what is said in Ps. xl. 7, 8, 9, he adds-"Of this victim we make remembrance on a table by the symbols of the body and blood of Christ, according to the precepts of the New Testament." And again after citing Ps. xli. 2.-"Let my prayer be set forth in thy sight as the incense &c.," he goes on in the following definite language-" Wherefore we sacrifice and offer the incense spoken of by the prophet, accomplishing the memorial of the great victim, according to the mysteries delivered to us by him." It is well known, that by "Mysteries," the Greeks understood what the Latins expressed by sacraments. Both terms were applied to signs and symbols.

From the said century, there shall be quoted further only St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Austin and St. Chrysostom. There might be named many more: but these are selected, because much use has been made of their names-especially the last of them on the other side. Nazianzen says "Now we shall be partakers of the Paschal Supper, but still in figure; though more clear than the old law. For the legal passover (I will not be afraid to speak it) was an obscurer figure of a figure." That he deliberately designed to represent the elements as a figure, is evident from what follows; in which he anticipates there being a still purer and more perfect figure of the same subject; when there shall be verified the saying of Christ concerning the sacramental cup, of the drinking of it new with his disciples in his Father's kingdom: this being here apparently construed to mean a future life; and not to refer to what took place soon after Christ's resurrection, to which it is referred by some.

Austin, commenting on the ninety-eighth psalm, (in the common version the ninety-ninth) in a passage noticed on another account in the fifth dissertation, introduces Christ interpreting his own words in the sixth chapter of St. John

Oratio ii, in Pascha

"You are not to eat this body which you see, or to drink that blood which my crucifiers shall pour forth: I have commanded to you a sacrament, which being spiritually understood, quickens you." Again, [on Ps. iii.] "He" [Christ]" admitted him" [the traitor Judas] "to a banquet, in which he commanded and delivered to his disciples the figure of his body and blood." Again [contra Adimant cap. 12] "He did not doubt to say, this is my body, where he gave the sign of his body." The meaning of the father is evident, in his making of this an illustration of what is said concerning the blood of animals, that it is their life, when no vital principle is in it: the saying being therefore figurative. And again" A preceptive speech forbidding a crime, or commanding something good or profitable, is not figurative. But if it seems to command a crime, it is figurative. Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, &c. seems to command a wickedness. It is therefore a figure, commanding us to communicate with the passion of our Lord; and sweetly and profitably to lay it up in our memory, that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us."* This is said in explanation of John vi. 51-58, which the advocates of transubstantiation consider as intended of the Eucharist.

St. Chrysostome, referring to the saints of the Old Testament, says " As thou eatest the body of the Lord, so they did eat manna; as thou drinkest blood, so they the water of the rock. For though the things which be made are sensible, yet they are given spiritually; not according to the consequence of nature, but according to the grace of a gift; and with the body, they also nourish the soul."+ The father is commenting on 1 Cor. x. 1-4: in which it will hardly be denied, that the apostle discourses of spiritual benefit,' typically represented by material manna, and a material rock. There are accordingly contemplated by

* De Doctrina Christiana, Lib. iii. Cap. 16. † Hom. 23. Ep. 1. ad cor.

Chrysostome, spiritual eating and drinking in the Eu. charist: but to complete the analogy, there must be real bread and real wine, answering to the manna and the rock.

In like manner, commenting on Psalm cxxxiii, after recognizing as symbols, the cherubim, the holy of holies, the urn, the manna, the tables of stone, and the rod that budded, he urges as an argument to the greater holiness, the having received "the body and the blood of Christ; the spirit, instead of the letter, a grace ex. ceeding all human reckoning, and an unspeakable gift." But to perceive the sense to be, that as there were visible symbols under the law, there are the like under the gospel, we should attend to him when he subjoins➡ "By how much greater are the symbols and the awful mysteries with which we are favoured, the greater is our obligation to holiness, and the greater our punishment for transgression." Thus, there were symbols under both economies: but those under the New Testament are representative of a greater sub. ject, than any known under the old.

