IRENEUS, Adversus Hæreses. v. c. 2. Edit. Grab. 396.

Τὸ ἀπὸ τῆς κτίσεως ποτήριον, αἷμα ἴδιον ὡμολόγησε ἐξ οὗ το ἡμέτερον δεύει αἷμα, καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς κτίσεως ἄρτον, ἴδιον σῶμα διεβεβαιώσατο αφ' οὗ τὰ ἡμέτερα αὔξει σώματα.

Here Irenæus expressly affirms that our natural flesh and blood are nourished and increased by the consecrated sacramental elements. But, as was before observed, to affirm that the glorified body of our Lord is turned into the carnal substance of our bodies, will be admitted by the Romans themselves to be impious.

The words that follow the above are, if possible, more plain : Τὸ κεκραμένον ποτήριον, καὶ ὁ γεγονὼς ἄρτος ἐπιδέχεται τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ γίνεται ἡ εὐχαριστία σῶμα Χριστοῦ, ἐκ τούτων δὲ αὔξει καὶ συνίσταται ἡ τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν ὑπόστασις.

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, Pædagog. i. c. 6. Lugd. 1616. p. 76.

Φάγεσθέ μού, φησι, τὴν σάρκα, καὶ πίεσθέ μου τὸ αἷμα. ταύτας ἡμῖν οἰκείας τροφὰς ὁ Κύριος χορηγεῖ, καὶ σάρκα ὀρέγει, καὶ αἷμα ἐκχεῖ· . . . . ἀλλ ̓ οὐ ταύτῃ νοεῖν ἐθέλεις, κοινότερον δὲ ἴσως. ἄκουε καὶ ταύτῃ. σάρκα ἡμῖν τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἀλληγορεῖ· καὶ γὰρ ὑπ' αὐτοῦ δεδημιούργηται ἡ σάρξ. αἷμα ἡμῖν τὸν Λόγον αινίττεται.

Διττὸν δὲ τὸ αἷμα τοῦ Κυρίου· τὸ μὲν γάρ ἐστιν αὐτοῦ σαρκικὸν, ᾧ τῆς φθορᾶς λελυτρώμεθα· τὸ δὲ, πνευματικὸν, τουτέστιν ᾧ κεχρίσμεθα· καὶ τοῦτ ̓ ἔστιν πιεῖν τὸ αἷμα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, τῆς κυριακῆς μεταλαβεῖν ἀφθαρσίας.... ἡ δὲ ἀμφοῖν αὖθις κρᾶσις, ποτοῦ τε καὶ Λόγου, Εὐχαριστία κέκληται, χάρις ἐπαινουμένη καὶ καλή· ἧς οἱ κατὰ πίστιν μεταλαμβάνοντες, ἁγιάζονται καὶ σῶμα καὶ ψυχήν. In these passages it is clear that Clemens contemplates nothing but a spiritual communion in the body and blood of Christ. In the last he speaks, like Irenæus, of the twofold character of the eucharist, drink and the Word, i. e. material wine and spiritual communication.

TERTULLIAN, Adversus Marcionem, iv. 40. Edit. Wirceb. i. 532. Acceptum panem et distributum discipulis, corpus suum illum fecit, hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est, figura corporis mei. Figura autem non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset corpus. Cæterum vacua res, quod est phantasma, figuram capere non posset. Aut si propterea panem corpus sibi finxit, quia corporis carebat veritate; ergo panem debuit tradere pro nobis. .... Cur autem panem

corpus suum appellat, et non magis peponem, quem Marcion, cordis loco habuit? Non intelligens veterum istam figuram corporis Christi, dicentis per Hieremiam: adversus me cogitaverunt cogitatum dicentes, venite conjiciamus lignum in panem ejus, scilicet crucem in corpus ejus : itaque illuminator antiquitatum quid tunc voluerit significasse panem, satis declaravit, corpus suum vocans paneт.

Here Tertullian calls the bread a figure of the body, a sign of the body, and says it was called the body; and from hence argues that our Lord must have had a real body. But as for the bread ceasing to be bread by transubstantiation, we hear not a word of it.

ORIGEN, Contra Celsum, viii. § 33. Edit. Wirceb. ii. 452. Ἡμεῖς δὲ τῷ τοῦ παντὸς δημιουργῷ εὐχαριστοῦντες, καὶ τοὺς μετ ̓ εὐχαριστίας καὶ εὐχῆς τῆς ἐπὶ τοῖς δοθεῖσι προσαγομένους ἄρτους ἐσθίομεν, σῶμα γενομένους διὰ τὴν εὐχὴν ἅγιόν τι καὶ ἁγιάζον τοὺς μετὰ ὑγιοῦς προθέσεως αὐτῷ χρωμένους.

Here Origen, like Justin and Irenæus, recognizes in the eucharistic elements after consecration, a sacred character making them a means of holiness to the partakers, but speaks of them, when eaten, as loaves, aprovç olioμer.

In Levitic. Homil. vii. § 5. vol. vi. p. 126.

