor- 
poris mei ; adeoque, aut verbum est in ea poni pro significare, aut 
corpus pro signo corporis per metonymiam subjecii pro adjuncto: 
quemadmodum sanguis dicitur esse anima, hoc est, animse signum. 
Denique idem confirmat, cum ait : Non duhitavit Dominus dicere, hoc 
est corpus m'^um, etc. Hac enim loquendi forma indicat, Dominum, 
sensu, licet vero, non tanem proprio, sed figurato corpus suum id 
quod dabat appellasse : quemadmodum et Fulgentius quando simili- 
ter ait: cum electionis vas dlcat, quia Christus caput est corporis 
EcclesicB, ipsum tamen corpus Christi non dubitat Christum veraciter 
appellare. Nam ea observatio locum nunquam habet in propriis 
locutionibus. Nemo est qui dixerit : non duhitavit Dominus dicere, 
hoc est aurum, si vere aurum daret, hoc est aqua, si vere aqua foret, 
etc. Ea tantum adhibetur, quando quis aliquid, licet non proprie 
sit id, quod ipsum dicit esse, sic nihilominus appellare non refugit. In 


The strength of the argument might yet be added to 
by observing the occasion on which St. Augustine in- 
troduces this observation : for it is to fortify his position 
that when one thing (sanguis) is said to be another thing 
(anima) the saying may be interpreted as figurative * 
("possum interpretari praeceptum iUud in signo esse 
positum ") ; and that, only a little further on, he further 
fortifies the same position by quoting the words, " That 
Bock was Christ/* carefully noting that the Apostle does 
not say signified Christ, but was Christ ; t and yet further, 

hoc igitur illustri Augiistini loco quot pene verba sunt tot utique sunt 
fnlmina contra Adversariorum sententiam. . . . Fatetur Milleterius 
forum nonnullos ad huno locum contremiscerej violentisque interpreta- 
tionibus Augustini verba torquere. Utinam sic semper verum diceret !*' 
(Albertinus, De Eucharistia, p. 624.) 

*The learned Piohellerus says of this passage : **Ipse autem Angus - 

tinus quo sensu verbum substantivum, est, in dicto, Hoc est corpus 

fneum intelligeret, satis etiam aperte declarat, quum veteris testamenti 

locum explicaturus, qui ssuiguinem ait esse animam ... ejus loci 

intelligentiam bujus intelligentia metitur, et ad banc reducit: nempe 

quemadmodum hie panis est corpus in signo, ita et illic sanguis sit 

anima in signo. . . . Unde apparet earn bujus loci Mattbaei interpreta- 

tionem fuisse setate Augustini vulgarem, puhlicoque consensu receptam^ 

(Opuscula, p. 23.) 

Such a testimony from a truly Catholic Komanist, and really great 
theologian, not only to the one natural and genuine sense of St. Augus- 
tine's words, but also to the evidence they afford of the then received 
interpretation of the words of institution, presents a striking contrast 
indeed to the violence which is offered to St. Augustine's language in 
the various strange and conflicting explanations which have been 
devised by those who would force everything into harmony with the 
Romish doctrine. 

t St. Augustine often refers to this saying, setting it beside such 
Rayings as '* the good seed are the children of the kingdom " — using 
it as an illustration of the truth that Scripture is wont to call things 

by marking how, when magnifying the mercy of Christ 
towards Judas, he * speaks of His admitting him to that 
feast in which He commended and delivered to His 
disciples, not His Body and Blood, but a figure t of His 

signifyiDg as if they were the things signified, and declaring that to 
understand it in its proper signification would be blasphemy. (See 
quotations in Dr. Harrison's "Dr. Pussy's Challenge Answered," 
vol. ii. pp. 152, 156, 162, 168.) 

But especially to be observed in connexion with the doctrine of the 
Eucharist is his saying, " Fide manente, signa variata. Ibi petra 
Christus, nobis Christus quod in altari Dei ponitur." (In Johan. 
Evangel, cap. x. Tract, xlv., Op., edit. Ben., 1680, torn. iii. par. ii. 
c. 598.) 

* Isidore Hispal. makes this language of Augustine his own: "Alii 
Absalom Judam traditorem intelligunt, quern tanta et tarn admiranda 
patientia Christus pertulit, tanquam bonum, cum ejus cogitationes 
non ignoraret, cum adhibuit convivio in quo corporis et sanguinis sui 
figuram discipulis commendavit et tradidit" (Qusest. in Yet. Test, in 
Beg. ii. cap. iii., Opera, edit Migne, torn. v. o. 412, 413.) 

And our Venerable Bede uses similar language : " Nee a sacra- 
tissima coena in qua figuram sacrosancti corporis sanguinisque suis 
Discipulis tradidit ipsum [Judam] exclusit" (In Psalm iii.. Op., torn, 
viii. c. 823, 324, ed. CoL, 1612.) 

\ On this passage Albertinus says : '* Primo sic argumentamur : 
Figura non est veritcu, sed imitatio veritatis. Verba sunt Gaudentii. 
[See below, Appendix, Note E, at end, under Figura,] At quod 
Dominus in Eucharistiae susb convivio Discipulis suis dabat, erat juxta 
Augustinum figura corporis et sanguinis ipsius : non igitur erat Veri- 
tas corporis et sanguinis. Secundo, unde colligit Augustinus, Domi- 
num in EucharistisB convivio corporis et sanguinis sui figuram 
Discipulis commendavisse et tradidisse? Procul dubio ex his verbis 
institutionis, Accipite, edite, hoc est corpus meum^ hoc est sanguis mens. 
Ergo, inquam, juxta Augustinum sensus horum verborum est, hoc 
est figura corporis mei, hoc estfi^gura sanguinis meit plane ad mentem 
nostrara. Neque enim ex his verbis ullo modo deduci potest, Domi- 
num figuram corporis et sanguinis sui tradidisse, nisi iu hunc modum 
exponantur." (De Eucharistia, p. 620.) 


Body and Blood (" adhibuit ad convivium, in quo Cor- 
poris et Sanguinis Sui figuram discipulis commendavit 

I can scarcely suppose that there remains room for 

doubt as to the sense in which St. Augustine understood 

the words of our Lord, " This is My Body.** In his view 

it is to be figuratively interpreted. 

But we may yet further fortify our conclusion by 

observing that we have also an interpretation from the 

same Father of the words, " Except ye eat the flesh of the 

Son of Man, and drink His Blood, ye have no life in you.** 

His sense of these words is not doubtfully expressed.! 

He will allow them no other than a figurative meaning. | 

* Ennar. in Ps. iii., § 1, torn. iy. par. 1, ool. 7, edit. Benedict, 
Paris, 1668. 

f Olemens Alexandrinus had written before : Kai 6 Kvptog cv ri^" 
wra 'Iwavviyv EvayyeX/^, iripiac e£^veyfcev 2ta frvfij^oXuiy* ^ayttrQt 
fm rac (rapKciQ, eiwitty, koI wierrOi fiov to alfjia* ipapyeQ r^c Tfltrrews 
«( rfjc ewayyiXlac ro irdrifjioy AXKrjyopwy, (Pfledagogus, lib. i. 
cap. vi., Opera, edit. Potter, Venice, 1757, torn. f. p. 121.) 

And 80 the writer of a tractate on the Passover, under the name of 
Athanasius, says : " Gomedere hujus agni cames jubemur, quia libe- 
randus est populus, sicuti Ghristus ait : Nisi quia comederit oarnetn 
meam non habet yitam manentem. Garo autem Christi verbum est 
Dei, qui [quia ?] Verbum oaro factum est, et habitavit in nobis ; sic 
istas cames assatas comedere mandamur, crudas elixasque prohibe- 
mur. Cocta enim Ghristi verba non cruda, probata in multo teuta- 
tionam ardore, nee moilia, nee fluxa, neo labi facilia.'' (Opera 
Athanasii, edit. Benedict, 1777, torn. ii. p. 669. See above, pp. 60, 
67, and below, p. 82, 100.) 

\ It is quite true, indeed, that many Komisb divines of bigh esteem 
in former days — ^including two popes, four cardinals, two archbishops, 
five bishops, together with very many doctors and professors (see 


And to allow these words none but a figurative senses 
is to necessitate a figurative interpretation of the wordsB 

Albertinus, De Eucb., lib. i. cap. xxx. pp. 209 sqq. ; and Wake in 
Gibson's Preservative, vol. x. p. 40 ; also Turton's Keply to Wiseman, 
pp. 103, 104) — have held that the declarations in the latter part of 
the sixth chapter of St. John are to be understood of eating spiri- 
tually, not literally, and that they have a meaning apart from or 
beyond Eucharistio participation. 

Thomas Aquinas seems to have preferred this interpretation ; and 
the Council of Trent appears to have designedly left the matter 
undetermined. (See Albertinus, p. 210.) 

The question whether or not this position can be consistently main- 
tained by those who require the words of institution to be understood 
proprie is not material to the argument in the text. The answer, 
however, would probably be a decided negative from such men as 
Gardinal Wiseman (see Turton's Heply to Wiseman, p. 97, and 
Dr. Harrison's Answer to Pusey, vol. ii. p. 318), and, I believe, gene- 
rally from those who now maintain the doctrine of the Keal Objective 

But it is important to observe that it is quite another, and an en- 
tirely distinct question, whether those who insist on understanding 
literally (without any figure) the words " Take, eat ; this is My Body," 
could consistently say (or assent to the saying) concerning the words, 
"Except ye eat the fi-esh," &c., that /acinus vel Jiagitium videtur 
jubere: figura est erg0. 

Certainly this declaration involves the injunction of no greater 
Jiagitium than the literal obedience to the words of institution lite- 
rally understood. 

And if it could be urged that the flagitious character of the act is 
removed by the supernatural mode in which the Body is presented to 
be eaten in the Eucharist (see Estius, quoted in Turton, p. 95 ; see 
also p. 99), then it would be easy to answer, that Augustine's words 
know nothing of any new mode of giving to be eaten. He does not 
say, *' It must, therefore, be understood of some ineffable way in 
which the flesh of Christ is given to be literally eaten in another form 
than that of flesh." Neither does he say, '* Therefore the words must 
either be a figure, or be understood of that Divine way in which 
Christ's flesh is made present to be literally eaten in the Eucharist." 
But he says distinctly, " Figura est ergo." 


of Institution. He says, "Facinus vel flagitium videtur 
jnbere: figura est ergo, prsBcipiens passioni Dominicae 

With him this is the only alternative. The words must contain 
either /(u^iftiM or figures And when the/o^niM is rejected, the figura- 
tlTe sense is the only admissible sense of our Lord's declaration. 

Oould it, we may ask, have been thus, if in his days the Christian 
Gburoh had been familiar with the idea of any such second mode of 
really and literally eating Christ's flesh in the Eucharist without 
/Za^Utfffi .' Nay, could it have been thus if St. Augustine's own mind 
bad ever conceived the idea of any such oral manduoation in the 
Eucharist of the very Body of Christ reaUy present in, or under the 
form of, the bread ? 

Moreover, when elsewhere Augustine does speak of the mode of 
the impartation of Christ's gift, he does not make it to be by any 
Bpiritualizing of His flesh, but by the spirituality of the recipient's 
partioipation. (See Goode on Eucharist, i. pp. 388, 389.) 

No doubt passages may be easily quoted from St. Augustine which, 
literally understood, would be inconsistent with what he says here, 
and would, in their naked literality, involve the very same /acinus 
as the words which he is here expounding. (See Paschasius, Epist. 
adFrudegard., Opera, Paris, 1618, c. 1620.) 

But surely what he says here of our Lord's words ought to avail 
for the explaining of similar utterances of his own. And even if this 
irere otherwise, his own Interpretative Dicta (see below. Appendix, 
Note D) would certainly suffice to remove from them all ambiguity. 

And all will then, I believe, be found to be in perfect harmony 
with (and will indeed be confirmed and illustrated by) his teaching 
elsewhere as to the distinction between eating and drinking the Body 
and Blood of Christ sacramentaUyf or sacramento teniut only (which is 
common to the faithful and the unbelieving), and the eating and 
drinking re verd, which belongs to the truly faithful only. (See 
Papers on Eucharistic Presence, pp. 667—660, 677—681, 768—759.) 
It may be well also to observe how Fulgentius supports from St. 
Augustine his own position that the requirement of our Lord in 
John vi is met by the reception of Baptism as well as the Eucharist : 
*' NuUus debet moveri fidelium in illis, qui etsi legitime sana mente 
baptizantur, prseveniente velocius morte, carnem Domini manducare, 
et sanguinem bibere non sinuntur: propter illam videlicet sententiam 


communicanduin^ et suaviter atque utiliter recondendum. 
in memori&y quod pro nobis Garo ejos crucifixa et vnl- 
nerata sit."* (De Doctrina Christiana, lib. iii. cap. xvi., 

Salyatoris qua dixit : Nisi manduoaveritii camemfilii honUnis, et bibe- 
ritit ejus sangmnem, non hahebitis vitam in vobis. Quod quisqaiB noa 
solum secundum veritatis mysteria^ sed secuudum mysterU v&riiatem 
considerare potent, in ipso lavacro sanotae regenerationis hoc fieri pro- 
yidebit Quid enim agitur sacramento sanoti baptismatis, nisi ut 
credeutes membra Domini nostri Jesu Gbristi fiant, et ad compagem 
corporis ejus Ecclesiastioa unitate pertineant? Ipsis enim didt 
B. Apostolus, Vos estis Corpus Okristi, membra de membro. Quos 
ostendit non solum ipsius sacrifieii participes, sed ipsum Mnetmm 
sacrificium esse. . . • Qui ergo membrum corporis Ghristi fit, quo- 
modo non accipit quod ipse fit, quando utique illius fit verum cor- 
poris membrum, cujus corporis est in sacrifido saeramentum f Hoc 
ergo fit ille regeneratione sancti baptismatis, quod est de sacrifido 
sumpturus altaris. Quod etiam sanctos Patres indubitanter eredidisse 
ac docuisse cognosoiinus. Beatus quoque Augustinus de bac re ser- 
monem fecit admodum luoulentum." (De Baptismo iEtbiopis, cap. 
xi., in Heptas Presul. Christ., edit. Raynaudus, Paris, 1661, pp. 611, 
612.) The extract which Fulgentius gives from St. Augustine will be 
found among the Interpretative Dicta below, in Appendix, Note D. 

Fulgentius concludes : " Sacrament! quippe illius participatione ac 
benefido non privatur, quando ipse hoc quod iUud saeramentum signi- 
ficat, invenitur." (P. 612.) 

So Cyril Alex, says of the Ethiopian eunuch : Mcro^oc ^^17 rov 
vorjTOv trpoPdrov ^ia r^c ipevrriQ &riheiKy€V£ro. 'H{/ov yap ehSvc 
Koi fiefiaTTTiaOaL (Glaph. in Exod., lib. iii. § 2, Op., ed. Migne, 
tom. ii. c. 425.) 

And again he speaks of the Gentiles becoming Mcroxa r^c &ylac 
aifrov (topkSq . . . Zia rov hyiov IriXovori ^am-itrfiaroQ. (In Job an. 
lib. vi. In cap. ix. vs. 6, 7, Op., tom. tL c. 964.) 

* This passage of St. Augustine is quoted by Bertram in support of 
his views ; by Rabanus Maurus also, as a key to determine whether a 
passage of Scripture is to be literally or figuratively understood ; by 
Frudegard also, as an argument against Paschasius. 

Of the attempt of Paschasius to answer the argument derived from 


Opera, torn. iii. pax. i. c. 52, edit. Benedict., Paris, 

The authority of St. Augustine became so great in the 
Western Church, that his words are frequently adopted 
by subsequent writers, and his language mcorporated in 
their own discourses or treatises. And so it has come to 
pass that these words of his, requiring a figurative inter- 
pretation of our Lord's saying in the sixth chapter of 
St. John, were made his own by Pulbert, Bishop of 
Chartres (who was also the instructor of Berengarius), in 
the early part of the eleventh century. And when, in 1608, 
De ViUiers edited the works of Pulbert (which had never 
been printed before), he showed how this saying was 
Daturally regarded, in the view of such as himself, by 
actnally inserting before it the words '^ dicet hsereticus " 
(apparently adding also a tantum), thus making it appear 
that the words did not represent at all the mind of Pul- 
bert, but were marked by him for reprobation as the 
teaching of false doctrine.^ He was^ in fact, making 
Fulbert put the words of St. Augustine into the mouth 
of the heretic. 
Whether or not the blame of this rests with him chiefly 

this passage, Dr. Harrison says that it " probably has never been 
repeated, and is beneath notice.'' (Dr. Pusey's Challenge Answered, 
p. 187 ; see also pp. 201, 206.) 

* On the views of Fulbert see " Romish Mass and English Church," 
p. 62, and Albertinus, De Eucharistia, pp. 944 seq., especially p. 940. 
See also Du Pin, Eocles. Hist., Eng. transl.j London, 1699, p. 2. See 
also Appendix, Note E. 


or with him only, we need hardly inquire. It is really 
immaterial for our purpose whether he did it altogethejr 
proprio motu, or whether he did it with the support of 
any authority of any sort whatsoever. 

What does concern us to mark is this : the words wer© 
certainly not in the MS. of Petavius which he was using* 
In inserting them he was inserting, as if the language of 
Pulbert, words which very few indeed, I think, will now 
believe that Fulbert could have written,* and words 

^' It is not improbable that, when Berengarius wrote of ** the doc- 
trine of the Eucharist which is in the writings of Bishop Fulbert of 
glorious memory, and which some esteem to be of this bishop, hut it i$ 
of St. Augustine*' (Spic. D'Ach., torn. ii. p. 510. See L'Aroque, Hist of 
£uch., p. 451, Eng. tr. 1684), he may have been referring to this place. 

But if not, his words concerning Fulbert (his former teacher) make 
it in the highest degree improbable that Eulbert's views on the 
Eucharist should have been in pronounced opposition to those of St 

And even apart from this, who could believe that Fulbert would 
thus have set himself in a position of antagonism to the authority of 
such a Master in Israel ? 

Supposing it were possible that Fulbert were anxious to utter a 
word of warning against an exclusively figurative interpretation of 
our Lord's words, it is incredible that he should have chosen to do 
this by putting a dicet hcBreticua (even with the insertion of a tantum) 
before the ipsissima verba of one whom both parties in the Eucha- 
ristic controversy were most anxious to claim as their own, and by 
whose language, on either side, men desired their cause to be sup- 

Very differently did Eupertus Tuitiensis, when really opposing the 
sense of St. Augustine, deal with his name and his teaching. (See 

his Comment in Joan., lib. vi., Opera, edit Migne, torn. iii. c. 461 

463, 469.) 

And very differently had Paschasius dealt with this quotation from 
3t Augustine. (Opera, Paris, 1618, c. 1620.) 



which declared the dictum of St. Augustine to be the 
language of heresy. 

It would appear probable, however, that subse- 
quently,* after the printing of the sheets, it was pointed 

But even if, against all credibility, it could be proved that Fulbert 
bad actually written the words, it would only go to show the contrast 
between the Eucharistic views of St. Augustine and those of some in 
&& earlier age than that in which, beyond all reasonable question, 
the words were interpolated. 

* It seems difficult, on any other hypothesis, to account for the 
fact that what De Villiers had to observe on the text is found, not as 
a note, but among the errata ; especially since he inserted a conspi- 
cuous notice immediately after the prefatory Epistle, which naturally 
leads to the conclusion that none but typographical errors were to be 
looked for under this head. 

The notice runs thus : " Lectores admonitos velim^ si forte quos- 
dam errores invenerint, ad errata recurrant. Etiamsi Argus esses, 
lector, in eo munere, tamen aliquis error semper irrepit in 

Notwithstandiuflf De Villiers's " erratum," the error was not cor- 
i^ted in the *' Bibliotheca Magna" (Colon., 1618), nor again in 
Despont's "Bibliotheca Maxima" (Lugd., 1677); but the words 
"dicet hsBreticus'' were allowed to reappear in the text, with the 
marginal note " Interpretatio est mystica, et nota hsec duo verba dicet 
haretious non haberi in MS. D. Petavii/' (See Bibl. Max., tom. xviii. 
p. 47) ; so also in Migne's Patrologia, tom. cxli. c. 834. 

In the original edition of 1608 the words on the subject found in 
the errata are these : *' Fol. 168. Adverte ista verba figura ergo est, 
additum est, dicet hareticus, nam non habentur hsec duo verba in 
Manuscript D. Petavii, ne quis tamen fallatur cum leget ista, figura 
ergo est, interpretatio est mystica." In the title-page De Villiers 
professes to edit Fulbert's *' Opera Varia" "ex MS. Cod. Biblioth. 
Reg. Colleg. Navarrae, et Glarissimor. virorum D. Petavii Senat. Beg. 
et N. Fabri" 

In the prefatory Epistle he says: ^* 14 actus . . . manuscriptum ex 
Bibliotheca CoUegii Beg. NavarrsB, in quo multa vetustate exesa 
ferme videbantur, bsdc describenda curavi, meoque labore id assecutus 


out to De Villiers that the saying was found in the i 
writings of the great Bishop of Hippo ; for he did his i 

Bum, ut tarn prseolarum virtutis lumen sub modio non delitescat 
Hoc unum tamen silentio non involvam, me a dootissimo Petavio ^ 
Senatore Kegio sequissimo, et Nicolao Fabro Tiro clarissimo accepisse 
. . . qusedam, ex ipsorumque BibHothecis desumpta huic auctori 
inseruisse, quse in nostaro M.So. non exstabanf 

From tbis tbe most natural inference is tbat tbe otber two MSS. 
supplied him with additional and separate materials, which he used 
onH when his own MS. failed him. 

Moreover, the interpolated passage occurs in what is evidently but 
a very imperfect fragment, made up of fragmentary quotations; so that 
the conclusion becomes almost inevitable that he had here only the 
MS. of Petavius to use, and that as the words "dicet hsereticus'* 
were not in that MS., he did not find them in any MS. 

The interpolation was detected by Archbishop Ussher (then Bishop 
of Meath), who, writing in 1625, says: ''He that put in those words 
' dicet hffireticus ' thought he had notably met with the heretics of 
this time, but was not aware that thereby he made St. Augustine a 
heretic for company. For the heretic, that speaketh thus, is even 
St. Augustine himself : whose very words these are, in his third book 
De Doctrina Christiana, the sixteenth chapter. Which some belike 
having put the publisher in mind of, he was glad to put this among 
his errata, and to confess that these two words were not to be found 
in the manuscript copy which he had from Petavius ; but telleth us 
not what we are to think of him, that, for the countenancing of the 
popish cause, ventured so shamefully to abuse St. Augustine.** 
(Answer to Jesuits* Challenge, Introductory Ch., Works, edit Elring- 
ton, vol. iii. p. 22.) 

Subsequently, the falsification was exposed in France, by Auber- 
tin, from information which he had derived from very good autho- 
rity. The French edition of his work on the Eucharist appeared in 
1633. The following is from the Latin edition of 1654: "Nescio 
quis Carolus Yillerius qui ex duobus manuscriptis Bibliothecarum 
Navarrenffi et PetaviansB Fulberti Camotensis opera Lutetiffi edidit, 
cum in eis hunc Augustini locum citatum reperitoet, post hsec verba, 
J^ura er^o est, summa, impudentia ac foddissimaimpostura in SBtemum 
exprob&nda, contra, manuscriptOTUxn iUorvmi ^^cm. V5s^^^ ^ ^\%xvBfe,- 


best then to undo what he had done ; and accordingly 
he included in the list of " Errata " the words that had 
been interpolated (as if they had crept in by a misprint), 
adding the note, '^ Interpretatio est mystica."* 

dee Gordes qui PetaTianum codicem prsabendam impetraverat, didici) 
iddere aosus est, dio&t HareUcus.** (De Eucharistia, p. 667.) 

Gave says : *' Qualem in operibus istis edendis fidem prsastiterit 
Doetor ille Parisiensis, tsI unico hoc exemplo abunde patet: Ful- 
bertos, p. 168, verba isthsdo ex S. Augustino describit. Nisi mandu- 
eaveritis, &c. Hio loci misellus editor, refiitandis hseresibus bujus 
temporis (uti in editionis fronte gloriatur) intentus, pOFt voces istas 
figura ergo est, glossam istam, dioit Hareticiu, inseruerat Tandem 
post emissum prsslo Hbrura, integram periodum in S. Augustin, 
Operibns legi, et exinde a Fulberto descriptam esse admonitus, 
Mnas istas voces, dieit Maretieus, inter errata typographica retulit, 
fltsprsBter Oodiois, quo usus est, MS. fidem, additas esse oonfessus." 
(Historia Literaria, p. 418, Geneva, 1694.) 

Eren supposing tbat tbere were found any manuscript support for 
die words it will bardly be questioned that the insertion must 
niginally have been fraudulently made. Indeed the statement of 
De '\nilier8 himself virtually contains the acknowledgment that the 
words are not the words of Fulbert. 

Schiockh says that De ViUiers, full of wretched apprehension that 
the words figura ergo est might be damaging to the doctrine of the 
Church, inserted dioet Kareticus, and that this shameless falsification 
has drawn on him the lasting suspicion that he may probably have 
iltered by his own authority other passages of his edition. (Sohrockh. 
Ghristliche Kirohengesch., vol. xxiii. p. 506^ as referred to by Canon 
Robertson, Hist, of Gh. Ch., vol. iii p. 344.) 

The fact of the falsification of Fulbert by some one can scarcely be 
regarded as doubtful. The object of the falsification is equally clear. 
And the witness to the change of Fucharistic doctrine between the 
time of St. Augustine and the date at which the falsification was made 
is sorely decisive. 

* See Canon Eobertson in History of Christian Gh., vol. iii. p. 344 
edit 1874, to whom I am indebted for first directing my attention to what 
I am now (after corre8j)oiidai2ce with him) fully satis&ed mvxst^^ttv^^t. 
without a doubt, be the true biatory of this remaxkable ixk\AT^o\bi^<wv. 


This incident is not uninstructive. Over and beyond 
its bearing on St. Augustine's view of the words of Insti- 
tution, it suggests matter of inquiry. It is scarcely 
possible not to ask the question, — ^Is it thus that the lan- 
guage of the Fathers, when too plainly clashing with the 
Eomish Eeal Presence, is first, if possible, to be marked 
as heretical, and denounced as if by the voices of the 
Fathers themselves, and then, failing this, to have its 
doctrinal import over-ridden ad libitum by simply ridicu- 
lous glosses ? 

In the title-page De Villiers commends the writings 
which he edits as availing for the confutation of the 
heresies of his day.* 

Is it by such processes as these that the works of 
Christian Bishops of former days are to be made to con- 
demn with one crushing anathema the doctrines of the 
Eeformation and of Christian antiquity together ? 

Are the writings of the Fathers thus, at all hazards, 
to be made to speak the language of Bome ? 

No doubt there are many Bomish divines who would 
abhor t all such methods of tampering with the texts of 

* The words are, *'Qu8b tain ad Refutandas baereses hujos temporis 
quam ad Galloruiu Hist, pertinent." 

f Baronins, torn. v. p. 455 (quoted by James, Corruptions of Sc, 
p. 73, London, 1848), says: "Yebementius commoveor in eos, qui 
mendaoiis labefactant, quam se putant sufiulsisse Dei Ecclesiam, 
columnam et firmamentum veritatis." 

Du Pin bas noticed tbat tbere was ** a great deal of remissness " 
in tbe edition of De Villiers. (See Eccles. Hist., English trans., 
London, 1699, vol. ix. p. 6 ) 


ancient authors. Doubtless, too, it may be pleaded, in 
extenuation of the act, that those who were parties to it 
did what they did with a view to the maintenance of 
what they believed to be the truth. But is it possible to 
avoid a suspicion arising — apart from all other evidence 
— of something really rotten at the bottom of a system 
which has too often been propped up by suchlike pious* 

The most important inquiry, however, for our present 
purpose is this : — How comes it to pass that a saying 
which, at first sight, was so clearly heretical that the 
works of Fulbert ought (in the view of some) to be thus 
tampered with, lest he should seem to sanction it, was 
never seen to have anything in it of an heretical sound 
in the days of St. Augustine, who wrote it ?f 

* See Bomish Mass and English Ohnrcb, pp. 63, 64. See also 
James's " Gorruptions of Scripture, Councils/'. &c., pp. 75 sqq,, Lon- 
don, 1848. 

f It may be noted also, as a -^ery obvious argument to show that 
St. Augustine held no such doctrine of Real Ol^ective Presence of 
Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist as is now taught, that he 
doubted whether the glorified body of Christ has any real blood. 

Mr. Patrick says : *' The very reading of that 146th epistle of St. 
Austin, wherein he plainly, in his answer to that question, betrays 
bis doubting of it, as well as in other of his works; his distinguishing 
betwixt Christ's haying a true body after His resurrection* and His 
baring flesh and blood; the testimonies there of other oi the ancients, 
especially of Origen and his followers, that seem plainly to make 
both the glorified body of Christ, and also of believers, to be of another 
composition than that of proper flesh and blood ; these, I say, are a 
demonstration that the ancient Fathers did not believe any presence 
of true flesh and blood to be now in the Eucharist. . . . 

** Why St. Austin should ever at all doubt or hesitate about this 

But to pass now from St. Augustine, let it be observed 
how in the teaching of Ephrem of Edessa, or of another 
in his name, not only what Christ broke was bread, what 
He gave was bread also. Not only so, but what was 
thus broken and given was for a figure of Christ's Body. 

Would anyone have ever thought of writing thus, un- 
less, like St. Augustine, he had supposed that the words 
of institution were to be figuratively understood ? Who 
would have ventured thus to express himself, who re- 
garded the words " This is My Body," as requiring of us 
the belief that that which is given is Christ's very 
natural Body really present in the hand, either in the 

matter of Christ's blood after His resurrectiou is inconceivable, if he, 
with the rest of the Fathers, had such a constant belief of its presence 
in the Eucharist as the Romanists affirm." (Patrick, in Oibson'b 
Preservative, vol. ix. pp. 187, 188, London, 1848.) 

See much more on this subject in Allix's anonymous '* Dissertatio 
de Sanguine D. N. Jesu Christi ad Epistolam cxlvi. S. Augustini^ 
qufil num adhuc existat, inquiritur/' of which a copy is to be found 
in the Lambeth Palace Library. 

And a scarcely less cogent argument may be drawn from his com- 
parison of the caution to be used in receiving the word of God with 
that manifested in receiving the sacrament of Christ's Body. 

Albertinus writes : " Annon apud omnes in confesso est Christum 
in verbo quod prsedicatur non alitor quam in signo aut significative 
esse? Augustinus tamen, aut quicumque alius sit sub ejus nomine, 
in receptione praddicationis et in susceptione Eucharistise eamdem 
omniuo cautionem vult adhiberi : quanta sclicittidine observamiu, inquit, 
quando nobis Oorpus Ghristi minUtratur, ut nihU ex ipso de nostris 
manibus in terram eadat, tanta soUioitudine observemus^ ne verbum Dei 
quod nobis erogatur, dum aUquid aut cogitamus aut loquimur, de 
corde nostro pereat" (Albertinus, De Eucharistia, p. 432.) See 
Origen, as quoted below, p. 97. 


place of the breads or contained within the bread, con- 
cealed nnder its form ? 

And the same must be said of the words of Eusebius 
of CsBsarea, and of Proeopius* of Qaza. What is to 
acoonnt for their saying that Christ gave His disciples 
an image (eUova) of His own Body, if their meaning was 
that what He gave in the hand was that very Body 
itself? The second Nicene Comicil declared plainly that 
if the Eucharist were an image {etKoyv) of Christ's Body 
it could not possibly be the Divine Body itself, t What, 

* CofTetel vrould make it appear that Proeopius meant ** Dominum in 
EuohariBtia non iDstituisse sacrificium qualia erant sub legem iu umbra 
et figura, sed saorificium has figuras adimplens, et rerum (hoc est cor- 
poris et sanguinis Christi)imaginem seusubstantiam ipsam contiuens." 
Albertinus answers: ''Verum, illam imaginis acceptionem hie 
locum non habere, manifestum ex Eusebio unde hsec omnia Proeopius 
iDutuatus est. Eusebius enim indiscriminatim ait, turn Dominum 
divina aoonomuB tymbola tradidisse, ac pane velut corporis proprii 
iymbolo uti jussisse, tnm proprii corporis imaginem effieere mandasse." 
(De Eucharistia, pp. 857, 808.) 

t Ei tlKitv Tov ouf/iaTog eariy, oitK ey^i\erai elvai &vto to Qtiov 
o6fMa, (LabbsBus, torn. viL c. 449.) This was said as in condem- 
natiaiL of the Council of Constantinople, which had spoken of the 
Eueharist as being (in some sense) both. (Mansi, tom. xiii. c. 265.) 
So again : ''AXXo yap itrrly elKtav, koI SlSXo to Tr^rdrvxov, Kal ra 
liiwfiaTa TOV irpufTorinrov oh^afiiag rig rufy ei ^jtpoyovyriiiy ey ry elicovc 
€in(ffreif kv yap ry ElK6yi &Wo ovhy 6 dXi^O^c \6yog yivunrKeif fj 
Kork t6 oyofia icocvaivecv, oxfriydg eerny €lK(i>y, Kal oh Kara njv 
ohfflav* (LabbffiuS; tom. yii. c. 441. See also c. 445. Mansi, tom. xiii. 
0. 257.) 

See ** Romish Mass and English Church," pp. 62, 63. See also 
below, Appendix, Note A, sub Jin, 

So also Nicephorus of Constantinople says : '* Quod est alicujus 
imago, hoc corpus ejus esse non potest." (De Cherubim, cap. vi., in 
Bibl. Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, tom. xiv. p. 94.) 

then, could have induced these writers to reduce the gift 
to an image (elKtav), if they believed that what the Dis- 
ciples received in their hands was avro to Seiov a&fia ? 

Must we not be driven to the conclusion that they 
spoke of the gift of the image for just the same reason 
that St. Augustine spoke (in the passage just quoted) of 
Christ's giving to His Disciples, not His Body, but a 
figure of His Body ? And must not that reason be this, 
that they and he alike understood the words which our 
Lord spake as figurative words ? 

So, again, how could Tertullian have explained our 
Lord's saying, " This is My Body," by saying, " Id est, 
figura* corporis Mei," if he had supposed that under 
the figure of the Body, the Body itself was present ? t 

* Compare Clemens Alexandrinus, Psedagogus, lib. ii. cap. u. : 
MvoTifcov &pa trvfiPciKoy if ypcKpi^ aifiaTOQ dy/ov, olroy iav6fMa9tv. 
(Op., tom. i. p. 184, edit Venice, 1757.) Kai tiiXAyritrt ye roy olyoVf 
elwiitv, Adhere, Tlere' tout6 fwv karlv to al/xa, alfia r^g a/nriXov 
Toy A6yoyf Toy frepl TroWtHy eic)(e6fuyoy eiQ &<ji£tny apa^Uov ehf^po- 
ffvyric &yioy dXXiyyopcI yafjuu (Ibid. p. 186.) On which Bp. Potter 
observes : " dementi idem est, sanguis Ghristi, et sanguis vitis. 
Adjicit prsBterea Christum (eixftpotrvyriQ ydfia) latituB laticem^ seu 
vinum Iffititise effectorem (dXXi/yopelv) aUegorice vocare Logon, hoc 
est semetipsum, qui, hoc est, cujus sanguis, pro multis effusus est. 
Quod si Clementi idem liquor sit sanguis Ohristi et sanguis vitis, vino 
prseterea sanguinem Christi per allegoriam significante, apparet eum de 
Sacramento Eucharistiffi idem sensisse, quod Tertullianus." (P. 186.) 

f ''Contra banc detestandam beresim disputans Tertullianus, 
atque argumentum petens a Sacramento Eucbaristise, Christum non 
phantasticum, sive imaginarium, sed verum et naturale Corpus 
habuisse, ad hunc modum probat. Figura corporis corpus naturale 
arguit ; spectri enim seu pbantasmatis nulla est figura. At (inquit) 

To say that Tertullian meant that in the Old Testa- 
mmt bread was a figure of the Body of Christ, is to say 
that Tertullian did not know what he was speaking 
about. Muratori* indeed says, that this is the only 
way in which Tertullian's words (which are tenebrosa) 
can be explained. 

And I suppose it is the only way in which they can be 
understood on the theory of Eomish theology, t But 

Cbristus * acoeptum pauem^ et distributum discipiilis, Corpus Suum 
ilium fecit dicendo, Hoc est Oorpus Meum, id est, figura Goqjoris 
Mei: figara vero non fuisset, nisi veritatis fuisset Corpus. Res enim 
vacua, ut est phantasma, figuram capere non potest.' Hujus argu- 
menti pars quasque vera est, et necessariam rationis consecutionem 
coQtinet Primo enim oportet panem manere panem ; alioqui, retorto 
vgumento, dixisset Marcion non esse panem ; sed mera panis acci- 
dentia, quse panis esse videbantur: (sicut respondent transubstan- 
tiatores). Secundo, Coqjus Ohristi exponitur per veri illius Corporis 
figaram, qusB pani attribuitur. Est enim panis aptus reprsesentare 
Corpus Domini, propter alendi vim, quse illi terrena inest, huic 
ccBlestis. Tertio denique Veritas Corporis eo probatur, quod vera et 
substantiali figurft reprsdsentetur ; quum, sublata (prout pontificii vo- 
lant) panis substantia, ipsa quoque Corporis Christi Veritas in Sacra- 
mento destruitur." (Cosin's Works, A. 0. L., vol. iv. p. CI.) 
* Liturgia Yetus Romana, p. 187, Venice, 1748. 
f ** Nonnulli Tertullianum a nostris partibus stare pene confitentur. 
Sic enim Gardinerus Wintoniensis sub ementito Marci Aatonii Con- 
stantii nomine : TertuUianus Mm verborum Ohristi interpretationem 
expUcavit, quam ante eum nemOt neo post earn quisquam OatholiouSf 
tanquam ex ore Ohristi, . . . Hardingus similiter: TertuUiani inter- 
pretatio non nihil revera a recto verborum Ohristi seusu (hoc est, a 
sententia Adversariorum) defleotit. Et rursum : Non tarn speotavit 
TertidUanus aeeuratum verborum sensum, quam in eo ddboravit ut 
institutwn euum evinceret. Idem quoque innuere videtur Rhenanus, 
quando in admonitione de TertuUiani dogmatis, simpliciter notat, 
errorem putantium corpus Ohristi in Eucharistia tantum esse sub 


which, at least, could only naturally be understood as 
teaching this, were allowed in the earlier days of Chris- 
tianity to pass unchallenged for their orthodoxy, unques- 
tioned as to the soundness of their doctrine. 

In such sayings was no note of discord that jarred 
upon the unity of the faith once delivered to the saints, 
or that broke the harmony of the truth as then received 
by the Church of Christ. 

So, again, in the works of Origen are many passages 
which, taken together at least, leave an indelible im- 
pression of teaching on the subject which would now be 
accounted as the doctrine of Sacramentaries. 

Take, for example, what he says of " the consecrated 
bread " and " the Lord's Bread," — " of the typical and 
symbolical Body " {Trepl tov tuttlkov koI avfi^oTuKov 
adfjbaro^), as clearly distinct (with all the distinction be- 
tween one thing and another thing) from the Word made 
flesh, the living Bread which can only be eaten unto 
eternal life ;* his discussion concerning our Lord's say- 

* The entire passage should be carefully read in order to appre- 
ciate its bearlDg on the controversy : — 

"Dlxerit autem aliquis qui inhunc incident locum, quemadmodum 
Non quod intrat in os coinquinat hominem; etiamsi e&istimetur a 
Judseisimpurum ; ita quod ingreditur in os non sanctifioare hominem, 
etiamsi a simplicioribus existimetur sanctifioare, id quod Domini panis 
appellatur (6 oyofia^dfievog &pTOc tov Kvpiov). Et sermo quidem 
ille minime, opinor, aspemandus est, proptereaque perspicua indigens 
explicatione, quae mihi ita se habere videtur. Quemadmodum non 
cibus, sed conscientia ejus qui cum dubitatione comedit, comedentem 
coinquinat. Nam qui dubitat, si manducaverit, damnatus est, quia 
non ex fide ; et quemadmodum inquinato et incredulo nihil purum 


ing, " Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a 
man/' in its bearing on the Eucharist.* I suppose, if 

est, non quidem per se, Bed propter illius contaminatioDem et inore- 
dolitatem; ita id quod sanotifioatum est per yerbum Dei et orationem, 
non ex se utentem tanctifioat; nam ei id ita esset, sanctifioaret et 
ilium qui indigne Domino comedit, nee uIIub propter oibum hunc 
infirmus factus fuisset, aut imbecilis, aut mortuus : tale enim quid- 
piam Paulus docuit hie verbis: Ideo inter vos multi infirmi, et 
imbeciles, et dormiunt.multL Ac proinde in pane Domini udlitas est 
ei qui utitur, cum intemerata mente, et pura oonscientia panis fit 
partioeps. Sic autem neque bono aliquo privamiu:, ex eo quod non 
oomedamus de pane per verbum Dei et orationem oonsecrato^ nempe 
propter ipsam ab esu absdnentiam ; neque ex eo quod oomedamus, 
bono aliquod abundamus : nam causa privadonis, malida est, et 
peeoata; et abuudandse causa, justitia est et recte facta: ut tale 
sit id quod a Paulo dicitur his verbis. Neque enim si manduca- 
TerimuSy abnndabimus, neque si non manducaverimus, deficiemus. 
Quod si yero id omne quod intrat in os, in ventrum vadit, et in 
secessum emitdtur; et oibtM ipse per verbum' Dei et oradonem con- 
ueratui, secundum illud quidem ipsiun quod materia constat (icar 
avr6 fuy to vXocov), in yentrem abit, et in secessum ejicitur; secun- 
dum oradonem autem quse illi accessit, juxta propordonem fidei, 
ntilis fit, efficitque ut perspicax fiat animus, spectans ad id quod 
prodest ; neo panis materia, sed super eum prolata orado, ea est qua 
ilium juyat, qui non indigne Deo hunc comedit. Et hoc quidem de 
typioo et eymbolico corpore, Multa autem de ipso yerbo {irtpX ahrov 
Tov \6yov) did queant, quod caro factum est, yerusque cibus (6c 
yiyovt trap^, Kal dXi/Oiv^ fiptatno), quem qui comederit, omnino in 
sternum yiyet, cum nullus mains eum possit comedere." (Com. in 
Matt, pp. 258, 254, edit Huetius, 1685. See also pp. 177 — 179, 

* Origen writes: ''Nosds qui divinis mysteriis interesse con- 
toestis, quomodo cum suscipids corpus Domini, cum omni cautela 
et yeneratione seryatis, ne ex eo parum quid decidat ne oonseorati 
fMineni aliquid dilabatur. Beos enim vos creditis, et recte credids, 
si quid inde per negligentiam decidat Quod si circa corpus ejus 
oonsenrandum tanta udmini cautela, et merito utimini; quomodo 
putatia minoris esse piaculi yerbum Dei neglexisse quam corpus 



anything beyond the sayings of Origen himself were 
needed to show clearly the contrariety between the 
natural meaning of his words and the Bomish doctrine 
of the Keal Presence, it would be found* in the various 
tortures with which they have been racked by Bomish 
divines, in order to extract from them an unnatural 
sense. Insomuch that, besides a vain attempt to get them 
removed from the genuine writings of Origen, Cardinal 
Du Perron,! after all, would fain shield the Bomish 
doctrine by pleading the worthlessness of Origen' s tes- 
timony, because, forsooth, *'he is accused of various 
heresies by Epiphanius, Theophilus, Jerome, Cyril, and 
others." t 

It is most true that Origen was so charged ; that 

ejus?" (In Exod., Horn. xiii. 176, Opera, edit Migne, torn. ii. 
0. 891.) 

The question would surely be something monstrous on the sup- 
position that the *' corpus Domini" was to be understood jE>ropm, and 
as involving the real presence of the living Christ, Body, Soul, and 

But it is fitting and forcible if the " corpus Domini " is understood 
of the ** consecratum munus," which sacramentally bears that name, 
i,e, of the ''typical and symbolical body*' which Origen distinguishea 
(See above, p. 90.) 

* See Albertinus, De Eucharistia, pp. 849 sqq, 

)• " Accipio quod conoedit Perronius Originem . . . negare panem 
Eucharistiae esse vere et proprie corpus Christi. Inde enim Uquido 
patet quam inepte contra nos urgeat loca ilia veterum Soriptorum, 
ipsius quoque Origenis, ubi sacramentum Eucharisti® corpus Christ! 
indigetant, cum Origenes qui illud ssepe sic appellat, nihilominus 
neget esse vere et substantialiter Christi corpus." (Albertinus, De 
Eucharistia, p. 864.) 

t See Albertinus, De Eucharistia, p. 854. 


his bitter opponent!? were unceasing and untiring in 
seeking and finding matter of accusation against 

They spared him not when they lighted on anything 
which sounded like heresy in his writings ; and they had 
a very keen scent in the hunt after whatsoever might 
savour of heterodox opinions. 

Now, the important question is,* — Did they ever charge 
Origen with false doctrine for his teaching here or else- 
where concerning the Eucharist ? If not, what Perronius 
alleges of his heresies and his enemies only shows that 
in those days men viewed his writings from the stand- 

* With reference to what Theophilus of Alexandria had said 
respecting Origen's views concerning the sanctifioation of things 
inanimate, Albertinus says : — 

"Neque enim ilium [Origenem] accusat [Theophilus], aut quivis 

alios totius antiquitatis eimi unquam incusavit quod de sacramentis 

male senseriti quod impie negaverit panem et vinum Eucharistise 

esse proprie corpus et sanguinem Cbristii quod falso affirmaverit 

varum Domini corpus ah indignis edi non posse, et similia ; indicio 

manifesto ilium hac in parte orthodoxum ah omnibus, etiam inimicis- 

simis, fuisse judicalum; sed arguit incogitanti® et inadvertentise ; 

quod asserens Spiritum Sanctum in res inanimas non operari, 

communes hypotheses imprudens everteret, propriamque fidem de 

baptismi et Eucharistise sanctitate et virtute labefactaret et destru- 

eret" (Albertinus, De Eucharistia, p. 858.) 

The statement of Theophilus was as follows : — 

'*Quod asserens [Origenes] non recogitat aquas in Baptismate 

mysticas adventu Sancti Spiritus consecrari; panemque Dominicum, 

quo Sal^atoris corpus ostenditur, et quem frangimus in sanctifica- 

tionem nostri ; et sacrum calicem (quse in mensa Ecclesi® collocantur), 

et utique inanima sunt, per invocationem et adventum Sancti Spiritus 

sanctificari.'* (Theophili Alex., Paschalis ii., in Oper. Hieron., Epist. 

xcviii. § 18, torn. i. c. 595, edit. VaUarsius, Venice, 1766.) 



point of a faith concerning the Sacrament which is not 
that of modem Bomanists and Bomanisers. 

Another passage from Origen ought not to be passed 
over in this connection.* 

"^ It should also be noted that Origen understood John vL 53 in 
the same figurative sense as Irenseus, Tertullian, and St Augustine. 
(See above, pp. 66, 66, 79, 80.) He says ; — 

** Dominus et Salvator noster dicit : * Nisi manducaverltis camem 
meam, et biberitis sanguinetn meum, non habebitis vitam in vobis 
ipsis. Caro mea vere est cibus, et sanguis mens vere est potus.' . . . 
Hsec qui audire nescit, detorqueat fortassis, et avertat auditum secun- 
dum illos, qui dicebant: 'Quomodo dabit nobis Hie oamem suam 
manduoare ? Quis potest audire Eum ? Et dicesserunt ab Eo/ Sed 
vos si filii estis Ecclesi®, si evangelicis imbuti mysteriis, si Verbum 
caro factum habitat in vobis, agnoscite qusB dicimus, quia Domini 
sunt, ne forte qui ignorat ignoretur. Agnoscite quia^tcr^ sunt, quad 
in divinis voluminibus scripta sunt, et ideo tanquam spiritales et non 
tauquam carnales examinate, et intelligite quae dicuntur. Si enim 
quasi carnales ista suscipitis, Isedunt vos, et non alunt Est enim et 
in evangeliis litera quae occidit, non solum in Veteri Testamento 
occidens litera deprebenditur. Est et in Novo Testamento litera, 
quae occidat eum, qui non spiritaliter quse dicuntur adverterit .Si 
enim secundum literam sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum est ' Nisi 
manducaveritis camem meam, et biberitis sanguinem meum ' occidit 
hsec litera." (In Levit., Hom. vii. 225, Opera, edit. Migne, tom. ii. 
c. 486, 487.) 

And as with St. Augustine so with Origen ; there is not a word to 
indicate the notion of any other than the one natural mode of eating 
with the bodily mouth. (See above, p. 80.) 

The letter of this saying (according to Origen) killeth, therefore it 
is to be recognised as a figure. 

To say : " Id unum sigDificat hoc loco Origenes camem Ghristi 
non manducari more aliorum ciborum circa externum symbolum*' 
(Delarue in loo.) is to follow a method of shielding Romish doctrine 
from the wounding power of the one natural sense of such sayings, by 
confidently asserting only that their meaning is something which it 
is absurd to suppose that the Fathers ever meant, and has relation to 


It is as follows : '^ Non enim panem ilium visibilem 
quern tenebat in manibus, corpus suum dicebat Deus 
verbum, sed verbuip in cujus mysterio fuerat panis ille 
frangendus. Nee potum ilium visibilem sanguinem 
suum dicebat, sed verbum in cujus mysterio potus 
ille faerat eflfundendus. Nam corpus Dei Verbi, aut 
sanguis, quid aliud esse potest, nisi verbum quod nutrit, 
et verbum quod leetificat cor?*** Now, I think it need- 
less to examine the proof of human ingenuity displayed 
in the interpretation which has been given to this 
passage, to bring it into harmony with Eomish doctrine. 
The honour of discovefing such a sense is given by the 
Benedictine editor to M. Eobbe, in the following words : 
"Suam hie laudem fas sit tribuere clarissimo viro D. 
Bobbe, hujusce operis censori regio, qui mihi harenti et 

coneeptions whioli have been the unnatural birth of scholastic subtil- 
ties and pseudo-philosophical distinctions — the strange product of 
human thoughts elaborating with marvellous skiU a consummate 
system of superstition — and all called forth to meet the necessary 
demands made by the formation, expansion, and crystallisation of 
Bomish mediseval theology. 

Albertinus says : " Eum [Origenem] denuo per exclusionem man- 
dacationis carnis Ghristi juxta literam, quamlibet illius, seu cum sui 
Isesione, sive absque Isesionei seu integrse, seu per particulas sumptse 
manducationem (ut ita dicam) literalem et corporalem similiter explo- 
ders, evidenter ex eo patet, quod huic quam rejicit manducationi 
juxta literam intellectae, aliam quadantenus literalem et corporalem, 
qualem fingit Adversarius, minime opponat, sed alteram diversi plane 
generis, manducationem scilicet spiritualem et mysticam." (De 
Euobaristia, p. 860.) 

* In Matth. Comment. Series, § 85, p. 898, edit. Bened., tom. iii. 
c. 1734-5, edit Migne. 


incerto genuinum hunc verumqae intricatsB hnjos alle- 
gorisB sensom docte solos inter ploiimos aperoit." 

It is sufficient for my purpose to accept the concession 
made by the same editor in the words, " Videntur [hsBC 
verba] prima fronte parum Catholice de Eucharistia 

Their obvious sense is quite sufficient to account for 
the fact that they were omitted in all editions of Origen's 
works previous to the Benedictine. In the Benedictine 
edition they are restored, because found in two ancient 
MSS. ; in one of which, however, a pen had been drawn 
through them [stylo expuncta sunt] . " It is well," says 
Dean Goode, " to notice these proofs of the way in which 
the writings of the Fathers have been tampered with by 
the Bomanists/' (On Euch., p. 824.) 

Yet these words, which were thus evidently seen by 
others as well as by ourselves, to bear a natural meaning 
contradictory of the Beal Presence, were never alleged 
by Origen's adversaries as evidence of a tendency to 
unsound doctrine on the subject of the Eucharist. 

So again it is said by Theodoret, that Christ gave to 
the symbols the name of His Body, which he could 
hardly have done* if he had supposed that Christ's Word 

* '* The Fathers, knowing that the Eucharist was not in a proper 
sense Christ's Body, give us several reasons why it is caUed His Body. 
But nohody uses to give a reason why he calU a thing by its proper 

*' One reason they give is from its likeness and resemblance, either 
in respect of what it consists of, or from the likeness of its effects. . . . 


made His Body to be present under the form of the 

He says^ that Christ called the elements His Body 
and Bloody and honoured them with this appellation ; * 

" Another reason why they call the Eucharist Christ's Body is 
because it supplies the place, is instead of it, is its representative, its 
pledge, and pawn. 

"Tertollian: ' His Body is reputed to be in the hread : This is My 

** St Austin : ' See how the signs are varied, faith remaining the 
same. There (in the wilderness) the rook was Christ ; to us, that 
which ia placed on God's altar is Christ' 

*' Again elsewhere, more fully : 'All things intended to signify, seem 
in a sort to sustain the persons of those things which they signify, as 
the Apostle says. The Rock was Christ because that rock of which 
this ia spoken did signify Christ' 

"Cyril of Jerusalem says: ' Wherefore with all assurance let us 
receive it (viz. the bread and wine) as 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.' 

**Proolu8 of Constantinople: 'Instead of the manger let us venerate 
the altar; instead of the Infant let us embrace the bread that is 
blessed by the Infant (viz. Christ).' 

" Victor Antiochen: * When the Lord said, This is My Body, this is 
My Blood, it was fit that they who set forth the bread should, after 
giving of thanks, reckon it to be His Body, and partake of it, and 
account the cup to be instead of His Blood.' 

"The author of the commentaries attributed to St Jerome: 'Christ 
left to us His last remembrance, just as if a person, taking a journey 
from home, should leave some pledge to one whom he loves, that as 
oft as he looked upon it he might call to mind his kindnesses and 

" So also Amalarius : ' Christ bowing His head gave up the ghost 
The priest bows himself, and commends to God the Father this 
which is offered as a sacrifice in the place of Christ' " (Patrick in 
Gibson's Preservative, vol. ix. pp. 142 — 144, London, 1848.) 

* Compare Cjprian : " Quando Dominus corpus suum panem voeat 
de multorum granorum adunatione congestum, populum nostrum 


and illustrates the language by our Lord's discourse in 
which He names Himself the vine.* 

Surely^ this is not the language of one holding the 
doctrine of the Beal Objective Presence. 

Surely^ these are forms of expression which no one 
would ever think of using on the hypothesis, either of the 
elements on consecration actually becoming aTrXoK what 
they are named, or of their receiving within them the Beal 
Presence of those things by whose names they are honoured. 

We cannot be surprised if modem Bomanists have 
been found to regard Theodoret as unsound on the sub- 
ject of the Eucharist.! It seems as clear as the day that 
Transubstantiation, at any rate, had not been dreamt of 

quern portabat indicat adiinatum ; et quando sangainem suum vinum 
appellat de botris atque acinis plurimis expressum atque in nnum 
coactum, gregem item nostrum significat commixtione adnnatie mnl- 
titudinis copulatum." (Epist Ixxvi. ad Magnum, Opera, o. 818, edit. 
Baluzius, Venice, 1728.) 

Again: "Invenimus . . . vinum fiiisse quod sanguinem suum 
dixit'' (Epist. Ixiii. ad Gaecilium, Op., c. 228.) 

And let it be observed that Cyprian uses language which poiuts 
quite as much to a Real Presence in the Sacrament of the faithful 
people, as of Christ : " Quia nos omnes portabat Christus, qui et 
peccata nostra portabat, videmus in aqua populum intelligi, in vino 
vero ostendi sanguinem Christi. Quando autem in calice vino aqua 
miscetur, Christi populus adunatur, et credentium plebs ei in quern 
credidit copulatur et conjungitur. ... Si vinum tantum quis offerat, 
sanguis Christi incipit esse sine nobis. Si vero aqua sit sola, plebs 
incipit esse sine Christo.'* (Epistola Ixiii., ad Csdcilium, Opera, 
c. 229, 230.) 

* See above, p. 74. St. Augustine, as is well known, abounds in 
similar teaching. 

f SeeAlbertinus,DeEucharistia,pp. 421, 774; Edgar's Yariations 
of Popery, p. 868, 2nd edit. 


in his time. Nor can his words, taken in their natural 
sense, be reconciled with any other theory of a presence 
in or under the elements.* 

Bat, though his faith on other points was sometimes 
suspected, we ask confidently, was he ever regarded as 
unsound on this point by Christians of old time ? 

Very similar to the language of Theodoret is that of 
St. Chrysostom (for there is no good reason to doubt that 
it is hist) in the Epistle to Gsssarius, which, as first alleged 
by Peter Martyr from a Florentine MS., was repelled by 
Cardinal Du Perron I and others as a Protestant forgery. 

* ** Theodoretus ipsemet de imaginibus loquens: imago figuras, sed 
nonm hdbet, Et rursum: inanimm imagines non habent substantiam 
rerum quorum imagines sunt, Symbolum autem et imaginem bio i]li 
idem esse, aperte patet ex dialogo secundo, ubi postquam dixisset, 
ntyst^ symbola corporis ae sanguinis veri symbftla esse, atque, in boo 
habuisset Eranisten assentientem, oonfeseioni ejus applaudit, et ait: 
Optime. Oportet enim imaginis esse Arohetypum, et piotores naturam 
imitantur, et eorum qum videntur imagines pingunt." (Albertinus, 
De Eaoharistia, p. 776.) 

f To suppose with Gardiner and Turrian, Vasquez andDe Yalentia, 
that the Epistle was written by John of Constantinople in the sixth 
century, would only be to add force to the argument. On that 
hypothesis it would show that more than a century later this saying 
had nothing in it which was contrary to the then received faith con- 
cerning the Eucharist. (See Wakens Defence of the Exposition, 
pp. 142, 148, London, 1686.) 

For a vindication of the authenticity of the Epistle see Deylingius, 
Obs. Sacr., Lips. 1757, par. iv. pp. 866, 867. See also pp. 362—366. 
I It is of this Cardinal du Perron that Abp. Wake writes : *' It will 
more be wondered that a person so eminent amongst them as Oardinal 
du Perron, and that has written so much in defence of Transubstan- 
tiation, should nevertheless all the while himself believe nothing of 
it; and yet this we are assured he freely confessed to some of his 
friends not long before his death ; that he thought the doctrine to be 


In it it is declared that after consecration, the bread, 
though bread by nature still, " is esteemed worthy to be 
caUed the Lord's Body."* 

When Bigotius, haying obtained a copy of this Epistle 
from Florence,t in the year 1680 printed it in his edition 
of Falladius, this part was interdicted by the Doctors of 
the Sorbonne,t and the printed leaves were actually 

monstrotu; that he had done his endeavour to colour it over the best 
he could in his books; but that, in short, he had undertaken an ill 
cause, and which was not to be maintained.'* (Preface to Discourse 
of the Holy Eucharist, pp. x. xL, London, 1687. See his quotation 
from Drelincourt, pp. xi. xii.) 

* ** Sicut enim antequam sanctificetur panis panem nominamus, 
divina autem ilium sanctificante gratia, mediante sacerdote, liberatus 
est quidem appellatione panis, dignus autem habitus Dominici 
corporis appellatione, etiamsi natura panis in ipso permansit, et non 
duo corpora sed unum corpus Filii pradicamus; sic et,'* &c. (Op., 
edit. Montfancon, tom. iii. p. 744.) 

f An imperfect and incorrect version of the Epistle had been pub- 
lished the year before Wake's publication {i.e. in 1685} by Steph. le 
Moyne, among his "Varia Sacra." (See Wake's Defence of Exposition, 
p. 145, London, 1686, and Routh's Opuscula, tom. ii. pp. 124, 1^5.) 

After Wake's publication an edition was published at Botterdam by 
J. Basnage in 1687; and in 1689, another by Harduin. (See Ohry- 
sostomi Opera, edit. Montfaucon, tom. iii. 786.) 

I Abp. Wake says : " I speak no more than what he [Bigotius] 
himself declared to his friends, insomuch that he resolved to reserve 
privately some few copies, for fear the rest should run that risk, 
which indeed they accordingly did. For being now quite finished, and 
just ready to come abroad, some of the doctors of the Sorbonne . . . 
caused it to be suppressed, and the printed leaves cut out of the 
book, without anything to supply the place of them ; and of this the 
edition of Palladius of that year remains a standing monument . . . 
As to the authority of the piece, I shall need say no more than what 
Monsieur Bigot has already done to prove it to be genuine. So 
many ancient authors have cited it as St. Ghrysostom's Epistle to 


out out of the book before it was allowed to be pub- 

Dr. Wake, however, afterwards Archbishop of Ganter- 
bnry, obtained a oopyt of these leaves thus out out, and 
published the contents in an appendix to his '' Defence 
of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of 
England/' And the Epistle is now printed in the Bene- 

Gsssarius; saoh fragments of it remain in the most ancient writers 
as authentio, that he who after all these shall call this piece in 
question may with the same reasonableness douht of all the rest of 
his works, which, perhaps upon less grounds, are on all sides allowed as 
true and undoubted." (Defence of Exposition, pp. 144, 145, London, 
1686. See also Wake's Preface to Discourse of the Holy Eucharist, 
p. 117, London, 1687.) 

"^ It seems to have been judged necessary that the work should not 
be published'in this maimed condition without some change to give 
it ^e appearance of completeness. 

A new title-page was provided, and much ingenuity appears to have 
been displayed in substitutions and other alterations, especially in a 
curious arrangement of the pagination, to give an appearance of errors 
caused by the carelessness of the printer. 

These contrivances, as detected by Mr. Mendham in a copy in his 
}K)S8es8ion, are explained in detail in a note given at the end of his 
Preface to '* An Index of Prohibited Books by command of Pope 
Gregory XVI." (1840.) 

Mr. Mendham adds t ** It is seldom that fraud presents us with so 
many subsidiary points of detection, so minute, so accidental, and yet 
80 decisive." (P. xxxiv.) 

I may add that there is a copy in the library of Lambeth Palace, 
an examii^ation of which will satisfy those who need to be satisfied of 
the accuracy of Mr. Mendham's observations. 

For an example of a somewhat similar treatment of a passage from 
8t Cyprian, bearing on the Pope's supremacy, see Mendham's 
Memoirs of the Council of Trent, pp. 277—279.) 

f The late Dean Goode had a copy of the mutilated edition, and he 
says such copies are not rare. (See his '* Rule of Faith," vol. i. p. 192.) 
Abp. Wake said of the original leaves in his possession, that they 
'' may at any time be seen." (See " Defence of Exposition," p. 128.) 


dictine edition of St. Ghrysostom's works, though 
regarded by Montfaucon as spurious • 

It is certainly no modem writing, for even Montfaucon 
acknowledges that it is quoted by Joannes Damascenus, 
Anastatius the Presbyter^ Nicephorus, and others. 

Why, then, was this language (whether St. Chrysostom*s 
or not), which has such a Protestant sound, and which 
Bomanists would so gladly have repudiated or suppressed 
(whatever they may be obliged to make of it now), — why, 
we ask, was it never charged with heresy in earlier days, 
if the faith of those days was the same as the so-called 
Catholic faith concerning the Eucharist now ? 

So, again, very plain and unmistakeable is the Ian- 
guage in one of the homilies contained in the imperfect 
work on St. Matthew's Gospel which is found among the 
works of St. Chrysostom. There the writer, contrasting 
the vessels of our human bodies (the habitation of Deity) 
with the sacred vessels used for the Eucharist, says of 
them,\ "in quibus non est verum corpus Christi, sed 
mysterium corporis ejus continetur." t 

* See Chrjsostomi Opera, torn. iii. pp. 736 sqq,, edit. Montfaucon, 
Paris, 1721. 

f Chrysostomi Opera, torn, yi., Appendix, p. Ixiii., edit. Mont- 
faucon, 1724. * 

I Hinomar of Rbeims seems to draw a similar, though less strongly- 
marked distinction between the mystery of Christ's Body, and the 
Body Itself. He says : " Nee dubitari licet, ubi corporis et sanguinis 
Dominici mysteria geruntur, supemorum civium adesse oonventus, 
qui monumentum quo corpus ipsum venerabile positum fuerat, et 
unde res^rgendo abscesserat, tam sedulis servant exoubiis." (Opera, 
tom. ii. p* 78, edit. Sismondi, 1646.) 


This declaration is, indeed, so plain, that we do not 
wonder to read in the margin* of one edition after 
another, ''hsBC in quibusdam exemplaribus desunt.'^t 

* There is something so unsatisfiaotory in the transmission of such 
marginal notes from one edition to another (see above, p. 85), that it 
is matter for regret, if not for surprise, that this note should have 
been permitted to reappear in the margin of Montfaucon's Benedic- 
tine edition, and that without any other words of explanation or 
information on the subject. 

If, as some seem to have thought, the note can only be truly 
understood to mean, that after one edition had been correctly printed 
at Paris, other early editions were expurgated of (so-called) Protestant 
heresy by requiring these words to be left out in the printing ; then 
it would sutely have been better to omit a comment, which must be 
worthless except to mislead. 

But if, on the other hand, any MSS. had been collated by the 
editor in which the words were not found, why are we not informed 
where these MSS. are to be seen, and what is their probable age, and 
whether in the place of the omission there is any sign of erasure ? 

f '* One may trust an adversary as to his opinion of what makes 
against him ; these words were looked upon as so considerable an 
objection, that an attempt to corrupt thera '^as practised long ago. 
The learned Archbishop Ussher (in the Preface of his Answer to this 
Jesuits' Challenge) has observed, * that those words (in quibus non est 
vemm oarptu Christy 8^ mysterium corporis ejus continetur) were left 
out wholly in an edition at Antwerp, 1537, and at Paris, 1543, and in 
another at Paris, apud Audoenum Parvum, 1557/ Dr. James (in 
his * Corruption of True Fathers,' p. 53) says : * Those words are 
found in all the ancient copies at Oxford, as Archbishop Ussher says 
they were extant in the ancienter editions, as in 1487. And I myself 
have seen one Paris edition, even in the year 1530 (apud Claud, 
Ohevdllonium), where those words are extant. So that 1 conclude 
that the Antwerp edition first mentioned (apud </oan. Steelsium^ 1537), 
was the first that made the alteration. But then I further observe, 
that in the large Paris edition in Latin of St. Chrysostom, 1588, 
which I have by me, those words are inserted, indeed, in the text, 
but enclosed within two brackets, with this note in the margin, Hteo 
in quibusdam exemplaribus desunt, which is very fine work, when they 
themselves had omitted them in the forenamed prints.' 


The marginal note of Albertinus is, "In quibusdam 
exemplaribus non sine fraudis suspicione abrasa sunt/** 
The words are acknowledged by the Benedictine editor to 
be '* prave dicta ; " t though of their genuineness there 
can now be scarcely a reasonable doubt. I 

** They have played the same prank with the same author in another 
of his homilies (viz. Hom. 19), whose words were not favourahle to 
the Real Presence of Ghrisfs Body in the Eucharist The words are 
these : — 

" ' Perhaps thou wilt ohject, how can I say that he is not a Christian, 
whom I see confessing Christ, having an altar, offering the sacrifice 
of hread and wine, baptizing,' &c. 

" In the Paris edition apud Audoenum Parvum, an. 1557, as Dr. 
James notes, those words Sacrificium panis et vini are changed into 
these, Sacrificium corporis et sanguinis Ckristi. The Paris edition of 
1588 (before mentioned), though it had more conscience than to insert 
this change into the text, yet so far complied with the cheat as to put 
in the margin (alias, Sacrificium corporis et sanguinis Ckristi), 

'* If this trade had gone on successfully, they might have had in time 
a consent of Fathers on their side ; but it can never be without it" 
(Patrick, View of the Doctrines and Practices of the Ancient Church 
relating to the Eucharist, ch. ix. 5th position, in Gibson's Preserva- 
tive, vol. ix. pp. 186, 187, London, 1848.) See James's " Corruptions 
of Scripture, Councils," &c. pp. 122 — 124, London, 1848. See also 
Ussher's Works, edit Elrington, vol. iii. p. 21. 

* Albertinus, De Eucharistia, p. 561 : see Goode on Eucharist, i. 
p. 272 ; and Papers on the Eucharistio Presence, p. 52. 

I Chrysost. Opera, tom. vi., Appendix, p. x., edit. Montfauoon, 

X ** The same words are found in all our ancient copies, so as Peter 
Martyr bath alleged them. Bellarmine having nothing to say here- 
unto, would have us to think that these words are inserted by some 
of Berengarius' disciples. And to prove this, he refers us to a place 
in Sixtus Senensis .... which proves this book to be corrupted in 
many places. But to grant so much, and to deal liberally with the 
cardinal ; yet, from thence shall we infer, that Chrysostom in this 
place is corrupted by heretics ?" (James's " Corruptions of Scripture, 
Councils, Fathers," p. 128.) 


Bat we do wonder, that it should have remained for 
after ages to discoyer so grievous an error, and to 

It is scarcely correct to say tbat Sixtus Senensis himself proves 
this book to be corrupted. He does but profess to be reporting the 
arguments of others (p. 266), on which (p. 267) he declines to express 
an opinion. 

Sixtus Senesis himself quotes the words as the words of the author 
of the ** Opus Imperfeotum " in Bibl. Sane, Ub.yi. Annot. xxi. p. 480, 
edit Col. 1586, though doubtless as containing one of those errors 
he speaks of when he says (liber iv. p. 267) : " Ipsum opus disertum 
et doctum esse, et dignum quod assidue legatur, si tamen prius dili- 
gentiesime expurgatum fuerit ab iis erroribus, quos in sexto libro in 
censuris super Matthaei expositoribus annotavimus." 

I am indebted to the kindness of the Rev. H. 0. Goxe, Bodley's 
Librarian, for the information that there are in Oxford twelve 
, MSS. copies of this *' Opus Imperfectum." Two of these are of the 
fifteenth century, the rest of the fourteenth. The following is a list : 
(1) Laud MS. No. 444 ; (2) Bodleian, No. 709 ; (8) Do. No. 811 ; 
(i) Balliol, No. 58 ; (5) Merton, No. 10 ; (6) Do. No. 11 ; (7) Do. 
No. 88 ; (8) Exeter, No. 6 ; (9) Oriel, No. 62 ; (10) New Coll. No. 
50; (11) Do. No. 61; (12) Do. No. 62. 

All these MSS. have recently been examined with reference to this 
point The result of the examination is that the words are found in 
tbem all, without exception ; and the variations of reading are quite 

What Sixtus Senensis says of alleged omissions in certain MSS. has 
especial reference to passages having too clearly a sound of Arianism. 
And the history of such omissions is thus given by the Benedictine 
editor (Diatriba ad Op. Imperf. § vi. p. 7) : '* Multi in tot loca Arian- 
ismum prse se ferentia incidentes, ea vel quibusdam mutatis in 
Gatholicara sententiam reducere conati sunt, vel penitus sustulerunt ; 
alii postea qui in haec truncata ac mutata exemplaria inciderunt, ea 
qu8B sublata fuerant in margine scripserunt." 

What more likely than that the same unscrupulous purpose of 

reducing the work to orthodoxy anyhow, which caused the removal of 

what might give support to Arianism, should also have omitted a 

passage which might give such support to the followers of Berengarius? 

The editor (p. 9) asks also of a passage altogether omitted by 


eliminate such false teaching, if indeed it was a part of 
the primitive faith to believe that in the vessels of the 
Eucharist were really present, not merely the sacrament 
or mystery of Christ's Body, but Christ's very Body 
itself, with His soul and Divinity ; seeing it is certain 
that (notwithstanding its alleged heretical pravity) this 
work was of old time attributed to St. Chrysostom,* and 
in the ninth century was quoted as his by no less an 
authority than Pope Nicholas I.t 

Mahusius: " Invectum autem fuisse in textum Scriptoris, quia credi- 
dent unquaiQ ? " And may not the very same question be asked (and 
perhaps with still more force) of the passage which speaks of non 
verum corpus, sed mysterium corporis f Its occasional omission (the 
passage being genuine) is intelligible, accountable, and even, it may 
be said, natural. Its general insertion (supposing the passage to be 
not genuine) seems unintelligible and incredible. 

I will add that there is a passage from the last Homily of this same 
work, of such similar construction to the passage in question with its 
context, yet with nothing at all like imitation, that I think it may 
very well be put in as evidence, tending to show that both came from 
the same pen. It is as follows : ** Si enim hsBc corpori, corporibus 
non pr8B3tare tantsB impietatis est* quae et si accipiunt ea, non possunt 
vivere semper : putas quantSB impietatis est, hsec omnia spiritualiter 
animabus periclitantibus non ministrare, qusB poterant yivere in 
8Btemum, si hsec eis ministrata fuissent." (Hom. liv. p. 228.) 

The passage to be compared runs thus : " Si ergo hffic vasa sancti- 
ficata ad privates usus transferre sic periculosum est [in quibus non 
est verum corpus Christi, sed mysterium corporis ejus continetur] : 
quanto magis vasa corporis nostri, qusB sibi Deus ad habitaculum 
praeparavit, non debemus locum dare diabolo agendi in eis quod 
vult?" (Hom. xi.p. 63.) 

* See Chrysos. Opera, tom. vi., pp., p. vi., edit. Montfaucon. 

f The Arian (if he were such) desiring his writings to pass under 
the name of St. Chrysostom, would have been very little likely to give 
expression to language concerning the Eucharist which he would 
have supposed to run counter to the universal creed of the Church. 


Indeed, after all, I do not know that the assertion of 
this writer can be said to go much further than the state- 

If, in the genuine writings of St. Ghrysostom, no passage can be 
found speaking so distinctly to the point, there are certainly many 
sayings which can hardly without violence be made at all to harmo- 
nise with the doctrine of a Presence in the elements. 

Several passages will be found quoted below, in Appendix. Let it 
suffice here to refer to one or two of his sayings. 

In his " Commentary on the Galatians," Ghrysostom says: T^ ^e 
Tie acLpKoe 6y6fiaTi TraXtr Kal ra fivarfipia KoXeiv eiiodey § ypa^^y 
wi r^r tKKXriffiay Awaeray, aQ/Jui Xiyovaa eJyai tov Xpitrrov. 
(Com. in Oal. v. 17, Opera, tom. x. p. 720, edit. Montfaucon.j On 
which it has been very truly observed : *' The phrase, ' accustomed to 
call by the name,' shows at once what is meant ; as does also the 
coupling of the * mysteries ' with ' the whole Church ' as bearing the 
Mme, Indeed, Chrysostom's argument is destroyed, if you suppose 
the 'mysteries' to be really the Body of Christ.** (Goode on 
Eucharist, i. pp. 271, 2/2.) 

Again, Ghrysostom asks ; El yap firj &TriOay€v 6 ^Ir)(rovg, riyog 
ffy/i/3oXa ra rcXou/xcva; (In Matt Horn. 82, § 1, Op., tom. vii.p. 768, 
edit Montfaucon) — a question which, in its natural meaning, surely 
implies that the consecrated elements do not contain the presence of 
Christ's Body glorified, but are symbols of Christ's Body as dead, and 
of His Blood as poiu«d out, which is perfectly in accordance with 
his habitual teaching. (See Appendix, Note F.) 

So again Ghrysostom says : 2(D/ia Kal alfxa fxvoTiKoy ovk &y tote 
yiyoiro rfJQ tov irytvfiaTOQ \apiTOQ xaapiQ (Hom. De Resurr., Op., 
edit Montfaucon, tom. ii. p. 436) — which can only, I believe, be 
understood of the sacramental as distinct from the true natural Body 
of Christ. 

Albertinus says : '* Per corpus et sanguinem Christi mysticum de 
quibus loquitur, non intelligit proprium Domini corpus et sanguinem. 
Nee enim, aut k Chrysostomo, aut ab uUo alio veterum corporis et 
sanguinis mystici nomenclatura unquam illis tribuitur. Imo contra, 
Eusebius Csssariensis ea diserte distinguit a corpore et sanguine 
mystico, qusscumque ilia sint : DomintUt inquit, non de came qitam 
(Utumpsit loquebatur, sed de corpore et sanguine mystico ; per corpus et 
sanguinem mysticum Domini sermones ibi designans. Quod et non 



ment of St. Jerome, that the sacred chalices are to be 
treated with the same veneration (eadem majestate vene- 
randa) as the Body and Blood of our Lord.* 

obscure fatentur Adversarii ipsi quando ad haBO Olympiodori in Eocle- 
siastem verba, mysticam corporis Ghristi participationem, hseo alia ad 
marginem notant, nedum mysticey sed vere et realiter ipsum Ghristi 
corpus in Eucharistia participamus, Hac enim appellatione veteres 
tantum insigniunt, aut morale ejus corpus et sanguinem, Tidelicet, 
Ecclesiam, aut sermon esipsius, aut sacramentale corpus etsanguinem, 
seu sacramentutn corporis ejus et sanguinis, hocest^panem et yinum, 
qu8B interdum vocant corpus et sanguinem Ghristi, quia (ut notat 
Facundus) in se mysterium corporis ejus sanguinisque eonUneant.'' 
(Albertinus, De Eucharistia, pp. 531, 682.) 

So, again, Chrysostom writes : "CloTTEp yap § irapovala ahrov ff ra 
fxeyaXa eKelva koi airSpprjTa KOfxlaatra fifuv ayadd rovg fir^ ^e£a- 
fxiyovg avrriv fiaXkoy KariKpivev. Ovru) koi to. fxvarfipia fxei(oi^ 
e(l>6^ia KoXdaewQ ylverai toIq ava^lwg fxeT€\ovffL (Hom. xxviii. 
§ 1, in 1 Cor., Op., ed. Montfaucon, tom. x. p. 251.) On which 
passage Albertinus has well observed: *' Ghristi prsesentiam, seu, 
quod idem est, Christum prsesentem EucharistisB sacramento rela- 
tive opponit, atque ex illius effectis per accidens, ad Eucharistifi» 
tanquam similis effecta {saoramenta enim, ut Augustinus obsetvat, 
Eucharistiam etiam ipsam in exemplum adducens, similitudinem 
habent earum rerum quarum sacramenta sunt) argumentum ducit. 
Non igitur existimavitSacramentum Eucharistisd esse Ghristum ipsum 
substantialiter praesentem." (Albertinus, De Eucharistia, p. 530.) 

* ** Mirati sumus in opere tuo utilitatem omnium ecclesiarum ut 
discant qui ignorant, eruditi testimoniis Scripturarum, qua debeant 
veneratione sancta suscipere et altaris Ghristi ministerio deservire ; 
sacrosque calicos, et saucta velamina, et ceetera quae ad cultum Dominicsd 
pertinent Passionis, non quasi inania et sensu carentili sanotimoniam 
uon habere; sed ex consortio corporis et sanguinis Domini eadem qua 
Corpus ejus et Sanguis majestate veneranda." 

(Epistola cxiv. ad Theoph. Alex., Opera Hieron., tom. i. c. 759, 
edit. Vallarsius, Venice, 1766.) 

This is written with reference to the views of Origen as to the 
operation of the Holy Ghost on things inanimate, concerning which 


Surely the man who could write this was not accuB- 
iomed to see Divine adoration addressed to the conse- 
crated host. 

see Albertinus, De Euobaristia, pp. 857, 858. See also above, p. 09. 
For an answer to Romish evasions of the arpfument from this pas- 
sage see Albertinus, De Eucbaristia, p. 585. 

It is misquoted by Gregory de Valentia, as if the words were 
''fMgna veneratione ooluDtnr." (De Ghr. PrsBsentia in Eucb., lib. i. 
cap. vi " Sexto" ; De Rebus Contr., Paris, 1610, p. 492.) And Coster 
(as quoted by Albertinus, p. 585) appears also to have misrepresented 
Jerome as saying only ** summa majestate veneranda." 

One would hardly, perhaps, have thought it possible that this very 

paasage from St. Jerome should have been quoted by a Romish divine 

of authority in support of the adoration of tiie host, yet the following 

are the observations of Muratori after making this quotation, in his 

chapter entitled " Adoratio Eucbaristise a Liturgiis et Patribus 

confirmata : " — ** Non ait Hieronymus adoranda, sed veneranda, sive 

veneratione digna. An figuram tantummodo corporis Domini in 

Eoeharistia crederet, quisoribit,participesfui8sesacros calices venera- 

tionisdebitfle Gbristo Domino, quod ex ejus corporis et sanguinis con- 

sortio sive contactu sanctifioati forent, culcumque aequo et perspicaci 

leetori dijudicandum relinquo." (De Rebus Liturgicis, cap. xix.; ed. 

Migne, o. 1012 ; Lit. Bom., c. 284.) 

A little before Muratori had spoken of the ** veneratio et latrisB 

coitus " which ** etiam extendebatur ad sacra vasatremendi saorificii ; 

qai coitus tamen non in materie sistebat, sed ad ipsum adorandum 

Domimmi ferebatur." (Lit Rom., c. 284.) 

Now the langaage of Jerome leads to no question as to whether the 
veneration due — ^whatever it be — ^rests with the vessels or goes beyond 
them. But does Muratori really mean us to understand Jerome as 
teaching that the eultiu latria was due to the vessels ? If so^ then the 
euUui latria has a new sense, in which, we are willing to allow, it is 
due to the sacramental Body of Christ. 

But if so, what does Muratori mean by bis careful distinction be- 
tween adoration and veneration — "Non ait adoranda, sed veneranda"? 
Are we not to gather from this that to the vessels is due, according to 
Muratori, not adoration, but only reverence ? And if so, how are we 
to escape from the conclusion that, in the teaching of Jerome, to the 

I 2 


That sacramental Body and Blood to which is due no 
higher adoration than that which should be given to the 
vessels of ministration, is surely not the true Body and 
Blood of Christ, with His soul and divinity, but the 
sacrament or mystery of them.* 

We may very possibly be disposed, some of us, to think 
that there are evidences in the writings of the Fathers of 
a somewhat excessive reverence shown to these vessels. 
But we should be wronging the ancient Fathers indeed 
if we were to suppose that they did not know how to draw 
the line clearly and broadly between the veneration due 
to such instruments as these, sacred for most sacred uses, 
and the worship due to Him to whom there is a name 

Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ is due also, not adoration, but 
ouly reverence, seeing the vessels are '' eadem majestate veneranda," 
and that, therefore, the sacramental symbols are not to be '* participes 
venerationis debitse Ohristo Domino " (of which Jerome has said 
nothing) ; and, therefore, that the sacramental Body and Blood are 
not the true Body and Blood of Christ, but the sacrament or mystery 
of them, bearing their names ? 

* With reference to the saying of Jovinianus, ** Dominus in typo 
sanguinis sui non obtulit aquam, sed vinum," Ferronius pleads that 
these are the words of a heretic ; to which Albertinus forcibly answers: 
" Verum, id nihili est. Nam si verba heec tanquam Joviniani sim- 
pliciter considerentur, sic multiplicatur nobis numerus testium, 
hsereticis et Orthodoxis in hac qusestione nobiscum oonsentientibus. 
Sed addo censeri debere, non Joviniani modo, sed etiam Hieronymi, 
quandoquidem Jovinianus non ibi loquitur ex propria hypothesi aqua 
Hieronymus disserentiret, verum ex fide communi de Eucharistia, in 
qua illi omnino cum Hieronymo conveniebat. Unde et Hieronymus 
ne minimam quidem illius carpendi occasionem prsetermittens, in his 
verbis nihil arguit tanquam falsum aut haereticum.' (Albertinus, De 
Eucharistia, p. 579.) 


given above every name, The Exalted Saviour, Head over 
all, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. 

Moreover there is a well-known saying of Facundus 
Hermianensis, in his work in defence of the three 
Chapters, which, if possible, speaks with even more dis- 
tinctness to the same point : '' Sacramentum corporis et 
sanguinis ejus, quod est in pane et poculo consecrato, 
corpus ejus et sanguinem dicimus ; non quod proprio 
corpus ejus sit panis, et poculum sanguis ; sed quod in 
86 mysterium^ corporis ejus sanguinisque contineant. 

* It is a necessity with Romish theologians to reduce the language 
of Ficnndas into conformity with the doctrine of Rome. The process 
by which this result is attained is very observahle. 

(1) The terms used by Facundus, Bocramentum, panis, jpoculum,9JQ 

equiralent to symbola and signa ; and the symbola and aigna are to 

be understood of aooidents of bread and wine, without any substance. 

Moratori says : " Panis et vinum in Eucharistia symbola sunt et 

ngna, qu® per verba consecrationis divinitus sanctifioata, veram 

camem et sanguinem Christi continent. Neque per consecrationem 

dednunt esse symbola ac signa, quamquam panis et yini substantia 

convertatur in Corpus et Sanguinem Domini.*' ( De Hebus Litur- 

giois, e* 107, Venice, 1748. See also note of Sirmondus in he.) 

(2) There being thus nothing left but the accidents or species of the 
elements (though Facundus speaks quite plainly, not of species^ but of 
bread and wine], the assertion of Facundus that the bread and wine 
are not properly the Body and Blood of Christ may be regarded as 
quite true irom the Roman standpoint, because no one supposes that 
the species or accidents are properly Christ's Body and Blood. '* Pete 
none/' says Muratori, *' an proprie panis sacratus (hoc est species 
panis) iit Corpus Domini, et poovlum sit Sanguis ^us. Negat hoc 
Facundus, neque immerito. Quamquam enim symbola vere con- 
tineant Corpus et Sanguinem, non ipsa tameu sunt ipsum Corpus et 
Sanguis." * (Ibid, c. 107.) 

But where is there anything in the words of Facundus to justify 
the gloss, *' hoc est species panis " on the word ** panis sacratus " ? 


Hinc et ipse Dominus benedictum panem et calicem quod 
discipulis tradidit, corpus et sanguinem suum vocavit.*' 
(Pro Defens. Tri. Cap., 1. ix. c. v., ed. Migne, c. 762, 763.) 

(3) There remains to be explained away the comparison with 
baptism : *' The sacrament of adoption may be called Adoption, as the 
sacrament of the Body and Blood are called the Body and Blood of 

Does the element of baptism thus lose its substance ? Under the 
species and accidents of the symbolum is there left only the substance 
of " adoptio " ; 

' By turning quite aside from the real point which has to be touched, 
Muratori would make it appear that the comparison does but tend to 
support the Romish interpretation. 

He says : " Resultat hsec eadem Veritas e comparatione baptism!, 
qua utitur idem Facimdus. Quamvis baptismus tantummodo sit 
saoramentumt hoc est visibile signum adoptionis, et non sit ipsa 
adoptio: attamen baptismus potest adoptio nuncupari, Forro nulla 
dubitatio est, quin homines, baptismum recipientes, Teram et non 
figuratam adoptionem filiorum Dei accipiant." (Ibid. ^c. 108.) 

True it is, indeed, that in baptism believers receive the true, and not 
merely figurative, adoption of sons ; and equally true it is that 
the faithful do indeed by faith receive in the Lord's Supper the true, 
and not the mere figurative, Body and Blood of Christ. 

But this is altogether beside the point. The point in discussion is 
the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ's Body and Blood, not to 
the faith of the receiver, and not in the ministration of the ordinance, 
but in the consecrated elements or their forms. 

And the important question to be asked in reference to this point, 
and in view of the teaching of Eacundus, is this : — Is the adoption, 
which comes of the washing of the Blood of Christ, really present 
under the form of water, or contained in the element of water, in the 
sacrament of baptism? 

If not, then certainly does the outward sign, in the sacrament of 
baptism, avail to convey its gift, without containing that gift within 
itself. And baptism (according to Facundus) is called By the name 
of its gift without having any real objective presence of its ^ res 
sacramenti '* in or under its symbol. ■ 


And it is not immaterial to observe for what purpose 
these words were written. They are intended to justify 

And then, as certainly, may the sacrament of the Lord's Supper 
avail to the giving and receiving, after a heavenly and spiritual 
manner, the Body and Blood of Christ, without having these gifts 
contained in its symbols. And its outward signs may be called, and, 
according to Facundus, are called, the Body and Blood of Christ 
[*' Corpus ejus et Sanguinem dicimuSf' for which Muratori misquotes 
" tumimtu" o, 106]. and may be said to contain their mystery, without 
having any real objective presence of Christ or of His Body and 
Blood under the form of bread and wine. 

So St. Chrysostom : 'Ettci olr 6 \6yoc 0i?<Te* rovrd earl ro Hdafxa 
Mow' KoX viidwfJieOaf Kal iriariviafxiv^ koX vorjfroiQ avVo (iXiwwfxey 
o00aX/iOCC) ov^iy yap aicrdrjTby irapi^ittKtv fffxiy 6 Xpiaroc, dW 
aiaOriTole fuy wpdyfiaffiy Trdvra 5c voiyrd. ovrw yap Kal ky r^ 
^irrierfjLari & alaSriTOv fiey TrpdyfiaToe yiyerai TOvv^aroQTO ^bHpoy, 
votfrbv hk TO iiTroreXovfjieyoy, fi yiyyrftriQ. (In MatthsBum, Hom. 
hoLxiL al. Ixxxiii., Opera, torn. vii. p. 787, edit. Montfaucon, 1727.) 

The argument of Facundus would be a worthless one if the sacra- 
ment of the Eucharist had any truer or higher claim to be called by 
the name of its res saoramenti than the sacrament of Baptism has to 
be called by the name of its gift. His reasoning could be nothing 
but a fallacy unless the sacrament of Baptism had quite as true a 
real presence of* adoption" under the form of water as the sacrament 
of the Eucharist has of the Body and Blood of Christ under the form 
of bread and wine. 

But special attention should be directed to the words of Facundus 
following : *' Hinc et ipse Dominus benedictum panem et calicem quem 
discipulis tradidit, Corpus et Sanguinem suum vocavit.'' He regards 
what be has said before as the true explanation of our Lord's words, 
calling the bread and wine His Body and Blood. But in the 
Bomish interpretation there is nothing in those words that 
needs to be explained; they wee proprie dicta ; and all explanations of 
them on the principle of that sacramental language which gives to the 
signs the name of the things signified and exhibited are inadmissible. 

Let any one carefully read through the whole extract from 
Facundus, and judge for himself whether they were so understood by 


the language which speaks of our Lord Himself as 
" receiving the adoption of sons." 

him, and whether he supposed that they would be so understood by 
the Christian Church in his time. 

In answer to the argument made by La Milletiere, from Facun- 
dus's use of the word mysterium^ Albertinus says: "Per fiiy«- 
terium sacramentum intelligit, prout ipse Milleterius alibi affirmat, 
Grffioos et Latinos per hseo duo verba rem eandem designasse; 
ac dicit, panem et vinum in se continerst non Corpus et San- 
guinem Christi, sed mysterium seu sacramentum corporis et sanguinis : 
quomodo Eusebius ait prophetiam Jacobi continere novi Ustamenti 
sacramenta [r^c «fatv^c ^taSifKric ra fxvtrriipta Trepti\ety : Dem. Ev« 
lib. Tiii.] . . . Bertramus : Mysterium quod supra mensam positum est 
mysterium continere populi oredentis^ hoc est, esse ipsius signum." (De 
Eucharistia, p. 890. See also p. 4, on the sense of mysterium,) 

The distinction of Facundus between what is '*proprie corpus " and 
that which '' continet mysterium corporis " may be compared with 
the distinction drawn in the imperfect work on St. Matthew, in the 
words spoken of the sacred vessels, " in quibus non est verum Corpus 
Christi, sed mysterium corporis ejus continetur.** (See above, p. 108. 
See also Hincmar, as quoted above, p. 108.) 

It should be added that Christian antiquity in its teaching concern- 
ing sacraments in general recognises no such distinction between 
Baptism and the Eucharist as would give a real presence to the one 
which does not belong to the other. 

Isidore Hispalensis says : '* Sacramentum est in aliqua celebratione 
cum res gesta ita fit ut aliquid significare intelligatur, quod sancte 
accipiendum est. Sunt autem sacramenta baptismus et chrisma. 
Corpus et Sanguis. Qu8B ob id sacramenta dicuntur, quia sub tegu- 
mento corporalium rerum virtus divina secretins salutem eorumdem 
sacramentorum operatur^ unde et a secretis virtutibus^ vel a sacris 
sacramenta dicuntur. . . GrsBce mysterium dicitur quod secretam et 
reconditam habeat disposition em." (Etymol., lib. vi. cap. xix., Opera^ 
edit. Migne, tom. iii. c. 255, 256. 

St. Augustine had said: ''Sacramentum est in aliqua celebratione, 
cum rei gestse commemoratio ita fit, ut aliquid etiam significari intelli- 
gatur, quod sancte accipiendum est. (Ep. Iv. ad Januarium, Opera, 
tom. ii. c. 128, edit. Benedict. 1679.) **Tenere te volo, quod est 


He says : '' Nam sacramentum adoptionis suscipere 
dignatus est Ghristus, et quando circumcisus est, et 
quando baptizatus est ; et potest sacramentum adoptionis 
adoptio nuncupari.** 

His argument is this: the sacrament of adoption may 
be called adoption in the same way as the Sacrament of 
Christ's Body and Blood is spoken of as His Body and 
Blood, and as the consecrated elements were so called by 
Christ Himself — though they are not properly so, but 
only contain the mystery or sacrament of them. There- 
fore he goes on to say: "Quocirca sicut Christi fideles 
sacramentum corporis et sanguinis ejus accipientes, cor- 
pus et sanguinem Christi recte dicuntur accipere, sic et 
ipse Ghristus, sacramentum adoptionis filiorum cum 
suscepisset, potuit recte dici adoptionem filiorum 

Now whatever senses may be put upon the words of 
Facundus by modem Bomanists, shall we think that 
Christians of old time did not understand them in their 
natural and obvious sense ? And can we really doubt 
what is the natural meaning of this language ? And was 
then^ we ask, Facundus for the use of such language 

hujus disputationis caput, Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, sicut 
ipse in Evangelic loquitur, leni jugo suo nos subdidisse et sarcinas 
levi : unde sacramentis numero pauoissimis, observatione facillimis, 
Hgnifioatione praestantissimis, sooietatem novi populi coUigavit, siouti 
est baptismus Trinitatis nomine consecratus, communicatio corporis 
et sanguinis ipsius, et si quid aliud in Scripturis oanonicis commen- 
datar, exceptis iis/' &c. (Ep. liv. ad Januarium, Op., torn ii. c. 124} 


ever regarded in his own day as having on him the taint 
of heresy ? 

Nay, rather, does not his very argument imply that he 
looked to find the obvious sense of his words universally 
accepted without questioning, and recognised at once as 
the well-understood explanation of sacramental language 
•as received and used by all ? 

And it should be observed in passing, that this is no 
more than is not only implied in very much of the lan- 
guage of the ancient Fathers, but is not obscurely stated 
in what some of them have taught us concerning the 
Sacraments in general. 

To us it is a matter of special iaterest to observe, that 
spite of the growth of superstition in times of mediaeval 
darkness, teaching such as this lived on in England, and 
lifted up its head as the belief of the Anglo-Saxon Church, 
for more than four hundred years later. 

The HomUies of ELEric are well known.* They have 
often been alleged as evidence against the doctrine of 


But besides these, we have in Latin and in Saxon a 

* Cave writes : '* Vir certe erat iElfricus noster supra communem 
sui ssBCuli sortem in Theologicis, presertim vero in Grammaticis 
(Orammaticus inde dictus) eruditus : tan tarn exinde apud populareb 
8U0S famam adeptus, ut Sermones ab eo scripti, yel Saxonice versi in 
Ecclesiis publico legi juberentur, atque ex ipsius Epistolis baud 
paucse in vetustum Ecclesise Anglican® Synodicon cooptarentur." 
(Historia Literaria, pp. 412, 413, Geneva, 1694.) 

f See Papers on tbe Eucbaristio Presence, pp. 651, 652. 


letter of Elfric to the Arctibishop of York, named 
Wulfltaji,* written probably about the close of the tenth 
or the beginning of the eleventh century. 

In this letter there occurs language just parallel with 
the language of Facundus. It distinctly denies that the 
Sacramental Body and Blood are really the Body and 
Blood of Christ which were crucified and shed. It is 
Christ's Body as the manna in the wilderness was His 
Body. It is Christ's Blood as the water which flowed 
from the rock was His Blood: + — 

" Non I sit tamen hoc sacrificium Corpus ejus in quo 
passus est pro nobis, nee sanguis ejus quem pro nobis 
eflfudit : sed spiritualiter Corpus ejus efficitur et sanguis : 
sicut manna quod de coelo pluit, et aqua quae de petra 

* There were two Archbishops of Ydrk of the same name. The 
fonner died in 956, the latter in 1023. Mr. Soames says, " To this 
latter only could Elfric have written." (Anglo-Saxon Church, p. 221.) 

f As to the teaching of this extract, " much of it," says Mr. Soames, 
" is to be found in the Epistle to Wulfsine, or Elfrkis Canons ; many 
things also are in the famous Paschal homily (styled in two MSS. in 
the Public Library at Cambridge, Sermo de Sacrifioio in Die Paschss), 
but upon the whole, the doctrine is brought out more forcibly in this 
Epistle to Wulfstan, than in either of the other pieces. This may 
appear an additional reason for believing that the Epistle to Wulfstan 
has been rightly considered as posterior to the other two pieces. That 
it is by the same author, and not by Elfric Bata, or some other 
writer, may fairly be presumed from the identity of doctrine, and 
even of language, ruDoing through all the three." (Anglo-Saxon 
Church, p. 324.) 

I Perhaps the true reading may be^^ See Bouth's Opuscula, 
vol. ii. pp. 181, 168. 


Certainly the Eock and the Manna were not Christ 
I)ersonally. Nor was it ever heard of that men should 
think of worshipping Christ under their forms. 

These words of Elfric, however, had been completely 
erased from the Latin copy of the letter which remains 
to us.* This Latin MS. is yet to be seen in the 
library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, t The 
omitted words were brought to light by the discovery of 
a Saxon MS. in the library of the cathedral at Exeter. 

* See James, Corruptions of Sc, Councils, and Fathers, pp. 125,126, 
London, 1843. The MS. now in the library of Corpus Christi 
College, Cambridge, is probably the same mentioned by Foxe as in 
the library of Worcester. See Acts and Monuments, vol. v. p. 279, 
London, 1888. 

t In Archbishop Parker's " Testimonie of Antiquitie," published 
by John Day, there is this note on the omitted piece : " ( ) The 
words inclosed between the ii. half circles, some had rased out of 
Worcester booke, but they are restored agayne out of a booke of 
Exeter Church." (See Thompson's Edition, Lumley, Chancery-lane, 
p. 76.) 

Dr. Kouth says : " Hodie suptrest .... hie liber Yigomiensis 
sseculo undecimo scriptus, inter codices Parkeranos, numero oclxv. 
signatus, ad quem hoc extat in Catalogo eorundem librorum Nas- 
mithano, p. 311 : *Nonfit — depetra fluodt, Ultimum hunc locum a 
papista quodam olim abrasum e veteri libro Exoniensis bibliothecse 
fiiisse restitutum testatur in margine quidam neotericus.' Manu, ut 
yidetur, Joscelini .... notam ad marginem scriptam fiiisse, ait 
Himiphredus Wanleius in toI. ii. Thetauri Hiokesiani, pag. 109. 
addens, codicem Exoniensem nunc esse bibliothecse Collegii Corporis 
Christi." (Opuecula, vol. ii. p. 181.) 

This Jocelyn is by some supposed to have written the Preface to 
the " Testimonie of Antiquitie." He was Chaplain of Archbishop 
Parker. Strype attributed it to Parker himself. See Thompson's 
'' Select Monuments," Introduction^ pp. iii. and y., and Bouth's 
Opuscula, vol, ii. p. 179. 


There are also other MSS.* in Saxon, now known, of 
the same Epistle. 

But if the Cambridge MS. alone remained, we should 
never have known what had been erased, or why the 
erasure had been made. 

