but the human nature in the former is represented by the visible element (the bread) in the latter, and the Divine nature in the former by the body of Christ in the latter, which, properly speaking, formed a part of his humanity.-The doctrine of transubstantiation properly speaking, (as it was afterwards held by the Romish church), is essentially Docetic, inasmuch as the elements are nothing but a mere deception of the senses. That view of the ordinance in question which considers it as a purely external and symbolical rite (the notion of the Socinians in later times), savours of Ebionitism. The speculative distinction between the sign and the thing which it is meant to teach (the view taken by the Reformed church), is allied to Nestorianism (especially the mode in which it was represented by Zuinglius). The doctrine of consubstantiation which prevailed in the present period, and was afterwards in substance adopted by Luther, would remind us of the orthodox doctrine as propounded in the canons of the synod of Chalcedon, if it might not with more propriety be compared with Eutychianism and Monophysitism, which were in their time but the extremes of orthodox christology. In the said controversy, as well as in the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, attempts at harmonizing the various modes of interpretation might easily lead to heretical notions (thus the Calvinistic view.)

(2) On such names as λατρεία αναίμακτος, θυσία τοῦ ἱλασμοῦ (Cyrill Myst. V.), ἱερουργία, μετάληψις τῶν ἁγιασμάτων, ἁγία τράπεζα, ἐφόδιον (in reference to the administration of the Lord's Supper to the sick), as well as on the formulæ commonly used in connection with the rite of consecration, comp. Suicer, Thesaurus sub vocib.; Touttée in Diss. ad Cyr. Hier. 3, p. ccxxxiii. SS. Marheinecke, 1. c. p. 33, ss. Augusti, Archæologie, vol. viii. p. 32, ss.

(3) Cyrill of Jerusalem so connected (Cat. xxii. § 6.) the miracle performed at the marriage at Cana with the μraßλ of the elements used in the Lord's Supper, that it is difficult not to suppose that he believed in a real and total change, the more so as he added : Ε' γὰρ καὶ ἡ αἴσθησίς σοι τοῦτο ὑποβάλλει, ἀλλὰ ἡ πίστις σε βεβαιούτω· μὴ ἀπὸ τῆς γεύσεως κρίνῃς τὸ πρᾶγμα, ἀλλ' ἀπὸ τῆς πίστεως πληροφοροῦ ἀνενδοιάστως, σώματος καὶ αἵματος Χριστοῦ καταξιωθείς; and yet he said § 3 : ἐν τύτῳ ἄρτου δίδοταί σοι τὸ αἷμα, etc. But as he spoke (Cat. xxi. 3.) of a similar change effected in the oil which was used at the performance of the rite of consecration, with

out intimating his belief in a real metaphysical change of the substance of the oil into the substance of the Holy Spirit, we may suppose, that his highly rhetorical language meant to teach nothing, but that the inferior is changed into the superior. Comp. Neander, Kirchengesch. ii. p. 1396. But Cyrill undoubtedly supposed a real union of the communicants with Christ (σύσσωμοι καὶ σύναιμοι Χριστοῦ χριστοφόροι γινόμεθα), and thought that we participate in the nature of Christ by the assimilation of his body and blood to our members, etc. Cat. xxiii.-Gregory of Nyssa draws a parallel between the physical preservation of man by physical food, and his spiritual subsistence by the participation of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper. It is the most effectual antidote of the consequence of sin, viz. mortality. The passages bearing on this point (from Cat. 37.) are given by Münscher ed. by von Cölln, i. p. 499, 500. Rupp p. 238, ss. Gregory used the terms μεταποιεῖσθαι, μετατίθεσθαι, μεταστοιχειοῦσθαι τῆς φύσεως τῶν φαινομένων in a sense similar to that of Cyrill. comp. Rupp, p. 240, note, and Neander, 1. c. p. 1397. 98. -Chrysostom regards the institution of the Lord's Supper as a proof of the highest love of the Redeemer to mankind, inasmuch as he not only gave them an opportunity of seeing him, but also enabled them to touch him, and to partake of his body, hom. 45, in Joh. (Opp. T. viii. p. 292.) He too teaches a real union of the communicants with Christ: 'Αναφέρει ἑαυτὸν ἡμῖν, καὶ οὐ τῇ πίστει μόνον, ἀλλ' αὐτῷ τῷ πράγματι σῶμα ἡμᾶς αὐτοῦ κατασκευάζει, Hom. 83, in Matth. (Opp. T. vii. p. 869), comp. hom. 24, in Ep. ad Cor. (Opp. T. ix. p. 257,) and other passages quoted by Marheinecke, 1. c. p. 44. Yet the manner in which Chrysostom speaks of the relation in which the spiritual (vorróv) stands to the sensuous (aio9nró), and the comparison which he draws between the Lord's Supper and baptism, seem to be opposed to the notion of a real change. "If we were incorporeal, Christ would nourish us with incorporeal things (doara); but since the soul is tied to the body, God gives us iv aisɔnrois rà voŋrá.” Comp. the passage on Matth. before cited in Munscher ed. by von Cölln, p. 502. Ebrard, p. 284, ss. Hilary, de Trin. viii. 13, says in reference to Christ: Naturam carnis suæ ad naturam æternitatis sub sacramento nobis communicandæ carnis admiscuit, that which Irenæus calls wors #gós å‡Dagolav. Ambrose, de initiandis mysteriis, c. 8, and 9.) regards the Lord's Supper as the living bread which came down from heaven (John vi. 51.), and is

none other but Christ himself. If blessings pronounced by men (viz. the prophets of the Old Test.), possessed the power of changing the natural elements, how much more must the same be true in reference to the sacrament? Quod si tantum valuit Sermo Eliæ ut ignem de cœlo promeret, non valebit Christi sermo ut species mutet elementorum? All things are created by the Word (Christ) to effect a simple change (mutatio) cannot be too difficult to him, who is the author of creation. The body which was in a miraculous way brought forth by the Virgin, is at the same time the body of the sacrament. Nevertheless, he says, (in contradiction to the assumption of a real change): Ante benedictionem verborum cœlestium species nominatur, post consecrationem corpus Christi significatur, and in reference to the wine ante consecrationem aliud dicitur, post consecrationem sanguis nuncupatur. (But it ought not to be forgotten, that critical doubts have been raised respecting the genuineness of this book.) His views are most nearly allied to those of Cyrill, comp. Ebrard, p. 306, ss.

(4) The above passages sufficiently show that the symbolical interpretation accompanied the realistic, or rather that they passed over into each other, without the sign and the thing represented by it being always distinctly separated. Eusebius of Cæsarea, however, was led by his Origenistic principles to distinguish between the figurative and the real, Demonstr. evangel. i. 10, and Theol. eccles. iii. 12. Neander, Kirchengesch. p. 1403. Athanasius too attempted a spiritual interpretation of the eating of the body and the drinking of the blood of Christ, ep. iv. ad Serap. (in Neander, 1. c. p. 1399); and Gregory of Nazianzum called the bread and wine symbols and types (ȧvriruña)a of the great mysteries, Orat. xvii. 12, p. 325. Ullmann, p. 484. Neander, quotes p. 1397, a fragment of a letter addressed by Chrysostom to Cesarius, a monk, the authenticity of which he questions. If it were genuine, it would prove that Chrysostom, as well as his disciple Nilus, made a clear distinction between the symbol and the thing represented by it. The latter compared, Lib. i. ep. 44. (see Neander, 1. c.) the bread which has been consecrated, to a document which having been confirmed by the emperor, is called Sacra. The distinction made by Theodoret between the sign and the thing

Comp. Suicer, Thes. T. i. p. 383, ss., and Ullmann, 1. c. who oppose the interpretation of Elias Cretensis.

signified, was intimately connected with the similar distinction which he drew between the human and the Divine natures of Christ, (comp. note 1.) Dial. ii. Opp. iv. p. 126: Ovde yàg μera τὸν ἁγιασμὸν τά μυστικά σύμβολα τῆς οἰκείας ἐξίσταται φύσεως. Μένει γὰρ ἐπὶ τῆς προτέρας ουσίας, καὶ τοῦ σχήματος καὶ τοῦ εἴδους, καὶ ὁρατά ἐστι καὶ ἁπτὰ, οἷα και πρότερον ἦν. Νοεῖται δὲ ἅπερ ἐγένετο, καὶ πιστεύεται καὶ προσκυνεῖται, ὡς ἐκεῖνα ὄντα ἅπερ πιστεύεται. Παράθες τοίνυν τῷ ἀρχετύπῳ τὴν εἰκόνα καὶ ὄψει τὴν ὁμοιότητα. Χρὴ γὰρ ἐοικέναι τῇ ἀληθείᾳ τὸν τύπον. He also distinguised between the μεταβολὴ τῇ χάριτι and the μεταβολὴ τῆς φύσεως, Dial. i. p. 26.

