universal rule of the Christian Church should not have 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 to avoid the conclusion, it is impossible to deny that statements occur in individual writers which can never be

We learn from the writings of Cyril Alex. (Adver. Nestorium, lib. v. cap. vi., Op., edit. Migne, tom. 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 οὗ ἔστι τὸ σῶμα ἀντίτυπον. On which Albertinus writes: "Cum dicat, Corpus Domini esse panis illius antitypum, hoc est, rem seu veritatem ab illo pane tanquam a typo suo figuratam, typusque (ut notat Cyrillus) non sit veritas quam figurat, sed illius simulachrum; per panem illum non potest intelligere 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. 507, and Crakanthorp, Def. Eccles. Angl., p. 516, A. C. L.)

The rendering given by Aubertin here to ȧvríTUπov is, no doubt, unusual. Bellarmine says: “Vox antitypon nunquam accipitur pro exemplari." (De Euch., lib. ii. cap. xv., Op., tom. iii. c. 600, edit. 1601.)

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 failed to do so if he had believed that the Eucharist was named the Lord's Body because of its being so ἀπλῶς.

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 Real Presence in the Elements. And yet for this teaching the writers pass uncondemned and unaccused.*

* There is a fragment of Irenæus, 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 Communion was the Body and Blood of Christ (τὴν θείαν μετάληψιν αἷμα καὶ σῶμα εἶναι Χριστοῦ). And Irenæus 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 (αὐτοὶ νομίσαντες τῷ ὄντι αἷμα καὶ σάρκα εἶναι).

Did Irenæus consider this report a true one? His faith was very different from that of teachers of the Real 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.

But Irenæus goes on to say that other Greeks being informed of this, two martyrs were compelled by torture to make confession [ὁμολογῆσαι διὰ βασάνων ἠνάγκαζον.] 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?" (Οἷς εὐστόχως Βλανδίνα ἐπαῤῥησιάσατο, Πῶς ἂν, εἰποῦσα, τούτων ἀνάσχοιντο οἱ μηδὲ τῶν ἐφειμένων κρεῶν δι ̓ ἄσκησιν απολαύοντες;) The fragment will be found in Migne's edition of Irenæus, c. 1236. Was Irenæus 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 that Irenæus 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

F

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

the conclusion that in Irenæus's view the Communion is not in reality the flesh and blood of Christ, and that, therefore, he must have understood 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 Irenæus may be compared that of Tertullian : Quia durum et intolerabilem existimaverunt sermonem ejus, quasi vere carnem suam illis edendam determinasset, ut in spiritum disponeret statum salutis, præmisit: Spiritus est qui vivificat. Adque ita subjunxit, Caro nihil prodest, ad vivificandum scilicet. . . . . Itaque sermonem constituens vivificatorem, quia spiritus et vita sermo, eumdem etiam carnem suam dixit, quia et sermo caro erat factus, proinde in causam vitæ appetendus, et devorandus auditu, et ruminandus intellectu, et fide digerendus. Nam et paulo ante carnem suam panem quoque cælestem pronunciarat: urgens usquequaque per allegoriam necessariorum pabulorum, memoriam Patrum qui panes et carnes Ægyptiorum præverterant divinæ vocationi." (De Resurrectione, cap. xxxvii., Opera, edit. Rigaltius, 1689, p. 347.)

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 eaten really (verè).

Is not Tertullian here standing by the side of Irenæus 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 subversive 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 effect is the clear teaching of Origen : "Si secundum literam sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum est 'Nisi manducaveritis carnem meam, et biberitis sanguinem meum,' occidit hæc litera." (In Levit., Hom. vii., Op., ed. Migne, tom. ii. c. 487.)

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

distributum discipulis, corpus illum suum fecit,* Hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est figura corporis mei." (Adv. Marc., lib. iv. ch. xl., Op., pp. 457, 458, ed. Rigalt., 1689) Εκεῖνοι μὴ ἀκηκοότες πνευματικῶς τῶν λεγομένων, σκανδαλισθέντες ἀπῆλθον εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω, νομίζοντες ὅτι ἐπὶ σαρκοφαγίαν αὐτοὺς προτρεπέται. (Mystag. iv., sect. iv. p. 321, edit. Bened.), where what Cyril says they thought 'is, according to Romish teaching, what they ought to have understood, and what necessarily results from the literal sense of John vi. 53, and of the words of institution. And, again, there is no hint of a supernatural mode of σαρκοφαγία. Το understand spiritually, in Cyril's teaching, excludes all real eating of flesh. (See Waterland's Works, vol. iv. p. 595, edit. 1843.)