But it would be idle for us to pretend now that we cannot 
tell what led to the expunging of these words of Elfric.t 
Their repugnance to the doctrine afterwards upheld by 
Lanfranc was too plain and unmistakable. In the view 
of Lanfranc's disciples, it is clear such teaching must have 
been heresy. But then, we ask, was it counted heresy 
in England before ? And in answer we appeal to the fact 
that the Homilies of Elfric (probably the same Elfric) I 
had been submitted to Sigeric, Archbishop of Canterbury, 
and highly approved by him. 

Nay, they were authorised by him for use in the pulpits 
of England. § And, indeed, thereas at least some ground 

* There are two in the Bodleian Library, from one of which is 
printed the transcript given in Soames's Anglo-Saxon Church, p. 808 
sqq. See note 8, p. 810. 

t See Ussher's Works, vol. ii. p. 210, edit. Elrington. 

I See Soames'Q Anglo-Saxon Church, p. 824. The argument, how- 
ever, would not be weakened if it were another Elfric. 

§ Lingard has said : " Elfric may be a faithful expositor of the 
opinion of Bertram, hut it remains to be shown that he is a faithful 
expositor of the faith of the Anglo-Saxon Christians." (Hist, and 
Antiq. ii 460.) 

In reply, Mr. Soames writes : " The authority of English theolo- 
gians anterior to Elfric is not set aside, but habitually produced in 
confirmation of his views. His greater precision of language, and 
fulness of detail,no doubt camefrom the foreigner Bertram, or Katramn. 


for believing that this same Elfric was himself subse- 
quently an Archbishop of the Anglo-Saxon Church. 
And these Homilies, though by no means free from the 
superstitions of the times, have, on the subject of the 
Eucharist, borrowed matter largely from the Book of 
Bertram or Eatramn, the great opponent of Paschasius, 
and teach doctrine, though not perhaps quite so distinct,* 

But that writer^s language was caused by the language of another 
foreigner, namely, Badbert .... That Elfrio was ' a faithM ex- 
positor of the faith of the Anglo-Saxon Christians' is shown sufficiently 
by the approbation of Sigeric, Archbishop of Canterbury.*' (Latin 
Church during Anglo-Saxon Times, p. 424.) When Elfric sent his 
Homilies to the Archbishop for inspection, he especially called atten- 
tion to the great care taken for avoiding heresy and error: "Ne 
inveniremur aliqua hseresi seducti, seu failacia fuscati." (See Soames*8 
Anglo-Saxon Church, pp. 219, 220. See also Soames*s Latin Church 
during Anglo-Saxon Times, pp. 429, 431; and Soames's Bampton Lec- 
tures, Sermon vii.) He asks also for the corrections of the Archbishop : 
** Ut digneris oorrigere, per tuam industriam, si aliquos nsevos malignse 
haeresis, aut nebulosse fallacise, in nostra interpretatione reperies; et 
adscribatur dehinc hie codicillus tuss auctoritati, non utilitati nostras 
despicabilis personae." (Hickes as quoted in Soames, Anglo-Saxon 
Church, p. 220.) 

See also Hook's Lives of the Archbishops, vol. i. pp. 486, 438—440, 
442, 443. Dr. Hook thinks that this Elfiic was Archbishop of 
Canterbury. Mr. Thorpe considers that " with better foundation we 
may assume him to have been JElfric, Archbishop of York." (Preface 
to Homilies, -Sllfric Society, vol. i., Pref. p. v.) 

* On the' doctrine of the Homilies Dr. Routh writes ; " Joannes 
Lingardus, doctus in primis et disertus scriptor, id nuper conatus est 
ostendere, quod et alii ante eum communionis Eomanas asseclae 
aggressi fuerant, constare posse, imo bene congruere, haec JElfrici 
verba, nam tacet Epistolas illas supra allatas vir clarus, cum dogmate 
transubstantiationis EuoharisticaD, quod apud Komanistas receptum 
est Vide Antiquitates ^us Angh-SaxoniccB EcclencSf in Notis, pp. 
497 — 506, edit, secundae. Etenim commentatum esse de hoc mvs- 


yet similar to that which is so very distinctly stated in 

terio ^Ifricum duce atque magistro celebri illo Bertramo, seu 
Hatramno, ait ibi Lingardus ; neque hoc quidem a yero distat ; oum 
plurima ad yerbum ex illo sumpserit ^Ifricus. Sed interea hunc 
ipsum Hatramnum, postquam libellus ejus de Eucbaristia a Boilavio 
doctore Sorbonico in linguam Gallicam exeunte sseculo decimo sep- 
timo conversiis fuerat, plus Galvinistam fuisse, quam GalviDum ipsum 
(Rhatram est plus Calvinistey que Calvin mSme) pronanciavit eruditis- 
fiimiis ille LonguerusBUS." (Opuscula, vol. ii. p. 185.) 

Dr. Rock contends (** Cburoh of our Fatbers," vol. i. p. 24) tbat the 
expressions of -3Elfric wbiob are laid bold of by Protestant writers 
mean "tbat Cbrist's true, real, very Body, given tbem in tbe bousel or 
sacrament of tbe altar, was not tbere in tbe same state in wbicb it 
existed on eartb before His deatb ; like what human flesh and blood 
are now ; but as Christ's Body at present exists in heaven, in a 
glorified state." 

Yet in tbe same page Dr. Eock himself quotes the words : '^ He 
changed, through invisible might, the bread to His own Body, and the 
wine to His Blood — as He had done before in the wilderness — 
before He was born as man, when He changed the heavenly meat to 
His Flesh, and the flowing water, from the stone, to His own Blood." 

Surely Dr. Bock will not maintain that the manna was transub- 
stantiated into Christ*s glorified Body before the Incarnation, nor 
that Christ's Blood, as it is now in heaven, was, before His birth, 
made to be really present in the w§iter from the rock in the wilderness. 

From tbe standpoint of the Augmentation doctrine, Rupertus 
Tuitiensis says : " Hoc loco silendum non est, male quosdam ignotos, 
sed absconditi nominis homines opinari, suis quoque defendere dictis 
et scriptis, panem verum et potum quem in sancto altari sumimus 
nihilominus patres illos manducasse tunc temporis et bibisse, et nihilo 
magis boo esse verum corpus et sanguinem Christi, quam fuit illud 
manna quod ille populus comedit.'' (Comment, in Joan., lib. vi., 
Opera, edit. Migne, tom. iii. c. 460.) 

It is plain from what follows (see especially c. 463 and 469) that 
those whom Rupert condemns relied on the support of St. Augustine's 
teaching. And it is scarcely possible to doubt that the doctrine which 
Rupert so strongly opposed was indeed the doctrine not only of the 
Anglo-Saxon Church, but of St. Augustine. See Ussber's Works, 
vol. ii.'pp. 210—212, edit. Elrington. 

this letter to Wulstan, from which other hands have 
desired to obliterate it as heretical.* 

How, then, is it possible for us to believe that the 
doctrine of the Eucharist which was afterwards brought 

Dr. Bock, however, further argues that the Anglo-Saxons must have 
believed transubstantiation from the superstitious custom of putting 
the Eucharist with the relics, or, failing relics, as a substitute for them, 
within the altar of a newly consecrated church (p. 41). 

He says that thus " the Anglo-Saxons proclaimed the Eucharist to 
be, with regard to Christ, what saints' relics were to those saints ; but 
saints' relics are their bodies.'' (P. 48.) 

On which it may be sufficient to observe that the relics are the dead 
bodies of the saints. But in the faith of the Bomish Church the 
Eucharist is the living and glorified Body of Christ, with soul and 
Divinity. And there is surely something strangely incongruous in 
the idea of laying up this^ instead of relics, or by the side of relics, 
to serve for a Church's consecration. Surely the custom might have 
arisen far more naturally from a view of the Eucharist as symbolically 
and virtually the dead Body of Christ. 

* The Homilies were in Saxon, "a language," Mr. Soames ob- 
serves, ** with which Anglo-Normans, of any distinction, were imac- 
quaiiited. Hence, after a few years, no cultivated mind was ever 
likely to be awakened by hearing any of his homilies. Books were 
few; and such as Elfric left might shortly be rendered useless by 
refraining from translating them into Latin. They were actually 
classed among old and useless books by the Monks of Glastonbury, 

in cataloguing their library, so early as the thirteenth century 

Such was the policy pursued ; and being favoured by a prevailing 
disregard for Anglo-Saxon literature, even by general ignorance of 
the character in which it was preserved, Elfric's memory became all 
but wholly lost." (Anglo-Saxon Church, pp. 230, 231.) 

We may probably have here the true way of accounting for the fact, 
that the same pains which was bestowed on expurgating the Latin 
MS. of Elfric's Epistle, was not applied also to the Saxon MSS., 
which still retain the obnoxious passage. See Foxe's Acts and Monu- 
ments, vol. V. pp. 278, 279, London, 1838. 


in from Rome, was in agreement with the ancient doc- 
trine of the Anglo-Saxon Church ? 

But the saying of Facundus may be nearly matched by 
another which few perhaps will like to brand as heretical, 
and to which I would direct attention for a moment, not 
BO much (let this be well observed) to add anything to my 
argument, as to illustrate it. 

It is an old dictum (following the teaching of the 
Fathers) — perhaps it might be regarded as a kind of cento 
of more ancient dicta — ^which by some strange coincidence 
has been suffered to hold its place, not indeed as a part 
of the Canon Law, but among the unauthoritative glosses 
appended to the " Decretum " of Gratian.* 

In whatever sense it may be intended to be understood, 
its natural meaning is too obvious to need any comment. 
Let it speak for itself. 

It is as follows: "Id est, cceleste sacramentum, quod 
vere reprsesentat Christi camem, dicitur Corpus Christi, 
Bed improprie. Unde dicitur suo modo, sed non rei 
veritate, sed significati mysterio, ut sit sensus, vocatur 
Christi Corpus, id est, significat."t 

* Deoret., Pars iii., De Consecra. Dist. ii. can. xlvii. p. 1278 
edit. Venice, 1567. 

t Ibis is a gloss on the words quoted as from Prosper's " Book 
of Sentences from Augustine :" ** Sicut ergo coelestis panis qui 
Christi oaro est, suo modo yocatur Corpus Christi, cum re vera sit 
sacramentum corporis Christi/' <&o., where the words in italics are 
(with reason, it can hardly he doubted) supposed to be interpolated or 
corrupted. See Goode on Eucharist, i. p. 263. 




But, not to. cite other examples, let me just observe, 
that though, when Berengarius was condemned, the book 
attributed to Johannes Scotus Erigena * was denounced 

The words of the gloss can only he reconciled with Romish doc- 
trine hy taking " coeleste sacramentum" as equivalent to ** accidentia 
panis." (See Alhertinus, De Euch., p. 407.) 

It may douhtless he pleaded that this is indeed to be regarded as 
the true interpretation of the gloss, and then it affords (in connection 
with the entire text of the canon which it explains, and with its other 
glosses) most startling evidence of the strange violence which has to 
he put upon ancient language in order to bring it into forced con- 
formity with Boman doctrine. 

Whatever may have been the intention of the glossator, it is 
impossible to believe that the language of the Fathers, which he has 
more or less nearly followed, was intended by them to be understood 
in any such tortured sense as would shield instead of condemning the 
Beal Presence in the Bomish sense. (See Alhertinus, De Eucharistia, 
p. 621.) 

It would not be difficult, I think, to show that every statement 
made is supported by the language and teaching of Christian 

Let it, however, be interpreted of the accidents only. (See Anselm, 
Epist. cvi., Op., pp. 462, 453, Paris, 1721.) Even so it must clewly be 
understood to mean that that (that same, whatever it be) which is 
called the Body of Christ is called so by reason of its being so in 
figure, and not in reality; whereas the whole strength of the position 
of our opponents seems to lie in the assumption that (as regards the 
words " Hoc est corpus meum") that which is called the Body of 
Christ must be so called by reason of its being so in reality, and not 
in figure. 

* The book attributed to Scotus has sometimes been supposed to 
be the work of Batramnus or Bertram ; hut even if Scotus did not 
write a separate treatise on the Lord's Supper, there can be little 
douht that his views on the subject were decidedly anti-Paschasian. 
(See Canon Bobertson's History of the Christian Church, vol. iii p. 
348, 349, 1874). Indeed, there is reason to think that he allowed his 
tendencies toward rationalistic philosophy to draw him far in the 
direction of Pantheism. (Ibid., pp. 358, 359.) 


by wild acclamation,* yet albeit censured for his views of 
predestination, &e., this remarkable writer seems never 
before to have been condemned for his teaching on the 
Lord's Supper, t In other words, his book on the Sacra- 
ment appears to have been uncensured for about two 
hundred years, till the days of Lanfranc, of whom we are 

* See Milmau's Latin Christianity, vol. iii. p. 393,394, Lond. 1867. 

f So also as to Bertram's book : — " Huno autem Bertramum 
Joannes Tritbemius Abbas Spanheimensis, yir tempore suo doctissi- 
mns, in Gatalogo Scriptorum Ecclesiastioorum recenset, illumque in 
divinis Soripturis valde peritum, et in literis secularinm disciplinarum 
egregie dootum, ingenioque subtilem et clarum eloquio, neo minus 
Tita quam doctrina insignem fuisse testatur. Ac tantum abest, ut ob 
scriptnm boo de corpore et sanguine Ohristi opuscnlnm, hsereseos 
macula ilium aspergat, ut potius commendabile illud esse opns inter 
csetera prsedicet. Ita yero yiri grayes et eruditi, nullisque animi 
morbis ao perturbationibns obnoxii, tam singulare de Bertram o 
ferentes judicium, Jesuitas, qui hodie odiosum hsereseos crimen illi 
objiciunt, prsBcipiti potius ac temerario raptari affectu, quam recto 
animi judicio duci abunde coarguunt" (Hospinian, Op., tom. iii. 
p. 269.) 

Pasohasius's doctrine ''reoeiyed no synodicaJ confirmation until tbe 
eleyenth century, when it obtained an indirect one at tbe Council of 
Yercelli, by the condemnation of Erigena." (See Soames's Latin 
Church during Anglo-Saxon Times, p. 433.) 

By tbe acknowledgment of Paschasius himself, many doubted in 
his time of the doctrine which he maintained. (See ** Bomish Mass 
and English Church," p. 65.) 

But how could any doubt if Diyine adoration in his time were 
habitually giyen to Christ as present in the Elements ? 

Or, eyen supposing any could doubt, why were not their doubts met 
at once by an appeal to the fact of adoration ? Anyhow, why was 
not this argument — which, if the fact were so, would haye been so 
obyious — brought against those who maintained the yiews of Bertram 
and Scotus: "Why! if such yiews are true, the whole Christian 
Church has been from the beginning an idolatrous Church, worship- 
ping as Christ that which is but an effectual symbol of His Body '' ? 

E 2 


told that * he first leavened the Church of England with 
the corrupt doctrine of the Carnal Presence. 

I say, then, that some answer is needed to the question — 
How is it to be accounted for, on the hypothesis of 
the Eeal Presence forming a part of the ancient faith, 
that views and statements which seem to be a clear 
denial of it were allowed for so many centuries to pass 
uncondemned,+ and that the rejection of the doctrine is 

* See Ussher's Works, vol. iii. pp. 84, 85, edit. Elrington. 

f *'The Fathers speak of Ghiist's Body and Blood in the Eucharist 
with such terms of restriction and diminution which plainly tell us 
that they understood it not of His substantial and natural Body, but 
in a figurative sense. Thus : — 

"Origen says: *That bread in the Eucharist is made by prayer a 
certain holy body.* 

''And St. Austin: ' Christ took in His hands what the faithful under- 
stand, and after a eort, carried Himself when He said, This is 
My Body.' 

" Bede, upon the same Psalm, has the same term of restriction : 
' Christ, after a sort, was carried in His own hands.' 

''St. Austin elsewhere : ' In a certain sense, the sacrament of the Body 
of Christ is Christ's Body, and the sacrament of the Blood of Christ 
is Christ's Blood.' Just as at Easter, we say, ' This day Christ rose,' 
because it is a memorial of it. 

'' St Chrysostom says of the consecrated bread : * That it has no 
longer the name of bread (though the nature of it remains), but is 
counted worthy to be called the Lord's Body.' 

''Theodoret, in like manner : * He honoured the visible symbols with 
the appellation of His Body and Blood.' 

** Facundus Hermian. is most express : * We call,' says he, * the 
sacrament of His Body and Blood, which is in the consecrated bread 
and cup, His Body and Blood ; not that properly the bread is His 
Body, and the cup His Blood,' &c. 

'' So also is St. Chrysostom in another place, where he shows that the 
word flesh is not always taken for the <tiv<nc uto^aroQy the nature and 
substance of the Body (which is the only proper sense) ; and he gives 


nowhere found marked among the heresies to be 
shunned by faithful Christian men ? * 

(2) Closely connected with this is another question. 
If a doctrine so wonderful, so important, so full of bless- 
ing, were from the beginning an essential part of the 
Christian faith, how is it that no creed of the Christian 
Church ever expressed it before the Council of Trent and 
the Creed of Pope Pius IV. ? 

In the thirteenth century this question was answered 

other instances which are improper, as, that flesh signifies a depraved 
will ; and adds two other improper senses, in these words : * By the 
name of flesh the Scripture is wont also to call the mysteries.' He 
adds, also, that it calls the Church so when it calls it the Body of 

''The very phrase of heing wont to call shows that of which it is 

affirmed to be improperly so called, as the phrase of * being thonght 

Worthy of the name' (as we heard before), argues the name not 

properly to agree to it." (Patrick in Gibson's Preservative, vol. ix. 

pp. 141, 142, London, 1R48.) 

* I have not quoted the very remarkable saying of Maximus, the 
Scholiast on the Pseudo-Dionysius Areop. : (rv/i/3oXtt ravra Kal ohK 
aX^Oeea (Eccles. Hieraroh., cap. iii. Sohol. iii. § 1, Op., torn. i. p. SOt, 
edit Oorderius, Antwerp, 1634), because (though often quoted in the 
Eacharisdc controversy) it may be urged that these words have not 
special and immediate reference to the consecrated elements. 

It would not be easy, however, to exclude these from the natural 
import of his language. 

Indeed, shortly afterwards, we find the Scholiast interpreting the 
word avfifioXuty by the words rod <ru)fiarog koI aifmroC' (Ibid. § 9, 
p. 311.) 

And yet a little further on he says: Tovriffrt top dprov koI to 
ircrfipioy ehXoyuty toUv dy/wv ^ojpu)v, lirjfjLeiuxrai ^e, 6ti irai^Ta^ov 
(rvfijhXucrjy Xiyei tt^v delay upovpyiay, koX tol &yia ^u)pa, avfilhXa 
T«v &y($} Kal iCXrfiiyfMjripfay. (Ibid., § 12, p. 313.) 


by declaring that in the primitive Church Transub- 
stantiation was received universally without doubting, 
and no heresy required to be checked by any such 
article in a creed ; and that it might moreover be said 
to be contained in the Apostles' Creed under the words, 
"The Conununion of Saints;"* — assertions which cer- 
tainly need something better than assertion to rest 

The difficulty involved in the answer to the question 
cannot but be felt, and accordingly a new attempt has 
recently been made to meet it, — ^with no lack of ingenuity, 
and certainly with boldness and confidence enough ; with 
what success I must leave wise men to judge. Thus 

* '' Alanus quidem Hbro contra WaJdenses et Albigenses cap. 79, 
qusBrens, Otrum sit articulus fidei panem transubstaatiari in Corpus 
Christi, ciim de hoo non liat mentio in aliquo Symbolo ? . . . Non enim 
in Symbolo Apostolico ; scilicet credo in Deum, vel in Nicseno, credo 
in unum, etc., vel in Symbolo Athanasii, Quicumque vult, etc. Cum 
in his Symbolis de omnibus articulis fidei Christi an® fiat mentio, cur 
non fit mentio de illo ineffabili Sacramento, cui magis videtur obviare 
humana ratio. Ad hoc dicunt quidam, quod in Primiiiva Ecclesia 
ita omnibus patebat transubstantiari panem in Corpus Christi, quod 
nulli dubium erat, ciim Christus hoc esset^n Evangelic testatus. Nee 
super hoc in primitiva Ecclesia ulla Hseresis pullulavit, ad quam 
reprimendam opus esset mentionem fieri de hoc in aliquo Symboli 
articulo. . . . Dici tamen potest, quod in Apostolico Symbolo fiat 
mentio de Eucharistia cum dicitur. Sanctorum Communionem. In 
boc enim spiritualiter communicant Sancti, dum recipiunt Corpus 
Christi, non solum sacramentaliter, sed etiam spiritualiter.'' (Deter- 
minatio Fr. Joannis Farisiensis, London, 1686, Prsefatio Historica, 
p. 49.) 

The writer whom Allix here quotes is Alanus Magnus, who died 
A.D. 1294. 


writes on the subject one of the writers of "Tracts for 

'It has been observed, sometimes with surprise, or by 
way of objection, that the doctrine of the Eucharist has 
no place among the articles of faith in the Greed. That, 
however, can scarcely be admitted, seeing the doctrine of 
the Incarnation is distinctly asserted in the shortest of 
our Greeds, and set forth with elaborate definition in the 
Kicene and Athanasian, as the fundamental truth of 


''Admit the Incarnation, and it necessarily follows 
that the Sacraments, and every means by which the 
Pure Humanity of the Word is brought into contact with 
our fallen nature, must be received as essential parts of 
one dispensation. . . « 

''No need, therefore, to particularise the Beal 
Presence in the Eucharist as an article of faith; for 
everyone who admits .that the restoration of Human 
Nature was the end of the Incarnation, must see that the 
Beal Presence of Ghrist's Body and Blood, as well as the 
necessity of receiving them, is involved in that doctrine, 
since nothing else can make us the better for the Son of 
Ood having assumed our nature — nothing but that which 
unites us to Him, in whom is the fulness of grace and 
blessing. To say that ' for us men and for our salvation 
He came down from heaven and was incarnate by 
the Holy Ghost,' enforces the additional confession 
that for your salvatioQ and for mine He incarnates 


Himself^ so to say, in the bread and wine of the 
Holy Encharist, that He may give ns to eat of thai 
Flesh which is the life of thq world, and to drink o: 
that Blood which cleanseth from all sin. 

'' The Eucharist is the complement and extension of th< 
Incarnation. The one would be firuitless without th< 
other. Faith must embrace both alike."* 

Now I submit for consideration whether it is not alto 
gether a mistake, and a serious and misleading mistake 
to connect the doctrine of the Eucharist so exclusiyel^ 
and immediately witii the doctrine of the Incarnation 
It is not the flesh of the Incarnation simply as such 
it is not the Body of Christ simply as such ; neither ii 
it the flesh of Christ as glorified in heaven, according b 
the teachings of our Lord, which profiteth for the tru< 
hunger of men's souls. So far, even the flesh of the Soi 
of God availeth not for the salvation of sinners, nor t< 
be meat indeed for man's spirit t else* what need that th< 
Son of Man should be lifted up, to give life to th< 
perishing ? 

It is the Flesh of Christ as giv^n for the life of th< 
world, as indwelt by the Divine Power, which after deatl 
would raise Him from the dead; it is the Blood of Chris' 
as in sacrificial death poured out-; it is the Blood o 
Atonement as such, the Blood of Bedemption for souls 
the Blood of the Son of God shed for the remission o: 

* Tracts for the Day, pp. 259, 260, 1868. 


sins,— this it is * which the faith of the sinner is to look 
to, and which the faith of the believer has to feed onr. 
And this it is which is, + according to Christ's own words 
of institution, the true ''res sacramenti '' in the 

Upon the spiritual participation of this, indeed, follows 
immediately the spiritual union with our glorified Lord. 
But yet the Exalted Saviour is not in Holy Scripture 
set before us as directly the food of our souls. The 
interpretation of, " He that eateth Me, even he shall live 

* " Non nUum sub elementis cobqsb realiter delitescens corpus, aut 
Bab Tino sanguis, sed unicum duntaxat illud Cbristi corpus pro nobis 

Bemel in mortem oblatum, et ejus sanguis effusus, sunt verus animsB 

nostrsB cibus et potus; quibus anima nostra spiritualiter esuriens, 

spiritualiter pascitur, dvtm sacrificium illud corporis et sanguinis 

Cbristi vera et viva fide per Spiritum sanctum apprebendit. Quod 

eximium salutis beneficium in coena Dominica fidelibus, ex Cbristi 

instituto, ad sum mam iilorum consolationem, ad versus omnes dubi- 

tadones macbinationesque Satanicas obsignatur. Hue illud pertinet, 

quod postquam docuit Christus, se esse panem ilium yerum, addit : 

Panis quem ego dabo (videlicet in mortem) pro mundi vita. His 

verbis significans, se eateniis tantum esse animsB nostite cibum, 

qnatenus pro nobis in mortem oblatus est semel. Hoc eximium 

salutis^ nostrse in Cbristo mysterium plane obscuratur per vestram 

doctrinam,. per quam homines a came pro nobis in mortem data, ad 

imaginarium quondam, sub pane delitesoeutem Christum abducuntur. 

Qas vestra doctriua infinitis prseterea absurdis referta est J' (Micro- 

nius in ** Utenovii Simplex et Hdelis Narratio," 1^00, pp. 174, 175.) 

f I am not meaning to condemn those writers who speak of the 
**ru sacramerUi " as the living Christ with the fruits of His Sacrifice ; 
bat I conceive that this language is less strictly accurate than that 
which speaks of the ** res saoramenti " as the Body and Blood 
of Christ separate in death.. (See Vegan's True Doctrine, pp. 
277, 278.) 

I See Appendix, Note F.. 


by Me " (John vi. 67), must be governed by ver. 51 : "I 
am the living bread which came down from heaven : if 

any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever : and the 

bread that I will give is My flesh, which I will give for 

the life of the world." * 

If I mistake not, this consideration will be found very 
materially to affect the whole question of the Eucharistie 
Presence, and of Eucharistie Adoration. 

But to pass this by now, — ^According to the teaching 
which has just been quoted it is an error to suppose that 
the teaching of the Eeal Objective Presence is not con- 
tained in the Greed. The doctrine is there, because the 
doctrine of the Incarnation is there. 

li^annot but think, if we were to take St. Augustine 
for our guide,! we should much rather learn .that the Real 

* See Real Presence of Laudian Theology, p. 63. 

t '* Dominus consolans nos qui ipsum jam in ccelo sedentem mana 
contrectare non possumus, sed fide contingere, ait illi, Quia Yidistif 
credidisti, bead qui non vident et credunt." (Aug. in Epist. Joban., 
cap. i. Tractatus i. § 8, Op., torn. iii. par. 2, col. 828, edit. Benedict, 
Paris, 1680.) 

^* Ipse Christus bomo et Deus. £2rgo et ibat per id quod kcMno 
erat, et manebat per id quod Dens erat-: ibat per id quod uno loco 
erat, manebat per id quod ubique erat." (Ibid., In Johan. Evang., 
cap. 14, Tract Ixxviii. § 1, c. 69a) 

'' Deus hoc lacit. Homo enim secundum corpus in loco est, et d« 
loco migrat, et cum ad locum yenerit, in eo loco -undo venit, non erit: 
Deus autem implet omnia, et ubique totus est : non secundum spatia 
tenetur locis. Erat autem Dominus Christus secundum yisibilem 
carnem in terra, secundum invisibilem majestatem in cobIo et in 
terra." (Ibid., c. 7, Tractat xxxii. § 9, c. 524.) 

*' Bespondent, Quomodo tenebo absentem ? Quomodo in ocelum 
manum mittam, ut ibi sedentem teneam? Fidem mitte, et tenuisti. 


Objective Absence is there, because the words "He 
ascended into heaven " are there. But not to insist on 
this * (though the teaching of Augustine on this subject 

Parentes tui tenuerunt oarne, tu tene corde : qaoniam Cbristus absens 
etiam prsBsens est. Nisi pneseus asset, a nobis teneri non posset. 
Sed quoniam verum est quod ait, Ecoe ego yobisoutn sum usque ad 
consammationem ssouli : et abiit, et bio est ; et rediit, et nos non 
deserit: corpus enim suum intulit ooelo, majestatem non abstulit 
mnndo." (Ibid., cap. 12, Tract 1. § 4, c. 680, 631.) 

"Eoce ipse est Jesus : adscendit ante yos, sic veniet quemadmodum 
eum yidetis euntem in ooslum: tolHtur quidem corpus ab ooulis 
vestris, sed non separatur Deus a cordibus yestris : videte adsoenden- 
tm, credits in absbntbm, sperate yenientem ; sed tamen per miseri- 
oordiam occultam etiam sentite pr»sentem." (Enarr. in Psalm, xlyi. 
§ 7, Op., torn. iy. par. i. o. 411, edit. Benedict, Paris, 1681.) 

" Si bonus es, si ad corpus pertines, quod significat Petrus ; habes 

Christum et in preesenti et in futuro : in prassenti per Jidem, in 

priBsenti per eignuniy in prsesenti per baptismatis saoramentum, in 

praraenti per altaris oibum et potum, . • . Secundum majestatem 

suam, secundum proyidentiam, secundum ineffabilem et inyisibilem 

gradam, impletur quod ab eo dictum est, £cce ego yobiscum sum 

usque in consummationem sfficuli. Secundum carnem vero quam 

Varbum assumsit, secundum id quod de yirgine natus est, secundum id 

qnod a Judssis prehensus est, quod ligno orucifixus, quod de cruce 

depositus, quod linteis inyolutus, quod in sepulcro conditus, quod in 

resorrectione manifestatus, non semper habebitis vobisoum. Quare? 

Quoniam oonyersatus est secundum corporis praesentiam quadraginta 

diebus cum discipulis suis, et eis deducentibus yidendo non sequendo, 

adscendit in ooelum,et non est JUo." (lu Johaa. Eyang., cap. 12, Tract. 

]., § 12, 18, Op., tom. iii. par. iL c. 633^ 634, edit fiened. Paris, 1680.) 

" JUi enim putabant eum erogaturum corpus suum, Ule autem dixit 

86 adscensurum in coelum^ utique integrum. Cum vvderitis Jilium 

hminis adseendentem ubi erat prius ; certe yel tunc yidebitis, quia 

non eo modo quo putatis erogat eorpus suum ; certe yel tunc intelli- 

getifl, quia gratia ejus non consumitur morsibus." (In Johann. Eyang., 

cap. 6, Tractat xxyii. § 3, Op., tom. iii. par. ii. c. 602, edit Benedict, 

Paris, 1660.) 

* Thomdike writes : ^^ If in the proper dimensions thereof \i,e. of 


seems to be the only Scriptural teaching), let me ask — 
Might it not quite as forcibly and quite as conclusively 

Christ's body] He 'parted from* His disciples, and *went,' was 
* carried,' or lifted and ' taken up into heaven ;' ... if * the heavens 
must receive Him till ' that time ; ... if ' to that purpose He leave 
the world ' . . , *no more ' to be *in* it ... so that we shall have Him 
no more with us, . . . it behoveth us to understand how we are 
informed, that the promise of His Body and Blood in the Euohabist 
imports an exception to so many declarations^ before we believe it* 
Indeed, there is do place of God's right hand, by sitting down at 
which we may say that our Lord's Body becomes confined to the said 
place ; but seeing the fiesh of Christ is taken up into heaven to sit 
down at God's right hand (though, by His sitting down at God's 
right hand we understand the man Christ to be put into the exercise 
of that Divine power and command which His Mediator's office 
requires), yet His Body we must understand to be confined to that place, 
where the majesty of God appears to those that attend upon His 
throne. Neither shall the appearing of Christ to St. Paul (Acts 
xxiii. 11) be any exception to this appointment. He that would 
insist, indeed, that the Body of Christ stood over Paul in the castle 
where then he lodged, must say that it left heaven for that purpose." 
(Works, A.C.L., vol. iv. part i. pp. 47, 48.) 

With this compare the following from Beza : " Qui Christum negat 
secundum carnem venisse eo quo veniebat, et abiisse undo abibat, ac 
proinde non vere abfuisse et adfiiisse certis locis, historia Evangelica 
refellitur. . . . Qui denique proprietatem verborum in ascensionis 
historia servari posse putant cum reali, sive per Consubstantiationem, 
sive per Transubstantiationem, praBsentia, duo contradictoria simul 
ponunt : cui contradictioni neque in natura, neque in fidei mysteriis 
locum esse suo loco demonstrabimus. Valet igitur heec coUectio, et 
est inexpugnabilis. Christus secundum carnem proprie discessit a 
nobis supra ccelos, non prius inde rediturus quam iterum veniat judi- 
caturus vivos et mortuos. Ergo neque panis qui est in terris, est 
proprie caro ipsa Christi, neque caro Christi est proprie In, vel Sub, 
vel Cum pane." (Tract. TheoL, vol. iii. p. 862, Geneva, 1682.) 

Compare also especially the following : " Putavimus verum corpus, 
id est, suis dimensionibus constans, Christo abs te tribui cum sorip- 
turis. . . . Putas corpus Christi esse in pane definitive, esse ubique 


be argued that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is con- 
tained in the Apostles' Greed, because the article of 
Christ's ascending into heaven is there ? 

If it be said that in the view of some, the doctrine of 
the Beal Objective Presence is but a needful consequence 
of the Incarnation, it is easy to reply that in the view 
of others, the belief in the Infallibility of the Pope is also 
a necessary consequence of the ascension of our Lord.* 

But as there are those who, believing in Christ's 
Ascension, regard the position of one claiming to be His 
Yicar on earth as the claim of Antichrist to sit in 
Christ's place in the temple of God, so also there are 
those who, devoutly believing in the Incarnation and 
Atonement of Christ, regard the doctrine of the Beal 
Presence in the elements as tending to fill up the wine- 
cup of the abominations of Babylon, turning the mystery 
of godliness into the mystery of iniquity. 
Let me observe before passing on, that not only, on 

repletive supernaturaliter. Nos hanc philosophiam et hseo portenta 
prorsus libenter tibi rellnquimus ; et quoniam scimus verum Cbristi 
Corpus, ao proinde finitum et circumsoriptum coelos transcendisse, 
ibique Fetrum testari oportere ut eum capiant coeli, ideo etsi non 
investigamus curiose an Bit supra coelos locus, neque quo modo illic 
capiatur, neque enim negamus quin nibilominus tarn vere noster fiat, 
et yitam nobis inspiret, quam promittit yerbo, et saoramentis figurat, 
imo euim efficaoius multo quam si naturaliter conjungeretur ; tamen 
eum quod ad bumanitatem attinet non alibi quam in coelis esse, et 
spititualiter ibi qusBrendum oredimus.'' (Beza, Tract. Theol., vol. i. 
p. 244, 245.) 

* See, e.g.f Laud's Conference witb Fisber, pp. 320, 321, Oxford, 


the theory of the Eeal Objective doctrine, ought an axticle 
to have been added to the Apostles' Creed, but that, on 
the same theory, I cannot see how "we are to acquit St. 
Paul of making a grievous omission in his brief summary 
of the chief doctrines of Christianity; for he certainly 
ought to have written, " Without controversy great is the 
mystery of godliness ; not only was God manifested in 
the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached 
unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up 
into glory ; but He is also continually incarnating Him- 
self afresh in the hands of His priests, in the mystery of 
the Eucharist." 

And if it is unaccountable, on this theory, that the 
Apostle should thus have stopped short and made no 
mention of the perpetual extension of the Incarnation, is 
it not still more unaccountable that not one of the sacred 
writers should ever have alluded to it ? 

And still further, on the same theory, ought we not to 
look for and to And this doctrine standing out with a 
noticeable clearness and prominence in the writings of 
the first ages of the Christian Church ? 

But what is the fact, even as regards such questionable 
evidence as is adduced in its support ? 

The scarcity of early evidence in support of the Papal 
supremacy is acknowledged. But " in truth," says Dr. 
Newman in his Essay on the Development of Christian 
Doctrine, "scanty as the Ante-Nicene notices may be of 
the Papal Supremacy, they are both more numerous and 


more defmite than the adducible testimonies in favour of 
the Real Presence." * 

(8) Another very important question to be asked is 
this: If this doctrine of the Adoration and of the 
Presence were indeed the doctrine of the Fathers, how 
comes it to pass that we find one and another among 
those Fathers continually teaching, concerning our 
Lord's human nature and concerning our Lord's human 
Body, that which, to ordinary minds and understandings 
at least, can never be made to seem consistent with it ? 

Take one or two examples from St. Augustine. t He 

* See Charge of Bishop of Llandaff, 1868, p. 119. 

f Bellarmine (De Euch., lib. iii. cap. iii., De Contr.^ torn. iii. o. 665) 
argues from St. Augustine's question eonceming the martyrs : 
Utrum ipsi per seipsos adsint uno tempore tarn diversis locisf {Cura 
pro mortuis, c. 16.) So Woodhead (Two Discourses, p. 22). 

Dean Aldrich replies: "Would not any man imagine now, who 
knows what point [the author drives at, that he would have S. Austin 
say a Martyr's Body might be in two places at once? and would he 
not wonder that S. Austin should be quoted for this purpose, who is 
elsewhere so express and peremptory that the Natural Body of Christ 
himself cannot be in two places at once? But the author is wary; 
for he knew jery well that by ipsi per seipsos S. Austin meant, as he 
explains himself, ipsorum animce in figura corporis suL** (Reply to 
Two Discourses, pp. 28, 29.) 

Another ancient writer, touching on the same subject, wrote : 
'* Qaomodo, die mihi, beati Petri yel Paul! anima una possit eodem 
memento in memoria sive monumento ejus apparere in miUe ejus 
templis per totum orbem ? Id enim nee unus Angelus queat unquam 
priBStare. Solius siquidem Dei est duobus in locis et toto in mundo 
eodem momento reperiri." (Qusestiones ad Antiochum, in Op. 
Athanasii, edit. Benedict. 1777, tom. ii. p. 222.) 

On the subject of the superstition to which the question of 
St Augustine refers, see Maitland's Catacombs, pp. 806 — 308. 


argaes against the follies of the Manichaean heretics, 
who spoke of the presence of Christ in the herbs of the 
field, in the sun and in the moon. He asks whether 
there is one Christ here, another there, and another who 
was crucified under Pontius Pilate ; and he adds : 
" Secundum praesentiam quippe spirit alem nullomodo 
ilia pati posset : secundum praesentiam vero corporalem 
simul et in sole et in luna, et in cruce esse non posset.*** 
Again, he writes : " Sursum est Dominus, sed etiam 
hie est Veritas Dominus. Corpus enim Domini in quo 
resurrexit uno loco esse oportet; Veritas ejus ubique 
diffusa est,"+ — a passage so damaging to the mediaeval 
view of the Eucharistic Presence, that it is no wonder it 
was afterwards corrupted, and for the words " uno loco 
esse oportet ** was written and printed " uno loco esse 

* Contra Faustum, lib. xx. cap. xi., Op., edit. Benedict., Paris, 
1688, torn. viii. c. 341. 

For the explanations and evasions of Romanists, see Albertinns, 
De Eucharistia, p. 733. 

f In Joan. Evang., cap . vii., Tract xxx. § 1, Op., torn. iii. par. ii. 
c. 617. 

I See Albertinus, De Eucharistia, p. 735; Goode on Eucharist, 
i. p. 311 ; Aldrich's Reply to Two Discourses, p. 28. 

The Benedictine editors state that the passage is quoted with 
" oportet" by Ivo, Gratian, Lombard, and Aquinas. 

I may add that it is quoted with " oportet " by Berengarius (De 
Sacra Ccena, adv. Lanfrancum, p. 266, edit. Vischer, Berlin, 1834), 
whose adversaries would certainly not have failed to bring this up 
against him as a falsification made to prop up his heresy, if the 
received reading had been " potest " in those days. 

The true reading of St. Augustine being thus restored, there can 


Again, he writes : " Spatia locorum tolle corporibus, 
nusquam erunt ; et quia nusquam erunt, nee erunt.*'* 

And yet again : '' Cavendum est, ne ita divinitatem 
adstruamus hominis, ut yeritatem corporis auferamus. 
. . . Una enim persona Deus et homo est, et 
uirumque est unus Christus Jesus ; ubique per id quod 
Deus est, in coelo autem per id quod homo.**t 

So Fulgentius declares: ''Unus idemque homo, localis 
eihomine, qui est Deus immensus ex Patre.*'t 

And Vigilius of Thapsus : " Si verbi et camis una 
natura est, quomodo, cum Verbum ubique est, non ubique 
inyeniatur et caro ? Nam quando in terra fuit, non erat 
utique in Coelo : et nunc quia in Coelo est non est utique 
in terra. . . . Diversum est autem et longe dissimile 
circumscribi loco et ubique esse : et quia Verbum ubique 
est, caro autem Ejus ubique non est, apparet unum 
eundemque Christum utriusque esse naturae: et esse 

be little doubt that in the corresponding passage of Fulgeotius 
(Ad Trasim. Reg., lib. ii. cap. xviii.), printed thus: ''quod si verum 
est corpus Christi, loco potest utique contineri," the word " oportet" 
should be read instead of "potest;" as has been observed by Alber- 
tinns, De Eucharistia, p. 888. 

Indeed the whole argument of Fulgentius aims at a point which is 
bit by " oportet," but is untouched by " potest." 

* Liber ad Dardanum, seu Epist. clxxxvii., cap. vi. § 18, Op., 
torn, ii c. 683, edit. Benedict., Paris, 1679. 

For an answer to Bellarmine's evasion, see Albertinus, De 
Euobarittid, pp. 738 sqq. 

t Liber ad Dardanum, seu Epist. clxxxvii., cap. iii. § 10, Op., 
torn. ii. 0. 681. 

I Ad Trasimundum Begem, lib. ii. cap. xvii. In ** Heptas Presu- 
lum," Paris, 1661, p. 464. 



qnidem nbique secundum natoram divinitatis sasd, 
et loeo contineri secundum naturam humanitatis sum. 
.... Igitur unus Dei PUius .... circumBcribitur 
loco per naturam camis suse, et loco non capitur 
per naturam divinitatis suffi . . . mortuus est natura 
camis suae, et non est mortuus natura diyinitaiis sua. 
Hsec est fides et confessio Catholica, quam Apostoli 
tradiderunty Martyres roborayemnt, et fideles nunc 
usque custodiunt.'** 

It is to be observed that in all these passages^ asserting 
so distinctly the local circumscription of Christ's human 
Body (and such passages might easily be multiplied from 
Greek as well as Latin Fathers), there is nothing to 
indicate a distinction between presence visible and in- 
visible^ palpable and impalpable, as if it were meant to 
limit only the visible and sensible presence of Christ's 
Body, and to assign to that Body the power of being 
present invisibly in many places at the same time. 
Indeed, there is not wanting evidence that the Fathers 
were strangers to such conceptions of the invisible and 
impalpable presence of the human Body of Christ, f 

* Contra Eutychetem, lib. It. cap. xiv. xv., edit. Ghiffletius, 1664, 
pp. 44, 45. 

f '^Veteres iinanimiter affirmant, id quod invuibile est corpus 
(solidum saltern) nuUo modo esse, TertuHianus : Corpus hominis non 
aliud inteUigam quam, dc.^ quod videtur, quod tenetur [De Resiir. 
c. 35]. Methodius: Deus inoorporeus est et propterea invtsibUis 
[Ap. Phot. God. 234]. Eustatius Antioohenus: 8i invistbUis erat 
procid dubio incorporeus erat [De Engast] Titus Bostrensis : Onme 
quod sub aspectum oadit, cum sit corpus, natura oppositum est in- 



"For things -which are invisible," says Didymus 
Alexandrinns, '' this follows as a consequence, that they 
have no body."* And Gregory of Nyssa not less conclu- 
sively declares, or rather assumes it as unquestionable : 
OvK ecrrt a&iia, ^ to XP^M^y ^^ '''^ <'XVM^9 ^^^ ^ avrirtrrria, 
Kcu ^ Suitrraat^t koX to fidpo^, Kal r^ \oiirci t&v ISua/jAToyv 

aspeetahili et incorporeo. . . . [Contra Manioh., lib. 2]. Gregorius 
NaziaDzenus: SiDeus corpus utyqualenam eorptUyet quomodo, do., 
intangibUe et invisibile f Non mint h€Bc est natura corporum, out id 
corpus est, Minime [Orat. 84]. . . . Denique Damascenus: Quomodo 
wrpu§ est id quod est invisibUe,^ [De Fid. Ortb., lib. i. cap. 4], 
. . . Yeteres quidem nunnunquam dixerunt Corpus Christi in pane 
esse intelligenduniy qnemadmodum aiunt Christum in petrafuisse intel- 
leetuMj ad designandum concipi debere yelut ab iis significatum," 
(Albertinos, Be Euobaristia, p. 6. See also pp. 369, 621.) 

Another has said of Christ: '*Si sit prassens, non creditur sed 
Tidetur: cum autem absens fuerit, non yidetur sed creditur." (Opus 
Imp. in Matt in Op. Chrysost, edit. Montfaucon, torn, yi., App. 
p. ccxxL) 

* 'EttcI &6paToc 6 Geoc, iucokovOei Sc rwv iuoparutv to iivvjfiaToy' 
iLerwfiaroQ Apa 6 Qeog tSv, hoparoq earlv, (Didymus Alex., Frag- 
menta in Joannem, cap. iv. v. 24, Spiritus est Deus; Opera, edit. 
Migne, Patrologiee, torn, xxxix. c. 1645. See Albertinus, De Eucha- 
ristia, pp. 5, 640.) 

So Eustathius Antiochenus says (of the ghost of Saul) : El fikv 
li6paT0Q ifv, 6,vafifl>t\6yutc d^w^aroc ijv "absque dubio et corporis 
expers erat" (De Engasthrimytho Diss, in Bibliotheca Max. Patr., 
torn, xxvii. p. 46. See Alberiinus, De Euoharistia, p. 389.) 

So Methodius had written : 'Acwfiarog wv, ^i6 koI hoparoq* *<Eo 
inyisibilis, quod incorporeus existat." (De Resurrectione, in Bibl. 
Max. Patr., tom, iii. p. 712. See Albertinus, p. 389.) 

And so also Titus Bostrensis : *' Omne enim, quod sub aspectum 
cadit, cum sit corpus, natura oppositum est inaspeotabili et incorporeo, 
cigus opus esse potest, et quidem opus valde mirabile, similitudinem 
vero natures nullam habere potest." (Contra ManicheBos, lib. ii., in 
Bibliotheca Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, torn. iv. p. 465.) 



OX) irp6<T€<mv,* And to the same effect St. Augustine : 
"Nisi corporaliter abiret a nobis, semper ejus corpus 
camaliter videremus.*'+ 

'* If/' says Bishop Morton, " St. Gregory, once Bishop 
of Rome, had believed that Christ's Body is whole in 
every least indivisible part of the Host, he would never 
have condemned the Eutychian heretic for believing 
the Body of Christ to have been brought into such a 
subtilty that it cannot be felt. But a greater subtilty 
there cannot be, than for a divisible body to be enclosed 
in every least indivisible point. Show us this doctrine 
taught by any Catholic doctor in the Church, within the 
compass of twelve himdred years after Christ, and then 
shall we conceive better of your cause." t 

In view of the teaching of the Fathers concerning th^ 
human nature of Christ, § I know not what more can be^ 

* De Homiois Opificio, cap. xxiv.. Opera, edit Migne, tonL i_ - 
col. 213. See the whole context See also Albertmns, De Euchariatia ,^ 
p. 479. 

t Sermo cxliii. § 4, Opera, edit Benedict., 1688, torn. t. par. L ooL 

\ On the Eucharist, hook ir. ch. viii. § yi. p. 274, ed. 1685. 

§ The following quotations are hut a selection. Yet as sample lE 
they seem ahundantly sufficient to hear witness to the general testa.- 
mony of the Fathers to these two truths : (1) that our Lord*s humflkxi 
Body is to he regarded as haying still that local and circumscrihed 
nature which causes that since His Ascension into heayen it is no 
longer present upon earth ; (2 ) that the enduring Presence of Christ 
with His Church is therefore a Spiritual Presence — a Presence of 
Deity, of Divine power and grace and hlessing — as distinguisbed 
from any Presence of His flesh, or of His natural human Bodj in the 


needed to justify the language of Hooker : "The substance 
of the Body of Christ hath no presence, neither can have, 

And it is to be observed how this oonsentient testimony is borne 
by one after another, from East and from West, without a hint as to 
these truths admitting any sacramental exceptions to meet the require- 
ments of faith in the words '* Hoc est corpus meum." 

"Unigenitus Dei est, Deus Verbum, et sapientia, et justitia, et 
Teritas, qui non est corporeo ambitu circumclusus. Secundum banc 
Diyinitatis suae naturam non peregrinatur, sed peregrinatur secundum 
dispensationem corporis quod susoepit." (Origen, Vet. Int. Gomm. 
inMatth., §65, Op., edit Migne, tom. iii.*c. 1703.) 

" Gonsidera quoniam non yidetur redditio sermonis ita conscripta : 
Sicut homo perigrinans, sic et Jesus, aut ita : sic et Filius hominis : 
quoniam ipse est qui in parabola proponitur peregrinans quasi homo. 
Neo enim est homo, qui est ubicunque duo vel tres in nomine ejus 
foerint congregati. Neque homo nobiscum est omnibus diebus 
usqae ad consammationem saBouli. Nee congregatis ubique fidelibus 
^910 est praesens, sed virtus divina quae erat in Jesu." (Origen, Vet. 
Int. Gomm. in Matth., § 65, Op., edit. Migne, tom. iii. c. 1704 ) 

[In the previous column it is said: " Si enim virtus Jesu congrega- 
tur cum his qui congregantur in nomine ejus, non peregrinatur a 
suis, sed semper prsesto est eis.''] 

"Secundum prsesentiam majestatis semper habemus Christum: 
secundum prsesentiam camis, recte dictum est discipulis, me autem 
non semper habebitis. Habuit enim ilium Ecclesia secundum prse- 
sentiam camis paucis diebus : modo fide tenet, oculis non vldet." 
(Augustin. In Joan. Evang., Tract. 1. § 13, Op., ed. Bened., Paris, 
1680, tom. iii. par. ii. c. 634.) 

"Belicturus eos prsesentia corporali, cum omnibus autem suis 
usque in consummationem seculi futurus prsesentia spiritali." (Ibid., 
In Joan., Tract, xcii. § 1, Op., tom. iii. par. ii. c. 723.) 

" Quos in se credentes servare jam ceperat prsesentia corporali, et 
quos relicturus fuerat absentia corporali, ut eos cum Patre servaret 
prsBsentia spiritali." (Ibid., Tract, cvi. § 2, c. 765.) 

[Let it be observed that Augustine writes as one who knows 
nothing of anything intermediate between bodily absence and bodily 
presence. With bodily absence consists, in his view, a Spiritual 
f resence, but there is nothing to indicate that there is in his mind 


but only local. It was not, therefore, everywhere seen, 
nor did it everywhere suffer death ; everywhere it could 

room for a conception of a Presence of Christ's Body invisibly and 
after the manner of spirits.] 

Ap ovv cLTrevoai^il^eTO twv fiadrp-wv 6 ^ttn^ di'a^otr^^ac xpoc Tor 
Haripaf Kai (rvyrjy avrdtc ttj tov Uyevfiaros kvtfyytuf. re koX ^vvofMeif 
Kol \dpirL ; Uwgf ij Kara Ttva rpdvor ; Ob yap yj/evderai \£yi^y' iBov 
.€y(i> fieff v/juiy eifu wdtraQ rac rifiipag Kai etag tt^ trvrreKclag tov 
alwyogf irXr^y Buoy elg trdpKa Kai ri^y fiera vutficurog Trapovaiav, 

ov^afiodey ajjififiaXoy. (Cyrill. Alex., Com. in Joan., lib. x. in c. xvi. 
5, 6, Op., edit. Migne, tom. vii. c. 429.) 

£t yap Kai aTro^/ifiei trapKij wapacrrfimig eavray virep fffiGy rf 
Harpi, Kai Kadiuag Ik ^e^iioy tov yeyytiuayrogy dXX' kyavXH^erat toIq 
ailoig ^la tov HyevfjtaTog, Kai avyitrn Tolg dylotg ^la wayTdg* (Ibid., 
lib. X. in c. xvi. 16, Op., tom. vii. c. 453, 456.) 

'EoTt Toiyvy to Qeioy aaiOfjtaroy, airoaoy re Kai ofiiyadeg, koI ovk 
ky ei^ei Trepiypdim^ . , . to yap oXiog ky ayfiipwriy wdyTiag wov koI kv 
iroa^y Kai ky T&jr^. To 3e ky t&jt^ yoovfuyoy ovk e£ai irepiypa<l>^Q. 
TavTa ^e CiOfiaTtay fiey c^ca, Tfjg ^e dewfidrov f^vvtiag aXX&Tpia 
TrayTeXQg. (Cyrill. Alexandr. adv. Anthopomorph., cap. i. S66, Opera, 
edit Migne, torn. ix. c. 1077.) 

" Gum ergo caro Gbristi localis absque dubitatione monstraretur, 
Divinitas tamen ejus ubique semper esse, Paulo testante, eognosei- 
tur, &o. (Fulgentius ad Trasimnndum Begem, lib. ii. cap. xviii., in 
Heptas Presul. Christ, edit. Raynaudus, Paris, 1661, p. 465.) 

'* Unus idemque secundum humanam substantiam, absens cob1o» 
cum esset in terra, et derelinquens terram, cum ascendisset in ccelum. 
. . . Quomodo autem ascendit in ccelum, nisi quia localis et verus et 
homo ? Aut quomodo adest fidelibus suis, nisi quia idem immensus 
et verus est Deus ? ... ait Nemo ascendit in oodum, nisi qui de ecelo 
deseenditf filius hominis qui est in coelo: non quia humana Ghristi 
substantia fuisset ubique diffusa, sed quoniam unus idem que Dei 
filius atque hominis filius, . . . licet secundum veram humanitatem 
suam looaliter tunc esset in terra, secundum divinitatem tamen (qu» 
loco nullatenus continetur) coelum totus impleret et terram." (Ibid., 
cap. xvii. pp. 464, 465.) 

not be entombed; it is not everywhere now being exalted 
into heaven. There is no proof in the world strong 

'' Quod aliquo ciroumscribitur fine, necesse est, at loco teneatur, 
aut tempore." Fulgentias, op. dt, cap. yii. p. 459.) 

" Oertum est omne looale in loco esse." (Ibid., oap. vii. p. 459.) 

** Corpora qun sine loco esse non possunt.^ (Ibid., Contra Ser- 
monem Fastidiosi, oap. iv. p. 598.) 

" Non ergo, inquam, unius naturae est, prsesepis gremio contineri, 
et astroram indiciis prodi ; bominibus subjici, et ab Angelis mini- 
atrari; do loco ad locum fagere, et ubique sui praesentiam exbibere; 
terrena inoolere, et coelestia non deserere." (Yigilius Tapsensis, Contra 
Arium, Sabellium, et Photinum, lib. ii. cap. xlix.. Opera, edit. 
Chifflet 1664, p. 186.) 

" Quomodo ait, Vado ad Patr$m, cum quo et semper erat, et a quo 
nunquam recesserat? (Ejus est enim ire et venire, qui aliquibus 
looorum terminis ciroumscribitur; ut eum in quo erat deserens locum, 
ad alium ubi non erat yeniat;) nisi quia utique de illo quem adsump- 
serat homine loquebatur, quod ipse erat iturus ad Patrem, a quo et 
venturus est judioare yivos et mortuos? Caeterum ubi divinitas, 
qu89, ut diximus, universa impleus, nullis locorum spatiis terminatur, 
sicut nihil est unde discedat, ita nihil est ubi yeniat.'' (Ibid., oap. 
xriii. p. 159.) 

'' Verbi natura non est mutata, neo oonfusa in came; et rursus 
oamis natura non est mutata, nee oonfusa in Verbo." (Ibid., Contra 
Eutyohet, lib. iy. oap. xix. p. 50.) 

" Christus in coelum ascendens discessit quidem came, sed praBsens 
est migestate." (Isidorus Hispalensis, Sent., lib. i. cap. xiy., Op.» ed. 
Mig^e, torn. yi. c. 568.) 

'' Quia enim ipse Deus et homo est, assumptus est in co&lum 
humanitace quam de terra susceperat, manet cum Sanctis in terra 
diyinitate quae terram pariter implet et coelum." (Yen. Beda, Horn. 
Mstiy. de tempore Fer. 6 Pasoh., Op., tom. vii. c. 14, Cologne, 1688.) 

** Qui tunc oorporali praBsentia fuit in mundo, nunc divina 
praBsentii praesens est ubique in mundo." (Ibid., In Joan., c. 9, Op., 
tom. y. c. 537.) 

" Non semper in terris oorporaliter mansurus, sed per humanitatem 
quam assumpsi jam sum ascensurus in coelum." (Ibid., Hom. .^stiy. 
de temp. Domin. Jubilate, Op., tom. yii. c. 16.) 


enough to enforce that Christ had a true Body but the 
true and natural properties of His Body. Amongst which 
properties, defmite or local presence is chief. ... If His 
majestical Body have now any such new property, by 
force whereof it may everywhere really ever in substance 
present itself, or may at once be in many places, then 

" Post resurrectionem ascendens in coelum eos corporaliter deseruit, 
quibus tamen divlDse praBsentia majestatis numquam abfuit.*' (Yeti. 
Beda, Horn. ^st. de temp. In Fest. Pentecostes, Op., torn. vii. o. 89.) 

" Habemus paracletum Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, quem 
etsi corporaliter videre nequimus, ea tamen quae in corpore gessit et 
docuit in Evangeliis Scripta tenemus." (Ibid., In Fest. Pentecostes, 
Op., torn. vii. c. 39.) 

'^Naturale est illi venire in hoc mundo solus minoratus paulo minus 
ab Angelis. Naturale est illi ubique esse cum Patre. Naturale est 
illi localis esse solus filius." (Etherius et Beatus, Contra Elipandum, 
lib. i., In Biblioth. Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, torn. xiii. p. 868.) 

Ov^ciC T-wv tv <ppoYovvTtov TTEfiiypaimiv keywv rrjy ayOptMnrelay 
(pvffiv, TavTrj erv/x7r€|Otyjoa0€i r^v airepiypaTrrov ovaav. kolL yap 6 
KvpiOQf Kado reXewQ ^ydpunroe ^v, Hjy kv Ty FaXtXai^, ovk fjy ey r^ 
'lovSa/^* Kal TOVTO avTOQ TritrrovTai Xiytoy' &y(ajxey eIq Trjy ^lov^aidy 
ir&Xiy' Kal Trepl tov Aa^apov ^laXeyoiiepOQ toIq ahrov tpoiTiiralg, ovra»c 
i<l>ri* xalpu) ^l vfjiag, on ovk rjfiriy eKei' KaOo ^e Qeog iariy, ey wayri 
TOTTif TTjQ heffiiuyrelaQ avrov TrapcflTi, jxtvMv irayrairaffiy aTrepLypairroQ* 
(Second Nicene Council, in Labbseus, tom. vii. c. 450. Mansi, tom. 
xiii. c. 263.) 

'* Tamdiu conversatus est cum discipulis quousque vidit eos not 
indigere prsesentia corporalis instructionis, et post recessit ab er 
corporaliter, quos tamen spiritualiter nunquam deseruit." (Christiai 
Druthmar, Expositio in Matt. Evang., cap. Ivl fo. Ixxx. edit. Stras- 
burg, 1514.) 

" De prsesentia corporis loquebatur : quia recessurus erat ab eis. 
Nam prsesentia divinitatis adest omnibus electis suis, sicut ipse post 
resurrectionem suis discipulis dixit, Ecce ego vobiscum sum usque 
ad consummationem sseculi." (Ibid., fo. Ixxxiii., Expositio in Pas- 
sionem Dominicam.) 


hath the majesty of His estate extinguished the verity of 
His nature."* 

(4) Another question to which I desire specially to 

direct attention is this : — If this doctrine of the Eucharistic 

Presence and of Eucharistic Adoration were the doctrine 

of the Primitive Church, how then does it come to pass 

that we find our early Christian apologists ridiculing 

the idolatry of the heathen in language which might so 

readily have been turned against themselves, and against 

the worship to be seen in Christian churches ? Take an 

example from Arnobius* He deals with the heathen's 

plea, that they do not worship images, but only adore 

divinities present in the images after consecration. He 

asks: "InsimulachrisDii habitant: singuline in singulis 

totis, an partiliter atque in membra divisi ?'* And mark 

what follows.' "Neque unus Deus in compluribus potis 

est uno tempore inesse simulachris, neque rursus in 

partes sectione interveniente divisus. Constituamus 

enim decem millia simulachrorxim toto esse in orbe 

Vulcani: numquid esse, ut dixi, decem omnibus in 

millibus potis est unus uno in tempore? Non opinor. 

Qua causa ? Quia quae sunt priva singulariaque natura, 

multa fieri nequeunt simplicitatis suae integritate servata : 

et hoc amplius nequeunt, si hominum formas Dii habent, 

opinatio ut vestra declarat. Neque enim manus a capite 

separata, aut pes divisus a corpore, summam possunt 

prsBstare totius : aut dicendum est portiones idem posse 

• Eccles. Pol., book v. ch. iv. § yi., Keble's edit. vol. ii. pp. 241, 242. 


quod totum, cum consistere nequeat, nisi fuerit partium 
congregatione conflatum. Si autem in cunctis idem esse 
dicetur, perit omnis ratio atque integritas yeritati, si hoc 
fuerit sumptum, posse unum in onmibus uno tempore 
permanere: aut Beorum est unusquisque dic^idus ita 
ipsum semet ab ipso sese dividere, ut et ipse sit et 
alter, non aliquo discrimine separatus, sed ipse idem et 
alius. Quod quoniam recusat, et respuit, aspematurque 
natura, aut innumeros dicendtmi est, confitendumque 
esse Vulcanos, si in cunctis volumus eum degere, atque 
inesse simulachris : aut erit in nullo, quia esse diyisus 
natura prohibetur in plurimis."* 

This passage has been selected from other similar 
onest to be found in the writings of early apologists,! 

* Adversus Gentes, lib. vi. pp. 204, 205, edit Ludg. Bat 1651. 

t See Albertinus, De Eucbaristia, lib. i. cap. xxvii. xxviii. p. 182, 
194, and lib. ii. cap. iii. pp. 381, 882. 

I " The truth is, of all idols that ever were worshipped by Pagans^ 
there is none so open and exposed to all the reproaches and censures 
of holy men in Scripture, as is this which Boman Catholics adore 
solemnly at every Mass ; and if this which they thus adore were truly 
Christ, one might safely aver (what even to think were blasphemy) 
that neither Prophets nor holy Fathers, in their speeches against 
heathenish gods, either considered well what they said, or ever thought 
well of their Saviour. 

** To begin with their original, when the Prophet Isaiah inveighs 
against them who worship gods made by a carpenter of a tree wMch 
the worshippers had planted, and after hewn into pieces, whereof one 
was to heat an oven and the others to make a god, c. 43, v. 14, 15, 17, 
Can any rational man think that the Holy Ghost did foresee that aU 
true worshippers in the times of the Messias were to adore a God 
every morning made of, and every morning inclosed within somewhat 
of that wheat that first countrymen had sown, and bakers baked into 


because it presents some points of singular and most 

wafers of irhich afterwards an apothecary was to take some to wrap pills 

io,and a Priest all the rest to consecrate into a God ? And if the taking 

that for a God which hefore the consecration was hut a stock is a Pagan 

blindness fit for a Prophet to wonder at, v. 18, is the adoring that 

(oT a Saviour which, immediately hefore the uttering of some few 

words, was a thin wafer, such clear understanding as may hecome a 

Catholic? Here, saith honest Minutius, Pagans melt hrass, they 

cast it, they set it up, they fasten it ; 'tis yet no God : they polish it, 

they adorn it ; neither is it yet a God. But see now, they consecrate 

it, and pray to it, then as soon as men will have it to he a God, it is 

a God. Was this wise man hlind, not to see that Pagans might 

return the same raillery? Christians sow wheat, they cut, gather, 

and thresh it ; 'tis no Christ yet. They grind it, they sift it, they 

hake it ; 'tis hut a wafer ; they set it upon an Altar, they elevate it, 

and cross it several times ; no wonder yet : at last they speak five 

words upon it, presently ten Miracles break forth, and among an 

hundred wafers, which are all like one to another, that which they 

are pleased to think upon is their Saviour. 

•* Where was the wit and judgoffent of holy Fathers, St. Chrysostom, 
Amobius, Tertullian (if they had then Home's Mass worship), when 
they charged Pagans with flat madness for lodging their Gods in 
Images, and for dreaming of Consecrations, which might turn the 
fate of vile materials into Gods, or shut these venerable Gods in vile 
vessels ; not perceiving in the meanwhile, that if Christians did then 
what Roman Catholics do now, both ancient Christians and new 
Catholics fall visibly to worse follies ? For the blindest Pagans never 
dreamed in the consecrating of their Idols, to turn effectually the 
sabstance of brass, stone, or timber, into the very nature of their 
Gods ; as these, who think and talk always of converting the whole 
substance of Wafers into the whole Body of Christ. Pagans could 
change, by their Idol worship, the glory of the incorruptible God into 
Images, Bom. i. 23, made of vile materials ; but they did not intend, 
by any help of miracles, to change this vile material into any God. 
Thia extraordinary attempt was never owned, as I can remember, 
daring the times of Pagan Rome. And Pagans did acknowledge their 
wood and stones, even after they had consecrated them into their 
Gods, to be no more than Seats and Domicils made of wood and stone, 
where their Gods did love to appear ; and where their assisting power. 


striking adaptation to the Eucharistic controversy.* It 
is curious to compare some parts of it with some parts 
of the chapters of Bellarmine, in which he sets himself 
to prove — " Posse unum corpus simul esse in pluribnfl 
locis/*t and to refute the objections of those who see a 
contradiction in this. 

Can the real objective Presence of Christ's Body at 
one time to be adored on ten thousand altars be main- 
tained at all, without its being open to the same objections 
as the presence of Vulcan to be adored in ten thousand 
of his images ? 

Can it be conceived without causing that, in the view 
of Arnobius, "peritomnis ratio atque integritasveritati?" 

Can such a presence be really distinguished, in any 
essential particular, from ttat which Arnobius declares 
to be '* quod recusat, et respuit, aspematurque natura?" 

which they did call Numen, was wont to work." (Dean Brevint, 
Depth and Mystery of R. Mass, pp. 94 — 97, Oxford, 1673.) 

* Tatian and Minutius Felix ridicule as absurd the practice of the 
Heathen in adoring and worshipping that whi^h they immolate and 
sacrifice. Dallaeus well says: "Atqui hoc ipsum faciunt Latini. Eu- 
charistiam eandem et adorant et immolant; et quam religiosissime 
divinissimo latri^ cultu adorarunt, earn statim immolant; neque 
uUum Deo a se ofierri sacrificium melius aut magis legitimum 
arbitrantur.'' (De Rel. Cultus Objecto, p. 327, lib. ii. cap. xxvi.) 

Minutius Felix ridicules the Egyptian custom of feeding that which 
is worshipped. DallsBus says : " Sed, si hoc absurdum est, illud pro- 
fecto longe etiam absurdius videtur, ut Eucharistiam adores, qua 
pasceris. Ergo si eam adorasset Octavius, cavisset ab hoc joco ; 
neque -^gyptiis dixisset, Nonne quern pascitis adoratis .^" (Ibid., p. 

I De Sacramento EucharistisB, lib. iii. cap. iii. iv. ; tee also cap. t. 
vi. vii. 


And could Arnobius have written thus if this view of 
the Eucharistic Presence, and this teaching of Eucharistic 
adoration, had been a part of the faith and the worship 
of the Christian Church in his day ? 

Could he have thus laid himself open to the stinging 
retorts of the heathen? And would the advocates of 
Pagan idolatry have spared their lashes in reply ? 

And it will not be altogether out of place to mark here 
how Julian the Apostate — ^who knew well what the re- 
ligion of Christians was, and what the mystery of the 
Eucharist was — ^is found ridiculing Christians for the 
worship of Christ* — the man Christ Jesus, and regard- 
ing Him as God. Nay, more, he upbraids them for their 
irpoaKvvriat^ of the Cross. + Is it conceivable that he 

* See Cyril. Alex.,Op., torn. ix. c. 748, 810, 887, 902, 910, 911, 946, 
951, 1003, 1014, edit. Migne. See also Faber's Difficulties of Roman- 
ism, pp. 415—417, 2nd edit. 

+ Eira, & ^vtrrtf^eig dydpiarroi, aia^ofiivov rov irap vfiiv SttXov 
^unrerovQ, 8 Kariirefixj/ev 6 fiiyac Zevg, iJTOi irarrfp "Apjyc, lyi-^vpov 
Sc^ovci ov \6yov, tpyov ^c, 6ti rfJQ irdXetoQ rjfiCJr elg to ^iriveKeg 
Tpoaffnltrei, irpoaKvveiv &(piyr£g Kal aePeadaif ro rov crravpov irpoaKv- 
vtiTt ^vKoVf €iK6vag avrov (TKiaypa(^ovvTtg kv t<^ fxerunr^ Kal irpo ruiv 
olKtipLarioy eyypa<l>oyreg ; Apa &il(i>g &v rig avertorepovg v^tav 
\u(riifr€UVy $ rovg a<ppove(rripovg eXeiiffeuy, oi KaraKoXovdovvreg vfiiVf 
tig rovTo ^XOoy oXidpov, &(rr€. rovg altaviovg 6.<l>ivreg Oeovgt Irrl rov 
^lovhaltoy fxeraf^fivai veKp6v ; (In Cyrill. Alex. Contra Julian., lib. 
Ti 194, Opera, edit. Migne, torn. ix. c. 796, 797.) 

The answer of Cyril to tbe charge concerning the cross is: 'H/ieT^ 

. . . iravTog &yadov Kal hiraarig aperfig elg ayafivrjaiv, ro rov ri/niov 
oravpov Totovfieda (vXov. (c. 797.) 

If in Julian's time Eucharistic worship had been seen in the Chris- 
tian Church, such as is now seen in the Church of Borne (or anything 


would have had no word of contumely for the worshipping 
of bread, if in his time the Christian Church had prac- 
tised the adoration of the host ? 

We know how, in later times, that worship was derided 
by the Jews.* 

We know, also, how^ after the birth of transubstan- 
tiation, Averroes regarded the matter, t In the earlier 

like it), is it possible that he could have written thus of tiie reyerent 
and loving honour given by Christians to the Gross as the memortid 
of their Lord's passion, and have said not a word concerning the 
Divine adoration paid to the Sacramental bread and wine (or to that 
which is really present in them), symbolising and showing forth the 
Lord's death ? 

We possess, indeed, but a portion of what Julian wrote against 
Christianity, but we have here just the part in which the notice of 
Eucharistic adoration certainly should have come, if he had had any- 
thing to say in ridicule of it 

* Lyranus represents the Jews as saying of Christians : " Sunt 
IdololatraB pessimi adorantes Jesum hominem tanquam Deum, et 
quod pejus est Hostiam de frumento ab iis formatam et ooctam ado- 
rant sicut Deum, quod est derisibile, et postea comedunt, qnod est 
horribile " (Tractatus contra Judseos). Again in another tractate he 
is quoted as saying of the Jews : '' In ipso Sacramento Euoharistin 
reputant nos pessimosldololatras, sicut per experientiam cognoyerunt 
illi qui frequenter de istis cum illis contulerunt, et ideo a fide Catho- 
lica pro talibus avertuntur, et plures jam baptizatiad vomitum rever- 
tuntur.'' See Allix, in Historical Preface to " Determinatio J. 
Parisiensis," 1686, p. 46. 

No mention is made, if Allix is right, of any such charge brought 
by Jews against Christians before the time of Thomas Aquinas. 

I "Those witty adversaries, Celsus, and Porphyry, and Julian, would 
have thrown all that the Christians had said against the heathen idols 
back upon themselves, and have improved them with as great 
advantage, and retorted them with as much force, had the Chrlstiaiis 
in those times worshipped the host, or the sacramental elements, as 
the Papists do now ; and it is more than a presumption, no less than 


ages of Christianity, who, among the enemies of Chris- 
tianity, spake as he spake? Why did they not? Is 
there any other plausible reason to be given but this — 
that hitherto it was a thing unknown among Christians ? 

But I must not pass on to my next question without 
reverting for a moment to the passage just cited from 
Amobius, for the purpose of directing special attention 
to it in its bearing on a particular phase of the Eucha- 
ristic controversy with which we are now familiar. 

Is it possible that Amobius could have written thus if 
in his day the Church of Christ had been taught to 
believe that indeed the Body of Christ was present 
naturally, and locally, only in heaven, but that in another 
ineffable way, divinely, supernaturally, and supra- 

a demonstration, that the Christians did not, because none of these 
things that were so obnoxious and so obvious were ever in the least 
mentioned by the heathens, or made matter of reflection upon them, 
when they picked up aU other things, let them be true or false, that 
tbey could make any use of to object against them. But the primitive 
Christians gave them no such occasion, which was the only reason 
they did not take it. As soon as the Church of Rome did so, by 
settixig up the worship of the host, Averroes, the Arabian philosopher, 
in the thirteenth century, gave this character of Christians, that he had 
found 'no sect more foolish, or worse than they,' in all his travels and 
observations, upon this very account, * for they eat the God whom 
tbey worship;' and a later historian and traveller tells us that it is a 
common reproach in the mouths of the Turks and Mahommetans to 
oall the Christians devourers of their God; and a Jew, in a book 
printed at Amsterdam in the year 1662, among other questions put to 
Christians, asks this shrewd one : ' If the host be a God, why does it 
oorrapt and grow covered with mould? And why is it gnawn by 
mice or other animals?'" (Prebendary Payne in Gibson's Preserva* 
tive, YoL X. p. 156, London, 1848.) 


locally, the same Body was present in the sacramental 
elements on ten thousand altars on earth?* Why! 

* Bp. Jeremy Taylor argues against the Bomish doctrine, as Amobius 
against the worship of the heathen. He says : *' It will also be an 
infinite impossible contradiction which follows the being of a body 
in two places at once, upon this account : for it will infer that the 
same body is at the same time, in the same respect, in order to the 
same place, both actually and potentially, that is possessed and not 
possessed of it, and may go to that place where it is already." 
(Works, vol. vi. p. 112, edit. Eden, " Real Presence," sect. xL § 22.) 

And with reference to the erasion of " presence by another mode " 
he writes : " But now a fourth word must be inyented, and that is 
sacramentaliter, Christ's Body is sacramentally in more places than 
one ; which is very true, that is, the sacrament of Christ's Body is ; 
and so is His Body figuratively, tropically, representatively in being, 
and really in effect and blessing ; but this is not a natural, real being 
in a place, but a relation to a person." (Works, vol. vi. p. 109, 
" Real Presence," sect. xi. § 17.) 

Again: '* Aquinas hath yet another device to make all whole, saying 
that one body cannot be in divers places localitert but sacramentaliterf 
not locally but sacramentally. But first I wish the words were sense, 
and that I could tell the meaning of being in a place locally and not 
locally, unless a thing can be in a place and not in a place, that is, 
so to be in that it is also out ; but so long as it is a distinction it is 
no matter, it will amuse and make way to escape, if it will do nothing^ 
else. But if by being sacramentally in many places is meant figura- 
tively (as before I explicated it), then I grant Aquinas's afiSrmative ; 
Christ's Body is in many places sacramentally, that is, it is represented 
upon all the holy tables or altars in the Christian Church. But if by 
sacramentally he means naturally and properly, then he contradiets 
himself, for that is it he must mean by hcaliter if he means anything 
at all. But it matters not what he means, for it is sufficient to me 
that he only says it and proves it not ; and that it is not sense ; and 
lastly, that Bellarmine confutes it as not being home enough to his 
purpose, but a direct destruction of the fancy of Transubstantiation.'' 
(Works, vol. vi. pp. Ill, 112, edit Eden, " Real Presence," sect. xi. 

Turretin writes : '* Nee rectius distingui volunt inter prtBsentiam 


if Christians believed this, why should not heathens 
believe the same of their divinities ? How could then 

finitam, creatam, definitivamy et prasentiam divinam illocalem, 
increatam, infinitam; Ilia Christum esse in coelo, lata vero in Coena. 
Quia supponitur semper irpwTov xj/ev^og dari duplex prsesentiaB genus 
respectu Corporis Christi, quod tanquara impossibile et naturae Cor- 
poris contrarium admitti nequit." (Turretin, Instit Theol. Elenct. 
iii. p. 570, Genev. 1686. See also p. 080, and Papers on the Doctrine 
of the English Church, pp. 18—20.) 

So also Ursinus : '* Distinctlo ista hoalis et iUocalis prsesentisB 
rei usorporesB secundum substantiam, est commentitia, nusquam tra- 
dita aut fundata in yerbo Dei. Ubicunque enim res corporea, sua 
sabstantia prsesens est, ibi localiter et circumscripte prsesens est. 
Neqae testimonium uUum SoripturaB proferri potest, de Corpore 
Christi illocaliter usquam existente; plurima autem, quae contrarium 
decent.*' (Ursinus, Opera, vol. ii. c. 1340, edit Reuter, Heidelberg, 

So Beza, Adversus Heshusium: "Hes. Negamus etiam localem 
inclusionem. Theophilos. Et nos pemegamus. Hes. Sed dicimus 
Christi Corpus nihilominus esse in pane. Theophilus. Id est, diciiis 
Christum esse in loco', sed non localiter , sive non eo modo quo 
naturalia corpora in suis locis yersantur. Hes. Ilecte. Theophilus. 
Imo insane. Sic enim tribuisti Christo aiUfia Aerw/xarov." (Tract. 
Theol., vol. i. p. 264, Geneva, 1582.) 

'*Cum statuant vere adesse, et corporaliter et carnaliter, ut dicunt, 
sed non looalitert quis non videat ista conficta esse ad eludenda argu- 
menta?"* (Peter Martyr, Loci Communes, vol. i. pp. 1567, 1568. 
Basle, 1580.) 
See also especially Sadeel, Works, p. 435 ; Offio. Sanctand., 1593. 
Se also Du Moulin's *« Buckler of the Faith," pp. 463, 465, Lon- 
don, 1623. 

Dean Aldrich says : " The difference between us and the Papists is 
plain. They (however they express themselves) understand a local 
presence, which we deny, and therefore reject their expression. We 
(whatever term we use) mean only a spiritual and virtual presence, 
and explain the term we make use of to that effect." (Reply to 
Two Discourses, p. 17.) 



the Christian apologist have ridieuled as inconceivable 
the presence of Vulcan, which the Pagan worshipper 
believed to be in ten thousand temples, if the absurdity 
he characterised as against nature and reason and truth 
could be turned at once into a credible matter of faith, 
by the simple reply that this was to be understood of a 
presence supra-local, ineffable, and divine ? 

Allow the possibility of the two modes pf presence, one 
local and one supra-local, which are now so earnestly 
contended for as essential to the orthodox doctrine of 
the Eucharist, and the argument of Arnobius is utterly 
futile. Nay, more ; he has brought contempt on him- 
self and the Christian Church for counting and treat- 
ing as folly — yea, as the folly of follies — just that very 
particular in the worship of idols which has (may I not 
say?) a singularly exact counterpart in the so-called 
Catholic doctrine of the Mass. 

So Crakantborp had said : " Quamvis Ohristi Corpus sit in hostia 
solum Sacramentaliter et non localiter, tamen in illo loco qui hostias 
continet, gratia hostiae, est etiam localiter , et circumscriptive, ut rectS 
agnoscit tuus Cardinalis, nam locus qui oontinet et oircumscribit 
hostiam, etiam gratia hostise, continet et oircumscribit Corpus ChriBti 
quod est sub hostia." (Defensio Eccles. Anglican., p. 286, edit Anglo- 
Oath. Libr.) 

So also Forbes of Corse : *' Nos prsesentiam illam, qnam tuentmr 
Transubstantiarii et Consubstantiarii, vocamus locdlem : eodem sensn, 
quo explicat Bonaventura. Quamvis distinctionem istam repudie- 
raus; nam ubicunque est aliquod Corpus corporaUter, et quidem 
cum tota sua quantitate dimensiva, ibi est dimensive, et secundum 
commensurationem corpori debitam." (J. Forbes of Corse, Works, 
Yol. ii. p. «503a, Amsterdam, 1702. 


Need I add that the same remark applies to the argu- 
ment of St. Augustine against the Manichees, in the 
words just cited — " Secundum prsesentiam corporalem 
simol et in sole et in luna> et in cruce esse non potest '' ? 
He does not say " esse non potest naturaliter et localiter/' 
He declares an impossibility in the nature of things, and 
his whole argument depends on that impossibility being 
complete and absolute. To suppose that Augustine*s 
mind was familiar with the conception of Christ's Body 
being present in more places than one in some other 
ineffable manner, because the whole Christian Church 
believed it to be so in the Eucharist ; to conceive that his 
words " esse non potest " might well admit a gloss " esse 
tamen potest stipematuraliter et supralocaliter ; " to 
imagine that his '' uno loco esse oportet " must admit 
of those divinely ineffable exceptions, which subse- 
quently demanded the change into ''uno loco esse 
potest,'* — is to suppose that St. Augustine was capable 
of arguing against heretics from a major premiss which 
was the contradictory of a proposition affirmed by the 
universal creed of Christendom, and was willing to 
expose that creed to tKe scorn and contumely of its 
finemies, in words returning as the mere reverberation 
of his own arguments — arguments from intuitive axioms 
of reason — with which he had assailed the insane 
dreams of bewildered fanatics. 

(6) Another and a stiU more important question to 

be asked is this^ — ^Did the Corinthian Christians in 



St. Paul's days* believe this Eeal Objective Presence of 

* From 1 Cor. x. 18—22 it would not be safe to argue that the 
Communion the Apostle speaks of could not possibly be a real and 
literal eating of the Body of Christ; because the Apostle's argument 
would hold good though there might be a great disparity between the 
KOiviovia Tov (rti)fiaTOQ too Xpiorov and the Koiyutvia riSv ^aifwvliav. 
There might be a partaking of the Lord's tahle, altogether different 
not only in degree and in kind but also in mode, from the partaking 
of the table of devils; and, no doubt, some of the Fathers do insist on 
the fact that an idol is nothing, and its sacrifices are void (see 
Theodoret.edit. Schulze, tom. iii.p. 229 ; Chrysostom,edit.Montfaucon, 
tom. X. p. 214), while the communion of Christians is a real com- 
mimion with Christ, and a partaking of His Body. Yet it is observable 
that some of the Fathers seem rather to point to a parity in the mode 
of Koivutvia on the one side and on the other, as far as regards the 
instrumental mediation of what is eaten, in such a way as would 
hardly have been possible if, on the one side, they had regarded the 
KOLvutvia as depending upon the Real Presence of Christ's Body in or 
under the form of the bread. 

Cyril of Jerusalem says : ^'Otairep 6 aproQ koI 6 oTyog rfjc ev^or 
pioriag, irpo rfjg hyiag eiriKXriaetoc rfjc irpoaicvvrjrfig rpid^og, aprog 
^r Koi olvog Xirog' knLicKriaeitig Ze yevofjLiprjgf 6 fiev dpTog ylverai 
tTWfia XpioTov, 6 ^e olvog alfia Xpicrrov' tov avrbv drj Tp6irov ra roiavra 
(ipvjfiara rfig 'Trofi'irrig tov 2aravd, rij i^itjf, fvtrei Xira ovrat t^ 
eiriKXriaei TtSv ^aifiovufv /Be/Bi^Xa yiverai* (Cyril. Hieros. Catech. 
Myst. I. § vii., Opera, ed. Bened., p. 308.) 

Primasius says : " Pan is quem frangimus nonne participatio Cor- 
poris Domini est? Sic et idolorum panis dsemonum participatio est." 
(In 1 Cor. X., In Bibli. Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, tom. x. p. 188.) 

E-abanus Maurus says : " Sicut nos . . . participes sumus Corporis 
Domini ita et qui edunt hostias participes sunt altaris erroris. 
(Enar. in £p. Pauli, lib. x. In Ep. 1 ad Cor. x., Op., ed. Migne, 
tom. vi. c. 94.) 

CiCumenius says: EI yap oi rrjg fivtmKfjg fierixovreg rpaircfijfc 
Koivwvovffi Xpitrr^, ol Aai/Jidvoiv fieTi)(ovreg Tpairi^rig hfXoy&ri Aal' 
fioai Koivwvovaiy. (In I Cor. x., Opera, Paris, 1631, tom. i p. 616.) 
See Waterland's Works, vol. iv. pp. 630—638, 87, 88, and especially 
SeduliuB in 1 Cor. x. in Bibl. Max. tom. vi. p. 544. 


Christ — ^the proper object of adoration — under the form 
of bread and wine in the Sacrament of the Lord's 
Supper? If they did not believe it, then ought not 
the Apostle to have clearly and plainly supplied this 
deficiency of their faith in this most important particular, 
when he heard how they came together to the Eucharist 
each one as to his own supper ? 

If they did believe it, why did not the Apostle in his 
warning words on the subject appeal to this faith, and to 
their knowledge of this truth ? Why did he not rebuke 
them for not prostratingthemselvesinhumblest adoration? 
Or, at least, when blaming them for not discerning 
the Lord's Body, why did he not remind them, that what 
they held in their hands and ate with their mouths was 
but the veil imder which Christ Himself was really 
present, — Body, Soul, and Divinity ; that therefore they 
might most fitly, all with one accord, fall down and wor- 
ship before the consecrated elements and say, each one, 
"My Lord and my God ?'* Why did the Apostle, instead 
of saying this, say *' Let a man examine himself, and 
so let him eat of that bread and drink of that 

Let any one with an honest heart and unbiassed 
mind, or at least with a true desire to form a right judg- 
ment, read the whole passage in the Epistle, and say — 
Was this an adequate way of dealing with the sin of the 
Corinthians, if indeed the Apostle had believed that 
doctrine of Presence which lies at the foundation of 


Euchaoristic adoration as directed to, or towards, the 
consecrated elements ? * 

(6) But the most important question remains. Let 
it be most carefully considered by all who would be 
guided aright in this most important controversy. 

The question is this : — In what sense, and with what 
Umitations, would the Apostles naturally t have understood 

* Dr. Turton says : ** We know that there is nothing, however 
sacred and momentous, which is not liahle to he perverted from its 
original design ; and we may generally perceive in what way a per- 
version is the most likely to ensue. Let us, in this point of view, 
consider the Eucharist, assuming that from the period of its institu- 
tion a transuhstantiation of its elements was understood to take place, 
BO that our Lord became corporally present — ^present in His entire 
human and divine nature. The consciousness of a Deity leads men 
to adoration — to acts of worship ; and in a case like this may easily 
lead to superstitious rites and gross idolatry. Such is the danger to 

be apprehended on this assumption Let us now, in the same 

point of view, consider the Eucharist according to the Protestant 
interpretation, as exhibiting the symbols of our Lord's Body and 
Blood. If, along with this doctrine, the notion of the Lord's Table— 
the Lord's Supper — be taken into account, we can imagine that the 
rite may insensibly acquire too much of an appearance of a social 
repast, and thus at length the religious character of the meeting be 
nearly lost in the convivial. On this side the danger lies in the 

profanation of sacred things Idolatry, then, results from the 

perversion of the Koman Catholic system; and profaneness from 
that of the Protestant system ; and so obviously do these conse- 
quences follow, that no reasonable person, I am persuaded, would 
hesitate to declare the causes when the consequences were laid 
before him. Now, profaneness was the sin of the Corinthians in this 
matter. Here, therefore, we have what I take to be a clear proof 
that they had never heard of the doctrine of Transuhstantiation.'' 
(Turton's Reply to Wiseman, pp. 320, 321.) 

I In the " Fortalitium Fidei " we find among the objections 
answered, the view of Jews of that day as to the interpretation of the 


the words of their Divine Master when, instituting the 

words of Institution. It is one wbich certainly lends little support 
to the Beal Objective Presence. And it is observable tbat for answer 
the author appeals first to the tradition of the Church. 

The following quotation (notwithstanding the curious addition of a 
somewhat incongruous notion) is deserving of very careful atten- 
tion: "Dicunt enim JudsBi, Vos Christiani dioitis in illo Sacra- 
mento esse realiter Corpus et Sanguinem Ghristi, hoc est impossibile, 
quia cum dixit vester Ghristus demonstrato pane, hoc est Corpus 
meum, significative locutus est et non realiter, ac si diceret, hoc est 
signum vel figura corporis mei, secundum quem modum Paulus dixit, 
1 Corinth. 10, Petra autem erat Ghristus, id est Christi figura; et 
patet clarissime, quod ista fuerat intentio Christi vestri, quia cum de 
sui Corporis comestione et sanguinis potatione loqueretur, ut discipu- 
loram scandalum quod obortum fuerat sopiretur, quasi seipsum 
exponens dicit. Verba quae locutus sum vobis spiritus et vita sunt, 
quasi ea quae dixerat non ad literam, sed secundum spiritualem 
sensum intelligenda essent. 

"Etciim Christus dixit hoc est Corpus meum, tenens panem in 
manibus, intellexit, quod ille panis erat Corpus suum in potentia pro- 
pinqua, scilicet postquam comedisset illud, quia tunc converteretur in 
Corpus suurn, sive in carnem suum ; et similiter de vino. Et isto 
mode nos Judei facimus ilia die Azymorum, quia accipimus panem 
azymum in memoriam illius teraporis quando educti sunt patres 
nostri de terra Mgyptiy et non sunt permissi ibidem permanere per 
tantum tempus quod possit panis fermentari, qui pascatus erat, et 
dicimus iste est panis quem comederunt patres nostri, licet ille panis 
prsBsens non sit, ciin fuerit prseteritus ; et sic ut iste panis non est 
ille, sic iste panis de quo fit istud sacrificlum in altari. Dicere sufii- 
eeret Christiani s, quod esset in memoriam illius panis Christi, licet 
iste panis non sit ille. Et quoniam est impossibile, quod servaretur 
unnm frustum carnis ad sui memoriam, mandavit quod fieret ille 
panis et illud vinum qui erat caro et sanguis in potentia propiuqua 
ad exeundum in actu, sicut nos Judsei facimus in Pascate de azyiiio 
pane sicut dictum est. Ciim ergo Christus vester in mensa accepit 
panem et calicem et dedit discipulis suis, non mandavit eis credere 
panem et vinum in Corpus suum transmutari. Sed quod quoties- 
cumque hoc facerent in memoriam suam, facerent scilicet in memo- 
riam illius panis prseteriti, et nunc si vos Christiani intelligeretis 


Sacrament of His Supper, He said to them,* " Take, eat: 
this is My Body?" 

This is a question the importance of which in these 
days seems to have been strangely overlooked, — seeing 
it will hardly be disputed that the meaning which the 
words bore for them, they ought also to bear for us. 

It has been argued, indeed, that philosophy does not 
know enough about the nature of bodiest to be justified in 

nullum sequeretur impossibile, sed dicere oppositum eicut asseritis, 
dicitis rem impossibilem et contra mentem Gbrieti yestri ut patuit 

" Respondetur quod traditio Ecclesise Catbolicse de boc sacramento 
vera est, sc. quod in hoc 8acr»mento est realiter et non significative 
vpnmi corpus etwerus sanguis Cbristi : sicut declaratum fuit supra." 
(Fortalitium Fidei, lib. iii. Consideratio vi. fol. cxxxi., Numberg, 
Ant. Koberger, 1494) 

The author of this work is said to have been Alpbonso dc Spina. 
It first appeared in 1487. See Walchii Biblioth. Tbeol., tcm. i. 
pp. 610, 611. 

* It was urged by some of the Reformers, in support of a figurative 
interpretation of the words of Institution, that the Hebrew language 
lias no word meaning to represent. 

It has been alleged in reply that this is not the case with the 

Admitting this, Dr. Turton says : " I may, however, observe that 
the peculiarity in question is allowed to belong to the Hebrew 
language ; that that language — by itself and by its representative, 
the Septuagint — had great effect upon the language of the New 
'J'estament; that in deciding the meaning of the words of Institution, 
the idiom of the Hebrew and the Septuagint cannot but, as in other 
cases, be taken into account; and that the idiom, prevailing in those 
ancient authorities, tends strongly to confirm the figurative interpre- 
tation which is contended for by Protestant communities." (Reply to 
Wiseman, p. 810.) 

t See, e.g., Leibnitz, System of Theology, pp. 99, 100, edit. 
Russell (London, Burns and Lambert), 1860. 


asserting the impossibility of the same body being, at the 
same time, in more places than one. 

But then, it is material to observe that the philosopher 
himseM judged otherwise, by his own acknowledgment,* 
till in the upper forms of this School of Philosophy he 
reached by attainment to this capacity of doubt. And 
the important question we have to ask is this, — Does the 
word of God adapt its language to the level attained by 
these high flights of scientific speculation ? 

It is reported to have been said by no mean authority, 
that no man was ever a great metaphysician without 
doubting at some time the existence of matter. We 
know what subtle powers of metaphysical skill have been 
displayed by an eminent Irish prelate in maintaining 
the position, that to believe the existence of matter at 
all, is to believe a delusion which lends support to 
superstition, Socinianism, and idolatry.t 

Let metaphysicians deal with such questions as they 
may; it is enough for us to know that the Bible addresses 
itseM to the ordinary apprehensions of ordinary men, 
who do not question either the existence or the laws of 
matter, and do not doubt the reality or the properties of 
a human body. 

I ask, then, were these twelve men versed in the subtil- 
ties of such transcendental philosophies as these? And 

* Leibnitz, System of Theology, p. 112, edit. Russell (London, 
Bams and Lambert), 1860. 
. t See Bp. Berkeley's Works, 1820, vol. i. pp. 71, 72. 


not to touch here on the interpretative power of the lead* 
ing preparation of the Passover feast, I ask, — ^Will it bt 
contended that these plain, unlearned men would naturally 
understand from their Lord's words that what each now 
held in his hand was to be to him that which he was to 
address as his Master, or to adore as having under its 
form the very presence of His Lord ? * 

What ! Christ whole and entire in each piece of that 
broken bread, just now in the hands of Christ Himself, 
and now in the hiands of the Twelve, — while yet Christ, 
in His own proper form, is there before their eyes ! t 

"^ " In the institution of the Eucharist there was no appearance of 
change ; there was nothing to suggest the idea of power. The notion 
of a miracle — to them, at that time — must have heen as remote as 
possihle from their thoughts. A miracle attested by no change must 
not only have been contrary to all their experience, but to all their 
perceptions of the reasons for which miracles were wrought . . . 
Our Lord spoke to them, as He had been in the habit of speaking, in 
figurative language ; and no evidence, I will venture to say, has yet 
been produced, in proof that they took His words in a literal sense." 
(Dr. Turton's Reply to Wiseman, pp. 295—297.) 

f The following is from a sermon, " The Sacrament of the Lord's 
Supper," by the Rev. Claude Bosanquet (Wiginton, Folkestone), 
pp. 5, 6 : — 

'' There He was in flesh and blood before them, when He took the 
Bread and Wine and pronounced the words of institution, and it is 
impossible to believe that the Apostles thought they were receiving 
His very Body and Blood. Then again you know that one of the 
earliest precepts was that the blood was not to be eaten. Thus we 
read in the 9th chapter of Genesis and the 4th verse — * But flesh 
with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat;* a 
precept you see given even before the law of Moses. Great wrath 
was against the children of Israel for eating with the blood in the 
time of Saul. Had they believed that this, that they were eating and 


Well indeed we may believe that the Apostles may have 
been filled with admiring, adoring wonder, beUeving 
their Lord's words, and remembering how He had said, 
" Whoso eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood, hath 
eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." 

Hooker has well said: ''When they saw their Lord 
and Master, with hands and eyes lifted up to heaven, first 
bless and consecrate for the endless food of all generations 
till the world's end the chosen elements of bread and 
wine, which elements, made for ever the instruments of 

driaking, were literal flesh and blood, we may feel sure that, with 
their Jewish prejudices, they would have remonstrated on the spot. 
When Peter saw the vision of the sheet let down from heaven, 
' wherein were all manner of four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild 
beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air,' and the voice said 
to him — * Arise, Peter, kill and eat,' he at once replied — ' Not so, Lord; 
for I hare never eaten anything that is common or unclean.' Then 
how much more certainly would be have remonstrated with his Lord 
now ; for at this very Supper where the Saviour came to Simon Peter 
with the bason and the towel, Peter said to Him — * Dost thou wash 
my feet?* *Thou shalt never wash my feet.' And so also it would 
have been exceedingly difficult to persuade the Jews, when they had 
embraced Christianity, to receive the Sacrament, if this were a true 
view with respect to it. But we never hear of any single objection ; 
we neyer find that anyone had the least difficulty about it; on the 
<K)ntrary, there can be no doubt that the Lord's Supper was at first 
commemorated at every evening meal in every Christian household. 
Yet the disciples still believed the precept against blood to be 
binding; for when there arose the dispute with the Gentile Christians, 
which led to the Council of Jerusalem, in their letter to the churches, 
they enjoined that there should be the abstaining from blood." 

This argument tells not only against transubstantiation, but against 
any Beal Objective Presence of Christ's Flesh and Blood in or under 
the form of tJie consecrated elements. 


life by virtue of His divine benediction, they being the 
&rst that were commanded to receive from Him, the first 
which were warranted by His promise that not only unto 
them at the present time, but to whomsoever they and 
their successors after them did duly administer the same, 
those mysteries should serve as conducts of life, and con- 
veyances of His Body and Blood unto them, was it possible 
that they should hear that voice, * Take, eat : this is My 
body ; drink ye all of this : this is My blood ;' possible 
that doing what was required and believing what was 
promised, the same should have present effect in them, 
and not fill them with a kind of fearfal admiration at the 
•leaven which they saw in themselves ? *'* 

But who will persuade us to believe that the natural 
sense of the words as heard by the Apostles from the lips 
of their Lord must have been that which conveyed to 
them the idea of the Eeal Objective Presence of that same 
Lord in the very elements which they received from His 

* Ecoles. Pol., book v. ch. Ixvii. § 4, voL ii. p. 351, edit 

I " Literalis iUa verborum coense Domini expositio arguit, Christum 
Dominum omnem corporis sanguinisque sui substantiam Apostolis 
suis, ore carnali manducandam tradidisse. Si autem Ghristus Dominus 
corpus sanguinemque suum ita ipsis comedendum bibendamque tra- 
didisset, nullum proculdubio corpus fraugendum sanguinemque effun- 
dendum habuisset. Igitur ea carnalis imaginatio, tanquam absurda 
(ne dicam impia) protinus est rejicienda. Si verba ilia coensd, Hoc est 
corpus meum quod pro vobis frangitur, boo est sanguis, etc. debeant 
juxta literam, ut sonant, exponi: consequetur, corpus Christi Domini 
adhuc frangi, et sanguinem suum effundi oportere. Ergo omnia ejus- 


Lutheran diyines, indeed^ haye much insisted on it, 
that this language must necessarily be understood ** ut 
verba sonant." 

But, not to dwell on the variety of opinion which 
results from viewing the words through this rule of in- 
terpretation, will anyone maintain that the intuitions of 
common sense, when they would naturally modify, may 
not legitimately make limitations for the sense of the 
plainest expressions ? * 

The facts of the case, not less than the sound of the 
words, will be found in the ordinary use of discourse to 
be an essential element in the interpretation of lan- 

modi camalis imaginatio, tanquam absurda, est explodenda." (Uteno- 
iuB, " Simplex et Fidelis Narratio de instituta et demum dissipata 
Belgarum, aliorumque peregrinarum in Anglia Eoclesia/' 1560, 
p. 272.) 

* Alias propositiones fides EcclesiaB et doctrina animo prsDConoepta 
yetabat sumi ut sonant." (I'outte'e in Cyril. Jems., Dissert, iii. cap. ix. 
c. OCX., Paris, 1720.) 

t The author of the " Fortalitium Fidei" (see above, p. 168), after 
replying to the argument of the Jews, who in his day maintained that 
the words of Institution must have been intended to be understood 
figuratively, takes notice of certain heretics, of whom he says : " Similes 
Judeis predictis voluerunt dicere quod ista locutio: hoc est corpus 
meum: fait figurativa — siout ilia Johannes xv., Ego sum vitis vera" 
(Lib. iii. Gonsid. vi. fol. cxxxi., Numberg, 1494.) In this matter, 
at any rate, these heretics appear to have followed in the track of 
the ancient Fathers. (See above, p. 72, sqq.) 

