Both this latter quotation from the “_Heresies_” and the Fragment are opposed to the notion of any substantial change in the elements. The former speaks of the bread after consecration as “not common bread,” implying that it is still bread, although adapted to a sacred and mysterious use; and as “consisting of two things, an earthly and a heavenly(414)” (meaning probably the elements themselves and the body and blood of Christ), whereas the notion of transubstantiation requires that there should be nothing of the earthly really left after the consecration. The fragment still more explicitly calls them _figures_ at the very time that we partake of them. It is true that the view of Irenæus differs equally from ordinary Protestant notions, and indeed is more positive than that of the English Church; but we are to bear in mind that the Fathers did not always speak with logical accuracy. Their language has been brought forward in support of the theory of transubstantiation, and therefore it has become necessary to show that they did not write on that theory. It is not equally requisite that we should be able to construct a theory which shall explain all the figurative and imaginative language in which they expressed their faith in the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament. Irenæus certainly taught this doctrine, and that is enough for us of the Church of England, who do not concern ourselves to explain the _manner_ of his presence. Some of us may agree with his manner of expressing it, but we do not require of others that they should agree with him. We cannot complete our view of the opinions of Irenæus in regard to the Eucharist without adverting to his ideas on the _consecration_ of the elements. This he describes in various ways, sometimes attributing it to _the word of God_(415), sometimes to _the invocation of God_(416), sometimes to _the invocation of the Holy Ghost_(417). But all these may be reconciled, if we consider them to be allusions to various portions of the consecration prayer. There is such a form left in the _Apostolical Constitutions_, with which all the four ancient liturgies exhibited by Brett and Palmer coincide, viz. the Roman, the Oriental, the Egyptian, and the Gallican. Now all these forms contain a recital of the words of institution, which may not unfitly be called _the word of God_, and an invocation of God to send down his Holy Spirit upon the gifts, to consecrate them to be the body and blood of Christ, which may be called either _an invocation of God_ or _an invocation of the Holy Ghost_. Is it not therefore most probable that Irenæus alludes to this prayer, which must have been used in very early ages, for its leading features to be found thus spread throughout the world? The expressions, therefore, which he uses, though various and distinct, are not contrary or contradictory: they allude to various portions of the same form.