(5) Augustine in interpreting the words pronounced by our Saviour at the institution of this ordinance, reminds us of their figurative import, contra Adimant. c. 12. 3. According to him the language of John vi. is highly figurative, contra advers. leg. et prophetar. ii. c. 9. (The controversy in which he was engaged with the Manichæans led him to defend the figurative style of the Old Test. by adducing similar examples from the New.) He even supposed that the characteristic feature of the sacraments consists in this, that they are symbolical rites, Ep. 98, 9: Si sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum quarum sacramenta sunt, non haberent, omnino sacramenta non essent. Ex hac autem similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt. The sacrament in question is the body of Christ secundum quendam modum, but not absolutely, and its participation is a communicatio corporis et sanguinis ipsius (Ep. 54, 1,) comp. de doctr. chr. iii. 10. 16. In the passage last mentioned, he calls the partaking of Christ's body, in the literal sense of the word (John vi. 33,) facinus vel flagitium, and continues as follows: Figura est ergo, præcipiens passioni Dominicæ communicandum et suaviter atque utiliter recondendum in memoria, quod pro nobis caro ejus crucifixa et vulnerata sit, comp. de civ. Dei xxi. c. 25. Respecting the body of Christ he says, ep. 146: Ego Domini corpus ita in cœlo esse credo, ut erit in terra, quando ascendit in cœlum, comp. Marheinecke, p. 56, Neander, 1. c. p. 1400.-On the connection subsisting between the views of Augustine concerning the Lord's Supper, and those respecting baptism, comp. Wiggers, ii. p. 146; on the connection subsisting between the former opinions and his views on the sacraments in general, comp. § 137, note 2.

SS.

(6) Aug. de trin. iii. 10; possunt habere honorem tamquam religiosa, sed non stuporem tamquam mira.

(7) Thus Gregory of Nazianzum himself believed in the su pernatural effects of the Lord's Supper, Orat. viii. 17, 18, p. 228, 229, and Ep. 240. Ullmann, p. 483, 84.-On the communion of children, which was common in the Latin church, comp. the works on antiquities.

(8) Gelas. de duab. natur. in Christo, Bibl. max. PP. T. viii. p. 703, quoted by Meyer, p. 34. Münscher edit. by von Cölln, p. 504: Certe sacramenta, quæ sumimus, corporis et sanguinis Christi, divina res est, propter quod et per eadem divinæ efficimur participes naturæ et tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis et vini. Et certe imago et similitudo corporis et sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur. Satis ergo nobis evidenter ostenditur, hoc nobis in ipso Christo Domino sentiendum, quod in ejus imagine profitemur, celebramus et sumimus, ut sicut in hanc, scilicet in divinam transeant, Sancto Spiritu perficiente, substantiam, permanente tamen in suæ proprietate natura, sic illud ipsum mysterium principale, cujus nobis efficientiam virtutemque veraciter repræsentant.

(9) After the example of Cyprian, the idea of a sacrifice is distinctly set forth by most of the Fathers of this period. Thus by Gregory of Nazianzum, Orat. ii. 95, p. 56. Ullmann, p. 483, and Basil the Great, Ep. 93, (though without any more precise definition, Klose, p. 72.) But Gregory the Great speaks more distinctly, Moral. Lib. xxii. 26, of a quotidianum immolationis sacrificium, comp. Lau, p. 484, ss.

5. The Doctrine of the Last Things.

$139.

MILLENNARIANISM.-THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST.

The contest which Origen had fought against the advocates of Millennarianism, was soon after his death decided in his favour. His disciple, Dionysius of Alexandria, succeeded more by persuasion, than by force, in imposing silence on the followers of Nepos, an Egyptian bishop, who, adhering to the letter of Scripture, were opposed to all allegorical interpretation, and had the presbyter Coracion for their leader after the death of