The author's attempt at a confutation of their heresy is very remark- 
able. His words are : " Istud est omnino contra intentionem Salvatoris, 
qaia at ait Augustinus in libro Ixxxiii. questionum, questione Ixvii. 
Bolet circumstantia scripturarum illuminare scripturam. Nam ex 


We remember the words which David said, when at 
the hasty utterance of a wish, his three mighty men 
brought water from the well of Bethlehem, cutting their 
way through the hosts of the enemy, to quench their 
master's thirst. He said, " Be it far from me, Lord, 

precedentibus yel ex seqneDtibus potest colligi an loquaturfiguratiye: 
an non. Nam cum Christus dicit. Ego sum vitis yera, statim 
subjunxit, et yos palmites. Sed constat quod discipuli non erant 
palmites naturales sed tamen figuraliter, igitur lo^uebatur figuratiye» 
Sed cum dicit Luc. xxi. hoc est corpus meum, statim subjonxit, 
quod pro yobis tradetur. Sed ista traditio non erat figiiratiya sed 
realis et yera, igitur realiter et yere dictum est, hoc est corpus 


Now, as the writer says, '^ Constat quod discipuli non erant 
palmites naturaliter," and regards this fact as goyeming the interpre- 
tation of our Lord's words, why might it not be said also, " Constat 
quod hoc non est corpus naturaliter?" and should not this fact also 
be regarded as goyeming the interpretation of the words of Insti- 
tution ? 

But not to press this, let it be obseryed that the words by which 
he would goyem the interpretation of the words of Listitution are 
" quod pro yobis tradetur" {to virep vfiwp ^MfjLsvov). His argu- 
ment is that the reality of the traditio spoken of, which is not 
figuratiye, requires that we understand the words *^hoo est corpoa 
meum " as not figuratiye. 

But the question is not whether the Lord had a real Body, nor 
whether that Body was really deliyered oyer to be put to death. 
The question is whether that Body is really or figuratiyely in the 
elements of the Lord's Supper, and whether in that Slipper the deliyeiy 
of that sacred Body to be cnicified and slain be figurative or real. 
If the death be real and not figurative, then, in the words of Bellarmine, 
the Eucharist must be sacrilege, not sacrifice.. (See "Romish 
Mass and English Church," p. 19.) If it be figurative and not 
real, then, according to the author's own reasoning, must the 
words "hoc est corpus meum" be understood figuratively, and not 


that I should do this : is'*' not this the blood of the 
men that went in jeopardy of their lives ? " 

What should we think of an expositor who should tell 
us that these words are far too distinct to have their 
literal meaning evaded ; that they must clearly be 
accepted strictly Karh to prjrov, unless we would question 
David's sincerity and truth; that therefore we must 
certainly either suppose that, the appearance of water 
remaining, its substance was turned into blood, or else 
that the blood of those living men was in an ineffable 
way at that moment made to be really, though invisibly 
and supralocally, present in the water which David 
would not drink, but ''poured it out to the Lord," 
because it was blood ? 

But, not to multiply examples, it may suffice to 
quote in evidence the words 6i our Lord HimseK to 
His beloved disciple, " Behold thy mother,'' and to His 
Blessed Virgin Mother ''Woman, behold thy son" — 
words which have never yet, I suppose, been interpreted 
" ut verba sonant." 

(7) These questions may suffice! to put unprejudiced 
minds on a track which will lead them clear away from 

* Or, " shall I drink the blood ?" See note in Speaker's Commen- 
tary, 2 Sam. xxiii. 17, and compare 1 Cbron. zi. 19. The LXX. have 
il cUfia Ttov hvhpiav riav iroptuQivnov tv rate \j/v')(cuQ avrtSp irlofjat 

in 2 Sam., and d al/ia hv^ptSv rovTtov indfiai tv ^\aiQ avrcJv 
in 1 Ghron. 
f See Appendix, Note G. 


the mazes which surround the pseudo-Catholic doctrine 
of the Eeal Presence. 

Yet, before dismissing the subject, there is just one 
other inquiry which may well and suitably be made. It 
concerns the end and object of this Presence in the view 
of those who maintain it. 

The Presence, in itself such a marvel of marvels, 
becomes a stupendous prodigy indeed, xmless there be 
something like an adequate cause for such a miraculous 

For what purpose then, let it be asked, are we to 
believe that this Presence in the elements is vouchsafed ? 

If we look to the teaching of Scripture we find no other 
purpose for which the Sacrament was ordained, than 
for the remembrance of Christ's death, and for our par- 
taking or communion in His sacrifice. Shall we say, 
then, that the end of this Presence is for the purposes of 
communion? But the Lutherans, who answer "Yes," 
when further questioned acknowledge that it subserves 

* *'Sumu8 enim (Deo gratia) ab omni profanationis sacramen- 
torom culpa liberi, atque de ccsna Dominica quam bonorificentissime 
sentimus. Agnoscimue enim, primarium mysterium esse, salntarem 
corporis et sanguinis Christi communionem, qua in re nos inter nos 
convenire puto. Superest qusestio, num ad salutarem banc commu- 
nionem necessaria, aut ulla ex parte utilis sit, camaJis substantia 
corporis et sanguinis ejus sub et in pane ac vino prsBsentia quod nos 
negamus, indicantes ejusmodi prsBsentiam inutilem esse atque impos^ 
sibilem, et cum infinitis propemodum ScriptursB locis manifestissime 
pugnare." (Qtenovii "Simplex et Fidelis Narratio," 1560, p. I74, 
relating tbe words of Micronius.) 


the purpose of communion only by strengthening faith. 
How could they do otherwise without denying the '* Cred(^ 
et manducasti " of St. Augustine ? And of the Papists 
some answer " No." Bellarmine, at least, distinctly cor- 
fesses that for sacramental purposes the Real Presence 
is needless.* And this is, indeed, the only consistent 
answer which can be given, for none deny a real par- 
taking of Christ in the Sacrament of Baptism, and none 
claim for Baptism any such Real Presence.t 

* See •* Romish Mass and English Church," p. 89. 

f ''Which both [i.e. Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation] 
to our mystical communion with Christ are so unnecessary, that 
tbe Fathers who plainly hold but this mystical communion cannot 
easily be thought to have meant any other change of sacramental 
elements than that which the same spiritual communion did require 
them to hold." (Hooker, Eccl. Pol., book v. ch. Ixvii. § 11, vol. ii. 
pp. 358, 859, edit. Keble.) 

And is not St. Paul, in I Cor. x. 16, in fact, interpreting to us the 
words of institution? *'If,'' says Hooker, **we doubt what those 
admirable words may import, let him be our teacher for the meaning 
of Christ to whom Christ was Himself a schoolmaster, let our Lord's 
Apostle be His interpreter, content we ourselves with his explication. 
My Body, the communion of My Body ; My Blood, the communion oj 
My Blood. . . . The bread and cup are His Body and Blood, because 
they are causes instriunental upon the receipt whereof the participation 
of His Body and Blood ensueth." (Eccl. Pol., book v. ch. Ixvii. § 5, 
vol. ii. p. 852, edit. Keble.) 

So Cranmer had written : '* St. Paul is not afraid for our better 
understanding of Christ's words, somewhat to alter the same, lest we 
might stand stiffly in letters and syllables, and err in mistaking the 

sense and meaning Christ said, His Body, and St. Paul said, 

the communion of His Body, meaning, nevertheless, both one thing, 
that they which eat the Bread worthily do eat spiritually Christ's very 
Body." (See Aldrich's " Reply to Two Discourses," p. 51.) 
^And Bishop Cosin follows in the same track: ''Ipsa sane insti- 



Is it, then, for the purposes of sacrifice that the Churcl 
may ever have that which she may offer as a continua- 
sin-offering, to make propitiation for iniquity? The 
Church of Eome answers " Yes." But it is an answei 
which can hardly commend itself to those who have beer 
taught by the Word of God that Christ "by one offering 
hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified," and 
that therefore "there is no more offering for sin."* 

It remains, therefore, that we" ask, — Is it then for pur- 
poses of adoration ? Nay. But, while we readily admit 
that adoration would be needed for such a presence, we 
can hardly believe that such a presence is needed for 
adoration. Surely we can adore Christ in spirit and in 
truth without directing our adoration to visible signs— 
without having our eyes directed to elevated elements or 
a conspicuous monstrance — ^without our being taughi 
"Behold here is Christ, or there." And if so, there is 
here no " dignus vindice nodus " — ^no adequate cause for 
such a marvel of miracles : not to say that if this were the 
object of the Presence, Christianity must be a religion oi 

tutionis verba, panem esse, quicmn exhibetur Corpus Domini (est- 
que eadem ratio, si vinum et Sanguinem attendamus), manifeste eic 
ostendunt, qui veritati cedere, quam contentioni indulgere, malunt 
nempe Christi verba sunt (postquam panem accepisset, benedixisset, 
fregisset) : * Hoc est Corpus meum ;* verba vero Apostoli (quo nemc 
melius mentem Cbristi explicare potuit) : * Panis quern frangimus es; 
Koivtovia Corporis Christi,' id est, exhibitio Corporis Christi, quafidelei 
ejusdem Corporis participes fiunt." (Cosin's Works, A.C.L., vol. iv 
p. 67.) 
* See *' Romish Mass and English Church," p. 40 sqq. 


development indeed. What ! This adoration the end of 
t;l6 Sacramental Presence, and this adoration a thing 
xmknown for centuries ! This the true purpose of Christ's 
laolj ordinance, which can historically be regarded as 
inothing but an afterthought, coming in in dark ages of 
superstition, and culminating (attaining its full-moon 
glory) in the pageantry of a festival, of which even 
some Bomish divines have spoken as men speak of that 
of which they are almost ashamed !* 

Let me, in conclusion, be permitted to add a few words 
by way of correcting serious misapprehension. 

* *' Consuetudo vero qua pants EucbarisdsB in publica pompa 
oonspicuus circumfertur, ac passim omnium bominum oculis ingeritur 
prffiter Veterum morem et meutem, baud ita longo tempore inducta 
dt reoepta videtur; illi enim boc mysterium in tanta religione et 
Teneratione babuerunt, ut non modo ad ejus perceptionem, sed ne 
inspectionem quidem admittorent nisi fideles, quos Ghristi membra 

et tanti mysterii participatione dignos esse existimarent Quare 

Tidetur bic circumgestationis usus, citra grave ecclesisD damnum, imo 
cum ipsius lucro (si modo id prudenter fiat) omitti posse, cum et recens 
sit, et dill sine ea circumgestatione, Sacramento suus bonos constiterit, 
et hodie oonstare possit. Deinde cum bodie plerumque non devotioni 
populi, sed pompsB magis et ostentationi serviat'' (Cassander, 
Consultatio, De Circumgestatione, Op., p. 984, Paris, 1616. See 
also Krantz, as quoted in Bingbam, Antiq. of Gbr. Cburch, book xv. 
0. V. § 5, pp. 267, 268, ed. 1844.) 
*' Queen Catharine de Mediois wrote unto tbe Pope in tbe year 1561 
... to demand of him tbat tbe Holy Day of tbe Body of Jesus 
Christ, wbich bad been newly invented, migbt be abolished, because 
t was the occasion of many scandals, and that it was in no way 
necessary ; for (said she) this mystery was instituted for a spiritual 
worship and adoration, and not for pomp and pageantry." (L'Aroque, 
History of Eucharist, Walker's translation, p. 582, from Tbuan. 
Hist, 1. 28.) 



It is for no low view of the Eucharislic mystery that IT 
am contending. 

The giving of an effectual* sign is itself a sign — and 
an effectual sign— significant of the real donation of the 
thing signified.t In other words, the formal act of the 

* Sayings may he quoted from later Fathers, emphasising the fact 
that Christ did not say, " This is a type or figure of My Body,** hut 
" This is My Body." 

Such sayings of course must not be made to contradict the habitual 
use of such terms as figure, type, &c., to represent the consecrated 
elements. (See below, Appendix, Note E.) 

And the harmonising of the two classes of sayings presents no great 
difficulty. (See especially Spinkes's Answer to Essay for Catholic 
Communion, pp. 134, 135.) 

The giving of an effectual sign is the donation of the thing signified, 
and must not be reduced to the tradition of a mere figure or type, 
when, for the sake of the real donation, it bears the name not of the 
sacramentum, but of the very res sacramentL See above, p. 74; 
see also p. 31. Also, " The Sacraments and the Doctrines of Grace," 
pp. 70, 104 sqq.y 125 sqq. 

f " Dulcissimus Salvator noster omnia ejus beneficia consolatione 
plenissima animae digne communicanti obsignare voluit. Perinde 
igitur ac si Bex, fideli subdito castellum donans, diploma sigillo 
munitum porrigeret, dicens. En, tibi accipe quod do, est autem tale 
aut tale castellimi. Quamvis enim dicere potuisset hoc, quod tibi 
porrigo, diploma, talis castelli donationem significat, multo tamen 
signantius, et ad cor Isetitia perfundendimi penetratius dicitur, Est tale 
castellum. Sic enim Rex demonstrat ex hoc sigillo iUimi in actualem 
castelli possessionem mittere. Eodem plane modo Dominus noster 
Jesus Christus, quamvis dicere potuisset, Hoc significat corpus meum, 
vel, Hoc est corporis mei Sacramentum, maluit tanem dicere. Hoc est 
Corpus meum, ut cor fidele gaudio (ut ita dicam) magis cordiali 
impleret, nos certificans, se dum panem donat, seipsimi etiam donare, 
et exhibere ; nosque in actualem gratiarum et beneficiorum sanguine 
Buo nobis partorum possessionem introducere." (Mason's YindicisB 
Eccles. Angl., pp. 612, 618, London, 1626.) 


delivering over as a gift of that which in itself is of 

irifling worth, but is delivered as a sign of some precious 

tiling, whose name in the delivery it bears, that solemn 

act, I say, is itself a sign. It signifies effectually the 

actual giving of that precious gift, whose name is thus 

borne by its proxy in the transaction, and which thus has 

made its very symbol to be honoured in the delivery. 

For such purposes of conveyance it needs not that the 
sign should be changed into the thing signified, nor that 
the thing given, or its virtue, should be contained in the 
sign. But the sign is, in effectual representation, that 
very thing which it is called, for all the purposes of 

And never let it be forgotten that in the case of the 
Eucharist, this giving is the donation of things— Christ's 
crucified Body and the shed Blood given for our Redemp- 
tion — ^things which, though absent from the body, are 
present to the spirit — very present indeed to the faith* 
which verily and indeed receives and feeds on them. 
To bid us, indeed, believe contradictions — contradic- 
tions in terms and contradictions to common sense — 
because the Eucharist is acknowledged to be an ineffable 
mystery — ^this is to construct an argument by playing 
upon words. t But there is an error on the other side, 
against which we may well be cautioned in the words of 

* See Appendix, Note H. 

f See Aldrich's " Reply to Two Discourses," pp. 20 and 21 ; also 
Papers on the Eucharistic Presence, p. 624. 


Hooker : " We all admire and honour the holy Sacra- 
ments, not respecting so much the service which we do 
unto God in receiving them, as the dignity of that sacred 
and secret gift which we thereby receive from God." * 
It is the real sacramental uniont in the faithful use of 

* Eccles. Pol., book v. cb. 1. § 2, vol. ii. p. 219, edit Keble. 
t It will be found, I believe — 

(1) Tbat Enprlish divines, as well as foreign Reformed tbeologians, 
taugbt very plainly tbe doctrine of Sacramental Union, 

(2) That the Sacramental Union which they maintain is (a) not 
" the co-existence of the two substances — that of the Bread and that 
of the Body," but (b) the relation (according to Christ's ordinance) of 
the sacramentum to the res sacramenti, by virtue of which the giving 
(by the minister) and the taking and eating (by the body) of tbe one 
is accompanied by and in union with the giving (by Christ) and the 
taking and eating (by the soul) of the other. 

As the matter is important, I will fortify my assertion by tbe fol- 
lowing quotations: — 

"This sacramental union (1) is not natural according to place; 
for there is no mutation of the sign into the thing signed ; neither is 
the thing signed either included in or fastened upon the sign. But 
(2) it is respective, because there is a certain agreement and propor- 
tion of the external things with the internal, and of the actions of 
one with the actions of the other. . . . This mutual and, as I may 
say, sacramental relation is the cause of so many figurative speeches 
and metonymies which are used." (Perkins, Works, voL i. p. 72, 
Cambridge, 1616.) 

" The bread may truly be termed the Body of Christ, because of a 
relative, pactional, and sacramental union, and donation of the 
things signified, together with the signs worthily received. . . The 
object, or thing carnally and bodily received, is the elemental creature. 
The object and thing received spiritually and internally is the Body 
and Blood of Christ crucified upon the cross. The donor and distri- 
butor of this inward gift is the Blessed Trinity, the Son of God Him- 
self, and, by appropriation, the Holy Ghost. The eating and drinking 
of it is by faith." (White's Reply to Fisher, pp. 405, 406, London, 


the ordinance which constitutes the true dignity of this 
holy mystery. 

** By the sacramental union of the Body and Blood of Christ with 
the consecrated elements of hread and wine, it oometh to pass that 
the sacramental bread is Christ's Body, and the sacramental wine 
His Blood." " There resulteth a twofold presence of the Body and 
Blood of Christ in this sacrament. The first is in respect of the 
consecrated elements of bread and wine, to which the Body and 
Blood of Christ are present sacramentally. That is, as they are 
signs, and have a reference and relation to the things signed and 
signified by them, which relation dependeth upon the institution and 
ordination of Christ. This presence doth consist in this, that so often 
as the bread and wine in the Holy Sacrament are offered to any com- 
municant, at the same instant the Body and Blood of Christ do also 
present themselves truly to the soul of that person. . . . Tlio Real 
Presence of Christ's most blessed Body and Blood is not to be sought 
for, therefore, in the consecrated bread and wine, but in the worthy 
receiver of them. ... I see not which way (saith that exact divine 
Master Hooker) it should be gathered by the words of Christ, when 
and where the Bread is the Body, or the Cup the Blood, but only in 
the very heart and soul of him which receiveth them." (Bishop 
Field's Parasceve Paschse, pp. 187, 134 — 137, London, 1624 ; see also 
pp. 112, 118.) 

" Corpus et Sanguis Christi uniuntur pani et vino sacramentaliter, 
ita ut credentibus vere Christus exhibeatur, nullo tamen vel sensu 
vel ratione hujus sseculi, sed fide verbis Evangelii nitente, intuendus. 
Dicitur autem Christi Caro et Sanguis pani et vino uniri, quia in 
Eucharistiffi celebratione simul et semel cum pane Caro, et cum vino 
Sanguis, exhibentur et percipiuntur." ** Htec duo, ex divina ordi- 
natione, ita unum fiunt, ut, quamvis unio ista non sit naturalis, aut 
substantialis, aut hypostatica, aut localis (per unius in aJtero existen- 
tiam) tamen, adeo concinna est, et vera, ut in comestione sacrati 
panis verum Christi corpus nobis communicetur, ac signi signatique 
nomina passim ultro citroque permutentur, et pani tribuatur quod 
est corporis, et contra corpori quod est panis ; sintque simul tempore, 
qu8B disjuncta sunt loco." (Cosin, Works, vol. iv. pp. 46, 48, Oxford, 

" The relation is the mystical union and conjunction of these two 


And can the Christian's soul partake of this mystery — 
receiving the res sacramenti from the very present living 
Saviour — without adoring ? * 

which is neither natural nor local, nor yet corporal, but merely sacra- 
mental." ** The union of the things with the signs is altogether 
mystical and spiritual, and depends merely upon Christ the ordainer's 
will and counsel." '* Faith, the instrument by which we receive the 
seal of the covenant, is a gift of the Spirit, which by apprehending 
and applying, unites the signs and the things signified, which, in 
their own nature, are far dissonant" (Nicholson's Exposition of 
Catechism, pp. 187, 188, 190, Oxford, 1866.) 

" Hi qui vocem sacramenti pro signis usurpant, constituant quan- 
dam mysterii cum signo in sacramentis conjunotionem." (A Lasoo, 
De Sacramentis, fo. 14, London, 1552.) 

"The signs are joined with Jesus Christ by sacramental union, as 
the water in baptism is joined with the Blood of Jesus Christ." (Du 
Moulin, Buckler of the Faith, p. 466, London, 1623.) 

Those who may desire further evidence may be referred to Bullin- 
ger, Decades V. pp. 278, 279, Parker Society. 

Harmonia Confessionum, Hall's Eng. ed., London, 1842, p. 327, 
from the Confession of Bohemia; Ibid. p. 337, from the Belgian 

Beza, Tractiones Theologicse, tom. i. p. 244, Geneva, 1582; Ibid, 
torn. iii. p. 162. 

Ursinus, Opera Theologica, tom. ii. c. 1446, Heidelberg, 1612 
Ibid. c. 1866. 

Index ErroTum Gregoriide Valentia, Sadeel's Works, p. 382, 1593. 

G. I. Vossius, Theses Theologicaj et Historicse, Oxford, 1628, p. 324. 

Turretin, Institutio Theol. ElencticsB, pars iii. loc. xix. pp. 379, 
389, Geneva, 1686. 

Alstedius, in Chamieri Panstratia Catholica, Supp. p. 15, 1629 

Consensus Orthodoxus of Herdesian, p. 404, Zurich, 1605. 

Hospinian, Works, vol. iii. p. 10; vol. iv. p. 282, 1681; Ibid. p. 
265, " Declaratio Helveticarum Ecclesiarum." 

* *• As for our Church, which only adores Christ in the Sacrament 
(as that signifies the action, in which certainly Christ is), and not the 
elements themselves, nor Christ's Body locally present under the 
shape of those elements (as certainly it cannot be, without either being 


Nay, there is nothing in the true view of the mystery 
iliat stands in opposition to the Eucharistie adoration of 
liidley and Jewel and Hooker, of Andrewes and Hammond 
aaid Jeremy Taylor, of Cosin and Brevint, of Ken and 
Kettlewell and Spinkes.* What they contended for let 

no longer in heaven, or being in more places than one at once) .... 
^hioh .... allows the elements no more than a reverent usage 
proportionable to such instruments of God's worship .... there can 
be no show of charge against it for so doing, nor, consequently, for 
kneeling at the time of receiving the Sacrament, which is only a 
kneeling to God in prayer, .... unless it be a fault to worship 
Christ, or to choose that time or place to do it in the lowliest 
nianner, when and where He is eminently represented by the priest, 
and offered by God to us.** (Hammond's Works, vol. i. p. 264, 
London, 1684.) 

" Our Church . . . commands all persons to receive the Sacrament 
kneeling, in a posture of adoration, as the Primitive Church used to 
to do, with the greatest expression of reverence and humility, rpdir^ 
TfpotTKvvi} treats kuI flrc/Baff/xaroc, as St. Cyril of Jerusalem speaks 
[Oatech. Mystag. 5], and, as I shall shdw, is the meaning of the 
Ifreatest authorities they produce out of the ancients for adoration not 
^1 but at the Sacrament.*' (Prebendary Payne in Gibson's Preserva- 
tive, vol. X. p. 117, 118, London, 1848.) 

"No doubt they [Christ and His Body] may be adored in this Sacra- 
^nent, in the Sacrament of Baptism, too, and in all the Offices of the 
Christian religion, wherein we pray to Christ, and kneel before Him : 
«... this adoration we give to Christ, who is God blessed for ever, 
«uid who sits at the right hand of God the Father." (Ibid., pp. 
119, 120.) See Vegan's True Doctrine, pp. 278, 279. 

• "And I also worship Christ in the Sacrament, but not because He 
is included in the Sacrament, like as I worship Christ also in the 
Scriptures, not because He is really included in them. Notwithstand- 
ing, I say that the Body of Christ is present in the Sacrament, but 
yet sacramentally and spiritually (according to His grace), giving life, 
<ind in that respect really, that is, according to His benediction, giving 
Hfe. Furthermore, I acknowledge gladly the true Body of Christ to 


us contend for. And never let us give just oceaBion for 
any to allege that they find no standing ground between 

be in the Lord's Supper, in such sort as the Church of Christ (which 
is the spouse of Christ, and is taught of the Holy Ghost, and guided 
by God's word) doth acknowledge the same. But the true Church of 
Christ doth acknowledge a presence of Christ's Body in the Lord's 
Supper to be communicated to the godly by grace and spiritually, as 
I have often showed, and by a sacramental signification, but not by 
the corporal presence of the Body of His Flesh." (Ridley's Works, 
P.S. edit., pp. 235, 236.) For Jewel, see Papers on Eucharistic 
Presence, pp. 130, 132, 134, 135.) 

" Our kneeling at communions is the gesture of piety. If we did 
there present ourselves but to make some show or dumb resemblance 
of a spiritual feast, it may be that sitting were the fitter ceremony; 
but coming as receivers of inestimable grace at the hands of God, 
what doth better beseem our bodies at that hour than to be sensible 
of minds unfeignedly humbled? Our Lord Himself did that which 
custom and long usage had made fit ; we that which fitness and 
great decency hath made usual." (Hooker, Eccles. Pol., book v. 
ch. Ixviii. § 3, edit. Keble, vol. ii. pp. 365, 866.) 

When Bishop Andrewes wrote " Prsesentiam (inquam) credimus, 
nee minus quam vos, veram. De modo prsBsentise nil temere 
definimus " (Ad Bell. Resp., A.C.L., p. 13), he was but making 
the same declaration which had been made by Grindal: "Christi 
prsesentiam in sua sacra coena, eamque veram et salvificam 
omnes fatemur; de modo tantum est disceptatio" (Remains, P. S. 
edition, p. 248) ; and almost repeating the words of Perkins : 
" Thus far do we consent with the Romish Church touching Real 
Presence. We differ not touching the Presence itself, but only in the 
manner of the Presence." (Reformed Catholic, 10th Point, Works, 
vol. i. p. 590, London, 1616.) 

This was teaching common to the English and foreign Reformed 
Churches. See Maresius, Confess. Eccles. Belgic. Exeg., pp. 631,532, 
Gronin, 1662. 

It is scarcely necessary to add that with these writers (as with 
Hooker, Jeremy Taylor, and the Reformed generally) to be present 
spiritually (i.e. not after the manner of spirits, but to our spirits only. 
See "Ileal Objective Presence,'' Mackintosh, p. 15 ; "Real Presence 


a doctrine akin to Bomish doctrine, and a teaching of 
such a r^al absence as makes this holy ordinance of our 

of the Laudian Theology," Macintosh, pp. 58, 60, 62) is all that per- 
tains to the essence of the Real Presence. To aflBrm that there 
must be first a Real Presence in the elements, is, in their view, an 
unwarrantable de6nition of the mode. See " Essays on the Reforma- 
tion " (Vivish, Maidstone), p. 19. 

What Bishop Andrewes wrote on the adoration of Christ in the 
Sacrament is almost the echo of the language of Beza. See " Heal 
Presence of the Laudian Theology," Macintosh, p. 67. 

If Andrewes had held that adoration was due to the Real Objective 
Presence of Christ in the consecrated elements, he could never have 
stigmatised one holding the Romish doctrine as " pretium Redemp- 
tionis 8u» ita temere inter Calicis labra positurum." (Ad Bell. 
RespoD.^ p. 9, Oxford, 1851.) To one holding the Real Objective 
doctrine the Presence in the cup would have been all the same, the 
Romish peculiarity being only an unwarranted definition of the 

Neither could he have wntten: " Possumus ergo, ut in aliis Sacra- 
mentis, ita et in hoc Figurate ; et nihil ooaotivum apparety ut aliter 
intelligamus " (p. 13). No teacher of the Real Objective Presence 
has ever contended for the figurative sense of the words, ** Hoc est 
Corpus meum," as Andrewes does not only here, but more fully, and 
in the true fashion of Reformed theologians, in pp. 213, 214. Read 
in contrast, Note E (pp. 61 — 67) in Dr. Pussy's Doctrine of the 
Real Presence from the Fathers. 

Neither could he have written, " Distinguat itidem, inter res fidei, 
in quibus ne ii quidem hic^ quos Puritanos appellat (nisi plus etiam 
quam Puritani sint) a nobis, nee nos ab illis dissentimus ; et disci- 
pUn<B res ; quam aliam ab Ecclesiae prisca forma commenti sunt." 
(Ibid., pp. 290, 291.) Those who now teach Eucharistic Adoration 
would hardly speak thus of agreement with Puritans in matters of 

It would be easy to bring other evidence from the writings of Bishop 
Andrewes, but I must be content to refer to my *' Real Presence of 
the Laudian Theology," pp. 56, 60, 61 ; to Archbishop Wake, in 
Gibson's Preservative, vol. x. pp. 68 — 70, 87, 88 ; Goode on Eucharist, 
ii. pp. 814 — 822, 960; Papers on Eucharistic Presence, pp. 417, 581; 


Lord nothing more than a significant memorial with bare 
and empty signs, devoid of all sacred relationship to 

and Dean Aldrich's Hepljto Two Discourses, pp. 25, 34. For Hammond, 
see above, pp. 184, 185. 

" We may not render divine worship to Him (as present in the 
blessed Sacrament, according to His human nature) without danger 
of idolatry; because He is not there according to His human nature 
and therefore you give divine worship to a non ens, which must needs 
be idolatry. For * Idolum nihil est in mundo,' saith St Paul ; and 
Christ, as present by His himian nature in the Sacrament, is a non 
ens, for it is not true ; there is no such thing. He is present there by 
His divine power, and His divine blessing, and the fruits of His body, the 
*eal effective consequents of His passion ; but for any other presence 
•t is idolum — it is nothing in the world. Adore Christ in heaven; for 
'he heavens must contain Him till the time of restitution of all 
hings." (Jeremy Taylor, Works, edit. Eden, vol. vi. p. 669.) For Cosin, 
jee above, pp. 38,89. And as to the earlier series of notes in the Prayer- 
book, in Cosin's handwriting, see Papers on the Eucharistic Presence, 
p. 297. For Brevint see above, pp. 164, 155, and Dr. Stephens' Argu- 
ment in Bennett Case, p. 256. For Ken, see Papers on Eucharistic 
Presence, pp. 155, 156; and Real Objective Presence, p. 16. For 
Kettlewell, see Papers on Eucharistic Presence, p. 573. The follow- 
ing is from Spinkes : — 

" The question is whether the Bomanists are not idolaters in 
worshipping the bread and wine ? That we charge them with being 
so he [the author of Proposal for Catholic Gommimion, &c.] takes for 
granted, and I will not dispute it with him, but desire him rather to 
try what answer he can give to the doctrine of a late great prelate of 
our Church, whose words are these [Pearson on Creed, Art. ii.y.^Fora 
man to worship that for God which is not God, knowing that it is not 
God, is affected and gross idolatry ; to worship that for God which is 
not Godf thinking that it is God, is not the saine degree, hut the same sin,* 
The consequence whereof is, that notwithstanding Christ be solemnly 
professed by them to be the object of their worship in the Eucharist, and 
not the elements of bread and wine, our charge against them still holds 
good, whilst they pay a religious adoration to what is before them on 
the altary which they indeed deny, but we certainly know, to be bread 
and wine. 


those most blessed gifts whose name they bear, and 
bear by His appointment who gave His blood of the New 

"Nor will hi8 former citation out of Bishop Andrewes make any 
alteration herein. For he only professes the King to own that Christ 
is truly present and to he adored in the Eucharist* And indeed what 
properer time of paying Him our devoutest and most humhle adoration 
than when He condescends to meet us in this holy ordinance?'' 
(Spinkes's Reply to Essay for Catholic Communion, &c., London, 
1705. p. lie.) 

" That those of the Roman Communion do actually pay divine 
worship to the host, and require it of all their converts, is not dis- 
puted; hut only that they deny they intend this worship to the bread 
and wine, and therefore we ought to believe them in the right and 
comply with them accordingly. This, I confess, is a very expeditious 
way of despatching any difference. But in the mean time, how shall 
an honest man do, who believes notliing of Transubstantiation ? Will 
he not be required to go to Mass? And must not all that come 
thither worship at the Elevation? Is not a bell rung to give them 
notice of the time ? And not content with adoring the host at church 
only, do they not carry it in procession? And is not whosoever meets 
it to fall upon his knees and worship? And how shall they be ex- 
cused that do it not ? If a man will not worship he is to be looked 
upon as a heretic. And if he do, he contradicts his own principles, 
is guilty of a heinous offence against God, and pays such adoration as 
this author assures us themselves would disown and detest." (Ibid., 
pp. 120, 121.) 

Dr. Vogan has truly said " that the great divines and authorities of 
the Church of England practised and taught adoration to our Lord in the 
Holy Communion, is of course indisputable. It is a necessary result 
of their belief that He is the Son of God. But that they practised and 
taught adoration after a doctrine which they did not believe, a doc- 
trine of the nineteenth century, clearly does not follow. They believed 
our Lord Jesus Christ to be really present in the celebration of the 
Eucharist, with a presence which He promised, not with a presence 
which He did not promise. They believed Him to be present to give 
His flesh and His blood to His faithful people, to dwell in them, and 
to take them to dwell in Him ; but they were too a<;ute in their logic, 
too sound in their philosophy, too Scriptural and CatVioU^vcL^Jji^vc 
doctrine to believe in the presence of that w\iic\v ^o^a noV «x\^\.^ ^t ^^^ 


Testament to be shed for many for the remission of 

We may not, in our desire to shun superstition, make 
ourselves wiser than He, who knows what is in man, 
and has, in compassion to our weakness, ordained visible 
Sacraments to be received by all who would receive from 
Him the precious things of His Gospel, the purchase of 
His Blood. 

We deprive ourselves of a merciful provision divinely 
ordered, if we would take a knife to cut the connexion 
between the free grace of the Gospel and the Sacra- 
ments of His grace. 

The connexion is of God, the severance is of man. 
God's Spirit hath (in His way) joined them together ; 
man's thoughts would sometimes put them asunder. 
Let man's thoughts give way to God's thoughts, and 
man's ways be content to follow God's ways. 

But then, we may be sure God's thoughts and God's 
ways are not honoured nor submitted to, when human 
inventions, dissatisfied with God's way of joining together, 
would seek another way of their own; would make a 
quasi-physical or material conjunction, a sacramental 
union or identity on the visible altar, of things actually 

ttiat which is not promised; to pay adoration to that which is not^ or 
to that in whose presence they could have no faith — the Body of our 
Lord which was given, and His blood which was shed; or the glori- 
fied Body of our Lord, the Blood being not shed ; in the bread and 
wine, or with them, or under their form." (Vegan's True Doctrine, 
pp. 288, 289.) 


distant in time and in place ; a union the tendency of 
which is to destroy the faith of the Gospel, and the truth 
as it is in Jesus, and to bring the religion of Christ into 
conformity with those thoughts of man which have over- 
spread the world with the vanities of the heathen, with 
ceremonies of idle superstition, and the festivals of pagan 

But I might— nay, I believe I ought to go further than 
this, and ask whether this is not a low and debasing 
view of the Presence of Christ which we are called to 
oppose, and whether it is not in maintenance of the 
true Eeal Presence of our Saviour that we are bound to 
contend against it. 

There is something unspeakably grand — yes, grand 
and glorious and very blessed — in the conception of the 
man Christ Jesus — ^the man who bore our griefs and 
carried our sorrows, now exalted to God's right hand 
with all power in heaven and in earth, angels and 
authorities and powers subject to Him, and exalted for 
our sake, after purging our sins ; and yet with all the 
compassion of His humanity and all the power of His 
Godhead still present in His Church with the real 
presence of His Divinity — that Divinity still (in some 
very true and real and blessed sense) the Divinity of the 
man Christ Jesus, and inseparable from His perfect 
humanity, and inseparable even from His human Body 
in heaven ; still watching over His people — still Him- 
self Buataining, strengthening, feeSong^ ^"eixi — ^^ ^^ 


Good Shepherd leading them beside the waters of com- 
fort, pouring the oil and wine of His grace into their 
womided hearts, and still Himself saying to each con- 
trite soul, " Thy sins be forgiven thee, go in peace," 
that they may return to follow Him — Himself the 
present Shepherd and Bishop of their souls, as truly 
the Saviour, the Friend, the Brother of each, as if He 
were not also the Saviour, the Friend, the Brother 
of all. 

How can we put in front of this, to hide this real and 
living Presence, a presence of man's device ; a localised 
• presence (for it is idle to deny that it is in some sense 
localised) ; a presence on the altar of continued humilia- 
tion ; a presence in the form of bread; a presence in the 
weakness of a wafer,* with a lighted taper going before 
it, or with rows of candles burning beside it ? 

* Some Romish divines teach very clearly that the very visible 
symbols are with Christ to be adored. See evidence of this as given 
in Aldrich's Reply to Two Discourses, p. 44, in Gibson's Preservative, 
vol. X. pp. 122 — 124, London, 184R. Indeed Gregory de Valentia 
regards the opposite opinion as heretical (p. 123), though others 
have spoken very differently (p. 120). See Dr. Stephens* Arg. in 
Bennett Case, 243 ; Forbes, Considerationes Mod., vol. ii. pp. 549, 
551, A.C.L.; Papers on Eucbaristic Presence, p. 470. The Council 
of Trent makes the Sacrament itself adorable, and Christ's Body with- 
out ihe species would not be a Sacrament (p. 122). The words are: 
Nullus dubitandi locus relinquitur quin omnes Christi fideles pro 
more in Catholica Ecclesia semper recepto, latrise cultiun, qui vero 
Deo debetur, huio sanctissimo Sacramento in veneratione adbibeant; 
neque enim minus est adorandum, quod fuerit a Christo Domino, uK 
sumatur^ institutum; nam ilium eundem Deum prsesentem in eo 
adesse credimuBj iiuexo" ^Q. (^Sess. il\\\. ii«L\> ^."^ 


How can the hearts of Christian men bring them- 
selves to oflfer their adoration and prayers to this so- 

Gregory de Valentia writes: "Ex Conoilii Tridentini doctrinaillud 
ego collegi, adoratlonem Eucharistise, ut continet Christum, non esse 
ab adoratione Christi, ut est in Eucharistia, distrabendum, id est, ita 
separandam ut coucessa una, negetur altera ; non quia, Christus et 
Eucharistia idem siut, sed quia re ipsa idem adorationis luotus ad 
utrumque spectat ; tametsi non una prorsus et eadem ratione is ipse 
motus, adoratio Christi, et adoratio Eucharistise dicatur: Nam 
Christo divinitatis existimationem per se conciliate ipsi vero Eucha- 
ristise, ut accidentibus panis et yini constat, minime, sed ad earn 
dicitur secundario spectare, ut continet Christum." (De Idolo., lib. 
iii. cap. vi. De Rebus Fidei, 1610, par. ii. p. 64.) 

The rubric of the Roman Mass directs the priest "to lift the 
host on high, and with eyes fixed upon it (which he is to do also in 
the elevation of the cup) reverently to show it to the people to be 
worshipped." (See Notitia Euch., p. 660.) 

Mark the words "eam [hostiam] reverenter populo, ut adoret, 
ostendit." (See Le Brun, Explicatio Lit. Miss., tom. i. p. 229.) 

Mark also the words ** Calicem .... extollit, ut a populo conspi- 
ciatur, et adoretur." (Ibid. p. 239.) 

In the Missal ** it is expressly said several times they shall worship 
the Sacrament." (See Gibson's Preservative, vol. x. p. 142, London, 

"But what, according to them, is this Sacrament ? It is the re- 
maining species of bread and wine, and the natural Body and Blood 
of Christ invisibly, yet carnally present under them; and these 
together make up one entire object of their adoration, which they call 
saoramentum ; for Christ's Body without those species, and accidents 
at least of bread and wine, would not, according to them, be a sacra- 
ment; they being the outward and visible part, are, according to their 
schoolmen, properly and strictly called the sacramentum, and the 
other the res saorammti; and to this external part of the sacrament, 
as well as to the internal, they give Xarpela and adoration ; to these * 
remaining species, which be they what they will are but creatures, 
religious worship is given together with Christ's Body, and they with 
that are the whole formal object of their adoratiow. Now. %ol\ww. 
ChrUium sed totum vuihile saoramentum unico cuXtu adoTatV %»^"«» 


called Sacramental Presence in preference to that which 
is made known to us in the Scriptures ? 

Access into the holiest by the Blood of Jesus, does not 
mean admission near the steps or the rails of a chajicel, 
nor to the view of any glittering tabernacle in which 
may be seen a consecrated host. 

Heaven and earth are now brought together in a one- 

Suarez, quia est unum constans ex Christo et speciebus; 'not only 
Christ but the whole visible sacrament (which must be something 
besides Christ's invisible Body) is to be adored with one and the same 
worship, because it is one thing (or one object), consisting of Christ 
and the species.' 

'' So another of their learned men : Speciebus EuoharUtia datur 
latria propter Christum quern continent; *the highest worship is 
given to the species of the Eucharist, because of Christ, whom they 
contain.' Now Christ, whom they contain, must be something else 
than the species that contain Him. Let Him be present never so 
truly and substantially in the Sacrament, or imder the species. He 
cannot be said to be the same thing with that in which He is said to 
be present; and as subtle as they are, and as thin and subtle as these 
species are, they can never get off from idolatry upon their own prin- 
ciples in their worshipping of them; and they can never be left out, 
but must be part of the whole which is to be adored; totum iUud quod 
simul adoratur, as Bellarmine calls it, must include these as weU as 
Christ's Body. Adorationem, says Bellarmine, ad symhola etiam panii 
et vini pertinerey ut quod unum cum ipso Christo quern oontinent^ 
* Adoration belongs even to the symbols of bread and wine, as they 
are apprehended to be one with Christ, whom they contain,' and so 
make up one entire object of worship with Him, and may be 
worshipped together with Christ, as T. G. owns in his answer to his 
most learned adversary; and are the very term of adoration, as 
Gregory de Valentia says ; who further adds, that they who think 
this worship does not at all belong to the species, in that heretically 
oppose the perpetual custom and sense of the Church." (Prebendary 
Fajne in Gibson's Preservative, vol. il. i^^A*i*il,l'2.H> "London, 1848.) 


n68S most blessedly to be realised indeed in the holy 
mystery of the Eucharist. Th'ere is now a Beal 
Presence of the believing soul in heaven, and a very 
Beal Presence of the living and exalted Saviour upon 

Full well did ancient liturgies bear witness to this 
truth. Well did they bid the communicants to hearken 
to the words " Sursum corda," and to cry aloud in 
response '^ Habemus ad Dominum." * 

* "Quod ergo in saoramentis Melium dicitur, ut sursum oorda 
habeamus ad Dominum, munus est Domini, . . . . ut ascendat et 
qu» sursum sunt sapiat, ubi Ghristus est in dextra Dei sedens, non 
qa» super terram," &o. (Augustine, De Dono Persev., o. ziii. 
Opera, ed. Bened. 1690, tom. x. p. i. o. 889.) 

See below, Appendix, Notes A. and B. 

See also Harrison's " Dr. Pusey's Challenge Answered,'' pp. 641 — 
64A, and Gibson's Preserrative, vol. ix. p. 184, London, 1848. 

" Ista formula [Sursum oorda] omnibus toto orbe Ecolesiis com" 
munis est, et semper fuit, ut testimonia sanctorum Patrum palam 
faoiont." (Benaudot, Lit Or. Col., tom. ii. p. 78.) 

Mr. Milton truly remarks the great influence upon the whole 
Eucbaristio doctrine of the ^va^o/oa or "carrying up" of the whole 
transaction in spirit into heaven expressed by the Latin ** Sursum 
corda;'* and he very well observes : " The principle of Roman doctrine, 
and of the Corporal Objective Presence is, in fact, ' deorsum corda,' 
because the doctrine held is * deorsiun Corpus Christi.' " (Eucharist 
Illustrated, p. 83.) 

Tn ridicule of the heathens who worshipped their gods as present 
in visible things on earth, the ancient Christians did not hesitate to 
mark the character of true Divine worship as that which looks 
upwards, and addresses itself to no object below the heavens. 

Cyprian says : " Quid ante inepta simulachra, et figgienta terrena 
captivum corpus inclinas? Bectum te Deus fecit; et cum csetera 
animalia prona, et ad terram situ vergente depressa sint^ tlbi «\3ib\ii2c^% 
etsktuB, et ad oeelum atgue Deum mrzuia v\]ll\ia €t^<^\^x^ ^X** ^V^^^ 



Not well did men afterwards give order for the eleva- 
tion of the host ; as if Christian hearts might be con- 
tent to rise no higher than the Presence of that* which 
was lifted up in the hands of the priest. 

iutuere ; iUuc oculos tuos dirige, in supernis Deum quaere." (Ad 
Demetr., Op., edit. Baluzius, Venice, 1728, c. 438.) 

Lactantius says : ** Ne hunc cselestem vultum prqjiciamus ad 
terram, sed ociilos eo dirigamus, quo illos Datursd suse conditio direxit; 
nihilque aliud adoremus, nihil colamus, nisi solum artificis paren- 
tisque nostri unicum numen." (Inst., lib. vi. See also lib", ii. § 18, 
lib. iv. § 1, lib. yii. § 5, 9.) 

Arnobius has similar language (Contra Gentes, lib. i.). And 
Clemens Alexandrinus is scarcely less distinct in condemnation of the 
worship directed towards that which is on earth. (Protrep. pp. 37, 38.) 

Who can believe that the worship of the host, or of Christ as 
present in the Eucharistic elements, was a part of the religion of 
those who could write thus ? 

See this argument enforced in Dallseus, De Rel. Cultus Object©, 
lib. i. cap. XX. 

* The following is from the Syriac Liturgy which is called by the 
name of Pope Xystus (t.^. Sixtus) : — 

'^ Sacerdos elevans corpus, dicit. Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus, es 
Domine Deus potens Sabaoth, pleni sunt cseli et terra glorise tuse. 
Elevare super csbIos, Deus, et super omnem terram gloria tua. Ad 
te levavi oculos meos, qui habitas in ccelis." (Renaudot, Lit. Orient. 
Col., tom. ii p. 139.) 

If these words are reaUy now regarded as addressed to the elevated 
host, what strange perplexities, and (to an ordinary mind) contra- 
dictory notions they seem to suggest ! The elevation to which the 
words would take the eyes of the heart—how high and lofty ! The 
elevation of that to which the bodily eyes are directed, as containing 
the very presence of Christ, how mean and low ! 

There can be littie doubt, however, that the prayer originally had 
no reference to the elevation of the elements. It is probably older 
than the doctrine of the Real Objective Presence, even if not older 
than the elevation. 

Indeed in the Syriac Liturgy oi ^tJwsi^^ VXi^ljotd!^ brother is 


Surely this is something of a going back from the 
liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, to the weak 
and beggarly elements of a dispensation of ritual and 
bondage — a dispensation which was to be as a school 
for Christianity, that when the fulness of the time was 
come Christian men might put away these childish 

Then, again, let me say, it is no low view of the 
Eucharist which we have to contend for. God forbid ! 

But it is a low view of Christianity itself which we 
have to protest against. 

For, if the argument of this paper be Hot altogether 
mistaken, it is a low and debasing view of Christianity 
which grows, and must grow, however it may be lopped 
on this side and that, out of that view of the Eucharistic 
Presence which is inconsistent with the view of the 
truth of our Lord's human nature, and which has its 
natural development in that festival of the Eomish 
Church in which the Sacramental Body of Christ is 
brought forth in solemn and gorgeous procession, to be 
set forth as the object of adoration to a multitude who 

found nearly verbatim the same prayer, but be/ore the priest takes 
the Eucharist into his hand's. (See Kenaudot, torn. ii. p. 40.) 

In the same Liturgy is found " Te gesto, Deus, in manibus meis " 
(p. 141). And similar language occurs in the ** Ordo Communis 
Liturg. Syr." (p. 23), on which Archdeacon Freeman observes: "It 
would be contrary to the analogy of all other Liturgies to doubt that 
this passage is of comparatively late introduction, as great part of the 
Syriac order confessedly is." (Principles of X^mxi^ ^^Wvi^^'^O^.vv, 
part L p, 182.) 


gaze, fall down and worship, but think not of obeying 
the Lord's direction, " Take, eat : this is My Body." 

*'It is," says Prebendary Payne, "out of the honour 
and respect that we bear to the Sacrament, that we are 
against the carrying it up and down as a show, and the 
exposing and prostituting it to so shameful an abuse, 
and so gross an idolatry."* 

Was Christ's Sacrament ordained that His religion 
might thus be assimilated in outward show to the 
pageants of Gentile superstition ? 

Yet, if the so-called Catholic view of the Presence be 
true, there is nothing in all this which is not, to say the 
least, its suitable accompaniment. 

But if this doctrine be not true,t then in all this there 

• In Gibson's Preservative, vol. x. p. 118, London, 1848. 

f *< If the whole theory of the Boman Mass be a long dream of 
groundless impossibilities, there neither is, nor ever was, Pagan 
idolatry like the Boman, as even Jesuits sometimes confess; and 
those heathen, who worshipped senseless stocks and stones, can say a 
great deal more for themselves than they who worship a consecrated 
wafer. For they who worshipped wood and stone, as once most part 
of the world did; or rams and hawks and snakes, as the inhabitants 
of Egypt did ; they were hereto persuaded in consideration of some- 
what else, greater than anything that could be contained in them. 
Among the idolaters of all ages, except only the Manichees, whom St 
Augustine makes worse than Pagans, because these worshipped always 
something that was, though 'twas not God ; and those adored mere 
fictions (namely, Christ's hanging on tops of trees), which neither were 
gods, nor anything else : Except these Manichees, I say, the whole 
Vatican in all its ancient manuscripts cannot find one Pagan example, 
that ever adored, as the true direct object of devotion, such a small, 
senseless, ungodlike substance aa Va QOXi\.Q[\xiA^\\i «. ^%£n " (Dean 


is not only an outward approaoh to the likeness of 
heathen idolatrous rites,^ but there is here unques- 
tionably material idolatry ;t and not here only, but in 
every cognate form of Eucharistic adoration. 

Breyint, " Depth and Mystery of the Roman MasB," pp. 108, 109, 
Oxford, 1678.) 

* ** The whole administration of it is so clogged, so metaphorized 
and defaced by the addition of a multitude of ceremonies, and those 
some of them more becoming the stage than the table of our Lord, 
that if the blessed Apostles were aliye, and present at the celebration 
of the mass in the Roman Church, they would be amazed, and wonder 
what the meaning of it was; sure I am, they would never own it to 
be that same ordinance which they left to the Churches. But the 
wont e&remony of all ii the elevation of the Host, to be adored by the 
people^ as very Christ Himself under the appearance of bread, whole 
Christ, QtiivQptaTroQt God and man, while they neglect the old iureum 
eorda, the lifting up of their hearts to heaven, where whole Christ 
indeed is. A practice this is, which nothing can excuse from the 
grossest idolatry but their gross stupidity, or rather infatuation, in 
thinking that a piece of bread can, by any means whatsoever, or 
howsoever consecrated and blessed, become their God and Saviour." 
(Bp. Bull, Corruptions of the Church of Rome, sect. iv. tub fin.. 
Works, vol. ii. pp. 809, 310, edit. Oxford, 1846.) 

f *' To make it such a continuing Shechinah as the Papists do, 
that Christ is present in it, not only in the action and solemn cele- 
bration, but extra ueum^ as they speak, and permanenter, even after 
the whole solemnity and use is over; that He should continue there, 
as tLpratene numetif as Boileau expressly calls it, and be showed and 
carried about and honoured as such, and dwell in the species as long 
as they continue as truly as He dwelt in the flesh before that was 
oracified; this is strange and monstrous even to those who think 
Christ is present in the sacrament, but not so as the Papists believe, 
nor so as to be worshipped ; I mean the Lutherans. But to bring 
the matter to a closer issue, the Papists themselves are forced to con- 
fess, that if the bread remain after consecration, and be still bread 
and be not transubstantiated into the Body of Christ, that they are 
then idolaters. So Fisher against CEoolampadius, 1. i. o. 2, in express 


Nor can we think this a matter to be lightly regarded 
because the idolatry may be excused as a devotion mis- 
directed only because of a mistaken persuasion. Man's 
consciousness of the sinful is assuredly not the true 
measure of sin. Sins unknown and secret to us, are set 
by God in the light of His countenance. 

When the Apostle says, "Flee from idolatry," he 
certainly does not mean, though he declares that an idol 
is nothing in the world, that there is no such real sin 
as idolatry apart from the sinful intention of the idolater. 

A weak brother indeed might sin, through a needless 
scrupulosity, if, in doing what was sinless, he did so with 
a doubt as to its sinlessness. But it by no means follows 
that another brother might bow down in worship before 
an idol without sin, if he did so with a doubt as to 
its sinfulness, or with a mistaken persuasion that per- 
chance (His own command notwithstanding) God might 
be worshipped under its form. 

words. So Coster in his Enchiridion de Euch., c. 8: *If the Body 
of Christ be not present in the Sacrament, then they are left in such 
an error and idolatry as was never seen or heard; for that of the 
heathens would he more tolerable, who worship a golden or silver 
statue for God, or any other image, or even a red cloth, as the 
Laplanders are said to do; or living animals, as the Egyptians, than 
of those who worship a piece of bread.' And again : * Those infidel 
idolaters would be more excusable who worshipped their statues.' 
To whom I shall add Bellarmine, who says: * It does not seem strange 
that they call the adoration of the Sacrament idolatry, who do not 
believe that Christ is there truly present, but that the bread is still 
true bread.' " (Prebendary Payne, in Gibson's Preservative, vol. x. 
p. 127, London, 1848.) 


We are bound then to oppose the mistaken persuasion 
as itself the parent of idolatry* — of idolatry in itself 
hateful in the sight of a merciful but jealous God,t who 
knows the tendencies of human nature, and who will not 
be worshipped under the form of an image or the species 
of a creature. J 

We may not shrink from stating this view of the 

*" All idolatry does proceed from a mistaken belief and a false 
support of the mind, which being gross and unreasonable, will not at 
all excuse those who are guilty of it ; there never were idolaters but 
might plead the excuse of a mistake." (Prebendary Payne in Gib- 
son's Preservative, vol. x. pp. 128, 129, London, 1848.) See Brevint, 
" Depth and Mystery," p. 109. 

f "Against this the last refuge of Boman Catholics is to defend 
themselves by pleading good intention, and say they directly worship 
what is contained in this wafer, because they take it for their Saviour. 
So might they plead who worshipped the sun and moon (common 
idols of ancient times), for they would not have looked up twice 
towards them, as upon objects of supreme worship, if they had not 
thought them to be true gods . And in this case the Pagan hath this 
advantage for his excuse, that he can see in the splendour, motion, 
and influences of these great and noble bodies more probabilities to 
betoken a god, and so both to deceive, and defend himself, than the 
Roman can ever perceive in a wafer." (Dean Brevint, ** Depth and 
Mystery of the Roman Mass," p. 109, Oxford, lfi73.) 

On the plea of ignorance as excusing the idolatry, see Turretin, 
De Neoess. Secess., Disp. iii. § xviii. p. 70 sqq., Geneva, 1688; 
Aldrich, Reply to Two Discourses, pp. 48, 49, 63 — 66; Hammond's 
Discourses, London, 1684, pp. 263, 264 ; Gibson's Preservative, Lond. 
1848, pp. 98, 99; Valckeniefs " Roma Paganizans," 1656, p. 349. 

I ** The Manichees in their idolatry .... of adoring the sun and 
moon, the object which they had in their minds, and thoughts, and 
purposes to worship, was Christ, as much as the Papists have Him 
in the Eucharist." (Prebendary Payne in Gibson's PreaervBX^5l^^ 
vol. X. pp. 129, 180, London, 1848.) 


matter.* It belongs to Christian controversy to set forth 
the truth, and the whole truth, but to set it forth in love. 
Thus conducted, controversy itself, though often a 
painful duty, is really a very sacred thing. And while 
earnestly contending for the faith once delivered to the 
saints, we may surely ask for God's blessing on conse- 
crated controversy. And asking, we surely expect that 
in His own good way God will graciously employ feeble 
efforts made in a sacred cause. 

God's truth will triumph over human error. God's 
light will shine out of darkness. The faith of Christ 
will scatter the idol-delusions of superstition. 

" They are vanity, the work of errors : in the time of 
their visitation they shall perish."t 

The Babel tower built up of man's thoughts, with their 
ever-changing aspects, and continual additions of grow- 
ing corruption, if never before, in the day of His ap- 
pearing must fall before the true knowledge of the 
Saviour, Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and to-day, 
and for ever. 

* See Archbishop Wake in Gibson's Preservative, toL x. pp. 107— 
110, London, 1848; Prebendary Payne in Ibid., pp. 116, 117. 
t Jer. H. 18. 


NOTE A. (p. 10). 

On the Testimony of the Fathers on the Subject of 

Eticharistic Worship. 

Ths quotations commonly adduced as evidence of the adoration of 
the host (or of Christ present under the form of the elements) from early 
Christian writers, seem to me, for the most part, to fall so ohviously 
short of the point they should touch, that I can hardly regard them 
as less than damaging to a cause which can lean upon such support.* 

The arguments huilt upon them have heen more than sufficiently 
answered or exposed in the writings of divines of the Reformation. 
St. Ambrose, interpreting the il8th Psalm, says : '' Videamus tamen 
ne terram illam dicat adorandam Propheta, quam Dominus Jesus in 
oamis adsumptione suscepit. Itaque per scabellum terra intelligitur : 
per terram autem earo Christi, quam hodieque in mysteriis adoramus, 
et quam Apostoli in Domino Jesu, ut supra diximus, adorarunt; 
neque enim divisus est Christus, sed unus: neque cum adoratur tam- 
quam Dei Alius, natus ex Virgine denegatur." (De Spiritu Sancto, 
lib. iii. cap. xi. § 79, Opera, tom. ii. c. 081, edit. Bened. Paris, 1690.) 

To the argument built on these words of St. Ambrose, we have the 
obvious and sufficient answer in Jewel's controversy with Harding: 
** They will reply, St. Ambrose saith : « We do adore Christ's flesh in 
the mysteries.' Hereof groweth their whole error. For St. Ambrose 
saith not, We do adore the mysteries, or the flesh of Christ really 
present, or materially contained in the mysteries ; as it is supposed by 
M. Harding. Only he saith : ' We adore Christ's flesh in the mysteries, 

* It hai been well said by a rerj learned Latheran divine : " Urgemni perpetnnm 
lilentiam Patnun prionim seoalonim, quomm monimenta hodienum ■iu>enantceria 
et inoormpta. Eonim, nullus uspiam meminit SucliariBtiM aba se, ant ab auditoribni 
■nis, Tel aliis, adoratn. . . . If ec Bellarminus, Perronius, et Boilavius, qui hoc argn- 
mentum magna industria traotarunt, qnidqiuun ezpectatione dignom, et quod 
examen BUBtineat» afFerre petuerunt." (De7lingliu,0bwrr.^MX.,\>u.V«.V&.^^«^S^« 


that is to say, ia the ministration of the mysteries. And doubtless it 
is our duty to adore the Body of Christ in the word of God, in the 
sacrament of Baptism, in the mysteries of Christ's Body and Blood, 
and wheresoever we see any step or token of it, but specially in the 
holy mysteries ; for that there is lively laid forth before us the whole 
story of Christ's conversation in the flesh. But this adoration, as it 
is said before, neither is directed to the sacraments, nor requireth any 
corporal or real presence. So St Hierorae* saith : * Paula adored 
Christ in the stall.' and that he himself adored Christ in the grave. 
And St. Clirysostomf teachetb us to adore Christ's Body in the sacra- 
ment of Baptism. Yet neither was Christ's Body then really present 
in the stall, or grave ; nor is it now present in the water of Baptism. 
Thus St. Ambrose saith : * We adore the flesh of Christ in the 
mysteries.'" (Jewel's Works, edit. P. S. "Sermon and Harding," 
pp. 542, 543.) 

St. Augustine, following the interpretation of St. Ambrose, says : 

*" " Cum eisdeni Majis Deum pnemm in pmsepio adorasti.*' (Ad Paulam et Busto- 
chium De Assomptione, &c.) The Epistle from which this is taken will be found in 
the edition of Jerome's works by Yallarsins, tom. xl par. ii. c. 127 tqq. The passage 
cited is in coL 1S8. The Epistle must be of a much more recent date than the time 
of Jerome. See ' ' Admonitio ** in c. 127. 

t " St. Chrysostom says : ' They fell down before Christ their King as captives in 
Baptism, and that they cast themselves down upon their knees before Sim.' And 
yet no one would conclude, therefore, that they wor8hliq[>ed Him as corporeally 
present in Baptism, although Baptism made them partakers of His Body and Blood 
also. He says further : ' That the king himself bowed his body, because of God 
speaking in tiie holy Gospels.' But it would be ridiculous hence to infer, ^therthat 
they worshipped the Gospels, or Christ as corporeally presoit in them. . . . Dmantiu 
undertakes to prove that the Body of Christ was not only worshipped as corporeally 
present in the Eucharist in the use and time of celebration, but at other times by 
non-communicants also. For tins he aU^es Chrysostom, who says : 'That the Snw- 
gumens, at that time, were brou^t by the deacon, and made to bow their heads ; ' 
which Durantus interprets of bowing to the Eucharist. But Chrysostom, unhiddly, 
spoils his argument ; for at that time, he says, the Eucharist was not consecrated, 
but only about to be consecrated. ... So that if they worshipped the host, it must 
be an unconsecrated host ; which, according to Durantus himself, would be plain 
idolatry." (Bingham, Ant. of Chr. Ch., book xr. ch. t. $ 6, toI t. pp. 2&1, 256» 1844.) 

Of the quotations here made by Bingham, the first is found in the ''Oratio Gateche- 
tica in dictum Erang., Sinule est regnum Ccelorum homini patrifamilias," which 
appears to be the work of a later writer than Chrysostom (Gp. Chrys., edit. Mont- 
fsucon, tom. Till. App. pp. 104, 105. See also p. 97) : the second is found in the 
*' Sermo in ilium locum, Attendite ne Eleem. restram faciatis c. h.," whieh is also 
now considered to be probably not Chrysostom's ((>p., tmn. TiiL App. p. 98). It 
must be observed that the value of their testimony does not dep^id up<m the author- 
ship of these writings. 

The idace cited by Durantus is in Horn. iiL ** De f nc(»q»rensiUli Dei natnra." 
(Cp., edit. IToDtiiBiioon, t<»as. i. p. 47<k) ThA ipassaee alleged by Bingham in proof 


"Fluctuans convorto me ad Christum, quia ipsum qusero hie; et 
invenio quomodo sine irapietate adoretur terra, sine impietate adoretur 
scabellum pedum ejus. Suscepit enim de terra terram: quia caro de 
terra est, et de came Marise carnem accepit. £t quia in ipsa carne 
hie ambulavit, et ipsam carnem nobis manducandam ad salutem 
dedit ; nemo autem iUam carnem manducat nisi prius adoraverit :* 
inventum est quemadmodum adoretur tale scabellum pedum Domini, 
et non solum non peccemus udorando, sed peccemus non adorando/' 
(Enarr. in Ps. xcviii. § 9, Opera, torn. iv. pars ii. c. 1065, edit. 
Benedict, Paris, 1679—1700.) 

Jewel I writes: "St. Ambrose and St. Augustine, as they agree 
together for the exposition of the psalm, so, touching the matter itself, 
neither do they any wise disagree from us, nor any wise agree with 
M. Harding. They teach us humbly to adore Christ's flesh ; but they 
teach us not to adore the sacrament of Christ's flesh. . . . But 
M. Harding will say: We must adore the flesh of Christ. We grant, 
we believe it ; it is our faith ; we teach the people, as the old learned 
Fathers did, that no man eateth that flesh but first he adoreth it ; and 
that he deadly offendeth God, and is wicked, and guilty of the Lord's 
Body, that adoreth it not." (Ibid., pp. 541, 642.) •' Doth M. Harding 
think that the religion of Christ is so gross and so sensible that we 
cannot eat or adore His Bcdy, unless it lie corporally present before 
our eyes ? Verily St. Augustine saith : Si resurrexistis cum Ghristo, 
dicit fidelihuSy dicit corpus et sanguinem Domini accipientihus, Siresur- 
rexistis cum Ghristo, quce sursum sunt sapite, ubi Christus est in dextrd 
Dei tedens : qucB sursum sunt quceritCf non qua super terram.l . . . The 
godly being on earth, may likewise adore and honour Christ being in 
heaven." (Ibid., p. 542.) 

Of these two passages from St. Ambrose and St. Augustine, Mr. 
Keble says: "If they are genuine — which no one disputes — they 
prove the fact; at least, as concerns the Churches of Italy and Africa, 
ue, the whole West." (Eucharistic Adoration, p. 116, Oxford, 1867.) 
And no doubt they do prove the fact — the fact that early Chris- 
tians adored, as all Christians desire to adore — but certainly not 
the fact that they directed Divine adoration to the consecrated 

*"St, Augustine's 'nemo manducat nisi prius adoraverit illam carnem' has 
reference to the acknowledgment of our Lord's Divinity, not to any particular act of 
devotion. The Romish interpolation of id is exposed in Dr. Pusey's Letter to the 
Biflhop of London, p. 76." (Canon Trevor, " Sacrifice and Participation," p. 47.) 

t See also Cranmer's Reply to Gardener, P. S. edit., pp. 285, 236. 

t See Aug., Enarr. in Ps. xxxix. § 28, Opera, torn. Iv. pawl, ^.^^%, ^^\\»,^««i^^- 
Paris, 1679-1700. 


osty* or that they ever thought of worshipping Christ as present 
under the forms of hread and wine. 

We are told that the Jews of old adored the flesh of Christ when 
thev huilt an altar of earth to the Lord. ** Ad Israel dicitur, Altare 
de terra faoietis mihu Altare enim de terrll Deo facere est, incamsr 
tionem Mediatoris adorare." (EEincmari Opera, torn. ii. p. 86, edit. 
Sirmondi, 1645.) Yet the Jews did not fall down hefore the earthen 
altar, nor worship Christ's Body as present under its form. 

Shall not Christians he much more truly said to worship the 
Incarnate Saviour in receiving the holy mysteries of His paeaLon, 
though they know no real presence of His Body in the hread, and 
never think of adoring His flesh under the form of a wafer ? 

Mr. Kehle further argues (p. 118), on hehalf of what seems to some 
to look too much like a new adoration in the English Church, from the 
language of St Augustine's Letter to Honoratus : '' Neque enim frnstra 
ita distincti sunt, ut de pauperihus supra diceretur, Edent panperee. 
et saturahuntur ; hie vero, Manducaverunt et adoraverunt omnes 
divites terrse. Et ipsi quippe adducti sunt ad mensam Christi, et 
accipiunt de corpore et sanguine ejus : sed adorant tantom, non 
etiam saturantur." (Ep. cxl. § 66, Op., ed. Ben. 1679, tom, iL c. 447.) 

So from the same words, on hehalf of Bomish adoration, had 
Harding argued before. And thus had he been answered by Jewel: 
*' St Augustine speaketh not one word of adoration, either of the 
sacrament or of Christ's Body, as being really present in the sacra- 
ment ... It is said and proved before, we see Christ, and worship 
Christ, sitting in heaven. Certainly St Ang^nstine, who best knew his 
own mind, said thus : Habes aurum, sed nondum tenee pngeeMem 
Chriitum.j; ... St Augustine saith: ' Christ is not here present' 
M. Harding's commentary saith : * Christ is here present.' Now 
let the reader consider whether of these two he will belieye." J 
(Jewel's Works, P. S. edit., " Sermon and Harding," p. 644.) 

* £Ten if the adontion which St. Avgostiiie speaki of dMMdd refer to tt9 ¥™» 
of the celebrmtioQ of the Eucharist, yet "•■ will he not admit of maj other veneration 
therein than what mar be held as weU in the Saorament of Baptism ; he reqoiiingihat 
in both theae the veneration be not appiied to the Smeramtent itae^, hut to the tkinge 
*i&niMi tkerehyr (Morton on Sucharist, p. 509.) 

*'Qai Teneratnr utile signum dirinitus iiwtitutuii, colas Tim signUcaftkniemqiia 
iBteDigit non hoc reneratur quod Tidetur el transit, sed iUudpotias. qaO taUftemicU 
referenda wml" (Aug. de Doct. Chr^ lib. iii. c. 9.) 

t l>e VerWs XrangeL Matth., Senno Ixxxr. § 4, In Opu. edit. Benedict., 108S, 

•Will. » . pHT. 1, C. 4v^ 
Mr "•> /<Ma 


More plausible, at first sight, appears the argument derived from 
the words of Theodoret: yoeiTai ie (ra fivtmxa trvfifioXa) &irep 
tyivtrOf xal vuntvtrai^ koI vpotncvyetTaif wq eKuya ovra &Tnp 
muTtverai (Dial. ii. Inconfusus, tom. iy. p. 126, edit. Schulze), for 
almost immediately afterwards the very same word, irpofrKwurai, is 
used of the Body of Christ to be adored by all creation at the right 
hand of God. 

But is it possible for us to understand Theodoret as meaning that 
adoration such as this was addressed to the sacramental symhoU f 

Not, certainly, when we have marked how clearly Theodoret uses 
the expression ra <rvfi(io\a as signifying something quite distinct 
from that adorable Body ; as, for example, where he says, Mcra yap 
^ rfjy airrov Trapovalav, ovkitl ypeia rwy iTVfJL(i6\u>y rov trutfiuTOs, 
QVTCv f^iyofuyov rov trwfJUiTog' ^la rovro elirev &')(pic ov hy eXOri 
(In 1 Cor. xi., edit. Schulze, 1772, tom. iii. p. 238), words which are 
further valuable as bearing evidence as to the view of Theodoret with 
reference to the question of the Real Presence or Beal Absence of 
Christ's Body in respect of their consecrated symbols. 

Indeed, Theodoret, while constantly meaning by trvfifioXa the 
elements of bread and wine received and eaten in the Eucharist, 
speaks of it as the extremest folly to adore {wpotricvveiy) that which is 
eaten : ' AfieXrripias yap la^arriQ, rb etrdiofieyoy irpotncvveiy. 
(QuiBStiones in Genes., cap. ix. Inter. Iv., Op., edit. Schulze, tom. i. 
p. 68.) In this he was but following the teaching of the heathen. 

**As to that celebrated act of Popish idolatry, the adoration of the 
host, I must confess that I cannot find the least resemblauce of it in 
any part of the Pagan worship ; and as oft as I have been standing 
by at Mass, and saw the whole congregation prostrate on the ground, 
in the humblest posture of adoring, at the elevation of this consecrated 
piece of bread, I could not help reflecting on a passage of Tully, where 
speaking of the absurdity of the Heathens in the choice of their gods : 
* But was any man,' says he, * ever so mad as to take that which he 
feeds upon for a god ? ' ['' Sed ecquam tarn amentem esse putas, qui 
illud, quo vescatur, Deum esse credat? " Cic. De Nat. Deor. 3.] This 
was an extravagance reserved for Popery alone." (Middleton^s 
*' Letter from Rome, showing Conformity between Popery and Pagan- 
ism," London, 1741, p. 179.) See above, p. 156. 

When, therefore, he speaks of these avfifioXa as wpoffKvyriTay* and 

* Kone, I suppose, would teach that latria is due to tliQ 8\|iN\boU Vn ^«aAK^:^%« 
Aren Bellannioe denies "ipsA symhola, externa propile e^-pei «d «dk.ox«3i<^ «»£» c^i^N^ 


says of thorn that Trpofricvveirai, we need not doubt that he is u6ing 

latrine, sed solum veneranda cultu quidem minore, qui omnibiu sacramentis con- 
renit." (De Euch., lib. iv. cap. 29.) Shall we believe, then, that Theodoret isteachfaig 
what Bellarmine will not allow ? Of the venercUion which Bellarmine clainu for the 
Bymbols, Turretin writes : " Si per cultum minorem intelligit Bellarm. sestima- 
tionom et usum reverentem et sacrum symbolorum, hactenus noshabet aasentlentes ; 
nee enlm diffltemur, sacra hseo sancte et maxima cum devotione tractanda esse." 
(De Neoess. Seces., Disp. ilL ) 10, p. 64, Geneva, 1688.) In Theodoret's language there 
is nothing to suggest the idea of the presence of another Body to be adored in or 
under the form of the venerable symbols. 

The symbols are venerable, no doubt, because they are symbola, and becanse of 
that wliich they symbolise. (See Papers on the Eucharistic Freaence, p. 66.) But 
that the thing symbolised is substantially present in the symbols (except represen- 
tatively by Christ's institution and efficaciously by His grace— as principals may be 
said to be present in their proxies) is a notion which not only the language of Theo- 
doret does not suggest, but which, as it seems to me, it ;can hardly, without force, 
admit of. See the context following. 

According to liis teaching the reverence is due to the symbols, not for what they 
oonfaiH, but wliat they are called, and for what (in some real sense, thou^ impro- 
prie (see below, Note £) they are. And the symbols (stiU bread and wine) are what 
they are calltMl (the Bixly and Blood of Christ), not by any change of natnrOp nor by 
the indwelling of that which they represent, but by the addition of grace. 

If Theodoret had reganleii the symbols as being the Body and Blood of Ghrist 
Ki'piuti; he would hardly have used the expression ** are eaUed.*' But neither 
would he have useil this expression ** are called " if he had meant it to be under- 
stood that the sjiubola contained them. 

If again Theodoret had regarded the symbols as untruly called by the name of the 
Body and Blood of Christ, he would hardly have used the words " they are " or " are 
understood to be." These words cannot well mean less than that the symbols them- 
selves really are so in effectual representation, by the grace added to them. But then 
neither could he naturally have said of the sj-mbols that they are what they are 
called, if his idea had been 'that the symbols bear the names of the Body and 
BloiHi -not (as in some sense) bifing, but as concealing under their forms that which 
they symbi^Use. 

In answer to the argument (as urged by Fenronius) that the words ** inteUignntnr 
esM quiHl facta sunt" must needs mean ^^realiter ette," Albertinus says : "Ambi- 
guitate ludit. Nam. vel adverbinm nraliter simpliciter sumit pro vere, licet non 
propria et substautialiter. vel pro vrrv, hoc est propria et substantlaliter. 8i igitnr 
intelllgat, montem Thoodoreti esse, i^ymboia myttiea credi debere, poroprid ac sub- 
stantlaliter esse corpus et sanguinem Domini, figmeutum id esse dicimus, non 
Theodoreti sensum. Nam quails, oro, est hsec consequentia. Sffmboia myftica 
intellitjuntur et creduntur estf* quod /acta 9UHt, scilicet, corpus et «ftngi»iff Domini; 
Ergv> corpus et sanguis liyus sunt proprieet substaatialiter? Pneclare. Ergo, quando 
Gnjgorius Xyssenus de Ohristo ait, Dt-xtera D^i inttfUi^tur et e«*, pariter' dixerim 
iUum Dei dexter&m proprie esse." (Alb«rtinus« De ISucharistia, pp. 805, 806.) 

The words quoted above p. SOT seem to make Tkeodorets meaning still more clear, 
for they not only mark the distinction betwe^fu the Body of Christ itself and its 
sacramental symboK but they further evidently imply their real obtenee from one 
another. AccorOiug to this teaching, when Christ Uinuelf <h».n be ntaUy present His 
Body wUl be w«W/, and the symbols wiU have no more place. How can this be made 
te c<«*ist with the notion of Christ being with His Body nraHu prt^ent in an 
sMMtMsmMUMrltttfeMsymboteiMw/ :^ ftbo above, pp. ru 74, 108. 

Itefttthtr«¥iaMee as loTte<Mlwe*'svi«w» see below Note 1. 


the word in that more general sense in which it was used to express 
the revereuca'* due to all sacred thiugd, as temples and yessels for 
ministration.! So Chrysostom uses it of the reverence paid by 
Christians to the cross,! and Nazianzen of that to the 6tall,§ and 
Isidore of Pelusium|| of that to the sepulchre.lF 

Indeed, elsewhere, Theodoret uses languMge which seems yery 
clearly to imply the distinction between the reverence due to the 
symbols and that which belongs to the Body of Christ : " Si corpus 
Christi exiguum tibiae vile videtur, quomodo typuin ejus venerabilem 
et salutarem existimas? quomodo enim archetypum, cujus typus 

• Damascenus wKy% : TlpoffKvvwfuv ik koi t6v rvnov rov rifuov Kai tiiooiroiov 
ffravpov. And again: npoaKwririov roivw t6 orifuiov rov Xpiarov [Crucis 
■tg^nm] ivOa ydp hv y t6 (Tfy/xeZov, Ire! f:al abrbq iorau (De Fide Orthodoxa, 
lib. ir. cap. xi.. Opera, torn i. p. 285, edit. Leqaien, 1712.) And in the same chapter 
(p. 264) he speaks of the worship due {TrpoffiewiiTiov) to the wood of the cross, the 
nail, the spear, the stall, the cave, the sepulchre, Ac. 

t See Prebendarf Payne in Oibson's Presenrative, vol x. p. 160, Loudon, 1848 ; and 
L'Aroque's History of the Eucharist, Walker's translation, pp. 600—603 ; Albertinus, De 
Euoh., pp. 482, 822, 823 ; Bingham, Antiq. Chr. Ch., vol. v. pp. 252, 253, book xv. c. 6, ) 6. 

J To dk vapd rolg rbv aravpbv vpooKWOvoi . . . tovt ttrri r6 
troXXufV 0privu)V d^iov. (Tn 1 Cor. Hom. xii. § 7, Op., ed. Montfaucon, tom. x. 
p. 107. So also C!oncil. Nic. II. ; Mansi, tom. xiiL c. 268 : cf . c. 273.) 

§ Kai TTJv ipdTVTjv irpoaKVVi]<tov» (Oratio xxxviii. § xvli.. Op., ed. Bened. tom. i. 
c. 674.) A little before (§ xiil. p. 671) Gregoiy had been condemning Idolatry: 
T§ fUTadkoH rfji irpotricvvTiaeufg dirb rov weiroiriKorog liri rd Kritrfiara, 

I Liber iv. Epist. xxvii. Ad Olympiodorum, in Blbliotheca Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, 
tom. vii. p. 696. "Venerandum [Trpotncwovfievov] Christi sepnlchrum cachinnis 
petulantibus excipiunt." 

^ " Since Done of the witty and subtle adversaries of Christianity ever did or could 
make this defence by way of recrimination, it is certain there was no occasion given ; 
and therefore those trifling pretences made out of some sayings of the Fathers 
pretending the practice of worshipping the Sacrament must needs be sophistry and 
illusion, and can need no particular consideration. But if any man can think them 
at all considerable, I refer him to be satisfied by Mich, le Faucheur in his voluminous 
oonfutation of Card. Perron. I for my part am weary of the infinite variety of 
argument in this question ; and therefore nhall only observe this, that antiquity does 
frequently use the words irpooKviniTOQ, oifiaafwitraTOQy QCtOQ^ wpooKVVOv^^votj, 
•venerable,' ' adorable,' * worshipful,' to everything that ought to be received with 
great reverence, and used with regard ; to princes, to laws, to baptism, to bishops, 
to priests, to the ears of priests, the cross, the chalice, the temples, the words of 
Scripture, the feast of Easter : and upon the same account by which it is pretended 
that some of the Fathers taught the adoration of the Kucharist. we may also infer 
Uie adoration of all the other instances. But that which proves too much, proves 
nothing at all." (Jeremy Taylor, Real Presence, xliL 4, Works, edit, fiden, voL vi. 

p. 168.) The 2nd Nicene Council declares b ivop&y tUuva rov PatnXktjQ, bp^ ip 
airry rbv (3a<n\ka, b yovv irpoffKwwv rriv fi'rova, Iv avrg trpovKWil top 
PaotXka, (Mansi, tom. xlii. c. 273.) 



adorandus {irpotrKm titoq) et honorandus est, oontemptibile et abjectum 
esse potest?"* 

On this passage it is forcibly urgred by Albertinus : " Manifeste 
argumentatur a minori ad majus, et ostendens oultum qui typo 
tribiietur, hoc est, symbolo Eacharistico, inferios esse cuUui qui 
redditur Archetypo, id est proprio Ghristi Gorpori, consequenter 
declarat symbolum mysticuni licet corporis Dominici appellatione ab 
ipsoinet Domino honoratum, inferias esse proprio Ghristi Gorpore, ac 
proinde non proprie et substantialiter illud corpus. Grayissimum 
sane argunientum.'* (Albertinus, De Eucharistia, p. 822.) 

Even if We were to allow a higher sense to Theodoret's use of the 
word wpoaKvyriTa, it would be quite possible to understand bis lan- 
guage of adoration paid Dot to the proxies, but to the things signified, 
whose names they bear. And, indeed, the evidence of his own writings 
would compel us so to understand it.t See J. Forbes of Gorse, 

* Dialog, iii. Impatibills, Opera, edit. Schnlze, torn. ir. p. 190. 

t The following is from Bishop Jewel : "St. Augustine teacheth us, ' in saciameiits 
we must consider, not what they be indeed, but what they signify.* And in thissenBe 
they are understanded and believed and adored, as by signification being or repre- 
senting the things that are believed. St. Augustine saith : Saeramenta {sunt] , . . 
verba mnbilCa, ' Sacraments be visible words.' But words are oftentimes put for the 
things that are signified by the words. So saith St. Hilary : Verba Dei aunt iOa qwB 
enuntiant : * The words of God be the very things that they utter or signify.' So 
Clirist saith : ' My words be spirit and life,' because they be instruments of spirit and 
life. And so Origen saith : Hoc quod modo loquimur, sunt cames Chriati: 'The very 
words that I now speak are the fiesh of Christ.' Even in this sort the Slacramentsare 
the flesh of Christ, and are so understanded and believed and adored But the whole 
honour resteth not in them, but is paised over from them to the things that be 

" M. Harding will say by this construction aioran^ur is as much to say as non 
adorantur ; ' they are honoured,' that is, they are not honoured, but only leaA us to 
those things that must be honoured. Herein is none inconvenience. For so it 
appeareth Theodoretus expoundeth his own meaning. His words immediately 
following are these : Cofnfer ergo imaginem cum exemplari, et videbia gimUitudinem, 
Oportet enim figuram esse veritati simUem: 'Compare therefore the image (that Is, 
the sacrament) ^vith the pattern (that is, with Christ's Body). For the figure must be 
like unto the truth.' Theodoretus calleth the sacrament an image, a resemblance, 
and a figure. I think M. Harding will not say that images, resemblances, and figures, 
he worthy of godly honour. And hereunto very aptly agreeth St. Augustine's lesson 
touching the same : Qui , . . adorat utUe signum divinitus iiistitutum, eujut vim 
ftiijnijicationemq^ie inteUigit, non hoc veneratur quod videtur et transit, sed Ulud potius, 
quo talia cwncta referenda sunt : * He that worshippeth a profitable sign appointed 
by God, and imderstandeth the power and signification of the same, doth not worship 
anything that is seen with the eye and passeth away ; but rather he worshippeth that 
thing unto which all such things have relation.' Here St. Augustine thinketh it no 
inconvenience to say, we worship the sign, and yet worship it not. And this he 
speaketh, not only of the sacrament of Christ's Body, but also of the sacrament of 
Baptism. For so he saith further in the same place : Sicutiest baptismi sacramentumf 
&c. : ' As is the sacrament of Baptism and the celebration of the Body and Blood of 


Irenioon, lib. ii. cap. xvi. § 32, Opera, torn. i. pp. 469 — 471, Amster- 
dam, 1703 ; Chamier, Panstratia Catholica, lib. vii. cap. ii. § liy., tom. 
iy, p. 169 ; and dnd Nicene Council as quoted above^ p. 209. 

The account of Goi^gonia, as given by her brother Gregory of 
Nazianzum, has sometimes been alleged as evidence of Eucharistio 
adoration. Cardinal Allen says : '' Maxime memorabilis est locus 
Gregorii Nazianzeni in epitapbio GorgonisB sororis. Qua (inquit ille) 
emi^gravi morbopetiolitareturf tid medioum omnium martalium oonfugit ; 
eumque leviw aliquantulum morbus uryeret^ ad altare cumfde; eumque 
qui super iUud oolitur maximo olamore ohtestanty omnibusque nominibus 
appellanSy atque omnium rerum quas unquam mirijioe getserat com' 
fnonefaeiens, do. Legatur locus, notetur miraculo restituta sanitas, 
observetur omnibus Dei nominibus Christus in Eucharistia compel- 
latus, agnitusque pro eo, qui omnia or bis miracula gesserat." (Libri 
Tree, p. 379, Antwerp, 1576 ; De Euch. Sacr., lib. i. cap. xxx.) 

But the account goes on to say : Ei irov rl rdv ayrirvTrtov tov rifiiov 
ffbtfjuzrog, {j rod aifmro^ 4 ^eip idriaavpi.J^tVf rovro Karafuyvvaa toIq 
Iwcpvffiy, (Orat. viii. § xviii., Op., tom. i. p. 229, edit. Benedict.^ 
Paris, 1778.) 

And surely this narrative, regarded as a whole, including the nse"^ 

the Lord : which sacraments every man, when he receiveth them, b^ing inatnicted, 
knoweth whereto they belong, that he may worship them, not with carnal bondage, 
but with the freedom of the spirit.' I might add hereto the words of thai most fond . 
' and lewd Second Council of Nice : Venerandas imagines per/eeteadoramus; et eoa, qui 
99cu8eor^fit&nttir,anathematizamu8: 'We do i>erfectly adore the reverend images, 
and do accurse them that profess otherwise.' And yet afterward they say : Honor 
imagini eadabitus refertur ad prototypum: 'The honour given to the image [is not 
given to the image, but] redoundeth unto the pattern.'" (Jewel's Works, P. S. edit.. 
Sermon and Harding, pp. 547, 648. See Mansi, tom. xiii. c. 273.) 

* "Watering that with tears (not adoring it with Divine worship), she departed 
presently cured of her disease. That which you afllrm to be the real and natural 
Flesh and Blood of Christ, she had about her, as many men and women used in the 
primitive Church to carry the same about them, and yet she did not adore that which 
she had in her hand, but Him that is served and honoured on the altar or table of 
the Lord." (Bp. Bilson's True Difference, 1586, p. 713.) 

It is scarcely possible not to contrast the present Bomish mode of treating the 

" C. I observe that after the consecration, the priest holds the thumb and forefinger 
of each hand joined together. Why is this ? 

<'P. Partly out of reverence to the adorable sacrament, in order that, after having 
handled the sacred Body of our Lord, he may touch no other object except itself till 
the fingers have undergone ablution; and partly in order to prevent minute portions of 
the Blessed Sacrament which may possibly have adhered to the fingers sustaining any 
irreverence by the flngeri coming into contact with other substances." (Oakley's 
Ceremonial of the Mass, p. 63, 2nd edit.) 

The above is from a manual, the chief part of which has " obtained, in the form of 
an accurate Italian translation, the oflSclal 'imprimatur' of the Holy See." (See 



wliich she made of the Sacramental Body (a use to which she could 
liMrdly without irreTerence* hav^e put anything higher than the sacred 
symbols — or, as St. Gregory himself here calls tliem, the antitypes f — 
of Christ's Body), not only refutes any argument which may be based 
on the earlier part, but furnishes an example showing how little value 
is to be attributed to the evidence brought in su]>port of tlie Heal 
Objective Presence, or its adoiation, from practices spriugiug out of a 
mistaken or excessive regard for holy things or places.^ 

It is not easy to bellevo that such different views of what is fitting in condnet 
towards the sacrament do not proceed from fundamentally different views of what 
the sacrament really is. 

Some have understood Gregory's words as implying that Gorgouia made a salve of 
the elements, which she applied to her body. (See Taylor's "True I>octrlne of 
Euch." p. 221.) And tills inference, as drawn by Basnage. is allowed by J. A, 
Asaemani ("illud lacrymis miscuit, ut sibi medicamenta oompareret.** Codex 
Liturgicus, torn. iv. p. 108.) Even if this were so, it would but be a parallel case to 
that mentioned by St. Augustine, of the boy whose eyelids were opened (impoeito ex 
Eucharistia cataplasmati) by a plaster made of the sacrament (Opus. Imperf. oonira 
Julian, lib. iii o. dxii. Op., edit. Benedict. 1690, torn. x. par. ii. e. 1114.) 

* The old Hereford Missal, as given by Mr. Maskell, contains the following dixec? 
tion : **Neo aliquo modo corpus Uhristi oeculetur ; nee ab aliqua parte corpus Chiiati 
tangi debet : nisi tantum digitis ad hoc specialiter consecratis." (Ancient Liturgy 
of the Church of England, p. 41.) 

t Gregory could hardly here have used the words antitypes, if he had intended to 
represent his sister as toudUng the Mrjr, tnu Body of Christ Yaaqnea maintains 
that by antitypes Gregory does not mean the Eucharist, adding : " Nouofhil esaet 
irreverentin oorpori et sanguini Christi ita faciem admovere." Bot the Benedictine 
editors determine nevertheless that the Budurist is meant (see note tn loe.), which 
is no doubt true, if understood not of the Body of Christ, but (according to the 
natural meaning of Gregory's words) ol its sacramental signs. 

Albertinus asks : " Quis negaverit Christum hcmorari in altari, hoc eat in 9mera 
maua, ut ipaemet Gregurius alibi loquitur, cum in ea sacramentnm corporis et 
sanyiinis l^us per ipaius invocali<Miem confldtur et consecrator, ac mrsom in ^Jus 
gloxiam fldelibus distribuUur? Veram damna Bellarmino Oregorinm intelligere, 
Christum coU in altari per venerationem Sudiaristin redditam : quo aenaa didtur ab 
Augttstino (De Doctr. Cturist. lib. iii. cap. 9) 91M agwreUiir mmt JHmtrmtmr utiU mgimm 
(KvtwtiM tM«t»tMtNMi CM/iw v«M M/MtffcolMnMM^iM imMligit^ nws hoc wemtrmtur q[mnd 
«id«^Mr «t fmjutt, «Mi ittiMl jwftiM qua ttdim cmmeta r^fenndA immi; qaidpromovebit? 
(De Euch.. p. 473. See also p. 468 tqq.} 

X The argument derived from the w<»ds formerly attributed to Qrlgen can 
scarcely need to be answered. It is said in the HomUUm »« dimirmM which have bone 
his name : ** Quando . . . manducas et blMs corpus et sanguinem Domini, tunc 
Domiaus sub tectum tuum tngreditur. St tn ergohumilians trasetipsam imitarelnuie 
centttriooem, et dicito : Domine. noa sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meonL Ubi 
eaim indigno ingredltur ibi ad judidum ingreditur acdpientL" (Horn. T.) 

These homilies are now regarded as spurious. 

As to Origen's views on the Eucharist, see above, pp. 66; 73, 97, 101. 

Jewel truly says: "Origen in that whole place speaketh not one word, neither 
of worshipping the sacramwit, nor of Christ's real or corpMal bring therein, nor of 
material entering into our bodies. . . . Whensoever Christ entereth thus into our 
house, ^rtMthir it he by sone feM»|y ssan, or by the sacrament of His Body, or bj the 
sign of the cross, or, as St Augustine smith, by faith, or the sacrament of Baptteu, 


Indeed, if I mistake not, there were at this date many superstitious 

Origen teacheth us to humble our heartB,and to say at every such coming or presence, 
' O Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldest thus enter into my house.' If M. Hard- 
ing will gather herpof that Origen teacheth us to adore the sacrament, then must he 
slso say that Origen likewise teacheth us to adore bishops, or any other godly man, 
and that even as God, and with godly honour." (Jewel's Works, P. S. edit., Sermon 
and Harding, pp. 536, 687.) 

Moehler is quoted as alleging in support of the adoration of the host, that *Mn 
the second century, St. Irenasus makes mention of the tiriicXijcrcf." (Symbol., vol. i. 
▲ppen., p. 4.) 

" There is but one passage," says Mr. Faber. "in which IrensBus, when treating of 
the Xueharist, employs that word." (Difficulties of Aomanism, book i. ch. iv. p. 00. 
Srd edit.) 

It is a paasag* which is thus tnmslated by Dr. Pusey, who regards it as attesting 
the doctrine of the Real Presence : "He pretending to consecrate, as an Eucharist, 
a drink mingled with wine, and prolonging at great length the words of invocation 
[r6v \6yov rrig iimeKTiiKijQ], makes it appear purple and red, so that it might be 
thought thai the Oraoe from those above the universe through his Invocation 
[^1^ riJQ IfTUcKriiniitg cUfrov] distils Its own blood into that Chalice." (Real 
Presence from the Fathers, p. 826, from Irenaus, Contra HsBr., lib. i. c. xiii. | 2, 
edit. Hlgne, c. 679.) 

This is the account of Marcus the magician, whose iiriicXi}<n^ is clearly nothing 
more than an invocation, as if in parody of a prayer of consecration, by which he 
appeared to be a worker of miracles [Oavfiaroiroibs dve^&vrit c. 681]. IrensBUs 
adds: Kol aXXa rivA tovtoiq TrofMirXriffia rroi&v i^Tiirdrritn iroXXoi)^. (c. 681.) 

Posiibly, however, Moehler may have been thinking of the following passage : 
"Quemadmodum enim qui est a terra panis, percipiens invoeationem Dei, Jam non 
oommunis panis est, sed Eucharistia, ex duabus rebus constans, terrena et ooelesti : 
dc et oorpora nostra perdpientia eucharistiam. Jam non sunt comiptabilia, sp«m 
reiorrectionii habentia.** (Contra Hareses, lib. iv. cap. xvlii., 1 6, edit. Migne, c. 1028.) 

Bat here the Greek for "invoeoHonem" is UicKrimv; and it will hardly be main- 
tained that it means or implies any invocation or adoration of the host. 

The passage is parallel with other teachings, in which we are told "aquaro 
baptism! et oleum quo bapticati ungebantur post invoeationem Dei non esse amplius 
commune lavacrum et commune unqnentum." (See Greg. Nys. and Cyril. Hier., as 
quoted in Albertinus, De Eucharistia, p. 808, and other quotations in p. 806. See 
also Waterland, Works, vol. iv« pp. 606, 606, Oxford, 1843 ; Morton on Eucharist, 
pp. 610, 620.) 

I think it right to add, that in the Srd edition of Robertson's Translation of 
Kodiler's Symbolism, I have been unable to Und the passage quoted. Probably, 
therefore, the argument has now been abandoned by the author. 

Hr. Keble quotes from the Catechetical Lectures of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who 
directs the communicapt to receive the cup: Kvimav, icai rpdirt^ frpoaKvvr]fnu>Q 
fcal ffipeuFfiUTog \kyuw rb 'Afu^. (Cate. xxiii. Myst. v. tub /In., edit. Toutte'e, 
Paris, 1720, p. 882. Mr. Keble refers also (as evidence of the Real Presence) to such 
uyings as this— drrd rrJQ martutg trXtipo^opov dvtvSoidtmaQ, frtafiarog xai 

difMTog Xpurrov KaraluoOdg, (Cate. xxii. Myst. iv. § 6, p. 821, edit. Toutte'e.) 

The deduction he draws from Cyril's language is thus expressed : " The tradition, 
then, of the mother Church of Christendom in the middle of the fourth century, was 
to receive with adoration. Just because it is the Body and Blood of Christ. There are 
no subtilties, no explanations ; the simple word of the Lord is support, exposition, 


customs oomiDg Id, which were doubtless doing something towards 

reason, and gaidance sufficient. And it does not come at all as a portion of S. Cyril's 
own teaching, but as a rehearsal of the established custom of the €9iiirdi ol 
Jerusalem." (On EucharisUc Adoration, p. 107, Oxford, 1887.) And aU this maj 
very readily be aUowed ; only it might be well to guard the language a g a ins t befog 
understood of a Real Presence in the elements, or of adoration addre«ed to sneh a 

Elsewhere Cyril expresses himself ovk ofyrov koi oivcv KekeOovrtu yawaoBait 
aWd &VTtH>irov (or avTirwCiv, see note in Benedictine Sdit^ ow|Miroc cot 
aifjMTOQ Tov XpiiTTov, (Cate. xxiii. Myst, Y. p. SSI, edit. Paris. Bee alM> AIbflrtbra% 
De KucharistiA, pp. 427 tqq.) 

This furnishes the true interpretation of his words Iv rvinf y^ SproVf Biiarai 
90i r6 viifui' Kcd iv Tvmif ockov, fiiorai <roc rb tdiui (Myst. ir. § Ifi., Op^ ed. 
Toute'e, p. SSOX where the preposition Iv does not necessarily inqdy anjtUng aa to 
place. It might very well be translated (as by Dr. Yogan)6sf. Hatlmiv rmnf Spmrn 
at aU equiralent to iv dpnf. Compare, cf. the words of St. Ambfoee : "ffie eat 
qui nunc in hmli typo, nunc in oTis» nunc in Titoli offArebatnr.** (St. Amhcoae, 
de Spir. S.. lib. t ProL § 4. Opi, edit. Bened., torn. iL pp. 000, 001.) 8o Tbeodoiet 
(In Cant. Caui., cap. i., edit. Schulae, torn. U. p. SO) qMaks of netMmi the graee of 
the Spirit: tt^ iv nnt^ ti^ fAvpY(U^**«oibtkyJKlita^vatgmmaiwfiodltb'^i and again 
says (In Zadu, cap. t. torn. ii. p. 1018) that raftharias aeea r^v ifaapriaif Iv rvryt 

yvvau:^ fatvofUvtiv (Latin **sab qpede ]nB]ieiii*0. And tbe Hoasiiy liaiiilj 
attributed to Sasebios of Emeasa says of Christ *'latalt pneflgarataa in Banna." 
(Op^ Hieron.. edit Vallaisiiia. torn xL par. it c sa.) Cyril bare ^eaka of tlM Body 
and Blood as distinet-of the Blood m aepazate froaa tbe Body in dealk— not tlMiwi 
fore of the Urii« glorified Body» and ther^bre eertaialy not of any "Seal Ftmeaob' 
of Chrirt's Body nmier the ftNtta of tecad. (SeeTican*s **TftM DoetriBB»'', US. 
S«« aUo i>«kantho:p's '* Defenaio Ecckate Ai^^" pc ao^ A.C J. ; and Dr. Hsariaan'a 
'*i:i«'. PttSl^y*s CtelWoge Answersd." pp. 9»4>S0»: alao fperiany Aibertina% De 
Kach«zi$Ua. PL «5<^> 

L'ArvH^ue says: *'St. Cyril reqaires nothing of bis cenunmnicania bfvt what 
$1. Chvysoau«i doth TC«|uix« of hia aSao. and yet in stronger tctasa of kiaCateclnnBeay. 
when th< tin>» ol their <ase<hi«ti^ was exyawd. that ttey pwaented na to be 

l Ag tf ntm Ml^ tJW Jfarriiy^ ChmmWr ^ <vra(tr. tekt» jpmi sftnff la nenr nale ttaf 
ler'viNif ajMt aiiW iAMuralil# /VmC. j»r«iCraar j w wrj w ft N S ns ie^p ti aas i ^/ bi s yanr JEi^^ 
^NC ^v«riwifw« <■£( tUjjPveWr «a sfMkT fcww r ; emii IvtN^ 19 yenr eyaa mmimtimiMift 
fcikick Rkfwr «ftMNd«rr«. MM thtm iNinj* iMM tiWit Lmtr ff Maaatmi, Ac la not ttia 
an^xi^'hia^ aaio baptism hi a way c<f wvnhip and aili>nitliin> aa St. C^xil derived one 
slWttM a^n^"*-*^ WHO ^he H^ i\?nmawi>Nt? Ami^yec Chriatiana nsver laliiii ail flow 
th#wvc^^$i. iT>rniiisaiini ihai t^i Titiir if tTiin ia ram rat if naff laesaantlonwaa 
^>WnlMW. ITii abai 1 laj >f 1^1 ass * ! if THa tni ns ilw naasa n ii j nliiaaie n Bl u n 
we«hMMaki^d»o(ttMkiaz^ o< the Wocd o( iSod : Tht gSiy ifw ny (aaiaihe) 



preparing or leading tho way to the belief of the Beal Presence, 

The qnestion of their authonhip ts inuBBterial to the argument deriyed from them. 
See above, p. 204. 