Agnoscite quia figuræ sunt, quæ in divinis voluminibus scripta sunt, et ideo tanquam spiritales et non tanquam carnales examinate, et intelligite quæ dicuntur. Si enim quasi carnales ista

F f

suscipitis, lædunt vos, et non alunt. . . . . Est et in Novo Testamento litera quæ occidit eum, qui non spiritaliter quæ dicuntur adverterit. Si enim secundum literam sequaris hoc ipsum, quod dictum est: Nisi manducaveritis carnem meam, et biberitis sanguinem meum, occidit hæc litera. Si vero spiritaliter eam suscipias, non occidit, sed est in ea spiritus vivificans.

Comment. in Matt. xv. 11. Comment. Tom. xi. § 14. Edit. Wirceb. x. 462.

Εἰ δὲ πᾶν τὸ εἰσπορευόμενον εἰς τὸ στόμα, εἰς κοιλίαν χωρεῖ, καὶ εἰς ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκβάλλεται, καὶ τὸ ἁγιαζόμενον βρῶμα διὰ λόγου Θεοῦ καὶ ἐντεύξεως, κατ' αὐτὸ μὲν τὸ ὑλικὸν εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν χωρεῖ, καὶ εἰς ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκβάλλεται κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἐπιγενομένην αὐτῷ εὐχὴν, κατὰ τὴν ἀναλογίαν τῆς πίστεως, ὠφέλιμον γίνεται, καὶ τῆς τοῦ νόου αἴτιον διαβλέψεως, ὁρῶντος ἐπὶ τὸ ὠφελοῦν· καὶ οὐχ ἡ ὕλη τοῦ ἄρτου αλλ' ὁ ἐπ ̓ αὐτῷ εἰρημένος λόγος ἐστὶν ὁ ὠφελῶν τὸν μὴ ἀναξίως τοῦ κυρίου ἐσθίοντα αὐτόν. καὶ ταῦτα μὲν περὶ τοῦ τυπικοῦ, καὶ συμβολικοῦ σώματος.

Here Origen expressly affirms that the elements of the eucharist are digested in the stomach, and "cast out into the draught” with the other nutriment that "entereth in by the mouth." He speaks distinctly of the substance of bread ὕλη τοῦ ἄρτου after consecration; says that the profit arises from the word spoken over it: and only allows it to be the body typically and symbolically.

In Matt. xxvi. 26. Edit. Wirceb. xii.

p. 198.

Non enim panem illum visibilem quem tenebat in manibus corpus suum dicebat Deus Verbum, sed verbum in cujus mysterio fuerat panis ille frangendus. Nec potum illum visibilem sanguinem suum dicebat, sed verbum in cujus mysterio potus ille fuerat effundendus. Nam corpus Dei Verbi, aut sanguis, quid aliud esse potest nisi verbum quod nutrit, et verbum quod laetificat.

CYPRIAN, Ad Cæcilianum. Ep. 63. Edit. Wirceb. i. 190. Qua in parte calicem mixtum fuisse, quem Dominus obtulit

et vinum fuisse, quod sanguinem suum dixit. Unde apparet sanguinem Christi non offerri, si desit vinum calici, nec sacrificium dominicum legitima sanctificatione celebrari, nisi oblatio et sacrificium nostrum responderit passioni. Quomodo autem de creatura vitis novum vinum cum Christo in regno Patris bibemus, si in sacrificio Dei Patris et Christi vinum non offerimus, nec calicem Domini dominica traditione miscemus?

EUSEBIUS, Demonstr. Evangelic. viii. A Genesi in fine. Colon. 1688, p. 380.

Πάλιν ἀποῤῥήτως τῆς καινῆς τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Διαθήκης τὰ μυστήρια ἡγοῦμαι περιέχειν. τὴν γοῦν εὐφροσύνην τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ μυστικοῦ οἴνου, οὗ παραδέδωκεν αὐτὸς τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ μαθηταῖς λέγων, λάβετε, πίετε, τοῦτο μοῦ ἐστι τὸ αἷμα κ. τ. λ. Πάλιν γὰρ αὐτὸς τὰ σύμβολα τῆς ἐνθέου οἰκονομίας τοῖς αὑτοῦ παρεδίδου μαθηταῖς, τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ ἰδίου σώματος ποιεῖσθαι παρακελευόμενος, . . . . . . ἄρτῳ δὲ χρῆσθαι συμβόλῳ τοῦ ἰδίου σώματος παρεδίδου. .

...

Here Eusebius calls the eucharistic bread, when given to the disciples a symbol and image of our Lord's body.

ATHANASIUS, In illud Evangelii, Quicumque dixerit. Paris, 1627. ii. 979.

Πόσοις γὰρ ἤρκει τὸ σῶμα πρὸς βρῶσιν, ἵνα καὶ τοῦ κόσμου παντὸς τοῦτο τροφὴ γένηται; ἀλλὰ 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, πνεῦμά ἐστι καὶ ζωή· ἶσον τῷ εἰπεῖν, τὸ μὲν δεικνύμενον καὶ διδόμενον ὑπὲρ τοῦ κόσμου δοθήσεται τροφὴ, ὡς πνευματικῶς ἐν ἑκάστῳ, κ. τ. λ. »

Here Athanasius affirms that our Lord's body in the eucharist is only spiritually eaten, thus falling under the lash of the eighth

canon.

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

Ωστε μετὰ 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 λιτός, 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