So it is said by St. Athanasius: Διὰ τοῦτο τῆς εἰς οὐρανοὺς ἀναβάσεως ἐμνημόνευσε τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ἵνα τῆς σωματικῆς ἐννοίας αὐτοὺς ἀφελκύσῃ, καὶ λοιπὸν τὴν εἰρημένην σάρκα βρῶσιν ἄνωθεν οὐράνιον, καὶ πνευματικὴν τροφὴν παρ' αὐτοῦ διδομένην μάθωσιν· ἃ γὰρ λελάληκα, φησὶν, ὑμῖν, πνεῦμα ἐστὶ καὶ ζωή· ἶσον τῷ εἰπεῖν, τὸ μὲν δεικνύμενον καὶ διδόμενον ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου σωτηρίας, ἐστὶν ἡ σὰρξ ἣν ἐγὼ φορῶ· ἀλλ ̓ αὕτη ὑμῖν καὶ τὸ ταύτης αἷμα παρ' ἐμοῦ πνευματικῶς δοθήσεται τροφὴ, ὥστε πνευματικῶς ἐν ἑκάστῳ ταύτην ἀναδίδοσθαι, καὶ γίνεσθαι πᾶσι φυλακτήριον εἰς ἀνάστασιν ζωῆς αἰωνίου. (Athanas. Ep. 4, ad Serap. § 19, Op., ed. Ben., tom. i. pt. 2, p. 568. See Theod. Heracl. in Corderius, Cat. in Joan.,

pp. 193, 197.)

So also writes Eusebius: ̓Αλλ' εὖ ἴστε, ὅτι τὰ ῥήματά μου λελάληκα ὑμῖν, πνεῦμά ἐστὶ καὶ ζωή ἐστὶ· ὥστε αὐτὰ εἶναι τὰ ῥήματα καὶ τοὺς λόγους αὐτοῦ, τὴν σάρκα καὶ τὸ αἷμα, ὧν ὁ μετέχων ἀεὶ, ὡσανεὶ ἀρτῷ οὐρανίῳ τρεφόμενος, τῆς οὐρανίου μεθέξει ζωῆς. (Eusebius Cæsar. 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 in mysterio possit intelligi, tamen verius corpus Christi et sanguis ejus sermo Scripturarum est, doctrina divina est." (Breviar. in Psalm., Ps. 147, in Opera Hieron., ed. Vallars., tom. vii., Appendix, pp. 530, 531.)

* 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 comparison the saying of St. Augustine: "Non enim Dominus

Tertullian, which is "Panem ex verbis Domini fieri Corpus Christi." (Liturgia Romana Vetus, pp. 186, 187, Venice, 1748.)

But for those who can see a clear and natural meaning in the very 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 πроεσтшτεс, et presbyteri, Christi Corpus ore sacro conficere dicuntur : quemadmodum loquitur Hieronymus epistola ad Heliodorum; et, præter alios, S. Ambrosius de iis qui mysteriis initiantur. Resp. Nempe, ad presbyterorum preces et benedictiones, panis communis factus est panis sacramentalis; qui, quando frangitur et manducatur, Kovovía Corporis Christi est, adeoque sacramentaliter Corpus Christi recte dicitur: nam non solum Corpus Domini repræsentat, sed (ut sæpius jam 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 istæ præcessissent. Græci dicunt karaokevášεiv et ἱερουργεῖν τὸ Σῶμα Κυρίου. Bene vero hic ait Chrysostomus : 'Non sunt opera humanæ facultatis, quæ proponuntur. Qui olim hæc in illâ cœnâ fecit, idem et nunc ea operatur : nos autem (vπηρετ) ministrorum tantum ordinem tenemus. Ipse vero est, qui ea sanctificat (kaì μɛraokeva’wv) et transmutat."

6

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