A relation of a conference held about religion at London by Edw. Stillingfleet ... with some gentlemen of the Church of Rome.

Here follows the Paper we promised, wherein an Account is given of the Doctrine of the Church for the first Eight Centuries in the point of the Sacrament, which is demonstrated to be contrary to Tran∣substantiation; written in a Letter to my Lady T.

Madam,

YOur Ladiship may remember, That our Meeting at your House on the Third Instant, ended with a Promise we made, of sending you such an account of the sense of the Fathers for the first six Ages, as might sufficiently satisfie every impartial Person, That they did not believe Transubstantiation. This Promise we branched out in three Propositions: first, That the Fathers did hold, That after the Consecration the Elements of Bread and Wine did remain unchanged in their substance. The second was, that after the Consecration they called the Elements the Types, the Antitypes, the Mysteries, the Symbols, the Signs, the Figures, and the Commemorations of the body and blood of Christ; which certainly will satisfie every un∣prejudiced Person, That they did not think the Bread and Wine were annihilated, and that in their room, and under their accidents, the substance of the body and blood of Christ was there. Thirdly, we said, That by the Doctrine of the Fathers the unworthy Receivers got not the body and the blood of Christ; from which it must necessarily follow, That the substance of his body and blood is not under the accidents of Bread and Wine; otherwise all these that unworthily re∣ceive them eat Christ's body and blood. Therefore, to discharge our selves of our Promise, we shall now give your Ladiship such an account of the Doctrine of the Fathers on these Heads, as we hope shall convince those Gentlemen, that we had a good warrant for what we said.

The first Proposition is, The Fathers believed that after the Consecration the Elements were still Bread and Wine. The Proofs whereof we shall divide into three branches: The first shall be, That after the Consecration they usually called them Bread and Wine. Secondly, That they expresly assert, that the substance of Bread and Wine remained. Thirdly, That they believed the Sacramental Bread and Wine did nourish our bodies.

For proof of the first, we desire the following Testimonies be considered:

Iustin Martyr says, These who are called Deacons distribute the blessed Bread and Wine * 1.1 and Water to such as are present, and carry it to the absents, and this nourishment is by us called the Eucharist. And a little after, We do not receive these as common Bread, or common Drink; for as by the word of God Iesus Christ our Saviour being made Flesh, had both Flesh and Blood for our Salvation, so we are taught, that that food by which our blood and flesh are nourished, by its change, be∣ing blessed by the word of Prayer which he gave us, is both the flesh and the blood of the Incarnate Iesus. Thus that Martyr, that wrote an hundred and fifty years after Christ, calls the Elements Bread and Wine, and the nourishment which being changed into Flesh and Blood nourishes them. And saying, it is not common Bread and VVine, he says, that it was still so in substance; and his illu∣strating it with the Incarnation, in which the Humane Nature did not lose nor change its sub∣stance in its union with the eternal Word, shews, he thought not the Bread and Wine lost their substance when they became the flesh and blood of Christ.

The next Witness is Irenaeus, who writing against the Valentinians, that denied the * 1.2 Father of our Lord Jesus to be the Creator of the World, and also denied the Resur∣rection of the Body, confutes both these Heresies by Arguments drawn from the Eu∣charist. To the first he says, If there be another Creator than the Father of our Lord, then our offering Creatures to him, argues him covetous of that which is not his own, and so we reproach him rather than bless him. And adds, How does it appear to any of them, that that Bread over which thanks are given, is the body of his Lord, and the Cup of his blood, if he be not the Son of the Creator. And he argues against their Saying, our bodies should not rise again that are fed by the body and blood of Christ: for, says he, that bread which is of the Earth, having had the Invocation of God over it, is no more common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two things, an earth∣ly

and an heavenly; so our Bodies that receive the Eucharist are no more corruptible, having the Hope of the Resurrection.