The same father, writing of the errour of Appollinarius, says" As bread is called bread before the sanctification, but after divine grace hath followed it, by means of the priest, it is freed from the name of bread, but is reckoned worthy of the name of Christ's body, although the nature of bread remains in it, and not two bodies, but one body of Christ is predicated; so also here, the divine nature resting on the body, both these make up one son-one person. And yet, they must be confessed to remain without confusion, after an indivisible manner, not in one nature, but in two perfect natures.”*

The epistle containing the last passage, laboured for a long time under the charge of being a protestant forgery. But further inquiry has established the authenticity of it: which Dupin acknowledges, and gives his reasons. He endeavours, however, to clear up the

* Ep. ad Cæsarium.

sense: first by remarking, that it affirms the real presence; which is not denied by protestants, the carnal sense being excluded. He says further, that it "seems to be against transubstantiation; but we may understand by nature, the appearance and consistency of bread." Against this construction it appears plainly, that "the nature of bread" is distinguished from "the name of Christ's body." And besides, the weight of the father's argument against the Appollinarians rested on this very circumstance. For they contended, that the divine nature was to the body of Christ, what the soul of man is to his body. But Chrysostome never intended to deny the reality of Christ's body, after the mystical union which he affirmed. Accordingly, to support the analogy, there must be real bread, after the sanctification of it by prayer.

Of all the fathers of the first four centuries, perhaps Chrysostome has been carried the furthest on the present subject. The following instance shall be given, as a clue to his meaning, and as a help to distinguish between doctrine and metaphor, in what he says, on this subject.

Commenting on the words of the institution, he says, that by sensible things,+ Christ presents what is to be contemplated by the understanding. He compares the subject to baptism, in which the water is an object of sense; but the gift is intellectual, being regeneration. He returns to his point and says, that as the soul is in the body, intellectual things are given in such as are sensible. Then, indulging the ardour of his genius, he expresses himself as follows-" Some now say, we wish to see his" [Christ's] "shape, his figure, his clothes, his shoes. Behold, you see him, you touch him, you eat him. And you desire to see his clothes: but he himself is given to you, not only to be seen, but to be touched, and to be eaten, and to be taken within." If these glowing expressions be divested of the light thrown on them by the context-ànd they have been † Πραγμασι.

In Matth. Hom, 82.

so quoted-St. Chrysostome must be exceedingly misunderstood. If there be any doubt of this, it is but to cast the eye a little lower on the same page; where, with an increased glow of zeal, he tells his audience, that their tongues were made red, with the blood taken in the Eucharist. This is a strong instance to show, that in estimating such sayings of such an orator, due distinction must be made between unadorned doctrine and figure.

However great the integrity and the talents of this eloquent father; the well known fervour of his mind, may have made him inattentive to definite expressions on this subject; when strong figure would swell his flood of eloquence, and increase the effect of it on an admiring audience. He was much more likely to express himself with precision, in such a composition as that addressed argumentatively and deliberately to Cæsarius.*

The present author would be misunderstood, were he conceived of as believing, that the question is to be

*This is a consideration which may enable us to apprehend his meaning in various parts; as where he says [in Ep. ad Philipp.] "We can do no otherwise than prevail, when the tremendous sacrifice lies in open view." He has similar expressions in his book "Of the Priesthood:" but even in that treatise, he often speaks rhetorically. At any rate, what he says in it is incidental; and not with the professed view of giving definite ideas of the subject. Even from that celebrated work, the following instance may be given; to show that his peculiar manner should be attended to, in order to guard against the influence of figure In one place [Lib iii. Cap. 6. he exclaims-" Oh the miracle! oh the goodness of God! who at the very time when he sits at the right hand of his father, is handled by all, and delivers himsel to all who are willing to receive him!" This is certainly very strong language. But who can hesitate to consider it as metaphori cal; after finding, in the sentence immediately preceding, such language as this" When you behold the Lord slain, and the priest standing over the sacrifice and pouring out prayers, and the surrounding croud dyed with blood, do you think that you are among mortals, and that you stand on earth?" Can the ardour which prompted the evident metaphor of the latter quotation, be thought unequal to the language of the other, in the way of metaphor also?