wholly incompatible with the modern latin doctrine of Transubstantiation; a very important part of which is, that The transubstantiated elements are not obnoxious to corporal contingences: and yet, even in the passages adduced by Dr. Trevern and Mr. Berington themselves, such doctrine is unreservedly avowed; nor does it appear, that the primitive Church ever disowned or condemned it. Hence, from the very testimony which our two divines themselves have freely selected, it is evident that The primitive Church could never have held the doctrine of Transubstantiation.

Justin, indeed, like his contemporary Ireneus and his successor Cyril of Jerusalem, denies, that, after consecration, the eucharistic bread and wine are any longer common bread and common drink': but he speaks, as the explanatory voice of antiquity fully teaches us, of their moral or sacramental change from a secular application to a

Justin. Apol. i.

Iren. adv. hær.

1 Οὐ γὰρ ὡς κοινὸν ἄρτον οὐδὲ κοινὸν πόμα. Oper. p. 76. Jam non communis panis est. lib. iv. c. 34. p. 264. Μὴ πρόσεχε οὖν ὡς ψιλοῖς τῷ ἄρτῳ καὶ Toiv Cyril. Hieros. Catech. Mystag. iv. p. 237. Paris. 1631. In point of ideality, the Kovog of Justin and the communis of Ireneus (evidently, in the lost greek original, kovos also) are, I apprehend, not quite the same as the oïç of Cyril. The common bread is unconsecrated or secular bread: the mere bread is the bread without (what Ephrem calls) the spiritual grace superadded to it. Τῆς νοητῆς ἀδιαίρετον μένει χάριτος. Ephrem. Theopol. apud Phot. Bibl. cod. 229. p. 794. Rotho

mag. 1653.

holy purpose, not of their physical or material change from mere bread and wine into Christ's literal body and blood'. Ireneus himself explains the matter, by telling us: that The consecrated bread ceases to be common bread, because the Eucharist consists of two things, an earthly thing and a heavenly thing: the earthly thing, bread from the earth; the heavenly thing, Christ spiritually present 2.

(2.) Tertullian, as we have seen, directly contradicts the modern doctrine of Transubstantiation, by asserting: that our flesh is fed by the body and blood of Christ.

I need, therefore, only yet additionally to observe that he equally and even explicitly contradicts it in the two first of the passages, which have been cited from him, by Mr. Berington, with a somewhat whimsical sort of fairness, though with a fairness which does great credit to that respectable theologian's moral honesty 3. Tertullian asserts, that, in the language of the old prophets no less than in the language of the Gospel, bread was employed as a figure or symbolical material form of Christ's body: and he remarks,

1 See Cyril, Hieros. Catech. Mystag. iii. p. 235. Tractat. de Sacram. lib. iv. c. 4. in Oper. Ambros. col. 1248. Ambros. de iis qui myster. initiant. c. ix. Oper. col. 1235-1237. Gregor. Nyssen. de Baptism. Christ. Oper. vol. ii. p. 801, 802. as cited at large below, book ii. chap. 4. § VII. * See above, book i. chap. 4. § I. 2. (4.) 'See above, book i. chap. 4. § I. 2. (5.)

that, as Christ rejected not the element of water in Baptism; so neither did he reject the bread in the Eucharist, by which he represents his own body.

We shall hereafter find, that Tertullian preserves his consistency throughout, in teaching: that the bread and wine experience no material change of substance; and that they are to be viewed as symbols of Christ's body and blood1.

(3.) Alike infelicitous, so far as respects evidence, is Mr. Berington in his last citation from Cyprian: a citation, however, which fully develops the real sentiments of that Father 2.

According to Cyprian, the bread composed of many united grains, and the wine composed of many united drops, signify Christ the head and his people the members united in one mystical body.

Hence, if he held any such doctrine as Transubstantiation, he must have believed; a matter, too palpably absurd to be insisted upon even by the most zealous Romanist: that the consecrated bread and wine are transubstantiated into the mystical body, which is jointly composed of Christ and all his faithful people.

2. It now only remains to inquire, whether the witnesses of the three first ages are prepared to vouch for the doctrine: that The Sacrament of

1 See below, book ii. chap. 4. § II. 2. I. 7. III. 1. 2 See above, book i. chap. 4. § I. 2. (8.)

the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice both for the quick and for the dead.

Το prove, that the Eucharist was ever, by the primitive Christians, offered up, as a piacular sacrifice to make atonement either for the living or for the departed, no evidence has been adduced from the Fathers of the three first centuries: and, so far as I am acquainted with their writings, no such evidence exists.

The passages, which have been brought forward from Tertullian and Cyprian, speak, no doubt, of certain oblations or sacrifices having been offered up, in the early Church, for the pious dead in the Lord and I have no wish to deny, that the oblations, to which those passages allude, are, at least principally, if not exclusively, to be sought in the primitive form of celebrating the Eucharist'. But, as not a syllable is said respecting the oblations being of a piacular nature so the very notion, that such is their character, is directly contrary to the ideas, which the ancients associated with the sacrament of the Lord's Supper.

(1.) In regard to the substance of the sacrament itself, by which I mean the bread and wine POSTERIOR to their consecration, we have no evidence, so far as I am aware, that, under any aspect, the strictly primitive Christians ever deemed it a sacrifice. On this point, the testimony of the early Church is decidedly fatal to the modern

1 See above, book i. chap. 4. § I. 2. (10.)

doctrine of Romanism, as finally settled by the Fathers of the Tridentine Council.

Justin speaks of sacrifices (his expression is plural) being offered in the Eucharist of the bread and the cup; and Irenèus intimates, that Christ, in the institution of the Eucharist, taught the new oblation of the New Testament: but they tell us not, that the consecrated elements themselves are a sacrifice. So far as a material oblation was concerned, the primitive Church deemed such oblation to be, not the elements AFTER consecration, but the bread and wine when first offered up at the altar BEFORE consecration as eucharistic sacrificial gifts to the Supreme Giver of all benefits.

That such is an accurate view of the matter, is put out of all doubt by the consecration prayer of the oldest Liturgy extant: that, which bears the name of the Clementine Liturgy, and which is allowed to be at least as early as the third century.

We offer unto thee the King and the Deity, according to Christ's appointment, this bread and this cup, giving thanks to thee through him, inasmuch as thou hast deigned that we should stand before thee and sacrifice to thee. And we beseech thee, that thou wouldest graciously look upon these gifts which lie before thee, thou the God who needest nothing; and that thou wouldest have pleasure in them to the honour of thy Christ; and that thou wouldst send

1 Gr. θυσίας.