CI?&P, IV.] TR&NOI? BOT?WTI?TION. 2?3 �nd acceptable, which is the figure of the body and blood of* our Lord Jesus Christ. *'? (16.) Chryuoetom is brought up on both sides, and his rhetoric sometimes places him on the Roman side, though it bear5 him beyond it. But his divinity and sober opinions place him on the Protestant side. After stating that Christ is both God and man, and has two na- trre? without mirtufa or confusion, he writes: "For as (in the eucha- riot) before the bread is consecrated we call it bread, but when the grace of C:md, by the priest, has consecrated it, it is no longer called bread, but is esteemed worthy to be called the Lord's body, although the nattoe of brand still rema/nz in it; and we do not say there be two bodies, but one body of the Son; so here the divine nature being joined with tho body, they both make up but one Son, one person. But yet they must be confessed to remain without confusion, after an invisible manner, not in ose satvo'e only, but in two perfect natures."t (17.) Theedoret's testimony on this point is decisive on the Protest- ant side. In his day the Eutycheans denied tlmt the two natures of Christ were united in one person, as they mainta.ined that his humanity was taken into the divinity after his ascension. To this Theodoret, in his Dialogues, answered the Eutycheans under the name of Eranistes, himself taking the name of Orthodoxus. "Inasmuch as He who called his own natural body wheat and bread, and who farther bestowed upon himself the appellation of a vine; he also honoured the visible symbols with the name of his body and blood, not changing their na- ture, but udding grace to uature."?; Again: "The mystical symbols, after consecration, pass not out of their own nature, inasmuch as they still remain in their original substance, and form, and appem'ance; and they may be seen and touched, just as they were before consecration."(? (18.) Oelasius, bishop or pope of Rome, in the fifth centmy, writing a?umst the same errors against which Theodoret wrote, declares as follows: "Certainly the sacraments of the body and blood of the Lord, which we receive, are a divine thing, because by these we are made ?rtakers of the divine nature. Nevertheless, the substance or nature of bread and wine ceues not to exist; and usuredly the image and similitude of* the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries."l Baronius and Bellarmine maintain that this work ' does not belong to Pope Gelasius, but to Oelatius Cysicenus. But the Roman Catholic Du Pin�oves that the work on the t? natur? of Christ belongs to Gelasius of Rome.
- "Pac nobis imac oblationera,"&.c. De Sacram., lib. iv, c. 5. See also c. 4.
? "Sieur enim satequtm sanctificetur, PaNis, raXSU, nominmnuo, diviui &utem ilium mnctificante gratil , liberatus eat quidera appellatioue panis, dighue autem habitus dominici corpori? appe!!atiorte, etiamoi naturu panis in eo permansit, et non duo corporu mad unnm corptin ? prm?catur. Sic ethic divinA inmidente corporb natUl? unum .?J..un?. Ulmm perremain, urns. ue hmc fecerunt. Aguoece? tanten in confu?m et indivisibilem rutionom, non In unA solam natura? meal in duab18 perfoctim.*'---?hrysoe- tom. E!)ist. ad C?esariam Monachum. $ ,,T??od., Dial. i, c. 8. �em, I)isl. ii, c. S4. I ' Certs saca-mneu?a qua oumimus corporb e? sanguinb tYarbti, divina res .i?opter quod? et per eadem divinm e?cimur coimortso rmturm; et tamen soso. noll ?o- ? solmtantia, Tel rmmm panis et vini. Et certo intafo ot ?imilitudo corlmrm or.s? _(_minis ?aristi, in actiono mystetiorum ceJebrantur.'*--?ieiM?o do duabus naturm m �e artialo Gehms I. in Eee. Hi? VoL. I.---18
�
