σχήματος, καὶ τοῦ εἴδους, καὶ ὁρατά ἐστι, καὶ ἑπτὰ, οἷα καὶ πρό

. . . οὐ γὰρ σῶμα μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄρτος ζωῆς ὀνομάζεται. οὕτως αὐτὸς ὁ Κύριος προσηγόρευσε.

In these passages Theodoret expressly affirms that the nature, puoic, and substance, ovcía, of the consecrated elements, remain unchanged.

GELASIUS, de duabus in Christo naturis. In Bibl. Patrum, p. 3. tom. v. p. 671. Edit. Colon. 1618.

Certe sacramenta quæ sumimus corporis et sanguinis Christi divina res est, propter quod et per eadem divinæ efficimur consortes 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 sua proprietate naturæ, sic illud mysterium principale cujus nobis efficientiam virtutemque efficienter repræsentant.

In illustration of the reality of our Lord's human nature in conjunction with the Godhead, Gelasius and other writers refer to the reality of the bread in the Eucharist, which is not destroyed by the sacramental conversion from common into holy. A reference to the Eucharist by the modern Roman writers, who suppose the bread to be annihilated, would only serve to illustrate the Monophysite or Eutychian heresy.

FACUNDUS, Defens. Trium Capp. lib. ix. Edit. Paris, 1629, p. 404, 405.

Sacramentum corporis et sanguinis ejus, quod est in pane et poculo consecrato, corpus ejus et sanguinem dicimus, non quod proprie corpus ejus sit panis, et poculum sanguis, sed quod in se mysterium corporis sanguinisque contineant. . . . . Quocirca

sicut Christi fideles sacramentum corporis et sanguinis ejus accipientes, corpus et sanguinem Christi recte dicuntur accipere, sic et ipse Christus sacramentum adoptionis filiorum cum suscepisset, potuit recte dici adoptionem filiorum suscepisse.

If Facundus had been writing against transubstantiation he could not more clearly have expressed himself.

MACARIUS, Homil. 27. p. 164. Paris, 1621.

Καὶ ὅτι ἐν τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ προσφέρεται ἄρτος καὶ οἶνος, Αντίτυπον τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ αἵματος· καὶ οἱ μεταλαμβάνοντες ἐκ τοῦ φαινομένου ἄρτου, πνευματικῶς τὴν σάρκα τοῦ κυρίου ἐσθίουσιν. Here Macarius has directly incurred the anathema of the 8th

canon.

ELFRIC, Abp. of Canterbury. Epist. ad Wulfstan.

Intelligite modo sacerdotes quod ille Dominus qui ante passionem suam potuit convertere illum panem et illud vinum ad suum corpus et sanguinem: quod ipse quotidie sanctificat per manus sacerdotum suorum panem ad suum corpus spiritualiter et vinum ad suum sanguinem. Non sit tamen hoc sacrificium corpus ejus in quo passus est pro nobis: neque sanguis ejus quem pro nobis effudit: sed spiritualiter corpus ejus efficitur et sanguis sicut manna quod de cœlo pluit, et aqua quæ de petra fluxit. Sicut Paulus Apostolus ait: Nolo enim vos ignorare fratres quoniam patres nostri omnes . . . . eandem escam spiritualem manducaverunt: et omnes eundem potum spiritualem biberunt. Bibebant autem de spirituali consequenti eos petra. Petra autem erat Christus. Unde dicit Psalmista; panem cœli dedit eis; panem' angelorum manducavit homo. Nos quoque proculdubio manducamus panem angelorum: et bibimus de illa petra, quæ Christum significabat: quotiens fideliter accedimus ad sacrificium corporis et sanguinis Christi.-Routh, Script. Eccles. Opusc. p. 520, from Testimonium Antiquitatis. Lond. 1567, fol. 54. b.

HALF COMMUNION.

Council of Trent, SESSION XXI.

Canon 1.-If any shall say, that by the command of God, or the necessity of salvation, all and sundry the faithful of Christ ought to receive both kinds of the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist; let him be anathema.

Canon 3.-If any shall deny, that whole and entire Christ, the fountain and author of all graces, is received under the one kind of bread, because, as some falsely assert, he is not received under both kinds according to Christ's institution; let him be anathema. See above, p. 295.

Among the Fathers and Ecclesiastical writers anathematized by these canons, are the following:

CYPRIAN, Epist. ad Cæcilium. Edit. Wirceb, i. 185–9.

