CYRIL OF JERUSALEM, Myst. Catech. iv. Paris, 1631, p. 237.

Ωστε μετά πάσης πληροφορίας, ὡς σώματος καὶ αἵματος μεταλαμβάνωμεν Χριστοῦ· ἐν τύπῳ γὰρ ἄρτου δίδοταί σοι τὸ σῶμα, καὶ ἐν τύπῳ οἴνου, δίδοταί σοι τὸ αἷμα.

Myst. Catech. iii. Ibid. p. 235.

̓Αλλ' ὅρα μὴ ὑπονοήσῃς ἐκεῖνο τὸ μύρον ψιλὸν εἶναι· ὥσπερ καὶ ὁ ἄρτος τῆς εὐχαριστίας, μετὰ τὴν ἐπίκλησιν τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος, οὐκ ἔτι ἄρτος λιτὸς, ἀλλὰ σῶμα Χριστοῦ· οὕτω καὶ τὸ ἅγιον τοῦτο μύρον, οὐκ ἔτι ψιλὸν, οὐδ ̓ ὡς ἂν εἴποι τις κοινὸν μετ ̓ ἐπίκλησιν, ἀλλὰ Χριστοῦ χάρισμα.

Here it is not to be denied that Cyril considers the same change to take place in oil by consecration, as is effected in the eucharistic elements. Will the Romans contend that oil is transubstantiated? If not, then, according to Cyril, neither are the eucharistic elements. They are changed from common into holy, and are means of conveying grace. He affirms no more.

HILARY, De Trinitate, viii. § 13. Edit. Wirceb. i. 231, 2. Naturam carnis suæ ad naturam æternitatis sub sacramento nobis communicandæ carnis admiscet. . . mysterio carnem corporis sui sumimus.

nosque vere sub

§ 14. . . . . De naturali enim in nobis Christi veritate quæ dicimus, nisi ab eo didicimus, stulte, atque impie dicimus. . . . Nunc enim et ipsius Domini professione, et fide nostra vere caro est, et vere sanguis est.

§ 15. Quam autem in eo per sacramentum communicatæ carnis et sanguinis simus ipse testatur dicens. . . . ille rursum in nobis per sacramentorum mysterium crederetur 1.

1 I have cited more passages than one from this writer, because the strong terms in which he speaks concerning Christ's dwelling in us, and we in Him, by the reception of the holy eucharist, precisely the same which the Church of England uses, would be likely to deceive a person into an imagination of his favouring transubstantiation, were it not that he, like the Church of England, has given such cautions as to the receiving of his terms, and added such expressions

Comment. in Matt. xiv. 16.

Nondum enim concessum Apostolis erat ad vitæ æternæ cibum cœlestem panem perficere et ministrare.

EPIPHANIUS, Anacephalæosis Hæres. tom. ii. lib. iii. § 8. Edit. Petav. ii. 154.

Ἐνταῦθα δὲ ἐν Χριστῷ ἰσχυροποιουμένων τῆς δυνάμεως τοῦ ἄρτου, καὶ τοῦ ὕδατος ἰσχύος ἵνα οὐκ ἄρτος ἡμῖν γένηται δύναμις, ἀλλὰ δύναμις ἄρτου· καὶ βρῶσις μὲν ὁ ἄρτος, ἡ δὲ δύναμις ἐν αὐτῷ εἰς ζωογόνησιν.

Here Epiphanius compares the water of baptism with the bread of the eucharist, and expressly affirms that what we eat is bread.

BASIL. See above, p. 100.

In his liturgy he applies the term reasonable and unbloody sacrifice to the elements before consecration: thus witnessing against the doctrine of the sacrifice of the mass, as taught by many in the Church of Rome. He prays only for a sacramental conversion of the elements for the benefit of the partakers; thus incurring the anathema contained in the fourth canon on transubstantiation. He also speaks of the communicants as having partaken of this " one bread and cup."

GREGORY NAZIANZEN, Orat. in Laudem Gorgoniæ, p. 187, Paris, 1630.

Et si quid uspiam Antityporum pretiosi corporis aut sanguinis manus recondiderat, id lacrymis admiscuisset, o rem mirabilem ! statim liberatam se morbo sentit.

We are not called upon to place implicit faith in the miracle

as sufficiently clear him from countenancing so gross an error. It is by "Sacramental Communion" in the body of Christ; in "a mystery;" "by faith," that the partaking of the consecrated elements makes us one with Christ, and Christ with us. Unless the Romans can claim the Church of England on their side by virtue of these expressions, neither can they St. Hilary. If she is found condemned by their anathemas, so is he also.

here recorded, nor to commend the conduct of Gorgonias in reserving from the Lord's table a part of the consecrated elements, which were given her to be eaten there. But be her conduct right or wrong, be the miracle true or false, it is clear that St. Gregory speaks of the elements after consecration as the figures of Christ's body and His blood.

GREGORY OF NYSSA, In Baptismum Christi Orat. p. 802, 803, Paris, 1615.

...

Nam et altare hoc sanctum, cui adsistimus lapis est naturâ communis... Sed quoniam Dei cultui consecratum . . . altare immaculatum est. . . . Panis item, panis est initio communis: sed ubi eum mysterium sacrificaverit, corpus Christi fit, et dicitur. Eadem item verbi vis etiam sacerdotem augustum et honorandum facit, novitate Benedictionis a communitate Vulgi segregatum cum nihil vel corpore vel formâ mutatus; sed, quod ad speciem externam attinet, ille sit, qui erat, invisibili quadam vi ac gratiâ invisibilem animam in melius transformatam gerens.

Here Gregory declares the change in the elements by consecration, whereby they become the body and blood of Christ, to be the same which takes place in an altar by consecration, and in a man by ordination. Is the altar transubstantiated? If so, into what? Is the man transubstantiated by being made a priest? If not; then neither are the Eucharistic elements transubstantiated according to Gregory of Nyssa. But Gregory says of the priest, that "his species remains as it was." Will the Romans tell us that this only means his "accidents" without substance?

AMBROSE, De Sacrament. iv. c. 4. Edit. Venet. Tom. v.

pp. 229-231.

Quanto magis operatorius est, ut sint quæ erant, et in aliud commutentur. . . forte dicis: speciem sanguinis non video. Sed habet similitudinem; sicut enim mortis similitudinem sumsisti, ita etiam similitudinem pretiosi sanguinis bibis.

Here he expressly affirms the sacred elements to remain what

they were, and yet at the same time to be changed into another; the selfsame proposition that we have seen throughout, as Iræneus speaks of the twofold character, earthly (as to substance), and heavenly (as to virtue).

Ibid.

Ipse dixit, et factum est; ipse mandavit, et creatum est. Tu ipse eras, sed eras vitiis creatura; posteaquam consecratus es, nova creatura esse cœpisti.

Is a man, I pray, transubstantiated by baptism? If not, then

neither are the Eucharistic elements, according to St. Ambrose.

Ibid.

In comedendo et potando carnem et sanguinem, quæ pro nobis oblata sunt significamus. In similitudinem accipis sacramentum, est figura corporis et sanguinis Domini, similitudinem pretiosi sanguinis bibis.

AUGUSTINE, In Psalm. iii. 1. Paris, 1691. iv.

P. 7.

Cum adhibuit ad convivium, in quo corporis et sanguinis sui figuram discipulis commendavit et tradidit.

Contra Adamantum, c. 12. § 3. Ibid. viii. P. 124.

Non enim Dominus dubitavit dicere, Hoc est corpus meum, cum signum daret corporis sui.

Epist. ad Bonifacium.

Si enim sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum, quarum sacramenta sunt, non haberent, omnino sacramenta non essent. . . Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum sacramentum corporis Christi est ita sacramentum fidei fides est.

Enarratio in Ps. 98. Ibid. iv. p. 1066.

Spiritaliter intelligite quod locutus sum: non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis. . . . . Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi, spiritaliter intellectum vivificabit vos.

If Augustine had set himself to write against transubstantia

tion, could he have expressed himself more clearly against it? If he had wished to incur the anathemas of the Council of Trent, how could he more effectually have done so ?

CHRYSOSTOM, Epist. ad Cæsarium. Paris, 1835, iii. p. 897.

Sicut enim antequam sanctificetur panis, panem nominamus, divina autem illum sanctificante gratia, mediante sacerdote, liberatus est quidem appellatione panis, dignus autem habitus est Domini corporis appellatione, etiamsi natura panis in ipso permansit, et non duo corpora, sed unum corpus Filii prædicatur : sic et hic divina, ¿rièpvodons, id est, inundante corporis natura unum filium unam personam, utraque hæc fuerunt. Agnoscendum tamen inconfusam et indivisibilem rationem non in una solum natura, sed in duabus perfectis.

The genuineness of this epistle has been admitted by many eminent writers on the Roman side. Du Pin, Cent. v. p. 32. Harduin, and others mentioned in the Benedictine edition. It is cited by John of Damascus, the Presbyter Anastasius, Nicephorus, and others: but rejected by Le Quien, Montfauçon, and others. See the caution of the Benedictine editors, in the edition from which the extract is made. However, it may be as well to add another passage from the same author.

In 1 Ep. ad Corinth.

Καθάπερ γὰρ τὸ σῶμα ἐκεῖνο ἥνωται τῷ Χριστῷ, οὕτω καὶ ἡμεῖς αὐτῷ διὰ τοῦ ἄρτου τούτου ἑνούμεθα.

THEODORET, Dial. I. Edit. Hal. 1772. iv. 26.

Οὗτος τὰ ὁρώμενα σύμβολα τῇ τοῦ σώματος καὶ αἵματος προσηγορίᾳ τετίμηκεν, οὐ τὴν φύσιν μεταβαλὼν, ἀλλὰ τὴν χάριν τῇ φύσει προστεθεικώς.

Dial. II. Ibid. iv. 126, 127.

Οὐδὲ γὰρ μετὰ τὸν ἁγιασμὸν τὰ μυστικά σύμβολα τῆς οἰκείας ἐξίσταται φύσεως· μένει γὰρ ἐπὶ τῆς προτέρας οὐσίας, καὶ τοῦ