'shown forth. Hence, when water is mingled with 'wine in the cup, the people are united to Christ, and the whole crowd of believers are linked and 'joined to him in whom they have believed. For, if wine only be offered, the blood of Christ is with'out the people; and, if water only be offered, the people is without Christ. But, when both are ' mingled and united together, then the spiritual and 'heavenly sacrament is complete."*

6

6

(4.) "With all assurance," says Cyril of Jerusalem in the fourth century, "let us partake as of the 'body and blood of Christ. For, under the type ' of bread, his body is given to thee; and, under the 'type of wine, his blood is given to thee: that so 'thou mayest partake of the body and blood of Christ, 'being one body and one blood with him."+

(5.) "Under the name of flesh," says Chrysostom. in the fourth century, "Scripture is wont alike to 'set forth both the mysteries and the whole church: for it says, that they are each the body of Christ. Wherefore let there approach no Judas, partaking of the poison of iniquity; for the Eucharist is 'spiritual food."

(6.) "The Lord," says the great Augustine, in the fourth century, "when he gave the sign of his 'body, did not doubt to say, This is my body. || In the history of the New Testament, so great and so 'marvellous was the patience of our Lord, that, bearing with Judas, though not ignorant of his purpose, " he admitted him to the banquet, in which he com'mended and delivered to his disciples the figure of 'his own body and blood. T Christ instructed his

* Cyprian. Epist. Cæcil. lxiii. p. 153, 154. Oxon. 1682. Cyril. Catech. Mystag. iv. p. 217.

Chrysost. Comment. in Epist. ad Galat. c. v. oper. vol. ix. p. 1022. Commel. 1603.

§ Chrysost. de Prodit. Jud. Serm. xxx. oper. vol. v. p. 464. I August. cont. Adimant. c. xii. oper. vol. vi. p. 69. Colon. 1616. August. Enarr. in Psalm. iii. oper. vol. viii. p. 7.

'disciples, and said unto them, It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing. The words, 'which I speak unto you, are spirit and life.

As if

he had said: Understand spiritually what I have 'spoken. You are not about to eat this identical 'body, which you see; and you are not about to 'drink this identical blood, which they who crucify 'me will pour out. On the contrary, I have com'mended a certain sacrament unto you, which will 'vivify you if spiritually understood. Though it 'must be celebrated visibly, yet it must be under'stood invisibly."*

(7.) "Certainly," says Pope Gelasius in the fifth century, "the sacraments of the body and blood of 'the Lord, which we receive, are a divine thing: 'because by these we are made partakers of the divine 'nature. Nevertheless, the substance or nature of 'the bread and wine ceases not to exist; and, 'assuredly, the image and similitude of the body ' and blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries."+

6

(8.) "The sacrament of adoption," says Facundus in the sixth century, "may be called adoption: just as the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, 'which is in the consecrated bread and wine, we are 'wont to call his body and blood. Not, indeed, that 'the bread is properly his body, or that the wine is 'properly his blood, but because they contain the mystery of his body and blood within themselves. Hence it was, that our Lord denominated the con'secrated bread and wine, which he delivered to his disciples, his own body and blood."

6

4. It were easy to multiply extracts of a similar description; but these may suffice. Respecting the greater part of them, it is superfluous to offer any

* August. Enarr. in Psalm. xcviii. oper. vol. viii. p. 397.

Gelas. de duab. Christ. Natur. cont. Nestor. et Eutych. in Biblioth. Patr. vol. iv. p. 422.

+ Facund. Defens. Concil. Chalced. lib. ix. c. 5. oper. p. 144.

H

remarks. They speak for themselves; and their force cannot be heightened by the observations of a protestant commentator. One, however, of the cited passages may possibly be rendered even yet more striking and satisfactory by a word of explanation.

