spade, or the pale) might be dull of apprehension, and look no higher than to what they saw, felt, or tasted. Upon the like suspicion was grounded the ancient solemn preface to the Communion Service, called Sursum Corda by the Latins: wherein the officiating minister admonished the communicants to lift up their hearts, and they made answer, We lift them up unto the Lorde.

To make the point we have been upon still plainer, let Cyril be heard again, as he expresses the thing in a succeeding lecture. "You hear the Psalmist with divine me"lody inviting you to the communion of the holy mys"teries, and saying, Taste and see how gracious the Lord "is. Leave it not to the bodily palate to judge: no, but to 'faith clear of all doubting. For the tasters are not com"manded to taste bread and wine, but the antitype [sym"bol] of the body and blood of Christ f." Here our author plainly owns the elements to be types, or symbols, (as he had done also before,) and therefore not the very things whereof they are symbols; not literally and strictly, but interpretatively, mystically, and to all saving purposes and intents; which suffices 5. It is no marvel, if Mr. Touttée h

**Avw ràs nugdías. Cyril. Mystag. v. p. 326. Cyprian. de Orat. Domin. p. 213. alias 152. conf. Bingham. b. xv. c. 3. sect. 3. Renaudot. Liturg, Orient. vol. i. p. 226.

Γ' Ακούστε τοῦ ψάλλοντος, μετὰ μέλους θείου προτρεπομένου ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν κοινων νίαν τῶν ἁγίων μυστηρίων, καὶ λέγοντος, γεύσασθε καὶ ἴδετε ὅτι χρηστὸς ὁ κύριος. μὴ τῷ λάρυγγι τῷ σωματικῷ ἐπιτρέπετε τὸ κριτικόν. οὐχὶ, ἀλλὰ τῇ ἀνενδοιάστῳ πίσει, γευόμενοι γὰρ οὐκ ἄρτου καὶ οἶνου κελεύονται γεύσασθαι, ἀλλὰ ἀντιτύπου σώματος καὶ αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Mystag. v. p. 331.

Deylingius seems to wonder at Mr. Aubertine and Mr. Claude for undercommenting, as he conceives, with respect to Cyril: Deyling. Observ. Miscell. p. 157. But he attempts not to confute what they had said: it was wiser to forbear. The utmost that any one can justly make of the very strongest expressions in Cyril, can amount only to a mystical union of Christ's body with the faithful communicants, as members of him; which is such an union as St. Paul resembles to that whereby man and wife are one flesh, (Eph. v. 30, 31.) and which undoubtedly is a moral union, independent of local presence.

Touttée, Dissert. iii. prefixed to his new edition of Cyril, c. ix. p. 204, &c. The reader may compare Albertinus, (p. 422.) who had sufficiently obviated every thing pleadable on the side of the Romanists. Compare also

and other Romanists interpret Cyril to quite another purpose: but one may justly wonder how the learned and impartial Dr. Grabe should construe Cyril in that gross sense, which he mentions under the name of augmentationi. I presume, he read Cyril with an eye to modern controversy, and did not consider him as speaking to mechanics and day-labourers: or, he was not aware of the difference there is, between telling men what they are to believe, and what they ought to attend to, which was Cyril's chief aim. As to believing, he very well knew that every one would believe his senses, and take bread to be bread, and wine to be wine, as himself believed also: but he was afraid of their attending so entirely to the report of their senses, as to forget the reports of sacred Writ, which ought to be considered at the same time, and with closer attention than the other, as being of everlasting concernment. In short, he intended no lecture of faith against eyesight: but he endeavoured, as much as possible, to draw off their attention k from the objects of sense to the object of faith, and from the signs to the things signified.

It has been urged, as of moment, that Cyril compared the change made in the Eucharist to the miraculous change of water into wine wrought by our Lord in Cana of Galilee1. It is true that he did so: but similitudes commonly are no arguments of any thing more than of some general resemblance. There was power from above in that case,

Johnson, (Unbloody Sacrifice, part i. p. 257.) who has well defended Cyril on this head, and Deylingius, who in a set discourse has replied to Touttée, (Deyling. Observat. Miscell. Exercit. ii. p. 163, &c.) Only I may note, by the way, that he has strained some things in favour of the Lutheran principles, and has better confuted the Romanists, than he has established his own hypothesis.

i Grabe, ad Iren. lib. v. cap. 2. in notis, p. 399. Conf. Deyling. Observat. Miscellan. p. 177.

k In Sacramentis non quid sint, sed quid ostendant, attenditur; quoniam signa sunt rerum, aliud existentia et aliud significantia. Augustin, contr. Max. lib. iii. cap. 22. conf. de Doctrin. Christian. cap. 7.

1 Cyril. Mystag. iv. sect. 2. p. 320.

and so is there in this and it may be justly called a supernatural power m; not upon the elements to change their nature, but upon the communicants to add spiritual strength to their souls. The operation in the Eucharist is no natural work of any creature, but the supernatural grace of God's Holy Spirit. Therefore Cyril's thought was not much amiss, in resembling one supernatural operation to another, agreeing in the general thing, differing in specialities. In a large sense of the word miracle, there are miracles of grace, as well as miracles of nature; and the same Divine power operates in both, but in a different way, as the ends and objects are different.