Quoniam quidam vel ignoranter vel simpliciter in calice dominico sanctificando, et plebi ministrando, non hoc faciunt quod Jesus Christus Dominus et Deus noster, sacrificii hujus auctor et doctor, fecit et docuit; religiosum pariter ac necessarium duxi has ad vos litteras facere . . . ut si quis in isto errore adhuc tenetur, veritatis luce perspecta, ad radicem atque originem traditionis dominicæ revertatur. Calix domini in Ecclesia

semper et sititur et bibitur.

Cyprian is speaking against those who, in the Eucharistic chalice, gave the people water without wine: how much more strongly would his anger have been excited against any who should have withheld the chalice altogether!

JULIUS, Bishop of Rome, Epist. ad Episc. Egypt. Decret. iii. P. de Consecr. dist. ii. § 7.

Cum omne crimen atque peccatum oblatis Deo sacrificiis deleatur, quid de cætero pro delictorum expiatione Domino dabitur, quando in ipsa sacrificii oblatione erratur? Audivimus enim quosdam schismatica ambitione detentos contra Divinos ordines,

et Apostolicas institutiones . . . . intinctam Eucharistiam populis pro complemento communionis porrigere. . . quod quam sit Evangelicæ et Apostolicæ doctrinæ contrarium, et consuetudini Ecclesiasticæ adversum, non difficile ab ipso fonte veritatis probabitur, a quo ordinata ipsa sacramentorum mysteria processeseorsum enim panis et seorsum calicis commendatio memoratur . . . . et ideo omnis deinceps talis error atque præsumptio cessare debet.

runt

The schismatical error and presumption condemned by Julius, was the giving the bread and wine together instead of separately: what would he have said of those who should give dry bread alone, and no wine at all?

AMBROSE, Comment. in 1 Cor. xi. Venet. 1781. vii. Append.

p. 174.

Indignum dicit esse Domino qui aliter mysterium celebrat quam ab eo traditum est. Non enim potest devotus esse, qui aliter præsumit, quam datum est ab auctore.

The institution of the sacrament in both kinds is admitted by the Councils of Constance and Trent; let the Romans consider how St. Ambrose speaks of those who depart from that institution.

LEO I. Bishop of Rome, Sermo IV. in Quadrages. Bibl. Patr. Colon. 1618, vol. v. part 2. p. 822.

Abdicant (Manichæi) enim se sacramento salutis humanæ . . . cumque ad tegendum infidelitatem suam nostris audeant interesse mysteriis. . . . ore indigno corpus accipiunt, sanguinem autem redemptionis nostræ haurire omnino declinant.

If it was a mark of notorious heresy in the Manichees to refuse to receive the cup, how can it be accounted otherwise than heretical to refuse to administer it?

GELASIUS, Bishop of Rome. Epist. ad Majoric. et Joan. Decret. iii. P. de Consecr. dist. ii. § 12.

Comperimus autem quod quidam sumpta tantummodo corporis

sacri portione a calice sacri cruoris abstineant. Qui proculdubio (quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur obstringi,) aut integra sacramenta percipiant, aut ab integris arceantur, quia divisio unius ejusdemque mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio, non potest pro

venire.

Here superstition and sacrilege are the terms used by Gelasius to designate the conduct of those who refuse to receive the cup; are not the same terms applicable to those who refuse to administer it?

THE FATHERS IN THE COUNCIL OF BRAGA.

Conc. vi. 562.

Canon 1.-The sentence of Julius, cited above, is here stamped with the authority of a Council, and enforced on pain of suspension and deposition.

THE COMPILERS OF THE ORIENTAL RUBRIC, cited by Renaudot, ii. p. 120.

Sacerdoti non licet absque calice corpus sanctum tribuere.

The following writers of the middle ages may serve to show how late it was free for those in communion with Rome to hold opinions on this subject at direct variance with the subsequent decrees of Trent.

ALBERTUS MAGNUS. 4 Sent. dist. 8. art. 13. Basil. 1506.

vol. iv.

An sacramentum sit unum vel plura. Cum fit confectio corporis Christi virtute sacramenti, non habetur sanguis; . . . et cum conficitur sanguis virtute formæ sacramentalis, non habetur corpus; ergo verum corpus et verus sanguis, licet unita sint naturaliter, tamen sacramentaliter divisa sunt.

Compare this with the Tridentine definition, pp. 229, 230.

ALEXANDER OF HALES. Quæst. 32. Mem. 1. Art. 2. 1516. tom. iv. p. 123.

Sumpto hoc sacramento digne in utraque specie, major est