Some have qraken as if the language of PBeudo-Dlonys. Areop. proved conclusively 
the practice of adoring the host in the days of this writer. See Harding in Jewel's 
Works, P. 8. edit/'Sacmon and Harding," p. 684, and marginal note in Dion. Areop., 
edit. Corderius, Antwerp, 1684, torn. i. p. 286; and Alanus, "libri Tres," p. 879, 
Antwerp, 1B7&, 0e Euch. Sacr. cap. xxx. 

Hm wordi are 'AXXd w OeioraTrj Koi \epd rekiTTJ, rit wipiKiifUva croc trvfi' 
fioXuc&Q i/i^dfrfuiTa rwv aiviyfidnav diroKtiKvypafiivrif rriKavydg i)fiiv 
AvaSeijfitfrif ical rd.^ voipd^ rifiiHv 6t//€(c maiov leal dwtpucdXv'TrTOv ftorbg 
iiiroTrKfipiiHrov, n>e Ecoles. Hierar. cap. iU. sec. Ml § 2, Op., tom. i. p. 286.) 

It would, perhaps, be going a little too far to answer that Jerem. xxii. 29 proves 
quite as oonclusively that the earth was adored by faithful Jews in the days of 

But at any rate, it may be fairly said, such salutations as : " O crux, ave .... 
auge piis Justitiam, reisque dona veniam," serve as clearly to prove the Divine adora- 
tion of the cross by those who used them. 

If further answer be thought necessary, it may be found in Jewel (P. S. edit., 
"Serm. and Hard." pp. 684,585), and L'Aroque's History ^of Eucharist, Walker's 
Translation, pp. 566, 567. 

See also Chamier, Panstratia Cath., tom. iv. p. 169, and Morton on Eucharist, p. 518. 

Somewhat similar is the following impersonated address of St. Ambrose to water : 
"Oaqua, qunsacramentum Christi esse meruisti, quae lavas omnia, uec lavarls! 
Tn incipls prima, tu comples perfecta mysteria. . . Tu nomen prophetis et apostolis, 
ttt nomen Salvatori dedisti . . . te, cum de latere Salvatoris erumperes, percussores 
videront, et orediderunt : et ideo regenerationis nostra de tribus una es testibus." 
(Sxpof. Evan. Luc, lib. x. ^ 48, (>p., tom. i. c. 1514, edit. Benedict., Paris, 1686.) 

Similar, also, is the language of Optatus : " O aqua quae dulois a Deo creata es, 
inper quam ante ipsius natalem mundi Sanctus Spiritus ferebatur ! O aqua, quae ut 
pumm fkoeres orbem, lavasti terram !" (Optati Afri Milevil. Episcop., De Schis. Don. 
lib. v., In Bibli. Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, tom. iv. p. 865.) 

Oompare the following from Fulgentius : " O grande mysterium subvenientis olei 
•aoramentum. . • . O olei sacramentum. Inde sapientes probatsD sunt virgines. Inde 
secursB redduntur et matres." (Hom. xviii. in Bibl. Max., tom. ix. pp. 126, 127.) 

Bp. Morton has gone very fully into the subject of the language of Dionysius, 
arguing from the interpretation of the paraphrast. He concludes thus : " By all 
whidi you may clearly discern the true meaning of the first objected author 
2Honjftiu8 from his expositor Paehymereg. (2) The Judgment of Paehjfmeres, by his 
reference to the sentence of Gregory Naziemzen. (8) The exact understanding of 
Gregory Natianzen^ by the commentary of Bishop Nieetaa. And (4) the truth of that 
commentary by the tenor of Nazlanzen's Oration itself." (On Eucharist, p. 528). 

Aa to the quotation from St. Basil which is urged by Cardinal Allen (" libri Tres," 
p. 880, Antwerp, 1576), and by Cardinal Bona (Berum liturg., lib. U. cap. xUi., Opera, 
p. 849, 1728), as if in support of elevation and adoration, it will suffice to quote the 
following concession of Aenaudot : '* Locum Basilii libro de Spiritu sancto ... qui 
meminit dvddet^Eiijg panis et oalicis, ad utriusque ostensione^n non pertinere certis- 
timum est, quamvis Bellarmino multisque aliis visum aliter fuerit. Nam eo loco 
ivdSet^m Basilic, est eomeeratio elementorum in corpus et sanguinem Christi." 
(Lit. Or. ColL, tom. i. p. 249.) 

On this tense of dvdSei^iQ the reader maybe referred to Dr. Covers "Account 


while they are actually themselves very strong testimonies against 

of the Greek Church/' pp. 60—62 ; Bingham, Antiq. of Chr. Ch., yoL t. pp. 248, 2tf , 
1844, book XT. chap. t. § 4; Albertinus, De Euch., p. 440; Morton on the Eucharist, 
pp. 519, 520. 

I hardly supjKwe that any will now need an answer to the argament sometimes niged 
from the words of St. Augustine in reply to the charge against the Christians of wor^ 
shipping Geres. (Contra Faust., lib. zx. c. IS.) At any rate the following «ctract 
from Albertinus will sufficiently dispose of this matter : " Augustinns in responsione 
sua, postquam ludibrio, excepisset eos, qui no(r,inquit, pn^pterpanem it CaUcem Gererem 
ae Liberum eolere exUHmant, subjungit, A Cerere et Libera Paganorum IHi» Umge 
absumus, qtuimvU panis et CtUieis eaeramentum quod ita laudatis, ut in eo nobitparei 
esse volueritiSf nostra ritu ampleetamur. Quis dixerlt, panis et calicis sacramentom 
Christiano ritu amplecti, illl esse panis et Calicis sacramentum adoratione snmma 
eolere? Ineptesane. 

" Hac enim ratione Catholid did quoque possent baptism! sacramentum adoratione 
summa esse prosecuti. Nam de schismaticorum baptismati loquens, Saereunentum 
Dei, inquit, agnoscimus in eis^ et veneramur, et amplectimur : perspicne, ni Mlor, 
indicans se utrobique, non adorationem, sed venerationem intelligere." (Albertinus, 
De Eucharistia, p. 629). See also Chamier, Fanstratia Cathoiica, De Euch., lib. vU., 
cap. iii. i xvii. tom. iv. p. 170. 

Muratori quotes the words of Chrysostom : " Hoc corpus etiam Jacens in piaesepio. 
reveriti sunt sunt magi, et cum multo metu ac tremore adorarunt. Tu non in pinsepi 
vides, sed in altari. Nos ergo longe majorem quam illi barbari ostendamus reveren- 
tiam." (De Kebus Liturg , cap. zix., In Migne, c. 1012.) 

But (1) in the original the last sentence follows i^er a considerable interval ; 
(2) the word rendered by Muratori "reverentiam" is in the original rrfv ehXafiiuxv, 
which certainly implies no adoration of any present object ; and the diange front 
7rpo<TEKvvTj<rav is observable, though even that word would by no means necessarily 
have meant Divine adoration. Moreover the ebXdpeia seems to be explained by tiie 

words immediately following, 'iva firj airXtogf ftriSk utg irvxe 7rpwnK96vni : 
of which it is too little to say that they do not suggest any adoration of the 
Eucharist; (8) the Homily is full of highly rhetorical language concerning the 
Sacrament, which can only be sacramentally understood, e.g. it represents Chrlsf s^ 
Body not only as present and eaten, but as seen and touched (p. 219) ; (4) in the 
same Homily it is said, "Quid enim, inquit, dico communicatiouem? lUudipsom 
Corpus sumus. Quid est enim panis ? Corpus Christi. Quid autem Hunt conomuBl- 
cantes (ol fieraXafipdvovr^) ^ Corpus Christi, non corpora multa, sed unmn 
Corpus ... ex eodem, et idipsum efficimur omnes" (pp. 218, 214). (See Chrys. in 
Ep. i. ad Cor. Hom. xxiv., edit. Benedict., tom. x. pp. 211—219, Paris, 1782.) Yet 
Chrysostom certainly did not mean that Divine adoration was to be given to the 
communicants, or to Christ's Body, or Christ Himself as really present in them. 

It has been well said by Prebendary Payne : "Some of the Fbthera' words imply 
that when we come to the sacrament it should be with the greatest lowliness, both 
of body and mind ; and as the Primitive Church used to do, and as the Church of 
England does, in a posture of worship and adoration, in the form and manner of 
worship, as St. Cyril of Jerusalem speaks ; or as St. Chrysostom, in the form and 
manner of supplicants and worshippera of Christ, as the Magi were when they eame 
to bring their presents to Him : ' Do thou then present Him with humility and a 
lowly and submissive heart ; and be not like Herod, who pretended he would come to 
wor^ip Him, but it was to murder Him ; but rather iinitate tl^e Magi, and come 
with greater fear and reverence to thy Saviour than they did.* This is the whole 
design and substance of what is produced out of St. Chrysostom ; and this is tbe 


the existence of that belief at the time they began to be prac^ 

It would seem to be altogether out of place to enter into anything 
like a minute examination here of the history of the Councils of Con- 
stantinople (754) and Nicasa (787), and of arguments which have been 
built on it, seeing these Councils belong to so late a date. 

If even it could be proved that adoration of the host was practised 
in the latter part of the eighth century, it would go a very little way 
towards showing us anything concerning the Eucharistic faith or 
practice of the first century. 

But believing that this history is good for very little except to prove 
how low the Eastern Church had already fallen,-)- 1 cannot but think 
that If there is one thing which it does seem to show pretty clearly, it 
is this : that, at this date, the Eastern Church knew nothing of any 
Divine adoration due to the Eucharistic symbols, or to any Real 
t^resenoe of Christ in them. (See Papers on the Eucharistic Presence, 
pp. 135, 138 ; Romish Mass and English Church, pp. 02, 63.) 

It is quite possible that the difference between the contending 
parties (for and against image worship) may have been very trifling 
on the subject of the Eucharist (though the Nicene (Council rejected 
the expression divei used on the other side : see Labbseus, torn. vii. 

pltin meaning of Orlgen, that when we come to receive Christ in the sacrament, we 
•honld do it with all humility ; ' for consider/ says he, ' that then the Lord enteni 
under thy roof. Do thou therefore humble thyself, and imitate the centurion, and 
lay, Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldest enter under my roof. ' When the 
Fathers would give us the picture of a devout communicant, they draw him in the 
greatest posture of humility and reverence, looking upon and adoring the Saviour 
who died for him upon the cross, prostrating his soul and his body before Him, and' 
ersrolsing the highest acts of devotion to Him : and with tears in his eyes and sorrow 
in hia heart, standing like a penitent before Him, trembling and afraid, as sensible 
of hia own guilt ; with his eyes cast down and with dejected looks considering that 
he is but dust and ashes who is vouchsafed this honour, and inwardly groaning and 
sighing and panting in his soul, saying, 'Lord, I am not worthy that Thou shouldest 
enter under my roof ; ' and the like. And thus they may find all devout communi- 
cants in our Church behaving themselves during the whole solemnity and celebration 
of that blessed sacrament, in which mystery they always adore Christ, and that flesh 
of Christ which was crucified. For then, as St. Ambrose and St. Austin speak, when 
their minds are all the while inflamed with the most devout affections, aud they are 
performing all the inward and outward acts of the highest derotion to God and their 
Saviour, then they are upon their knees, offering up most ardent prayers and thanks- 
giving." (Frebendary Fayne, in Gibson's Freservative,vol. x. pp. 161, 162, Lond.1848.) 

* See, e.g., Covel's Account of the Greek Church, p. 86. 

t See Aldrich, Reply to Two Discourses, p. 64, and Neander's Church History, 
VOL V. pp. 2»7-299, 277, edit. Clark ; also Tillotson, Rule of Faith, part iv. sect. 1, 
Works, p. 747, «th edit. London, 1710 ; and Weismann, Hist. Eccl. N. T., sect. vill. 
torn i. p. 746, Halle, 1746, and Du Pin, Secies. Hist., vol vl. pp. 188—142, English 
trans., London, 1699. 


c. 452) : that both held something like the aagmentation doctrine (seC 
** Romish Mass and English Church,** p. 62), or a cognate theory of 
adoption {^^ei : LabbsBus, tom. tIL c. 448), or incorporation (Romish 
Mass, p. 62), or assumption (Ussher's Works, toI. ii. p. 212 , or, at 
any rate, regarded the elements after consecration as made to be, in 
some sense, the Body of Christ by the grace of a certain sanctification 
(wc Sea TivoQ hyiavpov x^^^ deovfiiyii : Labbsus, tom. yii. c. 448). 

The difference may possibly have been mainly as to the question 
whether the true doctrine might be more suitably expressed by 
admitting or rejecting such terms as circiiv and ayrlrvrcu* 

On both sides, no doubt, they regarded the elements with the 
greatest reverence. The one side regarded them as a^f^evi^ elKova t^q 
i^vtriicffg oapKOQ (LabbsBus, tom. vii. c. 448); and the other side 
certainly had no lower conception of them. As to the use of the term 
DeiJiecUion, see Albertinus, De Eucharistia, p. 914; Bobertson's 
History of Christian Church, vol. iii« p. 236, 1874. 

But it is one of the arguments used by the Council of Constantinople, 
A.D. 754, that in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper (which was given 
eic TVTTOV KoX dvcLfjiyriffiy eyEfyyetrrdrtiv : Labbsus, torn. YiL c. 445). 
Christ &pTov ovtriav irpotriToXe irpoir^ipEaQah fu) try^Hfiaril^ovaay 
avOpunrov fiopijtrlv, iva /i^ eldtaXoXarptla irfipenyaxd^. (LabbflBUS, 
tom. vii. c. 448.) And it is difficult to see what force there can be in 
this argument if they regarded the Divine adoration as due to the 
host, or to Christ present under its form. How can the statement be 
understood that bread should have been chosen to be the Lord's Body 
Oitreiy on account of its unlikeness to the human form, and this for the 
purpose of avoiding any furtive incoming of idolatry, if it were not 
idolatry to address Divine adoration to that which is thus Christ's 
Body in the Eucharist ? (See Ussher's Works, edit Elrington^ toL iii. 
pp. 79, 80 : Mansi, tom. xiii. c. 264.) 

There is, surely, in their statement no place for the idea of any 
other body (a proper object of adoration) having a real Presence under 
the form of that which they recognise as Christ's Body diveu 

With the iconoclast party that deioe Aftrog (LabbsBus, tom. vii. 
c. 448) which is adopted to be the Lord's Body (deloy autfiaf c. 448) 
is 6 BeoTrapadoroc elxtay TfJQ (TfipKog avrov^ (See Hardouin, Paris, 
1714, tom. iv. c. 368, 369 ; LabbsBus, tom. vii. c. 448 ; Mansi, tom. 
xiii. c. 264.) 

* See Claude, Reply to JLmaold, part 1. pp. 840, 841, 844, London, 1864 ; and Manil» 
tom. xiii. c. 264, 265. 


It is replied by their opponents, £1 elK&y tov oiifiaroQ itmv, ohK 
Mixerai eli^i alro ro deioy eQfta, (C. 372 ; Labbffius, torn. yii. 
c. 449.) And many similar sayings marking the distinction between 
%mage$, figurei^ likenenei, iymbols, ko., and the truth which they 
represent, may be quoted from the earlier Fathers. (See Albertinus, 
De Euobaristia, p. 274.) Notably, Theodoret says, ii elxiiv exif^ra 
dXX' oh xpay/iara ex^i. (In Dan., lib. ii. cap. 2. See below, Note £.) 

On the whole subject see Qoode on Eucharist, i. pp. 279, 28; 
Robertson's Hist, of Ghr. Oh., yol. iii. p. 236, 1874; Albertinus, De 
Eucharistiai pp. 913 — 915 ; Hospinian's Works, torn. iii. p. 251 ; 
Keander's Church History, vol. v. pp. 277 sqq,, edit. Clark. 

It is clear no Talid argument can be made to rest on the use of the 
word 0'c/3o/Mvoc (LabbsBus, torn. Tii. c. 445). " Do they believe that 
Polemonj the Heathen's picture, deserved any religious worship? 
It is true, St. Gregory Nazienzen says that picture was Tcnerable 
(oefiairfiia) ; but he means no more than this, that it was well done 
and did inspire some respect of the painting ; which shows, though 
this kind of epithets (holy,, venerable) were said somewhere else of the 
pictures of saints, that would not come up to an invincible proof that 
they ought to be honoured." (Du Pin, Eccles. Hist., vol. vi. pp. 139, 
140, English transl., London, 1699.) 

Against all that can be alleged from earlier writers as seeming 
possibly to indicate some special worship addressed to the Eucharistic 
Presence (even if it were of much greater weight than it seems to me 
to be) it would more than sufQce to set one or two quotations from 
Agobard as evidence that in the early part of the ninth century no 
such practice was in use as the adoration of the host, or of Christ 
present under its form. 

'*Adoretur, colatur. veneretur a fidelibus Deus ; illisoli sacrificetur, 
vel mysterio corporis et sanguinis, quo sumus redempti; vel in 
sacrificio cordis contriti et humiliati. Angeli vel homines sancti 
amentur, honorarentur, caritate non servitute. Non eis Corpus 
Ghristi offeratur, cum sint hoc et ipsi." (Liber De Imaginibus, 
oh. XXX., Op., edit. Baluze, tom. i p. 264). 

If in his time the Sacramental Body of Christ had been an object 
of Divine worship, is it conceivable that Agobard, arguing against the 
worship of saints or angels, after saying *' Non eis Corpus Christi 
offeratur,'* should (following St. Augustine) have added the words 
" cum sint hoc et ipsi " ? Would he not rather have written *'cum hoc 
ipsi adorent " ? 


In the language used the Sacramental Body of Christ is surely not 
to he regarded as more adorable than the Spiritual Body, i.#. the 
saints, to whom Agobard will allow no adoration to be paid. 

But further, I venture to think that Agobard could never have 
written the previous words if in " the mystery of Christ's Body and 
Blood " he had recognised not a mean only, but an object of Divine 
worship : if in his time it had been understood that not only was 
adoration to be offered to God in and by the Sacrament of Christ's 
Body and Blood, but that also in that Sacrament the Body and Blood 
of Christ, and Christ Bimself, were to be adored under the form of 
bread and wine ; that the consecrated elements contained not only the 
mystery of that which is offered in worship as sacrifice to God, but 
the very presence of Him to whom all worship and adoration is due. 

And that Agobardus had no such view is made, I think, still more 
clear by the following extracts from his ** Liber ad versus Fredegisum : " 

'* Omnes eundem potum apiritalem biberuni. Quern potum ? Ilium 
quem in superiori sententia prsamisit, uno Spiritu potati sumos, et 
quam escam spiritalem, nisi participationem Corporis Christ! ?" 
(Lib. Adv. Fredeg., ch. xx., Op., tom. i. p. 188.) " Nihil omnino 
differt aliud inter illos et nos, nisi quia sacramenta salutis qu» per 
mediatorem operata sunt propter nos et propter illos, nos salvant 
prseterita, illos futura ; quia quss nos credimus et tenemns pnateriti, 
illi crediderunt et tenuerunt futura ; et illi in sola conscientia et 
figuris futurorum, nos etiam in publica professione, rotis et annnn- 
oiatione prsBteritanim rerum cum significations tractabilium sacra- 
mentorum ; sicut et illi duo qui unum botrum in falango portabant, 
unum opus faciebant indifferenter, nisi qtiia eundem botrum, unus 
post dorsum, alter ante faciem habebant." (Ibid., ch. xxi. p. 190.) 

With this let the reader compare the teaching of Thomas Aquinas 
concemingthe sacraments of the Old and New Law (see Summa, Par. 
iii., Qusest. Ixi. Art. 4, QusBst. IxiL, QusBSt. Ixxv. Art. 1), and he can 
hardly fail to observe that in the view of Agobard (as of St. Angustine) 
the Sacraments of the Gospel are lacking the differentia, which is now 
regarded as an essential part of Catholic truth, and which alone admits 
that doctrine of the Eucharist in particular which can justify the 
sacramental adoration of more modem times. 

Romish theology teaches that the sacraments of the old law did 
not, that those of the new do, contain grace, and that the Eucharist 
contains Christ Himself really present. (See Vogan*s True Doctrine, 
pp. 629, 361.) 

In the theolosfy of Asfobard the only difference between the sacra- 
ments of the Old and New Testament is the difference which belongs 


to looking forwards to what has to be done in the future, and back' 
wards on what is accomplished in the past.'*' And the participation 
or communion of the Body of Christ is, in his teaching, so far from 
requiring Christ Himself to be really contained in the elements, that 
the same ** participation of the Body of Christ" is ascribed to the old 
Fathers, who before the incarnation of Christ did all eat the same 
spiritual meat. (Cf. Hincmar, Opera, tom. i, pp. 892, 898, pp. 306, 897, 
edit. Sirmondi, 1645.) 

The fact of Agobard's tendency as a Reformer to make a stand 
against the growing superstition of his times, deducts nothing from the 
value of his testimony, so far an that testimony bears on the doctrine 
and practice of the Church in his day.f 

There was an increasing disposition, as time went on, to contrast 
the sacraments of the Old Testament and the New, which makes the 
language of Agobard in the ninth century all the more striking. 

It must not, however, be too hastily assumed that those Fathers who 
spoke of the Jews* sacraments as shadows of ours, and of ours as 
having the truth which theirs wanted, necessarily render any real 
support to the teaching of the Homish Church, or to the doctrine of 
the Real Objective Presence. 

Sacraments are signs and types and figures alike in the Old and 
in the New Testament. ;[ But there is a difference, which some of 

• So Folgentiua : *' In illis saeriflcils quid nobis esset donandum, flgorate signiflca- 
batur ; tn hoc antem sacriUcio quid Jam nobis donatum sit, evidenter ostenditur." 
(De Fide. o. 10. See below, p. 222.) 

On which Bwtram's comment is : " Patenter innuit quod siout ilia flguram habuere 
futnrorum, sic et hoc sacriflcium flgura sit prseteritorum." (De Coipore et Sanguine 
Dom., § xcL, In Migne, c. 166.) 

So also Berengarius : "Ut diceret [Petrus diaeonus : Si ctdAue injlgura tumuSt 
quando rem UnelnmuSt non attend ente, quod dicit beatus Augusttnus : hunc panem 
signiflcavit manna, hunc panem signiflcat altare Dei, in 8^fni8 diverta tunt^ in re 
qucB eignifieaturf paria, et illud tn psalmo iii. : Corporis et eanguinie sui figuram 
dieeipulii eommendavit, non attendente, non interesse nihil inter Jlguram vel Hgnum 
rei, qua nunquam /uit, rei nondum exhibitcB pnenunciatoriam, et flguram yel 
signum rei exittentie, rei Jam exhibitsD commonefactoriam." (Berengarius, " De Sacra 
Osna, adversus Lanfrancum," p. iS, Berlin, 18S4.) 

t It is said by Baluzius, in the dedicatory epistle of his edition of Agobardus, that 
in the Gallioan Church " darissimum lumen tevo suo fuit Agobardus." 

"The reader," says Allix, "need not take much pains to apprehend why Bome 
thought flt to condemn these books of Agobardus ; though he may be at a loss how 
it comes to pass that, notwithstanding all this, he is at this day held for a saint, and 
publicly adored at Lyons under the name of St. Agobo. This is a riddle which has 
strangely perplexed that learned Jesuit, Theophilus Baynaldus, as well as Le Coiute, 
in his 'Annals of the Church of France.' But he is not the only person that has opposed 
the belief and worship of the Church of Rome, and is publicly adored by her." 
(Remarks on the Ancient Churches of the Albigenses, Oxford, 1821, p. 07.) 

I ** Eadem quippe sunt in veteri et novo [testamento] ibi obnmbrata, hlc revelata : 


the later Fathers have expressed, perhaps sometioies in amfaigaoas 
or superlative terms,* in that ours are effeetnal signs of things which 
haye heen seen and handled in the past, and to the faith of the 
Chuixh are really present still. The sacraments of the Jews were 
types or shadows of things promised indeed, hut yet in the dark, 
unrevealed. Ours are exhihitive ^igns of things clearly revealed and 
brought into the light of day.f 

Hence theirs are said to he types of ours — although ours am 
lecogpiised as types also. So Gregory Naziancen calls the Pianow a 
more ohscore type of a type. See below. Note £. 

Moreover, the sacraments of the Jews had immediate relation to 

ibi praflgorata, h!c manifestata. Non aolom sacramenta diyena rant, vemm etiam 
promitaa." (Jen. Beda in 1 Cor. xi.. Opera, torn, yt c. S79, edit Cologne, 1688.) 

8o also, following St. Augnstine, Bede writes :— 

" Hunc panem signiflcavit manna, hunc panem signiflcaTit altaie D^ SacniuBnta 
ilia fueront, in signis diversa sunt, in re qusB signiflcatur paiia sunt.'* (Ven. Beda in 
1 Cor. X., Opera, torn. vL c. 866.) 

<* Ibi petra Christus. Nobis Christos, qnod in altare Dei ponitnr. Etillipromagno 
Sacramento ejusdem Christi bibenmt aquam profluoitem de Fetra. Nos quid 
bibamus, nonmt fideles. Si speciem visibilem intendas, aliud est Si intwHigiWlefn 
fiigniflcationem, enndem potum spiritnalem bibenmt" (Ibid., c. 356.) 

* So e.g. Isidoros Hispalensis writes : " Tantnm interest inter propositlonis panes 
et corpus Christi, quantum inter umbram et corpos, inter imagin^n et Tetitalem, 
inter exemplaria futurorum et ea ipsa quso per exemplaria piSBfigiinbantar." 
(De Eccles. Offlciis, lib. i. c. xviii., ^ 10, Op., edit. Migne, tom. vL c. 766.) 

Yet Isidore cannot be held to teach the Heal Presence of Bome. (See AlbertinDS, De 
Eucharistia, pp. 899 sqq. ) 

See also above, pp. 75, 78, 120, 151. 

t "Quanto magis nunc pro baptismo Christi, pro Eucharistia Chrftti, pro signo 
Cihristi ad omnia prsefereoda paratior debet esse Christianus, cum Dla faerint pro- 
missiones rerum complendarum, hsec sint indicia completarum ? " ( Angustine, Contra 
Faustum, lib. xix. c. xiv., Opera, edit. Benedict, 1688, tom. viiL c. 820.) 

" Si enim soni Terborum quibus loquimur, pro tempore commntantur, eademque 
res aliter enunciatur facienda, aliter facta, nee paribus morarum intervallis, nee 
iisdem vel totidem litteris syllabisve sonuerunt : quid mirum si aliis mysteiloram 
signaculis passio et resurrectio Christi futura promissa est, aliis Jam facta annundatiir, 
quando quidem ipsa verba, futurum et factum, passurus et passus, re«irrectunis 0t 
resurrexit, nee tendi ssqualiter, nee similiter sonare potuerunt ? Quid enim sunt 
aliud quseque corporalia sacramenta, nisi qusedam quasi verba visibilia, sacro-sancta 
quidem, verumtamen mutabilia et temporalia ? " (Ibid., cap. xvi. c. 821.) 

See also Fulgentius : " In illis enim camalibus victimis flguratio fuit camis Christi 
quam pro peccatis nostris ipse sine peccato fuerat oblatnrus, et sanguinis qnem erat 
effusurus in remissionem peccatorum nostrorum, in isto autem sacriflcio gratiamm 
actio atque comtnemoratio est camis Christi, quam pro nobis obtulit, et sanguinis 
quem pro nobis idem Deus effudit. ... In illis ergo sacilflciis quid nobis esset 
donandum, flgurate significabatur. In hoc autem sacriflcio quid nobis Jam donatum 
sit, evidenter ostendltur." (Fulgentius, De Fide ad Petrum Diac. cap. xix. in " Heptas 
Presul. Cihrist.," edit. Baynaudus, Paris, 1661, pp. 494, 495.) 

See also especially Fulgentius Ferrando, De Quinque Quaestionibus, § xxxvlif.— xli., 
In Bibl. Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, tom. ix. pp. 194, 196. 


deliTerances or redemptions, which were shadows of * our redemp- 
tion and salvation. Ours stand in immediate relation to that which 
is as the suhstance of those f previous shadows. (See Isido. Hispal., 
Sent , lib. i. cap. xx. § 8.) 

Hence, also, theirs are compared to the sketched outline in a picture, 
ours to the filling in of the colours which bring out the figures as in 
living reality, and yet but in a picture still. (See below, Note £.) 

Those who desire further satisfaction on this point may be 
referred to Dr. Harrison's **Dr. Pusey*s Challenge Answered," 
pp. 400—408, 624— 62fi. 

It may, however, very well be admitted that this growing tendency 
to contrast the sacraments of the Law and the Gospel was in time 
connected with some sort of superstitious approaches towards the 
Paschasian doctrine ; and that the decided language of Agobard 
indicates a strong resolve to maintain the earlier and purer doctrine 
in its simplicity. The point to be insisted upon is that it would 
have been altogether impossible for him to maintain his position in 
this respect, in the face of anything like a general custom of adoring 
the Eucharist. 

His teaching would have required of him a most uncompromising 
denunciation of such a custom if it had existed. 

It may be observed how St Augustine had exclaimed against the 
madness of those who could think of worshipping the sun, because 
in the Scriptures it signifies Christ St. Augustine argues against such 

• "Fanem ilium sacramentalem, quamvis Corpus Christi non proprie. Bed flgorate 
■it verum appellat [HieFonymus] duplid de causa. Una est : quia Veteres testantur 
non modo in genere Sacramenta Vetera nostrorum flguras fuisse, sed et in specie 
manna flguram fuisse panis Bucharistici, quemadmodum mare per quod Israelitce 
tranaienmt baptism! typum. ... Si baptismus noster, quamvis aqua substan- 
tiallter dt respectu veterum baptismatum, verum baptiama et Veritas appellatur. 
Cur non et panis Eucharistiae, quamvis panis Juxta substantiam proprie dictus sit, 
miUDnsB comparatus a quft prseflgnirabatur, verua panis et veritcts parlter indigetabitur ? 
Altera causa est, quia panis Eucharisticus ad animee nutritionem proprid est 
ordinatoB. . . . M anna autem per seetprimario ad Corporis alimentum. " (Albertinus, 
De Bucharistia, p. 582. See also p. 603.) 

t So our translation in the heading of 1 Cor. x., " The Sacraments of the Jews are 
types of ours," which has been unduly objected to. 

"Veteres docent, sacramenta Vetera fuisse novorum typos, sed non eo sensu, 
quasi nostra sacramenta sint res significata. Id enim prorsus est alienum a rei 
natura, et mente Patrum. Nam in Sacramentis V. and N. T. est una et eadem res 
significata. . . . Quia vero differunt gradu claritatis, recte sacramenta Vetera 
dicnntur typl, hoc est sciagraphia et imagines adumbrates ; nova, antitypa, hoc est, 
imagines expressn et iUustratse." (Supplementum Fanstratiae Catholicoe, cap. vi. 
^ xvii., In Chamier, tom. ii. Append, p. 23.) 

The Fathers not only spoke of manna as a type of the Eucharist, but of the Bed 
Sea also as a type of Baptism. See Albertinus, De Euch., p. 689. See also especially 
Morton on Eucharist, p. 21S, ed. 1035. 


folly by a reductio ad absurdum : '* Adorara ergo et petram, quia 
Christum significat.** (In Pb. ciii. Enar., Serm. iiL § 20, Op., ecL 
Ben. 1681, torn. iv. par. ii. c. 1163.) 

Yet St. Augustine had taught (not less plainly than Agobard) that 
the rock is called Chridt because of a relationship to Christ similar to 
that borne by the Eucbaristic elements. And it is incredible he could 
have argued thus if he had known anything of a Real Presence to 
which adoration is due in or under the consecrated symbols. See 
Dr. Harrison's ** Dr. Pussy's Challenge Answered/* p. 351. See also 
above, pp. 77, 78. 

And certainly, if a custom of adoring the host had prevailed in 
Agobard's time, he would have beeu called to inveigh against it with 
as much vigour as that with which St. Augustine opposed the worship 
of the sun. 

It should be observed that our Venerable Bede had also, in the pre- 
vious ceLtury, insisted on the same view of the Sacraments of the 
New Testament. See note above, pp. 78, 221, 222. See also Har- 
rison's ** Dr. Pusey'd Challenge Answered," pp. 224 — 227. 

Very many similar passages might be quoted from Bertram also, 
which could hardly have been written, if anything like the adoration 
of Christ really present in the host had been known in his day: or 
which, at least, would have demanded that, in consistency, he should 
have denounced any approach to such a custom. (See 0,g. Quotations 
in Harrison's " Dr. Pussy's Challenge Answered," voL i. pp. 186, 187, 
190— li)4, 201—204.) 

And yet the opponents of Bertram are not found urging a^inst 
his teaching or his arguments the prevalence, or even the existence 
anywhere, of such a custom. Nor does Bertram himself ever allude 
to any such practice. 

Rabanus Maurus also taught the same view of the Christian Sacra- 
meuts in relation to those of the law ; adopting the language of St. 
Augustine. (Enar. in 1 Cor. x.. Op., ed. Migne, tom. vi. c. 88, 89.) 

I must add, that the same argument may be pressed with great 
force from the teaching of Elfric. Surely what Elfric wrote about 
the Eucharist must have been written before the worship of the host 
was known in England. When Elfric's doctrine had been superseded 
by the doctriue of Lanfranc, adoration, and elevation for purposes of 
adoration, may doubtless have crept into the English Church. But 
as long as the doctriue taught by Elfric prevailed, it is incredible 
that such practices could have stood side by side with it, or have been 
introduced without vehement opposition. (See above, pp. 122, 128, 
131, 132.) 


NOTE B (p. 11). 

On the Testimony of the lAtwrgiea on the Subject of 

Eucharistic Worship. 

The entire absence'*' of all support of Eucharistic adoration (as 
addressed to any presence in or under the elements) from anything that 
can be alleged out of the ancient Liturgies f is a fact of much 

* It is said, indeed, in Dr. Rock'i Hierorgia, p. 98 (2nd edit.) : "The elevation and 
adoration of the Body and Blood of Jeans Christ in the holy sacrifice of the Mass, are 
to be found in all the Oriental liturgies, whether Greek, Byriac, Egyptian, or Ethiopic, 
and are distinctly pointed out tn the liturgies of St. James, St. Chrysostom, and St. 

But, ftSHumlng that it is meant that the Divine adoration is addressed to the real 
objective Presence of Christ's Person under the form of the elements, one's wonder at 
the assertion is only surpassed by the astonishment felt at Dr. Bock's supposing that 
such an assertion is substantiated by the extracts which he gives. 

They tell, indeed, of adoration— which needs, I hope, no proof and no recommenda- 
tion ; but where is the evidence to show that the object of a Divine adoration is 
present (body, soul, and divinity) in the consecrated elements ? 

Other writers have candidly admitted the absence from the ancient liturgies of all 
inpport of tueh Eucharistic adoration. 

Mr. Keble writes : "The only plausible objection that I know of, to the foregoing 
statement, arises from the omission of the subject in the primitive liturgies, which 
are almost or altogether silent as to any worship of Christ's Body and Blood after 
consecration. We find in them neither any form of prayer addressed in special to His 
holy humanity so present, nor any rubric enjoining adoration inward or outward." 
(BnohariBtic Adoration, p. 126, Oxford, 1867.) 

Another writer says : "The liturgies, we are told, do not speak of the presence of 
His adorable Person. Was it necessary that they should do so? His ordinary 
language, as to the Eucharistic gift, spoke of His Body, or flesh, and His Blood. The 
liturgies reverently adopted this language ; and they (as a rule) left the inferences 
regarding His Person to the imfailing logic of Catholic faith and love." (The Church 
and the World, p. 826, 8rd edition.) 

But surely tn the one fact that the Liturgies tell of no such presence of Christ's 
Person in the gifts, and the other fact that modem (so-called) Catholic worship makes 
10 much of the adoration of this Presence, we have strong evidence of this further fact, 
tiiat since the liturgies were written a great change has been made in the rationaU 
of Eucharistic worship, and such a change as points clearly to a change of Eucharistic 
bdief . And then— How is the significance of this change affected by attributing it to 
Catholic instinct or to the " logic of Catholic faith and love," unless we are prepared 
to maintain that Christianity is a revelation in which new doctrines were to be added 
to the faith, as they mi^^t be developed by the operations of the human soul ; and 
thus to deny that the Christian faith in its simplicity and integrity was once for all 
delivered to the Saints ? 

t Dr. Neale, indeed, says of a prayer which follows the consecration in the Liturgy 
of St. Mark : " This is balled the Prayer of Intense Adoration, and answers to the 
worship paid by the Western Church at the elevation of the host." (Neale's 
liturgies. Or., p. 85.) 


If there were any real weight in the argument based upon the 

It may seem presumptuous to question the statement of one so deeply vosed in 
liturgical subjects as Dr. Neale. Yet it is impossible not to desire some explanation 
of this assertion— something to point out wherein is the correspondence between the 
prayer he refers to and the adoration of the host. 

The prayer commences thus : Aeo-Trora KvpiE 6 Qebg, 6 Tr(iVTOKpdriap, 6 
KaBfifuvoQ tirl twv x^P^^^jSi/x, Kai So^aZofUvo^ ifirb riov aepafifi . . . froi 
iKXivafiiv t6v auxkva rStv ylwx^v kcu t&v trwfidriitv rifi&Vj rh ttiq SovXdtiQ 
wpoayiina trtificuvovTSi;. Its principal petition is 5ir(i>c • • • a^u*^ fiara<r;^oificv 
Tuiv wpoKEifikvatv rffvv dyaQdv, tov dxpavrov u&fiaTOQf xai tov rifiiov mfuiroQ 
Tov fiovoyevovQ trov Tiov. 

Now this prayer is not addressed to Christ as present in the consecrated 
elements. It is not even addressed as to Christ at all. It is a prayer to the First 
Person of the Holy Trinity ; and the paraUel prayer in the Coptic of St. Basil (as 
given by Dr. Neale) is introduced by this rubric : " The Priest saith the prayer 
of bowing down to the Father." (See Neale's Introduction, Hist. £. Ch., toL ii. p. 
632 ; and Renaudot, Lit. Orient. Col., tom. i. p. 21.) 

In Mr. Malan's version the prayer is simply introduced by the words ritQ re^oXctc. 
See Divine Euchologion, p. 84. See also the Syriac Liturgy of St. James the Lord's 
Brother, in Benaudot, tom. ii. p. 89. 

Even Renaudot, who strongly argues for £ucharistic Adoration, confesses: 
"IncUnatio capitis qu8B hie prsescribitur . . . non refertur ad . . . Eachazistin 
adorationem, sed ad suscipiendam benedlctionem Sacerdotis, qua populus pneparetor 
ad confessionem sinceram fldei." (lit. Or. Col., tom. ii. p. 118. See the passage 
commented on in p. 89, Lit. S. Jacobi Frat. Dom.) 

Archdeacon Freeman says : " There was one very solemn part of the rite, comm(m 
to all liturgies, the ' bowing down ' in the prospect of reception of the mysterious 
gifts. This, in the West, had long ago lost its proper meaning by the desaetnde of 
the people's communion. But to interpret it as an act of worship of the elements 
would not answer the purpose, since it came at some considerable interval after the 
consecration. A new act of this kind, for priest and people, following immediately 
upon consecration, was necessary to be introduced, and was introduced accordins^." 
(Principles of Divine Service, vol. ii. par. i. pp. 67, 68.) 

It seems then to me that to describe this prayer as answering to the worship of the 
Western Church, is equivalent to saying that in the Eastern Liturgies that which 
comes nearest to the adoration of the sacramental Body of Christ is a prajyer of humble 
adoration to God the Father, as throned in the glory of heaven. And surely this is 
only another way of saying that there is nothing whatever in the liturgies of the 
East which, regarding its true d^erentia, answers at all to that which in the middle 
ages was brought in to form so strange and prominent a part in the worship of the 
Church of Rome. (See the argument of Mr. Sadler in *' The Church and the Age," 
p. 800.) 

The truth which is thus brought out is one which, indeed, is otherwise sufficiently 
clear ; but it is one of such great weight in the controversy, that every additional 
evidence is of value. 

The whole Eastern Church is thus seen bearing witness against that worship of the 
Western which is certainly not primitive, and which could hardly not have been 
primitive if the doctrine out of which it springs had been primitive. 

Nor will anything alleged from Eastern practices, or confessions of faith of more 
recent date than the Latin influence and Jesuit intrigues, avaU anything as evidence 
on the other side. See Smith's Account of the Greek Church (1680), "To the 
Reader," also pp. 141—151, 248-284 ; Ricaut's Present SUte of the Greek and Arme- 
nian Churches (1879), pp. 188-186,484; Renaudot, Liturg. Orient. Ooa, tom. IL 


doubtful, or more than doubtful, expressions* used by some of the 

pp. 667—602; Covel's Aocoont of the Greek Church (1722), Pi-ef. pp. xt— xvill., also 
pp. 129—147. 

The former faith of the Greeks concerning the Eucharist may have been mixed with 
grievous error and much superstition, which, doubtless, paved the way for Roman 
doctrine ; but their present belief as to the Eucharistic Presence has not been derived 
from the same source as their liturgies, which give evidence against it. (See 
Kimmel's Monumenta Fidei Eccles. Orient., p. 468, and Freeman's Principles of 
IMvine Service, vol. il. part i. pp. 71—74.) 

Surely it is a matter of no small moment that we look in vain in all ancient 
liturgies for any support of that Eucharistic cultus which, by the confession of Romish 
doctors, is now a chief part of the religion of Rome. (See Cardinal Allen as quoted 
above, pp. 12, IS.) 

*0f these expressions Archdeacon Freeman writes: "It has been said indeed, 
with some plausibility, that they carry weight as seeming to describe, not a passing 
feeling towards the consecrated elements, but a habit of actual and proper worship 
of them. But this, for reasons already set forth, is exactly what they cannot possibly 
be held to convey. We know with the utmost precision what was prescribed in the 
matter of worship by the Eucharistic o£Bces of the Churches to which these writers 
belonged, and that no such acts of worship of the elements are in any way recog- 
nised by them. We are under the absolute necessity, therefore, of giving up this 
view of the passages ; and it remains, that no feeling or practice beyond that of the 
deepest reverence can be grounded upon them. To build upon them anything 
farther, is to represent these holy men of old time as teaching what the Church had 
never taught them, and to set the testimony of these few and equivocal passages 
i^;ainst the tradition of the whole Church from the beginning." (Freeman's Principles 
of Divine Service, vol. ii. part i. pp. 184, 186.) 

" When Scripture and all other reasons fail them, as they generally do, then they 
fly to the Fathers ; as those who are sensible their forces are too weak to keep the 
open field, fly to the woods or the mountains, where they know but very few can 
follow them. I take it to be sufficient, that in any necessary article of faith, or 
essential part of Christian worship (which this of the sacrament must be, if it be any 
part at all), it is sufficient that we have the Scripture for us, or that the Scripture is 
silent, and speaks of no more than what we own and admit. In other external and 
indifferent matters relating merely to the circumstances of worship, the Church may, 
for outward order and decency, appoint what the Scripture does not. But as to 
what we are to believe, and what we are to worship, the most positive argument 
from any human authority is of no weight where there is but a negative from Scrip- 
ture. But we have such a due regard to antiquity, and are so well assured of our 
cause, were it to be tried only by that, and not by Scripture— which the Church of 
Rome generally demurs to— that we shall not fear to allow them to bring all the 
Fathers they can for their witnesses in this matter, and we shall not in the least 
decline theb: testimony. Boileau musters up a great many, some of which are wholly 
impertinent and insignificant to the matter in hand, and none of them speaks home 
to the business he brings them for. He was to prove that they taught that the 
sacrament was to be adored, as it is in the Church of Rome ; but they only teach as 
we do, ' that it is to be had iu great reverence and respect,' as all other things 
relating to the Divine worship ; ' that it is to be received with great devotion, both of 
body and soul,' and in such a posture as is to express this, ' a posture of adoration ' ; 
that Christ is then to be worshipped by us in this office especially, as well as He is in 
all other offices of our religion ; that His Body and His Flesh, which is united to His 
Divinity, and which He offered up to His Father as a sacrifice for all mankind, and 
by which we are redeemed, and which we do spiritually partake of in the Sacrament, 

Q 2 


ancieDt Fathers, it would be much more than counterbalanced by the 
argument which rests upon this Liturgical silence.* 

that this is to be adored by us ; but not as being corporeally present there, or that 
the sacrament is to be worshipped with that or for the sake of that ; or that which 
the priest holds up in his hands or lies upon the altar, is to be the object of our 
adoration,— but only Christ and His blessed Body, which is in heaven." (Prebendary 
Payne, in Gibson's Preservative, vol. x. pp. 144, 146, London, 1848.) 

* " It is difficult, if not impossible, to find in any really ancient Utnrgy, or portion of 
a liturgy, a single expression which yoe« beyond the recognition of the elements as the 
Body and Blood of Christ ; any which identifies them with Christ Himself, much less 
with the triune God. It would not have been surprising had the crowing language, 
which has been now quoted, here and there overflowed in the liturgies the just 
bounds of the mystery, as unquestionably is sometimes the case with ancient writers 
on the Eucharist. But it should seem that the Church's conceptipn of the true 
nature of that mjrstery was too fixed and clear to admit any such departure from 
correct Eucharistic language. Certain it is, that those who have searched most dili- 
gently for such expressions, and were every way concerned to produce them if 
possible, have failed in the attempt. Thus Muratori, than whom few had a more 
exact acquaintance with the subject, has only been able to produce three or four 
such expression) ; and these are found either in confessedly late liturgies, bearing the 
marks of obscure and individual teachers, or in later additions to the ancient ones. 

"It is in a prayer of comparatively late origin in St. Chrysostom's Liturgy— the 
present Greek rite— that he finds even the words : * Thou art He that offered and art 
offered, and receivest and art distributed,— Christ our God ' ; expressions all defensible 
enough as the warm language of devotion, but a manifest departure from theguieral 
manner of the liturgies, and not capable of being insisted on in their literal signifl- 
cation. It is among the cantica, or hymns, of the Syriac Liturgy of St. Jamea, known 
to be of more recent origin than the general structure of the rite, that such expres- 
sions occur as : ' Whom Moses saw in the bush, and Ezekiel upon the cherubim. He 
Himself is placed upon the holy altar, and the people receive Htm and live.' And 
again, a ' Prayer of St. James the Doctor ' has : ' Father of truth, behold Thy Son, a 
Victim well pleasing to Thee; receive Him who died for me.' So in an obscue 
liturgy, attributed to St. James : ' The living Lamb of God is offered on the altar' ; 
in that of James Baradeeus : ' We offer Himself (Thy Son) f or us ' ; and similar pas- 
sages are found in that of John Bassora (660). Lastly, it is in a very late Syrian 
Liturgy attributed to one Gregory (1220), that the words * Adore the Word the 
Lamb,' follow shortly after the consecration. 

" There is, indeed, in the regular Syriac Liturgy, though not noticed by Muratori, 
one passage of awful tenor. It is, however, among the private prayers of the pilest 
before reception, and is probably as recent as it is exceptional The first three of 
these prayers, as some in the Roman rite, are addressed to our Lord,— a circumstance 
in itself very unusual, such prayers being generally addressed to the Father : * Grant 
me, O Lord, to eat Thee holily ; ' 'Grant, Lord our God, that our bodies may be 
sanctified by Thy holy Body, and our souls illuminated with Thy propitioua Blood.' 
But the last to which I allude actually addresses the element of bread as God io 
these words : * I hold Thee, who containest the ends of the world ; I have Thee in my 
hands, who rulest the deep ; Thee, God, I place in my mouth.* It would be contrary 
to the analogy of all other litui^es to doubt that this passage is of comparatively 
late introduction, as great part of the Syriac Order confessedly is. And the like 
account is doubtless to be given of certain private prayers of the priest found in the 
ancient EngUsh uses, similar to the first three hero spoken of. The awful profanity 
of the last is happily unknown to them, and I believe to the rest of the Western 
Church." (Freeman's Principles of Divine Service, vol. ii. part i. pp. 180—182.) 


For small as may be the value of many of the deductions drawn 
from the positive teaching of these Liturgies, on account of the 
difficulty of determining what is really ancient in the midst of so 
many interpolations, the argument derived from what they certainly 
do not teach is in no wise diminished in force by anything that 
may be said as to additions made to their doctrine in more recent 

* Bearing this in mind, the general structure of the ancient Liturgies (to which 
we may with confidence attribute an antiquity greater tlian we could venture to 
ascribe to most of the prayers) should be carefully observed. 

It will be found that the change asked for the gifts (a change which the Fathers 
rank beside other changes, as Cyril of Jerusalem says of it : lldvTioc ydp oi idv 
Ifd^/cuTO t6 Uyiov UvevfJia, tovto rfyiaarcu Kai furajSklSKfjTcu, Myst. v. § vii., 
edit. Toutte'e, p. 827) is not asked till after the oblation (most properly so called), 
and is asked for the purposes of communion. 

Professor Heurtley says: ''The liturgies of the Apostolical Constitutions of 
St. James, St. Basil, and St. Chrysostom are all cast in the same mould as that of 
Alexandria. The praynr for the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the elements, to 
make the bread the Body of Christ and the cup the Blood of Christ, is not offered 
till the oblation has been made. And in substance it is the same prayer in all, 
vis. that God would send His Holy Spirit, not upon the elements singly, but upon 
tiie communicants also — * upon us and upon these oblations,' and not simply that 
' He would make the bread the Body of Christ, and the cup the Blood of Christ,' 
but that He would make them such in order that they might be to all who should 
partake of them, ' unto remission of sins, unto sanctiflcation, unto eternal life '— 
language which is at least as consistent with what has been called the ' virtual ' 
theory as with that of the so-called 'real objective Presence.' 

" To understand, however, what the Fathers meant, when they prayed for the 
descent of the Holy Spirit upon the elements, it should be remembered that language 
of the same description was used in reference to the water in Baptism. Thus, for 
instance, Tertullian : ' Omnes aquae de pristina originis prserogativa sacramentum 
lanctiflcationis consequuntur, invocatoDeo. Supervenitenim statim Spiritus Sanctus 
de coBlis, et aquis superest, sanctiflcans eas de Semetipso : et ita sanctiflcat89 
vim sanctiflcandi combibunt.' De Baptlsmo, c. iv. p. 225. 

"See various other instances in Waterland on the Eucharist, ch. x. vol. iv. pp. 
675, Ao. Cyril of Jerusalem uses similar language of the chrism with which the 
newly baptised person was anointed : "Opa /lm) vTrovoritryg kKBivo rb fivpov ^iKbv 
elvac &<r'jrep ydp 6 aproQ rriQ evxc^^ffTiaQy fierd r?)v liriKKfiffLV tov ayiov 
HvtOfioroCf otfK m dpTog \it6q, dWd aiofia XjOierrov, oUrw Kai r6 &yiov tovto 
IKVpov ovK iTi rf/CKbVf ou^, wg dv ilwoi tiq, Koivdv, fier kiriKKritTLV, dWd 
Xpurrov xapur/ui, Kai JlvEVfrnrog dyiovj wapovtriif. trig aifvov OeSrrjTog ivtp' 
yriTucbv yivofuvov. Catech. Myst ill. 8. See also ii. 3, where similar language is used 
of the oil of exorcism, wherewith the person about to be baptized was anointed before 
he entered the font : T6 iTrtopKurrbv tovto eXaiov, irriKXriaBi Oiov Kai sifXVf 
ivvafuv rriKiKdvTTjvXafipdvei, witte ov ^ovov kcuov Td lxvr\ t&v dfiapTrifiaTav 
diroKaOaipeiv, dXKd Kai irdoag dopcLTOvg tov irovtjpov kKdiAOKBiv Tdg dwdfiug, 
Qyril speaks in like terms of Baptism, Catech. iii. 8. 

"In the Salisbury Manual we have the following prayer at the consecration of the 
water to be used at Baptism : ' Descendat in banc plenitudinem fontis virtus Spiritus 
Sancti, totamque hujusaqusBSubstantiamregenerandifoecuDdeteffectu.'" (Heurtley 's 
Sermons on Secent Controversy, p. 58, 59 ) 


The tendencv of innovatloa was never to deduct from their doctrioe* 
Their silence, we may be 8ure, was never interpolated. 

And when it is pleaded, as in depreciation of this argument, that 
this silence may be accounted for by the prominence in these 
Liturgies of the sacrificial character f of the Eucharist^ it deserves to 

* " Now it has been before pointed out that for the determination of Eucharistic 
questions, the ancient liturgies are more weighty and trustworthy than ecclesiastical 
writers. What, then, is their testimony on this point? Kothing can be more 
unequivocal, nothing more unanimous. And be it observed, that their testimony on 
a point of this kind is beyond suspicion, since there was confessedly a tendency, as 
time went on, in the Churches to which these liturgies belong, to add to, rather than 
to dmiinish in the slightest degree, the reverence and awe with which the entire rite, 
and especially the consecrated elements, were viewed. Whatever aspect they 
exhibit, therefore, in that form which they had acquired by about the sixth or seventh 
century, and still retain, is likely to be an intensification rather than a relaxation of 
the earlier mind in point of reverent expression towards the elements. . . . Now it is 
clear, that if upon consecration a proper object of Divine worship is forthwith 
present, and demands and exacts such worship without fail ; if it be so, that the 
majestical Throne of Ood is for the time transferred to the altar of the Church, or 
that the altar becomes His majestical Throne ; then of necessity must real wordiip 
he/rmn that moment obligatory. Xor could any feature be more indispensable or 
more universal than a provision for such immediate worship. But not only is such a 
provision not universal, but there is not, it is confessed on all hands, a single liturgy 
in the world that, within the period specified, contains such a direction for the 
faintest gesture of worship to be offered to the elements immediately on their 
consecration." (Freeman's Principles of Divine Service, vol. ii. part i. pp.170, 17L) 

4 Those who ui-ge this argument (see Keble, Euch. Ador., p 126), pleading the 
African rule, as set forth in the twenty- third Canon of the third Council of Carthage, 
A.D. 397, " Cum altari assistitur, semper ad Fatrem dirigatur oratio," and all^i^ 
that " the rationale of the Holy Eucharist is to be a sacrifice offered by the Son to 
the Father," may be asked to observe in how many Eastern liturgies, as we have 
them now, are found prayei-s addressed evidently to the Saviour. (See e.g. Renaudot, 
Lit. Orient. Col., tom. i. pp. 16, 90, 91, 93, 96, 97, 98, 104, 106, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 
111, 112, tom. ii. pp. 32, 128, 166, 166, 169, 183, 211, 224, 687.) 

In some we find several prayers continuously addressed to Christ by name, while in 
not a few even the great oblation is offered to our Lord. This is the case with two 
Abyssinian forms, and with those ascribed to St. Gregory of the Coptic and Alexan- 
drian Liturgies. It is so, also, with the two Syrian forms, in which the oblation is 
retained. Mr. Scudamore says he has not observed it in the Old G^allican Mlsaals, 
but there are many instances of it in the Mozarabic. (See Notitia Eucharistica, 
pp. 564—567.) 

Yet, if we except a prayer of comparatively late insertion in the Liturgy of St. 
Chrysostom, not found in the ancient Berberini MS. : " Thou art He that offerest and 
art offered, and receivest and art distributed, Christ our God" (see Freeman's 
Principles of Divine Service, vol. ii. part i. pp. 180, 181), which is very doubtfully 
an exception, and the Syriac prayers mentioned above pp. 197, 228, probably as recent 
as exceptional (see Freeman, Principles of Divine Service, vol. ii. part i. pp. 181, 182X 
in none of these cases (I believe) is prayer addressed to Christ as present after the 
consecration under the form of the host. At whatever date these prayers were added 
to the normal forms, they certainly bear witness that at tfuU time and in that r^on 
the rationale of the Eucharistic service was not so understood as to make unsuitable 
direct addresses to the Incarnate Saviour. Surely then if, at that time, it was un- 


^^e well considered whether tliis fact, as rightly understood, does not 

clentood that by the extension of the Incarnation, Christ (Body, Soul, and Divinity) 
^vvas in the Eucharist really present after consecration, under the form of elements, 
ve should expect to find all the prayers, after consecration, said to Him, bearing 
evident signs of being spoken to Him as thus sacramentally present in those visible 
signs. On such a supposition how is it to be accounted for that He should have been, 
in these prayers, addressed as in heaven, and not on the altar ? 

There is one prayer to which Mr. Sadler has directed special attention. It is in 
the Liturgy of St. James, and is addressed to Christ as "the heavenly bread," con- 
fessing that "1 am not worthy to partake of Thy spotless mysteries," and asking Him 
" to make me worthy to communicate in the holy Body and precious Blood." Mr. 
Sadler says : " This is a prayer addressed to Christ, not as personally present in, or 
included under, the bread, but rather as external to it ; external to it, I say, in this 
sense, that He who feeds us with bread (or prepares us to receive bread aright), 
must be in some sense external to the bread with which He feeds us ; and this prayer 
is addressed to Him as thus external. Whilst calling Him the Bread from heaven, 
it is plainly not addressed to Him as veiled under the bread in any sense, and it is 
the only prayer so addressed to Him in the Liturgy." (The Church and the Age, p . 301 . 

Not less observable is the prayer of the Mozarabic Liturgy (as given in Dr. Neale's 
" Tetralogla Liturgica," p. 130), which Just precedes the consecration, and is probably 
of a comparatively recent date, see p. 262 : " Adesto, adesto, Jesu bone Pontifex, in 
medio nostri, sicut fuisti in medio discipulorum tuorum, et sanctifica banc 
oblationem, ut sanctiflcata sumamus per manum sancti angeli tui, Sancte Domine 
et Eedemptor teteme." 

Here is, indeed, a prayer addressed to Christ, and asking His Presence, but it is 
certainly not addressed to Him as in the elements (for they are yet unconsecrated), 
nor does it ask Him to be present in the elements after consecration ; but it asks 
Christ to be present as the cause, not the conseqttence of the consecration, the conse- 
quence of the consecration being simply " ut sanctiflcata sumamus." 

And shortly after the consecration, before reception, the Priest says three times, in 
the chief festivals (see Neale, p. 255) : " Vicit Leo de tribu Juda, radix David, 
alleluia ;" to which there is a response addressed to Christ, not as on the altar, but as 
in heaven : " Qui sedes super Cherubim, radix David, alleluia " (p. 168). 

The following prayer (after consecration) from the Coptic Liturgy of St. Gregory 
the Theologian also deserves attention: "Cleanse us also, our Master, as Thou 
hast hallowed thbss g^ts lying here, and hast made them to become invisible 
out of that which is visible in them ; and a mystery in that they make one 
THIHK cf Thee, our Lord, and our God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ." Is it 
possible to read this prayer without observing how alien it is from that idea 
of Eucharistic worship which regards the Object of adoration as, in any way, 
personally united with the hallowed gifts ? It is followed shortly by the " Prayer 
of bowing the head," the first division of which concludes thus : " Thou art King of 
us all, Christ our God. And He to whom we send up glory, and honour, and 
worship, with Thy Good Father and the Holy Ghost." (Malan's Documents of the 
Coptic Church, pp. 79—81.) 

Surely this praise is sent up, not to any presence in the host, but to a Presence on 
high, whose glory cannot be shared with any sacrament below. 

Moreover, in the second division the prayer continues: "Thou art He who sits 
upon the Cherubim and Seraphim, and who looks upon the humble ones ; Thou art 
He also, our Master, to whom we lift up the eyes of our hearts, Lord our God.' 
(Ibid., pp. 81, 82.) 

Thus with the consecrated sacrament before him, the Priest, addressing Christ, 
recognises no presence but that which from the height of heaven looks down upon 
the lowly, and to which His worshippers on earth are to l\ft up the eyes of their hearts. 


in truUi add force to the argument rather than detract anything from 
its cogency. 

For it is, indeed, a very part of this sacrificial character of the 
Eucharist, as prominently seen not only in ancient Liturgies, but in 
the writings of the Fathers * since the time of Cyprian, that this 
sacrament hears so distinctly the mark of a mystical showing forth of 
the Lord's death till He come. 

Honce Christ is here represented as the broken, the crucified, the 
sacrificed Saviour. This is, in mystical representation,! the slaying 
of the Lamb of God. The res sacramenti is here the sacrifice of Christ, 
or Christ evidently set forth crucified for sinners — His Body given as 
separate from His Blood outpoured. 

And this being so, it must be obvious that this true res sacrammU 
is not only, as (in some sense) a lifeless thing, no true object of Divine 
adoration,! but also, however really present to the believing spirit, 
and however efficaciously present in its ordained proxies, in real 
substance distant, not in place only,§ but in time. 

Li this sacrifice aU is what it is, not in real being, nor by any real 
objective presence, but in the way of vicarious representation, and 
ordained commemoration. 

In those days (in the idolatry of the whole Pagan world, as well as 
in the ceremonial ordinances of the Jews), the very idea of worship 
was so bound up with the notion of sacrifice that the two terms might 
almost be said to be convertible ; so that Divine worship was scarcely 
to be conceived without anything that should bear the name of sacri- 
fice, and the character of an ofiering. To come in adoration before Gk>d 
with nothing, was abhorrent to the religious instincts of all people. 

Christians had in the highest sense (and they readily acknowledged 
it, and endured ridicule for it) no real sacrifice to ofibr^ because their 
one all-sufficient Sacrifice of propitiation had already, and once for all, 
been offered and accepted. They had learned to come before God as, 
in themselves, beggars, with nothing to give and all to receive. But 

* See *< Bomlah Mm8 and Bnglish Church," pp. 91—06. 

t *0 yd.p (BcuTiKeifc tS>v PaffiKevovnov, xal KvpioQ rwv Kvpi€u6vrtav Xpurrbi 
6 Oe6q Tffi&v TTpookpxerai a^ayiaa9r\vai koX SoOrjvcu eig pp&atv toXq vuftoiq. 
(Neale'8 Tetralogia liturglca, p. 57. See below, Note F.) 

The words of St. James's Liturgy : *I^€ 6 AfivbQ tov Oeov, 6 Ylbc rov UarpbQ, 
6 alpojv n)v aftapHav tov KdiTfiov, <T<payia(y9BiQ virkp rijc tov Kdfffiov Z^C koI 
(TiitTrjpiag (Neale's liturgies, Gr., p. 73) should be read in conneotion with the report 
of Gelasius Cyz., quoted below. Note F. 

t See above, p. 16. 

§ See Papers on Encharistic Presence, p. 401. 


they had, in the language of Eusebius, "a* memorial instead of 
sacrifice/' a pledge of Christ's love for the continual remembrance of 
His all-sufficient atonement and perfect redemption. 

And this memorial was to be the memorial of Christ's deaths and 
to be made by the symbols of His Body and Blood — of His Body as 
dead, and of His blood as poured out in sacrificial propitiation, as 
the Blood of the New Testament shed for the remission of sins. 

Hence this true patristic view of the sacrificial character of this 
ordinance is really destructive f of that theory of the presence of 
Christ's Body and Blood which alone could justify the adoration of 
the host, or of Christ as really present therein. " Christ being raised 
from the dead dieth no more." His Body is not dead now, that it 
should be really present as dead anywhere. 

It may, indeed,very well be that this sacrificial view of the Eucharist 
accounts for the fact that the worship of the Liturgies is chiefly 
addressed to the Father. It is, however, beyond dispute that some 
of the Liturgies contain prayers addressed also to Christ. 

Now whatever may be the date at which these exceptional prayers 
were inserted (and they are doubtless no parts of the original 
Liturgies), they are certainly not addressed to Christ as on the altar, 
nor to Christ as present in the elements. | 

* See below, Note E. See also " Komish Mass and English Church," pp. 86, also 
pp. 86, 90 aqq,, 88, 89. 

t " The Fathers look upon the bread and wine in the Eucharist as the representa- 
tive Body of Christ, and thus Christ's Body is indeed present by that which is its 
proxy or pledge ; but this presence in a proper sense is absence, and does suppose it. 

"I shall therefore here only insist upon one consideration of Christ's Body there, 
which can only agree to His representative Body, but not to the natural and glorified 
Body of Christ viz. :— 

"The presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, which the Fathers speak of, is of 
His Body as crudfled, and slain, and dead. Now this cannot agree to His natural 
Body, which by our adversaries' confession is impassible and invulnerable, now it is 
glorified, and cannot admit any separation of parts, which crucifixion does suppose, 
nor die any more. It is plain by the words of institution, that the Body of Christ 
there spoken of is His broken Body, such as crucifixion caused, and His Blood is con- 
sidered as shed and poured out of His veins, and separated from His Body, which our 
adversaries that speak of His Presence in the Sacrament do not believe." (Patrick in 
Qibson's Preservative, vol. ix. p. 179, London, 1848.) 

t " But the truth is, as appears on the slightest examination, that devout prostra- 
tion and adoration, which thus took place, was not addressed to the elements, or to 
any presence of Qod or of Christ on earth. It was, so far as it found utterance in 
words at all, expressly directed to God, or to Christ, in heaven, while its peculiarly 
profound character, and its outward gesture, were manifestly dictated by a sense of 
awe in the prospect of immediate reception of the awful gifts, and through them of 
Christ Himself. 

" In the first place, this prayer of bowing the head, and this profound prostration, 
take place before the elevation (the real intention of which will be considered pre- 
sently.) This alone entirely differentiates the action from the novel Western elevation 


And this is in marked contrast to the adoration which has resulted 
from the Romish tran substantiation, and which naturally should 
result from kindred views of the Presence, such as are now being 
taught by some in the English Church.* 

and worship immediately after the consecration, with which it has been nsual to 
assume its identity or close resemblance. It is clear even from hence that it is not 
directed towards the elements at aU. But next, the exhortation to the action is : 

* Let us bow our heads to the Lord,' or 'to Jesus.' And whither the prayer was 
directed, the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom, the present Greek rite, plainly declares : 

* Hear us, O Lord Jesus Christ, our God, out of Thy holy dweUing-place, and from 
the throne of the glory of Thy Kingdom, and come and sanctify us ; Thau that tUtest 
above with the Father, and here unseen art present with us ; and come and give %u to 
partake of Thy spotless Body and precious Blood.' Nothing could more distinctly 
exhibit the mind of the Eastern Church in reference to the nature and d^^ree of our 
Blessed Lord's intervention and presence in the Eucharistic rite, than this prayer. 
He is addressed as in heaven, on the throne of His glory. He is prayed to come and 
give the worshippers of His own Body and Blood, then lying mysteriously on 
the altar. They are not deemed to be Christ Himself; they are clearly dis- 
tinguishet^ from Him. Yet all the time He is believed to be invisibly present : 
doubtless in that manner and sense in which He is present by His IMvinity in 
all the ordinances of His Church ; not in a peculiar manner, as the effect of the 
consecration of the elements. Both He Himself, as thus present, and His Body 
and Blood as sacramentally so, are recognised and reverenced ; but as in heaven, and 
as there only, is He worshipped." (Freeman's Principles of IMvine Service, voL ii 
part I. pp. 173—176.) 

* " In them " [the oldest liturgies and Eucharistic forms] ** it appears that there was 
no such adoration to the sacrament till of late, for in none of them is there any soch 
mention, either by the priest or the people, as in the B>oman missal and ritual, nor 
any such forms of prayer to it as in their breviary. Cassander has collected together 
most of the old liturgies, and endeavours, as far as he can, to show their agreement 
with that of the Roman Church ; but neither in the old Greek, nor in the old Latin 
ones, is there any instance to be produced of the priests or the people's adoring the 
sacrament as soon as he had consecrated it ; but this was perfectly added, and 
brought in anew into the Roman liturgy after the doctrine of transubstantiation was 
established in that Church, which has altered not only their liturgy, but even their 
religion in good part, and made a new sort of worship, unknown, not only in the first 
and best times of the Church, but for above a thousand years after Christ. Boileau 
finding this, though a negative argument, press very hard upon them (and snre it 
cannot but satisfy any reasonable man), that there is no direction in the ancient 
liturgies for a iorin? the sacrament ; and it is very hard to require us to produce a 
rubric against it, when nobody thought of that which after-superstition brought in ; 
he would fain, therefore, find something in an old liturgy that should look like that 
of their own. And no doubt but he might have easily met with abundant places for 
their worshipping and adoring God and Christ at that solemn office of the Christian 
worship, the blessed sacrament ; and therefore out of the liturgy called St. CSuy- 
soatom's— which he owns to be two hundred years later than St. Chrysostom— he pro- 
duces a place, wherein it is said, that * the priest and the deacons worship in the 
place they are in, and likewise the people.' But do they worship the sacrament? Is 
that, or only God and Christ, the object of their worship there ? Is there any such 
thing to determine this, as they have taken there should be in their missal ? Where 
it is expressly said several times, they shall worship the sacrament ; but here in St. 
Chrysostom's Liturgy it is God who is to be worshipped : ' Gk)d be merciful to me a 


Tbe argument, however, from the ancient Liturgies should hy no 
means be weighed alone. 

Tbe ninth century, which saw the birth of the Paschasian doctrine, 
and the commencement of the Eucharistic controversy, saw also, not 
indeed strictly the commencement,''^ but the development of a litera 
ture " de rebus Liturgicis." 

This new science (if it may be so called) may doubtless be regarded 
a<« indicative of something like a new phase of development on which 
Christianity was entering. 

Yet the earlier Liturgical writers yield no support whatever to the 
new theories of Eucharistic adoration. And if they yield it no sup- 
port, they certainly thereby add vast weight to the argument built 
OD the absence from the Liturgies of anything whicli can be urged 
in their favour. 

It is acknowledged that there is not a word to be found as to the 
elevation of tbe host immediately after consecration, for purposes of 

sinner ; ' but in the Roman it is the ' Sacrament is prayed to/ and they would reckon 
and account it as true religion not to worship and pray to that as nut to worship Ood 
and Christ. So in the litui^ tliat goes under the name of St. James, the worship 
is only before the holy table, as it is in the Church of England ; and I hope Boileau 
will not pretend that this is to the holy table itself. If whatever we worship before 
is the very object of our worship, then the priest is so, as well as the table ; but it is 
neither he, nor the table, nor the sacrament, but only Christ Himself, to whom this 
worship is or ought to be given at the celebration of the Eucharist ; and therefore 
this adoration was as well before as after the consecration of the sacramental 
elements, and so could not be supposed to be given to them " (Prebendary Payne, 
Discourse on the Adoration of the Host, in Gibson's Preservative, vol. x. pp. 141, 
142, London, 1848.) 

• Before this (not to mention the works of Pte ido-Dionysius and others , two books 
"De Ecclesiasticis Officiis" had been written by Isidore Hispalensis in the early 
part of the seventh century. 

Maximus, the Scholiast on Pseudo-Dionysius Areop., is also supposed to have 
written in the seventh century. 

Alcuin died very early in the ninth century. But the " De Divinis Officiis Liber," 
which passed under his name, was not his. 

The ** Ordo Romanus " (in its present form) appears to belong to the eleventh 
century. (See Claude, Cath. Doct. of Euch., part ii. p. 71.) But it originally 
appeared in the eighth century. Cave says : " Usserium sicuti circa annum 730 
collocamus." (Hist. Lit., p. 342.) He adds: " Non pauca observari possunt, quae 
tempora sevum Carolinum sequentia manifesto sapiunt." See also Albertinus, De 
Eucharistia, p. 917. 

Morinus says : " Posterior " [Heniico prirao Francorum Bege] "est Ordo Romanus 
in Bibliotheca Patrum editus, cujus scriptio . . . vix ad octatem illam pertingit. Id 
ex fine non inevidenter constat." (De Sacris Ordinationibus, pars iii. exercit. ix., De 
Diaconatu, cap. i. p. 133, Antwerp, 1685.) 

The *' Theoria rerum Ecclesiasticarum " of Germanus is of uncertain date, seeing 
it is a question whether it was written by the Patriarch of Constantinojple in the 
eighth century, or by one of the same name in the thirteenth. Cave attributes it to 
the latter. (See Hist. Lit., p. 493.) 


adoration, in the writings attributed to Alcuinus, nor in those of 
Amalarins,* or Floras Magister. Rabanus MauniF,t in his work 

^ Amalarins has a chapter " De adoratione Sanctn Cmcis " (Edttorpiiu, De Cath. 
Eccles. DiviniB OfflciiB, pp. 108 sqq.. Borne, 1591), but nothing on the adoration of the 

Moratori, indeed, quotes from Amalarins (De Divin. Offlc., lib. ill. c. 2S) : ** Perse- 
verant retro stantes inclinati, usque dum dicatur, Sed libera no* a maio " (see Hit- 
torpius, p. 166, Borne, 1591), and then he adds : "Hoc est, adorationem per totom 
canonem continuabant." (De Bebus liturg., cap. xix.. In Migne, c. 1008, In lit. B. 
Yet., c. 234.) But it might with equal force be argued that the adoration of the host 
is practised in the English Church throughout the Commimion service. (See Papers 
on the Eucharistic Presence, p. 575.) 

Indeed Amalarins himself gives his reasons for this ineHnationt and they have 
nothing whatever to do with adoration of the Eucharist. Hesajrs: "Qnodenim 
seqnitur, usque. Per omni% ssecula 'sssculorum, ezpositio est novisainuB x>etitionis 
Dominicffi orationis. . . . Ipsi stant inclinati, donee liberarentor a malo. Hi enim 
sunt Apostoli, qui magna tribulatione erant oppressi : Antequam audirent Domini 
resurrectionem non se audebant erigere. . . . Sua inclinatione subdiaconi mnstitiam 
. . . signant." (Hittorpius, p. 165.) 

These notions of Amalarius are ridiculed by Florus Magister (Advers. Amalarium, 
eap.ii. § 5, Op., edit. Migne, c. 81), but without a word to suggest the idea that a 
truer account of these ceremonies could be found in the doctrine of the Beal 
Presence of Christ to be adored on the altar. 

When therefore Mabillon (In Ord. Bom. Com. § vii., Mus. Itali, torn. ii. p. zlix.), 
followed by Lambertiuus (De Sacr. Mis., sect. i. ch. cclzviii. p. 102, Patav. 1745), says 
"Hac corporis inclinatione ttdorabant sacram actionem, et sacra mysteria," we must 
understand (as in many early writings) the word **adoro" in that wider sense in 
which alone, I suppose, it can be applied to the **8<icra actio." (See Dean Aldrich, 
Beply to Two Discourses, p. 39.) And even so, his assertion can scarcely be said to 
be fully supported by the words of Amalarius. 

As to what Amalarius says in the preceding chapter fxxil) of the veneration of the 
Divine Majesty and the Incarnation (which is relied upon by Le Brun, Expli. Miss., 
tom. i p. 232), it obviously has reference likewise to mjrstical interpretation. Mark 
the words: "Angelorum concentus, dicendo Sanctus, Ac. Majestatem Divinam 
introducit : Turbarum vero, Domini Incamationem, dicendo : Benedictus qui venit 
in nomine Domini." And observe that all this is before entering on the Canon. 

Muratori further quotes from the " Eclogse " which bear the name of Amalarius 
(c. 1009). But the authenticity of these "Eclogse" is questioned. (See Du Pin, 
Eccles. Hist., English trans., 1699, vol. vii. p. 159.) Moreover in them the adoring 
of the " Sancta " should much rather, I think, be understood of the highest reverence 
towards sacred things, as effectual proxies representing the crucified Body and out- 
poured Blood of Christ, than of Divine adoration addressed to the Person of the Son, 
as really present under their forms. 

t There is found indeed at the end of the first Book of Babanus, " De Inatitutione 
Clericonim," a certain short chapter added, in which the elevation is spoken of and 
mystically interpreted. The words are : "Elevatio sacerdotis et diaconi corporis et 
sanguinis Christi, elevationem ejus ad crucem insinuat pro totius mundi salute." 
(Hittorpius, p. 279; Babanani Mauri Opera, edit. Migne, tom. i. c. 324.) 

But the genuineness of this fragment is very doubtful. Hittorpius says of it : 
"Additioquassequitur, in duobus quibus nos usi sumus exemplaribus, non erat." 
(See also L'Aroque's History of the Eucharist, Walker's translation, p. 108 ; Dallens, 
De Bel. Cult. Obj., p. 287.) 

Even if it were genuine, it would but support the statements of Qermanua of 


" De Institutione Clericorum," and in that " De Sacris Ordinibus," is 
equally silent. And so is Walafrid Strabo in his book " De Rebus 

Yet in the works of these writers will be found, treated at some 
length, various parts of the Liturgy in use in their days, not omitting 
such ceremonial particulars as in after times were embodied in rubri- 
cal directions.* 

Nor are we dependent entirely on these later writers *' de ec- 
clesiasticis officiis " for our acquaintance with the usages of the 
Christian Church in the celebration of the Lord's Supper. 

Constantinople, that the elevation of the host was for a commemoration of the 
lifting up of the Body of Christ on the cross. 

Germanus says : " Elatio autem in altum yenerandi corporis reprosentat Crucis 
elationem, et mortem in ea, et ipsam resurrectionem." (Germanus Constant., Theoria 
Ber. Bccles., In Bibl. Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, tom. ziii. p. 61.) 

So Hugo de Santo Yictore : '* Post signa Crucis utraque manu elevat sacramentum 
corporis et sanguinis Christi, et paulo post deponit : quod signiflcat eleyationem 
corporis Jesu Christi in cruce, et ejusdem in sepulchrum depositionem, unde et 
oalicem corporali palla tegit, quod signiflcat sindonis involutionem." (De Offlc. 
Ecolea., lib. ii. cap. zzxviii., Opera, tom. iii. fol. 172, Venice, 1688.) 

In this view of the elevation there is nothing to support the teaching of the 
adoration of the host, or of any similar doctrine. Sae below, p. 246. 

* In the "Ordo de Feria VI. Passione Domini" of the " Sacramentarium Gelasia- 
num " in the following rubric : " Istis orationibus suprascriptis expletis, ingrediuntur 
Diaconi in Sacrarium. Procedunt cum Corpore et Sanguine Domini, quod ante die 
remansit ; et ponunt super altare. Et venit sacerdos ante altare, adorans crucem 
Domini et osculans. Et dicit : Oremus, et sequitur : PrceeepHs scUtarUms moniti. 
Et oratio Dominica. Inde, 'Libera nos, DonUne, qtuxstrnivs. His omnibus expletis 
adorant omnes sanctam crucem, et communicant." (Muratori, Lit. Bom., tom. i. 
c. 662.) 

This mention of the adoration of the cross makes very observable the omission of 
all adoration of the host. And this adoration of the cross follows immediately upon 
the placing of the consecrated elements on the altar, the priest then coming in front 
of the altar to adore not the host but the cross. And this adoration of the cross is 
repeated immediately before communicating. 

This would little accord with the rationale of the Mass service as now expounded : 
"Whereas up to the consecration the priest inclined towards the crucifix, he makes 
his reverence after it to our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament." (Oakley's Ceremonial of 
the Mass, p. 68, second edition.) 

Alluding to the prayer which anciently had place in the Sacramentary of Gregory 
(see below. Note E), in which the Eucharist is regarded as a "pledge and an image," 
Soames says : " Hence we can understand sufficiently why this pontiff's liturgical 
productions, like those of earlier periods, offer no directions for adoring the holy 
Sacrament. Fond as Gregory was of ritual pomp, who would expect him to enjoin 
the worship of a pledge and an image?" (Bampton Lectures, p. 871.) And he 
adds, in a note, "Of this fact anyone may satisfy himself who will consult 
Menard's Sacramentary cf Gregory the Great. No rubric directing the adoration of 
the Eucharist will be found in that work. Nowhere is this omission more strikingly 
exemplified than in the rubric relating to the observance of Good Friday (p. 69). Among 
the ceremonies provided for that solemnity, are the adoration of the cross, and the 


Beginning with Justin Martyr* (who gives us a somewhat detailed 
acconnt of the custom in the second century), we have various notices 
of such observances as were practised by Christians in the Eucharistic 
service, and frequent interspersed allusions, in the ¥rriting8 of the 
Fathers ; but among all these we find nothing to lead us to suppose 
that anything like the adoration of the host,f or its elevation for pur- 
poses of adoration, was known at all for many centuries in the Chris- 
tian Church. 

receiving of the Eucharist consecrated on the day before, and reserved for theeipreis 
purpose of administration on that day. There is certainly, therefore, a aolBcirait 
opening here for any of those Romish usages which Protestants charge with supersti- 
tion. . . . Who would have expected, at least who believes in the complete antiquity 
of Romanism, that these directions for carrying about the conaecrated elements 
should have esJiibited no trace of any direction for adoring fhem?" (Soames, 
Bampton Lectures, pp. 396, 397.) 

• "Thoee most ancient writers, Justin Martyr, the author of the Apostolic 
Constitutions, and St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who acquaint us with the maimer 
how they celebrated the Eucharist, which was generally then one constant part of 
their public worship ; they give no account of any adoration given to the sacrament, 
or to the consecrated elements, though they are very particular and exact in men- 
tioning other less considerable things that were then in use, the kiss of charity, in 
token of their mutual love and reconciliation ; this Justin Martyr, mentions as the 
first thing just before the sacrament. In St. CyrO's time, the first thing was the 
bringing of water by the deacon, and the priests washing their hands in it, to denote 
that purity with wldch they were to compass God's altar ; and then the deacon tpok» 
to the people, to give the holy kiss ; then bread was brought to the bishop orpriest^ 
to which the people joined their Amen, the deacons gave everyone present of the 
blessed bread, and wine, and water ; and to those that were not present, they carried 
it home. ' This,' says Justin Martyr, ' we account not common bread, or oommon 
drink, but the Body and Blood of Christ, the blessed food, by which our fleah and 
blood is nourished, that being turned into it,' — which could not be said of Christ's 
natural Body ; nor is there the least mention of any worship given to that^ as there 
present, or to any of the blessed elements. The others are longer and much later, 
and speak of the particular prayers and thanksgivings that were then used by the 
Church : of the Sursnm Corda, Lift up your heart, which St. Qyrfl saya followed after 
the kiss of charity ; of the Sancta SanetUy Things holy belong to those that are holy ; 
then they describe how they came to communicate, how they held their hand when 
they received the elements, how careful they were that none of them should lUl 
upon the ground ; but among all these most minute and particular deecriptiooa of 
their way and manner of receiving the sacrament, no account is there of their adoring 
it, which surely there would have been had there been any such in the Primitive 
Church, as now in the Roman." (Prebendary Payne, Discourse on the Adormtion of 
the Host in Gibson's Preservative, vol. x. pp. 13»— 141, London, 1848.) 

t *' £x Indils et Japonibns in Xuropam per Jesuitas invecta ilia EoduuistiK gloiifi- 
canda formula ita apud multo6» pnesertim Hiq;>ano6, invaluit, ut nihO nunc sit in 
omni eorum sermone crebrius. Jam si idem fuisset primi ChriatianiaDii seosQa atque 
usus» extarent itidem in veris prinus antiqnitatis m<mumenti8 aliqus pionim flifan 
memoriiB preces et gratiamm actiones ad sacramentnm Enchar ia tic m n direct». At 
nuUas extare videmus. Multaa ccmfessorum et martymm vet e ra m preces et gimtSaram 
aotionea in ntperiori dl^Hitationis parte attulimus^ plures pionmi e jnadem «vi infra 
QVPoHoBlni nhl die SaDetoram cultn dicemna aOaturi samos. Ctamea ad Deum 


NOTE C (p. 14). 
On Elevation, and its Relation to Eucharistic Worship. 

It must by no means be supposed that the elevation of the host, 
whenever it began to be practised, implied of necessity anything like 
an intention of demanding from the people the adoration of a Pre- 
sence of Christ under its form. 

Neither may it be thought that the practice of prostration, or other 
excessive signs of reverence, are any sufficient evidence of an intent 
to give Divine worship to any present object.* 

If no other proof of this were forthcoming, it would suffice to point 
to the fact of the Eastern elevationf of the Gospel, and the signs of 

directee sunt ; nulla plane ad sacramentum. niam vero nunc apud Latinos frequen- 
tisaimam, ^o^oXoytav, Laua sanctiasitno sacramento, non modo in vetustissimis 
Christianorum libria non eztare; sed ne sequentium quidem ad nostram poene 
memoriam seBculorum monumentis uspiam inveniri, ipsi in fallor, Jesultae conflte- 
buntur, suamque hanc proprlam esse laudem a^rnoscent, quod omnium mortalium 
prim! tradiderint, quse vera ac legitima sit gloriflcandi sacrament! ratio, ac formula. 
Stiam qui ante eos Eucharistiam adoraverant, hoc tametsi claro ac necessario adora- 
tionis (ut sic dicam)consectario abstinuerant tamen, pudore credo, deterriti, ne Deum 
de eo loco pellere viderentur, qui ejus apud omnes pios, et Jud»os primum ; et 
deinceps etiam Christianos semper proprius in omni retro ecclesia fuerat. Caeteros 
mitto. Primis quidem tribus Christianismi seeculis, de quorum traditione nunc dispu- 
tamus, nullam hu^us gloriflcationis formulam, nullas ad sacramentum directas preces, 
ant gratiarum actiones occurrere, certum clarumque est ; unde illud porro quod 
concludebamus, sequitur, iUum Eucharistise divinum cultum, ex quo omnis hsec turn 
gloriflcandi, tum precandi sacrament! consuetudo apud Latinos profluxit, nondum 
fuisse toto illo tempore apud Ctiristianos cognitum aut factitatum." (Dallseus, De Cultus 
Beligiosi Objecto, pp. 288, 289.) 

* The words which are quoted as from Gregory I. go to show, that according to 
the theory by which image-worship was supported, prostration before a visible object 
may mean only adoration of an object called to mind thereby : " Et nos quidem non 
quasi ante Divinitatem, ante illam prostemimur, sed ilium adoramus, quem per 
imaginem, aut natum, aut passum, sed et in throno sedentem recordamur." This 
language, however, is probably not Gregory's. (See James's "Corruption of S. Councils 
and Fathers," p. 144, London, 1843.) 

This is still the theory on which image- worship seems to rest. (See Concil. Trid. 
Sess. XXV.) If then the elements solemnly carried in to be consecrated may so far 
only be regai'ded as signs of Christ, that they may avail to call Him to mind, I 
scarcely see why Romish divines, on their own theory, may not consistently allow the 
prostration of the Easterns at the Greater Entrance to be altogether freed from the 
charge of idolatry. 

Of course, the soundness of the theory is quite another question, ^o is its 
relation to the Second Commandment. 

t Of the Eastern elevation Cardinal Bona writes : " Habet exemplum in veteri 
Testamento hsec hostise elevatio : nam passim legimus partem vlctlnin a sacerdotibus 


excessive veneration, amounting sometimes to prostration,* which are 
exhihited at its entrance. 

But, in fact, we have abundant evidence that other canses were 
formerly assigned for the elevation of the sacramental Body of Christ; 
aud that excessive} reverence, with every outward sign, at least, of 

elevatam coram Domino." (Kemm liturgicanim, lib. ii. cap; xiii.. Opera, p. 24S, 
Antw. 1723.) 

" Elevata est Eucharistia. Ergo adorata. Perpetuas nugie. Konne esdm elevatio 
bi l^e uaitatdBsima inter sacrificandiimT" (Chamier, Panatratia Cath., De Each., 
lib. vii. cap. ii. § xvi. torn. iv. p. 166.) 

'' Elevationem legis : etiaun Evangelii in Chrysostomi riitiirgi&] : et qcddem ita, at 
rb vypovVf quomodo sit acdpiendum facile doceat, dospx^cu 6 Huueovog ag t6 
fAsaov, Kai CTdg ifA7rpo<r9Ev tov lipiutg dw^oi fiucpbv rdg x^pOQt Koi Siuevvuv 
t6 liyiov ivayyeKiov, Xeyci tK^vtog, So^uz 6p9rj. (Ibid., § xliiL p. 188.) 

" The deacon having received the book of the Gospel from the hands of the priest, 
holding it on high, that the people may the better see it, goes out at the north door 
of the chancel." (Smith's Account of the Greek Chorch, 1680, p. 180.) 

'O AiaKOVog eiVwi' to, 'A/x^, kcu vpoaicwfiaag ner eOXctpeiag t6 &yuov 
EOayykXiov, aip^i avTO. (Eabric of St. Chrysoetom's liturgy. SeeNeale'sIiioigies* 
Gr., p. 123 : see also p. 120. See also Fortescue's Armenian Church, p. 154.) 

So also in the Soman Church, according to the '' Ordo Komanus," the Book of the 
Gospel was "Uft up by the hands of the deacon, and carried on his lij^t shoulder." 
(See Morton on the Eucharist, p. 513.) 

In the Clementinarum Liber V. tit. iv. cap. iii. is a condrannation of the Blgaardi 
and BeguinsD for asserting "quod in elevatione corporis Jesu Christi non debent as- 
sui^ere, nee eidem reverentiam ezhibere." And the ^oss on this alleges " Nam etiam 
cum evangelium legitur, curvari debemus." (Clementinse, Antwerp, 1672, c. 897.) 

''The copies [of St. Chrysostom's Liturgy] are very different ; for in that amongst 
the works of St. Chrysostom there is no mention made of adoring but once, whm the 
Gospel is carried, and when 'tis lifted up ; because then the choir saith. Come, let tu 
ioorship and kneel down before Jesus Christ; excepting that the priest and deacon 
bow the head, in several places of the Liturgy, before and after the consecratifm, and 
that the people are once warned to bow the head to give thanks unto God. Caaaander 
represents another unto us in his Liturgies, of the version of Leo Tuacus, wherein 
there is no mention of adoration ; but is not so of two others which we have, one in the 
Library of the Holy Fathers, and the other in the Ritual of the Greeks by James Ooar, 
of the order of Preaching Friars, for in both these there is frequent mention made of 
adoring. It is true these sorts of adorations are there practised before the consecra- 
tion and after, which plainly showeth they were addressed unto God, and unto Jesus 
Christ, because the Bread and Wine by the doctrine itself of the Churdi of Borne, are 
not to be adored until after consecration. The thing will appear yet plainer, if we 
consider the prayers which be there made when they dispose themselves unto the 
Communion. Lord Jesus (saith the priest), beliold us frmn thy holy haMtatUm, and 
from the Throne of thy Glory, and come sanetifie tu, thou who art in the Heavens 
gitting with thy Father, and art here present wUh us in an invisible tiiann«r, be 
pleased to give us by thy powerful hand, thy pure and unspotted Body, a$ul thy precious 
Blood ; and by us urUo aU the people." (L'Aroque's History of Suchariat, Walker's 
translation, pp. 558, 559.) 

• See SomanofTs Liturgy of St Chrysostom, pp. 46, 49, 60 ; Neale'a Tetralogia lit. 
p. 227. 

t Arcudius writes : " Populus ... in Sussii prostemit se, terram fronte percutit 
ac veluti pnesentem in ea oblatione ooelorum Begem aUoquitur, et adorat. Sic enim 
oommoniter popolua credit. Quern divinum cultum, huic rei minime debitum, Gned 


adoration, was exhibited at the entrance of the elements in the 

. . . adeo tenaciier imbiberunt, ut si quia velit eos verum dooere, atque ab hac 
carrupta consuetudine dimovere, omnlno ipais exeorandus iste sit, et detestabilis, ao 
veluti hnretiouB habeatur." (De Concordia Eccles. Occ. et Ori., Paris, 1672, p. 220, 
lib. iii. cap. xix.) " Populus Gnecorum in eo vehementer errat, quod suts verbis dona, 
non Deum invocat et alloquitur. Non enim secus atque si esset prosens sacramen- 
taliter Christus Domlnus sub illis speciebus, eos populus respiciens et adorans ait, 
Menwr sig mei Dornine in regno ttu>." (Ibid., p. 221.) 

Smith says: "The people during this procession show all imaginable reverence, 
bowing their heads, bending their knees, and sometimes prostrating themselves upon 
the pavement, . . . repeating these words, Remember me, Lard, in Thy kingdom. . . 
This seems to be, and really is, . . . the most solemn part of the Grecian worship. . . . 
After the consecration, when the symbols are exposed and shown to the people, the 
reverence Is not half so great ; only a little bowing of the body, which is soon over." 
(Smith's Account of the Greek Church, 1680, pp. 188, 135.) " When they receive the 
Sacrament they do not kneel, but only incline their body." (Ibid., p. 159. See also 
Kicaut's Present State of the Greek and Armenian Churches, 1679, p. 196 ) 

Dr. Neale writes : "The adoration of the unconsecrated elements by the people has 
given great scandal to many Latin, and some Greek, writers. It, however, is not a 
peculiarity of Constantinople, for we find it to exist in Ethiopia, where, as Alvarez 
informs us, the people fall down in reverence, and the bells are rung ; in the Coptic 
Church, and, it appears, in the Syro-Jacobite." (Introduction, History of the Eastern 
Church, vol. i. p. 875. See also Tetralogia Lituigica, p. 242.) 

Goar has laboured to excuse the Greeks from the inculpation of idolatry. One of 
his arguments is observable: "Nee si regis thronum, absente rege, venerentur 
Britanni conoessi inanimie rei regii honoris, confestim sunt accusandi." (Eucho- 
loglon, p. 114.) 

However, he has failed to give satisfaction on this point to doctors of his own 

But the important matter in this controversy is entirely untouched by the question 
of the Greeks' idolatry. 

The only point which concerns us is clear. After such outward excessive tokens of 
T«neration at the bringing in of the unconsecrated elements, no valid argument can 
powibly be built on any similar tokens afterwards in support of the adoration of the 
Host, or of Christ present under the form of the elements. 

AS a matter of fact the TrpooKvvriai^ of the Greeks after consecration appears to 
be far less conspicuous, and to have less of the character of true and proper adoration, 
than that before consecration. See Scudamore, Notitia Eucharistica, pp. 842, 596. 

Dr. Covel, who had opportunities of observation, writes : " In the common daily 
Liturgies the elements are worshipped as they pass by unconteerated, but are never 
worshipped by them after they are consecrated." (Account of the Greek Church, 

p. 102.) 

And he tells us: "The laymen always stand upright at the Communion, without 
any sign of adoration at all. " (Ibid.) 

Again he declares : "The Greeks show such reverences for many, many other things 
which they count either sacred or highly good. Thus the priest and deacon in the 
Liturgy often bow to the prothetia ; to the holy table, or high altar ; to the holy 
things upon it ; to one another ; to the Gospel, and all the people do the like as it 
pass by in the procession, and the bishop or priest kiss it. A.nd I have often seen 
Greeks, of good sense and quality, take up common bread that is fallen down ami 
kiss it, and put it to their forehead. They will do the like to the Bible when they 
take it up ; all bow to a cross ; to pictures. . . . Gabriel Philadelph saith the elements 
once offered to God are no more simple bread ai^d wine, but have received more 



Eastern Church, even before consecration.'^^ 

worth and honour as being a Divine gift, and therefore all ortiiodox Greeks adore 
them. . . . Gabriel Fhiladelph argues warmly, that they might as well worship the 
elements as the picture of Christ; and I must say the same of the saints' portions; 
they might as well (and surely they did as easily) worship them as th^ worshipped 
their picture." (Pp. 103, 104. See also pp. 34 and 102.) 

So of the ark, whatever it be, which Dr. Neale (against the opinion of Benandot) 
considers to be the t about, "used for the reservation of the blessed Sacrament" in 
Ethiopia, we are told that " young and old, rich and poor prostrate themselves on 
the ground," as it is "carried in procession through the streets under the great 
umbrellas." (See Neale's Introduction, History of the Eastern Church, p. 186, note.) 

Yet in the seventeenth century they seem to have had no elevation or adoration 
of the host after the manner of Romish mass. 

Dr. Geddes sayd: "They do not elevate, nor worship the consecrated elements, 
neither are they kept after the Communion." (Church History of Ethiopia, London, 
1696, p. 33.) 

* This argument is obviously not at all weakened by the plea that such pros- 
tration, whether at the Lesser or tlie Greater Entrance, may have reference to a 
mystical signification in the entrance as representing the Advent of Christ, or His 
Ascension (Fortescue's Armenian Church, p. 153), or His triumphant entry into 
Jerusalem (see Goar, Euch., p. 114), or of His going to judgm^it and to death 
(Romanoff, Lit. of Chrys., p. 63), or of His Body being taken from Calvary to the 
sepulchre (Arcudius, p. 224). The point to be insisted on is this, that that which 
calls it forth is unquestionably not the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ. 

One account (as given by Symeon of Thessalonica) of the outward signs of adoration 
at the Greater Entrance is this— that it is a fitting prostration of the faithful to the 
priests, to beg their prayers in the sacred service. (See Neale's Tetralogia Liturgica, 
p. 242.) 

Neither will the argument be deprived of its force by ailing an ignorant 
supposition of such a Real Presence. 

Now, indeed, the uneducated may fall down as before the unconsecrated gifts, or 
address themselves as to a Real Presence in them. This is only what, from the 
natural growth of superstition, we should expect. But it is surely quite incredible 
that this was the original theory of the ceremonial. None will maintain that the 
Greek Church ever meant to teach a Real Presence in the symbols before consecra- 
tion. Whereas to connect this prostration with some event mystically symbolised by 
the Greater Entrance would be entirely in accord with the genius of the Orient^ 

Raulin (as quoted in Scudamore's Notitia Euch., p. 380, 2nd edit.) maintains that 
such worship is merely irpofficvvrjcngt and that any act of liatria would only be 
directed to that which is represented— a plea by which this prostration might be 
as fairly defended as that before images. See above, p. 239. 

In the "Dux Viae" of Anastasius Sinaita we find it said under Qusestio cliv. : 
Quando sacra synaxis seu Missa perficitur, primus introitus sacerdotis reprsesentat 
priraara Christi praesentiam." (In Bibl. Max. Patr., Lugd., 1677, torn. ix. p. 1040.) 

In the Chronicon Alexandrinum it is said: "Cum Abraham Melchisedecem sibi 
occurrentem cum pane Eucharistise et calice benedictionis videret, pronus in terram 
Abraham in faciem procu ,uit, atque adoravit, gavisus quod videret diem Domini." 
(De Melchisedece.) 

Here we have an example of prostration and adoration described with approval 
before that which was only a sign or figure, containing no Real Presence of the object 
of adoration. It seems analogous to the adoration and prostration of the Easter 
Christians at the Greater Entrance. 


A certain lifting up and showing of the elements at the to. &yia 
ToiQ hyloiQ* appears, indeed, to have heen an ancient practice. I 

The marginal note on the passage in the Bibliotkeea Maxima Patrum (Lngd. 
1677, torn. xii. p. 883) is remarkable : " Figura Eucharistiee adoratur ab Abrahamo, 
quanto magis ipsa Eaoharistia est adoranda." The argument may be allowed if by 
adoration is meant only reverence due to sacred signs. But it is impossible noi to 
obsenre how little may be meant by "adoration," and how futile is the argument 
from excessive tokens of veneration to a faith in the Real Objective Presence. 

* "Saneta SancHa. Vix ulla caDremoniarum Liturgicarum pars est, quee cum ista 
]>088it de antiquitate contendere, prsesertim in Ecclesiis Orientalibus. Nam de ilia 
formula, qua, at ait Chrysostomus, sancti ad Eucharistiee communionem soli vocantur, 
et illius et onmium aliorum Patrum Grsecorum inflnita extant testimonia. Illani 
disciplinam imitatao sunt et hue usque retinuerunt omnes Orientales Ecclesioc." 
(Renaudot, Lit. Orient. Coll., torn. ii. p. 114.) 