Tertullian (Lib. 1. adv. Marc. c. 14.) proving against Marcion, that Christ was not con∣trary to the Creator, among other Proofs which he brings to shew, that Christ made use of the Creatures, and neither rejected Water, Oil, Milk, or Hony, he adds, neither did he reject Bread, by which he represents his own Body. And further says, (Lib. 3. adv. Marc. c. 19.) Christ calls Bread his Body, that from thence you may understand, that he gave the Figure of his Body to the Bread. Origen says, (Lib. 8. cont. Celsum.) We eat of the Loaves set before us, with Thanks giving and Pray∣ers over what is given to us, which by the Prayer are become a certain holy Body, that sanctifies those who use them with a sound purpose.

St. Cyprian says, (Epist. 76.) Christ calls the Bread that was compounded of many grains ioyned to∣gether, his Body, to shew the Union of our People which he bore upon himself; and calls the Wine which is pressed out of many Grapes and Berries, his Blood: he signifies our Flock which is joyned together in the mixture of an united Multitude.

And writing against those who only put Water in the Chalice, (Epist. 63.) he says, Since Christ said, I am the true Vine, the Blood of Christ is not only Water but Wine, neither can we see his Blood by which we are redeemed and quickened in the Chalice when Wine is not in it, by which the Blood of Christ is shewed. And that whole Epistle is all to the same purpose.

Epiphanius (in Anchorat) says, Christ in the Supper rose and took these things, and having given Thanks, said, This is my, &c. Now we see it is not equal to it, nor like it, neither to his Incarnate Likeness, nor his invisible Deity, nor the Lineaments of his Members, for it is round, and without feeling as to its Vertue. And this he says, to shew how Man may be said to be made after the Image of God, though he be not like him.

Gregory Nyssen, (in Orat. de Bap. Christ.) shewing how common things may be sanctified, as Water in Baptism, the Stones of an Altar and Church dedicated to God; he adds, So also Bread in the Beginning is common, but after the Mystery has consecrated it, is said to be, and is the Body of Christ; so the Mystical Oyl, so the Wine before the Blessing, are things of little value, but after the Sanctification of the Spirit, both of them work excellently. He also adds, That the Priest by his Blessing is separated and sanctified; from which it appears, he no more believed the Change of the Substance of the Bread and Wine, than of the consecrated Oil, the Altar, or the Priest.

Ambrose (Lib. De Bened. Patriarc. cap. 9.) speaking of Bread, which was Asher's Blessing, says, This Bread Christ gave his Apostles, that they might divide it to the People that believed, and gives it to us to day, which the Priest consecrates in his Words, this Bread is made the Food of the Saints.

St. Chrysostome (Homil. 24. in Epist. ad Cor.) on these Words, The Bread which we brake, is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ? says, What is the Bread? The Body of Christ. What are they made who take it? The Body of Christ. From whence it appears, he thought the Bread was so the Body of Christ, as the worthy Receivers are; which is not by the Change of their Sub∣stance, but by the Sanctification of their Natures.

St. Ierom (Epist. ad Hedib.) says, Let us hear the Bread which Christ brake and gave his Disci∣ples, to be the Body of our Lord.

And he says, (Comment. S. Mat. c. 26.) After the Typical Pascha was fulfilled, Christ took Bread that comforts the Heart of Man, and went to the true Sacrament of the Pascha, that as Melchisedeck in the Figure had done offering Bread and Wine, so he might also represent the Truth of his Body and Blood. Where he very plainly calls the Elements Bread and Wine, and a Representation of Christ's Body and Blood.

St. Austin (as he is cited by Fulgentius de Baptismo and divers others) in his Exhortation to these that were newly baptized, speaking of this Sacrament, says, That which you see is the Bread, and the Cup which your Eyes witness: but that which your Faith must be instructed in, is, that the Bread is the Body of Christ, and the Cup is his Blood. And then he proposes the Objection, how that could be? And answers it thus; These things are therefore called Sacraments, because one thing is seen, and another is understood: What you see has a bodily Appearance, but what you understand has a Spiritual Fruit; and if you will understand the Body of Christ, hear what the Apostle says to the Faith∣ful,

Ye are the Body of Christ and his Members: If therefore you be the Body and Members of Christ, your Mystery is placed on the Table of the Lord, and you receive the Mystery of the Lord. And at large prosecutes this, to shew how the Faithful are the Body of Christ, as the Bread is made up of many Grains; from whence it appears, that he believed, that the conscrated Elements were still Bread and Wine.

And speaking of St. Paul's breaking Bread at Troas, he says, (Epist. 86.) being to break Bread that night, as it is broken in the Sacrament of the Body of Christ. He also says, (Serm. 9. De Divers.) The Eucharist is our daily Bread; but let us so receive it, that not only our Belly but our Mind be refresh∣ed by it. Besides, in a great many places St. Austin calls the Eucharist, the Sacrament of Bread and Wine.

And speaking of things, made use of to signify somewhat else, he adds for one, (Lib. 3. De Trinit. c. 10.) The Bread that is made for this, is consumed in our receiving the Sacrament. He also says, (Lib. 17. De Civ. Dei.) To eat Bread is in the New Testament, the Sacrifice of Christians. He likewise says, (Lib. Cont. Donat. c. 6.) Both Iudas and Peter received a part of the same Bread out of the same hand of our Lord.

And thus from twelve Witnesses that are beyond all Exception, it does appear, That the Fathers believed the Elements to be still Bread and Wine after the Consecration. We have not brought any Proofs from the Fathers that are less known or read, for then we must have swelled up this Paper beyond what we intend it. One thing is so considerable, that we cannot forbear to desire it be taken notice of, and that is, That we see those great Fathers and Doctors of the Church call the consecrated Elements, without any mincing of the matter, Bread & Wine; but when they call it the Body and Blood of Christ, they often use some mollifying and less har∣dy Expression. So St. Austin says, (Serm. 53. De Verb. Dom.) Almost all call the Sacrament his Body. And again says, (Lib. 3. De Trinit. c. 4.) We call that only the Body and Blood of Christ, which being taken of the Fruits of the Earth, and consecrated by the Mystical Prayer, we rightly receive for our Spiritual Health in the Commemoration of the Passion of our Lord for us. And he says, (Epist. 23. ad Bonifac.) After some sort the Sacrament of the Body of Christ is his Body, and the Sacrament of his Blood is the Blood of Christ. And also says, (Serm. 2. in Psal. 33.) He carried himself in his own Hands in some sort, when he said, This is my Body.

St. Chrysostom says, (Epist. ad Caesar.) The Bread is thought worthy to be called the Body of our Lord. And on these Words, The Flesh lusteth against the Spirit, among the improper acceptions of Flesh, says, (Comm. in Epist. ad Galat. c. 5.) The Scriptures use to call the Mysteries by the name of Flesh, and sometimes the whole Church, saying, She is the Body of Christ.

Tertullian says, (Lib. 4. cont. Marc. c. 40.) Christ calls the Bread his Body, and a little after, he names the Bread his Body.

Isidore Hispal. says, (Orig. lib. 6. c. 9.) We call this after his Command the Body and Blood of Christ, which being made of the Fruits of the Earth, is sanctified and made a Sacrament.

Theodoret says, (Dialog. 1.) In the giving of the Mysteries, Christ called the Bread his Body, and the mixed Cup his Blood. And says, (Dialog. 1.) He who called his Natural Body Corn and Bread, and also calls himself a Vine, likewise honoured these visible Symbols with the names of his Body and Blood.

But we now go to bring our Proofs for the next Branch of our first Proposition; in which we assert, That the Fathers believed that the very Substance of the Bread and Wine did remain after the Consecration. By which all the Proofs brought in the former Branch will receive a further Evidence; since by these it will appear the Fathers believed the Substance of the Elements remained; and thence we may well conclude, that wherever we find mention made of Bread and Wine after Consecration, they mean of the Substance, and not of the Accidents of Bread and Wine. For proof of this, we shall only bring the Testimonies of four Fathers, that lived almost within one Age, and were the greatest Men of the Age. Their Authority is as generally received, as their Testimonies are formal and decisive: And these are Pope Gelasi∣us, St. Chrysostom, Ephrem Patriarch of Antioch, and Theodoret, whom we shall find delivering to us the Doctrine of the Church in their Age, with great Consideration upon a very weigh∣ty Occasion: So that it shall appear that this was for that Age the Doctrine generally received both in the Churches of Rome and Constantinople, Antioch, and Asia the less.

We shall begin with Gelasius, who, though he lived later than some of the others, yet, be∣cause of the Eminence of his See, and the Authority those we deal with must needs acknow∣ledge was in him, ought to be set first: He says, (in lib. de duab. nat. Christ.) The Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ are a Divine thing; for which reason we become, by them, Partakers of the Divine Nature; and yet the Substance or Nature of Bread and Wine does not cease to be; and the Image and Likeness of the Body and Blood of Christ are indeed celebrated in the action of the Mysteries: therefore it appears evidently enough, that we ought to think that of Christ our Lord, which we profess and celebrate, and receive in his Image, that as they (to wit, the Elements) pass into that Divine Substance, the Holy Ghost working it, their Nature remaining still in its own Property. So that principal Mystery, whose Efficiency and Virtue these (to wit, the Sacraments) represent to us, remains one entire and true Christ; those things of which he is compounded (to wit, his two Natures) remaining in their Properties.

These words seem so express and decisive, that one would think the bare reading them, with∣out any further Reflections, should be of force enough. But before we offer any Considerations upon them, we shall set down other Passages of the other Fathers, and upon them altogether make such Remarks as, we hope, may satisfy any that will hear Reason.

St. Chrysostom treating of the two Natures of Christ against the Apollinarists, (Epist. ad Caesar. monach.) who did so confound them, as to consubstantiate them, he makes use of the Doctrine of the Sacrament to illustrate that Mystery by, in these Words; As before the Bread is sanctified, we call it Bread; but when the Divine Grace has sanctified it by the mean of the Priest, it is freed from the name of Bread, and is thought worthy of the name of the Lord's Body, though the Nature of Bread re∣mains in it: and yet it is not said there are two Bodies, but one Body of the Son; so the Divine Nature being joyned to the Body, both these make one Son, and one Person.

Next this Patriarch of Constantinople, let us hear Ephrem the Patriarch of Antioch give his Te∣stimony, as it is preserved by Photius, (Cod. 229.) who says thus: In like manner (having be∣fore treated of the two Natures united in Christ) the Body of Christ, which is received by the Faith∣ful, does not depart from its sensible Substance, and yet remains inseparated from the Intellectual Grace: So Baptism becoming wholly Spiritual, and one, it preserves its own sensible Substance, and does not lose that which it was before.

To these we shall add, what Theodoret (Dialog. 1.) on the same occasion says against those, who from that place, the Word was made Flesh, believed, that in the Incarnation the Divinity of the Word was changed into the Humanity of the Flesh. He brings in his Heretick arguing about some Mystical Expressions of the Old Testament, that related to Christ: At length he comes to shew, how Christ called himself Bread and Corn; so also in the delivering the Mysteries, Christ called the Bread his Body, and the mixed Cup his Blood; and our Saviour changed the Names, calling his Body by the name of the Symbol, and the Symbol by the name of his Body. And when the Heretick asks the reason why the Names were so changed, the Orthodox answers, That it was manifest to such as were initiated in Divine things; for he would have those who partake of the Mysteries, not look to the Nature of those things that were seen, but by the Change of the names, to believe that Change that was made through Grace; for he who called his Natural Body Corn and Bread, does likewise honour the visible Sym∣bols with the name of his Body and Blood; not changing the Nature, but adding Grace to Nature: And so goes on to ask his Heretick, whether he thought the holy Bread was the Symbol and Type of his Divinity, or of his Body and Blood? And the other acknowledging they were the Symbols of his Body and Blood: He concludes, that Christ had a true Body.

