of transubstantiation, they seem to contain at most a dynamic^ not a substantial, change of the elements into the body and the blood of Christ. For, in the first place, it must be remembered there is a great difference between the half-poetic, enthusiastic, glowing language of devotion, in which the fathers, and especially the liturgies, sj^eak of the eucharis- tic sacrifice, and the clear, calm, and cool language of logic and doctrinal definition. In the second place, the same fathers ap- ply the same or quite similar terms to the baptismal water and the chrism of confirmation, without intending to teach a proper change of the substance of these material elements into the Holy Ghost. On the other hand, they not rarely use, concerning the bread and wine, tutto?, avTiTvira, figura, sig- num, and like expressions, which denote rather a symbolical than a metabolical relation of them to the body and blood of the Lord. Finally, the favorite comparison of the mysterious transformation with the incarnation of the Logos, which, in fact, was not an annihilation of the human nature, but an as- sumption of it into unity with the divine, is of itself in favor of the continuance of the substance of the elements ; else it would abet the Eutychian heresy. 11. The symbolical view, though on a realistic basis, is repre- sented first by Eusebius, who calls the Supper a commemoration of Christ by the symbols of his body and blood, and takes the flesh and blood of Christ in the sixth chapter of John to mean the words of Christ, which are sj^mt and life, the true food of the soul, to believers.' Here appears the influence of his venerated Origen, whose views in regard to the sacramental as- pect of the Eucharist he substantially repeats. But it is striking that even Athanasius, " the father of or- panem, de pane rursus, quia et potest et promisit, efiBcit proprium corpus, et qui de aqua vinum fecit, facit et de vino sanguinem." But, on the other hand, Gaudentius (bishop of Brixia) calls the supper a figure of the passion of Christ, and the bread Wq figure (figura) of the body of Christ (p. 43). Comp. Eiickert, 1. c. 4*77 f. ' Demonstr. evang. 1, c. 10 ; Theol. eccl. iii. c. 12, and the fragment of a tract, De paschate, published by Angelo Mai in Scriptorum veterum nova coUectio, vol i. p. 247. Comp. Neander, 1. c. i. 430, and especially Steitz, second article (1865), pp. 07-106. 496 THIRD PEKIOD. A.D. 311-590. tbodoxy," recognized only a spiritual participation, a self-com- munication of the nourishing divine virtue of the Logos, in the symbols of the bread and wine, and incidentally evinces a doctrine of the Eucharist wholly foreign to the Catholic, and very like the older Alexandrian or Origenistic, and the Cal- vinistic, though by no means identical with the latter.' By the flesh and blood in the mysterious discourse of Jesus in the sixth chapter of John,