Archdeacon Freeman's interpretation of these words, as if signifying or prayincr 
that these holy gifts might be accepted in the Most Holy Place (Principles of Diving 
Service, vol. ii. part i. pp. 175, 176) seems to be contradicted by the teaching of the 
Greek Fathers. "Chrysostomus fusa disertaque oratione hccc verba explicans, Homil. 
17 in Eplst. ad HebraDos tandem concludit Et tlc ovk ttrriv liyiotj fjt) TrpoaiTto. 

ovx u'TrKwg (pijcriv afiaprrffJLdroJV KaBapog. dW iiyiog, rdv yap dy'nov ovx t) 
dfiOfyrrifiaTijJV dirciWayrj iroui fiovov, oKKd Kai ri tov /rvcv fic.rog Tra^jovv.a, 
itai o riav tpyfov ir/s.ovTug . . . Et h. Germanus panels roig KaOapolg ry Kapdi^ 
d^ioX 6 Oebg dovvai rd liyia, . . . Cyrillus Hieros., Catech. 6, Myst. ay la rd 
rrpOKiifUva, kiri^oirriaiv di^dfieva dyiov TrvevfuiTog^ uyioi Kal vfieig irvEviiarog 
dyiov Kara^iuiOkvTeg' rd ayia ovv rdlg dyloig icardXXjjXa. " (Goar, Euchologion, 
In H. Joan. Chrysost. Missam, Not. 159, p. 126, Venice, 1730. See also Benaudot, 
tom. U. pp. lU, 116, 607.) 

In the West the words seem to have been misunderstood sometimes of the " con- 
Junction" of the elements, and in some of the provincial French missals Sancta 
Sanctis was altered to Sancta cwm Sanctis to suit this misinterpretation. (See 
Scudamore's Notitia Eucharistica, p. 594 ; and Arevalus, as quoted in Neale's Tetra- 
logia Litorgica, pp. 256, 257.) 

In the Armenian Liturgy, as translated by Mr. Malan, the formula is represented 
by the words " Unto the Holiness of the Holy" (Uterally " HoUes"). See p. 47. 

t " In primitiva Ecclesia . . . Symbola Eucharistica,panis nimirum et vinum, paulu- 
1am elevata et populo ostensa non autem supra caput ad adorationem elata f uerunt. 
Dionys. enim lib. iii. de Ecclesiast. Hierarchia sicscribit : ' Pontif ex dlvina munera sen 
dona laude prosecutus, sacrosancta et augustissima mysteria conficit, et coliaudata 
eig oyj/iv dyei in conspectum agitas, producit, per symbola reverenter proposita : 
et dona sacriflciorum commonstrans et sacram illorum communionem et ipse accedit 
et hortatur alios.' Sacerdos igitur non supra caput extulit aut elevavit symbola ilia, 
Bed in conspectum solum produxit, hoc est, commonstravit populo. . . . Neque enim 
oetendit, ut adorarentur, sed ut consecratum panem, adeoque paratam communionem 
indicaret, et ut populus ad communionem se pararet, atque ad mensam accederet : 
Hoc ex verbis Dionysii clare perspicitur, iuquit enim Dona sacrificiorum cmnmon- 
strana ad sacram Ulorwmcommunwnemet ipse accedit et hortatur alios." (Hospinian 
Hist. Sacra, lib. ii. cap. i., Op., tom. iii. p. 27.) 

The following is from the paraphrase by Pachymeres of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 
of the Pseudo-Dionysius : "Hierarcha stans in medio selectos illos Diacouos sibi 
habet assistentes, hymnoque dicto divinissima consecrat sauramenta, et sub aspectuiu 
ducit ea quee celebrata sunt, declarans ea Christ! esse symbola \i>ig Xpcarov eiai rd 
ntiavra <TV/ti/3oXa], quoniam post coouam accepto pane et qu» sequuutur item. Hoc 

R 2 


But it was certainly not anciently connected with any inten- 
tion of exhibiting them for purposes of worship.* 
In the Latin Church various f writers have given various reasons 

facite in meam commemorationem. Ostendit autem, id est, tunc detecta tancta dona 
post preces attolUt seu elevat, de cetero tecta manent usque ad tempus somptionis." 
(Eccles. H., cap. iil. § ii. Far. Pac, torn. i. p. 316, edit. Corderiua, Antwerp, 16M.) 

Smith says : " The priest comes to the middle door of the chancel, and elevates 
the bread, which he afterwards breaks and divides into four parts." (Account of 
Greek Church, 1680, p. 140.) And Ricaut: "So covering again the dudice, which 
contains both species, he elevates it, and the people worship." (Present State of the 
Greek and Armenian Church, 1679, p. 198.) It has been inferred that, in earlier 
times, at this point the veil was drawn aside and the chancel gates opened, and the 
symbols shown to the people. Le Brun sajrs : " S. Joannes Chrysoetomus recluium 
sanctuarium ait proinde spectandum fuisse, ac si cgbU reclnderentur at Chiistua 
et Angelorum Chori Fidei oculis cemerentur ; ' Yobis ' inquit ' ipsi R^pa mensam 
proponite ; deserviunt ibidem Angeli, Kex adest ; si mundis vestibus induti estis, 
adorate, et ad Communionem accedite.' Neque vero cssremonia hiec intermissa 
fuit ; cum S. Germanus Constantinopolitanus viii. saeculo asseret adorandi Corporis 
elevatione Crucis elevationem, et Resurrectionem exhiberi." (Bxplicatio Literalis 
Miss., tom. i. p. '2Z1.) See Chrysost., Horn. iii. in £p. ad. Ephes., § 5, Op., ed. Mont- 
f diucon, tom. zi. p. 23. 

Dr. Harrisjn, however, has given his reasons for thinking that Chrysostom's 
lang lage points rather to what took place before the elements were consecrated. 
(Eastward Position, p. 130.) 

* " It seemeth likely that as well this usage, as also sundry others of apparel, of 
oil, &c., grew first from the imitation of the ceremonies of the Jews, among whom 
the priest, in the time of their sacrifices, held up the oblation before hia breaat. So 
in the primitive Church, whatsoever was o£fered by any man to the relief of the poor, 
it was taken by the priest, and holden up and presented in the Church, as a pleasant 
sacrifice before Grod. So Chrysostom saith, the priest in the time of the holy ministra- 
tion lifted up the Gospel. His words be these : Sacerdos in cUtum toUit evanffelium. 
And Nicolas Cabasilas likewise saith : His . . . peractis, sacerdoa stems super altars, in 
(Utnm tollit evangelium, et ostendit: 'These things being done, the priest, standing 
over the altar, lifteth the Gospel on high, and showeth it.' 

" But, that the holding up of the Sacrament should import adoration to the same, 
as Mr. Harding surmiseth, neither is it thought true by all others of that side, nor 
hath it any good savour or show of truth. Indeed great pardons and charters have 
been liberally given of late years for the better maintenance thereof. And Dnrandos 
saith, therefore elevation is made, ut popvlus intelligat, Christum verUsse super 
altare, ' that the people may understand that Christ is come down upon the altar. 
But the old learned Fathers, both Greeks and Latins, when they held up a little, or 
showed the Sacrament, evermore they called the people to draw near, to receive, to 
be partakers of the holy mysteries, and to lift up their hearts ; but in the time of the 
same ceremony they never spake one word of adoration. Pachymeres saith : Sacerdos 
osteniit, hoec esse Christi symbola: *The priest showeth that these be tokens or signs 
of Christ.' He saith not, the Sacraments be Christ Himself, but tokens and signs of 
Christ. Maximus saith, on aufifioKa ravra Kal ovk S^tiOeuz : Symbola ista sunt, 
non autem Veritas : * These be tokens (of the truth), but not the truth itself.' And 
perhaps upon this oscasion Beguina) and BeguarJi held, that no man ought to rise 
up or to give reverence at the elevation of the Sacrament." (Jewel, Works P S 
edit., "fterm. and Hard.," pp. 612, 613.) * 

t " As for the Latms, the flr»t that I remember, who bethought himself of finding 


for elevation ;♦ but no writer seems to have distinctly connected the 
elevation with any purpose of adoration before Durandu8,t in the 
thirteenth century ; and he connects with it various other reasons. 
Nor has the vast amount of ability and learning devoted to the sub- 
ject availed to bring any real support from antiquity for the elevation 
and adoration which are maintained in the Church of E.ome.| 

out a mystery in the same elevation, was Ives of Chartres, at the end of the eleventh 
century ; . . . when the Bread and the Cup (saith he) are lifted by the ministry of the 
deacon, there is commemoration made of the lifting up of the Body of Christ upon 
the cross." (L'Aroque, History of Eucharist, Walker's translation, p. 102.) See 
above, p. 287. 

• " Yet are not they all of that side hitherto fully resolved touching their own 
elevation, neither when, nor where, nor wherefore it first came in use, nor what it 
meaneth. Some of them say the lifting up of the Sacramental Bread signifleth 
Christ's Incarnation ; some of them say it signifleth Christ hanging upon the cross : 
some of them, that it signifleth the taking down of His Body from the cross ; some His 
resurrection; some His ascension into heaven; some that it signifleth a sacriflce 
special, above all sacriflces : some others say that the priest lif teth up the chalice to 
signify that Christ, crying out with a loud voice, gave up the spirit. M. Harding 
saith : ' It is lifted up doubtless to the intent the people may adore.' Thus many 
and more mjrsteries they have imagined in one thing, and yet the same, as it is 
confessed, no key of their religion. Disagreement evermore argueth ignorance. 
St. Augustine saith : Si vix aut omnino nunqnam inveniri possint cavscB, qtias in 
iitis rebtu itutUuendU homines sequttti sunt, ubi facultas tribuitur, sine ulla dubita- 
tione reseoainda existirno: 'It the causes which men followed in devising such things 
can hardly or never be found, I think it best, when opportunity and occasion is given, 
they be abolished and put away without scruple or staggering.' 

"They have assayed earnestly to prove this ceremony by the warrant of God's 
word, as if God Himself had commanded it. Gerardus Lorichius saith : Hunc ritum 
David videtwr prcBvidisse in spiritu : 'David seemeth to have foreseen this order in 
the spirit.' And to this purpose he allegeth the authority of Kabbi Johai, whom I 
marvel M. Harding had forgotten. Durandus, for the same, allegeth the words of 
Christ : Ego si exaXtatus fuero a terra, omnia trafiem ad meipsum : ' If I be once 
lifted up from the earth, I shall draw all things to Myself.' And to speed the matter 
the better forward, Linwood saith : 'The Pope hath given liberal dole of pardons."* 
(Jewel, Works, P. S. edit., "Serm. and Hard.," pp. 508, 609.) 

t " Sane, dictis verbis illis : Hoe est corpus meum, sacerdos elevat Corpus Christi. 
Primo, ut cuncti adstantes illud videant, et petant quod proflcit ad salutem, Juxta 
iliud : Bgo si exaitatus fuero a terra, dec. Secundo, ad notandum quod non est aliud 
dignom sacriflcium, imo est super omnes hostias. Tertio, exaltatatio Eucharistiro in 
manu sacerdotls signat Christum verum panem, per prophetas in Scripturis exaltatum, 
quando scilicet ejus incamationem prophetizabant, unde Isaias : Ecce virgo concipiet; 
et hunc cibum fore cssteris excellentiorem. Similiter et de potu. Quarto, signlflcat, 
resurrectionem. Quinto, hostia elevatur ut populus non pra)veniens consecrationem, 
sed ex hoc oognoscens illam factam esse, et Christum super altare venisse, reverenter 
ad terram prostemantur, juxta illud ad Philippenses : In nomine Jesu omne genufiee- 
tatur, dsG, ; et iUum corde et ore adorent, juxta illud Apostoli ad Romanos : Corde 
creditur ad jitstitiam, ore autem cor^fessio fit ad salutem." (Durandus, Rationale D. 
Off., lib. iv. cap. xli. § 51, p. 265, Naples. 1859.) 

t The uncertainty of the date at which the Latin elevation after consecration came 
into use is acknowledged by Romish divines. There is certainly no satisfactory 
evidence of anything like it for many centuries after the time of the Apostles. 


That the practice of adoration addressed as to the host should have 
arisen after the prevalence and dominance of anti-Berengarian views 

Ooar says : "Longe post orationem Dominicani, brevi tamen ante commnnionem 
•patio, jiixta Jacobi, Baulii, et Chrysostomi liturgias Dominicum corpus^ non ita 
tamen at a populo conspiciatur, elevat Grsecus sacerdoa. Ita ab antiquo fieri solitmn 
indicat Dionysius 3 cap de Gccles. Hierar : tclq diopedg tUv OeovpTiufV inroBei^ag, 
iig KOiVitiviav avruiv l^pav ovtoq Tk ipxBTai. . . . Sac^ itaqae panis (major Hostia) 
est qui elevatur : particulse autem benedictionis nomine hie inteUectae, populo sacrm 
commimionis cupido, voce rd liyia roig ayioig, promittontor aum^idse. Csetemm 
de majoris Hostiee a populo completa consecratione per elevationem oon^icienda 
nihil apud antiquos rituum expositores Alcuinom, Valafridum Strabonem, et Micro, 
logum l^mus : licet hie de Hostia cum calice levanda, in fine Ganonis proxime ad 
Orationem Dominicam non taceat, cap. 15 et 23^ eo quod verba ista : Per ipsom, et 
cum ipso, et in ipso : est tibi Deo Ftttri omnipotent!, in unitate Spiritus Sancti : 
omnis honor et ^oria^ Corporis Christi ostensionem, et ex animo adoratioiiem Becum 
inferre videntur. Ibidem Ordo Roraanus annotat Pontiflcem oblatam lerare, et 
Archidiaconum attollere calicem. Quando vero cfMisecrationi apud Latinos Jimctfi 
fuerit Hostise elevatio, non plane constat. St^hanusDurantus ab ea nomqiunn foiss^ 
divisam contendit, sed inflrmo Juxta sidtm sententiam Dionyaii et Maximi funda. 
mento, qui scriptis suis, nonnisi Onecis ritibus suffragantur." (Ebclu^c^tm, In 
S. Joan. Chrysost. Missam, Not. 157, p. 125, Venice, 1730.) 

There seems a slight inaccuracy in the words " Pontiflcem oblatam levare" (as 
observed by Dallseus, De Bel. Cul. Obj., p. 237); the words of the Ordo Bom. are : 
"Archidiaconum levare calicem per ansae." (See MabfUon, Mus. ItaL, torn. ii. 
p. xlix. See also L'Aroque's Hist, of Bucharist, Walker's translation, p. 103.) 

Cardinal Bona declares : " Nee etiam liquet, qu» ixrima CHrigo fuerit in Kccleaia 
Latinaelevandi sacra mysteria statim ac consecrata sunt : in antiquis enim sacramen* 
torum libris et in Codicibus Ordinis Komani tarn excusfs, quam MSS. nee in priscis 
rituum expositoribus, Alcuino, Amalario, Walfrido, Micrologo, et aliis aliquod ejus 
vestigium reperitur." (ILerum liturg., lib. ii. cap. xiii., Opera^ p. 349, Antwerp, 172S.) 

And to the same effect Hugo Menardus says of the Itoman elevation immediately 
after consecration : " Quern ritum non puto adeo ease antiquum, cum in nostris 
Sacramentariis MSS., et excusis et apud Pamelium nihil simile reperire sit, quem- 
admodum nee in veteribus Ordinibus Komanis, nee apud Alcuinnm, Amaiaiium, 
Walfridum, et Babanum, qui ordinem Missaa enucleate persecuti sunt : neque apud 
Hicrologum, qui in eadem materia ^r^am operam navavit." (In Gr^orii Libr. 
Sacramentor., Paris, 1642, p. 373w) 

The same testimony is given by Catalanus (Sacr» CaBremonin, torn. iL p. 76, 
Rome, 1750). 

Mabillon claims for the practice no higher antiquity than the middle of the eleventh 
century. He says : " Non statim i>ost consecrationem in altum a sacerdote hostia, 
itemque calix primis illis temporibus efferebatur, sed sub flnem canonis, cum dioeret 
lacerdos : Per quern hcBc omnia, <i:e., erigebat se Archidiaconus solus : et cum dice- 
retur : Per ipmtm et cum ipso, levabat cum offertorio calicem per ansas, et tenebat 
exaltans ilium juxta Pontiflcem. Microlc^us, corpus cum calice tunc leratum fuiss^ 
dicit in cap. 16, ubi nuUam alterius post consecrationem levationis mentionem fecit. 
Orientales id preestant paulo ante communionem. Porro elevationem post consecra- 
tionem in Gallia, post medium saeulum undecimum videtur fieri ciepta, haud sdo an 
paulo serius in Ecclegia Romana, tametsi utrobique ad consecrationem sacra mysteria 
adorarentur." (Mabillon, Mus. Ital., torn. ii. p. xlix. In Ordln. Rom., Cbm. vii.) 

That there is mention made in Micrologus (eleventh <x twelfth century: see 
Cave, Hist. Lit., p 434 ; Soamea's Moahelm, ii. p. 346), and in the "Ordo Somanw." 


is but natural * and it may well be supposed to bave preceded the 
decree of Honorius III. in 1219, enjoining that it should be en- 
couraged by the instructions of the Priests. Yet there is some reason 

«f quite another eleTation (if it may be to called), makes the eTidence derived from 
the omission of all mention. of this far more forcible. 

Le Brun says: "Facile intellectu est, veram Christi prtesentiam in Eucharistia a 
Berengario impugnatam esse xi. ecdesieo sssculo; ac post ejus pcenitentiam, ct 
mortem qu» in anno 1086 incidit, bene multos sanctitate pmstantes viros non una 
ratione uti caspisse, ut in erroris execrationem quern Berengarius disseminaverat, ac 
publicam veras Christi in Eucharistia prsBsentias professionem Fideles adducerent ; et 
hane qtUdem elevandot Hostim or^^nem, non cUiam fuiase." (Explicatio Lit. Miss., 
torn. i. Prasf., p. xxiv. See also torn. i. p. 282, and tom. iii. p. 277 ; and Alanus as 
quoted above, pp. 12, 18.) 

The opinion of Le Brun is followed by Lambertinus (Pope Benedict XIY.), De 
Missa, sect. L ch. ccbdx, pp. 108, 104, 1746. 

* The custom of elevation immediately after consecration appears to have origi- 
nated with the Carthusians, about the middle of the twelfth century. 

The first episcopal or synodical decree on the subject appears to be found in the 
Constitutions of Odo of Paris, 1197. Guido, a Papal Legate, being at Cologne in 1208, 
«rdered " that at the elevation of the host all the people in the church should, at the 
sound of the bell, pray for forgiveness, and so lie prostrate until the benediction of 
the chalice." This was followed in 1219, by Instructions of Honorius III. to the 
bishops of Ireland, that the priests should often teach the people that " when the 
salutary host is lifted up in the celebration of masses, everyone should bow reve- 
rently." And this rule was admitted into the Decretals by his successor Gregory IX. 
The Council of Mayence in 1261 ordered the people to be instructed that at the 
elevation everyone should devoutly bend his knees, or at least bow reverently. At 
first the purpose of this elevation api)ears to have been rather to quicken devotion 
than to present an object for adoration. But the transition was easy to an actual 
worship of the consecrated symbols. In 1287 we find a decree of the Synod of Exeter : 
'* Let not the priest elevate the host until he has fully brought out those words [This 
is My Body], lest the creature be worshipped by the people for the Creator." Similar 
prohibitions in other Councils had preceded this. (See Scudamore's Notitia Eucha- 
ristica, pp. 647—549, where will be found much interesting information on this subject. 
See also Freeman's Principles of Divine Service, vol. ii. part i. pp. 87, 88.) Mr. Scu- 
damore says (p. 646) : " This elevation and worship of the consecrated elements were 
unknown for more than a thousand years after Christ. They naturally followed on 
the reception of the mediaeval dogma of transubstantiation, though they seem to 
have had very little authoritative sanction before that doctrine was formally adopted 
by the Church of Bome in 1216." 

Before this, no doubt, the custom had arisen of suiting the action to the word 
"took bread" (as ordered in our Bubric), and then (more or less observably) raising 
the paten. But though this has sometimes been called the elevation, it must by n(» 
means be confounded with the subsequent Boman custom of elevating the host on 
hi^ after the words This is My Body. (See Scudamore's Notitia Eucharistica, 2nd 
edit., pp. «02, 617.) 

"Eodem propemodum tempore in scenam simul prodierunt foedissimse super- 
Btitiones ac corruptelse, de Transubstantiatione, ac hostias adoratione, seculo per- 
obscuro, barbaro, et Christianae Beipublicae multis de causis exitiali, ortae. Par 
igitur erat, ut his inventis novellum tVtpfjfJia adderetur, solemnis nempe hostiac 
ostentatio, ut a populo, tanquam summum Numen, publico adoraretur." (Deylingius, 
Observ. Sacr., Par. iv. p. 896, Lips. 1767. 


to think that such adoration did not yeiy readilj obtain footiBg in 
England ;* at least not to the extent of setting its mark so distinctly 
as in continental churches, on the ceremonial of the Mass. 

All elevation was distinctly prohibited in the first Prayer-book of 
Edward YI. And there is evidence of its being since regarded as 
a thing only not distinctly forbidden because of its being too 
obviously contrary to the doctrines and principles of the Church of 
England. (See Papers on the Eucharistic Presence, pp. 501 — 50<4.> 

Kenaudot has a long note on the Coptic Liturgy of St. Basil (Litwr- 
giarum Orient. Collectio, torn. i. 244 — 250), which contains perhaps 
one of the ablest defences of the Roman elevation and adoration. 

The attentive reader, however, cannot fail to remark that this note 
contains two atntmpliong, which, if they were granted, would doubt- 
less remove all just cause of objection to the Bomish practice, but 
against which we most strongly protest, and put in our appeal to th» 
testimony of antiquity. 

(1) It is assumed that the Beal Presence in the elements was 
undoubtedly and universally held by faithful Christians from the 
beginning (p. 249) — an assumption of which it would be easy to say 
that it has certainly never yet been proved, and has, we believe, been 
many times effectually disproved. The reader may be asked to mark 
how Romish theologians have shown their perception of the evidence 
which lies against it, as indicated above, pp. 77, 88, 93, 96, 98, 102, 
104, 106, 110, 124. 

(2) It is assumed that the fact of adoration addressed to the Sacra- 
mental Presence in the elements by Christians of old time is clear 
from the testimonies of the Fathers (p. 249) ; whereas all attempts to 
prove this have resulted, as we are persuaded^ in failure. (See above, 
pp. 203—224.) 

* "The direction which was embodied in the rubrics of all other Churches and 
monastic bodies of the West, for the celebrant to kneel and worship the element, 
never found footing in those of the English Church — . And this peculiarity continued 
down to the very time of the revision of the offices in the sixteenth century." (IV«t- 
man, Principles of Divine Service, vol. ii. part i. pp. 84, 86.) 

Elsewhere also some of the new customs were not always readily admitted. 
Martene says : " Canonici Lugdunenses ex antiqua ecclesiie sun ccmsuetvdine, hac- 
tenus stando Christum adorant, nee ullis unquam adduci potuere precibus ut prisenm 
ritum immutarent : quibus superiori sieculo favemnt Cardinales Lotharingus ei 
TumoniuB, cum in regio Henrici II. consilio impetiti a decano urgerentur, ut 
propter invalescentes hnreses prostratione seu genuflexione eucharistiam venera- 
rentur." (Martene, De Antiquis Xcdesin Sitibus, lib. i. cap. iv. Art. viii. § ttji _ 
Antwerp, 173G, tom. 1. c. 414.) 


But if, putting aside these assumptions, and what is made to rest 
upon them, we examine the note carefully, with a view to ascertain 
what heyond this it is which Benaudot desires to prove historically, 
we are led to ask: What does the whole amount to, even supposing 
we accept all his conclusions? And tbe answer will be this : that 

(1) As regards the Easterns there was a custom of raising the host 
(or rather the spodicon or media hottia pars) at the words ra fiyca 
rocc &yioiQ (which was a sort of invitation to the communicants to 
come up and receive ra &ym, see pp. 246, 247, and p. 114, and 
which was shortly followed by the Communion) ; and that for this 
custom may be pleaded considerable antiquity — which none, I 
imagine, will care to question ; and further, that this ceremony was 
accompanied by some sort of outward signs of veneration or adoration 
on the part of the people, which is certainly not improbable, seeing 
it is nothing more (and seems to be decidedly much less) than is 
exhibited at the carrying of the Book of the Gospels, and at the 
hringing in of the unconsecrated elements. 

(2) As regards the Latins there was a custom of some antiquity of 
raising moderately the host and chalice before the Lord's Prayer 
(hoitia cum oalice devatur modieey paulo ante orationem Dominicam, 
p. 248), which few, I imagine, would care to dispute. 

But there are also some important concessions made in this same 
note — ^if indeed, as I suppose, the following statements may fairly be 
regarded as concessions. 

(1) That the Roman elevation, immediately after the consecration, 
is an innovation, as late probably as the eleventh century. (P. 248.) 

(2) That the elevation of the Greeks at the ra &yia toIq &yiOQ 
was not for the purpose that the elevated Sacrament might be seen 
by the people ; and that, in fact they were quite unable to see it (see 
Statement from Goar, p. 245, which I understand Benaudot to accept), 
though it is not to be concluded that this was always so. (See 
Le Brun, Explicatio Lit. Miss., tom. i. p. 231.) 

Three observations on the note may suitably bo added. 

(1) The fact of the Greeks not being able to see this elevation 
(such as it is) is a very strong presumption against the notion of this 
elevation being originally for purposes of adoration, and against the 
supposition of the irfxxrKvvrjtnc (such as it was) being intended as 
divine worship addressed to Christ as present under the form of the 
elements. Mark the contrast with the Bomish custom. There is 
good reason, indeed, to think that the custom which Goar describes 
is an innovation on an earlier practice which knew no such conceal- 


ment Bat it may be confidently argued that such an innovation 
never could have found place if this raising of the elements had ever 
been intended as an elevation for purposes of adoration. 

(2) The oldest authority quoted by Benandot for the elevation, 
** Severus, Episcopus Aschmonin/' does suggest a reason for it, and 
that reason has no relation to adoration, but is that of representing 
Christ on the cross {sicut olim elevatiut est in ligno orucis, p. 246), 
which seems also to have been among the older ideas in the Latin 
elevation. (See above, pp. 236, 237, 246.) 

(3) This reason is quite sufficient to account for, and is probably 
the true explanation of, the fact that this elevation was accompanied 
by the prayer of the penitent thief on the cross (p. 246), which would 
naturally be suggested by it, or by the prayer ** God be merciful to 
me a sinner,** p. 245, orKyrie Eleison (p. 246), and by the ofwXoyia 
(pp. 246, 251)* ; neither the prayer nor the ofwXoyia giving any 
evidence of being addressed as to the host, or to Christ really present 
under its form.f (See quotation from the Patriarch Gabriel in p. 246, 
and from the Liturgy of St. Cbrysostom, p. 246. See also Scudamore, 
Notitia Eucharistica, p. 696.) 

Indeed it is worthy of special observation that in the Liturgy of 
St. Cbrysostom this short ejaculation is immediately preceded by a 
longer prayer, addressed indeed to the Second Person of the Trinity, 
but not at all as present on the altar, though it seems by Le Brun 
(ExpL Lit. MisssB, tom. iii. p. 279) to be so understood. It 
evidently has respect to Him (while recognising His spiritual 
presence in the midst) as looking down ** from His holy dwelling, 
and from the throne of His glory." Upotr^eg^ Kvpie *Irierov Xpitrre 
6 Qeog fifiQy, e^ ayiov KaTOiKriTtipiov troVf Kai ano Bp6vov ^offjc r^C 
^ffiXeiac covy Kat iXde eig to ayidtrai flfidg, 6 6.yw, r^ TLarpl 
tnfyKadfifievogf ical &^e fffiiy hopardtg trvvutv' Kal KaToiLtaaov rp 

* So Angelas describing the manner of reception says : *0 ^k fuKKiav ft€raXa/3c(V, 
«v TTj (TTvyfiyt kv y pAXXBi fiEraXaPelVf Xlyct irpbg rbv XpuTTbv oh i^iktifia <roi 
du}<r<M) KaOdiTEp 6 *lov^ag, oXV dg b \r\(rr^g bfioKoyw <roi, Mr^dijrt fioc, KvpUt 
orav i\9yg kv ry paaiKila <rov (Enchiridion, Lips. 1600, § cccxxiil. p. 848), where 
there is nothing to imply that the words addressed to Christ are addressed to Him 
as really present in the bread. 

t It may be observed that in St. Chrysostom's Liturgy we hare this mbric, follow- 
ing upon the completion of the consecration : Kat rr^v icc^X^v vvoKXivag b ^iokovoc 
Tip UpElf Koi EiTTtJV vb M.vrj(T9riTi poVf &yu Aldiroro, tov dpaprniKov, Jorarai 
Iv tp TrpoTEpov Tontp. (Xeale's Tetralogia Lit., p. 142.) And the same direction is 
given in the Liturgy of St. Basil (Neale's Liturgies, p. 164). 

It must be allowed, I think, to be a most extraordinary direction on the hypothesis 
of Christ Himself being just made present— Body, Soul, and Divinity-Bander the 
form of the elements. 


KpaTai^ aov X^^P*-* f^^o-^ov vai iijuv tov axpa vrov ffvjjjLaTOQ (TOv koI 
Tov Tifiiov atfiaTOQt ical 5i' ^fiCjy navTi t^ XaijJ. (See Neale's Tetra- 
logia Liturgica, p. 172). And it is to be observed that this verv same 
prayer, with slight alteration, is said by the Priest, prostrating himt-elf, 
in the Armenian Liturgy, as given by Dr. Neale (Fntroduction, Hist, 
of Eastern Church, p. 642. See also Malan's Divine Liturgy of 
the Armenian Church, p. 47.) It has place also in the Liturgy of 
St. Basil. 

Moreover the same prayer of the penitent thief is made at the 
Greater Entrance, when the unconsecrated elements are brought in 
in procession. Goar tells us: **Quidam inclinant, alii procumbunt 
in genua, in quibusdam etiam locis nonnuili, maxime SBgritudine 
afflicti, pedibus se transeuntium substernunt: cuncti vero vel pre- 
cantur, vel se celebrantium orationibus commendant, vel quod 
frequent! us est, Christum quasi prsesentera, latronis in cruce penitentis 
voce alloquuntur ... a qua voce repetenda nullatenus desistunt, 
usque dum stantibus ad sacras fores Lectoribus, ipsi per medios 
eorum ordines pertranseuntes, ad sanctum Tribunal pervenerint. 
Ibi a Fontifice, ordine, mutuisque precibus excipiuntur.*' (Eucho- 
logion, p. 113.) 

As to the practice of the Greeks in the latter half of the seventeenth 
century in the matter of elevation, the following is the testimony of 
Dr. Covel: "There is no such elevation of the bread made by the 
Greek priest over his head, as is made in the Latin Church, but only 
he takes it up in his hand before him, as being ready to divide it, as 
followeth. And it is remarkable that in the Liturgy of the Pre- 
ianetifiedj by an express rubric, when the Priest is to elevate the Holy 
Breads it is to he covered with the Aer, and he only puts it in his hand 
and touches it warily ; so that this is far euough from showing it to 
the people. I myself have been often an eye-witness of this, being 
permitted to stand by in the &yix)v f^fjfia, Chancel, and at their altars 
at Holy Fountains, during the whole service. Next there is no eleva- 
tion of the cup at all amongst the Greeks, either anywhere mentioned 
or ever practised, as it is amongst the Latins. Again the Greek priest 
takes up only the biggest piece, or Christ's portion, to break it. . . . 
Goar himself confesseth that this elevation or taking up is not made 
so high as that the people may see it. And Arcudius says, indeed, an 
elevation is made at those words Holy things to the Holy, bnt the 
Eucharist is not shown to the people. Therefore if the word vyf/cjaLg, 
elevation or lifting up, and this ceremony or rubric, were at first here, 
I fancy it meant no more than to take the bread up to divide it." 


(Account of the Greek Church, p. 76.) On this suhject see also 
L'Aroqne*8 History of the Eucharist, Walker's translation, pp. 104t 
105. Also see ahove, p. 243 sqq. 

In the Armenian Liturgy (as printed hy Mr. Mai an) the priest 
(just before the drawing of the curtain) raises the Holy Bread "tn the 
eyes of the congregation ;" but this is followed by an address to the 
people, which seems to be suggestive not of adoration but of the 
original object of the ostension — " Let us taste in holiness of the 
Holy, holy, and honourable Body and Blood of our Lord and 
Saviour Jesus Christ, who came down from heaven, and is now 
parted among us." (Malan's Divine Liturgy of the Armenian 
Church, p. 47.) 

There is also in the Armenian Church a showing of the elements 
(or the vessels containing them) just before consecration. (Ibid., p. 10.) 

Mr. Scudamore says : " The elevation of the bread, which takes 
place here in the Greek and Oriental rites, is not with a view to 
adoration. It is only seen by those unthin the Bema, the doors of 
which are still closed. The pure Armenian Liturgy merely directs 
the priest to ' lift up the sacrifice before his eyes ' (see Dr. Neale's 
Introduction, Hist, of Eastern Church, p. 595); but there are copies, 
accommodated to Roman notions, which order him to * show it to the 
people.* Pseudo-Dionysius only, about 450, speaks of the elevation 
(if in his time it could be so called) as a ' showing of the gifts.' At a 
much later period it is thus referred to by Symeon of Thessalonica : 
* Having robed and lifted up the Bread, and proclaimed Holy 
things &c., he invites all holy persons to that Divine lively food 
of the Sacred Table, (that is) when he says. Holy things for the 
holy ! ' Dionysius Bar Salib : * The priest lifts up and carries about 
the Sacraments, crying out and saying, Holy things for the holy.' 
James of Edessa : ' The priest shall proclaim to the people that the 
holy things of the Body and Blood are for those who are pure and 
holy, not for those who are not cleansed ; and, uttering these words 
with a loud voice, he lifts the Sacraments on high for a tHtness of 
that which he has just announced.'" (Notitia Eucharistica, p. 595. 
See also Patrick in Gibson's Preservative, vol. ix. pp. 246, 247, 
London, 1848.) 

** There is no rubric prescribing, or prayer embodying, the 
adoration of the elements in any Greek or Oriental Liturgy." (Ibid., 
p. 596.) 

" In the seventeenth century, however, the Greek Church became 
formally responsible for the same high worship of the elements as is 
practised in the Roman." (Ibid., p. 597.) 


NOTE D (p. 47). 
On Interpretative Dicta of the Fathers, 

These interpretative dicta are chiefly, though by no means exclu- 
sively, found in the writings of St. Augustine. But, as propounded 
by him, they bear on their face the character, not of questionable or 
controverted statements, but of incontrovertible truths. Nor were 
they, so far as we know, in his days ever called in question by 

Such are the following : — 


'* Sacramentum, id est, sacrum signum." (Augustine, De Givitate 
Dei, lib. x. cap. v. See below, p. 276.) 


''Corporis autem ejus sacramentum multi accipiunt: sed non 
omnes qui accipiunt sacramentum, habitnri sunt apud eum etiam 
locum promissum membris ejus. Pene quidem sacramentum omnes 
corpus ejus diounty quia omnes in pascuis ejus simul pascunt." (Ibid., 
Sermo cccliv. ad Continentes, Op., tom. v. par. 2, c. 1875, edit. 
Benedict., Paris, 1683.) 


'* Hujus rei sacramentum^ id est, unitatis corporis et sanguinis 
Obristi alicubi quotidie, alicubi certis intervallis dierum in Dominica 
mensa prssparatur, et de mensa Dominica sumitur ; quibusdam ad 
vitam, quibusdam ad exitium : res vero ipsa oujus sacramentum est, 
omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium, quicnmque ejus particeps 
fiierit." (Ibid.. In. Johan. Evang., cap. 0, Trace, xxvi. § 15, Op., tom. 
iii. par. 2, c. 000.) 


*' Quoniam omnia 'significantia videntur quodam mode eanim 
rerum, quas significant, sustinere personas: sicut dictum est ab 
Apostolo, Petra erat Gkristus ; quoniam petra ilia, de qua hoc dic- 
tum est, significabat utique Christum." (Ibid., De Givitate Dei, lib. 
xviii. cap. xlviii.) 


** Videte ergo, fide manente signa variata. Ibi petra Christus, nobis 
Christus quod in altari Dei ponitur/' (Ibid., In Johan. Evang., cap. 
10, Tract, xlv., § 9, Op., tom. iii. par. 2, c. 598.) 



*' Solet autem res qus sigaificat, ejus rei nomine quam significat 
nuneupari,* ... Hinc est quod dictum est, Petra erat Ghristus. 
NoQ enim dixit, Petra significat Christum, sed tamquam hoc esseU 
quod utique, per substnntiam non hoc erat, sed per significatiommi." 
(Augustine, Quaestioaes in Levit., lib. iii., Qusest. Ivii. § 3, Op., 
torn. iii. par. 1, c. 516.) 


" Non est dictum, Petra sigaificabat Christum, sed Petra erat 
Ghristus. Nee dictum est, Bonum semeu sigaificabat filios regoi, 
aut zizauia significabant filios maligni : sed dictum est, Bonura semen 
hi sunt filii regai, zizania autem filii maligni. Sicut ergo solet loqui 
Scriptura, res si^nificantes tamquam illds quse siojuificautur Hp- 
pellans, ita locutus est Dorainus dicens, Nana clarificatus est Jilius 
hominis." (Ibid., In Joan. Ev., cap, 13, Tract. Ixiii. § 2, Op., torn. iii. 
par. 2, c. 071.) 


" Omnes eundera potum spiritalem biberunt. Aliud illi, aliud nos, 
sed specie visibili, quod tamen hoc idem significaret virtute spiritali. 
Quomodo enim eundem potum? Bibebant, inquit, de spiritali 
sequente petra: petra autem erat Ghristus. lode panis, inde potus. 

• So another writer : "In multis sacrse Scripturse ima^inatis rebus veranim rerum 
nomina ssepe adscribuntur : Quomodo et prsedicta virga iu Bimilitudinem serpentis im- 
aginata, et phantastica ilia majorum serpentium in ^gypto, et ille seneas in deserto 
serpens nominatur. Duo quoque Cherubim pro similitudine obumbrare propitiatorium 
memorantur. Quinque mures, et quinque anuli de terra Fhilistium in capsella cum 
area Domini referuntur. Duodecim boves sub mari seneo, et quatuordecim leones in 
throno Solomonis ebumeo statuuntur. Cherubim quoque et palmse, et mala granata, 
et retia in templi sedificio depicta describuntur, cum hssc omnia non ipsa rerum 
veritate, sed pro similitudine ista nomina recipiunt. Ipsae tamen Scriptane sine 
ullo incertitudinis respectu quasi res yeras heec nominatim ponunt." (De Mirabilibus 
Sacrse Script., lib. ii. cap. xi., In Works of St. Augustine, edit. Benedict., Paris, 1680, 
torn. iii. par, 1, Appendix, c. 19.) 

Of the freedom with which such language was used, let the following be taken as 
an example : — 

" Melchisedech ... in typo Christi panem et vinum obtulit ; et mysterium Chris- 
tlanura in Salv.itoris sanguine et corpora dedicavit." (Faulso et Eustoch. Epist. ad 
Marcellam, Op. Hierom., edit. Vallarsius, Ep. 46, tom. i. p. 200. See Ooode on £uch., 
i. 238.) 

See other quotations in Albertinus, De Euch., pp. 895, 531. See also^'Bomish 
Mass and English Church," pp. 3, 4, 

How easily such language might be quoted as good evidence of the primitive belief 
in the Eteal Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the bread and wine which Mel 
chizedek brought forth ! 

Yet how naturally such expressions are used by those to whom such a notion would 
certainly have seemed a strange conception indeed ! 


Pfltra Christus in signo verus Christus in verbo et in carne." (Angus- 
tine, lu Johan. Evang., cap. 6, Tract, xxvii., Op., torn. iii. § 12, par.ii. 
c. 499.) 


*' Hie est pants qui de ccelo descendit. Hunc panem significaTit 
manna, hunc panem eignificavit [or, significatj altare Dei. Sacra- 
menta ilia fuerunt, in sigtiis di versa sunt : in re quae signiftcatur, 
paria sunt* . . . omnes eamdem escam spiritalem manducaverunt. 
Spiritalem utique eamdem : nam oorporalem alteram, quia illi manna, 
nos aliud : spintalem vero, quam nos." (Ibid., c. 498.) 


" Ssepe ita loquimur, ut Pascha propinquante dicamus, crastinam 
Tel perendinam Domini passionem .... ipso die dominico dicimus, 

Hodie Dorainus resurrexit Cur nemo tam inoptus est, ut nos 

ita loquentes arguet esse mentitos, nisi quia istos dies secundum 
illoruin, quibus hsec gesta sunt, simiLitudinemnviMCw^Amw^^ utdicatur 
ipse dies qui non est ipse, sed revolutione teraporis similis ejus ? . . . . 
Nonne semel immolatas est Christus in seipso, ec tamen .... omni 
die populis immolatur, nee utique mentitur, qui interrogatus eum 
responderit immolari. Si enim sacramentaf quandem similitudinefn 

* It is erident that these words were relied upon in after ages by those who opposed 
the Real Objective doctrine, and that their force was felt by the opponents of Beren- 
garius as yielding decided support to his views. See ftupertus Tuitiensis, In Joan., 
lib. vi., Opera, edit. Migne, torn. iii. c. 463. 

Rupert, for the maintenance of his own position, finds himself obliged to bend his 
arguments against the teaching of St. Augustine himself. See especially c. 464, 469. 

t With this compare the words of Amalarius : " Quee aguntur in celebratione Missse, 
in Sacramento Dominicee passionis aguntur, ut ipse precepit, dicens : Heec quoties- 
cunque feceritis in mei memoriam facietis. Idcirco presbyter immolans panem, et 
vinum et aquam in sacramento est Christi : Panis vinum etaqua in sacramento carnis 
Christi et ejus sanguinis. Sacramenta detent habere simUitudinem cUiquam earum 
verum, quarum sacramenta aunt. Quapropter similis sit sacerdos Christo, sicut panis 
et liquor similia sunt Corpori Christi. Sic est immolatio sacerdotis in altari quodam- 
modo ut Christi immolatio in oruce." (DeEccl. Offlc, Prsef. altera, in Hittorpius,p. 87.) 

Ijet it be well observed how Amalarius, adopting the language of Augustine con- 
cerning the nature of Sacraments, follows out the idea into these particulars, in 
which he makes a parity of relationship, (1) of the Priest to Christ, (2) of the element 
to the Body and Blood of Christ, (3) of the act of the Priest in the immolation ot bread 
to the immolation of Christ on the cross. 

If, then, there is no real death of Christ on the altar, and no real presence of Clirist 
in the p-iest, neither can there be a Real Objective Presence of the Body and Blood 
of Christ in the consecrated elements. 

Moreover, the idea which Amalarius thus gives of the relation of the elements 
after consecration to the Body and Blood of Christ, viz. that of vicarious represen- 
tatives, he expresses more distinctly in lib. iv. cap. xxv. of the same treatise (In 
Hittorpius, p. 169), where he says, " Sacerdos inclinat se, et hoc, quod vice Christi, 
immolatum est, Deo patri commendat." 


earam rerum, quarum sacramenta sunt, non haberent, omniao sacra- 
menta non essent. Ex Jiac si^UATumm^ plerumque eHam* ipsarum 
return nomina accipiunt. Siout enim secundum quondam modum 
sacramentum Corporis Ghristi Corpus Christ! est, ita et Sacramentum 
Fidei Fides est. Nihil est autem credere quam fidem habere. Ac 
per hoc cum respondetur parvulus credere, qui fidei nondum habet 
affectum, respondetur fidem habere propter fidei sacramentum, et 
convertere se ad Deum propter conversionis sacramentum, quia 
et ipsa responsio ad celebrationem pertinet sacramenti. Sicut de 
ipso baptismo Apostolus, Gonsepulti, inquit, sumua Ghristo per baptis- 
mum in mortem. Non ait, Sepulturam significamus : sed prorsus 
ait, Contepulti sumus. Sacramentum ergo tantse rei nonnisi ejusdem 
rei vocabulo nuncupavit." (Augustine, Epist. ad Bonifacium, Ep. 
xcviii., § 9, Op., tom. ii. c. 267, 268.) 

T^ de rfJQ (TopKOQ ovofjiaTi waXlv Kai ra fJLvtrHipui KaXeiy eibtOey 
ri ypa0]7, Koi Tr^v kKKkqaiay aTrao'av, viofia Xiyovtra etvai rov X/oiorow. 
^Ghrysostom, in Cap. v. Epist at Galat. Comment., Opera, tom. x. 
p. 720, edit. Montfaucon.) 

Elsewhere also Amalarius uses language expressire of the flguratire relation of 
tlie taeramentum to the res tacramenti. 

See Bomish Mass and Knglish Church, p. 66, and Claude's Answer to Arnold, par. 
2, pp. 243, 245 ; Albertinus, De Sucharistia, pp. 925, 92d. 

With the language of Amalarius may be compared that of an author regarded hj 
some as Joannes Hierosoljrmitanus (successor of Cyril, 886), blaming some Christians 
"qui nee considerant, nee intelligunt sacerdotes Christi, vicarioft esse Christi, et 
Christum." (Com. in Matth. cap. vii. y. 6, Op., edit. Wastelius. 1643, tom. L p. 183.) 

* With this the following should be compared : " Solent imagines rerum earum nomi- 
nibus, appellari quarum imagines sunt. Sicut omnia quaa pinguntur atque flnguntur 
ex aliqua materie metalli aut Ugni, yel cujusque rei aptas ad operahujusmodi, qunque 
etiam vldentur in somnis, et omnes fere imagines, earum rerum quarum imagines 
sunt, appellari nominibus solent. Quis est enim, qui hominem pictum dubitet rocare 
hominem? Quando quidem et singulorum quorumque picturam cum aspicimus, 
propria quoque nomina incunotanter adhibemus : relut cum intuentes tabulam ant 

parietem, dicimus, Die Cicero est Et Pharao spicas se dixit vidisse in somnis 

et boves, non spicarum aut borum imagines. Si igitur liquido constat nominibus 
earum rerum, quarum imagines sunt, easdem imagines appellari, non m<mm est quod 
Seriptura dicit Samuelem visum, etiamsi forte imago Samuelis i^pamit.** (Augus- 
tine, " De Diversis Quasst. ad Simplicianum,** lib. ii. Qunst. ir. § 2, Opera, edit 
Benedict., Paris, 1686, tom. vi. c. 116.) See also "De Octo Dulcitii Qnnst.," Qu. tl 
§ 3, Op., tom. vi. c. 134, where the same words are repeated. See also Isidore Hisp., 
Quaast. in Vet T., Reg. ii. cap. xx. Op., edit. Migne, tom. r. c, 407, 408, where the words 
are quoted. In view of the comparison of St Augustine's words concerning pictures 
or images, and ooneeming sacrMBenta, the words of Theodoret should be noted as 
quoted below. Note K, in which is seen the natural transition of thought from the 
aammMktaa aymbol-ln its relation to the ret fommwiKi-to the picture of the 
patBtttrln Ifta ratetioa to the opxcnnrov. 



MwoT^ptov KiXeirai on ov^ &ffep opuffiev inartvofitv^ aW' trtpa 
opiJ/icv, KoX €Tepa iriffTevofiev. roiavrrj yap Ij twv /jiv(TTrjpiuty iffnHv 
<l>v<ric . . . ou yap rrj 6\p£i Kpivu) ra (paivufiei^a, aWa toIq d^OaX/uoIc 
TiJQ Siavo/ac* aKovut (T(J/xa Xpiarov' eripittg kyw vou to etprj/jiiyoyt 
irepkfc o aTTiflToc. (Chrysost, ia Ep. ad Cor , Horn, vii., Opera, 
torn. X. p. 51.) 


" HsBO sacramenta sunt, in quibus non quid sint, sed quid osten- 
daot semper adtenditur, qiioniam signa sunt rerum, aliud existeutia, 
et aliud significanda." (Augustine, Contra Maximum, lib. ii. cap. 
xxii. § 3, Op., torn. viii. c. 725, edit. Benedict., Paris, 1688.) 


'* De signis disserens hoc dico, ne quis in eis adtendat quod sunt, 
sedpotius quod signa sunt, id est, quod significant. Signum estenim 
res praeter speciem, quam ingerit seusibus, aliud aliquid ex se faciens 

in cogitationem venire Signorum alia sunt naturalia, alia 

data Data signa sunt, quae sibi quseque viventia invicem dant 

ad demonstrandos, quantum possunt, motus animi sui, vel sensa, aut 

intellecta quselibet Odore unguenti Dominus, quo perfusi 

sunt pedes ejus, signum aliquod dedit: et sacramenta corporis et san- 
guinis sui prasgustato, signiticavit quod voluit." (Ibid., De Doctrina 
Christ., lib. ii. § 1—4, Op., torn. iii. par. i., c. 19, 20.) 


** Quid mirum si aliis mysteriorum signacuUs passio et resurrectio 
Christ! Jutura promissa esr, all is jum facta annunciatur, quando 
quidem ipsa verba, futurum et factum, passurus et passus, resurrec- 
turus et resurrexit, nee tendi sequaliter, nee similiter sonare potuerunt ? 
Quid enim sunt aliud qussque corporalia sacramenta^ nisi quaedam 
quasi verba visihilia, sacro-sancta quidem, verumtamen mutabilia et 
temporalia." (Ibid., Contra Faustum, lib. xix. cap. xvi., Op., torn, 
viii. 0. 821.) 


*' Nimis loDgum est, convenienter disputare de varietate signonim, 
qas cum ad res divinas pertinent, Sacramenta appellantur.'* (Ibid., 
Ad Marcellinum, Epist. cxxxviii. § 7, Op., torn. ii. c. 412.) 




** Hoc vero tempore postea quam resurrectione Domini nostri 
manifestissimum indicium nostras libertatis, nee eonim quidem 
signorum, quas jam intelli^mus, operatione gravi onerati sumus ; 
sed qusedam pauca pro multis, eademque factu facillima, etintellectu 
aiigustissima, et observatione castissima ipse Dominus et Apost;olica 
tradidit disciplina: sicut est baptismi Sacramentum, et celebratio 
Corjporis et Sanguinis Domini. Quae unusquisque cum percipit, quo 
referantur imbutus agnoscit, ut ea uon carnali servitute, sed spiritali 
potius iibertate veneretur. Ut autem literam sequi, et signapro rebus 
qua iis signijicantur acciperey servilis infirmitatis est; ita inutiliter 
signa interpre*^ari. male vagantis error est." (Augustine, De Doctxina 
Christiana, lib. iii. cap. ix., Op., tom. iii. par. i. c. 49.) 


" Est miserabilis animae servitus signa pro rebus accipere." * 
([lid., De Dootrina Christiana, lib. iii. c. v. § 9, tom. iii. par. i. c. 47.) 


" Si ergo signum utiliter institutum pro ipsa re sequi, cui signifi- 
:andae institutum est, carnalis est servitus, quanto magis inuiiliura 
-enitn signa instiiuta pro rebus accipere?" (Ibid., cap. vii. § ii. 
c. 4S). 


••Hoc quod videtis in altari Dei, etiam transacta nocte vidistis: 
sed quid esset, quod sibi vellet, quam magnse rei sacramentum con- 
tineret, nondum audistis. Quod ergo videtis, panis est et calix, 
quod vobis etiam oculi vestri renunciant : quod autem fides vestra 
postulat instruenda, panis est corpus Ckristi, ealix sanguis Christi. 
Breviter quidem hoc dictum est, quod fidei forte sufficiat : sed fides 
instructionem desiderat .... quomodo est panis corpus ejus? et 
calix, vel quod habet calix, quomodo est sanguis ejus? Ista, Fratres, 
ideo dicuntur Sacramenta, quia in eis aliud intelligitur. Quod 
videtur, speciem habet corporalem, quod intelligitur, fructum babet 

3})iritalera Si ergo vos escis corpus Christi et membra, 

niysterium vestrum in mensa Dominica positum est: mysterium 
vestrum accipitis. Ad id quod estis, Amen respondetis, et respon- 

♦ Compare the following : AtayeX^v olficu irpkirnv tovq avorjrtog aiperiKoi^Ct 
rb €v TCL^H OTjfisiov r€0£v, Big aXrjOBiav irpdyfiaroQ iicXafipavovTaQ, (Cyrillut 
Jllex., In Joan. i. 32, 33, Com., lib. ii. cap. i., Opera, edit. Migne, tonL vi. c. 213.) 

This is spoken with reference to the appearance of the Holy Spirit cv ry rric 


dendo subscribitis. Audis enim, Corpus Ghristi, et respondes, 
Amen. Esto membrum corporis Christi, iit yerum sit Amen/' 
(Augustine, Sermo cclxxii. Ad Infantes, Op., torn. y. par. i. 1104.) 


" Aliquando ad boo fit eadem species, yel aliquantulum mansura, 
sicut potuit serpens ille seneus exaltatus in eremo, sicut possuot et 
liters ; yel peracto ministerio transitura, sicut panis ad boo factus in 
aecipiendo saeramento consumitur. 

''Sed quia baec hominibus nota sunt, quia per homines fiunt, 
honorem tamquam religiosa possunt habere, stuporem tamquam 
mira noa possunt." (Ibid., De Tiin., lib. iii. § 19, 20, Op., torn. viii. 
c. 803). 


*' Potest sacramentum adoptionis adoptio nuncupare : sicut sacra- 
mentum corporis et sanguinis ejus, quod est in pane et poculo ood- 
secrato, corpus ejus et sanguinem dicimus : non quod proprie corpus 
ejus sit panis, et poculum sanguis, sed quod in se mysterium cor- 
poris ejus sanguinisque contineant." (Facundus Hermianensis, 
Pro Defensione Trium Cap., lib. ix. c. 5.) 

" Sacrificium dictum, quasi sacrum factum, quia prece mystica 
consecratur in memoriam pro nobis DominicsB passionis ; unde hoc 
eo jubente Corpus Christi et sanguinem dicimus, quod, dum sic 
ex fructibus terras, sanctificatur, et fit sacramentum." (Isidoie 
Hispalensis, Etymol., lib. vi. cap. xix., Opera, edit. Migne, torn, 
iii. c. 255.) 


''MiiUum hsBC locutio notanda est, ubi aliqua significantia earum 
rerum, quas significant, nomine appellantur. Inde est, quod ait 
Apostolus: Pdtra autem erat Christus. Non ait, Petra significabat 
Christum. Solet res, quae significat ejus rei nomine, quam significat 

nuncupari, sicut scriptum est, Septem spica sejdein anni sunt 

Omnia significantia videntur quodammodo carum rerum, quas sig- 
nificant sustiuere personas." (Beda in 1 Cor. x., Op., tom. vii. c. 
367, 358, edit. Cologne, 1688.) 


'Ev rrj eiKoyi aXKo ovder 6 aXrjdrjg Xoyog yivutvKEi f/ Kara to ovofxa 

KOivttiVEiv, ov TivOQ ItTTtv eiKi^yy Kol ov Kara rijv ovaiav* (Second 

Nicene Council, in LabbsBus, tom. vii. c. 441.) 

* This, of coarse, was not written with reference to the Bucharist; but when 
Ti«wed in connection with previous extracts (especially Hob. vi., ix., xvii.), and the 



It is important to (direct attention to tbe fact that these are inter- 
pretative dicta. We appeal with confidence to the verdict of 
common intelligence, to say whether they are not so. And if they 
are, we assert with equal confidence, that it is impossible fairly to 
deal with them in the way of any such numerical calculation as 
would result in its being said, " Yes, it is granted there ai» a certain 
number of doubtful expressions which would seem to favour the 
notion of a Real Absence ; but see how they are outnumbered by 
passages which declare so plainly for the Heal Presence." They 
may be vasily outnumbered by passages which call the bread and 
wiue the Body and Blood of Christ ; but these interpretative dicta 
are not doubtful expressions, and if true, they have power to bring 
the others into harmony by a simple explanation — nay, they neces- 
sitate such an understanding of them, whereas all tbe others to- 
gether can never explain away the one natural and obvious meaning 
of these. One saying truly interpretative, demolishes the argument 
built on the misinterpretation of any number of sayings, however 
natural or literal such a mistaken interpretation may have been. 

As in answer to the charge, " You may pervert all the Fathers' 
writings, and make what sense you list of their sayings," it was 
well said by Bishop Bilson : " We measure their words by their own 
warrant, and suffer not a phrase here and there, which may be 
well revoked by their rules, to undermine the chief grounds of their 

faith We show you the general admonition of the Fathers 

themselves, that after consecration they call the visible figures no 
longer by their wonted names, but by the names of those things 
whose signs they are and whose virtues they have. This rule we 
say is then to take place, when the speech which we find in a Father, 
if it should be referred to the things themselves, would be both 
absurd and repugnant to the rest of his doctrine, and to himself in 
other places. This is not to turn the Fathers whither we will, but 
to take heed we fall not into the pit, which they warn us to avoid." 
(True Difference, 1685, p. 76^.) 

Dean Goode says of the Fathers : " They viewed the elements as 
representatively and in operation and effect the Body and Blood of 
Christ, and spoke of them as such, freely calling them by the names 
of those things which they signified. 

'• They evidently considered this to be the language which was due 
to their character and use, and sanctioned by the example of our 

earlier application of the term eijctuv to the Eucharist (see below, Note E.),itmaj 
fairly, I think, be regarded as interpretative of those sayings in which the symbol is 
caUed by the name of Christ's Body. 


Blessed Lord, and would have considered themselves as failing in 
the respect due to them, if they had not spoken of them in this way. 
And such language might have continued to be freely used, if the 
awful corruption of doctrine that has since taken place had not 
rendered it dangerous to do so. To a certain extent it is, and may 
properly bemused now ; but not as it was in earlier times." (Goode 
on Eucharist, i. 321, 322.) 

It will hardly be out of place to add here a few examples of what 
may be termed interpretative modes of expression — of sayings con- 
cerning the elements in their relation to th« Body and Blood of 
Christ, such as could hardly have been used on the hypothesis of 
the Real Objective Presence, but such as square well with the words 
of Institution as interpreted by the dicta given above, illustrating 
and illustrated by the sacramental language of the Fathers. 

"Otpwc ttTro^^viy Toy &fyroy tovtov aufxa tov Xpitrrov vovy koi to 
wwfiptov TOVTO alfia tov XpiaTOv trov, tya oi /Li£ra\a/3(5vrfc aitTov 
fiefiaiwd&at npoQ evaipeiav, c.r.X. (Liturg. of Apost. Const.* in 
Cotelerius, Autw. 1670, tom. i. p. 403.) 


** Cum dicat Christus, Ego sum vitis vera^ sanguis Ohristi non aqua 
est utique, sed yinum. 

*'• Neo potest videri sanguis ejus quo redempti et vivificati sumus 
esse in calice, quando vinum desit calici, quo Ohristi sanguis 
ostenditury \ (Cyprian, Epist. ad Caecilium, Op., edit. Baluzius, c. 

• Compare Pfaffian fragment of Irencsus, quoted below, p. 287. 

t "Cyprian, in a letter addressed to Coecilius, is contending against the practice of 
certain heretics or innovators, who, in celebrating the Sacrament of the Lord's 
Supper, made use of water only, instead of water and wine mixed (for it was the 
custom to mix those elements in the Eucharist at that time, as it was in our own 
Church, till the Praycr-b«ok of 1549 was superseded by that of 1552, not in all 
respects perhaps for the bettor). Now, argues Cyprian, ' Since Christ said, I am the 
true vine, the Blood of Christ Is not water, but wine. Nor can His blood, by which 
we are redeemed and quickened, seem, to bo in the cup, when there is no wine in the 
cup, by which Christ's illood is represented, umX of which there is a mystical men- 
tion made all Scripture through : '— ' Nee potest videri sanguis ejus, quo redempti et 
vivificati f umus, esse in calico quando vinum desit calici, quo Christi sanguis osten- 
ditur.' And again in the same Epistle : * For as Christ bare us all, since He bare our 
ains, we perceive that the people is understood in the water ; the Blood of Christ is 
Tepr^twied'bY tiiQ wine:'— 'Nam quia nos omnes portabat Christus, qui etpeccata 


** Quae [aqua] sola Christi sanguinem non possit exprimere." 
(Cyprian, ut sup., c. 229.) 


" Invenimns calicem mixtuin fuisse quern Dominus obtulit, et 
yinum fuisse quod sanguinem suum dixit. Unde apparA sangnineia 
Christi non ofiferri, si desit vinum calici ; nee sacrificium Dominicum 
legitima sanctificatione celebrari, nisi oblatio et sacrificium nostrum 
respondent Christi passioni.*' (Ibid., c. 228.) 


** Yidemus in aqua populum intelligi, in yino ostendi sanguinem 
Christi." (Ibid., c. 229.) 


" Non reprobavit panem, quo ipsum corpus suum reprsesentavit" 
(TertuUian, Contra Marcionem, lib. i. cap. xiv., Opera, edit. 
Rigaltius, 1689, p. 372). 


** Panem Dominicum, quo Salvatoris Corpus ostenditur, et quern 
frangimus in sanctiiicatiouem nostri." (Theophili Alex. Paschalis 
ii. § 13, In Op. Hieronymi, edit. Vallarsius, torn. i. c. 595.) 


" Quae [signa] unusquisque cum percipit, quo referantur imbutus 
agnoscit, ut ea non carnali servitute, sed spiritali potius libertate 
veneretur." (August., De Doct. Christ., lib. iii. cap. ix. § 13, Op., 
ed. Bened. 1680, toiii. iii. par. i. c. 49. See above, p. 258, No. xvii.) 


*' Recte vini specie* sanguis ejus exprimitur," (Gaudentius Brix., 
Serm. ii.. Op., edit. Galeardus, p. 33.) 

noBtra portabat, videmus in aqu& i>opuliim intelligi, in vino yero ottendi sanguinem 
Christi,— the word ostendi in the latter clause clearly in apposition to the word 
intelligi in the former, i.e. the element in either case is used figuratively ; and to 
make the matter still more clear, Cyprian, haying quoted a well-known text in the 
Epistle to the Galatians, adds : ' Since, therefore, neither the Apostle himself, nor an 
angel from heaven could preach any other doctrine, than that which Christ and His 
Apostles preached once for all, I marvel more than a little, whence it could come to 
pass, that in some places, contrary to the Evangelical and Apostolical discipline, 
water should be offered in the Lord's cup, when water alone cannot possibly express 
the Blood of Christ '— * quae sola Christi sanguinem non possit exprimere ; '—evidently 
implying that wine did express that Blood ; not that it was the Blood itBell" (Blonf s 
Early Fathers, p. 34.) 
* On the sense of species see below, p. 276. 


"Panis, quia corpus confirmat, ideo Corpus Christi nuncupatur, 
Tinum autem, quia sauguinem operatur iu carne, ideo ad sanguinem 
Cbristi refertur," (Isidorus Hisp., De Eccles. Officiis, lib.i. cap.xviii. 
§ 3. Opera, edit Migne, torn. v. c. 765.) 


"Sexta exhinc succedit conformatio sacramenti, ut oblatio, qu89 
Deo offertur, sanctificata per Spiritual sanctum, Christi corpori ac 
sanguini confornietur,"* (Ibid., lib. i. c. xv. § 3, Opera, edit. Migne, 
torn. V. c. 753.) 


" Calix enim Dominicus vino et aqua permistus debet offerri ; quia 
▼idemus in aqua populum intelligi, in vino vero ostendi sanguinem 
Christi. Ergo, quaudo in calice vino aqua miscetur, Christo 
populus adunatur." (Concilium Bracarense III. a.d. 675, Can. i., 
In Carranza, Sum. Con., edit. 1778, torn. ii. p. 102.) 


"Quia ergo panis carnem conformat, vinum vero sanguinem 
operatur in carne, hie ad Corpus Christi mystice, illud refertur ad 
sanguinem verum, quia et nos in Christo, etin nobis Christum manere 
oportet." (Ven. Beda, in Matt. xxvi. Opera, edit. Cologne, 1688, 
torn. V, c. 77.) 


*' Ergo quia panis corporis confirmat, ideo ille Corpus Christi con- 
gruenter nuneupatur, Vinum autem quia sanguinem operatur in 
carne, ideo ad sanguinem Christi refertur." (Rabanus Maurus, De 
Clericorum Institu., lib. i. cap. xxxi., Opera, edit. Migne, torn. i. 
c, 319.) 


**Advertimus in aquis figuram gentium demonstrarif in vino autem 
sanguinem Dominicse passionis ostendi" (Hom. de Corp. et Sang. 
Dom., formerly attributed to Eusebius Emissenus, in Op. ELieron., 
edit. Vallarsius, tom. xi. par. ii. c. 352.) 


" Videmus in aqua populum inteUigi, in vino vero ostendi san- 
g^nem Christi. Ergo cum in calice vino aqua miscetur, Christo 
populus adunatur, et credentium plebs ei in quem credit, copulatur et 
jungitur." (Gratian, Decret., par. iii. De Conseor., Dist. ii. can. vi. 
al. vii. p. 1264, Venice, 1567, as from Julius Papa.) 

* See Claude, Cath. I>octr. of Euchar., par. ii p. 02, London, 1684. 



" Ante benedictionera . . . alia species nominatur, post consecni- 
tionem corpus significatur" (De Myster. cap. ix. § 54, ia Op- 
Am bros., ed. B., torn. ii. c. 339.) 

To the argument from these modes of expression mi^ht suitably 
be added another from the use of such terms as inteUigihilis, roriTOQ, 
yooufxevo^, &c., as applied to the sacrament of the Eucharist.* 

So Gregory of Nyssa: 'O yapohoQ re icat yaXa r^yevcni tzpiveratr 
vorjTwv ^e ovtiov eKeiycjy, vonrh iravrttHi Ka\ // avrCKriirTiizfi Tovruyr 
rrjg \pu\riQ earn ^uvafjLig.j^ (In Can. Cant, Horn, i., Op,, ed. Migne^ 
torn. i. c. 780.) 

So Cyril of Jerusalem : 'Hrolftacrac iyunrun* ^ov rpdve^ay' ri 
a\\o aqfjLaivei rj Tf^y fivariKrly Kal yoriTt^y rpcLire^ay. (Myst. iv. § vii^ 
ed, Bened., p. 321.) 

So Chrysostom: NoiyroTc avro ^Xiirio^ey 6(l>da\fJU)7f:t ovdev yhfp 
altrdijrdy 7rapi6(oicey f^jjiiy 6 XpifrroSf aW aKrdqrdig ^ey vpayiiatrir 
iravra <5e yorjTa. (Chrysostom, In Matt., Horn. Ixxxii. al. Ixxxiii. 
§ 4, Op., ed. Montfaucon, tom. iii. p. 787.) 

So St. Augustine : '^ Ibi petra Christus, nobis Christus quod io 
altari Dei ponitur, et illi pro magno sacraraento ejusdem Ohristi 
biberunt aquam proftuentem de petra, nos quid bibimus nomnt 
tidelos : si speciem visibilem intendas aliud est, si intelligibilem signi- 
ficationem eumdem potum spiritalem biberunt."J (Augustine, la 
eloan., Tract, xlv. § 9, Opera, tom. iii. par. 2, c. 598.) 


* "Vetsrea quideia nonnimquam. dixerunt. Corpus Christi in pane tne inldU- 
fffindum, quemadmodum aiiint Christum in petra fuisse intellectum, ad designandank 
oancipi debere velut ab iis significatum. Ac mrsum, per rem intelliffibtlem Bacha- 
ristiw interdum. designarunt rationem formaleia sacrameQti qua sacramentum est^ 
boc est ipsius sigDiflcationem . . . interdum virtutem sacramenti . . . quia torn 
significatio, turn virtus sacramenti non sunt res sensu perceptibiles. Bed intellecta 
tanturaraodo comprehenduntur." (Albertinus, De Euch., pp. 5, 6.) 

See Claude's Cath. Doctr. of Euch., London, 1684, port i. p. 15T, who says : 
" Cabasilas speaks of the gifts^ and says that the faithful adore, bless,, and praise 
Jesus Christ, who is understood in them rbv iv avTciig voovfievov 'Iriaovy. Now 
a man must bo very little conversant amongst Greek authors not to know, that whea 
a question is concerning the symboU, voovjxEvoVy or the rb vojjrov, aignifles the 
spiritual and mystical object represented by the outward sign." 

t This is given as an illustration of the assertion SnrXri rig kariv Iv rifu^ 
alffOrjmSf rj fiev (TufpaTiKTJf rj Se Quorkpa. 

X Hugo Lingonenais, writing to Berengarius, charges him with giving to the sacia^ 
ment a corpus intelleetuale. See Neander, Church History, vol. vi. Pw 814, edit, 
Clark. His words are : " Corpus quod dixeras cruciflxum intellectuale constituis.. 
In quo evidentissime patet, quod incorporeum conflteris. Qua in re univeraalem 
Kcclesiam scandalizas" (De Corp. et Sang. Christi, In Bibli. Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677^ 
tom. xviii. p. 417)— words which could hardly have been written when the faith of the 
Church wa&in agreement with the language of St. Augustine. 


So e.g. Hesychius of Jerusalem: "Ipse Dominus primus in 
Gosna mystica intelligibilem'^ accepit sanguitiem, atque deinde calicem 
Apostolis dedit." (la Levit., lib. ii., In Bibl. Max. Patr., torn. xiL 
p. 846. 

Agaia: "Tunc Intel ligibilem sanguinem super altare, videlicet 
suum corpus, effudit, corpus autem Christi Ecclesia est." (P. 85.) 

And again: "Intelligibilem Hgnum,f Domini tradidonem immo- 
lantes mystice." (Lib. vi. p. 1536.) 

And again : *' Neque enim aliter, sed per Ejus mediationem,etTir- 
tutem a sensibilibus ad intelligibilia transferuntur ea quse in illo 
sacrificio peraguntur." (Lib. vi. pp. 1536.) 

For illustration and evidence of the sense in which these terms are 
used by the Fathers, the reader may be referred to the work of Hesy- 
chius of Jerusalem, on Leviticus. 

In this treatise, which is much occupied in interpreting legal types, 
he will find the thing or person siguified constantly called by the 
name of the sign, with the addition of the adjective " intelligibilis." 

Thus Christ is said to be the ''intelligibilis Melchizedek" (In 
Levit., lib. vi. In Biblio. Max. Patr., Lugd. 1077, p. 15o6) ; the 
** intelligibilis Aaron " (pp. 886, 896, 122a, 125a, 159a) ; the " intel- 
ligibilis Moses" (p. 916); the *' intelligibilis Agnus" (p. 1536) ; the 
** intelligibilis Aries (p. 1206); the "intelligibilis Sacerdos" (pp. 
148a, 6, 153a); the "intelligibilis Solomon" (p. 179a). 

There we read also of the *' intelligibilis hostis," ue. the devil 
(p. 184a) ; the " intelligibiles iuimici," U. " dsemones" (p. 184a) ; the 
"intelligibilis requies" (pp. 157a, lf)96) ; the " intelligibile Sabba- 
tum" p. 916); the ** intelligibilis Pharaoh" (p. 158a); the "intel- 
ligibile tabernaculum " (p. 124a); the "intelligibilis iEgyptus" 
(pp.1616, 168a); the *' intelligibile Pascha," i.d. the Lord's Supper 
(p. 161a); the "intelligibilis Ager," i.e. the Scripture (p. 182a); the 
"intelligibiles civitates," i.e. Prophetae (p. 1756); the *' intelligilule 
altare," i,e. Corpus Domini J (pp. 646, 89a, 1226) ; the " intelligibilis 

* This, doubtless, furnishes the explanation of Chrysostom's hd. tovto rb iavrov 
{dfjui avTbg £7rte(Hom. in Matt. Ixxxii. al. Ixxxiii. § 1, Op., ed. Montfaucon, torn. vii. 
p. 783), words which cannot be understood in the Romish and literal sense without 
doing violence to the teaching of the Fathers (see Albertinus, De Euch., pp. 638, 849), 
but which he' himself interprets when he asks almost immediately afterwards t'lvoq 
cvfipoXa Td TiXovfieva ; 

t Compare Cyril. Alex, of the Ethiopian Eunuch: fisroxoc ijdrj tov voijtov 
•Kpo^drov, (Qlaphyr. in Exod., lib. ii. § 2, p. 270, Op., ed. Migne, torn. ii. c. 426.) 

t It may be worth noting that in this sense Hesychius understands Heb. xiii. 10. He 
•ays : ** Quia autem intelligibile altare Corpus Domini, et B. Paulus intelligit, ipso 
dicente cognosce, ait enim : Habemiu altare, de quo edere non habent potestatem, qui 


ignis," i.e, Spiritus (p. 89a) ; the " intelligibilis Cydaris," i.e. Christ's 
Divinity and Humanity (p. 90a); the "intelligibilis paupertas" 
(p. 183a) ; the ** intelligibilis terra " (p. 183a). 

So Origen writes : " Hoc est ergo signum ubi Jonas videbatur, et 
Christus iatelligebatur." (Com. in Ep. ad Rom., lib. iv. § 3, p. 525, 
Op., ed. Migne, torn. iv. c. 968. See also below, p. 269.) 

NOTE E. (p. 71). 

On the Patristic Use of the terms Figure, Type, and the 

like, as applied to the Eucharist. 

WiTB a view to contribute something towards a just appreciation 
(in its bearing on the controversy concerning Transubstantiation* 

iabernaeulo deserviunt, corpus videlicet Christ! dicens, de illo enim comedere JndaeiB 
fasnon est." (P. 64.) 

So Hugo Lingonensis writes : "In Christo hsBc omnia. Ipse enim est sublime 
altare Patris, sicut Scriptum est. Futasne aliud esse altare ubi Christus pontifex 
adstitit, quam Corpus suum per quod, et in quod Deo Patri vota fidelium, et fides 
offeruntur ? " (De Corp. et Sang. Christi, In Bibli. Max. Patr., torn, iviii. p. 419.) 

* Bishop Cosin says : "Quum iidem ipsi sanoti patres, qui de pane et vino S. Eucha- 
ristisB, quasi de ipso corpore ipsoque sanguine Domini, quandoque loquuntur (usitat& 
scilicet, ubi de sacramentis sermo fit, phraseologi^,) eundem panem et vinum 
Eucharisticura, typos, symbola, signa, figuram corporis et sanguinis Christi, ssepissime 
vocent, — vel hinc manifesto liquet, eos cum protestantibus, non cum transubstantia- 
toribus, sentire. Poasumus enim, incolumi nostra de sacramento Eucharistisa 
sententia,, prioribus illis uti locutionibus, quas sibi favere pontificii arbitrantur, modo 
eas (uti par est) sacramentaliter intelligamus. Posterioribus vero uti nemo potest, 
quin eo ipso, quod iis utatur, flgmentum transubstantiationis evertet ; quum ista 
duo, i^nem in corpus transubstantiari, et esse simul typum, sjrmbolum, signum, 
figuram corporis Christi, — sint prorsus dtTvaraTa. Nam res, quae desiit esse, alterius 
rei symbolum ac figura esse nequit ; nee res ulla sui ipsius typus aut signum esse 
potest." (Works, A. C. L., vol. iv. pp. 105, 106.) 

Dr. Pusey says : " This class of title, figure, type, image, symbol, were used by 
minds of every character in the ancient Church freely, naturally. The writers use 
them, moreover, not as if they were saying anything of their own, but as emplojring a 
current language. It is, so to speak, almost a technical, certainly a received language. 
. . . There is no reason to question the genuineness of the fragment of Irensous in 
which the expression [antitypes] occurs. Corresponding language is used by Ter- 
tullian ; and the use of the term both in S. Basil's Liturgy and Apostolic Constitutions 
makes it probable that it was a received expression." (Keal Presence from the 
Fathers, pp. 95, 96.) 

Dr. Pusey understands these terms as asserting " the actual presence both of the 
inward and outward part" (p. 96). It is no doubt true that they are quite 
consistent with the Real Presence to faith, and the Real giving to and receiving by 
faith of the " res sacramenti," with its " sacramentum " or ** sjrmbolum." But it can 
scarcely be maintained that they at all naturally imply, nor even that in their 
natural sense they are consistent with the Real Objective Presence of the "res 
sacramenti " in the "sacramentum." 


and the Real Objective Presence) of the use made by the Fathers of 
the terms typCt symbol^ and the like, as applied to the Eucharistic 

Torrian contended that the term avrirvwov had such a force. He maintained 
''antitypum proprie signiflcare figuram quse rem in se habet ad differentiam typi qui 
rem in se non oontinet." And he appealed to the use of the term by Cyril of 
Jerusalem. (See also Toutte'e, in Op. CyfU., Disser. iii. cap. xi.) But he was answered 
by Yasquez, who says: "Haec opinio de signiflcatione vocia antitypum ex nullo 
probato auctore conflrmari potest. Quod vero adducit ex Cyrillo potius contra ipsum 
est, quoniam baptismus qui a Cyrillo dioitur antitypum passionis et sepvXturm 
ChrisH, non continet reipsa mortem et sepulturam illius, sed effectum, nempe remlB- 
sionem peucatorum, <&c. Similiter non dicitur a Cyrillo sacramentum confirmationis 
antitypum ejus nimirum olei quo Christus unctus est, quod illud oleum reipsa, et 
Hon secundum signiflcatiouem contineat, sed quod effectum aliquem illius, eique 
iimilem unctionem habeat." (See Albertinus, De Eucharistia, p. 279. See also Goar, 
Euchologium, p. 158.) 

And though, doubtless, examples may be quoted of the use of the term antitype 
in connection with an idea of some sort of spiritual incorporation (see e g. Pusey's 
"Real Presence from the Fathers,*' pp. 113, 114), it will be found that in such cases 
the notion is rather an addition to the meaning of the term than at all involved 
in it. 

The term is used of the bread and wine of Melchizedek. 

And, indeed, the examples cited below will, it is believed, sufficiently show that 
no such inclusive idea is contained in its usual sense. 

J. A. Assemani, after giving various other modes by which Romish divines have 
laboured to bring the use of this term into harmony with the Romish doctrine, adds : 
"Yel demum per Antit}rpum Isotitypum intelligunt, siquidem de magnis ilUs 
mysteriis, hoc est de sanctissimo Christ! corpore, et pretioso sanguine istud accipias, 
proposito enim h88c anti nonnunquam ajqualitatem etiam significat, ita Elias Creten. 
in Orat. i. Apologet. Nazianz. pag. edit. Morell. 201. Ex dictis conciliantur Patres 
Groci, quorum idiqui post consecrationem divina appellant antitypa, permulti vero 
negant ita esse appellanda." (Codex Liturgicus, tom. iv. p. 73, Diss. De Liturg. Origine, 
Art.iv. § vii.) 

But the very many who in later times refused this title to the mysteries are good 
witnesses to the fact that this was not the natural or usual sense of the word. 

They never seem to have thought of thus reconciling their language with the 
language of earlier times and purer faith. 

Even Theophylact, whose view, if I understand it aright, fell entirely short of the 
doctrine of Paschasius, from the standpoint of hie doctrine, denied that the 
elements were antitypes. His words are : lipoax^Q Sk, on 6 aproQ 6 iv roTff 

fivarrjpioii; v(j>' r'lfiCjv kffOiofXEVog, ovk clvtitvitov lari rric rov Kvpiov aapKog, 
dSX avr^ 17 rov Kvpiov <rdp^. (In Joan. cap. vi. In Evang., Paris, 1631, pp. 651^ 

For the opinion of the second Nicene Council see above, p. 218, and "Romish 
Mass and English Church," p. 63.) 

Suicer says: " Eodem prorsus sensu dicuntur avn'ruTra panis et vinum corporis 
et sanguinis Christi, quo rrOfifSoXa, rviroiy flgura, oijfxeioVy signum, itKtoVf imago, 
similitude, &c. An vero his vocibus ideo usos dicemus veteres, et indicarent, sym- 
bolum, typum, figuram, signum, imaginem, eimUitudinem, dtc. corporis Christi, esse 
ipsum corpus f Non existimarim ego. Juxta Allatlum ad Hebr. ix. 24 : x**P0' 
rroiriTa dyia, quae Apostolo dicuntur avTiTvira rSiV dXtjQivCJVf erunt ipsa aXriOivd 
Uyuif ac proinde caelum ; quo quid absurdius flngi queat ? . . . Juxta Allatium, 
1 Petri iii. 21. Baptismus et area Noachi erunt ladTvrra, Baptismus erit ipsa Area. 
Aliter longe Apostolus. . . . Profeoto, si dwirvTra, essent laoTviraf gtulte omnino 


elements, I give here the principal passages in which such use is 
made, arranged under the heads of the various terms. 

El ^', tvQ ovTOi <l>ainv aaapKOQ *Ka\ avatfiOQ Jjy' rrolag aapKog, ri 
rlyog awfxarog, ij iroiov ainaroQ EIKONAS ^i^ovc, aprov t£ koI 
voTTjpiov^ eyereXKETO rolg fiadqTcuQ Zlcl TOVTtoy rify avafivritnv ahrov 
voiilerdai ; Hjy icnl 6 ^AttojtoXoq karC fiapTvpwv yap TOVTOig ^lyar* 
rdy re aproy kcu to irorijpioy Tfjg evXoylag KOtvwyiay atfJiaToQ re elvai 
jcac aapKog. (Adamantius, Dialogus De Recta in Deum Fide, Sectiv* 
in Op. Originis, torn. i. c. 1840, edit. Migne.) 

AvTOQ TO, avfjLJ3o\a Tfjg kvdiov otKoyojiiag rdig avrov wapehihov 
fiaOrirdlg, Trjy EIKONA rov Idtov aiofiarog iroteicFdat irapaKeXevSfJLevog 
. . . apT^ ')(pfj(Tdai (rvf^oXo) tov Idiov aut^arag irapehitov* (Eusebius, 
Demonstratio Evang., lib. viii. a Genesi, p. 380, edit. Paris, 1628.) 


OhZk yap fxera Toy ayiaafioy ra fivuTiKa trvfifioXa Tfjg oiKelag 
cjtorarat (ftvaeuig . . . irapadeg roiyvy rJ apxeTvirip r^v EIKONA, 
Kai ov//£t Tqy ofxoiorriTa* ypri yap eoiKeyai rp aXrjddtjf, rov Tvirov.t 
(Theodoret., Dial. ii. Inconfusus, Opera, edit. Scbulze, torn. iv. p. 126.) 

Theophylactus, strenus ille pfTOvcriag irpofiaxogf negaret, panem et yinnxn esse 
dvTiTVTra corporis et sanguinis Cliristi. At negat . . . cum Theophylacto etiam 
delirat Samona, Archiepiscopus Gazee, qui in Liturgiis, p. 136, negat, KOiVinviav esse 
dvTLTVirov TOV a<i)jxaTOQ tov Xptorou, fi Tvirov, ^ iiKova, Anuon vero hoc est 
reliquis in faciem contradicere Patribus?" (Thesaurus, torn. i. c. 385. See also 
quotations in Dr. Harrison's " Dr. Pusey's Challenge Answered/' pp. 64, 65 ; and 
Albertinus, De Eucharistia, pp. 275—278.) 

The following extract from St. Chrysostom is decisive as to his use of 'AvTirvirov: 
— KaXdg dirfv iKiiva avTiTvira, apa rvirov ex^i fiovoVy ovxi dk xal ttjv 
itrxvv wffTTip STTL T&v eiKovioVy TVTTOv £X£i TOV CLvQpioirov 17 eiKojVf ovxi rqv 
iaxvy. lotTTe r6 aXrjQkg Kal b rvirog koividvovolv aXKiikoig. 6 ydp rvirog laog, 
rf 8k IffxvQ ovKtTL. (In Epist. ad Hebrseos, cap. x., Horn. xvii. § 3, Opera, edit. 
Uontfaucon, torn. xil. p. 163.) 

See also examples below, under amiTvirov. 

It is, however, not to be forgotten tiiat the sacramental antitypes are represen- 
tative signs for an effectual purpose. See above, p. 180. 

Albertinus says: "Antitypa corporis et sanguinis Christi dicuntur, turn ratione 
similitudinis . . . tum ratione conversionis, non in substantiam corporis et sanguinis 
ejus, sed in virtutem sen efflcaciam eorum ut Cyrillus Alexandrinus loquitur. (De 
Bucharistia, p. 427.) 

• See above pp. 69, 70 ; and mark here the equivalent use of tUfiiv and 

t The terms elKUiv and TVTrog here are both used as correBi>ouding with rd 



TLapi^otKe yap EIKONA tov Idiov (ruffiarvg jiadrfrdic* (Procopius 
of Gaza, CommeDt. iu Gen., cap. xlix. v. 12, Opera, edit. Migne, 
torn. i. p. 502.) 


Aeaypa0£( yap kv toutolq alffdrjTCJQ, wtt' oypiy &y(t)y Irjtrovy tov 
Xpiaroy, r^y yoqTijv v/iwy cjq ey EIK02I fwj^v.f (Pseudo-Dionysius, 

fiv<TTucd erufifSoXa. The apx^rvrrov and the dXrjOeia, which are to be compared 
with them (but clearly not identified with them), are the Body of Christ (not on the 
altar, but) now at God's right hand {rrjc Ik da^iioy i^^uo9r} KaiikdpaQ), retaining still 
its former form and circumscription (or local limitations), and these as a part of its 
rery substance or nature as a liody {rb fikv TTponpov eldoQ ex^if Kal ax/y/xa, icat 
ViptypaipiQVf Kal ctTra^aTrXwc eiireiVt n^iv tov (ytb^aroQ ovaiav.) 

* This is the Greek as given by Coffetel from a manuscript. See above, p. 69. 

t Tnis is the author's account of the distribution. The paraphrase of Pachymeres 
runs thus : 'Ava^b>ypa0f t yap kv roig (rvfifSoXoiQ aia^JirCJe rriv voriTrjv tiputv 
K<tn^f Tbv Kvpiov Tf^wv 'iriaovv XpiaTov. (P. 327.) 

In Chapter iii., after the description of the Eucharistic service, the Qtupia 
commences "Agedumorgo . . . post flguras ordine sanctequo digestas {fiCTd rdc 
£lKONA2 iv tol^ei) . . . veritatem . . . declarabo" (§ 1, p. 286), on which the 
Scholiast Maximus remarks: ElKONAS eKaXiatTCJv dXriOwv, rd vvv reXovfUva 
iv Til !£vvd^tu (P. 300). The sixth section commences : " Qui quidem horum sacra- 
mentorumpenitusignari sunt, illi no imagines quidem cemunt" (ov6k rag ElKONAS 
opibaiVf p. 289). The third section commences : "Sancta itaque nobis penetranda 
censeo, ut, intelligentid. primi simulacrl detecta {rb vorjTbv tov TrptoTOV t&v 
dyaXfiaTujv drroyvfivuxravTaQ) deiformem ejus pulchritudinem intueamur" (p. 286); 
en which the Scholium of Maximus is ' Ay dXpaTO fikv (priffi rdc ElKONAS t&v 
dopdTU)v Kai jivaTiKdiV, riyovv rd trvfifioXiKCig TtXovpiva (p. 807). And so the 
paraphrase of Pachymeres :, 'AyaX/xara dk (j>Ti<ri rdg HKOvag t&v nvaTix&v, 
(P. 318.) 

It is not intended that these expressions have any exclusive reference te the 
Eucharistic elements. I believe, however, that it will scarcely be found possible, in 
a fair interpretation of the words of Fseudo-Dionysius and his interpreters, to exclude 
the elements from the general application. (See above, p. 133.) 

And this being so the following illustrative language should be taken into the 
same view : "Sicut in imaginibus {KoBaTtEp kiri t&v ahOrjr&v eikovujv), si pictor 
ad primiBvam speciem {apx^Tvirov ddog) constanter intendat, nulla re alift visibili 
distractus, neque secundum quidpiam divisus, ilium ipsum qui depingendus est (si 
ita dicere liceat) quodammodo replicablt, atque ipsam veritatem in similitudine, et 
archetypum in imagine (to apxErvirov kv ry eikovl) exprimet, alterumque in 
altero citra substantios differentiam referet : sic honesti amantibus in mente pic- 
toribus, suaveolentis ct arcanao pulchritudinis intenta constansque contemplatio 
infallibilem indet maximcque deiformem imaginationem " (cap. iv. § 1, p. 331). It 
should be observed that this occurs in the. chapter which is specially concerned with 
the sacred ointment, which is called an (tKu)v (p. 331). fiut then it is also to be very 
specially observed that the following words in section 3 (p. 333) bring this ointment 
into the same generic rank with the Eucharist : " Divini prnoceptoros nostri, tam- 
quam ejusdem ordinis et operationis cum sacrosancto Synaxeos Sacramento, iisdem 
imaginibus ut plurlraum [ralg avToig EIKOSIN tjg rd TroWd) mysticisque 
distinctionibus ac saciLi verbis descriiserunt." 


Areop., De Eccles. Hierar., cap. iii. § 13, Opera, edit. Corderius, 
Antw. 1634, torn. i. p. 300.) 


0« TrjvoKridfi tov Xpi(rrov EIKONA eiXiKptyetrraTTi \pvxg 'TroiovvreQ 
Kai irodovPTEQ koi cFifiofievot, (Concil. Constant., 754,* in Labbaeas, 
torn. vii. c. 445, Mansi, torn. xiii. c. 261.) 


l^ov ovv ff EIKQN TOV l^tttoiroiov orutfJLarog, (Ibid., c. 445, 262.) 


QiQ a\j;fevhfi EIKONA Tfjg (pvffiKrjg orapKOQ. (Concil. Constant. 754, 
in Labbseus, torn. vii. c. 448, Mansi, torn. xiii. c. 264.) 



"Tuam, oro, imaginem reprsesentet panis acmens; morare in pane, 

et in comedentibus ilium, in utroque objecto, manifesto atque occulto 

videat te, ut Mater, sic Ecclesia tua." (Ephrem Syrus, In Natalem 

Domini, Serm. xi. Version of Petnis Benedictus, Opera, torn. ii. 

p. 416, edit. Venice, 1756.) 


** Videmus per imaginem bona : et tenemus imaginis bona. . . . 

Ipse quidem nobis apud Patrem advocatus adsistit : sed nunc 

eum non videmus. Tunc videbimus, cum Imago transierit, verittu, 

venerit. Ascende ergo, homo, in coelum : et videbis ilia, quorum 

umbra hie erat vel imago, videbis perfectum hominem, jam non in 

imaginef\ sed in veritate." (Ambrose, Enarr. in Psalm, xxxviii. § 26, 

26, Opera, edit. Benedict. 1686, tom.i c. 853. 

II r. 
" Umbra in lege, imagol in Evangelio, Veritas in coelestibus. Ante 
aguus offerebatur, offerebatur et vitulus, nunc Christus offertur : sed 

• See above, pp. 217—219. 

t Bertram says: "In orationibus quee post mysterium corporis sangoinlBqii* 
Christ! dicuntur, et a populo respondetur, Amen\: sic sacerdotis voce dicetnr: 
Pignus ceternce vitcB capientes, humiliter imploramus ut quod in imagine contingimtu 
taeramento manifesta participatUme sumanvus'^ (De Corpore et Sanguine Dom., 
c. Ixxxv. See note in Migne, c. 162, 163, and esi)ecially Soames's Bampton Lectures, 
p. 395.) 

X The Benedictine editors would claim for Imago here a sense inclusive of " Heal 
Presence." (Note c, 63.) But the whole passage, and the preceding extract, refute 
the claim. See Harrison's "Fathers versiLs Dr. Posey," pp. 133, 134, and *' Challenge 
Answered," pp. 399, 400. 

The reference is to Heb. x. 1, where the distinction between the shadow {vna) 
and the im^e (tiKwv) is by Chrysoatom, an^ o^Yiet ^ueient expositors, explained aa 
that between a sketched outline and a co\o\Me^^V<i\.>Mc^. ^w\<OT^v«QitCsi>jiwVjft. 


offertur quasi homo, quasi recipiens passionem ; etoffertse ipse quasi 
sacerdos, ut pecoata nostra dimittat : hio ia imagine^ ibi in veritate, 
ubi apud Patrem pro nobis quasi Advooatus intervenit. (Ambrose, 
Be Otfic. Minist., lib. i. cap. xlviii. § 248, Opera, torn. ii. c. 63.) 


"Certe sacramenta, quoo sumimus, corporis et sanguinis Christi, 
diviaa res est, propter quod et per eadem DivinoB efficimur consortes 
Qaturte, et tamea esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis et vini. 
Et certe imago et similitudo corporis et sanguinis Christi in actione 
wysteriorum celebrantur." * (Gelnsius I., De Duabus Naturis, In 
Bibliotheca Maxima, Lugd. 1677, tom. viii. p. 703.) 


" Quia istam mensam prseparavit servis et ancillis in conspectu 
eorura, ut quotidie in sirnilUudinem corporis et sanguinis Christi, 
panem et vinum secundum ordinem Melchizedek nobis ostenderetin 
Sacramento, ideo dicit : Parasti in conspectu mensam," &c.t (Horn. 
in Ps. xxii., published among the works of Chrysostom in the Paris 
edition of 1588, tom, i. col. 703.) 


" Dedit sui corporis imaginem vel efBgiem vel typum discipulis, 
baud amplius admitteus et acceptans legis cruenta sacrificia." J 

The fUtov is a vivid resemblance in contrast with tho faint and imperfect figuring 
of the (TKid. 

See especially Chrysostom, In Heb., Horn, xvii., Opera, edit. Montfaucon, tom. xii. 
p. 107. 

See also Albertinus, De Eucharistia, pp. 857, 858. 

This ttKu)v may also doubtless be called 6\ri9eia; but then the d\r}9ua is the 
lifelike reality of the coloured picture, which implies no Real Objective Presence of the 
apxi^Tvirov, So Chrysostom : 'HXt'ov ydjO dviaxovroQ, KpvwrtTai rj tJKid, did 
rouro ydp iv avrj ry rpairkZy tKanpov yivtrai irdaxa^ Kai t6 tov rvnovt 
Kai rb r»Jc dXride'iaq. Kaddtrip ydp ol Z<^ypd<poi Iv avrtf ry rrlvaKi Kai rdg 
ypdfifiac rrtpidyovai Kai tt)v axidv ypdipovai, Kai t6ti rrjv dXtjOttav ruJv 
XP^IJ^drmv avrf liririOkaaiv ovtoj Kai 6 Xpurrbg irroirienv. iir' avrfjc r^Q 
rpairkZric Kai t6 rvirucbv irdaxa vmypaxj/e Kai rb dXrjOivbv irpoakGTjKf, 
(De Prodit. Judee, Homil. i. § 4, Opera, edit. Montfaucon, Paris, 1718, tom. ii. p. 383.) 

See Qregor. Nazianz., as quoted below, p. 273. ^ 

See also Euthymius Zigabenus, Comment, in quatuor |ivangelia, cap. Ixiv. (In 
Bibl. Max. Patr., Lu«d. 1677, tom. xix. p. 578.) 

* See Routh's Opuscula, tom. ii. pp. 189 sqq., and Albertinus, De Eucharistia, pp. 
858_S76. For evidence of the sense of siiniUtudo in its bearing on the controversy, 
see Albertinus, pp. 858 sqq. 

t See Ooode on Eucharist. 1. p. 272. 

% This is the Latin version of C. Thrasybulus. See above, p. 268. The Greek in 
<A« editions is here deficient. 


(Procopius of Gaza, Comment, in Genesin, cap. xlix. v. 12, Opera, 
edit. Migne, torn. i. p. 502.) 

VI r. 
" Lsetentur et exultent et praesumant qui veram Christi imaginem 
benigiio animo facientes et dili«(eotes et venerantes ad salutem animfe 
et corporis ofiTerentes, quam ipse sacriftcii perfector et Deus nostram 
ex nobis ex toto suscipiens massam secundum tempus voluntaria 
passionis in signum et in memoriam roanifestam suis tradidit disci- 
pulls." (Latin version of Cone. Const. 754, as read in 2nd Nicene 
Council by Gregory, Bp. of Neocsesarea.)* 


" Corporis et sanguinis Christi antitypa . . . quae imaginem ac 
v«ram illorum figiiram teneant." (Stephanus Junior, in Surlus, 
No7. 28, cap. xxxvi., De Sanct. Vitis, Col. 1618, tom. iv. p. 633.) 


*' Sicut enim mortis similitudinem sumpsisti, ita etiam similitudinem 
pretiosi sanguinis bibis.*' (De Sacramentis, In Op. Ambrosii, lib. 
i?. cap. 4, § 20, edit Benedict., Paris, 1690, tom. ii. c. 370, 371.) 


"In simiJitudinem accipis sacratuentum.** (Ibid., lib. vi. cap. I, 
8, tom. ii. c. 380.) 

§ 8, tom. ii. c. 380.) 

* Quoted as from him, and with decided disapproral, by Charlemagne, De Imag., 
Ub. It. cap. xiv.. Op., ed. Migne, tom. ii. c 1213. See Manai, torn, xiii c. 262, ffTT. 

As applied by early writers to the Eacharist, the word Imago of coorae conTeya 
the idd;& of representation rather than actual or physical Hkenen. Du Cange inter- 
prets " Imaginarius " by "Yicarins, Locum-tenens, qui vices alterins in rebuf 
gerendis implet, et imaginem quodammodo refert." Heqiotes from Petrus de Yincis. 
lib. ii £p. 9 : " Filium nostrum ad roi tanquam Ima?inarium nostrae praesentia 
deaiinamus.'* (Qlossarium in roc. Imaginariut.) And this sense is doubtleas derived 
from an older meaning of Imago. 

With Chariema'^ae, on the contrary, the prominent question of Image-wonhip 
would seem to have given to Iinajo the sense of physical and artijieial likenen, to tlM 
exclusion of the idea of divinely appointed representation. See below, aader 
Figura, pp. 279, 2S0. 

Doab Jess, also, the sacramental union (see above, p. 132 9qq.), in its relation to the 
IncarQitiaa, and the friction of the breai in its ordained relation to the passion of 
ChriU. appear somecim.^s to come into the idea of the representation onderstood by 
the terms hkmi'^ IinagOy and the like. 

But the centTil poiut of real similitude is the correspondence between natar^i 
broad aui wine in th^^ir relation to the hun^r and inri^^ration of the body, and the 
true brvai an I wLqo of ChrUt s Flesh and iUood, given and shed for the life of the 
world in thdir relatioa to tho hunger of man's soul, and the snx^iort of his spiritual 
life. Ttxis analot^ mUes the sign as delivered to the body so saitaUe to 
as a true ims^^ rzid convey to faith the thing signiiled, that which m to «■>•" 
ftMlssd and drink indAtd. 



U.pSffE'xet TTwc rov &pTOv ehXoywv kXolei ahrov kv TYIKl rov 
frutfiaro^ rov Idiov ^ypavrov' Kal to worfipioy TraXiv, ttwc iv rviri^ 
ai^aroQ cwXoyci, koX Si^ioffiv toJq kavTov jjLadrfTolQ, (Homily among 
the Works of Eplirem Syrus, *' De lis qui Naturam Dei scrutantur," 
Opera, torn. i. p. 497, edit. Venice, 1755. In the Roman edition of 
Asseman, 1732, the Homily will be found in torn. iii. pp. 418 sqq. 
The extract is from writings not found in the Syriac, and whose 
authenticity is not unquestioned. If not the writing of Ephrem, 
though io will lose the weight of his high authority, it will still bear 
witness to the faith of the Church at a later period.) 


'Eai' (re 6 Kvpiog irarafiofO'^, eIq to efiTrpoirdev yvb)(Ti^, on to 
viofia avTOv Kara to thayyiXiov TVIION e<pepey &pTOu,* (Cyril. 
Hieros., Oatech. xiii. § xix., Opera, edit. Ben., p. 192.) 

MeTaXriypofieda de tov Ilaflr^a, vvy ^lev TTIIIKm! en, koX el tov 
iraXaiov yv^v6Tepov* to yap vofJUKoy Ilna\a, ToXfxCj koX Xeyta 
TYnOY TviroQ Jjv cL/jivdp&repoiA (Grregor.Nazianz.,Orat.xlv, § xxiii., 
Opera, edit. Benedict., Paris, 1778, torn. i. p. 863.) 


'* Super frumentOy in quit J et vino^et oleOf de quo conficitur panis 
Domini, et sanguinis ejus impletur typus, et benedictio sanctifica- 
tionis ostenditur." (Hieronymus, Comment, in Jeremiam, lib. vi. 
cap. xxxi. vs. 10, 11 sqq.^ Opera, edit. Vallarsius, torn. iv. c. 1063.) 


** In typo sanguinis sui non obtulit aquam sed vinum.*' | (Ibid., 

* Commenting on Jerem. xi. 19, according to the version "lignum injiciamus in 
panem ejus ;" on which passage Tertullian has the similar note, "Sic enim Deus in 
•Tangelio quoque yestro revelavit panem corpus suum appellans, ut et hinc jam eum 
intelligas corporis sui flguram paDi dedisse." (Adv. Marcio., § xix.. Opera, edit. 
Bigaltius, 1689, p. 408. See above, pp. 66, 92, 94. and below, p. 277.) 

So on the same passage Theodoret writes : T^ dk ^eairdTy XpurTf Kal fioKa 
r^C TTpoipriTtiaQ 6 Xdyog irpoai)KH' apTov ydp to iavTOv rrpoariySpevae o&fjia, 
b dpTog ydp ^rjaivt dv iyuf duxriaf 17 <rdp^ fiov 6<rriv. (InHierem., cap. xi.. Opera, 
edit. Schulze, tom. ii. pp. 472, 478.) 

t It may be observed that elsewhere Gregory uses language which implies that 
all that is offered on the tables of Christian Churches may be regarded as a iJKid, 

He says that if driven from the altars he knows another— the work of the mind : 
Toury Oiffut SiKTdf OvaiaPf xai Trpoa^opAv, Kal oXoKavrutfiaTaf Kpdrrova tCjv 
vvp 7rpo<Tayofikv(i)Vf otrtit KpeiTTOV (jKid\i dXrjOtia. (Orat. xxvi. § 16, Opera, edit. 
Benedict., tom. i. p. 483.) 

t On this extract see above, p. 116. ' , 



Ad?. Jovin., lib. ii. § 6, quoting from Jovinianos, Opera, edit 
Vallarsius, torn. ii. c. 330.) 


On yap // KOivutvia rijg fivtrriK^Q ii/Xoylag ofwXoyia riQ kari r^c 
avatrruaeiaQ tov Xpiorou, aafe^ av ycVoiro, Koi fidXa p^hlioct 2*' «»' 
avroQ £<j>ri tov tov fivtrrrfpiov TVIION ewiTekiaac hi kavrov. Aia- 
K\a(raQ yap tov aproVf Kat)a yiypaTtrai, hudidov, \iywy' tovto fioi 
itxTL TO <ra>/ia, ic.r.X. (Cyril. Alex., In Joan. Evang.,lib. xii. 1104, 
1105, Opera, edit. Migne, torn. vii. c. 725.) 


Et ^€ ii ffapi eIq dedrriTOQ fierePKridri <pv<ny, ov hrf xopiv fieraXafi- 
fidyovffiv Tutv avTiTvirittv too ffutfiaTOQ; wepirroc yap 6 TYIIOS* 
ayyprjfjLtyrjQ t^q aXrfdeiag. (Theodoret., Demonstratio, Quod Unio 
sit iuconrusa, Opera, torn. iv. p. 269, edit. Scbulze.) 


TtVoc ^yg <Tufi(io\6v re koi TTUON tijv iravayiav Tpo^rfv ;+ (Ibid. 
Dial. i. Immutabilisy Op., torn. iv. p. 27.) 


•* Dedit 8ui corporis imaginem vel eflBgiem vel typum discipulis." X 
(Procopius of Gruza, Comment, in Genesm, cap. xlix. v. 12, Opera, 
edit. Migne, torn. 1. p. 502.) 


** Son oportet, inquiunt [Nestoriani] te moleste ferre banc oecono- 
miani. Panis eaim in typum Corporis Christi propositus plus bene- 
diciionis participavit quam panis, qui in foro venditur, et quam 
panes, quos Philomarianitse offerunt in nomine MarisB.*' § (Leontius 
Byzant., Contra Nestor, et Eutych., lib. iii. ** De Nestorianorum Im- 
pietate." In Biblioth. Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, torn. ix. p. 698.) 


*Clc ohK &Wov elhovc iTn\i\deyTOc Trap avTOv ev rrj vw ovpavoyf 
tf TYnOY, elKoylaai Trjy avrou aapKUKTiy ZvyapAyov. (Concil. Con- 
stant. 754, in Labbseus, torn. vii. c. 445 ; Mansi, torn. xiii. c. 264.) 

- * It is to be specially noted here how Theodoret uses the terms rvTroc and 
avrirurrov as equivalent alternatives. 

The reader may also be asked carefully to weigh the language here used, in view 
of the questions— (1) Does Theodoret regard these terms as inclusive of that which 
they symbolise ? (2) Does his view recognise the real presence of the thing typified 
in or under the form of the type ? 

t Here again it may be observed how the terms aiipLfioKov and tvwoq are classed 
together apparently as equivalents. 

: See above, p. 272. 

§ See Chiude, "Catholic Doctrine of Such.," London, 1634, book v. oh. vi. part 
ii. p 52. See also above, p. 64. 



Etc TYnON Koi avafivrioiv evapyearcLTfiv . • . vapaiiiiaKtym 
(Concil. Constant. 754, in Labbseus, torn. vii. c. 445; Mansi, tom.xiiiv 
c, 261.) 

*' Testamentum ergo sanguine constitutum est, quia beneficii 
divini sanguinis testis est In cnjus typum, nos calicem mysticum 
ad tuitionem corporis et sanguinis, et anim® nostras percipimus ; 
quia sanguis Domini sanguinem nostrum redemit" (Rabanus 
Maurus, Comment, in Epist. Paul., lib. xi., In 1 Cor. xi., Opera, edit. 
Migne, tom. vi. c. 103.) 


*' Et qui proposuimus typum Corporis et Sanguinis Christi Tui, 
adoramus; ac supplices rogarous Te per bonitatis Tuss benigni- 
tatera, reniat Sanctus Tuus Spiritus super nos, et super bseo quas 
proposuimus dona, et sanctificet ipsa." (Anaphora D. Basilii, ex 
Codice Syriac, transl. per Andr. Masium, Ant 1569, p. 243. See 
Cosin's Works, A.C.L., vol. iv, p. 66.) 


** Non oportet aliquid aliud in sacramento offerri prsBter panem 
vinum et aquam, quae in typo Christi benedicuntur." (Gratian, 
Decret, Pars iii. De Consecr. Dist ii. can. iii. * Venice, 1567, col. 



** Quapropter a sacris vinculis soluti, ad Hgna Dominica confir- 
matis animis accedite." (Innocentius I. Papa in Epist. ad Arcadium 


" Ex eo quod scriptum est, sanguinem pecoris animam ejus esse, 
praeter id quod supra dixi, non ad me pertinere quid agatur de pecoris 
anima, possum interpretari illud in signo esse positum. Non.enim 
Dominus dubitavit dicere. Hoc est corpus meum : cum signum daret 
corporis sui." (Augustin., Contra Adimantum, cap. xii. § 3, tom. viii. 
ool. 124, edit Benedict., Paris, 1688.) 


" De iignis disserens hoc dico, ne quis in eis adtendat quod sunt, 

sed potius quod signa sunt, id est, quod significant, . . . Nam et 

odore unguenti Dominus, quo perfusi sunt pedes ejus, signum aliqaod 

* Can. iy. in edit. Migne, col. 1782. 
t See Hoepioian, Opera, tom. iii. p. 128, edit 1681. 

T 2 


dedit; etsaoramento corporis et sanguinis sui prsBgustato, rignifieavit 
quod Yoluit."* (Augustine, DeDootr. Christ., lib. ii. cap. iii. torn. iii. 
p. 1, c. 19, 2O9 edit. Benedict. 1680.) 


" Ante benedictionem verborum celestium alia species f nomlnatur, 
post oonsecrationem corpus ngnificatur. Ipse dicitsanguinem suum. 
Ante consecrationem aliud dicitur, post conseorationem sanguis nun- 
cupatur. Et tu dicis, Amen : hoc est, verum est." (De Mysteriis 
Liber, cap. ix. § 54, Opera Ambrosii, edit. Benedict., Paris, 1690, 
torn. ii. c. 389, 840.) 


*^ Quam [imaginem] .... in signum et in memoriam manifestam 
suis tradidit discipulis." (Greg. Bp. of Neoceesarea X as quoted by 


*' Dicitur Corpus Christi, sed improprie. Unde dicitnr suo modo, 
sed non rei veritate, sed significati mysterio ; ut sit sensus, Yocatur 
Christi corpus, id est, significat" (Gloss. § in Gratian, Decret., Pars 
iii. De Consec, Dist. ii. c. xlviii.) 


*' Professus itaque se concupiscentia concupisse edere Pascha ut 
suum (indignum enim ut quid alienum concupisceret Deus) acceptum 
panem, et distributum discipulis, corpus ilium suum fecit, hoc est 
corpus meum dicendo, id est, Jigura \\ corporis mei. Figura autem 
non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset corpus. Ceterum vacua res, quod est 
phantasma, figuram capere non podset.'* (TertuUian, Adv. Marc, 
lib. iv. xl. edit. Paris, 1689, pp. 457, 458.) 

* With this passage should be compared the following : '* Tantae rei taeramerUa, 
id est, «aora signa." (Ibid., Contr. Adv. Legis, lib. il c. 9, S 83, Opera, tom. viii. c. 
699, edit Benedict. 1688.) 

" Nimis longum est, convenienter dispntare de varietate signomm, quae cum ad 
res divinas pertinent, Sacramenta appellantur." (Ibid, Ad Marcellinum, "Sp. 
exzxviii., Opera, torn. ii. c. 412, edit. Benedict. 1679.) 

t The reader may be cautioned against attributing to species a modem sense. 
The Fathers sometimes use it as equivalent to wJbstarUia. Ambrose si>eak8 elsewhere 
of our Lord as changing *' aquee substantiam in vini speciem " ; and again he says : 
" Gravior est ferri species quam aquarum liquor." See Albertinus, De Encharistia, 
pp. 612, 615, 518. 

} See above, p. 272. § See above, p. 129. 

il In the report to Pope Benedict XII. of the faith of the Armeniana, it is aUeged 
as among their errors, that they hold that the Sacrament is "a representation, a 
resemblance, or ^figure of the true Body and Blood of our Lord.'* "They say like- 
wise that when our Saviour instituted this Sacrament, He did not transubstantiate the 


** Sic enim Deus in Evaag^elio quoque vestro revelavit panem 
corpus suutn appellans, ut et hinc jam earn intelligas corporis sui 
Jiguram pani dedisse, ci\jus retro corpus in panem Prophetes figuravit, 
ipso Domino hoc sacramentum postea interpretaturo." * (Tertullian, 
Adv. Marci, lib. iii. xix. edit. Paris, 1689, p. 408. See also Adv. 
Judflsos, X. p. 196.) 

"Who gave to ... . His Church mystical corn and wine and 
oil ; corn which [mystically] figures His holy Body, and wine, His 
atoning Blood ; and agaia, oil for the fragrant ointment, wherewith 
the baptized are sealed, and put on the armour of the Holy Spirit." f 
(Ephrem Syrus, in Joel ii. 24, Op., edit. Venice, tom. ii. p. 340, 
edit. Rome, 1732, tom. v. p. 252.) 


** In historia Novi Testamenti ipsa Domini nostri tanta et tam 
miranda patienda, quod eum tamdiu pertulit tanquam bonum, cum 
ejus cogitationes nou ignoraret, cum adhibuit ad convivum, in quo 
corporis et sanguinis ^mfiguram discipulis commendavit et tradidit; 
quod denique in ipsa traditione osculum accepit, bene intelligitur 
pacem Christum exhibuisse traditori suo." (Augustin.; Enarr. in 
Psalm, iii. § 1, tom. iv. par. i. col. 7, edit. Benedict., Paris, 1688.) 

" Labores passionis Christi .... iny^^urej corporis ejus ac sangui- 
nis pro salubritate vit» communis afferimus, ad agnitam duloedinem 
mysteriorum conscio ore testamur." (Qaudentius Brix., Serm. xix. 
p. 198, edit. Galeardus, 1767.) 

¥read and wine into His Body, but only instituted a representation or a resemblance 
of His Body and Blood." ** The Armenians likewise say we must expound that 
which is said in the Canon of their Mass : hy vthkh Holy Spirit the bread is made 
the real Body of Jenu Chritt in this sense, that by the real Body qf Jeeue Chrittt we 
must understand the real resemblance or representation of the Body and Blood of 
Jesus Christ." (See Claude's " Catholic Doctrine of Buch./* London, 1084, part ii. 


* On this passage see Morton on Eucharist, p. 492, edit. 1086, and Albertinus, De 
Xacharistia, p. 824 eqq. 

t Quoted from Dr. Pusey's translation in ** Beal Presence from Fathers," pp. 414, 

I have inserted the word "mystically" at the suggestion of the Dean of Canter- 
bury. The Syriac verb is from the same root as the adjective mystieal. The 
corresponding noun seems to have much the same variety of sense as the Qreek 

The Latin version of Petrus Benedictus renders " quod est mysterium (ioiporis 
ipsios sanctiisimL" 



'* Reote etiam vini specie tuno sanguis ejus exprimitur, quia enm 
ipse in Evangelio dicit : 'Ego sum vitisvera;' satis declarat san- 
guinem suum esse omne vinum quod in figurd passionis ejus 
oflfertur." (Gaudentius Brix., Serm. ii. p. 33.) 


'* Quomodo panem de multis tritici granis in polMnem redaetis per 
aquam coafici, et per ignem necesse est consummari, rationabiliter in 
eo figura* accipitur corporis Christi, quern novimus ex multitudine 
totius humani generis unum esse corpus effectum, per ignem sancti 

Spiritus consummutum Similiter et sauguinis ejus vinum ex 

pluribus acinis, id est uvis vineseab ipso plantatse, coUectum, in torcu- 
lari Crucis exprimitur, et per capacia vasa fideli corde sumentium 
propria virtute fervescit." (Ibid., Serm. ii. pp. 31>, 40.) 

VIII. . 

*^ Corporis et sanguinis sui figuram discipulis commendaTit et 
tradidit.'^ (Isidorus Hispalensis, Qusestiones in Yet. Test, Reg. ii* 
cap. iii., Opera, edit. Migne, torn. v. c. 413.) 


" Ejus [Judse] nefanda consilia cognoscens ejus prsesentiam per- 
tulit, nee a sacratissima coena in qua figuram sacrosancti corporis 
sanguinisque suis Discipulis tradidit,f ipsumque exclusit" (Ven. 6ed8» 
in Psalm, iii., Opera, edit. Colon., 1612, tom. viii. c. 824.) 


"Transiit [Dominus] ad novum [Pascha] quod in suae redemptionis 
memoriam Ecclesia frequentare desiderat, ut videlicet pro agDi came 
vel sanguine suae carnis sanguinisque sacramentum in panis ac vini 
figura substituens, ipsum se esse monstraret cui juravit Dominus, et 

* The words f (blowing might seem to represent the thmgfigured here as Christ'^ 
Spiritual Body, the Church. But the preceding and subsequent context seem to show- 
that this is so only because the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is as a bond of uiion 
of the two senses of Christ's Body, making the recipients to be *' One bread and One 
Body," because ''partakers of that One bread." St. Augustine says: "Dominus. 
noster Jesus Christus, Corpus et Sanguinem suum in qH rebus commendavit que ad 
unum aUquid rediguntur ex multis. Namque aliud in unum ex multis granis oonflt 
aliud in unum ex multis acinis confluit." (August, in Joan., Tract, xxri.. Opera, 
tom. iii. par. ii. c. 500.) See Cyprian, Ep. ad Ceecilium (p. 230, edit. Venice, 1728.) 
** Ipso Sacramento populus noster ostenditur adunatus, ut quemadmodum grana 
multa in unum collecta, et commolita et commixta panem unum faciunt, sic in 
Christo, qui est panis coel^tis, unum sciamus esse corpus, cui conjunctus sit noster 
numerus et adunatus." See below, Note G. 

t Cf. Augustine, as quoted above, p. 277, and see Soames's Bampton Lectnna^ 
p. 406. 


fton poenitebit enm, tu es sacerdos in reternum Becundum ordinflin 
Melchisedek." (Ven. Beda, In Luc. xxii., Opera, torn. w. c. 424 ) 


" An tu quoque corporis et sanguinis Christi antitypa ab Ecclesia 
proscribes, ut quae imaginem ac veram illorum figuram teneant?"* 
(Stephanus Junior, in Surius, Nov. 28, cap. xxx.v. De Sanot. Yitis, 
Colon., 1618, torn. iv. p. 633.) 


•' [Dominus], coenando cum Discipulis, panem fregit, et calicem 
pariter dedit eis in Jiguram\ corporis et sanguinis sui, nobisque pro- 
fdturum magnum exhibuit sacrameutura." (Garolus Magnus, De 
ratione Septuages. ad Alcuinum, In Alcuini Opera, c. 1150, edit. 
Paris, 1617.) 

• See below, under avriTVirov, p. 291. 

t It should be noted, however, that elsewhere, in the book "Da Imaginlbus," 
Charlemagne (or the author of the "Libri Carolini"), in this particular following the 
lead of the second Nicene Council, objects to the term imago as applied to the 
Bucliarlst. It would appear from his language (see lib. iv. cap. xiv., Opera, ed. 
Migne, tom. ii. c. 1214), that he distinguished between figura and imago ; regarding 
the latter term either as implying or referring to an object having as yet no real 
existence, or as signifying a mere likeness of man's device and art. Accordingly, 
Albertinus says : " Innovatio igitur est in loquendi forma potius quam in re : sed peri- 
eulosa tamen, et quae sequentibus snculis errandi non levem ansam incautis subminis- 
travit. PrsBstitisset semper loqui cum veteribus qui Eucharistiam corporis et 
sanguinis Dominici imaginem liberrime nominarunt." (De Eucharistla, p. 917.) 

As to the views maintained in the "Caroline Books," see Canon Bobertson's 
"Hist, of Ch. Ch.," vol. iii. pp. 143—146, 1874. 

" In the 27th chapter of the 2nd book of the Caroline Books, the term sacramentuth 
is used repeatedly and plainly to designate a figure, or sacred sign. ' Corporis et 
sanguinis Dominici sacramentum ad commemorationem suee passionis, et nostne 
salutis nobis concessum.' * Corporis et sanguinis Dominici sacramentum non omni 
saeramento atquiperandum^ sed pene omnibus preeferendura.' Imperialia Decreta de 
Cult. Imag., ex. edit. Melch. Haim. Goldast, Francof., 1608, pp. 274—277." (Soames's 
Bampton Lectures, p. 411.) 

The true key to the understanding of Charlemagne's objection to the word imagtt 
will be found, I believe, in the following words : " Multum igitur, et ultra quam 
mentis oculo perstringi ^aeat. distat sacramentum Dominici corporis et sanguinis ab 
imaginlbus pictorum arte depictls : cum videlicet illud efflciatur operante invisibiliter 
spiritu Dei, hso visibillter manu artiflcis ; illud consecratur a sacerdote Divini nominu 
invocatione, hse pingantur a pictore humancB artis eruditione." (Carol! Magni Opera, 
edit. Migne, tom. ii. c. 1095.) 

It was, in fact, the rise of Image-worship which necessitated the drawing a clear 
line of demarcation to separate sacramental figures from images set up in churches, 
painted or graven by art and man's device. (Scq above, p. 272.) 

The distinction is, in truth, very real and important between a representation made 
by an image or likeness the result of mere human skill, and that which results from 
an appointed sign (with no likeness of such sort) fitly ordained to signify by Divine 
institution and represent (not ^vffft, but 9i<nt) to the faith of Christian men 



"Dicit Saoerdos: Fac nobis, inquit, haoc oblationem adscriptam, 
ratam, ratioiiabilem, acceptabilem ; quod figura * est corporis et 
sanguinis Domini nostri Jesu Cliristi/' (De Sacramentis, in Op. 
Ambrosii, lib. iv. cap. v. § 21, edit Benedict, 1690, torn. ii. coL 371.) 

that which by faith is verily and indeed taken and received in the Bochaiist. (See 
Papers on Eucharistic Presence, ]H>. 136, 136.) 

And it was just this distinction which was called for by the claim, which Charle* 
nagne is refuting, that Images might be put on a par with the Sacramental Body of 
Christ— a claim expressed in these words : *' Sicut Corpus Dominicum et sangwis a 
fructibus terras ad insigne mysterium transit, ita et imagines artiflcum indnstxia 
compaginatn ad earum personarum in quarum similitadinem compaginantiu; 
transeant venerationem." (Car. liagni. Opera, edit. Migne, tom. ii. c. 1093.) 

Let it be noted how not only Charlemagne's answer (see c. 1095), but this very 
claim itself, refutes the idea of Divine adoration due to a Beal Objective Presence <^ 
Christ in the Elements. (See also Claude's Catholic Doctrine of Buch., part it p. 0/, 
London, 1684.) 

It may be observed that by others the term image was rejected as applied to the 
Eucharist, while symbol was accepted ; and by others both imetge and figure were 
refused, yet representation was admitted. (See Claude's Cath. Doct. of Bach., part L 
pp. 841, 344, London, 1684.) All these distinctions seem to indicate steps in depar- 
ture from the eaiiier faith which admitted all these terms indiscriminately. 

Yet again, in a new sense, the term fi^re was used by Paschasius and his followers. 
rSee Claude, x. part ii. pp. 266, 266, and Anselm, Bpist. cvi., Opera, pp. 452, 468^ 
Paris, 1721.) But this sense was altogether unknown to the eariier Fathem. OSee 
Albertinus, De Euch., pp. 5, 389, 621.) 

And yet again, a new sense has been given even to imago with a Tiew to make it 
admissible in Romish theology. (See Albertinus, p. 857. ) 

* This is doubtless a pn^er before consecration. But it can hardly be doubted 
that it has respect to the effect of consecration. 

Compare the following from Florus Magister: "Orator omnipotens^ ut 
oblationem suis altaribus impositam, et tantis precibus commendatam, ipse pw 
virtutem Spiritus descendentis ita legitimam et perfectam Sucharistiam efflciatk ut 
in omnibus sit adscripts, id est in numerum placitorum sibi numeretur recepta, 

sit etiam rata, id est, immobili flrmitate perpetua ut effloiatur corpna 

et sanguis unigeniti fllii Dei Hsbc est rati(mabilis hostia, plena videlicet 

rationis, plena mysterii." (De Expositions Missae, § 59, Opera, edit. Migne, c. 51.) 
See also the Liber "De Divinis Offlciis" in the Works of Alcuin, c. 1111, edit. Pari% 

Dr. Pusey has observed that the words "quod figura est corporis et sanguinis 
Domini Nostri Jesu Christi '' occupy the same place as the words ** ut nobis corpus et 
sanguis flat dilectissimi Filii tul Domini Dei nostri Jesu Christi," in the old Roman 
Missal. (Real Presence from the Fathers, p. 106.) 

Mr. Scudamore writes : "For the proof that this work [De Sacramentis] belonged 
to the Galilean Church, see Oudin, tom. i.. Col. 1861. Ambrose of Cahors, its supposed 
author, wrote at the end of the eighth century, after the introduction of the Roman 
Liturgy by Charlemagne. Observe the qualiflcation of the Roman original: 'Quod 
figura est corporis,' &o.'* (Kotitia Eucharistica, p. 522.) 

See also note in Benedictine edition of St. Ambrose, tom. ii. c. 871 ; Albertinus, De 
Eucharistia, pp. 275, 513, 730 ; Hospinian, Works, tom. iii. pp. 281, 282 ; AUix^ 
Churehes of Piedmont, jk. 45 ; Groode on Eucharist, i. pp. 267—268 ; Dr. Harrison's 
-Reply to Dr. Pussy's Challenge, voL i. p. 549, voL ii. p. 78. 



"Corpus Christi* quod sumitur de altari figura est dum panis et 
Tinmn videtur extra : Veritas autem dum corpus et sanguis Christi, in 
Teritate interius creditur." (Hilarius Papa? in Gratian, Decret, 
pars iii., De Consecratione, Dist. ii. can. ixxviii. p. 1290, Venice, 


"Dedit discipulissuissacramentum corporis sui .... ut memores 
illius facti, semper hoc in figurd facerent, quod pro eis acturus erat 
aion oblivisoerentur. Hoc est corpus meum, id est, in sacramento. . . . 
"Vinum . . . lestiflcat, et sanguinem auget. Et idcitco non incon- 
venienter sanguis Christi per hoc figuratur, . . . Sicut denique si 
mliquis peregre proficiscens f dilectoribus suis quoddam vinculum 
dilectionis relinquit . . . . ita Deus prsBcepit agi a nobis, transferens 
spiritaliter corpus in panem, vinum in sanguinem, ut per hsec duo 
xnemoremus qu® fecit pro nobis de corpore et sanguine suo, et non 
«imas ingrati tam amantissimse charitatL"| (Christian Druthmar, in 
Matth. Evang., fo. Ixxxiv., edit 1514.) 

* On these words the gloss says : " Corpus Christi, .Ac. : Id est, sacriflcium corporis 
Christi : alias falsum est quod dicit." On the writings of Hilary, see Cave's Historia 
literaria, Ann. 461, p. 266, Geneva, 1694. On this quotation, which is probably not 
Irom Hilary, see Albertinus, De Eucharistia, p. 472. Compare Paschasius as quoted 
in '* Bomish Mass and English Church," p. 78. 

t See below, under Mtmoria. 

Compare also the following from Florus Magister: "Propterea et itnrus ad 
passionem, et per resurrectionis et ascensionis gloriam discessums e mnndo, hoe 
sacramentum nltimum discipulis tradidit, at memoriam tantn charitatis, per quam 
solam salvamur, arctius eorum mentibus inflgeret ; quatenus semper memores simns, 
et quales et quantum ab eo dilecti simus." (Florus, De Expositione Missae, S 68, in 
Migne's Patrologia, torn. czlx. c. 66.) 

" Quantum est istud et ineffabile salutis mysterium et pietatis sacramentum, tanta 
contestatione prsedictum, tanta veritate commendatum, ut prius hoc Dominus corpus 
et sanguinem suum assereret, quam pro nobis suum corpus et sanguinem traderetur." 
(Ibid., S 6, c. 28.) 

X There is a history connected with this extract from Druthmar which is worth 

Sixtus Senensis (followed by Cardinal Dn Perron) charged the Protestants with 
having corrupted the text to make it read as quoted above, alleging that "pro eo, 
quod codices in Oermania excusi habent, Hoc est corpus meum, hoc est, in sacra- 
mento : Lugdunense exemplar plus habet. Hoc est corpus meum, hoc est, vere in 
sacramento subsistens ; rursum ubi in impressis voluminibus leghnus, Transferens 
spiritualiter corpus in panem, in vinum sanguinem : in Lugdunensi legitur, trans- 
ferens panem in eorpus, et vinum in sanguinem." (Biblioth. Sancta, lib. vi., Annot. 
czii., Colon. 1686, pp. 476, 476.) 

Hence arose the question— by no means an unimportant one in its bearing on the 
doctrine of Paschasius and of the ninth century— Was the genuine writing of Druthmar 
faithfully represented in the books printed by Protestants (in which case the Lyons 
HS., if truly reported by Sixtus Senensis, must have been interpolated to support 


MvtrrtKoy &pa SYMBOAON fi ypa^^ aifiaroQ kyiov, oivov «vo- 
fAaaey.* (Clemens AlexandriDus, Pfledagogus, lib. ii. cap. ii., Opera, 
edit Potter, Venice, 1757, torn. i. p. 184.) 


'Avri OverlaQ r^c Sc' al/iarwv, XoyiKijv Kal ^valfiaicroy, Koi Hjv 
ftvffriK^y, iJTiQ etc tov davarov tov Kvpiov STMBOAON x^*'' 

RomiBh doctrine)— or was it rightly given in the words as quoted by Sixtns Senensis 
as from the Examplar of Lyons (in which case the crime of tampering with his 
language would have to be laid to the charge of the Protestants) ? 

To this question an answer was given by Aubertin in his work on the Eucharist, who 
declared that the passage, in what Du Perron regarded its heretical form, was to be 
found in an early edition, printed, with every mark of orthodoxy and authority, in 
1514, before Luther even had been heard of. (See Albertinus, De Eucharistia, pp. 
868, 938, 934.) 

This, however, by no means settled the question. It became now a question of 
Aubertin's veracity Father Labbe reported, as the result of diligent inquiries, that 
DO trace of the edition had been found, adding the words " Mihi Albertini hominis 
hnretici et a fide ac religione majorum suorum urapaQarov valde suspecta sit 

I am myself in possession of one of the copies of this curious edition, from which 
the quotation in the text is taken verbatim, and which fully supports the reading of 
the Protestants and the accuracy of Aubertin. 

A note on the subject, well worth reading, will be found in Haitland's "Early 
Printed Books in Lambeth Library," p. 368 aqq. Mr. Maitland says : " It is strange 
indeed that a book of such size, which bore on its title-page an extract from the 
Pope's bull, and on the reverse of that title the license of the imperial censor, and 
which continued to be so known as that it was reprinted in sixteen years, should 
have been wholly unknown to such men as Father Labbe, and those whom he names. 
It is one of many almost incredible facts which show the value of catalogues. It is, 
at the same time, very remarkable, that all the controversy about it has not, so far 
as I can see, led to the discovery of half a dozen copies ; perhaps not of more than 
three or four." (Pp. 370, 371.) 

Cave notes (Historia Literaria, p. 371, edit. 1694), after quoting the words of Labbe : 
" Quo vero in posterum onmis hac de re dubitandi, vel calumniandi ansa tollatur, 
monemus sequum lectorem banc ipsam Winphelingii editionem extare penes eximium 
virum Thomam Tenison, Ecclesiee Anglicanee Theologam celeberrimum, in cujus 
proinde instructissima Bibliotheca videri potest." 

This copy of Archbishop Tenison, noted in his handwriting, is now in the Lambeth 
Palace Lily-ary. (See Maitland's Early Printed Books, No. 283, p. 126.) 

Allix says tl;iat the Lyons copy mentioned by Sixtus Senensis " was never yet 
produced, though they who reprinted the work of Druthmarus, in the Bibliotheca 
Patrum, of the Cologne edition, have been pleased to put this falsification of Sixtus 
Senensis in the margent." (Remarks on the Ancient Churches of the Albigenses, 
Oxford, 1821, p. 100.) He says also that *' Cardinal Perron, who was as able as any 
man of France to justify the fair dealing of Sixtus Senensis in the business of this 
manuscript of Lyons, did not care to concern himself about it." (Ibid.) 

• See above, p. 72. 


cTtrcXtcrat, rov tnjfxaTOQ avTov Kal tov ai/xaroc.* (Constit. Apost., 
lib. vi. cap- xxiii., Cotelerius, torn. i. p. 35.H, Antwerp, 1700.) 

Tovrov ^fJTa tov dvfiaroQ n/v fivrijjiriv twl rpawii^rjg iicreXely ha 
2yMB0AQN, TOV te (TutfiaTOQ avTOVy koI tov cruiTrjpiov alfJiaTOQf Kara 
ditrfjung TfjcKaivfig ^laOriicrig wapii\ri(poTeg4 (Eusebius Caes., Dem. 
Evang., lib. i. cap. 10, p. 89, edit. Paris, 1628.) 


AvTog ra STMBOAA Tfjg ktSiov oiKovofjLiag Tolg avTov irapi^i^v 
/wflTratc, TTJv eMra tov l^iov abtfiarog voielffdai TrapoKeXevdiieyog. 
Et€i5^ yap ovKETi Tag ll alficLTUv dvffiagj ov^e Tag irapd Munrei iv 
hai^puv (utu)v <r<j>aya7g vtvopxtdtrrifdvag irpouieTO, &pT^ de \pfiadai 
SITMBOAQ TOV i^iov aw^rog wapedldov, eMTiog to Xa^trpov Kok 
Kadapov TjviEaTo Trig Tpo(l>TJgf cittiiii', Kal XevKol, ic.r.X. (Ibid., lib. viii. 
a Genesi, p. 380.) 


El yap fiij airiOavev 6 ^Iritrovg, Tivog SYMBOAA ra TeXovfieva ; 
(Ghrysostom, In Mattb., Horn. Ixxxii, al. Ix xxiii. § 1, Opera, edit, 
ilontfaucon, torn. vii. p. 783.) 


U6(TTjg tvv6r\<rov ayiiocrvyrjg crol ^ei t^ woXX^ /JLcl^ora SYMBOAA J 
h^afiiy^, Stv e^e£aro ra &yca ra>v kyiutv tote . . . 6(T(^ yap fxeiiovbtv 
iil£a»0i7C 2TMB0A11N, Kal (fpiKT&v fivtrTrjpltavy tovovt^ fxeli^ovog si 

* Pattages which speak of the offering of the symbols or antitypes, are insufBcient 
hy themselyes to prove that the eonaecrated elements were thus regarded. Dean 
Gk)ode says : '' In all the Greek and Oriental Liturgies, as far as I can find, the offer- 
ing of the elements takes place before their complete consecration, and supposed 
change by the descent of the Holy Spirit upon them, as there invoked." (On Eucha- 
rist, 1. p. 279. See also Heurtley's Sermons on Secent Controversy, p. 64, and 
Aibertinus, De Eucharistia, p. 443 sqq.) 

Nevertheless, in connexion with other extracts, such passages are not without 
their value. See above, p. 280. 

t Etsi demus symbola aliqua esse inclusiva rerum earum quas designant, ilia 
tamen de quibus agimus, Eucharistica videlicet, alterius generis esse, probata 
facilUmum est. Eusebius enim per symbola corporis et sanguinis Domini intelUgit 
illud ipsom quod memoriam sen memoriale quoque nominat : adeo ut si memoria 
excludat rei preesentiam cujus memoria habetur, itidem et signnm sen symbolum 
memoriale quod illius memoriam per aliquid visibile renovat et excitat. Memoriam 
autem prsesentiam rei excludere, verbis fere totidem docont Nyssenus et Angus- 
tinus." (Aibertinus, De Eucharistia, p. 394.) 

I These ovppoXa are immediately afterwards spoken of as adua Kai alfia 



tvQvvoQ r^c hyuaavvriQ, (Ghrysostom in Psalm. ozzxiiL, edi^ 
Montfaucon, torn. y. p. 382.) 


^vyKavaaq rag filfiXovg waaag ev^iadiTOvg Koi tnrovhaiag, ica> 
watdioy tr, wc eij^aaay oi eiopcucoreCi Kal to, SYMBOAA T&y fivoni'' 
piutv. (Palladius, Dial, de Vit J. Ghrysostomi, In Op. Ghrys., edit 
MontfaucoD, torn. xiii. p. 23.) 


Uap^vei wdai fiera rrjv Koivutvlav airoyeveerdai vdarog ri vacrrtXov, 
iva fifi cucovaitac t^ adXtfi i} r^ (j^XiyfjiaTi ovyeKTrrvaufcrL ri to 
STMBOAOY. (Ibid., p. 26.) 


Kal T^ fiev diuKov^ Qpauiiaq kvTiva\dt\Qi to. SYMBOAA* kit\Uu - 
(Ibid., p. 34.) 


" Gam autem ad Apostolos dicLt : Hoc est corpus meum. Item : 
Hie est sanguis mens; certo apud se statuant vult, posteaquam 
benedictio, at gratiarum actio, ad panem vel calicem propositum 
accesserit, per panis quidem symholum corporis Ghristi ; per calicem 
vero ejusdem sanguinis participes se fieri." (Victor Antioehenus, 
In Evang. Marci, cap. xiv., In Bibliotheca Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, 
tom. iv. p. 407.) 


Sictai (^ridiy ra irapovra Tuty fxeXKdvnjv. ev yap t^ vayayi^ /3ax- 
rla/jiaTi tov tvttov bpwfuv r^c avatrraottiiQf r&rt 5c airrov oypofuOa 
ri^v avdaraffiy. cvravOa ra SYMBOAA tov deimoTiKOv dewfuOa 
ffuffxaTOQf €K£i §€ alfTov oypSfjieda tov ^ea7r6rriy,\ (Theodoret., In 
Epist. i. ad Gor. cap. xiii., Opera, edit. Schuize, tom. iii. p. 266.) 


K^v Ty Twv delutv fivfrrripltav wapaddvei, Xcifiiov to SYMBOAON 
£^)y, TovTO earl to (t&^o. fwv, to inrep vfiStv ^ih6fievovy rj icKwfitvovy 

* Dr. Posey has observed, that while Falladius here uses the word avfipoKa, 
St. Ghrysostom speaks plainly of the '' Blood of Christ." (See Real Presence from 
the Fathers, p. 109.) His words are : Kai t6 ayujTarov alfia tov Xpi<rrov . . . C(C 
Td ifidria k^fx^iro, (Epistola ad Innocentium Papam, § 3, In Op. Chrys., edit. 
Benedict., tom. iU. p. 619.) 

t In this passage four points seem especially worthy of observation— (1) The 
apparent distinction of the Body symbolised from the Person of Christ; (2) The 
distinction of the symbols from that Body ; (3) The parallelism of the type of the 
resurrection in Baptism, and these symbols in the Eucharist ; (4) The bringing of 
both together to illustrate the statement Seta, (ptioi, Td irapoPTa riav fuK- 
Xdvr ofv. 


'^circi roy aTrdaroKoy.* (Theodoret., Epist cxxx. Timotheo Episcop., 
torn. iv. p. 1218.) 


Ra« Ta deta 3e wapaBovg fiutrrfipia, koI to 2TM60A0N tcXa^ac 
kkmI SiavelfxaQ, iTrfiyaye* tovto fiov Itrrl to crCifiaf to imep vfxQv dpv' 
'f^6fL€vov eIq Aipetriy hfmpTiCjy. (Ibid., Epist. cxlv. Monachis Constau- 
tinopolitanis, torn. iv. p. 1251.) 


Tlpo(r(l>ip€i 5c ^ €KK\ri<na to. tov vutfiaTOQ ahrov Kal tov aifiaTog 
SlfMBOAA, nay to ^v/oa/ia 3ta ttjc dirapx^C hyiaZovaa% (Ibid., In 
Psalm, cix., torn. i. p. 1397.) 


T/foc iiy^ SYMBOAON kcli tvttov Tfjy wavayiay Tp6<l>rjy; ttjc 
Ocon/roc tov AeoTrdTOv XpitrroVf tj tov uwfjLaTOQ koI tov ac/xaroc J 
(Xbid., Dial. i. Immutabilis, torn. iv. pp. 26, 27.) 


'O Kvpiog to SYMBOAON Xa/3c^v, oIk cIttc, Tovto etn-iy ^ Oearrig 
MoO' aXXa tout6 itrri to trSt^a fiov* (Ibid., p. 27.) 


Mcra yap dri Tfjy ahTOv Tropovcr/av, ovkIti XP^^^ ^^'^ SYMB0A12N 
Tov (TutuaTOC, ahTov (jiaiyofiiyov tov autfjuiTOc' ^la tovto elirty &')(piQ 
ol hy ixdri. (Ibid., in 1 Cor. xi., torn. iii. p. 238.) 


• OPG. Olada on &pToy 6 QeoQ to oiKsioy wpocrrjyopevire ffwfw. ', 

EPAN. Oiaa. 

OPG. Kal hipwdi dt rj)y trapKa triToy d}v6fMffey ; 

EPAN. Ol^a Koi TOVTO . . . 

OPG. 'Ey ^e ye ttj Ttoy fivtrrripliay napa^direi, oSt^a Toy &pToy 
tK6\e(r£ Kal cUfxa to Kpafxa* 

EPAN. OvTU)Q dfyo/JLaaey. 

OPG. 'AXXa Kal KaTa <l>v9iy to awfjia awfia ay €i«c<Jrwc KXrjdeirj 
Kal TO al/ia al/xa. 

EPAN. *ClfAo\6yriTai. 

OPG. *0 5c ye 2a>r))p 6 ^/xeVcpoc cv^XXaJc to, ovofiaTa' Kai r^ 
fuy auffiaTi to tov SYMBOAOY TedeiKey oyofia' r^ 5c SYMBOAfl to 
TOV (TutfiaTOc* ovTutQ A/iTTcXov kavToy oyofxaaa^y aifia to SYMBOAON 

* See Scrivener's Lectures on the Text of the New Testament, pp. 181, 182. 


EPAN. TovTO fjLEv aXriddc eipriKac' €J3ov\6fJLriv hk lifv a 
ftadely rfjc oyofiaruy eycLWayffQ. 

OPG. AfjXog 6 (tkottoq toIq rh Btia fiEfivrifiiyoLg, ijpovXiidi 
Tovg Twy deiuy fivtrrrjpiijy fUTCLKayxayoyrag, fxrl r/j (f^vati 
fiXeirofniywy irpoai\eiy, dXXa ^ca rfjg riay oyofjtdrwy evuXXi 
iritrreveiy rp Ik Tfjg ')(^apiTOQ yeyeyri^ivri /xcrajSoXj/ * o yap ^^ to 
4rQfJia OiToy Koi aproy vpoerayopevtrag, koI aZ naXiy kavroy &fi', 
oyo/idtrag, ovTog to. dpvjfieya STMBOAA r^ tov fftafiarog koI aifx 
vpotTTjyopl^ TerijJLriKey oh Ttjy tpvaly /xerajdaXci;^, dXXa r^y ')(ap 
^vcret vpooTEdeiKutg. (Ibid., Dial. i. Immutabilis, torn. iv. pp. 25 


OPG. EiTTC Tolyvy, ra fivtrriKa SYMBOAA vapa r&y iepuf/. 
T^ Oef irpoui^Epd^Eya riyuty eerri SYMBOAA ;* 

EPAN. Tov heiTiroTiKov aoj/JLardg re Kal aifiarog, 

OPO. Tow oyrwg crw/xaroc rj ovk ovrtog ; 

EPAN. Tov ovTijg. 

OPG. "Apiara. "xpn 7^9 eTyat to Tfjg elxdyog hp^tTWoy. irai 

Of iutypa(l>oi Tfly (f^vdiy fiifiouyTaii Kal Tuty optofjUytoy ypdf^ova 


EPAN. 'AXridig. 

OPG. El Toiyvy tov oyTiog awfiaTog dvrtTTwra* earl to, 

fivtrrripia, trib^a &pa eaTi Kal yvy tov AetnrdTov to (rUfiaf ov 
Be&rrp-og fvtrly fjieTaPXi^dey, dXXa deiag ho^i^g avaTXridiy, (1 
Dial. ii. Inconftisus, torn. iv. p. 125.) 


*^TndiyT(M}y t^ Bfitfi dvaia<rrripl^ Twy ffe/iafffjUbty 2YMBOAQI 
S)y 6 XpioTog (rrifialyerai Kal /icrc^^erat. ( Pseudo-Dionysius, E< 
Hierar., cap. iii. § 9, torn. i. p. 295, Opera, edit. Corderius, A 


'EffTCi^c eirlwpoaOey Tuty dyntyrcLTuy SYMBOAilN, vhaTi Tag \ 
6 'UpdpxVQ yiTTTEraiA (Ibid., § 10, p. 295.) 

• In this passage should be noticed — (1) The equivalent use of the 
9VfjiPo\a and dyriTvira; and (2) The illustration of their meaning in the 
and dpxsTVTTOv of the i»inter. And again, the reader should be asked to vie 
language of Theodoret with reference to the questions— (1) Does Theodon 
these terms as including in their sense the thing symbolised ? (2) Does his Ian 
lead us to suppose that in his view he recognised the Real Objective Presence < 
dpxiTVTroy in or under the form of the avfi^oXov or AKtav ? ^ 

t Here Mazimus the Scholiast explains (rvnfi6XiMtv — tov ffiofiorog Kal aS^ 
(p. Sll). Se« above, pp. 133, 269. 



H . . . iiir6vi\l/iQ €Triirpoffdev yiyvtrai rwv dyioirdiraiv IIYMBOAON, 
^C €7r2 XpiOTOv Tov wdtrac kcpopwrroc fffiwy rag Kpv(^iijJT6LTaQ kvvoia^» 
(Ibid., § 10, p. 296.) 


^rifielwaai ^c, Sri 7ravra\ov avfifioXiK^v Xiyu Hjv delay Upovfyylay, 
'^t ra &yia ^<opa 2YMB0AA r<oy avw Kal aXridiywTipwv. (Maximi 
^chol. in Pseudo-Dionys., De Eccles. Hier., cap. iii. § 12, p. 813.) 


*0 'lepapxric • • . inr 6\piy &yei rk vfiyfifieyaf aatftriyli^wyr wc 
^^icrov elal ra roiavra SYMBOAA* 6ti fiera to ^eiiryoy Xafi^r 
^proy, Koi TCL ei^Q. (Pachy meres, Paraph, in Pseudo-DionysiuB, De 
^ccies. Hierar., cap. iii. § ii., Opera, edit. Corderius, Antwerp, 1684, 
^om. i. p. 816.) 



H irpo€r<l>opa TfJQ €v\api(niaQ oitK eari trapKiK^f iiXKa Tryev/iarcn^ 

■cai £v TOVT^ KaOapa* Hpoa(pipofiiy yap r^ Qe^ rov &pTov kox to 

^^pioy Tijc eiXoylaQ ehxapiarovyrec ahr^, &rt rjf y^ eKiXevirer 

^i^vtrai TOVQ KapTTovc tovtovq uq Tpo(prjy fifxeripayy Kal kyravSa n)v 

'^fioatjtopay TeXitrayrec iKKaXovfjiey ro Hvevfjia to Ayiovy 6vwc diTro^^Kfy 

'f'fiy dvalay ravrriy Kal Toy 6.pToy acifia tov Xpiarov Kal to noriipioy 

TO a\fia TOV XpitrroVf lya oi fxeraXafioyTec TovTwy Twy ANTITTIION, 

T^c k(^(reii)Q Tcjy hfiapriwy jcai ttjq i^wfjc aitayiov Tv\(iKny.* (Irennus, 

Fragm., edit Migne, No. xxxvii., Opera, c. 1263.) 

Ta cirl TOV XoyiKov fifuHv Qvfnaarqpiov iwiTeXovfjieya &yi6.i!et Tify 
rpaTreCav, Kal to. iy airrp vKevrif ANTITTIIA yap eitrl rov heawo- 
Tucov autfiaTOQ, (Origen, as quoted by Julius CsBsar Bulengerf in his 
'* Diatribe contra Casaubonuu, iii. p. 166.) 

* This is one of the Pfafflan fragments, the genuineness of which, on account of 
the loss of the Turin MS., Professor Lightfoot says "must always remain doubtful." 
(On Phillip., p. 202). Tts remarkable verbal agreement with this Liturgy of the Apo- 
stoUoal Cionstitutions has been pointed out by Professor Heurtley (Sermons on Recent 
Controversy, pp. 68, 64). 

t See also Huctlus, Origeniana, lib. ii. Quest, ziv. S 8, in Orlgen. Comment, torn. I. 

napa^vc ^€ flfJ^'iy TOL ANTnTIlA fivariipia rov tiijuov auffwro^ ** 
avTov Kal aifJuvroQ. (Pseudo-Clem. Rom., Const. Apost. v. c. 14, Cotel— — 
Antwerp, 1700, torn. i. p. 317.) 


"En €vxcipi(TT0VfieVf Trarep rifiCiy, vTrep rov Tifdov atfiaro^ 'Ifj(W)i^^ 
XpiffTov rov eK'xydivToc virep fifiufv Kal rov rifiiov autfiarog' ov Kam^ 
ANTITYIIA ravra C7rtre\oi//xfv, avrov ^laraiafiiyov fifiir xaray — " 
yiXKeiv rov avrov Oayarov* (Ibid., lib. vii. c. 25, Cotel., torn, i..^ 
p. 370.) 


Ti)v ANTITYTION rov (iaaiXeiov autfiaroc Xpitrrov Scicr^v ev)(a — ' 
ptariav 7rpoa(pipere ev re rale eKKXrjtriaii vfiHy, Koi ey roic KOifijj[n)pioiQ'^^ 
(Ibid., lib. vi. cap. xkx. Cotel., tom. i. p. 358.) 


Ata rov olyov koI rod aprov ra ANTITYIIA rwy awfiariKwy rov^^ 
Xpitrrov Krjpvrrei fieXcjy. (Eustathius Autiochenus.)* 


Mrf r^ Xapvyyi r^ trutfiariK^ eirirpiirrire rb KpiriKoy' ov')(i, oXXa r 
ayeydoiaffrt^ iritrrei. yevd^eyoi yapf ovk aprov Kal olyov KeXevoyrai^ 
yevtrarrdatf aXXa ANTITTIIOYt trojfiaTOQ koi aifiaroc roi? Xpttrrov^l 
(Cyril. Hierosol., Cateches. xxiii. Mystag. v. § x&i., Opera, p. 331,^ 
edit. Benedict.) 

* Interpreting Prov. iz. 5, as alleged by Epiphanius the Deacon, in the second 
Kicene Council. Act. vi. On this passage see Albertinus, De Eucharistia, pp. 388, 389. 

t Or perhaps dvrirvTrtjyf as quoted by Dositheus Hieros. See note in Benedic- 
tine edition. 

X For a defence of the Romish sense of these words see Toutte'e in Oper. Cyrill., 
Diss. iii. cap. xi. p. ccxxiv. sqq. ; and for an answer to his arguments here, and 
elsewhere in this Dissertation "De doctrina Cyrilii/'see Deylingius, Obsenr. Sacr. 
et Misc. pars iv. Cyrill, Vindic. xxx.— xxxriii. pp. 100—178. See also Albertinus, 
De Eucharistia, p. 427. 

Waterland says: "Here our author plainly owns the elements to be typett or 
symbols (as he had done before), and therefore not the very things whereof they are 
symbols not literally and strictly, but interpretatirely, mystically, and to all saying 
purposes and intents ; which suffices. It is no marvel if Mr. Toutte'e and other 
Romanists interpret Cyril to quite another purpose. ... As to believing, he very well 
knew that every one would believe his senses, and take bread to be bread, and wine 
to be wine, as Mmself believed also ; but he was afraid' of their attending so entirely 
to the report of their senses, as to forget the reports of saered Writ, which ought to 
be considered at the same time, and with closer attention than the other, as being of 
everlasting concernment. In. short, he intended no lecture ot/aUh against eyt'iight ; 
but he endeavoured, as much as possible, to draw off their attention from the object 



^ ^appovvTEQ irpoff€yyl(ofA€v rf hyitf aov Bvtnatmipif, mi vpooBiyre^ 
''* ANTITVIIA (configuralia, vettu v$rsio) tov iyiov aitfiaroQ koli 
^^/MiroQ TOV XpiOTOv aov, vov ^iSfiida koI vtipaicaXovfiev, Ayu &yiwyy 
^^coni^ rfjc er^c iLyaO&rriToct eXOeiv to UvEv/ia trov to &ytov k<f fifid^f 
**« arl TCL wpoKelfieva Awpa ravra, ical euXoy^ffac aura, icai hytaaai, 
*^«i am^fliai. (Liturgy of St. Basil,* Neale's Liturgies, p. 163 ; Goar'a 
^ucbologium p. 144.) 


*Ev Tg *EKK\rfai<f, trpoai^ipfrai &pTOQ Kal ohoc, ANTITYIION Tfjg 
"tipKoc avTov Kal oifiaToc' koI oi fUTaXafifiavovTec lie tov i^ivofuvov 
^pToVf trvevfiariKwQ t^v aapxa tov Kvpiov eadiovvL^ (Macarius 
"^firypt-j Horn, xxvii. § 17, Opera, ftdit. Migne, c. 706.) 

Kal €t TTov Ti Twv ANTITYTION tov Tifiiov truf/xaroC) rj tov 
^ipuToc ^ X^lp kdricavpi^tv^ tovto KaTafiiyvvaa rolg haKpvaiVy Z tov 
Bai/fjuiTOQ' aTrfjXdev evOvQ aiadofUvtj TfJQ truTripiaC't (Gregory 
Nazianz., Orat. viii. § xviii., Opera, torn. i. p. 229, edit. Beaed.) 


*0 MeX\i(reh£K avr^ aTr^i^a tote, ical c&'/SaXcv avr^ &pToy /cat 
oivoyy wpoTVTTUfy rdy Mvtrrriplwy tcl alylyfJUiTa, ANTITYIIA tov 
Kvplov fifjuay, XiyovTOQ' 6ti eyut eifii 6 &pTOQ 6 i^&y, kqX ANTITYIIA 
TOV aifjiaTog tov €K ttjc wXevpdc airrov wydiyTOQ, koX ^tvtrayTOQ eIq 

of Benae to the object of faith, and from the signs to the things signified." (Water- 
Und, vol. Iv. pp. 597, 698, 1848.) 

See also Morton on Eucharist, pp. 490, 497, edit. 1685. 

* Albertinus regards this Liturgy as "valde suspecta, eo quod Or»ca quam nunc 
habemns non conveniat, nee cum Latina veteri trauslatione, nee cum ea quam Syri 
habent ab Andrea Masio Latine reddita." (De Eucharistia, p. 442.) 

On this prayer see Dr. Heurtley's observations quoted above, p. 229 ; and Dean 
Ooode, as quoted p. 283. 

t Ftom this passage it is argued by J. C. Bulenger : ''Qui manducarent eum qui 
appareret panis, spiritualiter comedere Christi camem, quia scilicet spiritali quodam, 
et invisibili mode Christi caro sub specie panis subest." (Diatrib. ad Is. Casauboni, 
Bxercit. adv. Card. Barronium, Lugduni, 1617, Dial. iU. ad cap. xxziii. Exer. vi. 
p. 166. See also note in Migne.) 

But this is to force Macarius to use the word avTirvirov in the unnatural sense 
he desires to fasten on the term, by forcing on the context a meaning not only 
unnatural but alien from the whole tenor of Patristic teaching. See Qoode on 
Bncharist, i. p. 884 ; and see above, pp. 65—67, 266—268. 

t See above, p. 212. See also Albertinus. De Eucharistia, p. 468. The note of the 

Benedictine editors is : " Per dvrt7-v7ra, recte Elias ipsam Eucharistiam intelligit, et 
ipsum vere corpus Christi exponit." 



Kadapaiy tS>v KEKOivwfiivwv, xal pavrio/xov, Koi trwrrfpiav Tutv ^/xf- 
TEpwv yiw\Cjv. (Epiphanius, Adv. Haereses, lib. ii. torn. i. § 6, ch, 
XXXV. vel J v., Opera, torn. i. p. 472, edit. Patavius, Cologne, 1682.) 


*0y Tpowov oh ^v6 l3affi\eiCi avrog PairiXevg koI fi rovrov cuc^v,* 
ov^£ hvo (TiofJiaTa, avTo to ^(pKnov trStfia virdaraTOv iv ovpavolc ov, 
icai 6 Tovrov ANTITYIIOS ApToc cv eKKXrifflag irapa rutv hpitay Biahi- 
^dfcevoc role 7riaTolg,\ (Theodotus Antiocbenus, as quoted by Julius 
CaBsar Balenger in his "DiatribsB ad Casauboni Exercitationes 
adv. Cardinalem Baronium," Lugduni, 1617, p. 166, Diatribe iii., ad 
cap. xxxiiL Exercit. vi.) 

* Solemoe est apud veteres asserere, imaginem et id cujus imago est, mram atque 
idem ease, non multa. Eusebius: Nemo sanus dixerit Regem et Regis imiginem 
ubique circumlatain duos ettse Regei. Unus enim est in imagine stui hononUus. 
[Contra Marcell. de EccL Theod., lib. ii. c. 23.] Athanasius: In imagine species et 
jorma Regis est et inRege imaginis species. . . . Quonicmi autem non ent dissimHitudo, 
ei, qui post visum imaginem vellet Regem videre, imago recte diceret, Ego et Rex unum 
sumus; ego enim in illo sum,, et ille in me. [Contra Arlan. Orat. iv.] Et rursum : 
Qui videt imxiginem Regis Regem, videt . . . Nee ideo duosfa^dt reges. [Contra SabeU. 
Greg.] Basilius : Imago Regis Rex quoque dicitur, nee ideo duo sunt reges. [De Sp. 8. 
c. 18.] Et rursum : Qui in foro Regis imaginem intuetur, et Regem dieit eum qui in 
Uibula est, non propterea diws agnoscit Reges. . . . [Contra Sabell.] CyriUus Alexan- 
drinus : Si quis imaginem optima depictam videat oe admiretur . . . ae nihUominus 
eupiditas ilium ineessat Regem ipsum videndi, convenienter ei tabula dieeeritt vidisti 
mje, vidisti Regem. £t rursum : Ego et Rex unum, sumus, quantum ad perfectam 
similitvdinem attinet. [In Thesaur., Assert, xii.] Nicephorus denique Constautino- 
politanus : SimMitudo communitatem nominis largetur . . . Rex quippe didtur etiam 
imago Regis, quce dieere posset, Ego et Rex unum sumus, prosier wJbsta/nHias differen- 
tiam." (Albertinus, De Eucharistia, p. 662.) 

t "Proxime addemus Theodotum Antiochenum mirum in modom a Theodoreto 
laodatum, cujus heec verba Bulengerus contra Casaubonum scribens e manuscriptis 
proferre se profitetur : Quem4idmjodum ipse Rex et ejus imago non sunt duo Reges, nee 
quoque duo corpora sunt ipsum Christi corpus personale in ccslis existens, et panis 
antit}/pu9 ipsvus in ecclesvis per sacerdotes Jidelibu^s traditvs. lUustrissimum sane 
locum, et cujus nobis suppeditati Bulengero gratias agimus. Theodotus enim non 
modo confert panem Eucharistise qiii in ecdesiis distribuitur, cum proprio corpore, 
tauquam typum cum veritate cujus typus est : unde sequitur Ilium corpus id non 
esse, cum typus non sit Veritas cujus typus est ; sed et innuit, panem ilium, et pro- 
prium Domini corpus, unum ac idem corpus esse, eo modo quo Imago Regis et Kex, 
unud et idem Kex sunt." (Albertinus, De Eucharistia, p. 744.) 

This is a very noteworthy passage; and, considering the scant remains of 
Theodotus known to exist, it seems strange that Bulenger does not state from what 
Ms source he derived it. This, however, is according to his wont. 

But tlie strangest thing by far is this -that it is alleged by Bulenger (with other 
quotations) in evidence, to support this position : "Patres signum ac sacramentom 
pro verissimo corpore Christi posuisse, quod sub signis latet." (P. 165.) 

For this purpose he adds this gloss to his translation : " Antitypum panem vocat 
sp'ici.m panis sub quo revera est corpus Christi." 


Ht ToLvvv Tov ovTutc iTiJJfiaTOQ ANTITVIlA earl ra Otla fivarripia^ 
^<5^a &pa itrri xai vvv tov Aecnrdrov ro tr&fia, oifK etc de6TrjT0c <^vatv 
h^rafiXridiy. (Theodoret, Dial. ii. Incoafusus, edit. Schulze, 177;i, 
torn. i7. p. 125.) 


Ei he 4 (rapj tic 0£<5nyroc fitrtpkiiOri <l>vfflv, ov ^i) x^P^^ fJLera- 
Xa/i/Bavovai rwv ANTITYIIQN tov cutfiaTOQ ; irepirroc yap 6 tvttoq 
^yj^pflfiivijc r^c aXtjOelag. (Ibid., Demonstratio, Quod unio Bit 
Inoonfusa, torn. iv. p. 269.) 


** An tu quoque corporis et saDguinis Christi antitypa ab ecclesii 
proscribes, ut qu8B imagiDem ac veramillorum figuram teneant quae 
et adoramus, et osculamur, et eorum participatione sanctitatem 
consequimur."* (Stephaaus Junior, In Surius, ad 28 Nov., cap. 36, 
Sanctorum Yitss, Col. 1618, torn. iv. p. 633.) 


** Pretiosum suum corpus et sanguinem nobis dedit inquiens : 

But what is there in the language of TheodotuB to give the slightest colour to 
iuoh an unnatural interpretation 7 

In the statue of a king is there only the speeiea of the marble which represents f 
And is the king really present under the form of the image or picture ? 

Goar endeavouring to maintain for SlvtItwov such a sense as Bulenger would 
give it, distinguishes between two kinds of figure, that he may altogether separate 
from iLvrirvifov the very notion which Theodotus connects with it. His words 
are : "Cum duplex sit flgura, una qute umbram tantum et speciem referat, alia qute 
veritatem ipsam ita adumbrat ut etiam contineat : ilia, qute extranea est, et diversw 
penitus natum a re per eam reprsBsentata, sicut, aib homvM pictura : htec, qute 
nullam in substantia diversitatem agnosoit," &o. (Euchologium, p. 168.) 

The second Kicene Council declares : *Apidrj\ov ydp waoiv {/Trdpxtt, hri dWo 
hriv tUuv leai dWo nporrorvTrov roiiro ftkv ^/it/zv^ov, ixuvo dk drfnfxov, . . . 

TLsTpOQ ydp Kal TlavXoc dva^ioypaiftSfUvoi pKkirovraif at dk ^VYoi abrCav tv 
TcuQ BiKoaiv oh irdpHtriv. (Lab., tom. vii. c. 445.) And again : Td iduitfiara xoi) 
vpurronnrov ovdap&c rlc rCjv (v ppovovvrtav iv ry Akovi iirO^fiTii' eV ydp 
rj iiKdvi dXXo ohtev b iLKr\Q9iQ \6y0Q ytvwJKEi ^ Kard rb ovopa Koivoj^^tXVf oh 
tiv6q IcfTiv eiKutv, Kai oh Kard rfiv ovoiav, (Ibid., c. 441.) 

In like manner Chrysostom speaks of the cictuv of a man, by which he also (like 
Theodotus) illustrates the sense of dwlTvirO'* See quotation above, p. 268. 

^ also Theodoret speaks of the Akoveq of a king, illustrating the sense of tvttoq. 
Dial. ii. Inoonfusus. Opera, edit. Schulze, tom. iv. p. 86. See also above, pp. 260, 286. 

On the character and writings of Theodotus Antiochenus, see Cave, Hist. Lit., 
2d edit, ivh voce. 

* The words are addressed to the Emperor in support of image-worshfp. They 
are immediately preceded by the words " Sacrosanota vasa a nobis adorata nullam 
nobis reprehensionis notam inurunt. Siquidem ea per Christi invocationem in sancta 
mutari persuasum habemus." See above, pp. 116, 117. 

xj 2 


Ho§ f^eite in mei tieordationem, nos autem memores ejus mandati, 
ANTIT7PA (id est Oonfiguralia^ offerimus." (Germanus Coastant, 
Theoria Rer. Eocles., In Bibliotheca Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, torn. xiii. 
p. 69.) 


"On fiev ovv koi kv ravrri rrj irpotprfrei^ Tripl rov aprov ov Trapihbucev 
ilfiiy 6 fifiirepoc Xptaroc ttouIv dc ANAMNHSIN tov re crw/iaro- 
woffitratrBai avrov 5ia tovq irKTrevoyrag elc aifroVf ^i dvc koI iraOrirog 
yiyovt' Kal wept tov irorripiov o eig ANAMNHSIN tov atfiaTog ain-ov 
irapidioKEv evxapioTOvvTac iroitiv, (JHiiyeTai. (Justin Martyr, Dial. 
cumTryph., § 70, Opera, edit. Benedict., Hagse C, 1742, pp. 168, 169.) 

'' Non licet nobis in dubium sensus istos devocare, ne etin Ghristo 
de fide eorum deliberetur; ne forte dicatur, quod falso Satanam 
prospectarit de ccbIo prsBcipitatum ; aut falso vocem Patris audierit 
de ipso testificatam : aut deceptus sit cum Petri socrum tetigit : aut 
alium postea unguenti senserit spiritum, quod in sepulturam suam 
acceptavit: alium postea vini saporera, quod in sanguinis sui 
memoriam consecravit."t (Tertullian, De Anima, cap. xvii., Opera, 
p. 276, edit. Rigaltius, 1689.) 


" Galicem in commemoration$m Domini et passionis ejus offerimus." 
(Cyprian, Epist. ad CsBcilium, Epist. Ixiii., Opera, edit. Baluzius, 
Venice, 1728.) 


'EvircWcro rote ftaOiyralc ^tct tovtwv ANAMNHSIN avrov 
iroieiaOai.l (Adamantius, in Op. Origenis, torn, i. c. 1840, edit. 

* It would be easy to multiply extracts in which the Eucharist is spoken of as a 
memorial of Christ's passion. Such quotations are not given, because the Beal 
Presence of Christ's suffering and death is not in question in the present con- 

The passages which are given (taken together) will be found to have a very impor- 
tant bearing on that which is in question— the Beal Objective Presence under the form 
of bread and wine of Christ's Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. 

t On this passage see above, p. 24. See also Albertinus, De Euch., pp. 387 sqq. 

t See above, pp. 61, 268. 



*rva laBiovre^ ft koL wIvovtec, Aci MNHMONEYOMEN rov vircp 
i/i«y awoOav6vTOc ical eyepBivroQ ... 6 yap IMutv ical nlvutv, SiyXo- 
v6ti etc ave^aKuirrov MNHMHN rov virep fifuiy ktroBavdyroQ . . . 
rov U \6yov t^q MNHMHS . . . ft^ vXripwy . . . oh^ev ex^i 5^£Xoc.* 
(Basil. Gffisar.? De Baptismo, lib. i. cap.iii. § 2, Opera, edit. Gamier, 
Paris, 1722, torn, il Append., pp. 650, 661.) 


'^Oorircp oiv M rwy 'lov^a^v, ovroi Koi kvravda r^c ehipynriac 
^yicarc^ijffct t6 MNHMOSYNON ry fivtrrripl^. (Chrysostom, In 
Matth., Horn. Ixxxii. aL Ixxxiii. § 1, Opera, edit. Montfaucon, torn. 
Tii. p. 783.) 


''Hujus saorificii caro et sanguis ante adventum Ghristi per 
victimas similitudinum proraittebatur, in passione Christi per ipsam 
veritatem reddebatur; post adsoensum Christi per Sacramenturo 
memaria celebratur.'* (Augustin., Contra Faustum, lib. xx. cap. 
xxi., Opera, edit. Benedict., 1688, torn. viii. c. 348.) 


** AceepU pan^m^ el gratias agens fregitt et dixit : Aeoipite et man- 
dueate. Hoc est, benedioens, etiam passurus, ultimam nobis com- 
memorationem, sive memoriam dereiiquit Qaemadmodum si quis 
peregre profioiscens aliquod pignut ei, quern diligit, derelinquat 
. . . « Ideo boo Salvator tradidit| sacramentum, ut per hoc semper 
commemoremus, quia pro nobis est mortuus. Nam et ideo cum 
aocipimus, a saoerdotibus commonemur, quia corpus et sanguis est 
Christ! : ut beneficiis ejus non existamus ingrati." (Commentary in 
1 Cor. xi. — probably the work of Pelagius — among the works of St. 
Jerome, torn. xi. par. iii. c. 259, 260, edit Vallarsius, Venice, 1771.) 


" Vere istud est hsreditarium munus Testamenti ejus novi, quod 

« See on this extract Albertinus, De Each., p. 440. It will be found also in Homil. 
in Aliquot Sc. loc. De Spiritu Sancto, sub fin., Opera, torn. ii. p. 586. 

t Shortly before Chrysostom had said ; KaBdinp yiaxTfjc 0*7<^<» tovto uvrinv' 
avvov itfiiv aliapiov oirut rat abrbQ, dg kfxi)v &v&fivr\(nVt Tiiaq Stv Trapayiviofuii, 

t Compare the following from Floras Magister : " Propterea et iturus ad passionem, 
et per resurrectionis et ascensionis gloriam disoessurus e mundo, hoc sacramentum 
oltimum discipulls tradidit, ut memoriam tantsB charitatis, perquamsolamsalvamur, 
arctius coram mentibus inflgeret." (De Expositione MisssB, § 68, Opera, edit. Migne, 
t. 56), which words are found also in Hincmar (Opera, torn. ii. p. 92, edit. Paris, 1646). 

Klsewhere Floras writes : " Pauls ille sacrosanctse oblationis corpus est Christi, non 
inaterie vel specie visibili, sed virtute et potentia spirituall." (Adversut Amalarium, 
ib. 1. i 9, Opera, edit. Migne, c. 77.) 


nobis ea nocte qua tradebatur onioifigendus, tanquam pignui* suo 
pr»9enti» dereliquit.'' (Gaudeniius Brix., Serm. ii.. Opera, p. 38, 
edit. Galeardus, 1757.) 


" Suam memoriam nobis reliquit, quemadmodum si quia peregre 
profioiscens, aliquod pignus ei quern diligit derelinquat, ut quoties- 
cunque iilud viderit, possit ejus beneficia et amicitias recordari,*'f 

* Dr. Pusey (Real Presence from the Fathers, p. 110), argues from this : "If Christ 
were not present, the Eucharist could be no 'pledge of His Presence/ " which is, 
doubtless, quite true, if understood of the Presence of His Deity, which the Fathers 
hare so carefully distinguished from His corporal presence. (See above, p. 149 »qq.) 
But to understand it of a Seal Objective Presence of Christ's Body would not only be 
at variance with the sense in which the word pigntu is used by the Fathers (see, in 
addition to other passages under this head, Bertram, as quoted below, p. 802) ; but to 
the language of Gaudentius himself, who goes on (p. 88) to sptak of the mysteries, 
*' quae necesse est a cunctis sacerdotibus per singulas totius oibis Bcolesias oelebrari, 
usquequo iterum Christus de coelis adveniat." 

t Compare Christian Druthmar, quoted abov^ p. 281. 

Compare also the following from the Commentary on St. Paul's E^tistleSyprobably the 
work of Kemigius of Auxerre : "B«linquens Dominus hoc sacramentum aalutiferum 
omnibus fldelibus, ut illud infingeret cordibus et memoriae eorum, egit more onjnscmt- 
que hominis inquiens, qui appropinquans morti aliquod munus pretiosum dimittit 
alicuiamicorum suorum inmemoriam suam, inquiens : accipe hoc munus, amice cha- 
riasime, et tene illud cum omni diligentift penes te in memoriam jaeik, nt quotiescimqiie 
illud videris, recorderis mei. Qui amicus admittens illud munus amici sui ehariasimiy 
si eum toto animo dilexit, non potest non dolere et tristari de morte amid 
quotiescunque munus sibi conspicit dimissum." (in Bibliotheca Max. Pair., Logd. 
1677, torn. viii. p. 971. See Albertinus, De Eucharistia, p. 939.) 

These are assuredly not the words of one holding the doctrine of the Beal Presence 
of Christ Himself in the Elements ; although they may very well consist with the 
belief of an assumption of the Elements into spiritual imion with Christ's Body, 
which appears to have been the view of Bemigius, who was probably also the author 
of the book *' De Divinis Offlciis," among the works of Alcuin, in whi(di this notion is 
very clearly expressed. (See B.omish Mass and English Church, p. 62, and Albertinnsv 
De Eucharistia, p. 958. Oratian has quoted from this work as from Qr^^ory I. See 
Hospinian, tom. iU. p. 216.) 

The same view was probably held by Fulbert of Chartres, who writes : " Kesnblati 
corporis pnesentl fraudaremur munimine corporis nihilominus et sangnlnlB sui 
pignits salutare nobis reliquit, non inanis mysterii symbolnm, sed compaginante 
Spiritu Sancto corpus Christi verum." (Epistola ad Adeodatum, in Migne's Patro- 
logia, tom. cxli. c. 202. See Albertinus, De Eucharistia, pp. 944 — 946.) 

Indeed, the passage of Bemigius which most clearly expresses his view,, and nMch 
presents so many points of resemblance to a passage in the treatise *' De Ittvinia 
Officlis " (part of which is quoted in " Bomish Mass and English Church," p. 68), is 
quoted by Fulbert as from " Haymo super Epist. ad Corinth." in his Sermo vilL 
(Opera Varia, edit.De VUliers, 1608, fo. 169 ; Patrologia, Migne, torn. cxli. c. 855.> 

The passage is as follows : " Caro quam Yerbum Dei Patris assumpsit in uteio 
virginal! In unitate suae personae, et panis qui consecratur in Ecclesi&, unum corpus 
Christi sunt. Sicut enim ilia caro corpus Christi est, ita iste panis transit in corpus 
Christi, nee sunt duo corpora aed unum corpus. Divinitatis enim plenitudo, quae fuit 
in illo, replet istum panem ; et ipsa divinitas Yerbi, quae implet ccelum et terram at 


(SeduliuB Sootus, in 1 Cor. xi., Migne's Patrologia, torn. ciii. c. 
161, [n Bibliotheca Max. Fatr., Lugd. 1077, torn. yi. p. 646.) 

"Quia corpus assumptum ablaturus erat ex oculis nostris, et 
sideribus illaturus, necessarium erat ut nobis in bac die Saoramentiun 
corporis et sanguinis sui consecraret: ut . . • . perennis ilia Tictima 
viveret in memoriae et semper prsssens esset in gratia." (* Homilia 
V. "De Pascha," in Bibl. Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677. torn. vL p. 636.) 


"In illis enim oamalibus viotimis figuratio fuit carnis Christi 
quam pro peooatis nostris ipse sine pecoato fuerat oblaturus, et 
sanguinis quern erat effusurusin remissionem peccatorumnostrorum; 
in isto autem sacrificiof gratiarum actio atque cowmemoratio est 
carnis Christi, quam pro nobis obtulit, et sanguinis quem pro nobis 
idem Deus efiudit." (Fulgentius, De Fide ad Petr. Diac, cap. xix. 
In " Heptas Prffisuluro," Paris, 1661, p. 495.) 

'' Salyator Deus exemplum dedit, ut quotiescunque hoc facimus, 
in mente habeamus quod Christus pro nobis omnibus mortuus est. 
Ideo nobisj dicitur, Corpus Christi, ut cum hoc recordati fuerimuSy 
non simus ingrati grati» ejus; quemadmodum si quis moriens 
relinquat ei quem diiigit aliquod ^t^ntM^ quod ille, post mortem ejus, 

omnia qua in eis sunt, ipsa replet corpus Christi quod a moltis sacerdotibus per oni- 
▼«nnm orbem sanctiflcatur, at facit onam corpus Christi esse. Et siout ille panis et 
M^Pgwia in corpus Christi transeunt, ita omnis qui in Eoclesia digne comedit illud, unum 
corpus Christi est, sicut ipse dixit : Qai manduetU eamem meum et bOnt meum san- 
ginnenif in me manet, etegoin illo (Joan. yi. 67). Tamen iUa oaro quam assumpsit, et 
iste panis, omniSque Eoclesia, non faciunt tria corpora Christi, sed unum corpus. Et 
sicut qui corpore et sanguine Christi communicant, unum corpus cum eo efflciunt, 
sic et qui communicant de idolothytis, unum cum diabolo corpus ezistunt." (Bibl. 
Max., torn. yiii. pp. 967, 988.) 

* This is the Homily formerly attributed to Busebius Emissenus. It is, perhaps, 
the woric of Faustus Bhegiensis. 

t This had been called Just before " Sacriflcium panis et vini." 

On this passage see Albwrtinus, De Eucharistia, p. 884. 

t These words of P^imas us, alleging a reason for the sacrament being called the 
Body of Christ, are worthy of special observation. 

Bishop Morton (after showing that the expression "pledge of resurrection to 
Immortality i is applied to Baptism as well as the Eucharist) says : ''All these holy 
Fathers (you see) interpret this sacrament to be unto us a present pledge of a Friend 
absent, whether he be a living traveller, or one departed this life. Primasius's 
observation of the [Pledge] is very remarkable, when he saith of this sacrament (thus 
called a Pledge) that it is therefore called the Body of Christ, giving the name of the 
Thing to the token thereof : than which similitude what can be more pregnant and 
pertinent for the confuting of your Tridentine faith, concerning the corporal Presence 
of Christ in the Eucharist? " (Morton on Eucharist, book v. o. Ix. i 2, p. 869, London, 


quandocunque yiderit, nunquid potest lacrimis coDtinere, si eum 
perfects dilexerit?** (Primasii Goir. in 1 Cor. xi., In Bibliotheoa 
Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677» torn. x. p. 189.) 


** Gujus et nunc sacramentis camis et sanguinis pignus vits 
accipit [eoclesia] et in futuro prsBsenti beatificabitur aspectu." (Yen. 
Beda, In Prov.,lib. i. c. iii., Opera, edit Colon. 1688, torn. iv. c. 645.) 


Eic rimov Kai ANAMNHSINcveifjycffrdTTyv . . . irapidtaKer, (Concil— 
Constant. 754, In Labb., torn, vii c. 445 ; Mansi, torn. xiii. c.'^61.) 


'* Nee ofierens victimas legales, sed instar illius panem et vinum,. 
carnem videlicet et sanguinem suum,*^ undo dixit : Caro ^quiens) 
mea vere est Gibus, et sanguis meus vere est potus. Ista quoque 
duo munera panem videlicet et vinum commisit Ecclesiffi su» in 
memoria sui offerenda."f (Primasius, ? Comment, in Epist. ad 
Hebrseos, cap. v., In Biblioth. Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, torn. x. p. 


" Hujus sacrificii caro et sanguis ante adventum Gbristi per 
victimas similitudine promittebatur, in passione Cbristi per 
ipsam veritatem reddebatur, post ascensum Gbristi per sacra- 
mentum memoria celebratur.| Proinde prima sacramenta, qa8» 
observantnr et celebrantur ex lege, pnenuntiativa erant Gbristi 
venturi, quae cum suo adventu Christus implevisset, oblata sunt ; et 
ideo oblata quia impleta, non enim venit solvere legem sed adimplere. 
Alia sunt instituta vlrtute majora, utilitate meliora, actu faeiliora, 
nuraero pauciora, tanquam justitia fidei revelata, et in Ifbertate 
vocatis filiis Dei jugo servitutis ablato, quod duro et eami dedito 
populo congruebat, qualia sunt in Ecolesia baptismus Christi, 
Eucharisda Christi, Signaculum Gbristi. Hinc est quod cautissimo 
divisionis ordine Ecclesia Dei vivi, quse est columna et firmamentum 
veritatis, tempera venturi Christi venientisque discernit, et omissis 
sacrificiis qui bus Christus passurus promittebatur, hoc sacrificium 
ofiert^ quo Christus pastm ostenditur, qui propterea verus est sacerdos, 

* See Romish Mass and English Church, pp. 3» 4. 

t See Albertinus, De Euch., p. 395. This commentary on the Hebrews is by mistake 
attributed to Primasius. It is probably the work of Bhemigius of Auxerre. See 
Albertinus, p. 891. 

t Compare above, p. 298, Nq. vn. The teaching of the whole of this extract is sub- 
stantially St. Augustine's. 


quia semetipsom yeram pro nobis hostiam obtulit*' (Floras Magister, 
^Q Expositione Misses, § 4, Op., ed. Migne, c. 20.) 


'* £t hoc corpus ^t^ittM est et species : illud vero ipsa Veritas. Hoc 

©Him geritur, donee ad illud perveniatur. Ubi vero ad ilium per- 

^©ntum fuerit, hoc removebitur." (Bertram, De Corpore fet 

Sanguine Chrlsti, § Ixxxviii., Migne's Patrologia, torn. cxxi. c. 

1^, 165.) 


*'Apparet itaque, quod multa inter se differentia separantur« 

^^antuni est inter pignus et earn rem pro qua pignus traditur : et 

iQantum inter imaginem, et rem cujus est imago : et quantum inter 

■Peciem et veritatem." (Ibid., § Ixxxix. c. 165.) 


*'Igitur cum ipse filius Del dicat, Caro mea yere est cibus, et san- 
S^ mens vere est potus : ita intelligendum est, eadem redemptionis 
^ostrsB mysteria, et vere esse corpus et sanguinem Domini, ut illius 
^nitatis perfects, quam cum capite nostro, jam spe, postea re, tene- 
^imus, ptj/Rora credere debemus. Inde et sacramenta, a sanctificatione 
^el secreta virtute, diountur." f Walafrid Strabo,* De Rebus Eocles., 
cap. 17, In Hittorpius, p. 342.) 


" This mystery is a pledge and a figure : Christ's Body is truth itself. 
^\i\^ pledge we do keep mystically until that we be come to the truth 
itself; and then is this pledge ended. (Elfric's Saxon Homily, in " A 
Testimony of Antiquity," Havilaud, 1623, p. 7, L'Isle's Reprint.) 


''Sacrificii placabilis nobis providit expi amenta, ut, quia corpus 
^um, quod semel pro nobis offerebat io pretinm, paulo post a nostris 
Tisibus sublaturus fuerat in coelum, ne sublati corporis fraudaremur 
prsesenti munimine, corporis nihilominus et sanguinis sui pignus 
salutare nobis reliquit, non inanis mysterii symbolum, sed compagi- 
nante Spiritu Sancto corpus Christi yerum,f quod quotidiana venera- 

* In the preceding chapter (p. 841) it is said : ''Noyiyerotestamenti, noya mysteria 
ad instmendnm noyum hominem tradidit : Et morte sua yetera perfloiens, resurrec* 
tione sua, noya flrmayit. In coena siquldem, quam ante traditionem luam ultimam 
com diecipulis habuit, post PaschoQ yeteris solemnia, corporis et sanguinis sui sacra- 
menta in panis et yini substantia eisdem discipulis tradidit, et ea in commemora- 
tionem sanetissimsB su® passionis celebrare perdoouit. Nihil ergo coDgmentius his 
speciebus, ad significandam capitis atque membrorum unitatent, potuit inyeniri." 

t See aboye, p. 294. Gieseler says that Fuibert *' cannot haye expressed himself 
decidedly against the transformation doctrines, since Adelmann, in his letters, referi 
Berenger to their common teacher." (Eccles. Hist., yol. ii. p. 898, edit. Clark. See 
also Hospinian, Opera, torn. Hi. p. 287, Oeneya, 1681.) 


tione, sub viaibili creatur» forma inyiaibiliter virtus secreta in sac 
solemnibus operatur." (Fulberti Oamotensis Epistolse, in Migc 
Patrologia, torn. cxli. c. 202.) 


" Sed quodammodo aliud esse dicitur, quod virginali utero sum 
came crucis injuriam sustinuit, de sepulcro resurgens discipi 
apparuit, cujus memoriam in pane presbyteris oollato Episcopus ag 
▼idetur: aliud quod per mjsterium agitur/' &o. (Fulberti Car 
tensis Epistolse, in Migne's Fatrologia, torn, cxli c. 194.) 

This note would be incomplete without the addition of cert 
other extracts marking clearly the sense in which such terms w 
used by ancient Christians. Such are the following : — 


Ai eMve^ Toimav iy eiair eMyeCf ical awSynav Beucriicai eU 
^OTt KoX t6v air6vTa ZC avribv ijtaiyeadai hoKiiy. (Marcellus An 
ranus, as quoted by Eusebius Contra Marcel., lib. i. cap. iy. p. 24, 
appended to Demonstr. Evangel., Paris, 1628.) 

*Cior£ el fiev ehcity ov Kvptoc, (Ibid., p. 24.) 

Ov ^j) vov 3e if ihctify koI to otf early ij ehcdtyf ty Kal rav, 
ewiyoelTai. (In Ibid., p. 25.) 


IIoXv TO fiiffoy etrrlf rov re Kara ro apyennroy yoovfiiyovy Kal • 
Kar eiK6ya yeyeyrifiiyov. *H yap eUwy, ei fxky c^ci rriy irpoQ 
irpur&nnroy ofioiorrjra, Kvptwc rovro Karoyofia^erai. (Gregorius Nyi 
De Hominis Opificio, cap. xvi., Op., edit Migne, torn. i. c. 180.) 


"Fttrrl ehcijy ^rjXovva ro ojwovaioy' ai fuy yap 6,\Jaj\oi eMye^ < 
e^ovffi rrfy ovtriay rovrutv uvnrep ehcoyeQ elrrly. (Theodoret., Epist. 
Coloss. cap. i., Opera, torn. iii. p. 477, edit. Schulze). 


*H ehctby trxrifiara, aXX' ov wpdyfiara ex'^l (Ibid., in Dan., lib. 
c. 2, Opera, torn, ii p. 1091.) 


IloXXaicic €0»?v, <«c ovx oloyre rrfy ehcova vdyra c^ci^' oaa 
apxirvTToy €X"« (Ibid., Dial, iii, Impatibilis, Op., torn. iv. p. 208 


£i euciifv Tov ffijiffiaroQ tarty oht: ky^e\irai iivat avro ri Beiov ffdfAa* 
(2Qd Nioene Council, in Labbsus, torn. vii. o. 449.) 


'* Tjpns enim et imago secundum materiam, et secundum snbstan- 
tiam aliquoties a veritate diyersus est ; secundum autem habitum et 
^Qeamentum, debet servare similitudinem, et similiter oitencUre p$r 
pratentia ilia qua non * sunt pilbsemtia." (IrensBus, Contra Hsereses, 
^Jb. ii. cap. xxiii., Opera, edit. Migue, c. 786.) 

*' Imago yeritati non usquequaque adsequabitor, aliud enim est 
■eoundum veritatem esse, aliud ipsam yeritatem esse." (TertuUian, 
^otxt Maroi ., lib. ii. c. 0, edit. Bigaltius, 1680, p. 886.) 

** Imago, quum omnes Uneas oxprimat yeritatis, fi tamen ipsa caret, 
^otx habens motum." (Ibid., p. 886.) 

*' Neque ipse sibi quisquam imago est; sed eum, oujus imago est, 
'^^cesse est ut imago demonstret.'' (Hilary Pict., Liber de Synodis, 
5 13, Opera, edit. Benedict., Paris, 1698, c. 1169.) 

'^Nemo potest ipsi sibi imago sua esse.'' (Ambrose, De Fid., lib. i. 
®^P. vii.. Opera, edit. Benedict., tom. ii. c. 463.) 

^ '* Qfiid absurdius quam imaginem ad se dici ?'* (Aug., De Trin., lib. 
^i. c. i. §2, Opera, edit. Benedict., 1688, tom. fiii. o. 858.) 


** Aliud est yeritas, aliud im4»go yeritatis.*' (Claud. MamertuF, De 
9tatu Animsa, lib. i. c. y.. In Bibl. Max., Lugd. 1677, tom. yi. p. 1048.) 

^ It is very truly stated by J. A. AsBemani: **Di8putatam aliqnando fait, an 
f^Qharistia dicipossit Imago Corporis ChriHi. Negavenint id Nicephorus Patriaroha 
^HitantinopolitanuB Antirrhetico 2, contra loonomachos, Epiphanins Diaoonus in 
'* Synodo Act. 6, et alii subseoutl hsBresim Iconoclastarum : alii tamen retustiores, 
id afflrmayerunt." (Codex Liturgicus, tom. iv. p. 73, Diss. De Litnrg. Origine, Art. 

iv. § vlii.) 
We can yery well understand why in more recent times Christians may haye 

Ejected to the term, eyen without supposing their views to have approached to the 

Ileal Objective Presence. (See above, p. 279.) 
But it is impossible, fairly and reasonably, to account for the use of the term by 

Christians of earlier times, on the hypothesis of their believing the Eucharist to be, 

or to contain, the very present Body and Blood of Christ. 


*' ConstantinuB Iconomaohus, imaginem Ghristi vocat, quod nobis 
dedit Christus ad manduca^dum, quomodo igitor idem didtur Corpus 
Ghristi et imago Ghristi ? Quod enim est alioujus imago, corpus 
ejus esse non potest ? Et rursus, quod est corpus, non potest esso 
ejus imago. Omuis esse imago alia est ab eo, cujus imago est"**^ 
(Nicephorus Gonstantinopolitanus, De Gherubimy cap. tL, De Adorik— 
tione, In Bibliotheca Max. Patr.,Lugd. 1677, torn. xiv. p. 94.) 


"Imago Veritas non est, etiam cum de veritate est" (Hugo, as quote ^1 

by Thomas Waldensis, De Sac. Euob., cap. Izxxti., Opera, tom. im.^ 

fo. 146, Venice, 1671.) 


"Similia, qusecunque alia sunt, inter se etiam dissimilia ex aHqu^s-i 

parte sunt." (St. Augustine, De Genesi ad lit. Lib. Imperf. §IM), Opr ., 

edit. Bened. 1680, tom. iii. par. i. c. 114.) 


** Similitudo f rei veri imitatio est." (Gassiodorus in Ps. xlTi2-^< 
y. 4, Op., edit. Garetius, Rotom. 1679, tom. ii. p. 161.) 


'' Typus . . . debet .... ostendere per prsesentia ilia qun dc^^ 
sunt praesentia."! (Irenseus, Contra HaBreses, lib. iL cap. 
Opera, edit. Migne, c. 786.) 


** Typui autem umbra est veritatis." (St Ambrose, De Fide, li 
iii. cap. xi., Op., edit. Benedict., tom. ii. o. 613.) 

*0 TYII02 ohK hkhQiia, iiop^atP BlfiaWoy rile Ukridelac eltrfipeM^ 
(Cyril. Alex, in Amos, cap. vi. v. 8, § Iviii., Op., edit. Migne, tom. i^ 
c. 520.) 

* On thiB passage see Albertinos, De Bucharistia, p. 919.^ 

t So of ofjioiataiQ, Clemens Alezandrinos says : AXXo oiioiiatnQy SKKo oM f^ 
Zv. (Stromat., lib. 1. § ^v Op., edit. Potter, tom. i. p. 388.) 

And another writer : T6 'Sfioiov rivt ovk iariv abrh bkeTvo f o/juMwreU* 
(Kefutatio hTpocrisis Meletii, In Op. Atbanasii, Op., edit. Benedict., tom. ii. p. 24.) 

I See aboTe under Imago, No. i. 

Of TviroQ Dr. Vogan says : " I find no proof that it 'stands for a thing present' 
Nor do I find in Dr. Posey's Note I. any such proof, except upon the assumption oi 
' the Real Presence.' " (True Doctrine, p. 152. See also Dr. Harrison's " Dr. Pnsey^ 
Challenge Answered," p. 866.) 



Ilcpirroc h rviroc, av^prffUyrii rfjc 6Xfideiag» (Theodoret| Op., 
torn. iv. p. 269, edit Sohulze.) 


'0 ^£ rwrog ovk exet ir&yra Saatrep if HKfiOtia, oS ^rj X^P*'^ ckccfoc 
[Mftfv^c] oifK Jjy fuv fvaei QeoQ, dtvofiAffdri 3e SfJuacOeoCf lya vXriptitoT^ 
Toy nnrov. (Ibid., p. 86.) 

**8ignum dicitnr, cum per boo quod videtur, aliud aUquid indicatur." 
(Origen, in £p. ad Rom., lib. iv. § 2, p. 525, Op., ed. Migne, torn. ir. 
c. 968). 

'* Siffnum est res, prsBter speciem quam ingerit sensibus, aliud 
liquid ex se faciens in cogitationem venire." (Augustine, De Dpo- 
tnixa Gbrist., lib. ii. cap. i.. Opera, torn. iii. par. 1, c. 19, edit. 
Benedict, 1680). 

'* Aliud est Veritas, aliud signum veritatis, quia signum Veritas non 
^^t, etiam cum veritatis signum est, et verum est." (Hugo, as quoted 
^y Thomas Waldensis, De Sac. Euoh., cap. Ixxxvi., Opera, tom. ii. 
^^. 146, Venice, 1671.) 

*' Figura etenim non est Veritas, sed imitatio veritatis." * (Gau- 
^^titius Brix., Ep., Sermo ii., Op., p. 88, edit. Galeardus, 1767.) 

*'Qu®cunque mystica, qusscunque alta, quseounque divina sunt, 
^^0 de Cbristo a Moyse in umbra, et Jigura, et imaginibus dice- 
^antur." (Hesychius Hieros., In Levit., lib. v. cap. xvi., In Bibl. 
Max. Patr., tom. xii. p. 125a.) 

**Figura est, superficie sua nihil afferens sedificationis : si tamen 
^latelligatur, multum confereos utiiitatis." (Radulphus Flaviacensis, 
In Levit., lib. xiii. cap. ii.. In Bibl. Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, tom. 
Xvii. p. 167). 

* For an answer to the objection taken from the words "in flgnra inventos ut 
homo," and Tertulllan's language in reply to Marcion on this point (Contra Marc, 
lib. v. c. 20), see Albertinus, De Eucharistia, p. 829. 

The passage from Gaudentius quoted in the text is immediately followed by the 
words " Nam et homo ad imaglnem Dei f actus est, nee tamen idcirco Deus est : 
tametsi ea ratione qua imago Del dicitur, dicatur et Deus, quomodo natura unus 
Deus est, positione plures." 





Hoc corpus [quod in ecclesia geritur] pigntu est et species, illud 
Tero [quod jam gloilQcatum cognoscitur] ipsa Veritas." (Bertram, 
De Corp. et Sang. Dom., § Ixxxviii., ed. Migne, c. 164.) 


"^ "Pigniu et imago alterius rei sunt, id est, non ad se, sed ad aliud 
aspiciunt." (Ibid., Ixxxvi. c. 163. See also Albertinus, De Eucha- 
ristia, p. 598.) 

*• Nemo recordatur nisi quod in prsesentia non est positum.** (St. 
Augustine in Fs. xxxvii. § 2, Op., ed. Bened. 1681, tom. ir. par. i. 
c. 294.) 

♦ For dvTirvirov see above, pp. 267, 268, also 286, 289. 

With reference to the sense of <rv;i/3oXov Albertinns writes : " Yeteres testantor, 
se illud pro signo et figurft usurpasse, ut patet ex Bellarmlno observante, Patre* 
Qrmei eacramenta voeant crvyL^oKa, id est, 8igna [De Sacr. in Gvn., lib. i. c. 9] et 
aliis Adyersariorum in Grcecorum Patrum versionibus avfi^oKov per signum ccmd- 
muniter reddentibus ; torn ex ipso loco Isidori PelusiotsB a Chrysostomo mutuato, 
ubi iUud pro signo esse sumendum apparet ex Chrysostomo, modo avfifioXov modo 
orinHOv U8uri>ante, et BiUio signa vertente ; turn denique ex ipsomet Theodoreto 
illud per typum exponente et dioente eujtuputcu symbolum et typum es»e aanetU- 
$imum cibum f" (De Eucharistia, p. 793. See pp. 894, 794. See also Dr. Harrison's 
**Dr. Pusey's Challenge Answered," vol. ii. p. 201.) 

Maximus, the Scholiast on Pseudo-Dionys., says : IZvfipoXa ravra xai oim 
aKrjOeui, (In cap. iii. Ecc. Hier. See above, p. 133.) 

And Chrysostom clearly marks the same sense when he says : T6 Sk vav 6 Otb^ 
ipydZerai, avfifioXov ovrog TrXtipol /wvov (In ii. Epist. ad Timoth., cap. L 
Horn, ii., Opera, tom. xi. p. 671, edit Montfaucon, 1784), which again is expressed 
thus : or I (rvfifioXov 6 UpevQ irXripol (Ibid.), and which has its parallel in irx^fui 
TrXrjpCiv fiSvov eVri^icev 6 Upeiis* (De Prodlt. Jud., Horn. iL, Op., tom. ii. p. 894; 
also in p. 884. 


NOTE F (p. 187). 

On the Res Sacramenti of the Eticharist, as in the 

condition of Death. 

I QUOTE the following very forcible language from a work which 
contains much which is scarcely less forcible, and which seems to me 
to demand attention far beyond what it has hitherto received : — 

*'The letter does not speak of the Lord's body in any other 
condition than in that of * being given for us;' or of His blood in 
any other condition than in that of being poured out for sin. The 
letter sets forth the Lord's body as a sacrifice for sin : it sets forth 
His blood as poured out from His body for sin. It sets forth His 
body and His blood separated from each other ; and since blood is the 
life of the body, the body from which the blood is poured out has its 
life taken away, and is dead." (Prebendary Vogau's True Doctrine 
of the Eucharist, preface, p. ix.) " The bread is the body of Christ, 
and the wine is the blood of Christ, in a way beyond the nature of 
earthly things. The bread and the wine are the body and blood of 
Christ, 80 far as one thing can be another; the nature of each being 
unchanged. They are what He called, and by calling made, them, 
to all the intents and purposes for which He so made them. The 
wine is His blood poured out, the bread is His body given, the life 
being taken irom it, and the body therefore dead ; but both in spiritual 
effect, not in positive and absolute reality." (Ibid., p. x.) ''His 
dead body is no more : His poured-out blood is no more. They are 
not anywhere, they cannot be present anywhere. They were not 
when He first gave them. His body was not broken ; it was alive 
and unhurt, when He gave His dead body: His blood was not shed; 
it was all still flowing in His veins, when He gave His poured-out 
blood. Yet He gave, and it was in most real truth that He gave, 
His dead body and His outshed blood. And now He gives the 
same : His dead body, though His body is alive for evermore ; His 
outshed blood, though it is impossible, and, since the day that it ^^^ 

shed upon the Gross, has been impossible, for it ever to be st>^^ 
again. Neither the blood remains poured out, nor the body de^^ 
One is no more in the condition of being given, the other is no mo^^ 
in the condition of being shed. They are no more. His dead Yx^^l 
is nowhere to be found, His poured-out blood is nowhere to be fom ^^' 
In most certain and absolute fact and reality, they are not. And » 
that which is not, cannot be present anywhere; the dead body of c^^^iir 

Lord, and His blood shed, cannot be, and therefore are not, prest -^nt 

either in the Eucharist, or in its elements.*' (True Doctrine, 
face, p. xi.) 

'* From this it is necessarily to be concluded, that it was not b] 
real presence of His body and blood, but spiritually and effectual^ 1y* 
that they were given. It was to the faith that His body — was — to be 
broken, that He gave it: it was to the faith that His blood — wi 
to be shed, that He gave it And now that His body has been gii 
and His blood has been shed ; they are no longer in those conditio: 
They now are not. But to faith, and to the faith only, that His b( 
has been given, and that His blood has been shed, He now impa^ 
His body given and His blood shed, just as He imparted them 
His Apostles, the night before He suffered. And this He did 
now does, although the presence of His broken body and His o 
poured blood was then, and now is, impossible." (Ibid., p. xii) 

** H follows that the bread was the body of our Lord, and the wj^^^^ 
was His blood, by His will and all-powerful word, in a mystery, ^J 
effectual substitution and representation, in spiritual and lifegivS — Q^ 
power; but not in literal fact." (Ibid., ch. x. p. 116.) 

"Our Lord said nothing of His glorified body; nor will the lit^- ^ 
interpretation [of the words of institution] admit the notion of ;^H=Ii3 
glorified body being in the Sacrament, in or under or with ^^^^ 
outward forms. True, it is the body which is now glorified ; but, J ^ 
Bishop Andrewes well said, not in that state or condition. ^^^Ve 
cannot eat the glorified body — at least, it is contrary to the axiaXczi^^^p 
and all notions of His glorified body ; neither can we drink of 
blood of His glorified body, for it cannot be poured out. We 
not a living body, bnt a dead body. It is therefore utterly beyc 
the question to speak of the capabilities and powers of the riseti — 
glorified body of Christ; and all the subtle metaphysics which hi 
been employed to prove that it can be in heaven unmoved, at 
right hand of God, and yet can also be in thousands of places upon 
earth, that it can remain, whole and perfect, in those places, and t 
it can be in or under innumerable millions of pieces of brea^ 
those places, — all is to no purpose." (Ibid., pp. 104, 106.) 


Dr. Vogan says: "The authorities cited by Dr. Pusey speak 
broughout of the body and blood of Christ, clearly in the meaning 
lot of His body with the blood in it, circulating and enlivening it, 
Lnd therefore not shed, but of His body given for us, as given ; and 
ilis blood shed for us, as poured out from the body, and therefore 
eaving it dead. They had no notion of such a contradiction as a 
i^ing, much more a glorified body, the blood being separated and 
soared out from it ; nor of so doubly revolting a thing as eating a 
inng body, or so impossible a thing as the blood being shed from 

'or Lord's glorified body They would have seen the self- 

Wdent, but now for centuries the strangely overlooked fact, that a 
ody is necessarily dead if the blood be poured out from it; that the 
icrifices died from the shedding of their blood : that, therefore, our 
ord Jesus Christ died, when His blood was poured out; and that 
hen we receive His blood shed for us, His body which we receive 

therefore dead." (True Doctrine, p. 107.) 