I shall proceed no farther with the Fathers on this head, because it would be tedious, and in a manner endless.. None of them, that I know of, carried the doctrine higher than this Cyril did; but most of them, somewhere or other, added particular guards and explanations". All intended to say, that the elements keeping their own nature and substance, and not admitting a coalition with any other bodily substance, are symbolically, or in mystical construction, the body and blood of Christ; being appoint

m

Neque quæritur aut controvertitur an panis et vinum supernaturali virtute, et omnipotentia divina a communi elementorum usu, in sublimiorem usum et dignitatem transmutentur: fatemur enim in Sacramentis omnino necesse esse, cœlestem et supernaturalem mutationem supervenire, nec posse fieri Sacramentum nisi per omnipotentiam Dei, cujus solius est Sacramenta in ecclesia instituere, ipsisque efficaciam tribuere. Cosin. Hist. Transubst. cap. iv. p. 45. conf. p. 124. Compare Johnson, Unbloody Sacrifice, part i. p. 258. alias 261. Albertin. 855.

n For a specimen, we may take notice of Facundus, as late as the middle of the sixth century, who writes thus:

Sacramentum corporis et sanguinis ejus, quod est in pane et calice consecrato, corpus ejus et sanguinem dicimus: non quod proprie corpus ejus sit panis, et poculum sanguis, sed quod in se mysterium corporis ejus sanguinisque contineant. Hinc et ipse Dominus benedictum panem et calicem, quem discipulis tradidit, corpus et sanguinem suum vocavit. Quocirca, sicut Christi fideles, Sacramentum corporis et sanguinis ejus accipientes, corpus et sanguinem Christi recte dicuntur accipere; sic et ipse Christus Sacramentum adoptionis filiorum cum suscepisset, potuit recte dici adoptionem filiorum accepisse. Facund. Hermian. lib. ix. cap. 5. conf. Ephræm. Antioch. in Phot. Cod. 229. p. 793.

ed as such by Christ, accepted as such by God the Father, and made such in effect by the Holy Spirit, to every faithful receiver. So ran the general doctrine from the beginning and downwards: neither am I aware of any considerable change made in it till the dark ages came on, the eighth, ninth, tenth, and following centuries. The corruptions which grew up by degrees, and prevailed more and more till the happy days of reformation, are very well known P, and need no particular recital.

Luther first, and afterwards Zuinglius, attempted a reform in this article: but it was difficult to clear off the thick darkness all at once; and so neither of them did it to such perfection as might have been wished. One threw off transubstantiation very justly, but yet retained I know not what corporal, local presence, and therefore did not retrench enough: the other threw off all corporal and local presence very rightly, but threw off withal (or too much neglected) the spiritual presence and spiritual graces: which was retrenching a great deal too much 9. It must however be owned, that apologies have been since made for Zuinglius, as for one that erred in expression rather than in real meaning, or that corrected his sentiments on second thoughts. And it is certain that his friends and followers, within a while, came into the old and true notion of spiritual benefits, and left the low notion of naked signs and figures to the Anabaptists of those times; where

• See l'Arroque, Hist. of the Eucharist, part ii. cap. 12, 13, &c.

In the year 787 the second Council of Nice began with a rash determination, that the sacred symbols are not figures or images at all, but the very body and blood. About 831, Paschasius Radbertus carried it farther, even to transubstantiation, or somewhat very like to it. The name of transubstantiation is supposed to have come in about A. D. 1100, first mentioned by Hildebertus Cenomanensis of that time, p. 689. edit. Benedict. A. D. 1215, the doctrine was made an article of faith by the Lateran Council, under Innocent the Third. Afterwards, it was reestablished in the Trent Council, A. D. 1551, and at length in Pope Pius's Creed, A. D. 1564.

Vid. Calvin. de Coena Domini, p. 10. et contr. Westphal. p. 707, 774. • See Archbishop Wake, Discourse on the Holy Eucharist, p. 83. See Hooker, vol. ii. p. 327.

they rested, till again revived by the Socinians, who afterwards handed them down to the Remonstrants.

:

Calvin came after Zuinglius, and refined upon his scheme, steering a kind of middle course, between the extremes. He appears to have set out right, laying his groundwork with good judgment and had he but as carefully built upon it afterwards, no fault could have been justly found. In the first edition of his Institutions, (printed at Basil A. D. 1536,) he writes thus: "We say "that they [the body and blood] are truly and efficacious"ly exhibited to us, but not naturally. By which we "mean, not that the very substance of his body, or that "the real and natural body of Christ are there given, but "all the benefits which Christ procured for us in his body. This is that presence of his body which the nature "of a Sacrament requires t." This came very near the truth, and the whole truth: only there was an ambiguity, which he was not aware of, in the words there given; and So, for want of a proper distinction, his account was too confused. He should have said, that the natural body is there given, but not there present, which is what he really meant. The mystical union with our Lord's glorified body is there (or in that service) strengthened, or perfected; as a right may be given to a distant possession: and such union as we now speak of, requires no local presence of Christ's body. Here that great man and illustrious reformer was somewhat embroiled, and could never sufficiently extricate himself afterwards. He was well aware, that to assert only an application of the merit or virtue of Christ's passion, in the Eucharist, came not fully up to many strong expressions of the ancient Fathers relating to our union with the natural and now glorified body : nay, it appeared to fall short of St. Paul's doctrine, which

Dicimus vere et efficaciter exhiberi, non autem naturaliter. Quo scilicet significamus, non substantiam ipsam corporis, seu verum et naturale Christi corpus illic dari, sed omnia quæ in suo corpore nobis beneficia Christus præstitit. Ea est corporis præsentia quam Sacramenti ratio postulat. Calvin. Instit. apud Wake, p. 47.