one phrase for another, would, in many instances, make all the differ ence in enunciation between a proposition compatible with a Christian's faith and one incompatible with it-between a proposition of Coleridge's and an opinion of his editor's. And we have proof of the truth of this in the volumes before us; for it is worthy of remark, that it is in the editor's reports of Coleridge's conversations, and his notes upon his letters, that the pus atque venenum of infidelity is to be found -not in the letters. I have now before me Coleridge's letter to his godchild, A. S. Kinnaird, written eleven days before his death, and a copy of his will. The letter may be found in the sixth volume of this Magazine, page 317. Now, if the compiler of these volumes has seen these papers, with what measure shall we mete the depth of his love of truth, and the sincerity of his affection for Coleridge, when he thus attempts to substitute for Coleridge's deliberate and dying opinions the broken scraps and musty recollections, misunderstandings, and misinterpretations, of his conversations? If he has not seen them-his letter to his godchild particularly, I am afraid he must prepare for a shock which it will require all his present admiration of Coleridge to meet; for he will find in them more "remnants of superstition" than all his recollections and annotations will be able to outweigh, even if we give him into the bargain the full benefit of his attempt to anticipate the effect of all such authorities, in page 32 of his first volume:

"It ought to be known, that many men in these latter days, many even from the especial land of cant and notions, used to seek to pick up crumbs from his mental banquets; and as these were chiefly weak-minded and superstitious men, with a few men of strong heads and minim hearts, which latter class are not, however, selfdeceived, he was led, being then feeble in health, to assent to their conclusions, seeing that, between minds like theirs and his giant intellect, an impassable chasm existed; in short, for peace' sake be humoured them, and for sympathy, as he used to say of Cromwell, spoke in the language, but not in the sense, of the canters.

As respects the insinuation of charges against distinguished members of the family, this is done repeatedly in the course of the two volumes. Oh this "spirit of intense humanity!" What an admirable substitute it is for the faith, hope, and charity of the gospel! Observe the guilelessness-the tender, forbearing spirit-in which the following note is written :

"They are, or have been, clever enough to appropriate his great reputation to their advancement, and then to allow him to need assistance from strangers. It is not always wise to scan too deeply the source of human actions; irresistibly led to the conclusion, that a sort of half-consciousness of [their own insignificance but for the passport of his name] entered into this almost (in one sense but I am more than) parricidal neglect. I blame them not."-Page 223.

And again :

"Unworthy as the motives have been termed by which sundry persons were considered to be influenced, I am conscious that for them no other course was possible." Blame them! Oh, no! Such a thought never entered his heart! He will only give them a bad name!

But I must have done. One use such a work as this

may be

turned to, and, in protracting my observations upon it, I have had that object mainly in view, is to make it an exhibition of the interior of the whited sepulchre of infidelity. For, what is this spirit of pure and intense humanity but a rejection of God and his Son under the plea of love to man-want of justice-want of common charity to individuals, under the assumed obligation of some self-supposed "sacred" duty, and a fierce revolutionary spirit, eager to set one class of society in arms against another, under the plea of care for the poor? God have mercy upon us, and preserve us from falling into the hands of such men! Yours, &c., C. J. H.

ON TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

TRACTS AGAINST POPERY.-NO. IV.

THAT a belief in transubstantiation was not required of any, as necessary to salvation, prior to the fourth Lateran council, 1215, the records of the church sufficiently declare; and it is indeed confessed by many of the Roman writers, as Tonstal, Erasmus, Durandus, Johannes Ferus, and the others cited by Bishop Taylor. So that, as regards the question of antiquity and semper, there is no longer room for dispute. Rome stands convicted of requiring that as necessary to salvation which has not been required, semper, ubique, et ab omnibus; in other words, of putting forth a new article of faith as a term for church communion, in direct violation of the decrees of Ephesus and Chalcedon; that is to say, in direct violation of the decisions of councils which have been received as general by the whole church. But though the main question regarding transubstantiation is thus decided, there is another, and by no means an uninteresting one, still open-namely, how far a belief in transubstantiation, though not required as necessary to salvation, was, in point of fact, generally received and entertained in the Christian church from the beginning. This is affirmed, as might be expected, by the Romans, who, by taking isolated sentences of different writers, and giving them an arbitrary force, have shewn that they are not wholly destitute of plausible defence, and are enabled to represent the voice of antiquity as being on their side, to those who have not the means of examining into the truth of the matter, which would shew that although, in those happy days, before transubstantiation had been started, they indulged in warmth of expression concerning the nature and the privileges of the Eucharist, which we, who live after the introduction of that error, are obliged to forego, they (I believe invariably) are found to have also spoken of it in such terms as are wholly incompatible with the Roman fabri

cation.

In discussing this point, the stores of individual writers have been again and again appealed to; but I do not think due use has ever been made of the very remarkable testimonies borne upon this point by the collective opinions of the large assemblies of bishops who formed the two great councils, the one of Iconoclasts, under the Emperor VOL. IX.-April, 1836.