Xt must by no means, however, be supposed that there is anything 
' novelty in the essential point of Dr. Vogan's contention. It is 
>thing more than has been continually urged by our Reformers, and 
r subsequent English divines.*!^ 

Moreover, the same teachiug, subversive as it is of the Heal Objec- 
^e theory, is seen very clearly appearing here and there, as the 
cognised doctrine of the Christian Church in the writings of the 

As evidence of this the following quotations may suffice : — 


'* Quomodo ad potandum vinum veniri non potest, nisi botrus 
Ucetur ante, et prematur ; sic nee nos sanguinem Christi possemus 
ibere, nisi Christus calcatus prius fuisset et pressus." (Cyprianus, 
p. ad CsBcil., Ep. Ixiii., Opera, c. 227, edit. Baluzius, Venice, 


*' From that place where He kept the Passover, and gave His 
ody that they should eat, and His Blood that they should drink, He 
ent away and departed thither with His disciples where they took 
[im. When, then, His Body was eaten and His Blood drunk. He 
as * counted among the dead' [rather. For whosoever hath eaten His 
lody and drunk His Blood, is counted among the dead]. For our 

* See Papers on the Eucharistic Presence, pp. 43, 47, 401, 408, 415—420, and Real 
resence of the Laudian Theology, pp. 52, 53, and Yogan's True Doctrine, pp. 103, 
H, 109, 110, 132, 133. See also pp. 301—578. 

shed upon the Cross, has been impossible, for it p ^ 

ai^aiu. Neither the blood remains poured out, r . , ?\ „ , 

,° . . .t jv.- fix.' ' s- ■ ' for drink. 

One 18 no more in the condition of being giyen, ' . „. ., . # 

. ,, ,.,. ., . u J ri,. lesof >i8ibis,r 
in the condition of being shed. They are no tr 

is nowhere to be found, His poured-out bloo<' 
In most certain and absolute fact and reali' ^^^g jji^^ ^^-g g^j 

that which is not, cannot be present any^ eceive His Body, and 

Lord, and His blood shed, cannot be, 8" ^^^^^ ^^ ^ ^^^ Ij^eth 

either in the Eucharist, or in its e' j g^ ^ 248, of Antonelli. 

face, p. xi.) 

*' From this it is necessarily to \ 
real presence of His body and > ^^ns passionem." (Ambrose. De 
that they were given. Ii waa • ^ Op^ra, edit. Benedict. 1686, torn, ii- 
broken, that He gave it: it 7 
to be shed, that He gave it y. 

and His blood has been p' ^ ifxirXrifrQfivai UtoKiv fffuy, kavrov Tra^ 
They now are not. Bu' ^^^t., In Matt., Horn, 1. § 3, Op., edit. >louV 
has been given, and t^ .i 
His body given ar vi. 

His AposUes, the - ^^ ^SOsy cfjXoy 6n Mdri 6 Xpicrrdg ; fiera ^""^ 
nowdoes, althor^.*-^ ;iyoT?7/)/wv avrovg iwi(rroiJiii;ofiey' el yUa **'' 
poured blood ^-^^ rirog crvfiftoXa ra reXovfjieya ; (Ibid In Ma'^^ ^"^ 

'* It foUow ;f^Op., torn, vii 783.) ' 

was His V .^>' ' 
effectual Fy>' ^ vii 

power; ' ^ «»' t^ Kpanjpi elg (r,)y Kadaparty Ik rfJQ Avpai 

"Or f/^f^y^'^' (Ibid., De Poenit, Horn, ix., Op., torn. ii. p. 3^ 
inter J^ 

rio' ^'"* 

or ^/^Z'' ^y (TiofiaTov lepeiov 7r/>^c ihu)B,)y imH,hioy cl^sss*^'? 

>j^, ical TOO alfxaroQ ifxirtuy, rj^n Kara t6 BeXrr^y nj ifov^-^^ 
/.j^ fivarnpioy okoyofiovyroe a^priTLjg te Kal aop^TtOQ V^ <ru^^ ^ 
1j^ <^''*<'^goO' Nyss., lu Christi llesurrectionem, Orat i ec::=^^^ 
&^tom. iii.p. 611, c. d.) * " 

^, MTho has kindly collated the passage with the Syriac o"f AvhZitoT 
♦ ?''i^^,..^^ l'!"^^ no doubt that the name of the real author is AdIi 



Aphraates, (t^^"' 

^m whom there is not much known. 8ome account of him and his writlncs 
^ found 11. tne pioface to volume i. of Aphraatea, edited by Mr. Wriirht (Willi 
^d Norg.i i { j . See especially pp. 8, 9. ^ 

; Od this ijuaausa see Albcrtiuua, De Eucharistia, p. 487. 



sionis Christi, quern velut apem, virginem per- 
ater, tarn reges a regendo (summi videlicet 
qiiique sequentium vel ordinis Levitioi, 
poris ejus, ac sanguinis, pro salubritate 
-. ^ TJImitam dulcediuem mysteriorum con- 

>^g^ yndete, quoniam suavis est Dominus. 

■^^f^ -^ulce est, amarum conantur asserere, 

^^^^ o de Filio gestientes, ubi totus in gloria 

^V jaoscitur, consummato mysterio Passionis." 

Sermoxix., Op., p. 198, ed. Galeardus, 1767.) 




-dc veritate qua sumus, www* pro omnibus mortuus est ; 

ji* singulds Ecclesiarum demos, in mysterio panis ac vini, 

.mmolatus, vivificat creditus, consecrantes sanctificat conse- 

Haec agni euro, hie sanguis est. Panis enim qui de cobIo 
3it, ait : Panis quern ego dabo, caro mea est pro stBculi vita. 
enim vini specie sanguis ejus exprimitur, quia cum ipse in 
alio dicit : Ego sum vitis vera, satis declarat sanguinem syum 
nine vinum quod in figura Passionis Ejus offertur : unde 
imus Patriarcha Jacob de Christo propbetaverat dicens : Lava- 
ino stolam suam^ et in sanguine uvce amictum suum. Stolam 

nostri corporis indumentum suum, proprio erat sanguine 
:us." (Gaudentius Biix., Sermo ii. pp. 33, 34, edit. Galeardus, 


im vere istud est bereditarium munus Testamenti Ejus noyi, 
obis ea nocte qua tradebatur crucifigendus, tamquam pignus 
(Bsentice dereliquit. Hoc illud est viaticum nostri itineris, quo 
via viise alimur ac nutrimur, donee ad ipsum pergamus de boo 
recedentes, unde dicebat idem Dominus : Nisi manducaveritit 
carnein^ et biberitis meum sanguinem^ non Jiabebitis vitam in 

luit enim benejida sua permanere apud nos, voluit auimas 
sanguine suo sanctificari per imaginem propria Passionis^ et 
scipulis fidelibus mandat, quos primos Kcclesias susb constituit 
)te8, ut indesinenter istavitse «ternaB mysteria exercert^nt, quae 
3 est a cuuctis sacerdotibus per singulas totius orbis Eccieblas 
iri, usquequo iterum Ghristus de ccelis adveniat quo et ipsi 
}teri, et oDines pariter iidelium populi, exemplar Passionis 
ante oculos habeutes quotidie, et gerentes in manibuB^ ore 


Lord with His own hands gave His Body for food [or, to eat], and 
when He was not yet crucified, He gave His Blood for drink." * 
(Serm. xiv. De Pasch. § 4, formerly attributed to James of NisibiSjf 
Antonelli's edit. p. 341.) 


" They keep His watch, and bark against thieves, like dogs, and 
love our Lord, and lick His wounds when they receive His Body, and 
place it on their eyes, and lick it with their tongue as a dog licketh 
his ma^er." (Ibid., Serm. vii. De Poenit., § 8, p. 248, of Antonelli. 
See below, p. 315, No. xix.) 


" Offertur quasi homo, quasi recipiens passionem." (Ambrose, I> « 
Offic. Minist., lib. i. c. xlviii.§ 248, Opera, edit. Benedict. 1686, torn, ii- 
c. 63.) 


Twv aylcjy arapKwy avrov e/jLTrXrftrdfjyai edtoKev flfiiv, eavrov iri 
OtiKE TEdvfxivov, (Chrysost., In Matt., Hom, 1. § 3, Op., edit. Moi 
faucon, tom. vii. c. 517.) 


"^Orav yap XeyciKTi, iroQev ^fjikov 8ri ETvOrj 6 Xpioroc l fiera r 
SiXXtjjy Kol diro Twr /jivffTrfpitjy ahrovg kiriaropil^Ofiev* el yap 
awidavey 6 ^IrjtrovQ tLvoq trvixfioXa tcl TeXovfieya ', (Ibid., In MatW- I^.; 
Horn. Ixxxii. § 1, Op., tom. viL 783.) 


Tov alfxaTOQ kv t^ KpaTfjpi etc crly Kadapariv ek rfJQ iixpcLi^^^s-ov 
vXEvpdg KEvovfjLEyov. (Ibid.,De Poenit., Hom. ix.. Op., tom. ii. p. S^^=9.) 


Oh yap ay ijy (Tiofia tov UpEiov irpoq kZtaZ^y kiririi^Eioy EK^^yrep 
£fjL\pv)(oy ^y, OvKovy 6te irapEtr^^E toIq fiadrjralQ kfix^ayElv tov 
criu/iaroc, Ka\ tov at/iaroc kfiiriE^yy ijdri jcam to OEXrp-oy rrj k^o'm^^'^ 
TOO TO fjLvcTTrjpioy oucoyo/xovyTog apprfTtjjg te Kai cuopartag to fr^Mfjio, 
eriOvTo.X (Grregory Nyss., In Christi Resurrectionem, Orat i., Gdit. 
Migne, tom. iii. p. 611, c. d.) 

* The above is Dr. Pusey's translation of the Latin version made by Antonelli fivm 
the Armenian. (See "Eeal Presence from Fathers," p. 271.) / f 

The words within brackets [ ] are emendations suggested by the Dean of Canter- I j, 
bury, who has kindly collated the passage with the Syriac of Aphraates. I - 

t There is now no doubt that the name of the real author is Aphraates, con- I 
ceming whom there is not much known. Some account of him and his writings wiJI ID 
be found in the preface to volume i. of Aphraates, edited by Mr. Wri^^t (Willianw j c* 
and Norgate) . See especially pp. 8, 9. 

; On thia passage see Albertiniia, De EucbariatiSl, p. 487. 






'^ Labores enitn Pasaionis Christi, quern velut apem, yirginem per- 
mansurum Virgo edidit Mater, tarn reges a regeudo (summi videlicet 
sacerdotes) quam mediocres quique sequentium vel ordinis Levitici, 
Tel fidelium plebis^iD figura corporis ejus, ac sanguinis, pro salubritate 
yitsB communis afferimus, et agnitam dulcediuem mjsteriorum con- 
8cio ore testamur: Ottstate, et videte, quoniam suavis est Domintu. 
Sed vffi basreticis, qui id quod dulce est, amarum conantur asserere, 
ibi sequalitatem subtrahere de Filio gestientes, ubi totus in gloria 
Dei Patris manere cognoscitur, consummato mysterio Passionis." 
(Qaudentius Brix., Ep., Sermoxix., Op., p. 198^ ed. Galeardus, 1757.) 


** Ergo in bac veritate qua sumus, unus pro omnibus mortuus est; 
et idem per singulas Eccleslarum domos, in mysterio panis ac vini, 
9'eficit immolatus, vivificat creditus, consecrantes sanctificat conse- 
cratus. Hsec agni carot hie sanguis est. Panis enim qui de cobIo 
descendit, ait : Panis quern ego dabo^ caro mea est pro saculi vita. 
Xtecte enim vini specie sanguis ejus exprimitur, quia cum ipse in 
£yangelio dicit : Ego sum vitis vera, satis declarat sanguinem syum 
esse omne vinum quod in figura Passionis Ejus ofifertur : unde 
beatissimus Patriarcba Jacob de Christo propbetaverat dicens : Lava- 
hit in vino stolam suam^ et in sanguine uvcb amictum suum. Stolam 
quippe nostri corporis indumentum suum, proprio erat sanguine 
abluturus." (Gaudentius Brix., Sermo ii. pp. 33, 34, edit. Galeardus, 



*' Nam vere istud est bereditarium munus Testamenti Ejus novi, 
quod nobis ea nocte qua tradebatur crucifigendus, tamquam pignus 
sucB prcBsenticB dereMqwit Hoc iliud est viaticum nostri itineris, quo 
in bac via vitse alimur ac nutrimur, donee ad ipsum pergamus de hoc 
Bseculo recedentes, unde dicebat idem Dominus : Nisi manducaveritis 
meam camemy et biberitis meum sanguinem, non kabebitis vitam in 
vobis ipsis, 

'* Voluit enim benefida sua permanere apud nos, voluit auimas 
pretioso sanguine suo sanctificari per imaginem propria Passionis, et 
^ ideo disoipulis fidelibus mandat, quos primes Kcclesise suae coustituit 
sacerdotes, ut indesinenter ista vitse aeterneB mysteria exercerent, quae 
necesse est a cuuctis sacerdotibus per singulas totius orbis Eccieblas 
celebrari, usquequo iterum Ghristus de ccelis adveniat quo et ipsi 
sacerdotes, et omnes pariter iidelium populi, exemplar Passionis 
Cbristi ante oculos babeutes quotidie, et gerentes in manihuB^ ore 

etiam sumentes, ac pectore redemption is nostrse indelebilem mema 
riam teneamus." ((jaudentios Brix., Sermo ii, pp. 38, 39.) 


*' Mensa jucunditatis Passio Ghristi est, qui se pro nobis in menst 
Orueis obtulit sacrificium Deo Patri, donans Ecclesiae suae Catholic 
Titale conTivium, corpore suo nos videlicet satiaus, et inebrian -m 
sanguine. . . . Propter hanc mensam^ corripiebat in idolis recumKz:: 
bentes Gorinthios Apostolus dicens, Non potestis communicare mens^K 
Domini et meusse dffimoniorum." (Serra. ccolxvi. de Ps. xxii. § 
In Op. Aug., edit. Benedict 1688, tom. v. par. ii. c. 1451.) 


'^ Goenam suam dedit, passionem suam dedit." (Augustinus, J 
Psalm xxi. Enar. ii, § 27, Opera, tom. iv. par. i. c, 100.) 


*' Gentes • . • passiones Domini in sacramentis corporis et sf 
guinis ejus per totum jam orbem suavitate lambunt devotissimi 
(Ibid., QusBsti. Evang., lib. ii. Qusest. xxxviii. § 5, Op., tom. iii. par. 
c. 266.) 


" Nos de cruce Domini pascimur, quia corpus ipsiusmanducamiis 

(Ibid., in Ps. c. § 9, Op., tom. iv. par. ii c. 1088.) 


" Sicut ergo ccelestis panis, qui vere Ghristi caro est, suo mo^^ 
vocatur Corpus Ghristi, quum revera sit sacramentum Corporis ChrieCx, 
ilHus videlicet, quod visibile, palpabile, mortale in cruce est suspensurxif 
vocaturque ipsa immolatio carnis quae sacerdotis manibus fit, Chrisli 
passio, mors, crucifixio, non rei veritate, sed signiQcante mysterio : 
sic sacramentum fidei, quod baptismus intelligitur, fides est."* 
(Gratian, Decret., Pars ii., De Consecr., Dist. ii. c. xlviii., as from 
August, in libro Sent. Prosperi, ed. Migne, c. 1754, 1755.) 

* This passage, though probably corrupt (see aboTe, p. 129), bears witness, eyenin 
its corrupted form, to two truths, each of which is destructiye of the Beti 
Objective Presence. 

(1) The Eucharist is, and is called, the Body of Christ, in the same way as Baptism 
is, and is called, faith. Compare the language of St. Augustine's letter to Boniface : 
" Si out ergo secundum quendam modimi Sacramentum Corporis Christi, Corpus Christi 
est : Sacramentum Sanguinis Christi, Sanguis Christi est, ita Sacramentum fldei fides 
est." (Epist. xcviii. § 9, Op., ed. Bened. 1679, tom. ii. c. 267.) 

(2) In the celebration of the Eucharist the act of the Priest is, and is called, the 
crucifying of Christ, in the same way as that which is in the hand of the Priest is, and 
is called, the Body of Christ. Compare, again, the Epistle to Boniface : '*Nec utique 
nientitur, qui interrogatus eum responderit immolari. Si enim Sacramenta qnamdam 
Biiuilitudinem earum rerum, quarum sacramenta sunt, non haberent, omnino sacra- 
nienta. non essent. Ex hac autem similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum 
nvmina acdpimit." (Ibid., c. 201 .^ ^ee a.\io\e, -^X). 'L^.TStt. 



OPG. Oh Tolvvy BidrtfTOQ Sfiyrifwvevtre, tov tSlOovc rby rtnror 
^'fi^eiKyvQ I 

EPAN. Oh dijra. 

OP0. 'AXXa auffiaTdc ye, koI aifiaroQ', 

EPAN. 'AXrtQtQ. 

OPO. 2a)/ui &pa rip tnavpj^ wpOffrjkwOii ; 

EPAN. "EoiKev.* 
(Theodoret, Dial. iiL Impatibilis, Opera, edit Schulze, torn, iv. 
p. 220.) 


*' Ipse Dominus calicem, quern bibendum dedit, novum appellare 

^ignatus est testamentum. . . . Etiam B. Paulus commemorans sacra- 

tissimum illius coensB mysterium, non aliud calicem quam novum 

^ Domino nuncupatum insinuat testamentum. . . . Non aliud quam 

^ivinum permittitur accipere testamentum. Neque enim dubium 

Qat, aliis locis a Domino nomine calicis significatam gratiam pas- 

Bionis. . . . Calicem quern dedit miki Pater, non bibam iUum ? In quo 

<2alice passionem esse intelligendam etiam illic ostendit . . . Pater si 

vis, transfer calicem istum a me, . . . Manifestum est, hoc fuisse orare 

ut transiret ab eo bora, quod erat dicere ut calix transferretur ab eo. 

. . . !Exhac regula qua iste calix testamentum dicitur novum, in illo 

calice quern prius dedit non absque ratione vetus intelligitur testa- 

mentum.'*t (Fulgentius Rusp., Ferrando, De Quinque Qusestioni- 

bus, § XXXV. — xxxviii., In Bibliotbeca Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, tom. 

ix. p. 193-4.) 


** Oamem ejus, qusB ad comedendum inepta erat ante passionem 
(quia enim comedere cupiebat carnem Dei?) aptam cibo post 
passionem fecit. Si enim non fuisset crucifixus, sacrificium cor- 
poris ejus minime oomederemus." (Hesychius Hieros., In Levit. 
lib. i. cap. ii., In Bibliotbeca Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, tom. xii. p. 


"Nisi [Cero DominicaJ superimposita fuisset cnici, nos corpus 
Ghristi nequaquam mystice percepissemus." (Ibid., lib. ii. p. 74.) 

'^It should be observed that this argument is built on the words of institution in 
the context preceding. 

Compare Chrysostom as quoted below, pp. 312, 818, No. xL, and above, p. 806, No. vi. 

t The passage should be read entire in the original in order to appreciate its value, 
as an answer to the question, "Could this have been written by one who believed 
the Keal Objective Presence of the Blood of Christ, and of Christ Himself in the cup 
of blessing"? 


*' Pascba proprium praevenieus, orucem suam Christus celebravit.'' 
(Hesychius Hieros., In Levit., lib. vi. p. 152.) 


" Intelligibilem agnum Domini traditionem immolantes mysdce." 
(Ibid., Hb. vi. p. 153.) 


" Quotidie nobis agnus occiditur, et pascba quotidie celebratur, si 
fermentum malitisB et nequitise non babemus." (Isidore Hispal,, 
In Exod., cap. xvii., Opera, edit. Migne, torn. v. c. 295.) 


*' Quod semel fecit, nunc quotidie frequentat. Semel enim pro pec- 
catispopuli se obtulit, celebratur tamen bsec eadem oblatio singulis per 
fideles diebus, sed in mysterio, ut quod Domiuus Jesus Cbristus semel 
se offerens adimplevit, hoc in ejus passionis memoriam quotidie geratur 
per mysteriorumcelebrationem. Nee taraen falso dicitur quod in mys- 
teriis illis Dominus vel immoletur vel patiatur ; quoniam illius mortis 
atque passionis babens similitudinem, quarum existunt reprsesenta- 
tiones. Unde Dominicum corpus et sanguis Dominicus appellantur ; 
quoniam ejus sumunt appellationem, cujus existunt Sacr amentum/' 
(Bertram, De Corp. et Sang. Dom., § xxxix. xl., edit. Migne, c. 


*' In Sacramento panis et vini, necnon etiam in memori'a mea, 
passio Christi in promptu est.'' (Amalarius, De Eccles. Offic, Jib. 
iii. cap. XXV., in Hittorpius, p. 168.) 


'* Sicut in superioribus Christi Corpus est vivum in sacramento 
panis et vini, atque in memoria mea, ita in prsBsenti ascendit in 
crucem." (Ibid ., cap. xxv. p. 168.) 

" De cujus 9ponsi carne Ecclesia prodiit, quando ex latere cruci- 
fixi, manante sanguine et aqua, sacramentum redemptionis et regene- 
rationis accepit. ' Jit quotidie lavacro rigatur ac poculo, baptismatis 
scilicet abluta mysterio. Corpus crucifixi in ara crucis torridum 
sumens, una cum ejus cruore roseo de latere crucifixi profuse.*'* 

* In giving this citation as a witness to the faith in this particular, I mnst 
not be understood as claiming Hincmar as bearing anything like a distinct and 
consistent testimony against the Paschasian doctrine. Whatever may have 
been his Eucharistic views, many of his statements are of too ambiguous i 


(Hiacmar Rem., Ep. ii. Ad Carolum Calvum, § xii., Opera, edit. 
Sirmondi, Paris, 1645, torn. ii. p. 101.) 


"Totus adest, totus sancto incumbit altari, non ut itenim patiatur, 
8ed ut fidei, oui prsesentia sunt omnia prsBterita, ejus passio memo- 
riter reprcesentetur. Ita et Ghrlstus et itenim immolatur, et tamen im- 
passibilis permanet et vivus." (*Rupertu8 Tuitiensis, De Trin., In 
Genes., lib. vi. cap. xxxiL, Opera, edit. Migne, torn. i. c. 431.) 


" Qui mactatus, camem suam et sanguiuem in cibum et potum 
vitie stemffi proposuit fidelibus.'^ (Oermanus Constant., Theoria Rer. 
BccL, In Bibliotheca Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, torn. xiii. p. 51.) 


" Panis et poculum, proprie et vere, ad imitationem mystica) iUius 
CCBDSB in qua Christus accepit panem et vinum, et dixit : Accipite 
^nanduoaUy et hihite ex eo omnes, hoc enim est Corpus meum et sanguis : 
ostendens se nos participes fecisse mortis, et resurrectionis, et gloria 
fiua" (Ibid., p. 63.) 


''Bibite sanguinem ejus cum fide, et canite gloriam, bie est oalix 
qaem misouit Dominus noster super lignum Orucis : aocedite 
mortales, bibite ex eo, in remissionem delictorum.*' (Sjriac Liturgy 
of St. James the Lord's brother, in Renaudot, Lit. Orient. Col., torn. 
iL p. 41.) 

Hence with the Fathers, as with the Liturgies, the celebration of 
the Eucharist brings near to the faithful as much the death of 
Christ as His Body and Blood ; there is in it the Real Presence 
of His Passion and blood-shedding as wel] as of Himself. It is 
with them the slaying of the Lord and the shedding of His Blood. 
It is all this in mystical representation. Christ is crucified in sacra- 
menta] commemoration.f It is the showing forth not of the Lord 
only, but of the Lord's death as the ransom of His people, that they 
may oommunicate sacramentally not only in the representing signs 
but in the represented death, not only in the commemoratory tokens 

* On the Eueharistic doctrine of Bupert Bee "Bomish Mass and Knglleh Church," 
p. 02. 

Dr. Pusey {'* Real Presence from the Fathers," pp. 5—9) fails to satisfy me that the 
Tiew of Aupertus had not been more truly apprehended by Bellarmine (De Sacram. 
Such., lib. iii. cap. zi. zt., Disp. 1701, c. 712, 713, 720), Cave (Hist. Litur., Geneya, 
1004, p. 447), and others. 

t See ''Bomish Mass and Bngllsh Church," pp. 87, 88. 


but in the Bedemption commemorated, in the Body and Blood of the 
true Paschal Lamb which taketb away the sin of the world. 
Let the following extracts bear witness to these assertions : — 


" Apparet sanguinem Ohristi non offerri, si desit vinum calici, nee 
sacrificium dominicum legitima sanctificatione celebrari, nisi oblatio 
et sacrificium nostrum responderit passion!." (Cyprian, Epist ad 
Gsecilium, Ep. Izlii., Opera, c. 228, edit. Baluzius, Venice, 1728.) 


'* Quia passionis ejus mentionem in Eacrificiis omnibus facimus 
(passio est enim Domini sacrificium quod offerimus) nihil aliud quam 
quod ille fecit facere debemus.'' (Ibid., c. 231.) 


Am tI ^e irpo<ridriK€y, or KXwfiey ; tovto yap eirl fiev rfig evj(a' 
picniac £(rrly idelv yivofuvov* kiri he tov trravpov oiiKiri, dXXa Koi 
tovyavrtoy rovrtp, otrrovv yap avrov, ^lyertv, ov trvvrpifiritrtrai* aXX 
OTTtp ovK eiradey ctti tov (rravpov, tovto iraar^ei ettI ttjc irpotTt^opaq Zia 
4fE, Koi aviy^ETai ^laicXbjfieyoQ lya iravraQ kfiirXriari, (Ghrysostom., In 
Epist. i. ad Cor., Hom. xxiy. § 2, Opera, edit. Montfaucon, torn. x. 
p. 218.) 


'EttcI Toy Iv (rravp^ irpotrrjKtofuyov ffiWofiey Ka). ifccic Kara nir 
ktnripay Tavnrfy IBeiy utQ afiyoy ktrc^yyueyoy Ka\ TEdvfuyoy. (Ibid., 
De Gffimeterio et Oruce, § 8, Opera, edit. Montfaucon, tom. ii. p. 401.) 


'lEtKifkEpofiiytjQ TTJQ dvffiac, Kal tov xpwrou TEOvfiiyov tov wpo^TOv 
TOV hcnroTiKov, (Ibid., In Epist. ad Ephes., Hom. iii. § 5, Op., tom. 
xi. p. 23 ) 


"Evda 6 y^pUrroQ jccirac TEdvfiiyog. (Ibid., Ad Popul. Antioch., 
Hom. XV. § 5, Op., tom. ii. p. 158.) 


"^Oray tSijc ro irpofiaToy E(r(j)ayiaafieyov Kal iLirrfpTiff^yor* (Ibid., 
De C»met. et Cruce, § S, Op., tom. ii. p. 401.) 


'Op^C ahToy KEl/iEyov. (Ibid., In Mattb., Hom. I. al. Ii., § 2, Op., 
tom. vii. p. 517.) 


Tov cLfivov rov Oeov virep <rov trtf^ayidiofieyov , • , ov ^/3^* 
(Chrysostom., De Poeoit., Horn, ix., Op., torn. ii. p. 849.) 


"Orav t^iyc tov Kvpiov reOvfiiyov koI KzLfuvov, Koi tov itpia 
i<l>effTWTa T^ Sufiari koI eirev\6iiievovy Kal navrac iicdv^ t^ rifii^ 
i^ivuTcrofiivovc ai/iari. (Ibid., De Sacerdotio, 1. iii. § 4, Op., torn. i. 
p. 882.) 


MvffHfpiov ktrri to iraQoq koX 6 tnavpoQ,* (Ibid., In Mattb., Horn. 
Ixxxiii., Op., torn. vii. p. 783.) 


Xpierroc iifxoLQ trfifxtpov ioriarac, Xpierroc ift«v trfifiepov ^laKOvu, 
XpitrroQ avanavei 6 <l>t\avdp<MfiroQ, ^ofiepov to XaXovfievovy <l>ol3ep6v 
TO TeXovfievov' 6 fi6(r\oc 6 (riTevrog Ovarial^eTai, 6 afivoQ tov Oeov 6 
aipu)v T^v &fiapTlav tov Kdtrfwv er^ayid^erac. (Cyrillus Alex., Horn. 
X., In Mysticam GoBnam, Opera, edit. MigDe, torn. x. c. 1017.) 


'* Udus pro omnibus mortuus est ; ot idem per singulas ecclesianim 
demos, in mysterio panis ao yini, reficit immolatust vivificat creditus, 
consecrantes sanctificat coDseoratus." (Gaudeutius Brix., Serm. ii., 
Opera, p. 33, edit. Galeardus, 1757. See above, p. 307.) 


'Exl TTJc OelaQ TpairH^riQ waXiv KavTavOa firi rj> irpoKeifiiv^ ^'P^ 

Kal T^ Trorrjplti} TairEivutg TTjOOccxw/iev. aW v\(/u)(ravT£Q fifiutv tt^v 

hiavoiav iriarei voiianDfiev Keiardai eirl Tijc Updg tKeivric rpoiri^iyc tov 

*Afiv6v TOV Oeov tov aipovTa Tt^v d-fiapTlav tov Kdafxov, hBimoQ vtto 

tUv iipe(t)v Ovofuvov' Kal to Tifiiov avTov adfia koI aifia dXijOwc 

XafifidvovTaQ fifidg Trurreveiv Tavra clvai tcl TfJQ ^ifxtTepaQ avaerrdffcwc 
ffvfifioXaA (Gelasii Hist. Cone. Nic. See Mansi, tom. ii. c. 887.) 

* This is giren as teaching contained in the words of institution. 

t There has been much controversy on this passage, which was frequently 
appealed to by the Beformers and subsequent Beformlng divines. Gelasius lived a 
eentury and a half after the first Council of Nice, and his Diatyposis, from which 
this is extracted, though attribuced to the Fathers of that Council, is not mentioned 
by Eusebius, nor in any of the Canons of the Council. (See Albertinus, De Eucha- 
ristia, p. 884, and Cave, Hist. Lit., pp. 269, 260.) 

Whatever may be its history, and whatever questions may be made as to the 
interpretation of some parts of it, it assuredly bears witness— (1) to the faith which 
r^^rds the res sacramenti as in the state of death ; (2) to the fact that this rea 
$acramenti is to ba apprehended by faith and by a lifting up of the mind, while 



'* Unus calix est, in quo sumus, quia una passio est Chrisd, et una 
mors, qua omnes redempti sumus." (Etberius et Beatus, Contra 
Elipandum, lib. i., In Bibliotbeca Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, torn. xiii. 
p. 371.) 


TtVac \iyei \rjyovg ; tclq eKK\i](Tiagj kv ale EKyturai 6 olvog, iJTOi 
TO ayioy al/za tov Kvpiov ^Irfaov Xpiarovy Koi dverai Kal to ayiov 
vwfia avTov. (Interpretationes ex Vet Test., In Op. Atbanasii, " Ps. 
pro Torcularibus," Q. Ixxvii, Opera, edit. Benedict, torn. ii. p. 269.) 


" Ideo autem boc sacramentum de vino fit, quia Gbristus se vitem 
dixit, et Scriptura eum vinum jucunditatis asseruit. Uva autem in 
praelo duobus lignis expressa in vinum liquatur, et Christus duobus 
lignis crucis pressvs, sanguis ejus in potum fidelibus fundebatur'* 
(Honorius Augustodunensis, Gemma AnimsB, cap. xxxiii., In 
Bibliotbeca Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, torn. xx. p. 1051.) 


"Ego omnipotenti Deo agnum immaculatum quotidie in altari 
Crucis sacrifico." (Pseudo- Apostolus Andreas,* in "Passio S. 
Andre 8B.") 

nothing but bread and wine are recognised in the object of sight below. Mr. Milton 
has an interesting note on it in "The Eucharist Cleared from Error,*' pp. 77—80; 
and an able argument on it will be found in Albertinus, pp. 384—388. See also 
Kidley's Works, P. S. edit., pp. 248, 249 ; and Papers on the Eucharistic Presence, 
pp. 53, 54. 

The language may be illustrated, and the sense cleared, by the following from 
St. Chrysostom: IlvsvfiaTucCJQ diX to. Trepi ifiov aKomiv . , , H Sk iari rb 

aapKiKUfg vorjffai ; r6 aTrXCJQ tig ra irpoKiipsva op^Vt Kal p^ ttXsov ri ([tavTd' 
i^iffOcu. TOVTO yap iari. aapKUCwQ. xp?) dk pfi oiirw Kpiviiv roiq opwpkvoig, 
iXkd trdvTa ret pvarripia roig evdov d^OaXfioig KaroTrrsvHV. tovto yap i(m 
nvivpariKuig, (Horn, in Joan, xlvii. al. xIyI., Opera, torn. viii. pp. 277, 278, edit. 

Montfaucon, 1728.) 

And this again may be fortified by comparing the words of St. Augustine : " In 
slgnis ne quis attendat quod sunt, sed potius quod signa simt, id est, quod signifi- 
cant." (De Doct. Christ., lib. ii. c. i. See above, p. 267.) 

The passage may (as Mr. Milton remarks, p. 79) be further illustrated from the 
Liturgies. See the quotations below, pp. 315, 316.) 

On the whole subject see Bp. Morton on Eucharist, book iv. cap. xi. pp. 301—307, 

edit. 1635. 

* See Albertinus, De Eucharistia, pp. 258, 259. This extract from a supposititious 
work is of value only as evidencing the belief of Christians some centuries after 
Apostolic times. It is quoted by Bellarmine with the omission of the words which 
BO clearly mark the mystical sense, " in altari crucis." Amauld followed the example. 



" Cruci hsdremus, sanguinem sugimus, et intra ipsa Hedemptoris 
nostri vulnera figimus linguam, quo interiua et exterius rubri- 
5ati " &c. (Sermo " De Ccena Domini," * formerly found among the 
writings of Cyprian : Opera Cypriani, c. xoix., edit. Baluzius, 
Venice, 1728.) 


*0 yap fiaariXevQ tCjv fiaanXevdyTfjJV Koi Kvpioc tQv Kvpievdvnjv, 
piarroQ 6 Qeog fffuCiVf wpoipxerai <r(l>ayia<rOfjvai Kal dodfjyai elc 
putffiv ToiQ TTtoTotC't (Litufgy of St. James, in Neale's Tetralogia 
iturgica, p. 57.) 

audb replied : " The author of the relation of the martyrdom of St. Andrew makes 
is saint say, not what Mr. Aniauld imputes to him, ttiat he sacrificed every day to 
7d the immaculate Lamb^ but tliat he sacrificed every day to Ood ON thb altar OF 
IB GROSS the immaculate Lamb. Where I pray is Mr. Amauld's fidelity thus to 
lipse these words, on the altar of the cross, to make the world believe this Author 
eans the sacrifice which is offered every day in the Eucharist?" (Iteply to Amauld^ 
irt 11. p. 86, London, 1684.) Albertinus argrues *' iUnd sacrifieo intelligendum esse, 
m de sacrificio in ipsa rei veritate ; sed tum de saorifloio in mysterio, id est, in 
3^o, quo sensu Isidorus Hispalensis ait, quotidie nobis agnus occiditur, et paseha 
totidie celebratur [In Exod. cap. 17J : tum de interna oommemoratione veri ac realis 
.criflcii in cruce peracti per mentis apprehensionem et intuitum. Sic enim 
esychius : Intelligibilem agnum Domini traditionem immolantes mystiee. [In 
evit.1.6.]" (P. 259.) 

* Probably the work of Amoldus Bonsevallensis. See Albertinus, De Encharistia, 

t Dr. Neale immediately after quoting this passage (Preface to Tetralogia Lit., 
p. zvi. xvii.) uses strong language concerning those who understand some parts of 
16 Liturgies "metaphorice dici." 

It is to be regretted that Dr. Neale seems giievously to misunderstand the views 
f the Reformed. But he is quite right in supposing that they do not think that all 
arts of the Liturgies are to be interpreted as spoken Kvpi(*)Q. 

But how, in this passage, does Dr. Neale himself understand 7rp6€pxiTai 
fipayiaaOfjvai ? 

If it is to be understood KvpiojQf then must it not follow, in the words of Bel. 
umine : " Ergo verum erit dicere, a sacerdotibus Christianis vere et realiter Christum 
ccidi ; at hoc sacrilegium, non sacrificium esse videtur " ? (De Missa, lib. L cap. 
avil. c. 1041.) 

Then also must it not follow that many of the sayings of the Fathers must 
te brought to nought? (See "Romish Mass and English Church," pp. 86, 00—94, 
17—89, 41.) 

Then e.g. what can be made of the declaration of Eusebius that Christ delivered 
18 a memorial to offer instead qf sacrifice ? {fivrifiriv i^fiiv wapadoifg dvri Ovaiag 
•y Oey Suvekioq irpoatftipiiv. Dem. Ev. c. x. p. 88, 1628.) 

And what of his statement following (p. 89) that this memorial is to be made by 
he symbols of His Body and Blood ? (^id avfipoKuv rov rt aojiiarog aifroi), xai 
rov OiDTtiplov alfiaroQ, See above, p. 288.) 

Is there any greater violence to language in understanding the symbols to be in 
he stead of the Body and Blood than in understanding the memorial to be in the 
tead of the sacrifice t 



"iSc 6 afivoQ Tov Qeov, 6 Xlog rov TLarpbcy 6 aipiav rriy h^uoLpriav 
Toiv Kdfffiov, (TipayiatrOeiQ inrep Trig tov Koarfiov 4fai^c Koi trumffpiac. 
(Liturgy of St. James, in NeiJe's Tetralogia litorgica, p. 179.) 


Kal Ttdelg airrbv [tov &yiov aprov] vimov kv r^ hyif^ ^utk^, 
tlicovTOQ TOV ZiaKovov, Qvffoy HtnroTa. *0 lepevq Ovei avTor orxiv- 
poei^iog, Xiywv, QveTai 6 afivbg tov Gcov.* (Cbrysostomi Divina 
Missa, in Gear's Euchologion, p. 57.) 


**Mi8ce, quBBsumus, Domine, in calice isto quod manavit ex latere 
tuo, ut fiat in remissionem peccatorum nostrorum." (Lit Mozarabic^ 
in Neale's Tetralogia Lit., p. 32.) 

Yet doubtless by degrees tbis trutb became less prominent, a» 
the Eucharistio doctrine of earlier times passed into some form of, or 
approach to, the augmentation doctrine, which connected itself 
especially with the four fiist words of lustitution, ** Hoc est corpus 
meum," and practically dropped the remainder; suffering the idea ot 
spiritual union with the gloiified Body of Christ, by partaking of the 
deified Sacramental Body, or the Sacramental Bread spiritually 
adopted or assumed into union with Christ's Body, to obscure the 
scriptural view, in which the first and prominent idea is the Com- 
munion, or partaking in all its peace-giving, life-giving power of the 
atoning sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood, which is the meat in- 
deed, and the drink indeed, for that which is the sinful souPs hunger 
indeed and thirst indeed ; upon which follows the spiritual union 
with the glorified Saviour in heaven. 

* Goar's explanatory note is this : "Fanis sive hostia, Christi velat agni immolandi 
▼ices nomenque sustinet, et ut mactetur, crusta inversa, mica sursum spectante, in 
disco velutaguus suplnus ictum prsBstolans, extenditur" (p. 100). 

See Dr. Covel's "Account of the Greek Church," p. 15. It is to be observed that 
all this takes place at the prothesis, before the unconsecrated elements are oarried, 
at "the great entrance" to the holy table. 


NOTE G. (p. 175). 

On the Sayings of the Fathers concerning the Sacramental 
Body of Christ, and concerning His Church and His Poor. 

One argument of very considerable weight, which has not been 
alluded to in the text, may be briefly touched upon here. It is this. 
The Fathers habitually speak of the Body of Christ which is the 
Sacrament of His Body, and the Body of Christ which is His 
Church, in such connexion one with another, and in such respect 
the one to the other, as to show clearly that they regarded the pro- 
positions " The consecrated bread is the Body of Christ," and " the 
Church of Christ is His Body," as being ejusdem generis, so far at 
least as not to admit any more literal sense for the first than for the 

And this is surely equivalent to saying that the Fathers did not 
regard the Eucharist as being in any more proper sense Christ's 
Body than His faithful people are; and that they did not allow any 
Beal Presence nor any adoration to the one, which does not also 
belong to the other. 

Now this may indeed be perfectly consistent with the view of the 
consecrated elements, as possessing an inherent indwelling of the 
Spirit, or of some spiritual influence uniting them in some sort to 
Christ for the purposes of Sacramental Communion ; and I think it 
may perhaps be admitted that some such view — the first step in the 
course of superstition — became in time more prevalent than has 
commonly, perhaps, been supposed ; * but this teaching of the 

* It should, however, be observed that we find in some of the Fathers teaohings 
eonceming the sacraments in general, and concerning the Eacharist in partiealar, 
which, if carried out to the results to which they most naturally point, would seem 
to be destructive of such a view. 

Observe especially the words of Chrysostom : Xlapcerrt Kal vvv 6 XpiarbQ nrjv 
rpdiril^av KoaiiSnf. oh yAp dvOptJTroQ ttrriv 6 iroi&v rd TrpOKilfieva yivk<r6ai 
(Tufta fcai alfia rov Xpurrov, (rx7)iia irktipStv fiSvov ItrrriKev 6 UptifQ, xai 
Skriffiv TTpoatpkpEi' rf 6i X^P'C fai »7 dvvafiiQ lariv r/ rov Oeov . , . KaBdvtp 
iKfiVTi 17 0(i>v^, 17 Xeyot/ffa, aif^dveaOi . . . o^to) icai aVntj 17 0(ov^, 17 Xsyovoaf 
SuzvravrbQ av^Et ry xaptn rovg d^iojQ persxovrag, (De Prod. Jud., Horn. ii. § 6, 
Op., edit. Montfaucon, torn. ii. p. 894. Compare quotations above, p. 802.) 

Perhaps still more distinct is the language of St. Augustine : "Semper Dei est ilia 
gratia et Dei sacramentum, hominis autem solum mluisterium ; qui si bonus est, 
adhseret Deo, et operatur cum Deo ; si autem malus est, operatur per ilium Deus 
visibilem sacramenti formam: ipse autem donat invisibilem gratiam." (Ep. cv. § 12, 
Op., ed.Ben., 1679, tom. ii. c. 801.) 


Fathers (though it has, doubtless, outlived the change of faith in the 
Western Church) is really inconsistent with the belief of the 
elements being by consecration either changed into the natural Body 
of Christ or possessed with the Real Objective Presence of that Body 
with His soul and divinity under their forms. 

I add some quotations which may be useful in assisting the 
inquirer to appreciate the force of this argument. 


*0 ^€ &fyroQ oy iycl> ^ljotu), (priariv, ^ trap^ fwv ktrriv, fp-oi f Tpitfierai 

if arapi ^la Tfjg Ev^apitTriaQ' i/> oicep kcll fiaXKoy, fj aap^ to trCjfjui 

QVTOv earriv, oirep kcrrlv fj 'EicjcXiyo-ta, apTog ovpaviog, arvyayutyrj evXo- 

yrjfuyri, (Theodoti * Excerpt, ad fin. CJem. Alex., Opera, edit. Potter, 

torn. ii. p. 971.) 

" Quando Dominus corpus suum panem vocat, do miiltonim 
granorum adunatione congestum, populum nostrum quern portabat, 
indicat adunatum." (Cyprian, Epist Ixxvi., Opera, edit. Venice, 

1728, c. 318.) 


** Quemadmodum grana multa in unum collecta et commolita et 

commixta panem unum faciunt sic in Christo, qui est panis ccelestis, 

unum sciamus esse corpus, cui conjunctus sit noster numerus et 

adunatus." (Cyprian, Epist. Ixiii. ad Csecil., Op., c. 230.) 


Kac avTri tov fxaKapiov UavXvv ^ ^c^atncaX/a, hcavrl KaditrrriKB 
v\ripo(l>opfi<rai vfidg wept tCjv deiiov fivcrrrjplwy, iv Kara^uaOiyregf 
irvararuffjLoi koX trvyaifxoi tov Xpiarrov yeydyare, (Cyril. Hierosol., 
Mystag. iv. § 1, Opera, edit. Ben., p. 319.) 

AvTO eoTfxey eKeivo to (Ttofta' ti yap ktrriy 6 apTog ', vuf/ML XpitrTov, 
Ti ^£ yiyoyrat ol fieraXafiPayoyTeg ', awfia Xptarrov' ov-)(l autfjuiTa 

So Optatus had said : " Concedite Deo prsBstare qase sua Hunt. Non enim potest 
monas ab homine dari quod divinum est " (Opati Afri Milevit., Epis. De Schism. Dom., 
lib. v., In Bibliotheca Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, torn. iv. p. 361); and again : "Ipse 
est ergo qui dat, ipsius est quod datur." (Ibid., p. 361.) 

Such sayings, at least, seem rather to point to that view of sacramental efficacy 
which is expressed in the words of Hooker : " Which grace also they that receive by 
sacraments or with sacraments, receive it from Hira and not from them " (Eccl. Pol., 
book y. cli. Ivii. § 4, Keble's edit., vol. il. p. 258), and which seems to be most con- 
sistent with the true Real Presence of Christ as the living Saviour, the Giver of the 
Feast, the Lord of the table. See above, pp. 32—35. 

* This is Theodotus the heretic. (See Cave's Historia Literaria, 1694, p. 39, and 
Goode on Eucharist, i. p. 287.) But no mark of heresy is on this saying. 


iroXXa, aXXa (rQfia ev. (Ghrysostom., In Ep. i. ad Cor. Horn. zziy. 
§ 2, Opera, edit. Montfaucon, torn. z. p. 213.) 


MiySctc XafifiaveTU) lovdag, iva firl ra lov^a Tadri' autfjia earrl 
XpitTTov Kol tovtI to wXfjdog. (Ibid., In Matth., Horn. Ixxxii. al. 
Ixxxiii. § 6, Op., torn. vii. p. 790.) 


T^ TTJc trapKOQ oySfiari iraXiy Kal ra fivirrfipia KaXeiv €iu}dev ^ 
ypa(^rtf Kal Trjy EKKXrjariay diraarav, crUfjia Xiyovaa eJyai rov Xpiarov. 
(Ibid., In Gal., cap. v.. Op., torn. x. p. 720.) 


" Corpus Ohristi si vis intelligere, Apostolum audi dioentem fide- 
libus, * Vos autem estis Corpus Christi et membra.' Si ergo vos estis 
corpus Christi et membra, mysterium vestrum in mensa Dominica 
positum est : mysterium vestrum accipitis. Ad id quod estis, Amen 
respondetis, et respondendo subscribitis. Audis enim, Corpus Cbristi * 
et r^spondes, Amen. Esto mem brum Corporis Christi, ut verum sit 
Amen." (Augustine, Serm. oclxzii.. Opera, edit. Benedict. 1688, 
torn. V. par. i. c. 1104.) 


** Estote quod videtis, et accipite quod estis." (Ibid., o. 1104.) 


** Dominus Christus nos significavit, nos ad se pertinere voluit, 
mysterium pacis et unitatis nostras in sua mensa consecravit." (Ibid., 
c. 1104.) 


** Quia passus est pro nobis, commendavit nobis in isto sacramento 
corpus et sanguinem suum ; quod etiam fecit et nos ipsos. Nam et 
nos corpus ipsius facti sumus, et per misericordiam ipsius quod 
accipimus, nos sumus." (Ibid., Serm. ccxxix.. Op., tom*. v. par. i. 
Q. 976.) 


** Ibi vos estis in mensa, et ibi vos estis in calice. Nobiscum vos 
estis," (Ibid., c. 976.) 

♦ Compare the following : " Sumunt ergo fldeles bene et veraclter corpus Christi, 
si corims Christi non nogHgant esse. Fiant Corpus Christi si volunt vivere de 
Spiritu (Jliristi." (Rabanus Maur., De Inst. Cler., lib. i. c. 31, Opera, edit. Migne, 
tuju. i. c. 'iia.) 



** Huno itaque cibum et potum societatem vult iutelligi corporis 
et membrorum suorum, quod est sancta Ecolesia." (Aagastine, In 
Johan., Tract, xxvi. § 15, Op., torn. iii. par. ii. c. 500.) 


** Hujus rei sacramentum, id est unitatis corporis et saDguiDis 
Christ! alicubi quotidie, alicubi certis intervallis dierum in Dominica 
mensa prseparatur ; etdemensa Dominica sumitur; quibusdam ad 
vitam, quibusdam ad e&itium : res vero ipsa cujus sacramentum 
est, omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium, quicunque ejus particeps 
fiierit." (Ibid., c. 500.) 


" Euoharistia panis noster quotidianus est : sed sic accipiamus 

ilium, ut non solum ventre, sed et mente reficiamur. Virtus enim 

ipsa quse ibi intelligitur, unitas est, ut redacti in Corpus Ejus, effecti 

membra ejus, simus quod accipimus." (Ibid., Serm. Ivii., Op., torn. v. 

par. i. c. 334.) 


*' Hoc est sacrificium Christianorum. Multi unum corpus sumus 

in Christo, quod etiam sacramento altaris fidelibus noto frequentat 

Ecclesia, ubi ei demonstratur quod in ea oblatione quam offert ipsa 

oflFeratur.'' (Ibid., De Civit. Dei, lib. x. cap. vi.) 

" Benedicens fregit, transfigurans * corpus suum in panem, quod est 
ecclesia prsesens." (Com. in Mar., cap. xiv.. In Op. Hieronymi,edit. 
Yallarsius, torn. xi. par. ii. c. 118.) 


*'Qu9Bdam species mortis et qusedam similitude resurrectionis 
intervenit, ut susceptus a Christo, Christumque suscipiens non idem 
sit post lavacrum, qui ante baptismum fuit, sed corpus regenerati fiat 
caro crucifixi." (Leo Magn., De Pass. Dom., Serm. xiv. In Heptas 
Prsesulum, p. 62.) 


" Cujus [Christi] caro de utero virginis sumpta nos sumus." (Ibid., 
De Nativ. Dom., Serm. x. p. 24.) 


" Sicut factus est Dominus caro nostra nascendo, ita et nos fDCti 

* Compare the language of St. Augustine : " The Head transfigured (transfigurabat} 
the members into Himsell." See above, p. 70. 


sunaus ipsius renasceado." (Leo Magn., De Nativ. Dom., Serm. iii. 
p. 16.) 


" Non enim aliud agit participatio corporis et sanguinis Christi, 
quam ut in id quod sumimus transeamus." (Ibid., De Pass. Dom., 
Serm. xiv. p. 62.) 


** In ilia raystica distributione spiritualis alimonise, boc irapertitur, 
hoc sumitur, ut aocipientes virtutem Ccelestis cibi in carnem ipsius, 
quia caro nostra factus est, transearaus." (Ibid., Epist. xxiii., lu 
Bibliotheca Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, torn. vii. p. 1080.) 


" Ut noB esse ipsum verum panem verumque corpus ostenderet, 
continuo subjunxit, quoniam untis paniSf unum corpus multi mmus 
omnes qui de uno pane partioipamus. . . . Nam et carnem Domini nos 
esse confirmans, ait, Nemo enim unquam carnem suam odio habuit, 
&c. . . . Quocirca quoniam unus panis et unum corpus multi sumus, 
tunc incipit unusquisque particeps esse illius unius panis, quando 
coeperit membrum esse illius unius corporis, quod in singulis membris, 
quando in baptismo * capiti Christo subjungitur, tunc jam Deo viva 
hostia veraciter immolatur." (Fulgentius Husp., De Baptismo 
^thiopis, cap. xi., In Heptas Praesulum, p. 612. See above, pp. 82, 83.) 


" Hoc ergo fit ille regeneratione sancti baptismatis, quod est de 
sacrificio sumpturus altaris. Quod etiam sanctos Patres indubitanter 
credidisse ao docuisse cognoscimus." (Ibid., p. 612.) 


"Ipsum Apostolum . . . audiamus cum de isto Sacramento 
loqueretur, unus panis, unum corpus multi sumus. lutelligite et 
gaudete, unitas, pietas, Veritas, charitas, unus panis, unum corpus 
multi sumus. . . . Dominus Christus significans nos ad sepertinere, 
voluit mysterium pacis et unitatis nostrse in sua mensa consecrare." 
(Ibid., Hom. xxxiv.. In Bibliotheca Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, torn, 
ix. p. 134.) 

* So the writer of the Homily " De Corpore et Sang. Christi," formerly attributed to 
Eusebius of Emessa, argrues the need of Baptism from the words, " Except ye eat the 
flesh of the Son of Man, &c., ye have no life In you." He says : " Sub his enim Dei 
verbis, quibus Evangelista pronunciat : Xon habebitis vitam in vobis : aperiie intelli- 
gendum est, quod omnis anima munere baptism! vacua, non solum gratia careat, sed 
et vita." (In Op. Hieron., edit. Yallarsius, torn. zi. par. ii. c. 352. See above, p. 88.) 



" Quando autem cougruentius quam ad consecrandum eacrificium 
corporis Christi, sancta Ecclesia (quse corpus est Christi) Spiritus 
Sanctideposcatadventum?" (Fulgentius Hasp., Ad Monimum, lib. ii. 
cap. X., In Bibliotheca Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, torn. ix. p. 29.) 

"Ipsa ergo gratia spiritalis per unitatem pacis et charitatem, 
corpus Christi per dies singulos ^dificare nan desinit. . . . Hsec 
itaque spiritalis sedi&catio corporis Christi . . . nunquam opportunius 
petitur, quam cum ab ipso Christi corpora (quod est Ecclesia) in 
sacramentum panis et calicis ipsum Christi corpus et sanguis offertur. 
. . . Unde manifestum est . . . neque spiritalis gratia sanctifica- 
tionem sacrificiis eorum tribui, qui offerunt ab Ecclesiastici corporis 
unitate disjuncti. . . . Solius itaque Catholicas veritatis et com- 
muniouis sacrificium Deus libenter accipit: quia dum charitatem 
suam per Spiritum Sanctum diffusam, in ea custodit, ipsam Ecclesiam 
sibi gratum sacrificium facit." (Ibid., cap. x. xi. xii. pp. 29, 30.) 


''Proprietas multis intelligitur modis. Nam et Ecclesia corpus 
ejus dicitur, ejusdemque Ecclesise facit Deus proprias passiones, pro 
qua etiam in coelo positus clamat *. Saule, Saule, quid me perse- 
queris? Et unusquisque fidelium mem brum ejus est, sicut idem 
docet Apostolus, dicens: Vos estis Corpus Christi, et membra de 
membro: sed et panis ille, quem universa Ecclesia in momoriam 
DominicsB passionis participat, corpus ejus est." * (Joannes Maxen- 
tius, Dial. lib. ii., In Bibliotheca Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, tom. 
ix. p. 555.) 


" Hie panis, et vinum cum comeditur, et bibitur, fit corpus Christi, 
et sanguis Verbi. . . . Propter hoc, quia factus est homo pro nobis, 
commendavit nobis isto sacramento corpus et sanguinem suum, quod 
etiam fecit, et nos ipsos. Et nos corpus ipsius facti sumus per 
misericordiam ipsius quod accepimus, nostrumque corpus Christi acci- 
pimus et audi, quid dicit : quia ipsum corpus nos sumus. . . . Postea 
ad aquam venistis conspersi estis, et unus panis facti estis." (Etherius 
et Beatus, Contra Elipandum, lib. i., In Bibliotheca Max. Patr., 
Lugd. 1677, tom. xiii. pp. 370, 371.) 

* This is a passage worthy of careful attention ; especially in view of the interpre- 
tation of the words of institution, as understood by Maxentius to be au illustration 
of his dictum: " Proprietas multis intelligitur modis." 



Tov ActTTTorov KaT€iri<rrevdriQ awfxaf fjiaXKov hi n Xiyw, yiyoyag 
(T&fjLa htnroTiKov. (Sermo in S. Pascha et in reoens illuminatos, 
In Op. Athanasii, edit. Benedict., torn. ii. p. 398.) 


'* Angeli Tel homines sancti amentur, bonorarentur, caritate non 

servitute. Non eis Corpus Christi offeratur, cum sint hoc et ipsi." * 

(Agobardus, Liber De Imaginibus^ ch. xxx., Opera, edit. Baluze, 

torn. i. p. 264.) 


** Considerandum quoque quod in pane illo non solum corpus 
Christi, yerum etiam in eum credentis populi figuretur : unde multis 
frumenti granis conficitur, quia corpus populi credentis multis per 
verbum Christ! fidelibus augmentatur." (Bertram, De Corp. et Sang. 
Dom. Ixxiii., Opera, edit. Migne, c. 139.) 


*' Siout non corporaliter sed spiritualiter panis ille credentium 
corpus dicitur, sic quoque Christi corpus non corporaliter sed 
spiritualiter necesse est intelligatur." (Ibid., Ixxiv. c. 189.) 

** Accipitur spiritualiter quidquid in aqua de populi oorpore signifi- 
catur. Accipiatiu: ergo necesse est spiritualiter quidquid in vino de 
Christi sanguine intimatur." (Ibid., Ixxv. c. 160.) 


'* In isto quod per mysterium geritur figura est non solum proprii 
corporis Christi, verum etiam credentis in Christum populi : utriusque 
namque corporis, id est, et Christi, quod passum est et resurrexit ; et 
populi in Christo renati atque de mortuis vivificati, figuram gestat." 
abid.,xcviu. c. 169.) 


*^ Qui passus est pro nobis, commendavit nobis in isto sacramento 
corpus et sanguinem suum, quod etiam fecit et nos ipsos. Nam et 
nos corpus ipsius fact! sumus, et per misericordiam ipsius quod 
accepimus nos sumus." (Rabanus Maurus, Enarr. in Ep. Fauli, lib. 
X., In Ep. 1 Cor. x., Opera, edit. Migne, tom. vi. o. 94. See above, p. 


'* Corpus Christi est, quod assumpsit in utero virginal!^ Corpus 
Christi est tota Ecclesia fidelium, Corpus Christi est quod quotidie 
consecratur in Ecclesia. (Remigius Antiss., In cap. vii Epist ad 
Rom., InBibliotheca Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, tom. viii. p. 911.) 

* Bee above, p. 219 aqq. 



" Sicut ille panis et sanguis in Corpus Christi transeunt ; ita omnes 
qui in Ecclesia digne comedunt Ulud, unum Corpus Christi sunt." 
(Remigius Antiss., In 1 Cor. x., In Bibliotheca Max. Patr., Lugd. 
1677, torn. viii. p. 968.) 


'M.€Ti')(ovT€g yap tOv (r^naroQ tov Xpiarrov Kal fifieic EKeivo yivofieOa, 
eirei^ elg aproQ 6 Xpiarrog. (QEcumenius, In 1 Cor. x., Opera» Paris, 
1631, torn. i. p. 515.) 


" Ita enim tanquam suavis panis in Christi Corpus transibimus." 
Ivo Camotensis, In Die Paschatis, In Hittorpius, p. 451.) 


" Ideo et Corpus Christi de pane fit, qui ex multis granis confi- 
citur, quia Ecclesia Corpus Christi per illud reficitur, quse ex multis 
electis colligitur.'' (Honorius Augustodunensis, Gemma Animae, 
cap. xxxii., In Bibliotheca Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, tom.xx. p. 1061.) 


" Ipse enim et panis, et caro et sanguis, idem cibus et substantia, 
et yita factus est Ecclesise susb ; quam corpus suum appellat, dans ei 
participationem Spiritus." (De Ccena Domini, In Op. Cypr., edit. 
Venice, 1728, c. xcvii.) 


" Et nos ipsi corpus ejus effecti, sacramento et re sacrament! capiti 
nostro connectimur" (Ibid., c. civ.) 


" Per mysteria autem significatur Ecclesia, quae est Corpus Christi, 
et membra ex parte, quae et tunc accepit Spiritum Sanctum et post- 
quam Christus in coelos assumptus est etiam nunc accepit donum 
Spiritus, susceptis donis in altari superccelesti." (Nic. Cabasilas, Lit. 
Expos., cap. xxxvii., In Bibliotheca Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, torn. xxvi. 
p. 191.) 


" Ita etiam Christi Ecclesiam si quis videre potuerit, eo ipso quod 
ei unita est, et est ejus camis particeps, nihil aliud videbit quam 
ipsum Corpus Domini. Propter hanc rationem, Vos estis Corpus 
Christi, inquit Paulus, et membra ex parte." (Ibid., Lit. Expos., 
cap. XXX viii.. In Bibliotheca Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, tom. xxviii. 
p. 191.)» 

* In the following passage a doubt may be felt as to the nominative case of est : 
"Istaescaqaamaccipis, iste panis viyus qui descendit de coelo, vit», setemsB sub- 


So, also, it may be observed that Christ's representative presence in 
the poor is often spoken of in words which may illustrate the language 
of the Fathers concerning the Lord's Supper. Not only so, but it is 
sometimes set side by side with the Eucharistic Presence, and that in 
terms which show that the Presence in the Eucharist was certainly 
not considered as more real than that in the person of a needy, 
suflfering Christian. 

Indeed, some of the following extracts will be found to go far to 
justify the assertion that the Fathers taught Christians to regard 
Christ's Presence in His poor and suffering members more highly 
than His Body in the Eucharist : — 


*H ^£ BXavdlva eiri ^vXov Kpefxaardeiara . . . dia Tfjg evrovov wpoa- 

^^X^^f TToWjiv TpoOvfiiay toIq ayiavii^Ofxivoig eveTroUif fiXeirSvTioy 

avTUfy kv t^ dyatyi Ka\ roig e^iodey ocfidaXfJLoiQ ^la TfJQ a3cX0^c 

ray virep avTwv etnavpujfjLivoy. (Eccles. Vien. et Lugd. in Eusebius, 

Hist. Eccles., lib. v. cap. i., Oxford, 1845, p. 143.) 

'' GumpauperedomumunaingrediturChristus. . . . Quipauperem 

suas in asdes induxerit, Christum ipsum secum adduxit, qui ait: 

Beati misericordes. . . . Qui peregrinum suo sub tecto excipit, 

Christum ipsum suscipit." (Sermo, ** De Amore Pauperum," among 

the works not found in Syriac, attributed to Ephrem Syrus, Opera, 

edit. Venice, 1755, tom. i. p. 331.) 


Et Ti ovy kfjLoi weldetrdef ^ovXoi Xpiarrov, koI a^eX0o2, Kal d/y/cXiy- 

poydfJLOif eujg earl KaipoQf Xpiarroy eTrtcfCci^w/icOa, Xptorov depairevorioiJieyy 

Xpurrov Qpiy\ju}^ty^ XpLtrrby iydvorwfxeyy Xpiaroy (ri/vayayw/icv, Xpiarroy 

TifjLTiffUffiey, jjirf rpaTre^y fiSyoVf &g riyeg, fiTj^e fjLvpoiCf dtg ^ Mapla, 

fxr/Be TaiJHfi fidyoy, &g 'Idxrj)^ . . . aSX enei^rj eXeoy diXei Kal oh 

6v(riay 6 Trdvrwv ^e<nr6Trig, kol virep fxvpiadag &pyioy Trwyuty fj 

evcrirXayxylaf Tavrrfy £l<r(l>ip<iffiey avr^ ^la rCjy deofiiy<jjy. (Gregorius 

Nazianz., Oratio xiv. § xl., Opera, edit. Benedict, tom. i. p. 285.) 

stantiam subministrat ; et quicumque hunc manducaverit, non morietur in sBtemum: 
et est Corpus Christi. Conaidera nunc utrum preestantior sit panis Angelonim, an Caro 
Chriati, qura utique corpus est Titee." (De Mysteriis, cap. vlii. In Op. Ambrosii, ed. 
Bened., tom. ii. c. 337.) 

In this chapter the author proves that the Sacraments of the Christian Church are 
older than those of the Jews, by relating how Melchisedek ''protulit ea quae 
Abraham veneratus accepit " (§ 46). But none will maintain that what Melchizedek 
brought forth was the Body and Blood of Christ, otherwise than by effectual significa- 
tion. (See above, pp. 242, 264.) It is added (§ 46) : " ^fon igitur humani, sed divini 
est muneris sacramentum quod accepisti, ab eo prolatum qui benedixit fldei patrem 
Abraham, illius cujus gratiam et gesta miraris." (See above, pp. 34—86.) 



*0 5c "xflpo-y icai Ofxpavov oxjk iiKir\(rEv, ovlk fieriZtaKEV aprov jca 
TpOipriQ oX/yiyc t^ ^co/icvw, /idXAov ^e Xpiar^ r^ TpEf^ofiivw 5ia rw 
icac fiiKpioQ Tp£<liOfiiyu}y, (Gregorius Naz., Oratio xvi. § xviii. torn. i. 
p. 313.) 


Ml) KaTa<ppovr\(niQ tCjv KUfUvtav utg ovdevoc aj/wv, Aoyitrai, rivt^ 
£iflrl, Ka\ evpfitreiQ ahrioy to aj/oi/ia* tov ^WTfjpog rjfiutv to irpStrunrom: 
evehvoravTO, (Gregorius Nyss., Orat. i. De Pauperibus Amandies 
Opera, edit. Migne, torn. iii. c. 460.) 


'OptjyTeg avTov wpoaaiTovyTa wapaTpi')(OfiEv • . . aXXa koX vv -^ 
6 avTOQ kernv. avTog yap cIttcv, oti eyd) eifiC tIvoq oZv evekiv 
wdvra kevoIq*, Kal yap Kal vvv clkoveiq XiyovTog, 6ti Efioi ttoieIq' kc 

OV^EV TO fiiffOy &V TE TOVT^, &V TE EKeIv^ ^^Q • m . TO. pTjfxaTa ai/TOL. 

TTJQ 6\pE(t)Q fjfiQv TiffTOTEpa, CTTCiS^ CLV ovv *idyQ wEVTifra, CLvafivricrQri 
T&v prifjLCLTijjv hi u)v ihifKoVy on avTOQ ktrriv 6 TpEtftdfiEvoc » eI yap » 
TO <j>aiy6fiEvov ouk eoti Xpiarrog, aW ev tovt^ t^ (r)(fi/xaTiy avn 
XafifidyEi Koi irpoaraiTEl. (Chrysostom, In Alatth., Horn. Ixxxviii. 
Ixxxix., § 3, Opera, edit. MontfaiicoD, torn. vii. p. 828.) 


*EKEiyoi Eldoy tov aarripa koI E^apriaraV tru ^e avTOV opwv t^ov 
XptffToy ^yoy oyTa Ka\ yvfiyov ovk EwucdfjiirTy, (Ibid., In MattXs ., 
Horn. vii. § 6, Op., torn. vii. p. 113.) 


IIcDc OVK al<r)(p6y fiapfidpoig fiky irEptjiaXKEiv tovq Tolypvg £t«V 
jcal ficLTTfyf Toy 5c Xpiarroy yvfiybv 7rEpiEp')(6fJLEyoy irEpiopq,v\ (Ibid., 
Ad Pop. Antioch., Horn. ii. § 5, Op., torn. ii. p. 27.) 


''Orav wiyrjTa vttoScSij Trctvwvra Kal yvfiyby, ekeIvov [tov Xpunov] 

Ka\ vtteU^u) Kal edpE\f/aQ. (Ibid., In Matth., Horn, xxvii. § 1, Op., 

torn. vii. p. 314.) 

X. I 

TovTO TO dvariatrr^ptoy cj avTiHy tov Xpicrrov trvyKEiTox fieXAy K(d \ 
TO (rttffia tov ^EfnrdTOv OvtnatrrrjpLoy aoi yivETaC aidEtrdrp-i tovto 


dM* kv Trj aapicl OveiQ tov ^iariroTOv to Uptiov, rodro to dvfTia' 

(TT^pioy, Kai TOVTOv TOV vvy (jipiKiodiarTepov, ohyl tov TraXaiov 

/noyoy' d\\.a /ij) OopvfirfdfiTe. tovto fxky yap davfuaardy, ^la ti)v 

^Triridefiivriy ky avr^ dvaiay' eKelyo Be to ttjq eXeiifioyoc, oh Bia 

TOVTO fi6yoy, dWa Kdl oti koI !£ avTfjg orvyKeiTai Trjc Qvcriaq Tijg 

TOVTO TTOiovarrjg, davfiaarroy tovto naXiy, oti \idog fiiv cori Tfjy 

i^vaiyf &yioy de ylveTaL, eweldri (xCjfxa Zi')(tTaL Xpiarrov' eKeiro 5c, 

^TTEi^r} avTo (Tu)fia ttrri Xpiarrov, (Ghrysostom, In 2 Cor., Horn. xx. 
§ 3, Op., torn. x. p. 581.) 


Su di TO fiey dvariaarrfipioy tovto Tifx^g, oti S«)(cra£ tov Xpiarrov 
o-wfia' Toy M aitTo to (rdfia tov Xpicrrov ovTa KadvfipH^eig, Kal 
TTepiop^g airoWiffxeyoy, (Ibid., In 2 Cor., Horn. xx. § 3, Op., toin. 
X. p. 581.) 


BovXei TifjLfjorai tov XpiaTOv to arwfia ', jjirl irepuBi^g avToy yvfiyov, 

MTi^e eyTavda fiey avToy atfpiKoXg ifxaTioig Tifirf(ri^g, e^(o he vtto Kpvfxvov 

Kai yvfiyoTTjTog hia(t>deip6fJLeyoy Trepildrjg, 6 yap elirtby, tovto fxov core 

TO (riofxaf Koi r^ Xoyy to wpayfia /3ej3ata)srac, ovTog elire' ireiyCjyTa 

yuc iWc, Ka\ ovK edpiypaTe. (Ibid., In Mattb., Horn. 1. aL li., § 3, 
Op., torn. vii. p. 518.) 


" Nee tu deficias, quia non potesquod Martha,8uscipere Christum in 
domum tuam cum Apostolis suis : Facit te esse seourum^ quando uni 
ex minimis meis fecistis, mihi feoistis.'' * (Augustine, Serm. clxxix. 
§ 3, Opera, edit. Benedict. 1683, torn. v. par. i. c. 855.) 

* This and the following extract should be carefnlly considered in their bearing on 
the question of the Real Objective Presence. They could hardly have been written 
in the atmosphere of ideas cognate with that doctrine. Albertinus writes : 
" Quamobrem enim negaret Zaccheei et Marthse beatitudinem nobis contingere posse, 
si in Sacramento suo Dominus substantialiter ac personaliter in domos nostras intraret? 
Qua rursum de causa negationis hujus rationem arcesseret ab ascensione Domini ad 
dexteram Fatris, ipsiusque in ccelis sessione, nisi ipsum supponeret in coelo et in 
terra substantialiter simul esse non posse? Cur denique ad temperandam illam 
prsBsentisB Dominicaa negationem ad membrorum ejus mysticorum prsesentiam 
tanquam vicariam recurreret, si ilium in sacramento substantialiter ao realiter resi- 
dentem haberemus ? Ilium enim, licet invisibiliter, in sacramento habere, semper 
habere est, et quidemgloriosius quam ilium aut Zaccheeus olim, aut Martha recepe- 
rint, cum ipsum ii tunc passibilem, nos Jam (si ita est) gloriosum et impassibilem et 
immortalem habeamus. EJusmodique praesentia, utpote substantlalis et personalis 
longe est pretiosior reprsssentativa ilia per paupereset egenos, ad quam tamen solam, 
consolationis causa, velut quodammodo compensativam refugit." (De Eucharistia 
p. 646.) 



** Dominus intravit in domum illius [ZaccTisBi], O beatum ! Num- 
quid nobis potest ita contingere? Jam Ghristus in coelo est. Recita 
mihi Ghriste, testamentum novum. Fac beatum de lege tua. Kecita, 
ut scias to non fraudari Christi prsesentia. Audi judicaturum : Qaando 
uni ex minimis meis fecistis, mihi fecistis. Expectat unusquis([ue 
vestrum suscipere Christum sedentem in coelo, attendite eum 
jacentem sub porticu, attendite esurientem, attendite friguspatientem, 
attendite egenum, attendite peregrinum." (Augustine, De Scrip., 
SeriE. XXV. § 8, Opera, tom. v. par. i. c. 136.) 


" Videbis eum in omni paupere, et tanges eum in omni egeno, 
lecipies eum in omni hospite." (Paulinus Nol., Epist. xiii. ad 
Severum, In Biblioth. Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, tom. vi. p. 194.) 


"Sic sacrse mensse communicate debetis, ut nihil prorsus de 
veritate Corporis Christi et sanguinis ambigatis. Hoc enim ore 
sumitur, quod fide creditur ; et frustra ab illis Amen respondetur, a 
quibus conira id quod accipitur, disputatur. Dicente autem Propheia 
Beatus qui inteUigit super egenum et jpauperenif iile circa pauperts 
vestimentorum et ciborum laudabilis distributor est, qui se Christuu) 
ill indigentibus et vestire novit et pascere ; quoniam ut ipse air, 
Quamdiu fecistis uni de fratrihus meisy mihi fecistis, Verus itaque 
Deus et Verus homo unus est Ghristus, dives in suis, pauper in nostriss, 
dona accipiens et dona diffundens." (Leo Magu., De jejuni© Sepi- 
Men., Serm. vi., In Bibliotheca Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, tom. vii. 
p. 1068.) 


*' Hos enim ego omnes non alitor quam imitutores Christi honoro, 
non aliter quam Christi imagines coJo, non aliter quam Christi 
membra susoipio.'* (Salvianus Massil., sub nomine Timothei, Ad 
Eccles. Gath., lib.ii., In Bibliotheca Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, tom. viii. 
p. 387.) 

So also Fulgentius says : "Putas jam non tibi licere soscipere Christum. Unde, 
inquis, licot ? " And his answer says nothing of any Real Presence in the Eucharist : 
" Ille dives egens est . . .in membris suis. . . . Obsequamur Christo, et nobiscumest 
in suis, nobiscum est in nobis." (Homil. xxxvii., De tertio die Paschse, In 
Bibliotheca Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, tom. ix. p. 135.) 

Such an answer, with such an omission, could scarcely have come from a mind which 
had ever apprehended the conception of the Komish doctrine of the Eucharistic 



'* Quare ergo dubitet aliquis indigentem pascere, cum vidoat se ista 
Christo nostro in pauperis refectioneconferre?" (Valerianus, Hom.ix., 
Ill Bibliotheca Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, torn. viii. p. 600.) 


'* Intelliges ibi esse Christum nostrum, ubi abundantiam videris 
lachrymarum. Nee enim longetibi qua)rendus est Dominus, si uon 
bis avarus. Expectat nos ecce foris. . . . Jpsum solas esse Christum 
uostrumy quern videris nudum, quern aspexeris csBCum, quem offen- 
deris claudicantem, quem pannis involutum, quem videris sordida 
veste contectum. In hac denique veste, cum a Magis quaereretur 
inventus est: et cum in proBsepi positus jaceret, sub hoc habitu 
apertis thesauris munera oblata susoepit." (Ibid., Homil.vii. De 
Miserioordia, In Bibliotheca Max. Patr., Lugd. 1(377, torn. viii. 
p. 507.) 


" Quando enim pauper esurit, Christus indiget. . . . Esurit modo 
Christus fratres in omnibus pauperibus : ipse esurire et sidre dig- 
natur, et quod in terra accipit, in coelo reddit." (CaBsarius Arelat., 
Homiiia xxii., In Bibliotheca Max. Patr., Lugd. 1G77, torn. viii. 
p. 842.) 


'' Omnis qui jam eleemosynas facit,qui jam in bonis operibus 8tudet» 
quasi Christum in convivium recipit, Christum pascit, quia eum in 
luembris suis sustentare non desiuit." (Angelomi Stromata, In Cant. 
Cant., cap. i., In Bibliotheca Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, torn. xv. 
p. 419.) 

NOTE H. (p. 181). 

Ofi the TeacJiing of the Fathers as to the Res Sacramenti 
of the Eucharist being the object of Spiritual Senses. 

It should be observed how, in the teaching of the Fathers, man is to 
be regarded as having spiritual needs and spiritual senses correspond- 
ing to those of his body; and while the sacramentum is the object of 
the touch, sight, taste of the outer man, the re8 saoramentiis the object 
of the spiritual senses — the touch, sight, taste of the inner man. 
Thus the real eating and drinking of the Body and Blood of Christ 


is regarded as tbe spiritual act of the sou], which has a spiritual mouth 
for this purpose. 

In accordance with this view, the receiving, eating, and drinking of 
the Spiritual Food signified and conveyed by the outward signs of 
bread and wine is the office of faith. It is by faith's operation that 
the soul is fed. Eating is by believing.* The eating of the flesh oP 
the Son of Man is by believing that He died and gave Himself foir 
our sins. 

In accordance with this view also, Christ's Body is said to be eate 
and Christ's Blood to be drunk in the Scriptures,f as well as in th 
Sacraments; and the Gospel itself is accordingly sometimes spoken or ^ 
as the Body of Christ : t &nd the remission of sins as the living bread ^^H 
and the feeding on it as the feeding on eternal life. 

* In the Confession of the Waldenses (1542) we seem to have a witness that this faitC ^-^ 
lived on in Alpine vallejrs throngh ages of snperstition and in spite of cmel peneci^c=i^ 
tion : " Errant qui affinnant in Casaa Christi corpus comedi corporaliter : caro eniig 3 
nihil prodest : Spiritus est, qui vivificat. Fideles igitur yere Jesu Christi canieE=r:=:=^ 
edunt, et sanguiuem bibunt spiritualiter in ipsomm eordious.*' (Confess. Yald. 
Crispin, Act. Mart., lib. lii. p. 108.) 

Again : " Quisquis credit Jesus Christum, tradidisse corpus snum, et prof 
disse sanguinem, ad remissionem peccatorum, ille comedit camem, et bibit 
nem Domini.'* (Ibid.) 

See Faber's "Ancient Vallenses and Albigenses," pp. 441, 442. 

t Special attention should be directed to the way in which the Fathers speak dWr-^^ 
of the eating of Christ's Body in the Scriptures and in the sacrament. There is n»'C? 
the slightest appearance of an intention or desire to draw a clear distinction betwee:xx 
the eating in the one case and the other. 

Dean Goode (who in his yaluable work on the Eucharist has quoted several of tho 
passages given below, i. pp. 823— 82R) says very well : "The force of these passages lie« 
more especially in the way in which the two modes of eating the Flesh and drinking 
the Blood of dirist are cfmjfied togetJier. We cannot suppose that the writers con- 
sidered them to be so dissimilar in their nature as the authors under review would 
have them to be. The latter admit, as of course they are compelled to do, that tb0 
Fathers say we eat the Flesh of Christ and drink His Blood in reading the Scriptures ; 
but they contend that the Fathers give this only as a metaphorical application of oar 
Lord's words, and confine the proper sense of His words to our participation of tbe 
Eucharist. But the passages just quoted are entirely opposed to this view. They 
connect together the acts in which it is said that we eat the Flesh and drink the Blood 
of Christ in a way that is inconsistent with such a notion, and at least implies 
a similarity in the mode in which such communion takes place in those acti." 
(P. 326.) 

I think it might have been added, that so far as these sayings of the Fathers make 
any distinction of propriety in the two means of eating, they seem to give the highest 
place to the Seriptures. 

t It is not pretended that each of the following extracts by itself would suffice t^ 
give evidence against the Heal Objective Presence. Some will be found to go muc 
further than others in witness against materialistic views of the Eucharist. B 
those which would separately be, perhaps, of little value, are capable of add! 
something to the sum of the testimony afforded by a general view of the whole. 

It is also acknowledged that similar language may sometimes be found In 



^ipei . • . olyoy ff dfiireXogy toe dX^ia 6 Adyoc* dfi(pu) ^e apOpajnoic 
voTOv elg ertorrfplav' 6 fxtv oIvoq, t^ ffOffxaTi' to de alfia, r^ iryev/iari, 

writings of some of those who adopted the views of Paschasius. With such writers 
the materialistic is, of course, subservient to that which is spiritual in their view of 
the Eucharist. And thus they seem to bear witness to the uselessness of a Presence, 
which only serves for a purpose for which effectual symbols would suffice. See 
above, p. 177. 

Indeed the holding of these views, together with the doctrine of theB^al Objective 
Presence, seems unavoidably to lead to something like the statement of contradictory 
doctrines : as may be strikingly seen in the writings of the justly celebrated John 
Wessel of Gansfort, who, in addition to the cognomen of Lux Mundi, acquired also 
the appellation of •* Magister Contradictionum." (See Ullmann's " Keforraers before 
the Reformation," vol. 11. pp. 26S, 881, ed. Clark.) In one place he writes : "Quisquis 
credit fide non Acta omnipotentiee Dei, sub speuiebus panis et vini veraciter sanc- 
tam illam camem, sanctum ilium sanguinem . . . prsssentialiter contineri, nonuihil 
spiritalis vitse experitur in se," &c. (De Sacr. Eueh., cap. vili.. Opera, p. 673, Gronin., 

In another place he writes : " Qui credunt in Eum, hi sunt qui manducant camem 
Ejus. . . . Manducabat ergo Paulus primus Eremita, etiam temporibus illis, quibus 
mortalem nullum, ne dicam sacerdotem, communicafatem videbat. Sed manducabat, 
quia credebat, et quod credebat, crebro commemorabat, quod commemorabat dili- 
genter considerabat, quod desiderabat, esuriebat et sitiebat." (Ibid., cap. x. p. 078.) 
Again : '' Quisquis visibiliter manducans, nisi spiritualiter manducet, non manducat.' 
(Ibid., cap. viii. p. 674.) Again : " Interior homo, quomodo manducat camem, et 
sanguinem quomodo bibit, ubi non est nisi mens, intelligentia ? Ita circa Yerbum 
camem .... versetur interior homo, id est mens, intelligentia, voluntas, quemad- 
modum os, fauces, et stomachus exterior circa epulas negotiantur." (Ibid., cap. ix. 
p. 676.) And again : " Sacramentalis panis, quia sacramentalis est, et sacramentum 
signiflcativum est, signiflcatione nutrit et reflcit.'' (Ibid., cap. xiii. p. 688. Compare 
pp. 666, 660, 664, 696, 697. See also Domer's Hist, of Protestant Theol., vol. i. p. 78, 
ed. Clark ; and Ullmann, vol. ii. pp. 285, 508 sqq. Compare also Gabriel Biel, " S. 
Canonis Missse Expos.," Lect. xl. and Ixxxvi.) 

There is a remarkable passage in the writings of Hildebertus Cenomanensis, in 
which he sets a sajdug of our Lord side by side with a saying of St. Augustine (which 
he regards as another sajriug of our Lord's) as teaching apparently contradictory 
doctrines. He says : " Inconstans verbo putabatur, dum contraria tradere videretur. 
Qui enim dixerat : Nisi manducaverUis camem msam^ et biberitis sanguinem meum, 
wm Jiabebitis vita>m in vobis, ipse idem ait : Non fioe corpus quod videtis, manducaturi 
estis; nee bibituri ilium sanguinem^ quern, fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent.^ (Sermo 
xii., De prsBclaris innos Christi beneflciis. Opera, ed. Benedict. 1708, c. 719, 720.) 

In his hands the reconciliation is effected by a method which seems virtually to 
involve the sacrifice of the Eeal Objective doctrine, and (notwithstanding the elabo- 
rate note of Beaugendre) can hardly— to ordinary minds at least— be made consistent 
with his own doctrine elsewhere : unless, indeed, his teaching of transubstantiation 
may be understood of a doctrine differing (in one essential particular, at least) from 
the doctrine subsequently known by that name. 

The first saying he applies to spiritual manducation of spiritual flesh : ** (De spiri- 
tuali came ait ; quam nemo sumit injuste, nemo sumit ad mortem, nemo manducat 
nisi bonus ") ; the second saying he understands of sacramental manducation ; and 
the sacramental Body which is its object is thef ef ore another Body, distinct from the 
natural Body of Christ. (" Non hoe corpus quod videtis, &c. de sacramentali mandu- 
catione ait, quia boni et mall Corpus Christi sumunt : " p. 721.) 


(Clem. Alex., Psedag. i. c. v., Opera, edit. Potter, Venice, 1767, torn. i. 
p. 107.) 

" Itaque sermonem constituens vivificatorem, quia spiritus et vita 
sermo, eumdem etiam Camem suam dixit ; quia et sermo caro erat 
factus; proinde in causam yitSB appetendus, et devorandus auditu, et 
ruminandus intellectu, et fide digerendus." ( Tertullian, De Resurrec- 
tioDe Carnis, § xxxvii., Opera, edit. Bigaltius^ 1689, p. 347.) 


'O ^tJrrip (^riffiv' 'Eyu» el/il 6 aprog 6 *eK rov ovpavov KaTafiaQ, 
Tovroy ovy tov aproy ritrQioy fxey irporepov &yye\oi, yvvi ^e koi 
aydptJTTOi. To icrdUiy eyravda ro yivwfTKeiy ciy/xatVci. Tovro yap 
etrduL yovg o kol yiyu)(TKeiy koi rovro ovk etrdUi o ov yiru)(TK€i, 
(Origen, Selecta in Psalmos, Psal. Ixxvii. v. 25, Opera, edit. Migne, 
torn. ii. c. 1541.) 


" Evidenter ostenditur membrorum hsec nomina nequaquam corpori 
visibili aptari posse, sed ad invisibilis animsB partem virtutesque 
debere revocari : quoniam et vocabula quidem babent similia, aperte 
autem et sine ulla ambiguitate non exterioris, sed interiorls hominis 

Whatever, in this teaching, the Sacramental Body and Blood may be, it is clearly 
not the Body which was crucified, nor the Blood which was shed on the cross ; and 
the oral manducation of this sacramental Body is not at all that which is meant by 
the saying, "Nisimanducaveritis," &c. 

It is, perhaps, by mistake that Hildebert has been regarded as having been a pupil 
of Berengarius. (See Canon Kobertson's History of Christian Church, vol. iv. p. 368, 

Let the reader be asked to mark also the incongruous connection of the material and 
the spiritual in such teachings as the following : " Christus de ore transit ad cor : 
melius est ut procedat in mentem quam descendat in ventrem. Cibus hie non carnis 
sed animae venit ut comedatur, non ut consumatur ; utgustetur, nonut incorporetur; 
ore comeditur sed non in stomacho digeritur, reficit animum, non effluit in secessum. 
. . . Species quidem corroditur et maculatur, sed Veritas numquam corrumpitur aut 
coinquinatur. Si quando tale quid videris, nihil time illi ; sed esto sollicitus tibi, ne 
tu forte Isedaris si male credideris." (Peter Damiani, Expositio Canonis Missse, § 6, 
In Mai's Script. Vet. Nov. Coll., tom. vi. par. ii. p. 215.) 

"Pascuntur corpore, sed animd saginantur. Dentibus atterunt, sed quod ad 
mentem integrum perveniat." (Ven. Hildebertus Tur., In Euch. Sacr., Op., c. 497, 
ed. Beaugendre, 1708. See also c. 409.) 

" Quis capiat intellectus qualiter caro Christi quotidie de coelis ad nos in altare, et 
ab altari in nos venit, nee tamen ccelos deserit unde venit? .... Quid enim divinius, 
quam quod Christi Corpus, cum caro sit, et non spiritus, cibus tamen est non carnis 
et corporis, sed spiritus et mentis. Cibus quidem interioris hominis est, nee tamen 
humanus, sed divinus spiritualiter et divind in spiritum vadens, non se in spiritam 
convertens, sed spiritum spiritualiter et divind pascens, spiritualiter intrans, 
Bpiritualiter opemns." (Ibid., c. 1103.) 


fli gaificantias gerunt.''^ Est ergo materialis hujus hominis, qui ot 
exterior appellatur, cibus potusque naturae suae cognatus, corporeus iste 
scilicet et terrenus. Similiter autem et spiritalis hominis ipsius qui 
et interior dicitur, est proprius cibus, ut panis ille vivus qui de coelo 
descendit Sed et potus ille est ex ilia aqua quam promittit Jesus, 
dioens : Quicunque biberit ex hao aqua quam ego do ei, non sitiet in 
setemum. Sic ergo per omnia similitudo quidem vocabulorum secun- 
dum utrumque hominem ponitur : rerum vero proprietas unicuique 

* So Gregory Nysa. : 'AvoXoyta ydp tIq Itrrl toIq rj/vxtKoiQ Kivrjiiatrt Kai Ivip" 
yfijjuKTiv TTpbg tcl tov awfUiTOQ ai(j9r]Tr]pia. (In Cant. Cantic, Horn, i., Opera, 
edit. Migne, torn. i. c. 780.) 

See also Basil Ceesar. as quoted below, p. 836. 

SoYigiliusTaps. : " Spiritualia Apostoli yerba spiritualiter advertamus, quibus se, 
non oculis et manibus corporeis, sed interioris hominis membris vidisse et palpasse 
Verbum Dei testatur. Quia quibus naribus odor ejus hauritur, et quo ore suavitas 
ejus gustatur, ipsis oculis et auribus, et manibus contrectatur. . . . Credere ergo in 
FiUum Dei, hoc est videre, hoc est audire, hoc est odorari, hoc est gustare, hoc est 
contrectare eum." (Contra Eutych., lib. iv. § xxii., Opera, edit. ChifBetii, Divionr, 
1664, p. 64.) 

St. Chrysostom in a well-known passage declares that if we had been incorporeal, 
Christ would have delivered His gifts bare ; but because the soul is inclosed in the 
body. He gives us things, in sensible things, which are to be perceived by the mind— 
fv aiaOriToiQ rd. vorjra, (In Matt., Horn., §4, Opera, edit. Mont. 

faucon, tom. vii. p. 787.) 

Nicholas Cabasilas, maintaining a participation by disembodied spirits, argues that 
in the case of those in the flesh the organs of reception are those of the spirit, not of 
the body. Whether or not in this he is perfectly consistent with himself, he is herein 
doubtless bearing witness to a belief older than corruptions which may have over- 
shadowed it. He says : " Consideremus causas sanctiflcationis, an non etiam animae 
mortuorum se habent, sicut et viventium. Queenam sunt autem causa sanctiflca- 
tionis? Numquid coipus habere, pedibus ad mensam 'currere, manibus sancta 
accipere, ore sumere, comedere, bibere? Nequaquam: Ad multos enim qui heec 
fecerunt, et ita ad mysteria accessenint, nulla rediit utilitas, et pluribus malis 
obnoxii recesserunt. Sed quesnam sunt causes sanctiflcationis lis qui sanctiflcantur, 
et quae sunt quae Christus a nobis exigit? animae purgatio, in Deum dilectio, fldeles, 
desiderium mysterii, alacritas ad participationem, fervens appetitio, sitientes cur- 
rere. HcDc sunt qucD banc sanctiflcationem attrahunt, et cum quibus necesse est eos 
qui accedunt esse Christi participes, et sine quibus fleri non potest. Sed hssc omnia 
non sunt corporalia, sed dependent a sola anima." (Liturgise Expositio, cap. xlii.. 
In Biblloth. Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, tom. xxvi. p. 192. See Claude's argument from 
this, ** Cath. Doctr. of Euch.," London, 1684, par. i. pp. 146—151.) 

Cabasilas argues further (cap. xliii.)— (1) That the gift is given only to worthy 
receivers, and that by Christ Himself. He says : " Non enim omnes quibus dat 
sacerdos, vere sumunt. sed illi omnino soli quibus dat ipse Chilstus. Sacerdos enim 
omnibus, ut semel dicam, qui accedunt. Christus autem dat lis solum qui participes 
esse digni sunt." (P. 198.) (2) Cabasilas also argues that the gift can affect the body 
only through the soul. He says : " Quoniam autem iis etiam qui a'dhuc vivunt 
corpore, datur quidam donum per corpus, sed primum pervadit in animse substan- 
tiam, et per animam in corpus transmittitur. Et hoc signiflcans beatus Paulus : 
Qui adhseret, inquit, Domino, unus est spiritus, utpote quod in anima primo et 
principaliter heec unio et conjunctio consistat." 


discreta seiratur, et [corrnptibili] comiptibilia prsBbentur, incormpia- 
bili vero incorruptilia proponuntur." (Origen,* In Canticum GantiLc, 
Prologas, interp. Bufino, Opera, edit. Migne, torn. iiL c. 66.) 


" Nobis et panis, verbum Dei est. Ipse enim panis vivus, qui de 
CQclo descendit, et vitam dat huic mundo. . . . Nee mireris quia 
verbum Dei et caro dicitur, et panis, et lac dicitur, et olera dicitur, 
et pro mensura credentium, vel possibilitate sumentium diverse 
nominatur." (Ibid., In Exod., Homil. vii. § 8, Opera, edit. Migne, 
torn. ii. c. 348.) 


** Sed tu qui ad Christum venisti, pontificem verum, qui sanguine 
sao Deum tibi propitium fecit, et reconciliavit te Patri, non hsereas 
in sanguine carnis ; sed disce potius sanguinem Verbi, et audi ipsum 
tibi dicentem, quia ' hie sanguis meus est, qui pro vobis effundetur in 
remissionem peccatorum.' Novit qui mysteriis imbutus estet camem 
et sanguinem Verbi Dei." (Ibid., In Levit., Homil. ix. § 10, Opera, 
edit. Migne, tom. ii. c. 523.) 


" Hie ergo sanguis qui nominatur uvsb, illius uvsB est qusd nascitur 
ex ilia vite, de qua Saivator dicit : ' Ego sum vitis vera,' discipuli vero 
* palmites, Pater autem agricola est,' qui purgat eos, ut fructum 
plurimum afiferant. Tu ergo es Terus populus Israel, qui scis san- 
guinem bibere, et nosti carnem Verbi Dei comedere, et sanguinem 
bibere,et uvse sanguinem illius qu8B est ex vera vite etillis palmitibus 
quos Pater purgat, ha«rire. Quorum palmitum fructus, vulneratorum 
sanguis merito dicitur, quem ex verbis eorum et dootrina bibimus, 
si tamen simus ut catuli leonis exsurgentes, et ut leo exsultantes." 
(Ibid., In Num., Homil. xvi. § 9, Opera, edit Migne, tom. ii c. 702.) 


" Hoc quod mode loquimur, cames sunt Verbi Dei ; si tamen non 
quasi infirmis olera, aut quasi pueris lactis alimoniam proferamus. 
Si perfecta loquimur, si robusta, si fortiora, cames vobis Verbi Dei 
apponimus comedendas.'' (Ibid., In Num., Horn, xxiii. § 6, Opera, 
edit. Migne, tom. ii. c. 752.) 


" 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. Propterea ergo et caro ejus verus est 

* On the aathonhip see ilbertinos, De Each., p. 861. 


cibus, et sanguis ejus Terus et potus. Camibus enim et sanguine 
verbi sui tanquam mundo cibo ao potu, potat et reficit omne hominum 
genus." (Origen, In Levit, Uomil. vii. § 6, Opera, edit Migne, torn, 
il c. 486, 487.) 


** Bibere autem dicimur sanguinem Christi, uon solum sacramento- 
rum ritu, sed ei cum sermones ejusrecipimus, in quibus vita consistir, 
sicut et ipse dicit: 'Verba qusB locutus suoi, spiritus et vita est/ 
Est ergo ipse vulneratus, cujus nos sanguinem bibimus, id eat, 
doctrines ejus verba suscipimus/' (Ibid., lo Num., Horn, xvi., Opera, 
edit. Migne, torn. ii. c. 101.) 


" Non enim panem ilium visibilem quern tenebat in manibus, corpus 
suam dicebat Deus Verbum, sed verbum in cujus mysterio fuerat 
panis ille frangendus. Neo potum ilium visibilem sanguinem suum 
dicebat, sed verbum in cujus mysterio potus ille fuerat efiundenduB. 
Nam Corpus Dei Verbi, aut sanguis, quid aliud esse potest, nisi 
verbum quod nutrit, et verbum quod IsBtificat cor?"* (Ibid., In 
Matt. xxvi. 26 sqq., Op., ed. Migne, torn. iii. c. 1734, 1735.) 


E3 core, 6ti to. p^fxara fxov a XeXaXrjKa v/xTv, iryevfia etrn icai 
iwfj karC ^jtrre ahra sJyai to. prifiara koi tovq \6yovg avrov, rriy ffdpKa 
*fai TO alfxa, u)y 6 neTi-)(<ujy aci, UKravel apT^ ovpavl^ Tp£(l>6fjLivoQ, Tfjg 
ohpayiov ^edi^ei ^ijfJQ, (Eusebius Caesar., Contra Marcell. de Eccles. 
X'heol., lib. iii. c. xii., appended to Demonstr. Evangel., Paris, 1028, 
p. 180.) 


Am rovro Trjg elg ohpavovg ayaPd(reu)g kfxvr}fi6vEV(Tt tov vlov tov 

^^vdpatTTOVj iva Tfjg (TiofiariKfig kyvo'tag avrovg iitpiXKvtrrj, Kal Xoiiroy 

"^/ly elprffxiyrfy rrdpKa fipQffiy ^.viodey ovpavLOv, koX iryevfjLaTiicrjy 

''^po^^v Trap' avTov lilofiiyriy udduxriy* (Atbanasius, Epist. iv. ad 

^erap., § 19, Opera, edit. Benedict., Patav. 1777, torn. i. par. ii. p. 568.) 

^Iffoy T(p ehnlyy to fiey huKyvfxeyoy koi di^d^tyoy virep Tfjg tov 

*^6(TiJOv (TVJTqplag effTiy ff trap^ fjy kyitt (j>op(o, aW avTrj vfuy koI to 
>"aiT?yc aJfxa irap kfwv iryevfiariKUfg ^odrjtreTai Tpotp^j Sttrre 7rv€v/xa- 
fiKtog ky kicdarT^ Tuvrriv dyahldatrdai, Kal ylyecrdai Trdai (pvXaKrfipioy 
etc dyderratny ((ofjg aUoyiov, (Ibid., p. 568.) 

* See above, p. 101. The pasBage should be read in connexion with the other 
extracts here given from Origen. 


01 elXiKpivtog rrly eytrapKov avrov ohcovofiiay irapa^e^afievoi, Koi 
Tip Tfjg ypv\fig \oyi(T^ Zlol rfjg frvyKaTadetniag tifnrep airoyevaafievoi 
Tov ^oyfJLaTOQ, XoyiKutg ktrQiovffi Trjy apKa koi fxeroKanfiavovtri ^ta 

T^C iritrrewg tov oifiaTog. (Theodorus Heracleotes, In Cat. Patr. 
Graec. in S. Joann. ex antiquissimo Cod. MS., edit Corderius, Antw. 
1630, p. 193, cap. vi. vs. 55.) 


Tevtratrde Kal l^ere on 'Xp''i(TTog 6 Kvpiog' TroXXa^ov TerrfpriKafuy, 
OTL Tolg t^isiQey fiiXsfriy ofiujyvfuog ai Ttjg ypv^g irpotrayopevoyTai 
Zvya^LEig, eml ^e &pTog eerrly aXridiyog 6 Kvpiog fifiioyf koi ff (rap^ 
avTOv aXrjdrjg ETn (Spioffig, ayayKi) rrfy ff^oyrjy Tfjg evippotrvytig tov 
apTOv, Sia yevffFijg fi/jiiy yortTfjg eyylyetrdai.* (Basil Cassar., Horn, in 
Psalm, xxxiii. § 6, Opera, edit. Garnier, Paris, 1721, torn. i. pp. 148, 


rTpoc ^j) TOVTO Xiyofiey, otl etrrl fuv tl koi yotfrbv trrofia tov 
ev^ov aydpojirov, w Tpeffterai fji£TaXafij3dyu>y tov \6yov Tfjg ^u)^g, 6g 
eoTiy apTog Ik tov ovpayov Karafiag. (Ibid., § 1, p. 144.) 