Clement of Alexandria, in a manner which cannot easily be misunderstood, informs us, as we have seen, that the consecrated wine ALLEGORICALLY REPRESENTS the blood of the divine Word.* In the citation, nothing save this bare statement appears: a statement quite satisfactory no doubt; but still a bare statement. From a simple extract, the argument, contained in the context, of necessity vanishes; yet that argument, when connected with the statement, renders it doubly forcible and efficacious. Hence I must not withhold it from those who may not have an opportunity of consulting the original.

In the days of Clement, certain sectaries, who bore the name of Encratites, contended that the use of wine was unlawful. Against these enthusiasts, Clement brings a variety of arguments; and, among them, he takes occasion to construct one very powerful argument upon the use of wine in the Eucharist. His argument is to the following effect:

Christ himself consecrated true and proper wine in the institution of the Eucharist. This consecrated wine he himself commanded his disciples to drink. THEREFORE, on the invincible authority of our Saviour Christ, the use of wine cannot but be lawful.

Thus runs the argument of Clement against the Encratites, in the context of the passage where he tells us, that the holy wine ALLEGORICALLY REPRESENTS the blood of Christ. Now, according to the scheme of figurative interpretation adopted by the church of England, the argument is perfectly conclusive; but it is grossly inconclusive, according to the

* Clem. Alex. Pædag. lib. ii. c. 2. p. 158.

scheme of literal interpretation adopted by the church of Rome. Had Clement held with the Latin catholic, that the consecrated liquor, drunk by the disciples was NOT wine, but proper and literal human blood, he plainly could never have argued, from the fact of the disciples having drunk literal human blood, that the use of wine was strictly lawful. On the supposition, at least, of his having been a transubstantialist, he must actually have reasoned as follows:Whatever Christ ordains is lawful. But the disciples, by Christ's special ordination, drank literal human blood. THEREFORE the use of wine is lawful.

Between such premises and such a conclusion, there is evidently not the least connexion; and yet, if Clement were a transubstantialist, this most assuredly must have been the mode in which he reasoned. But no man of common sense could argue with such gross absurdity. Hence we may be certain, that Clement never did thus argue: and hence, finally, we may be certain also, from the very tenor of his own argument against the Encratites, that he was not a transubstantialist.

His argument and his statement, in short, perfectly accord. From the authorized use of wine in the Eucharist, he demonstrates the lawfulness of the use of wine in general; and, in strict agreement with such an argument, he tells us, that the consecrated wine, not LITERALLY Is, but ALLEGORICALLY REPRESENTS, the blood of Christ.

An argument against the Encratites, when built upon this statement, is doubtless invincibly conclusive: but then Clement himself, without incurring the least censure from his contemporaries, will symbolize, in the doctrine of the Eucharist, with the church of England, not with the church of Rome.

CHAPTER V.

Respecting the Latin Defence of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation from the Language employed by our Lord.

WERE the doctrine of Transubstantiation capable of defence, the task would have been accomplished by the bishop of Aire. If its cause fail in the hands of such a master, we must indeed pronounce that cause to be desperate.

The bishop's first argument in favour of the doctrine of transubstantiation is drawn from the words of Christ himself, as recorded in Holy Scripture.*

I. Previous to the specific institution of the Eucharist, Christ is said by St. John to have delivered, in the synagogue of Capernaum, before the Jews and his own disciples, a very remarkable discourse, in which he declared the necessity of eating the flesh of the Son of Man and of drinking his blood.t

It may perhaps be recollected, that upon this identical discourse was built one of my own arguments from Scripture, against the doctrine of transubstantiation. Yet so very differently does the same passage sometimes strike different persons, that the bishop has constructed upon it what he deems a conclusive argument in favour of that doctrine.

When Christ declared the necessity of eating the flesh of the Son of Man and of drinking his blood, both the Jews and the disciples understood him in a

* Discuss. Amic. Lett. vi, vii.

† John vi. 26-65.

See above, Book i. chap. 4. § I. 3. (1.)