3 с

Constantine Copronymus, which met at Constantinople, A.D. 754, and consisted of 338 bishops: the other of the Iconodulists, under the Empress Irene, which met at Constantinople, and was afterwards transferred to Nice, in Bithynia, A.D. 787, and consisted of 350 bishops. Both of these councils assumed the style of the seventh general council. At one of the sittings (the sixth) of the Deutero Nicene Synod, all the synodical decrees of the former were read over, clause by clause, and held up to scorn and reprobation; and it having so happened that, in one of their clauses, the fathers of the synod of 754 had expressed their opinion as to the light in which the consecrated elements in the Eucharist are to be regarded, the assembly of 787 had the opportunity of stating what exception they could make to the definition of the former. The incidental way in which the subject came to be discussed adds further to the value of the testimony. The main aim and object of the council under Copronymus was to shew the unreasonable, unecclesiastical, and unscriptural character of the custom of introducing images, especially images of Christ, into the Christian temples as objects of adoration. Among other arguments against it, they allege this,—that the church had already the one, and the only, image of Christ, which he had sanctioned in the bread of the Eucharist. (Not that these holy fathers looked upon it as a bare sign! No; using the self same caution, nay, the very words of our reformers, in the homilies, they say it is sanctified as "no unreal figure" of Christ's flesh, meaning thereby that it conveyed to the faithful receivers that inward treasure of which it was the appointed image.) To this argument Irene's bishops reply.

Let us now read the statements of both. First, that of the council of Constantinople:

Let them be glad, and rejoice, and be of good courage, who with singleness of heart make, and desire, and worship the true image of Christ, and offer it for the salvation of body and soul; which he, the Priest and God, taking out of our own a moderate portion, at the time of his voluntary passion, delivered to the stewards of his mysteries for a type and memorial. For when he was about willingly to give himself up to his memorable and life-giving death, he took bread and blessed it, and gave thanks, and brake it, and distributed it, saying, "Take, eat, for the remission of sins: this is my body." In like manner he distributed the cup, saying, "This is my blood; do this in remembrance of me." As though no other form, or type, were chosen by him of things under heaven as able to image his carnality. Behold, then, the image of his life-giving body, which is previously and honourably made. For what did the all-wise God mean to argue by this? Surely, no other than to shew and teach clearly to us men the mystery which is wrought in his dispensation. That as that which he took of us is simple matter of human substance, perfect in all points, which does not express the real subsisting person, lest an addition of a person be made to the godhead, (μὴ χαρακτηριζούσης ἰδιοσύστατον πρόσωπον, ἵνα μὴ πроýкη πроσπov év tÿ leótηtɩ kμñéσy); so also, he ordered, as an image, the peculiar matter, the substance of bread, to be offered, not fashioned in human form, lest idolatry be introduced. As therefore the natural body of Christ is holy, as deified, so it is clear that, by adoption, his image also is holy, as being rendered divine by grace, through sanctification. For this, also, as we said, the Lord Christ effected, that as he deified, by his own natural sanctification, the flesh which he took upon him, by its very unity with himself; so also, that the bread of the Eucharist should become a divine body, being sanctified as no unreal figure of his natural flesh, by the Holy Spirit coming upon it; through the mediation of the priest, who makes the oblation, turning it from common into holy. Again, the natural, living, and intelligent flesh of the Lord was anointed to divinity by the Holy Ghost; just so the

divinely delivered image of his flesh, the divine bread, was filled with the Holy Ghost, together with the cup of the life-giving blood of his side. This, then, is received as the true image of the carnal dispensation of Christ, our God, as is aforesaid; which he, the true life-giving maker of our nature, delivered with his own words.

Let us next hear the fathers of the Deutero Nicene Council commenting upon the foregoing passage:--

Epiphanius the deacon reads.

It is plain how every set discourse, if once it be turned aside from the truth, is carried into many and dangerous absurdities, by the consequence of error; which thing has happened to these teachers of novelty, who, when they had been turned away from the truth, on account of the making of images, have been carried into another extreme and monstrous error; for, as if from the Delphic Tripod, they have prophesied these crooked and injurious sentences. Yet they hear the proverb, "Thou art snared with the words of thy mouth;" for they have set forth wood, hay, stubble," whose end is to be burned. For no one of the holy apostles who spake by the Spirit, nor of our renowned fathers, has called our unbloody sacrificewhich is made in remembrance of the passion of our Lord, and of his whole dispensation-an image of his body. For they did not receive of the Lord thus to say or confess, but they hear him saying in the gospel, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven;" and "he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him;" and "when he had taken bread, and given thanks, he brake it, and gave it to his disciples, and said, take, eat, this is my body; and when he had took the cup he gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many, for the remission of sins." And he did not say, "Take, eat, the image of my body." Paul, also, the divine apostle, drawing his instruction from the divine words, said, "I have received of the Lord that which I also delivered unto you, that in the same night in which he was betrayed," &c.

