forms, and the manner in which the elements were used by the early Christians, prove that they did not hold the same opinions as the present Church. The sacrament was then given in both kinds; it was placed in the hands of the receivers; the laity and even boys were employed to carry it to dying penitents; cataplasms were made of the remains after the service; and the wine mixed with ink to sign the condemnation of heretics. Had they believed that Christ's true body and blood was before them, they would not have evinced such comparative indifference in the treatment of it. Again, the adoration of the sacrament is not mentioned by those who wrote on the offices of the Church so late as the eighth and ninth centuries,d and was never practised by

a

Bishop Burnet here alludes to the story of Serapion, who, when he was dying, sent his grandchild to call one of the presbyters The latter being unable to

of Alexandria to give him the sacrament. come, in consequence of illness, gave the child a portion of the Eucharist, and desired him to moisten it, and administer it to his parent. See Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 1. 6. c. 44.

b St. Augustin mentions that a person named Acacius was born with a disease in his eyes, and was cured by a cataplasm or plaister made of the Eucharist.-See Aug. sec. op. adv. Jul. 1. 3.

In the 4th council of Constantinople, A. D. 869, the fathers signed the condemnation of Photius, patriarch of Constantinople, with ink mixed with the consecrated wine.-See Nicetas' vit. Ignat. in Concil. Labbe. tom. 8. p. 1231.

Dallæus says that he could not find among all the inter"preters of ecclesiastical offices in the Latin Church, the mention of any sort of elevation before the eleventh century."-See Dall. de rel. cult, obj. 1. 2. c. 5.

a

the Greeks. This fact is a proof that the doctrine was then unknown. On the contrary, since it was established, all the ancient forms and rituals have been altered, and the adoration of the sacrament is now the principal act of their devotion. One ancient form however is retained, and furnishes an indisputable proof that the doctrine of the corporal presence was introduced at a later period than some superstitions which themselves have no claim to antiquity. In the masses that are appointed on saints' days, there are some collects, in which it is said that the sacrifice is offered up "in honour to the saints," and it is prayed, that " it may become more va"luable and acceptable by the merits and inter"cessions of the saints." Now we hold the nature of the sacrament to be a foederal act, in which we offer up our warmest devotions to God through Christ, while he, in return, accompanies it with a peculiar blessing. It is doubtless a superstitious practice to celebrate this to the honour of a saint; still, on the supposition of their interceding for us, and hearing our prayers, it is not unreasonable. But if it be believed that Christ himself is corporally present, and

a The elevation of the Eucharist has been practised in later times among the Greeks, but not in order to adoration.-See Germun. in tom. 2. Bibl. Pat.

See in fest. Sanct. Monica. in Miss. Rom. p. 459. Ed. Antwerp, 1626.

Ꭺ Ꭺ 8

that he is offered up, it is opposed to all sense, and involves the greatest blasphemy. The doctrine of transubstantiaton, therefore, could not have been held by the Church at the time this ritual was composed, and must consequently be a later introduction.

a

2nd. Direct proofs may be also adduced from antiquity against this doctrine. (1.) The fathers call the elements bread and wine after the consecration. Justin Martyr calls them "bread and wine, and a nourishment which nourished;" and though he adds that they are not common bread and wine, yet he 'shews that he did not think their substance was changed, by comparing the sanctification of the elements to the incarnation of Christ, in which the human nature did not change its substance by its union with the divine. Irenæus b calls it "that bread over which thanks are given," and says " it is no more bread, "but the Eucharist, consisting of two things,

C

an earthly and a heavenly." Tertullian, arguing against the Marcionites, who held two Gods, and that the creator of the earth was the bad God, to whom Christ was opposed, urges against them, that Christ made use of the creatures of this world, and says "he did not reject bread, by which he represents his own body."

a In Apol. ii.

b See de hær. 1. 4. c. 34.

C See Adv. Marc. 1. 1. c. 14. 1. 3. c. 19. and 1. 4. c. 40.

And in another place, he says, "Christ calls "bread his body, that from thence you may un"derstand that he gave the figure of his body to "the bread." Origen says, " we eat of the "loaves that are set before us, which by prayer

66

a

are become a certain holy body, that sanctifies "those who use them with a sound purpose." St. Cyprian says b "Christ calls the bread that

66

C

was compounded of many grains his body, and "the wine that is pressed out of many grapes "his blood, to shew the union of his people." And again," the blood of Christ is shewed by the wine in the chalice." St. Epiphanius says, "that the bread is not like Christ, neither "in his invisible Deity, nor in his incarnate "likeness, for it is round and with feeling as to "its virtue." Gregory Nyssend says, "the "bread in the beginning is common, but after "the mystery has consecrated it, it is said to be, "and is the body of Christ;" to which he compares the sanctification of the water in baptism, and the stones of an altar dedicated to God. St. Ambrose says, "this bread is made the food of saints." St. Chrysostom says, "the bread is "the body of Christ, as they who take it are the

a See Cont. Celsum, 1. 8.

c See in Anchoret.

e Sec de bened. Patr. c. 9.

f

b See Ep. 63. and 76.

d See in Orat. de Bapt. Christ.

f See Hom. 24. in Ep. ad Cor. Ep. ad Cæsar, et Comment. in Ep. ad Gal. c. 5.

"body of Christ." St. Jerome a says, "Christ "took bread, that as Melchisedech had in a

66

66

figure offered bread and wine, he might also

b

represent the truth of his body and blood." St. Augustine compares the sacrament's being called the body and blood of Christ, with the passages in which the Church is called his body; which shows that he thought the one was to be figuratively understood as well as the other. Again, he says, "after some sort, the sacrament of the body of Christ is his body:" "He carried himself in some sort, when he said, "This is my body."

(2.) The Fathers affirm, that the elements retain their nature and substance. This is evident, from the arguments against the Apollinarian heresy. The Apollinarians, or more properly speaking, their successors the Eutychians, held that the human nature of Christ was confounded with the divine. The Fathers who wrote against them state, that the human nature remained in Christ, not absorbed, but only sanctified by the divine nature which was united to it; and illustrate their assertion by the doctrine of the sacrament. Thus Chrysostom says, "As before the bread is sanctified, we

a See Com. in Matt. xxvi.

b See Cit. ap. Fulg. de Bap. Ep. 23 ad Bonif. et Ser. 2. in Ps. 33.