OvTog 6 apTog ovk elg KoCKiav x^pei koX elg a(f>£^pGtya EKflaXKeTai, 
a\X elg irdfray tjov Trjy (rvtrratriy ayadldoTai, elg Gxj>e\eiay (rinfiaTog^- 

Koi i/^x^^' (C**- Myst, In Op. Cyril. Hieros., lib. v. § 15, edit. 
Ben., p. 329.) 


'*Qi(Tirep yap 6 apTog (riofiaTi KaToXKrjXog, ovtu} koi A6yog Ty 4^'^ 
apfjLodiog, (Ibid., Catech. xxii., Myst. iv. § v.. Opera, edit. Ben., 
p. 321.) 


UpoKOTTTei ii yfnjxVf Xafiovtra i^tOTjy HyevfiaTog fiytov, kolL airoyev" 
crafieyr} tov *Apyiov koi ypi(TQe7(Ta t^ oifxaTi avrov, Ka\ (f>ayov(ra tov 
aXrjdivoy apToy, Toy C^^vra Aoyov. (Macarius, iEgypt, Horn, xlvii., 
§ xi.. Opera, edit. Migne, c. 804.) 

* Compare Hesychius Hieros. : " Qui in nobis est divinus Spiritus, et seimo quern 
tradidit qui in nobis sunt, componit sensus, et non solum nostrum gustum producit 
ad mysterium, sed et auditum, et visum, et tactum, et odoratum, ita ut nil in eis 
minori rationi, et inflrmse menti proximum, de his videlicet, quae valdc supema sunt, 
suspicemur." (In Levit., Ub. vi. cap. xxii., In Bibl. Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, torn. xii. 
p. 148. See below, p. 344, No. bdii.) 



0« fieraXa/JL/iavoyTec f*^ tov (j>aiyoiiivov &pTOv, TryevfjiaTiKiHQ ri/y 
oapKa rov Kvplov ktrQbvm* (Macarius, Horn, xxvii. § xvii. c. 700.) 


S(ii/iaro7rot€t yap kavroy koX Hq (ipiatny koX irocriy 6 Kvpiogj KadioQ 
yiypairrai ky rip EvayycX/^* 'O Tpijjytjy Toy &pToy rovroy, ^rjo'eTai 
etc Toy alSjya, tya ayawavmri dv€«cXa\^rwc> koI kfiirXijefy ehcfipoffvyriQ 
iryevfiaTiKfig r^v xl^v^rfy' koI yap (^iitny' *Eyw tlfiL 6 dproc Tfjg fw>7c. 
*OfioiwQ KOI elg irotny yafiaroe kirovpaylov, KadutQ <l>rj(Tiy, *0 irlyuty 
€K rov vdarog ov kyd) ^cuo'di ahrfj yeyrjaerai ky ahrf irriyrj v^arog 
aXKofiiyov elg i^tor^y alwyioy' Kal ir^yreg, ^lyo'i, to ahro Trofxa kiro- 
Tiadrffiey . . . koI kyd) yofxii^b), &ri Mwvo-^f Kara iratray &pay ky rto 
€p£i, kv rij Twy TefftrepaKoyra fjfJLspCjy yr^mtiq, elg kKslyrfy rj)j/ wyev- 
jiariK^y rpawei^ay ilffep^S/ieyog kyerpvtpa Kal ^.TriXavey, (Ibid., 
Homil. iv. § 12, 13, Opera, edit. Migne, c. 481.) f 


"QiOTep ovy t^ ffbjfxaTi , , . rj fci^y) ovk k^ eavrov kcrrlyy aXX* e^iodey 
avTOv , . . ovTW Kal ^ 4^^* • • • *^^X^' 7^9 ^ ^^^^ (pvtrig Kal &pToy 
iiDfjg, Toy £i7r($vra, 'Eya» elfii 6 aprog rfjg i^tofjg' Kal *^Y^iop (toy* Kal 
Ojyoy evippalyovra Kap^lay 6.ydpb}7rov. (Ibid., Homil. i. § xi., 
Opera, c. 461.) 


Zti)rig aprog Karafialyioy 6 rov Qeov BptimKog X6yog karl, oy ktrdiei 
6 Trpog avroy kp^dfxeyog r^ rrjy dperfjy kyepyuy, cttcc^^ de oh fidyoy 
^la Trpd^ewg liyai ^ei Trpog avroy aXXa Kal kirKTrrifioyiKUig iriarrevoyra 
Kara deutplay aXridfj irlyei rig f J avrov, kK Trjyy^c v^utp fwv, Kal k^ 
afiTriXov oJyoy evc^palyoyra Kapdiay aydpuiirov Xa^fiayijy* (Didymus, 
In Catena Patr. GrsBc. in S. Joan, ex antiquissimo Cod. MS., edit. 
Corderius, Antw. 1030, p. 196, c. vi. vs. 59, 60.) 


*^ Dominus Jesus aguam de petra effudit, et omnes biberunt. Qui 
bibenint in typo, satiati sunt, qui bibeiunt in veritate inebriati sunt. 

Utrumque ergo poculum bibe veteris et novi Testamenti, 

quia in utroque Christum bibis. Bibe Christum, quia vitis est: 
bibe Christum, quia fons vitse est : ... . bibe Christum, ut bibas 
sanguinem quo redemptus es: bibe Christum, ut bibas sermones 

• See above, p. 289. 

t Compare "De Elevatione Mentte," § vll., Op., c. 896. 

ejus. . . Bibitur scriptura divina, et devorantur ScriptursB diviDse, 
cum in venas mentis ac vires animsB suocus verbi descendit sBtemi."'^ 
(Ambrosius, In Psalm, i. Enar. § 33, Opeta, edit. Benedict, Paris, 
1686, torn. i. c. 753, 754.) 


" Hie est panis vitse. Qui ergo vitam manducat, mori non potest 
Quomodo enim morietur, cui cibus vita est? " (Ibid., In Ps. cxviii., 
Serm. xviii. § 28, Opera, tom. i. c. 1203.) 


" Ego sum panis vivus : si panem meum acceperit, vivet 

m setemum. Ille enim accipit, qui seipsum probat: qui autem 
accipit, non morietur peccatoris morte, quia panis hie remissio 
peccatorum est" (Ibid., De Benedic. Patriarch, cap. ix.. Opera, 
Paris, 1686, tom. i. c. 525.) 


"Quisquis ergo verbo Christi pascitur, terrenum pabulum non 
requirit; nee enim potest ssBCuli panem cupere, qui pane reficitur 
Salvatoris. Habet enim Dominus suum panem, immo panis ipse 
Salvator est, sicut docuit dicens: Bgo sum panis, &c. ...... 

Negligit enim famem corporis, qui pabulo lectionis intendit : nee 
ventris curam habere poterit, qui alimentum verbi coelestis adqnirit 
Ipsa est enim refectio, qu8B saginat animam, quae impinguat viscera ; 
cum de divinis Scripturis cibum eloquii perennis accipimus. Ipsa 
est esca, qusB vitam setemam tribuit, et insidias a nobis diabolicse 
tentationis excludit. Quod autem sacrarum literarum lectio vita 
sit, Dominus testatur dicens : Verba qucB loquutus sum vobis, spiritus 
et vita sunt" (Sermo xxvii. De jejunio Dom., Quadrag. xi. In Op. 
Ambros., edit. Benedict, Paris, 1690, tom. ii. App. c. 429.) 


Uepl doyfidrafVy avta koI kcltuj errpifwv rrjv iriariv tt)v eIq kavr6vA 
(Chrysostom, In Joan., Hom. xvii. al. xlvi. § 2, Opera, edit. Mont- 
faucon, tom. viii. p. 277.) 


*0c av (j>ayrj Ik tov aprov rovrov, f^cerai elg roy aiStva. &proy he 
^TOt TO. hoyfiara \iyet eyravda ra trwrripia, koI Trjy Trhriv rfjy cif 
avToy, 5 TO o-cD/xa to kavrov. (Ibid., In Johan., Hom. xlvL aL xlv. 
tom. viii. c. 270.) 

* So HeaychiuB Hieros. : "Panes quidem primitiaruxn duos, i.e. legem et Ev&Dge- 
lium : panes enim sunt cibi animarum fidelium," (In Levit., lib. vi. cap. xziiL, In 
Bibl. Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, tom. xii. p. 154a.) 

/ Tbjs is Chrysostom'B acconxit ot tbe liard saying in John yl. 


"No8 autem audiamus paoem, quern fregit Dominus, deditque 

disoipulis suis, esse Corpus Domiui SalvatoriS) ipso dioente ad eos, 

Acdpite, et comedite, hoo est Corpita meum : et oalioem ilium esse, de 

quoiterum loquutus est: Bihite ex hoc omnes : hie est enim Sanguis 

mens novi Testamenti, qui pro multis eff'undetur, do, Iste est calix 

de quo in Propheta legimus : Calioem salutarem aooipiam. Et alibi : 

Calix tuus inebrians quam prcsolarus est. Si ergo panis» qui de coelo 

descendit, Corpus est Domini; et vinum quod disoipulis dedit, 

Sanguis illius est novi Testamenti qui pro multis effusus est in 

remissionem peccatorum, Judaicas fabnlas repellamus, et ascendamus 

cum Domino coenaculum magnum, stratum, atque mundatum, et 

accipiamus ab eo sursum calicem novi Testamenti; ibique cum eo 

Pascha celebrantes, inebriemnr ab eo vino sobrietatis. Non enim 

est regnum Dei cibus, et potus^ sed justitia, et gaudium, et pax in 

Spiritu Sanoto. Ne Moyses dedit nobis panem verum ; sed Dominvs 

Jesus : ipse oonviva et convivium, ipse comedens. et qui oomeditur. 

Illius bibimus Sanguinem, et sine ipso potare non possumus, et 

quotidie in sacrlficiis ejus de genimine vitis verae, et vinesB Sorec, quae 

Interpretatur, Electa^ rubentia musta calcamus, et novum ex bis 

vinum bibimus de regno Patris, nequaquam in vetustate literas, sed 

in novitate spirltus: cantantes canticum novum, quod nemo potest 

cantare, nisi in regno EcclesiaB, quod regnum Patris est." (Hiero- 

nymus, Epistola cxx. ad Hedibiam, Qu. ii., Opera, edit. Vallarsius, 

torn. i. c. 824. See above, p. 73.) 


''Hoc solum babemus in prsesenti sseculo bonum, si vescamur 
came ejus, et cruore potemur, non solum in mysterio, sed etiam in 
Scripturarum lectione. Yerus enim cibus et potus, qui ex verbo Dei 
sumitur, scientia Stripturarum est." (Ibid., Comment, in Eccles., 
c. 3, Op., tom. iii. col. 413.) 


'' Et adipe frumenti satiat te. Felix est qui in frumento isto 
adipem intelligit. Legimus sanctas Scripturas. Ego Corpus Jesu, 
Evangelium puto: sanctas Scripturas, puto doctrinam ejus."* 
(Breviar. in Psalm cxlvii., In Op. Hieronymi, edit. Vallarsius, tom. 
vii. Append, c. 630.) 


'^Quando dicit, qui non comederit camem meam, et biberit 
sanguinem meum, licet et in mysterio posset intelligi, tamen verius 

• TSoT "doctrinam," perhaps we should read *' sanguinem." See Albertlnus, De 
Euch., p. 726. 


Corpus Christi et sanguis ejus sermo Scripturanim est, doctrina 
divina est." (Breviar. in Psalm, cxlvii., In Op. Hieronymi, edit. 
Vallarsius, torn. vii. Append, c. 530, 531.) 


" Si quando audimus sermonem Dei, et sermo Dei, et caro Christi, 
et sanguis ejus in auribus nostris funditur, et nos aliud cogitamus, 
in quantiun periculum incurrimus ? " (Ibid., c. 631.) 


" In came Christi, qui est sermo doctrinae, hoc est Scripturanim 
sanctarum interpretatio, sicut volumus, ita et oibum accipimus." 
(Ibid., c. 531.) 


" Accepit Jesus panem, et benedicens fregit, transfigurans corpus 
suum in panem, quod est Ecclesia prsBsens, quae accipitur in fide, 
benedicitur in numero, frangitur in passionibus, datur in exemplis, 
sumitur in doctrinis.'* (Comment, in Marc. cap. xiv., In Op. 
Hieronymi, edit. Vallarsius, tom. xi. par. iii. c. 118.) 


**Comederunt enim in Sanctis Scripturis panem qui de coelo 
descendit, et cum David dixerant : Incerta et occulta sapientia tucB 
nuinifestasti mihi." (Comment, in Osee, lib. iii. cap. xiii. v. 5 & 6, 
In Op. Hieronymi, edit. Vallarsius, tom. vi. c. 148.) 


" Qui jejuni erant pabulo veritatis : qui esuriebant et sitiebant 
jnstitiam, modo pascuntur divinis scripturis : reficiuntur coelestibus 
sacramentis: laudant qui requirunt eum: nam laus est domini, 
eructatio saturitatis illius. Inde vivunt corda eorum in setemum, 
quia cibus ille cordis et animse est, de quo scriptum est. Qui 
manducaverit ex hoc pane, vivet in setemum." (EuiBnus, in Psalm, 
xxi. Comment., Opera, Paris, 1580, tom. ii. fo. 47, 48.) 


" Has igitur immaculati Agni cames, id est doctrinsB ejus viscera, 
neque cruda sine interpretatione sumi oportet, neque cocta in aqua, 
id est eorum dissertione dissoluta, atque decocta, qui velut aqua 
deorsum sunt, nihil supemum sentientes; sed assata, inquit, igni, id 
est Spiritu Divino solidata, atque tosta." (Gaudentius Brix., Sermo 
ii.. Opera, edit. Galeardus, 1757, pp. 34, 35.) 


Membra Agni Dei ScTipturas ejus diximus." (Ibid., p. 36.) 




''Hiy'us oarnem tarn fideles in mysterio, quam simul universi 
oredentes iu fide, ita debemus edere, nostrique cordis interioribus 
commendare, ut non solum prsBOinctos habeamus castitate lumbos, 
verum etiam oalciati aimus, ut ait Apostolus, in preparation e 
Uvangelii pads." (Gaudentius Brix., Serm. v., Opera, edit. Galeardus, 
p. 64.) 


** Credere in eum, hoc est manducare panem vivum. Qui credit, 
manducat." (August., In Johan., Tract, xxvi. § 1, Opera, edit. 
Benedict., 1680, torn. iii. par. ii. c. 358.) 


** Ut quid paras dentes et ventrem ? Crede et manducasti." (lb., 
Tract. XXV. § 12, o. 364.) 


'* Quis est panis de regno Dei, nisi qui dicit, Ego sum panis vivus 
qui de coelo descend!? Noli pararo fauces, sed cor. Inde commen- 
data est ilia coena, Ecce credimus in Christum, cum * fide accipimus. 
In accipiendo novimus quid cogitemus. Modicum accipimus, et in 
corde saginamur. Non ergo quod videtur, sed quod creditur, pascit." 
(Ibid., Sermo. cxii. De Verb. Ev., Luc. 14, Opera, torn. v. par. i. o. 


" Erant ibi quibus plus Christus in corde, quam manna in ore 
sapiebat. . . . Eumdem ergo potum quam nos sed spihtualem; id 
est, qui fide capiatur, non qui corpore hauriebatur." (Ibid., 
Serm. ccclii., De Poenitentia, Op., tom. y. par. ii. c. 1366.) 


'' Altera quidem ilia petra, alter lapis quern sibi posuit ad caput 
Jacob; alter agnus occisus ut manducaretur Pascha, alter aries 
hsBrens in vepribus immolandus, quando filio suo pepercit Abraham 
jussus, quem jussus obtulerat ; altera ovis et altera ovis ; alter lapis et 
alter lapis, idem tamen Christus ; ideo eumdem cibum, ideo eumdem 
potum. . . . Eumdem ergo cibum, eumdem potum, sed intelligentibus 
et credentihus, Non intelligentibus autem illud solum manna, ilia 
sola aqua; ille cibus esurienti, potus iste sitienti ; nee ille, oec iste 
credenti: credent! autem idem qui nunc. Tunc enim Christus 
venturus, modo Christus venit. Venturus et venit, diversa verua 
sunt, sed idem Christus." (Ibid., c. 1366.) 

* Per2iapB " quem." See Goode on Euch., i. p. 831. 


" Tunc vita unicnique erit Corpus et Sanguis Christi, si quod in 
Sacramento visibiliter sumitur, in ipsa veritate spiritualiter mandu- 
cetur, spiritualiter manducetur, spiritualiter bibatur." (August., Serm. 
cxxxi. Op., torn. vi. par. i. c. 641.) 


** Non hoc corpus, quod videtis, manducaturi estis, et bibituri ilium 
sanguinem, quern fusuri sunt, qui crucifigent me. Sacramentum 
aliquod vobis commendan. Spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit vos. 
Etsi necesse est illud visibiliter celebrari: oportet tamen invisibiliter 
intelligi." (Ibid., In Psalm xcviii., Op., tom. iv. par. ii. c. 1066.) 

" Misso enim de super Spiritu Sancto post Domini passionem et 
resurrectionem et adscensionem, cum miracula fierentin ejus nomine, 
quem tamquam mortuum persequentes Judsei contemserant, com- 
puncti sunt corde, et qui sasvientes occiderunt, mutati crediderunt ; 
et quem sanguinem sseviendo fuderunt, credendo biberunt/* (Ibid., 
In Johan. Evang., cap. 8, Tract, xl. § 2, Op., tom. iii. par. ii. c. 565.) 


**Panis ille visibilis stomacbum confirmat, ventrem confirmat: 
est alius panis qui cor confirmat, quia panis est cordis." (Ibid., 
Enarr. in Psalm, ciii., Serm. iii. § 14, Opera, tom. iv. par. ii. c. 1160.) 


" Panis ille interioris hominis quserit esuriem : unde alio loco dicit: 
Beati qui esuriunt et sitiunt justitiam, quoniam ipsi saturabuntur, 
Justitiam vero nobis esse Christum Paulus Apostolus dicit." (Ibid., 
In Joan. Evemg., Tract, xxvi. § 1, Op., tom iii. par. ii. c. 494.) 


" Inebriamini, sed videte unde. Si vos inebriat calix Domini 
prsBclarus, videbitur ista inebrietas in operibus vestris, viclebitur in 
sancto amore justitisB, videbitur postremo in alienatione mentis 
vestrsB, sed a terrenis in coelum. . . . Est ergo vinum quod vere 
IsBtificat cor, et non novit aliud nisi Isetificare cor. Sed ne putes hoc 
quidem de spiritali vino debere accipi, de illo pane autem non ; quod 
et ipse spiritalis sit, exposuit et ipsum : Et panis, inquit, cor Tiominu 
confirmat. Ergo sit accipe de pane, quomodo accipis de vino: intua 
esuri, intus siti. Beati enim qui esuriunt et sitiunt justitiam, quia 
ipsi saturabuntur. Panis ille justitia est, vinum illud justitia est: 
Veritas est, Veritas Christus est. Ego sum, inquit, panis vivus, qui de 
coelo descend!, et Ego sum vitis, vos sarmenta." (Ibid., In Psalm, ciii. 
Enarr. Serm. iii. § i^^ u^ 0\i., tom. iv. par. ii. c. 1169, 1160.) 



" Cum videritis filium hominis adscendentem ubi erat prius, certe 

vel tunc videbitis, quia non eo modo quo putatis erogat corpus suum ; 

certe vel tunc intelligetis, quia gratia ejus non consumitur morsibus." 

(Aug., In Johan. Evang., Tract, xxvii. § 3, Op., torn. iii. par. ii. c. 502.) 


" Credere in Eum, hoc est manducare panem vivum. Qui credit, 
manducat/* (Ibid., In Johan., Tract, xxvi. § 1, Op., torn. iii. par. ii. 
c. 494.) 


" Hie est ergo panis de ccdo descendem, ut si quis manduoaverit ex 
ipso, non moriatur, Sed quod pertinet ad virtutem sacramenti, non 
quod pertinet ad visibile sacramentum ;* qui manducat intus, non 
foris : qui manducat in corde, non quipremit dente." (Ibid., In Johan. 
Evang. cap. vi.. Tract, xxvi. § 12, Op., torn. iii. par. ii. c. 499.) 


"Verbum Domini cibus tuus est, et non solum cibus, sed etpotus. 
Audi eum per Prophetam dicentem veteri populo, qui edunt me ad- 
buc esurient ; etqui bibunt me, adhuc sitient. Item persemetipsum, 
Caro mea, inquit, vere est cibus, et sanguis mens vere est potus." 
(Sermoccclxvi.,De Psalm, xxii.. In Op. Aug., tom. v. par. ii, c. 1449.) 


" Et verbum Dei quod quotidie prsedicatur, pan is est. Non enim 
quia non est panis ventris, ideo non est panis mentis." (Aug., 
Serm. lix. In Matt, vi., De Orat. Dom. ad Competentes, Op., tom. v. 
par. i. c. 344.) 


" De his [Le. Augustini libris] cibum capio, non ilium qui perit, 
sed qui operatur vitSB SBtemsB substantiam per fidem nostram, qua 
adcorporamur f in Christo Jesu Domino nostro." (Paulinus, Ep. ad 
August., In Op. August., Ep. 25, § i. tom% ii. c. 36.) 


"Pomarium salutare, ipsius nex sive passio pro salute humani 
generis potest intelligi, et coelestis ilia manna, Eucharistia scilicet, 
qu8B si sancte meditetur, tantum dulcedinis coelestis alimonisB afiPert 
et suavitatis fructum, ut recte cum David dicere queat, Gustate et 

videte quam suavis est Dorainus Patriarchse et Prophetfle 

tanquam propinqui et amici, longius enim abfuere de verbo vitsB, et 

* It may be observed here that there is no recognition of any real objective 
presence of an invisible " res sacramenti " as distinct from the " virtus sacramenti." 
t See Goode on Eucharist, i. pp. 874—877. 


passione Domini et Spiritus Sancti fluvio cormderunt biberuntque. 
Apostoli vero et Discipuli illius omnes et Martyres qui illud videre 
et contrectare et divina gratia meruerunt, adeo inebriati sunt ad 
suinmum usque torrente Spiritus Sancti coelitus diffuse, ut musto 
pleni putarentur dum magnalia Dei praBdicarent. Mysticam ergo 
Paschatis comestionem, et coelitus demissum Spiritus Sancti imbrem 
iuielligit, de quo di^iity Accipite et comedite: et, Aocipite et bibite: 
et, Accipite Spiritum Sanctum" (Com. in Cant. Cant., sub nom. 
Philonis Carpatb., In Bibliotheca Max. Patr., Lugd, 1677, tom. v. p. 
679. See Cave, Hist. Lit., p. 203.) 


Tevffaffde, koi *iEeTe, d>g oXridiaTaTOg kv diratny kyia 6 Kvpiog . . . 
(payiTE ^£ TTjv i^iorjv, koI i^riffeffde . . . ^aycre roy kfior aproV eyu 
yap elfii 6 ^tooiroiog kokkoq tov (tItov, koI kyu) elfu 6 aprog Tfjg ^(i)fig» 
Hiere olvov, ov KiKipaKa vfiiv* kydt yap elfxi to irofxa rifg cSavatriag* 
. . . 'Eyw €t/xi ri afjLireXog fj aXrfOivri. HieTe ttjv kfiriy ev(l>poervyriyf 
olvoy oy eKepatra vyuy, , . . 'AW' oh')(^ atg kKelyoi (j^ay 6yTtg to fidyya 
ey T^ kp}jfia) awidayov, ovTUjg kyw vfiiy Trapi^ta to (rQfia fwv, O yap 
Tpbjytoy TOVToy Toy apToy l^rffferat elg Toy aiUjya. (Cyrillus* Alex., 
llomil. Div. X., " In Mysticam Coenam," Opera, edit. Migne, tom. x. 
f. 1020, 1021.) 


** Credere in Filium Dei, hoc est videre, hoc est audire, hoc est 
odorari, hoc est gustare, hoc est contrectare eum." (Vigil. Taps., 
Contra Eutych., lib. iv. § xxii., Opera, edit. Chiffletius, p. 54 ) 


*' Quum reverendum altare ccelestibus cibis satiandus ascendis, 
sacrum Dei tui corpus ei sanguiuem Me respice, honora, mirare, 

* *' AdversusiBtos [Nestorianos] sic scribit CyrilluB [Ep. ad Euoptium, Appen. iiL ad 
tom. v., Act Cone. Eph. c. ii.]: Num. Iiominia comestionem nostrum esse SacrctmerUutn 
pronuncias ? Et irreligiose ad crassas eorum, eogitationes, qui sic crediderunt mentem 
nostrum urges } Et attentas hurhanis cogitationibus (corporeo nempe tactu, gustu, 
esu) tractare Ula (camem et sangulnem Christi) quce sola^ pura, et inexquisita fide 
accipiuntur} Ecce, camem et Corpus Christi corporaliter in mysteriis comedi, 
tractari, accipi negat ; flde, etfide sola, non manu, non ore, non ventriculo. Bed fide 
sola tractari, et accipi declarat. Neque mens hsec Cyrilli solius. Cionsensa suo 
filrmavlt, et approbavit epistoias Cyrilli in causa Nestoril scriptas (earum hsec una est, 
eaque certe cum prsecipuis numeranda) Concilium Chalcedonense [Art. 5], Concilium 
Generale Quintum [Collat. 8] itemque Sextum [Art. 18]. Horum fides eadem sine 
dubio quss fuit Niceeni, Constantinopolitani Frimi, et Ephesini Concilii ; quare 
istorum omnium sex Generalium Conciliorumjudicio, non corporaliter, nonmanibus, 
non dentibus, non ventriculo, sed fide sola tractatur in Eucharistia, et accipitur 
caro Christi." (Crakanthorp, Defensio Eccles, Anglicance, A. C. L., p. 51ft. See also 
Goode on Eucharist, i. pp. 375, 376, and Cyrilli Alex., Op., ed. Migne, tom. ix. c. 874* 
375 ; Mansi, tom. v. c, 137.) 


mente coutinge, cordis manu suscipe, et maxime baustu interioie 
adsume." (Eusebius Emissenus ? *) 


" Oustate et videte quam suavis est Dominus : . . . Oustate non per- 
tinet ad palatum, sed ad anitnsB suavissimuin sensum qui divina con- 
templatione saginatur. Nam ut ipsum gustum intelligeres, sequitur 
videte, quod uiique non ad os pertinet, sed ad inspecdvam sine dubio 
qualitatem, ut cum tale corpus acoipimus, yitSB nobis concedi 
gratiam confidamus. Et ut ipsam communioationem non ad corpus 
commune traberes, Dominum dioit esse suavem, qui in ea salutem 
hominis pro sua pietate concedit. Vita enim nostra qusB re vera 
Deus est, qui carnem sumptam ex Virgine Maria sibi univit, eamque 
propriam fecit, vivificatricem eaui esse professus est, sicut ait in 
Evangelio: Amen, Amen, dico vobis, nisi manducaveritis carnem 
filii bominis, et biberitis sanguinem ejus, non babebitis vitam in 
vobis." (Cassiodorus, In Ps. xxxiii. y. 8, Opera, edit. Garetius, 
Rotom. 1679, tom. ii. p. 111.) 


" Litigantibus JudsBis, et dicentibus ad invicem : Quomodo potest 
hie nobis oamem suam dare ad manducandum? Multi etiam ex 

* " This passage from Eusebius of Emessa, a writer of tlie fourtli century, is also 
often cited by the controversalists of tlie Reformation period. It is quoted in the 
'Homily on the Sacrament/ immediately after the passage from the Council of 
Niceea. . . . 

" But there is considerable doubt about its authenticity. It is always quoted from 
the decretal of Gratian, where it occurs at the end of a long passage which Gratian 
introduces with ' Eusebius of Emessa says.' But the extract thus introduced is mani- 
festly of late Aoman doctrine, and it is stated by the editors of Migne's ' Fatrologiae 
Cursus/ in their edition of Gratian, that it is certainly not the work of Eusebius, but 
of some later writer, probably Babanus or Beda. The concluding passage, however, 
which alone is quoted in this controversy, is so different in structure and sentiment 
from the rest of the extract, that it is probable that the author introduced this 
passage from some earlier writer, to conclude his Homily with authority, and may 
have given the name of that writer to the whole argument. Such enlargement of an 
author, with the preservation of his name, was not uncommon, as in the case of 
Ambrose, Augustine, &c. 

" In the fourth century, the words ' quum ascendis ad reverendum oltare,' would 
not mean a bodily ascent to a high altar, for of such ascent on the part of the com- 
municants there is no trace in the ancient liturgies, but it alluded to the ascending 
by faith to the ' supercelestial altar,' where, according to the ' rationale ' of the 
ancient liturgies, the whole transaction was really carried on ; thither the elements 
were carried up (spiritually) by angelic ministries as an acceptable oblation ; and 
there the participation of the Body and Blood of Christ was given to the faithful by 
' the mighty hand ' of Christ Himself." (Milton's Eucharist Illustrated, pp. 81, 82.) 

The Homily is printed in Yallarsius's edition of the works of Jerome, tom. xi. 
par. ii. c. 849 sqq.^ with the notice: "Hanc [homiliam] e primis statim verbis 
agnoscit Oudinus esse Fausti Rhegiensis Episcopi, qui sub nomine Eusebii Emisseni 
hactenus latuit. Habetur etiam inter hujus homillas impressa." 


disci pnlis ejus audientes dixerunt: Bums est hie sermOf quis potest 

eum audiref Interroganti Domino respondit et Petras, 

ut non ideo se diceret nolle abire, quod mysterium intellexerit, sed 
quia illud ipsum quod a tali magistro diceretur, ad vitam seternam 
proculdubio pertineret. Ait enim : Domine, ad quern ihimus f verba 
vita (Btem<B habes: et nos eredidimus^ et cognovimus quia tu es 
Christus Filius Dei vivi. Quod si mysterium intellexisset, haBC 
potius dixisset: Domine, cur abeamus non est, cum credamus nos 
corporis et sanguinis tui fide salvandos.*' (Faoundus Hermianensis, 
Pro Defens. Trium Capitat, lib. xii. cap. i. edit Migne, c. 830, 831.) 


** Sic comedite carnes corporis Sacrae Scripturae, O fratres, eas 
esurientes: et absconsum in carne ScriptursB spirituali.mysterionim 
sanguinem sic bibete: Qui est enim sic ejus par ticeps, b abet vitam 
ffitemam." (Anastasius Sinait., Anag. Contempl. In Hexaem., 
lib. viii., In Bibliotheca Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, torn. ix. p. 900.) 


"In hac ergo nube, Deus tarn in Dominica carne, quam in 
Evangelica praedicatione insinuatur, et nibil amplius quasramus nos 
qui aHquid de Deo scrutari volumus, sed quantum nobis Evangelicus 
sermo tradit, quanta ex Dominica came percipimus: neque enim 
frustra uno nomine camem Domini, et Evangelium legislator 
significavit, sed quia Evangelic et carne Dominica, occasio atque 
subsistentia est." (Hesychius Hieros., In Lev., lib. v. cap. xvi., In 
Bibliotbeca Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, torn. xii. p. 119.) 

" Quis namque sit sanguis agni, non jam audiendo, sed bibendo 
didicistis. Qui sanguis super utrumque postern ponitur,* quando 
non solum ore corporis, sed etiam ore cordis bauritur." (Gregorius 
Magnus, In Evangel., lib. ii., Homil. xxii. § 7, Opera, edit 
Benedict, Venice, 1744, tom. L c. 1633.) 


** Vobis adbuc parvulis incamationis ejus tantummodo lambendnm 
sanguinem trado. Nam qui praedicationem suam tacita divinitatis 
celsitudine, infirmos auditores de solo cruore crucrs edocet, quid 
aliud quam sanguinem pullis prasbet?" (Ibid., Moral, lib. xxxi. 
cap. lii. § 104, In Job, cap. xxxix.. Opera, 1744, tom. i. c. 1043.) 

* See Albertinus, De fiuch., p. 316, where several parallel passages may be seen. 



" Cibum semetipsnm mentibus mortalium prssbiiit, dicens : Qui 
comedit camem meam, et bibit saDguinein meum, in me manet, et) 
Ego in Eo." (Greg. Magn., Moral., lib. vii. c. vii., Op., torn i. o. 215.) 


*' Siciit Tisibilis panis et vini substantia exteriorem nutrit et ine^ 
briat hominem : ita verbum Dei, qui est panis yivus, participatione 
sui fideliura recreat mentes." (Isidorus Hisp., Etymol., quoted by 
Bertram,* De Corp. et Sang. Dom. § xliii. ed. Migne, c. 145, 146.) 


" Caro mea est, inquit, pro mundi vita, Norant fideles corpus 
Christi, si corpus Gbristi esse non negligunt, fiant corpus Ghristi, si 
volunt vivere de Spiritu Christi. . . . Quisquis vivere vult, credat in 
Christum, manducet spiritualiter spiritualem cibum.*' (Ven. Beda, 
In Evangel. Joan., cap. vi.. Opera, Cologne, 1688, tom. v. c. 509.) 


" Ego quidem reddam vota, de quibus votis edent paupereSy id est 
mundi contemptores edent quidem realiter, si ad sacramenta referatur : 
et saturabuntur seternaliter, quia intelligent in pane et vino visibili- 
ter sibi proposito aliud invisibile, scilicet corpus verum et sanguine ni 
verum Domini, quae verus cibus et verus potus sunt, quo non venter 
distenditur, sed mens sagioatur.*' (Ibid., Comm. in Ps. xxi.. Opera, 
edit Oologue, 1612, tom. viii. c. 419.) 


" Bonum est itaque veros cibos et veram sumere potionem, quos de 
agni carne et sanguine in divinis voluminibus invenimus." (Alcui- 
nus, Comment Super Eccles., cap. ii., Op., edit. Paris, 1617, o. 823.) 


" Legamus sanctas Scripturas. Quid est aliud nisi corpus ? 

Quid est hoc litera, quam in Evangelio legis vel in cseteris Scripturis 
Sanctis, nisi corpus Christi, nisi oaro Christi, quae ab omnibus Chris- 
tianis comeditur? Et tunc comeditor, quando legitur, et quando 
auditur." (Etherius et Beatus Contra Elipandum, lib. i., In Biblio- 
theca Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, tom. xiii. p. 869.) 


** Audi ipsum panem nostrum quotidianum : Pete : Accipe. Man- 
duca quotidie. Legamus sanctas Scripturas, et inveniemus hunc 

* This is not now found in the printed copies of the works of Isidore. " The 
emendfttory care of the Roman priesthood '* is said to have "carefully excluded it." 
See Cosin, Hist. Trans., cap. v. § 26, Works, A. C. L., vol. iv. p. 78 ; Faber's 
"DifQculties of Romanism," p. 890, 2nd edit. 


panem. Ego Corpus Jesu Evangelium esse* puto. Scripturas puto 
doctrinam ejus : et quoniam dicit Jesus. Qui non comederit camem 
ineam, et sanguinem meum non biberit : licet spiritualiter, et mys- 
terio possit intelligi ; tamen corporaliter panem, quern petimus quoti- 
dianum, vere corpus Christi, et sanguis ejus, sermo Scripturarum 
est, doctrina divina est. Et cum legimus earn, carnem Cbristi man- 
duoamus, et sanguinem ejus bibimus." (Etherius et Beatus Contra 
Elipandum, lib. i., In Bibliotbeca Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, torn. xiii. 
p. 376.) 

" Non iste panis est, qui vadit in corpus ; sed ille panis vitse seter- 
nse, qui animsB nostras substantiam fulcit" (De Sacramentis, lib. y. 
c. 4, § 24, In Op. Ambrosii, edit. Benedict, tom. ii. par. L c. 378.) 


" Panis et vinum, effioitur spiritualiter corpus Christi, &o. Mentis 
ergo est cibus iste, non ventris : nee corrumpitur, sed permanet in 
vitam setemam." (Synod. Carisiac, fMS. apud N. Banchinum.) 


^* Mentis ergo est cibus iste, non ventris ; non corrumpitur, sed 
]>ermanet in vitam SBtemam, quoniam pie sumentibus confert vitam 
seternam. Fie autem sumit qui, spiritu fidei illuminatus, in illo cibo 
et potu visibili virtutem intelligibilis gratisB esurit ac sitit." (Floras 
Magister, Advers. Amalar., cap. i § 9, Op.^ edit. Migne, c. 73.) 


"Sacramentum ore percipitur, viitute sacramenti interior homo 
satiatur." (Kabanus Maurus, De Cleric. Institu., lib. i. c. xxxi., 
Opera, edit. Migne, tom. i. c. 317.) 


" Qui agnus licet ab omni populo totus, et a singulis totus sumatur, 
tamen totus et integer in coelo permanere non dubitatur, sacramentum 
namque, quod ore percipitur, in alimentum corporis redigitur. Virtus 
autem sacramenti, qua interior homo satiatiu*, per hanc vita SBtema 
adipiscitur.'* (Honorius Augustodunensis, Gemma Animse, cap. cxi., 
iu Bibliotbeca Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, tom. xx, p. 1062.) 


*• In faith do I taste of Thy holy, lifegiving, and saving Body, 
Christ my God and Jesus, for the forgiveness of my sins. In faith do I 
drink Thy sanctifying [purifying] and cleansing Blood, O Christ my 

• See above, pp. 839, 340. f See Ussher'a works, edit. Ellington, torn. iil. p. 82. 


God and Jesus, for the forgiveness of my sins." (Armenian Liturgy, 
Malan's translation, D. Nutt, p. 60.) 


" Demum in coena corpus suum sub forma panis et yini discipulls 
dedit ad oomedendum, et de osstero ad conficiendum, dicens, Aoci- 
pite et comedite : Hoo est corpus meum. Et item : Hoc facite in 
meam oommemorationem. Fuit Ohristus nobis in cruce pretium, in 
via viaticum, in patria erit premium, existens cibus grandium, id est, 
perfectomm. Hunc cibum* Elias accepit, et in ejus fortitudine 

* Elsewhere Petrus Blessensis callB the Eucharist *' Panis Angelorum " (Serm. zliv. 
p. 1456. So also in his Tract. De Euch., cap. zvii. p. 1276.) 

The passage above is cited as evidence of the teaching that the res sacramenti 
can be received without transubstantiation ; and that the Beal Objective Presence 
is needless to give to the soul the true food of man. See above, p. 177. See also 
"Romish Mass and English Church/' pp. 89, 90. 

What Elijah received could only have been the Body of Christ in figure, and he 
could only have fed on the Thing signified by faith. See above, p. 837, No. xxii. 

Peter of Blois flourished in the latter half of the twelfth century, when the 
doctrine introduced by Lanfranc had become dominant in the English Church. Yet 
there is something in his words which seems to tell that an echo of the doctrine of 
Elfric was still heard in the land, that something of the old teaching had survived the 
inroads of the new. 

In Epist. cxl. (p. 1058) he uses the words *' pane et vino transubstantiatis .... 
in corpus et sanguinem Christi" (see note, p. 1208), which has sometimes been 
regarded as the first example of the use of such an expression. 

In this, however, there appears to be a mistake. 

The noun " Transubstantiatio" is said to have been used by Peter Damiani, about 
the middle of the eleventh century. The following extract is from an Exposition 
which bears his name. "Hoc est corpus metwi. Quaeritur quid demonstret sacerdos 
per hoc pronomen Jiocf Si panem, pani numquam congruit esse corpus Christi. Sed 
demonstrat corpus Christi ; sed quando profertur ipsum pronomen, nondum est 
transubstantiatio. Kespondetur, quod sacerdos non demonstrat, cumillis verbis non 
utatur enunciative sed recitative ; quemadmodum cum ait, ego sum vitis vera, ego 
lux mundi, et multa alia." (Expositio Canonis MisssB, § 7.) 

It should, however, be observed that this treatise will not be found in the collected 
works of Peter Damiani, as edited by Cajetan. Nor is it mentioned by Trithemius, 
or other bibliographers ; but it has been printed from a Vatican MS. in Mai's 
"Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collectio," where it will be found in tom. vi. par. ii. 
p. 211 sqq. It is entitled ** Expositio Canonis Misses secundumTetTXim Damiani," and 
is supposed by some to have been written after his death. See Canon Robertson's 
Hist, of Christian Ch., vol. Iv. p. 566, 1874. 

Mai says of it : " Prseter nomen auctoris bis inscriptum, ipsa sua dignitate genuinam 
se probat." (Tom. vi. Prsef., p. xxxiii. See also par. ii. p. 211. The passage quoted 
will be found in Mai, par. ii. p. 215.) 

About the year 1100, the term "transubstantiatio" appears again in the writings 
of Hildebert, Bishop of Le Mans, and afterwards Archbishop of Tours. 

The following is an extract from one of his sermones: " Si fuero vas incontinentlto 
et libidinis, in altari Juxta filium Yirginis statuo filium Veneris. Cum profero verba 
Canonis, et verbum transubstantiationis^ et os meum plenum est contradictione, et 
amaritudine, et dolo, quamvis eum honorem labiis, tamen spuo in faciem Salvatoris. 
Cum preesumo sumere Dominum meum, et panem in os meum sic pollutum, levius 


quadraglnta diebus ambulavit, donee ad;Montem Dei Oreb pervenit." 
(Petrus Blessensis, Sermo xyiL, in Bibliotheca Max. Patr., Lugd. 
1677, torn. xxiv. p. 1410.) 

It is a matter of great difficulty, in making many quotations, to 
give just sufficient for the purpose — enough to avoid misrepresenting 
the author's meaning, yet not more than the occasion requires. 

It is quite possible that in this Appendix I may sometimes have 
given too much and sometimes too little ; but I hope I have never 
intentionally withheld anything. X entirely disclaim any purpose of 
supporting a cause by garbled quotations. 

Those who are desirous of examining carefully the Patristic 
evidence on the subject of the Eucharistic Presence, should be 
strongly advised not to satisfy themselves with any catena of cita- 
tions, but, as far as possible, to verify references, and to study the 
subject in the pages of the writers themselves. 

It should also be ever borne in mind that the value of Patristic 
writings consists not so much in their making known to us the opinions 
of individual Fathers, as in their bearing on a consentient testimony 
to the unchanging faith once for all delivered to the Saints. And it 
must never be forgotten that, after all, our best witness to this faith 
is to be found in the Inspired Wobd of Gtob, 

esset si projicerem eum in lutnin plateantm." (Yen. Hildebertru Taronensis, Seimo 
vi. Synodicus ad Sacerdotes, Opera, ed. Beaagendre, Paris, 1708, c. 668. See also 
c. 442 and 1106, in which a doctrine of Transubstautiation is clearly stated. See 
above, pp. 331, 332.) 

As to the use of the verb transubstantio, see " Romish Mass and English Church," 
p. 70. See also Waterland's Works, vol. iv. p. 699, edit. 1843 ; Gieseler, Eccles. 
Hist., vol. iii p. 315, edit. Clark ; Vegan's '* True Doctrine," p. 51, and Blunt's 
" Diet, of Doct. and Hist. Theol.," p. 769 sqq. 



Acta Sanctorum, p. 8. 

Adamantus, p. 61, 268, 292. 

Jj^gidius, p. 3. 

JElfnc : see Elfric. 

Agellius, p. 64. 

Agobardus, p. 219, 220, 823. 

Alanus Magnus, p. 134. 

Alanus : see Allen, Cardinal. 

A Lasco, p. 184. 

Albertinus, De Eucharistia, p. 69, 264, 267, 268 ; quoted — 

as to doctrine of Eutychians, p. 63. 

as to doctrine of Nestorius, p. 64. 

as to De Villiers* interpolation, p. 86, 87. 

as to language of Procopius, p. 91. 

as to language of Tertullian, p. 93, 94. 

as to language of Augustine, p. 76, 78. 

as to language of Chrysostom, p. 113, 114. 

as to invisibility of a body, p. 146, 147. 

as to language of Theodoret, p. 208. 

as to language of Gregory Naz., p. 212. 

as to sacraments of Old and New Testament, p. 228. 

as to sense of symbola, p. 283. 

as to language of Theodotus Antiochenus, p. 290. 

as to language of Pseudo-Andreas, p. 815. 

as to Christ's presence in the poor, p. 827. 
referred to, p. 1. 
Albinus : see Alcuinus. 

Alcuinus and Pseudo- Alcuinus, p. 285, 280, 347. 
Aldrich, Dean, p. 15, 22, 40, 143, 161, 177, 181, 192, 201. 
AllatiuB, p. 267. 


Allen, Cardinal, p. 12, 13, 216. 

A nix, Prsef. Hist, in Dbterminatis Jo. Parisiensis, p. 19, 134, 158. 

Dissertatio de Sanguine Ghristi, p. 90. 

on the Albigenses, p. 221, 282. 
Alstedius, p. 184, 223. 
Alvarez, p. 241. 
Amalarius, p. 236, 255, 310. 
Ambrose (and Pseudo- Ambrose), quoted — 

as to Presence, p. 33, 34, 264. 

as to truth of Christ's Flesh, p. 60. 

as to sense of words of Institution, p. 74. 

as to Adoration, p. 203. 

as to use of terms umbra and imagOf p. 271, 272. 

as to use of term mnUitudo, p. 272. 

as to signification in Eucharist, p. 276. 

as to use oifigura, p. 280. 

as to Death the condition of the res sacramenti, p. 306. 

as to Christ's Body being eaten in the Scriptures, p. 338. 

as to remission of sins being the living bread, p. 338. 

as to the Bread of Life not going into the body, p. 348. 
Anaphora of St Basil's Liturgy, p. 276. 
Anastatius the Presbyter, p. 108. 
Anastasius Sinaita, p. 242, 346. 
Andreas, Pseudo- Apostolus, p. 314. 

Andrewes, Bishop, quoted as to Presence, p. 34, 186, 187, 304. 
Angelomus, p. 329. 
Angelus, p. 250. 
Anselm, p. 55, 130. 
Antirrheticon adv. Kohlium, in the Venice edition of Ephrem Syrus, 

p. 70. 
Antonelli, p. 306. 
Aphraates, p. 305, 306. 
Apostolic Constitutions, p. 33, 34, 229, 261. 
Apuleius, p. 8. 

Aquinas, Thomas, p. 24, 220. 
Arcudius, p. 53, 71, 240, 241. 
Arevalus, p. 243. 
Armenian Liturgy : see Liturgy. 
Arnauld, p. 46, 47. 
Amobius, quoted, p. 153, 154. 

referred to, p. 196. 
Arnoldiis Bonaevallensis, p. 315, 324. 


Lssemani, J. A., p. 212, 267, 299. 

^thanasius (and Pseudo-Athanasius), quoted ~ 

as to reality of Christ's Body, p. 62. 

as to interpretation of John vi., p. 67, 79. 

as to sense of words of Institution, p. 74. 

as to being in two places at onoe, p. 143. 

as to the unity of the king and his picture, p. 290. 

as to Death the condition of the rea saeramenti, p. 314. 

as to the Church being the Body of Christ, p. 323. 

as to Christ's Flesh being spiritual food, p. 835. 
abertin : see Albertinus. 
agustine, quoted — 

as to Presence, p. 36, 48, 132, 138, 189. 

as to Figure in words of Institution, p. 76, 78, 80, 81, 275, 

as to /acinus in literal interpretation, p. 81, 82. 

as to caution in hearing God's Word, p. 90. 

as to sense of " Sacramentum," p. 130, 121, 253, 276. 

as to being in two places at once, p. 144. 

as to local circumscription of human body, p. 145, 149. 

as to invisibility of a body, p. 148. 

as to " Crede et Manducasti,*' p. 177. 

as to " sursum corda," p. 1 96. 

as to Adoration, p. 205, 206, 212. 

as to sacraments of Old and New Testament, p. 222, 254, '^55. 

as to worship of Sun and Bock, p. 224. 

as to signs bearing the names of things signified, p. 253 sqq. 

as to nature of sacraments, p. 257 sqq., 262, 264. 

as to many grains in one bread, p. 278. 

as to use of memoriae p. 293. 

as to sense of signum, p. 301. 

as to Death the condition of the res sacramenti, p. 308. 

as to the Giver of sacramental grace, p. 317. 

as to the Church being Christ's Body as truly as the Eucharist, 
p. 319. 

as to Christ's Presence in the poor, p. 327, 328. 

as to Christ's Body being spiritually eaten by faith, p. 3 11, 
342, 3 3. 
iixerre. Council of, p. 53. 
7erroes, p. 159. 

k A. 


Bale, p. 2, 

Baluzius, on Agobard, p. 221. 

Baronias, p. 88. 

Basilius Magnus, p. 275, 289, 290, 393, 336 : see Litnrgies. 

Basnage, p. 106, 212. 

Beatus, p. 76, 152, 314, 322, 347, 348. 

Beaugendre, p. 331. 

Beda,Ven., quoted — 

as to Presence, p. 132. 

as to ''figura;' p. 78, 278, 279. 

as to local circumscription of body, p. 151, 152. 

as to Sacraments of the Old and New Law, p. 221, 222. 

as to signs being the names of things signified, p. 259. 

as to reference of the sacramentum to the res sacramenti, p. 

as to use of pignus, p. 296. 

as to spiritual eating of spiritual food, p. 347. 
Belgian Confession, p. 184. 

Bellarmine, Cardinal, p. 13, 15, 16, 28, 71, 143, 153, 177, 208. 
Benedict XIV. : see Lambertinus. 
Benedictine Editors, p. 144, 271. 
Berengarius, p. 144, 221. 
Berkeley, Bishop, p. 169. 

Bertram, p. 83, 130, 131, 221, 224, 271, 297, 302, 810, 823. 
Beza. p. 140, 141, 161, 184. 

Bibliotheca Maxima Patrum, Lugd. 1677, p. 222, 243, 264, 274, &c. 
Biel, Gabriel, p. 331. 
Bigotius, p. 106. 

Bilson, Bishop, p. 56, 57, 211, 260. 
Bingham, p. 53 ; quoted on Adoration, p. 204. 
Blierus, J. Diesthemius, p. 3. 
Blondel, p. 47. 

Blunfs " Early Fathers," p. 261. 
Blunt, Rev. J. H., Diet, of Theol., p. 350. 
Bohemia, Confession of, p. 184. 
Boileau, p. 199, 203, 227. 
Bollandists, p. 3. 
Bona, Cardinal, p. 215, 239, 246. 
Bosanquet, Rev. Claude, p. 171, 172. 
Bossius, p. 7. 

Bracara, Council of, p. 268. 
Bramhall, Archbishop, p. 47. 


Vint, p. 154, 165, 198, 201. 

enger, Julius CeBsar, p. 287, 289, 290. 

1, Bishop, p. 82, 199. 

linger, p. 184. 

•asilas, Nicolas, p. 244, 264, 324, 883. 

jarius Arelat., p, 329. 

lixtus, Nicephorus, p. 9. 

Lon Law, p. 129. 

Lsiacum Synodon, p. 348. 

olus Magnus, p. 270, 279, 280. 

ranza, Summa Gonciliorum, p. 53, 263. 

thage. Council of, p. 30, 230. 

aubon, Bulenger*s answer to, p. 287, 290. 

sander, on Circumgestation, p. 179. 

siodorus^ p. 300, 345. 

alanus, p. 246. 

ena in Joannem, edited by Gorderius, p. 67, 74, 836, 387. 

harine de Medicis, on Corpus Christi, p. 179. 

'e, Historia Literaria, p. 87, 122, 285, 282. 

sus, p. 158. 

imier, Panstratia Catholica, p. 52, 210, 211, 216, 228, 240. 

irlemagne : see Carolus Magnus. 

ininitz, p. 28. 

istian Druthmar : see Druthmar. 

onicon Alexandrinum, p. 242. 

onicon Belgicum, p. 3. 

ysostom (and Pseudo-Chrysostom) : quoted — 

as to Presence, p. 85, 36, 48, 113, 114, 132. 

as to sense of words of Institution, p. 105, 106. 

as to comparison with Baptism, p. 119. 

as to invisibility of a body, p. 147. 

as to Adoration, p. 204, 209, 216. 

on rot fiyia role hyloic, p, 248. 

as to drawing the veil, p. 244. 

as to the mysteries being called Christ's Body, p. 266. 

as to the nature of mysteries, p. 257, 264. 

as to Christ's drinking His own Blood, p. 266. 

as to sense of Avr/rvTrov, p, 268. 

as to sense of trKi6, p. 127. 

as to use of avfi^oKov, p. 288, 284. 


Chrysostom (and Pseudo-Chiysostom) : quoted — 

as to use of jivrffjioffvi^Vj p. 293. 

as to sense of trvfifhXoVf p. 302. 

as to death the condition of the res aacramenti, p. 306, 312, 

as to sense of spiritually ^ p. 314. 

as to the Giver of Sacramental grace, p. 317. 

as to the Church being Christ's Body as truly as the Eucha~ 
rist, p. 319. 

as to Christ's Presence in the poor, p. 326, 327. 

as to the use of sensible things in God's gifts, p. 333. 

as to interpretation of John vi., p. 338. 
Church and the world, p. 226. 
Cicero, De Nat. Deorum, p. 207. 
Claude, p. 46, 47, 94, 266, 264, 316. 
Claudianus Mamertus, p. 299. 
Clemens Alexandrinus : quoted — 

as to change, p. 60. 

as to sense of words of Institution, p. 72, 92, 283. 

as to interpretation of John vi, p. 79. 

as to use of trvfiPoXov, p. 282. 

as to Christ's Blood being drink for the spirit, p. 331. 
referred to, p. 196. 
Clemens Komanus(Pseudo-), p. 288. 
Clementinse, p. 240. 
Goffetel, p. 91, 268. 

Confession of the Belgian Church, p. 184. 
Confession of the Waldenses, p. 330. 
Confutatio Cavillationum (Gardiner), p. 93, 94. 
Consensus Orthodoxus, p. 28, 30, 184. 
Constantinople, Council of, p. 53, 217, 218. 
Constantius, Marcus Antonius (i.e. Gardiner), p. 93, 
Constitutiones ApostolicsB, p. 282, 283, 288. 
Corderius, p. 133. 

Catena in Joannem, p. 67, 74, 336, 337. 
Cosin, Bishop, p. 38, 39, 47, 48, 49, 60, 69, 68, 93, 177, 178, 182, 

266, 347. 
Coster, p. 116, 199. 
Cotelerius, p. 261, 283, 288. 
Councils of Carthage, p. 63. 

of Auxerre, p. 63. 

in Trullo, p. 5S. 


Councils of Constantinople (869) p. 53, (764) 217, 218, 269, 270, 274. 
275, 296. 

of Nice (Second), p. 91, 152, 209, 217, 218, 269, 291. 

of Vercelli, p. 131. 

of Trent, p. 133, 192. 

of Carthage (Third), p. 230. 

of Mayence (1261), p. 247. 

ofBracara(675), p. 263. 

ofNicsea (First), p. 318. 
Covel, Account of Greek Church, p. 7, 216, 227, 241, 242, 251, 252, 

Crakanthorp, p. 162, 214, 344. 
Cranmer, Archbishop : quoted — 

as to Eeal Presence, p. 43. 

as to sense of words of Institution, p. 177. 
referred to, p. 206. 
Cyprian and Pseudo-Cyprian, p. 72, 103, 104, 195, 261, 26$, 278, 

292, 305, 312, 315, 318, 324. 
Cyrillus Alexandrinus : quoted — 

as to Presence, p. 35. 

as to change, p. 60. 

as to reality of Christ's Body, p. 62. 

as to language of Nestorius, p. 64. 

as to Ethiopian Eunuch, p. 82, 83, 266. 

as to local circumscription of body, p. 160. 

as to folly of confounding signs with things signified, p. 268. 

as to type in Eucharist, 274. 

as to use of avriTviroy, p. 288. 

as to unity of the king and his picture, p. 290. 

as to death the condition of the res saoramenti, p. 313. 

as to spiritual feeding and tasting, p. 344. 
Cyrillus ffierosolymitanus : quoted — 

as to interpretation of John vi, p. 67. 

as to sense of words of Institution, p. 74. 

as to sense of 1 Cor. x. 18 — 22, p. 164. 

as to Adoration, p. 213. 

as to the change of Consecration, p. 229. 

as to the use of ro Ayta role dy/oic, p. 243. 

as to voriTTi rpciTrcCa, p. 264. 

as to type in Eucharist, p. 273. 

as to being avtrffw/xoi rod Xpiorov, p, 318. 

as to analogies of bodily and spiritual food, p. 336 


D'Achery, Spiceleginm, p. 84. 
Dallseas, quoted, p. 156, 238, 239. 

referred to, p. 1, 24. 
Damascenns, Joannes, p. 36, 55, 147^ 209. 
Damiani, Peter, p. 332, 350. 
Decretum of Gratian : see Gratian. 
De Medicis, Catharine, p. 179. 
De Mysteriis : see Ambrose. 
De Sacramentis : see Ambrose. 
Desmarets : see Maresins. 
D'Espence : see EspencsBUS. 
De Spina, Alphonso, p. 167, 168, 173, 174. 
Deylingius, p. 47, 105, 203, 247, 288. 
Diatyposis of Gelasius Cyz., p. 313. 
Did3rmas Alexandrinus, p. 74, 147, 337. 
Diestbemius, p. 3, 7. 

Dionysius Areop. (Psendo-), p. 133, 215, 267, 286, 287. 
Dionysius Bar Salib, p. 252. 
Domer, p. 331. 
Dositheus Hieros, p. 288. 
Drelincourt, p. 106. 
Drutbmar, Christian, p. 152, 281. 
Du Cange, p. 272. 
Du Moulin, p. 161, 184. 
Du Perron, Cardinal, p. 98, 105, 281. 
Du Pin, p. 88, 217, 219, 236. 
Durandus, Ba,tionale Div. Off., p. 245. 
Durantus, p. 204. 
Durel, p. 47. 
Dux Vise of Anastasius Sin., p. 242. 

Edgar, Variations of Popery, p. 104. 

Elfric, p. 122, 123, 224, 297. 

Elias Cretensis, p. 267. 

Elliott, HorsB ApocalypticsB, p. 7, 9. 

Ephesus, Council of, p. 30. 

Ephrem Syrus (and Pseudo-Ephrem),p. 61, 70, 270, 271, 273, 27' 

Epiphanius, p. 98, 290. 
Epiphanius the Deacon, p. 288. 
Erigena, p. 130. 
EBpenosBUBf p. 40. 


Essays on the Reformation, p. 44, 187. 

Estius, p. 80. 

Etherius and Beatus, p. 75, 162, 314, 326, 347, 348. 

Eusebius of Emessa (Pseudo-), p 214, 263, 295, 321, 344, 345. 

Eusebius Ceesar., p. 9, 91, 290 : quoted — 

as to interpretation of John vi., p. 67. 

as to sense of words of Institution, p. 69, 70, 268, 283. 

as to use of (rvfifioXov, p. 283, 315. 

as to Christ's words being His Flesh, p. 335. 
Eustathius Antiochenus, p. 146, 147, 288. 
Eustochium, p. 254. 
Eutbymius Zigabenus, p. 271. 
Exeter, Synod of (1287), p. 247. 

Faber, Rev. G. S., Dif&culties of Romanism, p. 167, 213, 347. 

Ancient Vallenses and Albigenses, p. 330. 
Facundus Hermianensis, quoted as to Presence, p. 117, 118, 121, 132, 

259, 346. 
Fancheur, Mich, le, p. 209. 
Faustus Rhegiensis, p. 296, 345. 
Felix M inucius, p. 1 5 6 . 
Field, Bishop, p. 183. 
Fisen, Barth, p. 3. 

Fisher against CEcolampadius, p. 199. 
Flaviacensis, p. 301. 
Florus Magister, quoted, p. 33, 280, 2S1, 293, 298, 297, 348. 

referred to, p. 236. 
Forbes, Bishop W., p. 192. 
Forbes of Corse, p. 162, 210. 
Fortalitium Fidei, p. 167, 173, 174. 
Fortescue's Armenian Church, p. 240, 242. 
Foxe, Acts and Monuments, p. 124, 128. 
Freeman, Archdeacon, Principles of Divine Service, p. 16, 197, 226, 

227, 228, 230, 234, 243, 248. 
Frudegard, p. 83. 

Fulbertus Camotensis, p. 83,294, 297, 298. 
Fulgentius, quoted — 

as to sense of John vi, p. 82. 

as to local circumscription of human body, p. 145, 150, 161. 

as to sacrament of oil, p. 216. 

as to Sacraments of the Old Testament and the New, p. 221, 


Fulgentius, quoted — 

as to death the condition of the res sacramenti, p. 309. 
as to the Church being Christ's Body as truly as the Eucha- 
rist, p. 821, 322, 327. 

Gabriel, Patriarch, p. 250. 

Galeardus,p. 277, 294. 

Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, p. 93, 105. 

Gaudentius, p. 75, 262, 277, 278, 294, 301, 307, 308, 313,340, 341. 

Geddes, Dr., p. 242. 

Gelasius, Pope, p. 272. 

Gelasius Cyz., p. 812. 

Gemma Animse of Honorius, p. 814, 824, 348. 

Genebrard, p. 7. 

Germanus, Theoria Rer. Eccles., p. 285, 287, 248, 292, 811. 

Gibson's Preservative against Popery, p. 9, 192. 

Gieseler, p. 2, 3, 9, 297. 

Glosses on the Decretum of Gratian, p. 129, 276, 281. 

Goar, Euchologion, p. 240, 241, 243, 245, 246, 249, 261, 291, 316. 

Goldast, p. 279. 

Goode, Dean, on Eucharist, p. 54, 102, 107, 129, 283,830. 

Gratian, p. 129, 263, 275, 276, 281, 308. 

Gregory De Valentia: see Valenlaa. 

Gregorius Magnus, p. 58, 148, 239, 291, 346. 

Gregorius Nazianzenus, quoted — 

as to invisibility of a body, p. 147. 

as to Adoration, p. 209, 211. 

as to the Passover being a type of a type, p. 222, 273. 

as to the Eucharist being a shadow, 273. 

as to use of avrirvirov, p. 289. 

as to Christ's Presence in the poor, p. 825. 
Gregorius, Bishop of Neocsesarea, p. 272. 
Gregorius Nyssenus, quoted, p. 48, 49, 50, 147, 264, 298, 306, 326, 

Grindal, p. 186. 
Guido, p. 247. 

Hagenbach, p. 58. 
Hall's Harmony, p. 184. 
JTammond, p. 184, 185, 201. 


Harding, p. 98, 203, 206. 

Harduin. p. 106, 218. 

Harmonia Oonfessionum, p. 184. 

Harrison, Dr., p. 48, 63, 64, 195, 223, 224, 244, 2i:S. 

Haymo. p. 294. 

Henriquez, p. 16. 

Heptas Prsesulum, edit. Raynaudus, p. 222. 

Herdesian : see Consensus Orthodoxus. 

Hereford Missal, p. 212. 

Hesychius (or Isychius) of Jerusalem, p. 76, 266, 301, 309, 310, 338, 

Heurtley, Professor, p. 229, 283. 
Hickes, p. 126. 
Hieronymus (and Pseudo-Hieronymus), quoted — 

as to Presence, p. 36, 114. 

as to interpretation of John yi., p. 67. 

as to phrase " making the Body of Christ/* p. 68, 69. 

as to sense of words of Institution, p. 70. 

as to Adoration, p. 114, 204. 

as to type in Eucharist, p. 273 

as to the Church being Christ's Body, p. 320. 

as to feeding on Christ's Body in the Scriptures, p. 339. 
Hilarius Papa ? p. 281. 

Hildebertus Cenom. (rather Turonensis), p. 331, 332, 860. 
Hincmar, quoted, p. 36, 108, 206, 310, 311. 

referred to, p. 221. 
Hittorpius, p. 236, 310, 824. 
Hoesemius, Joannes, p. 8. 
Homilies of Elfric, p. 126. 
Homilies of the Church of England, p. 345. 
Honoratus, St. Augustine's Letter to, p. 206. 
Honorius III., Pope, p. 247. 
Honorius Augustodunensis, p. 814, 824, 348. 
Hook, Dean, p. 126. 
Hooker, p. 81, 171, 172, 182, 186. 

quoted, p. 62, 149 seq., 177, 318. 
Hospinian, quoted, p. 131, 248. 

referred to, p. 2, 4, 7, 11, 28, 184, 
Huetius, p. 287. 

Hugo de Sancto Victore, p. 237. 
Hugo Lingonensis, p. 264. 266. 
Hugo, as quoted by Waldenses, p. 800, 801. 


Ignatius, p. 59. 

Innocentius I., Pope, p. 276. 

IrenflBus, p. 32, 69, 60, 65, 213, 287. 

Isidorus HispalensiB, p. 75, 78, 120, 161, 222, 235, 259, 263, 278, 310, 

Isidorus Pelnsiot, p. 209. 
Isycbius : see Hesychius. 
Ivo of Chartres, p. 245, 324. 

James, St : see Liturgies. 

James, Corruptions of Scripture, Councils, and Fathers, p. 89, 110 

124, 239. 
James of Edessa, p. 252. 
James of Nisibis, p. 306. 

James the Lord's brother, Liturgy bearing his name, p. 196, 311. 
Jerome : see Hieronymus. 
Jewel, on Adoration as taught by St. Ambrose, p. 203. 

„ „ St. Augustine, p. 205, 206. 

„ „ Theodoret, p. 210, 211. 

„ „ Pseudo-Origen, p. 212. 

on Elevation, p. 244, 245. 
Joannes Hierosolymitanus (Pseudo-), p. 256. 
Jocelyn, p. 124. 
Johai, Rabbi, p. 245. 
John of Constantinople, p. 105. 
Jovinianus, p. 116, 274. 
Julian the Apostate, p. 167. 
Julius, Pope, p. 263. 
Justin Martyr, p. 32, 238, 292. 

Keble, Rev. J., p. 205, 206, 213, 214, 225. 

Ken, Bishop, p. 188. 

Kettlewell, p. 188. 

Kimmel, Monumenta Fid. Ec. Or., p. 227. 

Kohlius, p. 70. 

Krantz, p. 179. 

Labbe, p. 282. 
LabbsBUS, CoUi^u., 
Lactantius, p. 196. 
Lambertmus, p. 5, 7, 236, 247, 
La MUleUexe, p. 47. 

Labbe, p. 282. 

LabbsBUS, Concil., p. 91, 162, 218, 259. 


Lanfranc, p. 94. 

L'Aroque, History of Eucharist, p. 1, 7, 84, 179, 214, 240, 245. 

Laski : see A Lasco. 

Laud, Archbishop, p. 141. 

Laudian Theology, Real Presence of, p. 306. 

Le Brun, p. 193, 236, 244, 247, 250. 

Le Comte, p. 221. 

Lee, Rev. F. G., quoted, p. 38. 

Leibnitz, p. 168, 169. 

Le Moyne, p. 106. 

Leo Magnus, p. 820, 821, 828. 

Leontius Byzant., p. 274. 

Leo Tuscus, p. 240. 

Libri Carolini : see Oarolus Magnus. 

Lightfoot, Professor, p. 287. 

Lingard, p. 125. 

Linwood, p. 245. 

L'Isle, p. 297. 

Litany of Sacred Heart, p. 26. 

Liturgy of Apostolical Constitutions, p. 84, 229, 261. 

Liturgy, Mozarabic, p. 51, 230, 231, 316. 

Liturgy, Syriac, of Pope Xystus, p. 196, 167. 

Syriac, of St. James the Lord's brother, p. 196, 311. 

of St. Mark, p. 225, 226. 

of Ohrysostom, p. 228, 229, 240, 260, 316. 

of James BaradsBUS, p. 228. 

of John Bassora, p. 228. 

of Abyssinia, p. 230. 

Coptic (St. Gregory), p, 230, 231. 

Alexandrian (St. Gregory), p. 230. 

Gallician, p. 230. 

of St. James, p. 229, 231, 232, 316, 316. 

Armenian, p. 243, 251, 262, 848, 349. 

of St. Basil, p. 229, 275, 289. 
Llandaff, Bishop of, p. 143. 
Lorichius, p. 246. 

Lyons and Vienna, Church of, p. 326. 
Lyranus, p. 158, 

Mabillon, Museum Ital., p. 236, 246. 
Macarius -aEgypt., p. 289, 336, 837. 

Mai, Script. Vet Nova Collwtio, p. 332, 360. 

MahnaiuB, p. 112. 

Maitland, p. 9, 143, 282. 

Malan. Rev. S. C, p, 226. 

MamertoB, ClandianiiB, p. 299. 

Manai, ConoiL, p. 91, 152, 209, 218. 

Uaroellns AncTranas, p. 298. 

Maresina,p. 186. 

Martens, .De Ant. Eccl. Eit., p. 248. 

Martyr, JoBtiii, p, 32, 238, 292. 

Martyr, Peter, p. 161. 

Masios, Aadr., p. 27B, 289. 

Mason, VindiciV Ecoles. AngL, p. 180. 

MjiuruB sue RnliimiiB, 

Maxontiua, p. 322. 

Maximus tlie Scholiast on Paeado-Dionysiaa, p. 133, 235, 244, 26U, 

286, 287, 302. 
Mayence, Council of, p. 247. 
Menardos, p. 237, 246. 
Mendbam,p. 107. 
Methodiaa, p. 146, 147. 
Meynard: see Meoardus. 
MioiologiiB, p. 246. 
MicTonius, p. 137. 

MiddletoD, Letter fiom Borne, p. 207. 
Migue, p. 345. 

Milman, iatin Christianity, p. 131. 
MiltoD, Rev. W., p. 77, 195, 314, 346. 
Miaaal, p. 26, 193. 

ofHereford, p. 213. 
Moehlar p, 2l.!i. 
MoDtfauoon, p. IDS, 109. 
Morley, Bishop, p. 26. 
Morton, Bishop, on Eucharist, p. 5, 61, 52, 148, 206, 215, 210, 

Moshom, p. 2. 
Monlin, Da, p. 161, 184. 
Mojne. Le. p. 106. 
Mozarabic li. see Litnrgies. 
Muratori,p. C, 7, 67. 93, 115. 117. 118, 216, 238. 
Museum Italicum : Bee MabiUiDn. 


Neale. Dr., p. 44, 46, 225, 226, 231, 232, 241, 242, 251, 315. 

Neander, p. 217, 264. 

NestoriuB, p. 64. 

Newman, Dr., p. 142. 

Nicsea, or Nice : see Councils. 

Nice : see Councils. 

Nicephorus Constantinopolitanus, p. 91, 108, 290. 

Nicholson, Bishop, p. 184. 

Nicolas : see Cabasilas. 

Nicole, p. 46, 47. 

Nisibis, James of, p. 305, 306. 

Oakley, p. 211, 237. 

Odo of Paris, p. 247. 

(Ecumenius, p. 164, 324. 

Onuphrius Panvinius, p. 4, 6. 

Optatus, p. 216, 318, 

Opus Imperfectum in Matt, in Op. Chrys., p. 85, 109, 110. 

Ordo Communis Liturg. Syr., p. 197, 228. 

Ordo Romanus, p. 235, 246. 

Origen and Pseudo-Origen, p. 96, 97, 266. 

as to interpretation of John vi., p. 66, 100, 101. 

as to sense of words of Institution, p. 72, 73, 97, 98, 132. 

as to local circumscription of body, p. 149. 

as to Adoration, p. 212. 

as to use of at^irwra, p. 287. 

as to sense of signum, p. 301. 

as to Christ's Body being spiritually eaten in the Scriptures, 
p. 332—336. 
Oudin, p. 280. 

Pachymeres, p. 215, 243, 269, 287. 

Palladius, p. 106, 284. 

Panstratia Catholica : see Ohamier. 

Panvinius, p. 4, 5. 

Papers on the Doctrine of the Church of England concerning the 

Eucharistic Presence, p. 26. 
Parasceve PaschsB, p. 183. 
Parisiensis, Joannes, p. 19. 
Parker, Archbishop, p. 124. 
Paschasius, p. 56, 67; 181, 281. 
Patrick, p. 89, 103, 188, 283. 


Paula, p. 254. 

Paulinus of Nola, 828, 343. 

Payne, Prebendary, p. 7, 9, 10, 16, 21, 29, 30, 185, 193, 194, 199, 

200, 201, 216, 227, 228, 234, 235, 238. 
Pelagius (?), Commentary on 1 Cor. xi., p. 293. 
Perkins, p. 182, 186. 
Perpetuity of the Faith, p. 46, 47. 
Perrone, J., p. 22. 
Perronius : see Du Perron. 
Petrus Benedictus, p. 277. 
Petrus Blessensis, p. 349. 
Petrus de Vincis, p. 270. 
Petrus Damiani : see Damiani. 
Pfaffian Fragments of Irenseus, p. 261, 287. 
Philadelph., Gabriel, p. 241, 242. 
Philo Carpath., p. 844. 
Picherellus, p. 77. 
Porphyry, p. 153. 
Primasius, p. 164, 295, 296. 
Proclus, quoted, as to Presence, p. 35. 
Procopius of Gaza, p. 69, 91, 268, 272, 274. 
Prosper, p. 129, 308. 
Pusey, Dr., p. 19, 44,49, 94, 205, 266, 277, 280, 284. 

Rabanus Maurus, p. 75, 83, 164, 224, 236, 268, 275, 823, 348. 

Eadulphus Flaviacensis, p. 301. 

Ranchinus, p. 348. 

Hatramnus : see Bertram. 

Raulin, p. 242. 

Baynaldus, Theoph., p. 221. 

Reformation, Essays on, p. 44. 

Remigius of Auxerre,p. 294, 296, 323, 824. 

Renaudot, p. 195, 215, 216, 226, 243, 248, 249. 

Rhemigius : see Remigius. 

Rhenanus, p. 93. 

Ricaut's Present State of the Greek and Armenian Churches, p. 227, 

241, 244. 
Ridley, p. 186. 
Riva, p. 8. 
Robbe, p. 101. 

Robertson, Canon, p. 2, 5, 87. 
JRobertaon'a translation of Mo6\iW& ^ymhoUaoi) 1^, 213. 

867 - 

lock, Dr., Cliurch of our Fathers, p. 127, 128. 

Hierurgia, p. 226. 
itomanoflTfl Liturgy of St. Chrysostom, p. 240, 242. 
lomish Mass and English Church, p. 89, 177, 178, 232. 
louth. Dr., p. 124, 126, 127. 
iufl&nus Aquil., p. 340. 
lupertus Tuitiensis, p. 84, 127, 255, 311. 

iacramentarium Gelasianum, p. 227. 

Gregorianum, p. 237, 238. 
racraments, the Doctrine of, in relation to the Doctrines of Grace, 

p. 31. 
Jadeel, p. 161, 184. 
Jadler, Rev. M. F., p. 10, 226. 
^lisbury Manual, p. 229. 
Jalvianus Massil., p. 328. 
iamona, p. 268. 
Jchroekh, p. 87. 
Jcotus, Johannes, p. 130. 
jcrivener, p. 286. 
icudamore, Notitia Euoharistica, p. 9, 11, 230, 241, 243, 247, 252, 

^edulius Scotus, p. 164. 
ieverus, Episcopus Aschmonin, p. 250. 
Jhuttleworth, Bishop, p. 44. 
Jixtus Senensis, p. Ill, 281. 

Smith's Account of the Greek Church, p. 226,240, 241, 244. 
^oames,Rev. H., Latin Church in Anglo- Saxon Times, p. 57, 126, 181. 

Anglo-Saxon Church, p. 125, 128. 

Bampton Lectures, p. 125, 237, 238, 279. 
Ipina, Alphonso de, p. 168, 173, 174. 
Jpinkes, p. 180, 188, 189. 
;tephanus Junior, p. 272, 279, 291. 
Jtephens, Dr., p. 189, 192. 
;tillingfleet, Bishop, p. 16, 89, 40, 41, 42. 
Jtrabo, Walafrid, p. 297. 
Juarez, p. 15. 
Juicer, p. 64, 267. 
Jurius, p. 272, 279, 291. 
Jymeon of Thessalonica, p. 242, 252. 
Jynesius, p. 64. 


Synod of Exeter, p. 247. 
Synodon Oarisiacom^ p. 348. 

Tatian, p. 156. 

Taylor, Bishop Jeremy, quoted — 

as to local Presence, p. 160. 

as to Adoration, p. 188, 209. 
Taylor, Rev. J., True Doctrine of Eucharist, p. 58, 212. 
Tennison, Archbishop, p. 42. 
Tertullian, quoted — 

as to evidence of senses, p. 24. 

as to Mysteries, p. 58, 54. 

as to doctrine of Marcion, p. 58, 59. 

as to reality of Christ's Body, p. 61. 

as to sense of words of Institution, p. 66, 67, 72, 92, 94, 273, 
276, 277. 

as to interpretation of John vi., p. 66. 

as to phrase, " making the Body of Christ," p. 68. 

as to invisibility of a body, p. 146. 

as to the waters of Baptism, p. 229. 

as to representation of Christ's Body, p. 94, 262. 

as to interpretation of Jerem. xi. 19, p. 273. 

as to figure in Eucharist, p. 276, 277. 

as to use of memoria, p. 292. 

as to Christ's Word being His flesh, p. 382. 
Tetralogia Liturgica : see Neale. 
Theodoret, quoted — 

as to reality of Christ's Body, p. 62. 

as to local limitations of Christ's Body, p. 270. 

as to sense of words of Institution, p. 71, 74, 102, 103, 104, 132, 
268, 284. 

as to Adoration, p. 207, 208, 209, 210. 

as to use of term ckwv, p. 268, 298. 

as to interpretation of Jerem. xi. 19, p. 273. 

as to type in Eucharist, p. 274, 301. 

as to use of trvfjifhXoy, p. 284, 285, 286. 

as to use of avrirvwov, p. 291. 

as to death the condition of the res sacramenti, p. 309. 
Theodorus Heracleotes, p. 67, 336. 
Theodotus Antiochenus, p. 290. 
Theodotus the Heretic, p. 318. 


Theophilas of Alexandria, p. 08, 90, 262. 

Theophylact, p. 267. 

Theoria Rerum Eccles. : see Germanus. ,^ 

Thesaurus Eccles. of Suicer, p. 267, 268. 

Thomas Waldensis : see Waldensis. 

Thompson's Edition of the '^ Testimonie of Antiquitie," p. 12^. 

Thomdike, Herbert, p. 140. 

Thorp, p. 126. 

Thrasybulus, p. 272. 

Thuanus, p. 179. 

Tillotson, p. 217. 

Times, Correspondent of, from Rom^, p. 36, 37. 

Titus Bostrensis, p. 146, 147. 

Toutte'e, p. 173, 267, 288. 

Tracts for the Day, p. 18, 136. 

Trent, Council of, p. 192. 

Trevor, Canon, p. 205. 

Trithemius, Joannes, p. 131. 

Trullo, Council in, p. 53. 

Turretin, p. 29, 30, 160, 161, 184, 201, 208. 

Turrian, p. 105, 267. 

Turton, Bishop, p. 25, 80, 166, 168, 170. 

Ullmann, p. 331. 

Ultramosanus, p. 3. 

Ursinus, p. 161, 184. 

Ussher, Archbishop, p. 4, 6, 86, 124, 127, 132,, 218. 

Utenovius, p. 137, 172, 173, 176. 

Valckenier, p. 201. 

Valentia, Gregory de, p. 15, 20, 116, 102, 193. 

Valerianus, p. 328, 329. 

Vallarsius ; Admonitio on the Epistle to Paula and Enstochiom, 

p. 204. 
Varia Sacra of Le Moyne, p. 106. 
Vasquez, p. 106, 212, 267. 
Vercelli, Council of, 131. 
Vergil, Polydore, p. 7. 
Victor Antiochenus, p. 103, 284. 
Vienne and Lyons, Church o^ p. 826. 



Yigiliiis Tapsensis, p. 333 ; quoted— 

as to local dronmsoription of human body, p. 145, 151. 

as to spiritual touching and tasting by £utii, p. 844. 
Villiers, De, p. 85, 8A. 
Vogan, Prebendary, Trae Doctrine of the Eucharist, p. 9, 16, 20, 

185, 189, 190, 214, 300, 808, 804, 805. 
Vossius, G. I., p. 184. 

Wake, Archbishop, p. 16, 89, 47, 48, 105, 106, 107, 187, 202. 

Walafirid Strabo : see Strabo. 

Walohius, p. 46, 47, 168. 

Waldenses, Confession of, p. 830. 

Waldensis, Thomas, p. 300, 301. 

Wamantius, p. 3. 

Wastelius, p. 256. 

referred to, p. 59, 164. 
Waterland, quoted, p. 52, 288, 289. 
Weismann, p. 217. 
Wessel of Gansfort, p. 381. 
White, Bishop, Reply to Fisher, p. 182. 
Wimpheling, p. 282. 
Wiseman, Cardinal, p. 80. 
Woodhead, p. 22. 
Wordsworth, Bishop, p. 3, 7. 
Wright, p. 806. 

Zuingle,p. 25,31,86. 
Zurich Ministers, p. 29. 


Abraham, p. 248, 264. 

Adoption of the Elements, Theory of, p. 54, 316. 

Adoration : see Host. 

lower sense of, p. 286, 242, 243. 

not the purpose of the Eaoharistic Presence, p. 178. 

as taught by English Divines, p. 186 — 190. 

as taught by the Fathers, p. 203 sqq, 

as taught by the Liturgies, p. 225 sqq, 
MVtnQ : see Elfric. 
Aer, p. 251. 

Agobard, his reforming tendency, p. 221, 223. 
Alacoque, Marie, the Nun, p. 37. 
Albigenses, the, p. 330. 
Alcuin, p. 235, 294. 
Ambrose of Cahors, p. 280. 
'AvaSciStC, p. 215, 216. 
Analogy between the senses of the outer and the inner man, p. 32U, 

' Avafivrjtrig, use of, p. 292 sqq, 
*Aya<j>opdf p. 196. 

Andre wes, Bishop, his views, p. 186, 187, 
Anglo-Saxon Church, Faith of, p. 122, 125. 

"AvTirvwop, sense of, p. 64, 211, 212, 266, 267, 268, 274, 286, 289, 
290, 291. 

examples of, p. 287 sqq, 
Aphraates, the author of the Sermons attributed to James of Nisibis, 

p. 306. 
Apologists, their ridicule of that in Heathen idolatry which has its 

counterpart in the Msas, p. 153 sqq. 
Apostles, sense in which they understood the words of Institatioi), 

p. 166 sqq. 
Ark (or tabout?), adoration of, in Ethiopia, p. 242. 

BB 2 


Armenian Church, Faith of, p. 276, 277. 

Ascension of Christ, its bearing on the doctrine of the Eucharist, 

p. 139, 140. 
Aubertin unjustly accused of bad faith, p. 282. 
Augmentation, theory of, p. 54, 218, 294, 295, 316. 

Baptism, p. 54, 83, 118, 120, 177, 204, 229, 284, 821. 

Basil, St., desired a part of the Eucharist to be buried with him, 

p. 63. 
Basil's Liturgy, p. 289. 
Beguardi, p. 240, 244. 
Beguinae, p. 240, 244. 
Bell, sacring, p. 11. 
Benedict XII., Report made to him as to the fiedth of the Armenians^ 

p. 276, 277. 
Berberini MS., p. 230. 
Berengarius, Confession of, p. 56. 

misunderstood by Hugo Lingonensis, p. 264. 
Blandina, her confession concerning the Eucharist, p. 65, 

her martyrdom, p. 325, 
Blood, question concerning Christ's haying blood after Besurrection, 

p. 89, 90. 
Body of Christ, as crucified, not as glorified, the rei mcramenti in the 

Eucharist, p. 136, 137, 232, 233, 304, 306 aqq, 
Bolsena, miracle of, p. 4. 
Bulenger, Julius C»sar, p. 287, 290. 

Cabasilas, his views on the Eucharist, p. 333» 
Canterbury, Dean of, p. 277, 306. 
Carthusians, p. 247. 
Ceres, worship of, p. 216, 

Chalices, veneration of, p. 114, 209 : see Vessels, 
Chancel, p. 261, 

Change effected by consecration, p. 32, 229. 
Charlemagne, his objection to the word imago f p. 279, 
Chrism, p. 64. 

Church, the, as truly the Body of Christ as the Eucharist, p, 317 sqq, 
of England in relation to Elevation and. Adoration, p, 224, 
CJement V., Pope, p. 2. 


Communion of Christ's Body, a phrase interpretative of the words of 
Institution, p. 177. 

of Devils and of the Lord's Table, p. 164, 295. 

of Saints, supposed to comprehend the Real Presence, p. 184. 
Confioere Corpus Ohristiy and similar expressions, p. 68, 69. 
Consubstantiation needless for Communion, p. 177. 
Contradictions, p. 181. 
Contradictory doctrines, p. 331. 
Controversy, p. 202. 

Corinthian Christians, their faith as to the Eucharist, p. 165. 
Corporal : see Presence. 
Corpus Christi, Festival of, p. 2, 5, 6. 

some Romanists almost ashamed of it, p. 179. 
Corruptions of Patristic testimonies, p. 84, 102, 106, 124, 144, 145, 

239, 347. 
Creeds, ancient, contain no article on the Real Presence, p. 133. 
Cross, language of Augustine and Damascenus concerning, p. 35. 

worship of. p. 157, 209, 237. 
Cyprian, observations on his language, p. 261, 262. 

David's words concerning the Well of Bethlehem, p. 174. 

Dead, the, their participation in the Eucharist according to Cabasilas, 

p. 333. 
Dean of Canterbury, p. 277, 306. 
Death the condition of the res saeramenti in the Eucharist, p. 136, 

137, 232, 303 sqq, 
De Sacramentis, probably the work of Ambrose of Cahors, p. 280. 
Development of doctrine, p. 36, 179. 
De Villiers, his interpolated edition of Fulbertus Camotensis, p. 83 

Diana, festival of, p. 7, 8. 
DocetSB, p. 58. 

Donation effectual in Eucharist, p. 180. 

Druthmar, Christian, Protestants accused of falsifying his testimony, 
p. 281, 282. 
curious edition of his comment on St. Matthew, p. 282. 
Du Perron, Cardinal, his Confession concerning Transubstantiation, 

p. 105, 106. 
Durandus, the first to connect Elevation with Adoration, p. 245. 

Eastward position, p. 37. 


Ebiunites, p. 69. 

Eclogaa of Amalarias, p. 236. 

ElKiify, p. 91, 218, 259, 260, 268 sqq.y 298. 

"EKKXntris, p. 213. 

Elements, consecrated, given to school-children, p. 9. 

sent by a boy, p. 9. 

the " worship " due to them, p. 32, 33. 
Elevation: see Host. 
Elfric, p. 123 tqq,, 224. 

English Church in relation to Elevation and Adoration, p. 224, 248. 
Entrance, the greater, p. 242, 316. 
*Ev rvTT^, p. 214, 264. 
*E7rlK\fi(ng, p. 213. 
Ethiopian Eunuch, p. 265. 

Ethiopians, their customs as to the Eucharist, &c., p. 242. 
Eusebius of Emes3a, Homily fjolsely attributed to him, p. 345. 
Eustochium, p. 204. 
Eutychians, p. 61, 63. 
Eva, p. 2. 
Extension of the Incarnation, p. 17. 

Faith that which receives and eats, p. 830 sqq. 

Fathers, the, their teaching as to Eucharistic worship, p. 203 sqq. 

Figura, sense of, p. 301. 

as applied to Eucharist, p. 21tisqq, 

new sense given to, p. 28U. 

distinguished from Imago, p. 279, 280. 
Figure, p. 180. 
Freeman, Archdeacon, his peculiar interpretation of ra ayia toIq 

hyioiQ, p. 243. 
Friday, Good, ritual of, p. 237. 
Fulbert of Chartres, his views, p. 294, 297. 

Gelasius Oyz., his account of the Nicene Council, p. 313, 314. 

God, not man, the Giver of the res sacramenti, p. 317, 318. 

Good Friday, ritual of, p. 237. 

Gorgonia, p. 211. 

Gospel, spoken of as the Body of Christ, p. 330 sqq. 

elevation of, p. 239, 240, 244. 
Greeks, their tokens of excessive reverence, p. 241. 
their customs as to Elevation, &c., p. 251. 
Quido, p. 247. 


Heart, the Sacred, p. 86, 87. 

Heathens, their ridicule of Christians, p. 167. 

ridiculed by Christians, p. 168, 164, 166. 
Heb. xiii. 10, sense of, p. 266, 267. 
Hildebert and his teaching, p. 881, 882. 
Hincmar, his views, p. 810. 
Honohus HI., Pope, p. 40, 247. 
Host, adoration of, p. 40. 

elevation of, p. 11, 237, 289 sqq. 
Hjpostatical union, p. 20 iqq. 

Idolatry in the adoration of the Host, p. 100 sqq. 

not excused by mistake, p. 201. 
Image and pledge applied to Eucharist, p. 237. 
Image-worship, p. 239, 201. 

Images, claim made for them to rank with the Eucharist, p. 280. 
Jmaginarius, p. 272 

Imago, p. 91, 237, 270, 271, 272, 270, 280, 290, 800. 
Impanation, p. 22. 

Incarnation in relation to Eucharist, p. 186. 
Inclination during the Canon, p. 286. 
Incognito of a Prince, p. 20. 
InfallibiUty of the Pope, p. 141. 
Ink, consecrated wine mixed with, p. 68. 
Innocent UI., p. 11. 

Institution, words of, p. 72 sqq., 76, 77, 168 »gg., 177. 
InteUigibilis, and similar terms, p. 264. 
Intense adoration, prayer of, p. 226. 
Interpretative Dicta of the Fathers, p. 48, 268 sqq., 260 sqq. 

modes of expression, p. 261 sqq. 
Invisibility as applied to a body, p. 146, 147. 
Isidorus Uispalensis, p. 236, 347. 
Ivo of Chartres, p. 246. 

James of Nisibis, Homilies fedsely attributed to him, p. 806. 

Jeremiah xi. 19, interpretation of, p. 278. 

Jesuit intrigues, p. 246, 238, 239. 

Jews, their view of the words of Institution, p. 167. 

their derision of adoration of the host, p. 168. 
Jocelyn, p. 124. 


John vi., interpretation of, p. 65, 66, 67, 79, 80, 82, 314, 318,. 821, 

334, 335, 337, 338. 
John of Constantinople, p. 105. 
Jnliana, p. 1. 

Jnlian the Apostate, p. 157. 
Justin Martyr, his account of the Eucharist, p. 238. 

Kneeling at reception, p. 40, 227. 

Labhe, Father, his accusation of Aubertin, p. 292. 

Lambeth Library, p. 90, 107, 282. 

Lanfrano, p. 125. 

Light borne before host, p. 11. 

Liturgical writers, p. 235 sqq. 

Liturgies, p. 11, 12, 225 sqq. 

their general structure, p. 229. 
Liturgy of St. Basil, its doubtful character, p. 289. 
Local circumscription of human body, p. 144 sqq., 268, 270. 

Presence, p. 160, 161, 162, 192. 
Lutheran doctrine of Eucharist, p. 28, 177. 

divines, p. 173. 
Lux Mundi, p. 331. 
Lyons, Church of, p. 40, 248, 281. 

Magister contradictionum, p. 331. 
ManichsBan heretics, p. 144, 198, 201. . 
Martha, p. 327, 328. 

Materialistic notions of Eucharist, p. 51, 52, 56, 57, 330, 331. 
Matter, the question of its existence, p. 160. 
Marcus the Magician, p. 213. 
Martyr : see Justin. 
Maximus, p. 235. 

Melcbizedec, p. 242, 254, 267, 289. 
Memoria, &c., applied to Eucharist, p. 292 sqq., 302. 
Metaphysicians, p. 169. 
Mcra/3aX\«v, p. 50. 
MeTapvdfilSeiy, p. 50. 
MeraffKeva^eiv, p. 50. 
MeTaffToixetovVf p. 50. 
MeraTTOieiadatf p. 49. 
MeBBStUanB, p. 59. 


Micrologus, p 246. 

Miracles, p. 24, 26. 

MvrifjLOffvvop, use of, p. 292 sqq. 

Moon obscured in Juliana's vision, p. 1. 

Mouth of the soul, p. 330, 836. 

Mystery, ambiguity of the term, p. 181. 

Mysteries, p. 63. 

Christ adored in, p. 204. 
Mysterium, p. 70, 108, 120, 267. 

Nestorius, Doctrine of, p. 64. 
New Testament : see Testament. 
Nicholas, Pope, p. 66. 
Nisibis, James of, p. 306, 306. 
No^roc) and similar terms, p. 264. 

Oblation, its position in ancient Liturgies, p. 220, 283. 

Odo of Paris, p. 247. 

Oil, sacrament of, addressed, p. 216. 

the effect of the invocation upon it, p. 229, 267. 
Old Testament, Sacraments of, p. 221. 
"OjJLouiXTiQt p. 300. 

Opus Imperfectum in MatthsBum, MSS. of, p. 111. 
Oral manducation, p. 81. 
Ordo Romanus, p. 236. 
Orvieto, Cathedral of, p. 4. 
Outlined sketch, p. 223. 

Partaking of devils compared with partaking of Eucharist, p. 164, 

Paschasian doctrine, p. 66. 
Past things present to faith, p. 311. 
Paul, St., explains the words of Institution, p. 177. 
Paula, p. 204. 

Penitent thief, prayer of, p. 260, 261. 
Persians, sacred fire of, p. 8. 

Person of Christ not present in the elements, p. 226. 
Petavius, MS. of Fulberf s writings belonging to, p. 86. 
Pfaffian fragments of IrensBus, p. 261, 287. 
Phantasiasts, p. 60. 


Piotures, adoration of^ p. 24,2. 

in their relation to sacramental symbols, p. 256, 268, 269, 
286, 290, 291. 
Pignus, memoria, &c., applied to Eucharist, p. 292 tqq., 302. 
Pledge applied to Eucharist, p. 237, 302. 
UyevfiariKtiis, sense of, p. 67, 289, 314, 335, 336. 
Polemon, p. 219. 
Poor, the, Christ's representative Presence in them in its bearing on 

the Eucharist, p. 325 sqq. 
Pope, the, receives sitting, p. 40. 
Prayers of ancient Liturgies, not addressed to Christ as present in 

the host, p. 225, 228, 230, 231, 250, 251. 
Presence, lax language concerning, p. 35, 209. 

of things past to faith, p. 311. 

of Christ, distinctions as to, p. 15, 16, 161, 162 ; patristic 
conception of, p. 33, 34, 35, 36, 231, 260, 251, 313; 
patristic distinction between corporal and spiritual, p. 149. 

of Christ in the poor, p. 325 sqq. 

Real, a new term, p. 33. 

Beal, the definition of its mode, p. 18B, 187. 
Priest related to Christ as the Sacrament to Christ's Body, p. 255. 
Procession of Corpus Christi, p. 7. 
Upoaicvyrifrig, p. 157, 208, 209, 241, 242, 249. 
Prostration, p. 233, 240, 241. 
Prothesis, p. 241, 316. 
Tiputrdrvwoyy p. 91. 
Proxy, deliverance of a gift by a, p. 180, 181. 

Kabanus Maurus, p. 236, 237. 

Real Objective Presence needless for purposes of Communion, p. 177. 

Red Sea, a type of Baptism, p. 223. 

Relics, p. 128. 

Remission of sins — the living bread, p. 330, 338. 

Renaudot, his note on Elevation, p. 248 sqq. 

Repmsento, sense of, p. 94. 

Bes sacramenti, the, given by God, p. 317, 318, 333. 

in state of death, p. 136, 137, 232, 303 sqq. 

the object of spiritual senses, p. 329 sqq. 
Rhemigius of Auxerre, his views, p. 294. 
Bock in the wilderness, p. 77, 78, 224. 


Rubric, Black, p. 42, 43. 

of the Mass, p. 193. 

of the English Church before the Reformation, p. 248. 
Rupert of Deutz, his views, p. 311. 

Sacrament, including the species, adored in the Church of Rome, 

p. 192 sqq. 
Sacraments, p. 253 sqq., 257 aqq. 

of the Old and New Law, p. 220 aqq., 254, 255. 
Sacramental imion, p. 182 sqq., 270. 
Sacred Heart, p. 36, 37. 
Sacrifice, p. 178, 230, 232, 233. 

" quasi sacrum iactum," p. 259. 
School-children, remains of Eucharist given to, p. 8. 
Scriptures, Christ's Body said to be eaten in them, p. 330 sqq. 
Senses, evidence of, p. 24. 

spiritual, p. 329 fiqq. 
Sepulchre, worshipped, p. 209. 
Sigeric, Archbishop of Canterbury, p. 125. 
Signs, p. 257 sqq. 
bignum, examples of its use, p. 275 sqq. 

its sense, p. 301. 
Similitude, p. 270 sqq., 272, 300. 
Sketched outline, compared with Sacraments of the Old Testament, 

p. 223. 
Sfcid, p. 271, 273, 284. 
Sorbonne, Doctors of, p. 106. 
Species, sense of, p. 262, 276. 
Spiritual senses, which have for their object the res sacramentiy p. 329 

Spodicon, p. 249. 

Stall, Christ worshipped in, p. 204, 209. 
^vfj/ioXoPf used as equivalent to tvttoq, p. 274. 

used as equivalent to avrlrvTrovy p. 286. 

examples of its use, p. 282 sqq. 

its sense, p. 302. 
Sun, worship of, p. 223, 224. 

Superstitions, with reference to monuments of martyrs, p. 143. 
Superstitious additions to the faith of the Eucharist, p. 53, 213. 
Suppositum, one, p. 21, 22, 194. 
Supra-local Presence, plea of, p. 160 sqq. 





Price 2b. 6d. ; in doth, 3b. Od. 





*'This volnme is from the same pen as the valuable series of papers on 
the Eucharistic Presence, of which we have had occanon more than once to 
speak in terms of high commendation. It is a short treatise, a eoncio ad 
clerumf prepared for a clerical meeting, enlai^ed. Bat it is very thoughtful, 
and comes from one who has both read for himself, and learned to think for 
himself. The work is the expression of that filler appreciation of the nature 
and meaning- of the sacraments, which we fully believe that God is working 
in the minds of Evangelical m«fn through the means of controversy. We 
can remember the time when it was thought a suspicious thing to recognise 
the sacraments as means of grace : we fancy that in the present year (1872) 
very few men could be found to deny it. Of this we will not say higher— 
but of this more adequate view of the sacraments, an English Presbyter is a 
warm as well as an able advocate. . . . The subject is treated with equal 
accuracy and learning." — Christian Advocate, Feb. 1872. 



London: Haughtoii k Co., 10, Paternoster Eow. 

Now Beady. Cheap Edition (Abridged) of 

aptrs on \\t ^atixm d % €nglis^ €\m^ 



Price 2s., or in ornamental cloth, 8b. 6d. ; each No. separately, price 2d. 

The original Edition can still be had, as under : 

I, — Views of our Reformers — Archbishops of Canterbury. 

II, — Vieivs of our Reformers — Reformers of the Reigns of 
Henry VIII, and Edward VI, 

III. — Views of our Reformers — Reforming Divines of the Reign 
of Queen Elizabeth, 

IV, — Books of Sanction, 

V. — The Homilies. 


VL — The Catechism, 
VII, — The Order of the Administration of the Lord^s Supper, 
VIII, — The Thirty -nine Articles, 

(price one shilling each.) 

Index: (1) Of Authors quoted, (2) Of Subjects. (Price 6rf.) 
Supplement, containing — 

I, — The Real Objective Presence : Questions suggested by the 
Judgment of the Arches Court in the Bennett Case, 

11. — Postscript on ** The Real Presence " of Laudian 

(PBICE sixpence each.) 

The whole Series bound in Two Volumes, ornamental cloth, 4s. each. 
The Series without the Supplement, in One Vol., 6s. 

The Doctrine of the Sacraments in Relation to the Doctrine of 

Grace, 5s, 6d, 

A Word for Warning and Defence of the Church of England 
against Ritualism and Romanism, 6d, 

London : William Macintosh, 10, Paternoster Bow. 

The Principles of the Reformation, Sd, 

Our Present Duty to the Church of England, 2d, 

Maidstone : W. S. Vivish.