Wherefore it is clearly shewn, that neither the Lord, nor the apostles, nor the fathers, ever called the unbloody sacrifice, which is offered by the priest, an image, but the very body and the very blood. Indeed, before the completion of the sanctification, it piously pleased some of the holy fathers to call them types; of whom is Eustathius, the firm defender of the catholic faith, and destroyer of the Arian madness; and Basil, the destroyer of the same superstition, who rightly taught the plain foundation (the good fathers must needs have their pun-the Greek for the epithet they apply to Eustathius, is Eustathes; for the plain foundation of Basilius, Basiulian) of all truth which is under the sun. For of these, speaking by one and the same spirit, the one, in interpreting that saying in the Proverbs of Solomon, "Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled," says thus," By the wine and the bread, he declares the types of the bodily members of Christ." The other, drawing from the same fountain as they who are versed in the mysteries of the priesthood knew, in the prayer of the divine offering, speaketh thus-" With good courage we draw near to the holy altar, and, setting forth the types of the holy body and blood of thy Christ, we beseech and entreat thee." And that which follows makes the intention of the father clearer, that they were called types before consecration, but after consecration, are said to be, and are, and are believed to be, properly the body and blood of Christ. But these honest men, wishing to destroy the spectacle of the venerable images, have introduced another image, which is not an image, but body and blood; but being taken in their toil and craftiness, and wounding themselves with their dishonest sophism, they have, by supposition, named this to be the divine offering; and, as this is a clear manifestation of folly, so to call the body and blood of the Lord an image partakes of the same madness, and more than madnesseven impiety. Then, leaving falsehoods, they touch a little upon truth, and say that it becomes a divine body. But if it be an image of the body, it cannot be the divine body itself; wherefore, they being thus carried about hither and thither, the things which they teach are altogether uncertain; for as the eye, when it is twisted, does not see straight, so these also, being troubled and disturbed by the confusion of evil thoughts, suffer the same thing as madmen, who are always raising up one phantasy after another; at one time calling our holy sacrifice the image of the holy body of

Christ, at another, by position, the body. But they suffer this, as we said before, by desiring to remove the spectacle of the representative images out of the church, and rejoicing to overthrow ecclesiastical tradition.

The most devoted Romanist will probably admit, that if ever there was an occasion calling for, and provoking, an avowal of the doctrine of transubstantiation, it was afforded in this instance.

That the Iconodulists were hard pressed by the argument of their opponents is evident,by the desperate plunges they make;-first roundly denying that the fathers ever called the Eucharist a figure of our Lord; then recollecting that the liturgies-which were familiar to the whole church—and the writings of the fathers, in both which the elements are called types, would make this position untenable, they endeavour to avoid the force of this by saying, that that term was only applied to them before consecration: an assertion so monstrous, that the annotator in Labbe's Edition of the Councils,-who cannot be suspected of any leaning to the primitive doctrine,-of his own accord, refers to Cyril, Nazianzen, and others, who applied the term types to the elements of the Eucharist after consecration.

If the fathers of the second Nicene Council had held the doctrine of transubstantiation, as taught by Rome, what more easy-more obvious-method of refuting the argument of the Iconoclasts than by roundly asserting it? But instead of this, what is it they do? They are forced to content themselves by asserting that the consecrated elements are the body and blood of Christ, which, in a sacramental and mystical sense, none ever denied and that, therefore, they could not be figures of it (a miserable non sequitur, unless they can prove carnal and spiritual to be synonymous); and they refer, in the warmest terms of eulogy, to the writings of one of the great champions of orthodoxy upon the subject, St. Basil, part of whose expressions on the subject they cite, and refer us to the remainder for a more full development of his sound meaning.

If, then, we can ascertain the precise meaning of St. Basil, we shall be in possession of the exact sense in which the fathers of the Deutero Nicene Council regarded the change in the elements in the Eucharist.

It happens, fortunately enough, that, among all the oriental liturgies, none seems to have been held in greater estimation than that of Basil, which was in use throughout the whole of the east. Copies of liturgies, bearing his name, have come down to the present time, and are found existing in Greek, in Syriac, in Coptic, and Arabic. It is not pretended that we can assert, with any confidence, that any one of these has come down to us in its original state. They all, or almost all, differ from one another; and we may safely conclude, concerning all, that they have been altered and interpreted in the different patriarchates and provinces in which they have been used. It is clear that this very circumstance tends only to make their testimony of the greater value, in ascertaining the opinion of St. Basil, in any point or points in which they all agree. They will have the force, not of one witness, but of many, and those manifestly independent.

There is one point (not the only one) in which they all agree, and in that agreement are supported virtually by all, expressly by almost