which he delivered to his disciples, his own body and blood1.

6. Finally, let us hear the distinct and positive avowal of Augustine, in professed opposition to the gross fancy of those Jews who imagined that our Saviour offered to give his own literal flesh and blood as a necessary aliment for his disciples.

Christ instructed them, 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. I have commended unto you a certain sacrament: which, if SPIRITUALLY understood, will vivify you. Though it must be celebrated visibly, it must be understood invisibly 2.

1 Potest sacramentum adoptionis adoptio nuncupari: sicut sacramentum corporis et sanguinis ejus, quod est in pane et poculo consecrato, corpus ejus et sanguinem dicimus; non quod propriè corpus ejus sit panis, et poculum sanguis; sed quod in se mysterium corporis sanguinisque contineant. Hinc et ipse Dominus benedictum panem et calicem, quem discipulis tradi dit, corpus et sanguinem suum vocavit. Facund. Defens. Concil. Chalced. lib. ix. c. 5. Oper. p. 144.

2 Ille autem instruxit eos, et ait illis: Spiritus est, qui vivificat: caro autem nihil prodest. Verba, quæ locutus sum vobis, spiritus est et vita. Spiritaliter intelligite, quod locutus sum. Non hoc corpus, quod videtis, mandicaturi estis: et bibitur illum sanguinem, quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent. Sacra

IV. In criticism and in controversy there is this great utility, that it is morally impossible to misapprehend the sentiments of the critic or the controvertist. We may deem the criticism itself erroneous, or we may pronounce the argument itself inconclusive: but the opinions of their respective authors we cannot mistake. The very drift of the criticism or of the argument invincibly establishes the FACT, that such and such were the sentiments of the critic or of the controvertist.

The evidence, which I shall now bring forward, is of this precise description. We find the early theologians, not only (as we have already seen) denying in express terms the doctrine of Transubstantiation, but denying it also through the medium of criticism and controversy. Their rejection, therefore, of the doctrine unavoidably and irrefragably follows: and, since they always obviously and sometimes even avowedly reject it on behalf of the Catholic Church; the Catholic Church of the several ages, in which they respectively flourished, must clearly have also rejected the doctrine in question.

1. During the times of the Alexandrian Clement, or in the course of the second century, certain sectaries, who bore the name of Encratites, contended, that the use of wine was unlaw

mentum aliquod vobis commendavi: spiritaliter intellectum vivificabit vos. Etsi necesse est illud visibiliter celebrari, oportet tamen invisibiliter intelligi. August. Enarr. in Psalm. xcviii. Oper. vol. viii. p. 397.

ful. Among other arguments, Clement employs against them one deduced from the sacrament of the Lord's Supper.

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

Know well, says he in the winding up of his argument, that the Lord himself also partook of wine: for he himself also was a man. And he blessed the wine, saying: Take, drink; this is my blood, the blood of the vine. The holy stream of exhilaration allegorically represents the Word, who poured himself out, on behalf of many, for the remission of sins'.

Thus runs the argument of Clement against the Encratites perfectly conclusive, if the doctrine of Transubstantiation be rejected; perfectly inconclusive, if the doctrine of Transubstantiation be received. According to the speculation of the Transubstantialists, the substance of the wine is literally changed into the substance of human blood through virtue of the prayer of consecration. Now, had Clement and the Catholics of

· Εὖ γὰρ ἴστε, μετέλαβεν οἴνου καὶ αὐτός· καὶ γὰρ ἄνθρωπος καὶ αὐτός. Καὶ εὐλόγησέν τε τὸν οἶνον, εἰπών· Λάβετε, πίετε τοῦτό μου ἐστι τὸ αἷμα, αἷμα τῆς ἀμπέλου. Τὸν Λόγον, τὸν περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχεόμενον εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, εὐφροσύνης ἅγιον ἀλληYopei váμa. Clem. Alex. Pædag. lib. ii. c. 2. Oper. p. 158.

his age held any such opinion, he never, unless he were an absolute idiot, could have reasoned as he has done for, though our Lord's command to drink wine in the Eucharist is full proof of the lawfulness of drinking wine; his command to drink blood in the Eucharist were assuredly no proof whatever, that the use of wine is lawful. The very reasoning, therefore, of Clement irresistibly proves, that he never could have held the doctrine of Transubstantiation: and, accordingly, he tells us, not that the holy or consecrated wine was changed into the substance of Christ's blood, but that the holy or consecrated wine allegorically represents or figuratively signifies it.

2. We have recently seen Augustine, on behalf of the Church at the close of the fourth century and the beginning of the fifth, expressly declaring, that, in the sacrament of the Eucharist, we do NOT eat and drink the literal body and blood of Christ, but that the words of the Lord are to be understood spiritually'. Let us now attend to his perfectly correspondent criticism on the tropical language of Scripture.

In the interpretation of figurative passages, let the following canon be observed

If the passage be preceptive, either forbidding some flagitious deed and some heinous crime, or commanding something useful and beneficent: then such

passage is NOT FIGURATIVE.

But, if the passage

seems, either to command some flagitious deed and some heinous crime, or to forbid something useful and beneficent: then such passage is FIGU

RATIVE.

Thus, for example, Christ says: says: Unless ye shall eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood; ye shall have no life in you. Now, in these words, he seems to command a heinous crime or a flagitious deed. THEREFORE THE PASSAGE IS A FIGURE, enjoining us to communicate in the passion of our Lord, and admonishing us to lay it up sweetly and usefully in our memory: because, for us, his flesh was crucified and wounded.

On the other hand, Scripture says: If thy enemy shall hunger, give him food; if he shall thirst, give him drink. Here, without all doubt, an act of beneficence is enjoined. But, as for the passage which immediately follows; This doing, thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head: one might imagine, so far as the bare words are concerned, that an action of heinous malevolence was commanded. Under such circumstances, therefore, doubt not, that THE PASSAGE WAS SPOKEN FIGURATIVELY. For, since it is verbally capable of a double interpretation, after one mode to inflict an injury, after another mode to confer a benefit: charity requires, that, by coals of fire, you should understand the burning groans of penitence, through which is healed the pride of that person, who grieves that he has been an enemy of the man