The second Dialogue is against the Eutychians; who believed, that after Christ's Assump∣tion, his Body was swallowed up by his Divinity: And there the Eutychian brings an Argument to prove that Change from the Sacrament; it being granted, that the Gifts before the Priest's Prayer were Bread and Wine. He asks how it was to be called after the Sanctification? the Orthodox answers, the Body and Blood of Christ; and that he believed he received the Body and Blood of Christ. From thence the Heretick, as having got a great advantage, argues; That as the Symbols of the Body and Blood of our Lord were one thing before the Priestly Invocation, and after that were changed, and are different from what they were: So the Body of our Lord, after the Assumption, was changed into the Divine Substance. But the Orthodox replies, that he was catched in the Net he laid for o∣thers;

for the Mystical Symbols, after the Sanctification, do not depart from their own Nature; for they con∣tinue in their former Substance, Figure and Form, and are both visible and palpable, as they were before; but they are understood to be that which they are made, and are believed and venerated, as being those things which they are believed to be. And from thence he bids the Heretick compare the Image with the Original, for the Type must be like the Truth, and shews that Christ's Body retains its former Form and Figure, and the Substance of his Body, though it be now made Immortal and Incorruptible. Thus he.

And having now set down very faithfully the Words of these Fathers, we desire it may be considered, that all these Words are used to the same Effect, to prove the Reality of Christ's Body, and the Distinction of the two Natures, the Divine and the Human, in him. For, though St. Chrysostom lived before Eutyches his days, yet in this Point the Eutychians and the Apollinarists, against whom he writes, held Opinions so like others, that we may well say, all these Words of the Fathers we have set down are to the same purpose.

Now, first it is evident, that if Transubstantiation had been then believed, there needed no other Argument to prove against the Eutychians that Christ had still a real Body, but to have declared that his Body was corporally present in the Eucharist; which they must have done, had they believed it, and not spoken so as they did; since that alone well proved, had put an end to the whole Controversy.

Further, they could never have argued from the Visions and Apparitions of Christ, to prove he had still a real Body; for if it was possible the Body of Christ could appear under the ac∣cidents of Bread and Wine, it was as possible the Divinity should appear under the accidents of an Humane Body.

Thirdly, They could never have argued against the Eutychians, as they did, from the absur∣dity that followed upon such a substantial mutation of the Humane Nature of Christ into his Divinity, if they had believed this substantial conversion of the Elements into Christ's Body, which is liable unto far greater Absurdities. And we can as little doubt, but the Eutychians had turned back their Arguments on themselves, with these Answers, if that Doctrine had been then received. It is true, it would seem from the last Passage of Theodoret, that the Eu∣tychians did believe some such change; but that could not be, for they denied the Being of the Body of Christ, and so could not think any thing was changed into that which they believed was not. Therefore we are to suppose him arguing from some commonly received expressions, which the Father explains.

In fine, The design of those Fathers being to prove, that the two Natures might be united without the change of either of their substances in the Person of Christ, it had been inexcusa∣ble Folly in them, to have argued from the sacramental Mysteries being united to the Body and Blood of Christ, if they had not believed they retained their former Substance; for had they believed Transubstantiation, what a goodly Argument had it been, to have said, Because after the Consecration the Accidents of Bread and Wine remain, therefore the Substance of the Humanity remained still, tho united to the Divine Nature in Christ? Did ever Man in his Wits argue in this fashion? Certainly, these four Bishops, whereof three were Patriarchs, and one of these a Pope, deserved to have been hissed out of the World, as Persons that understood not what it was to draw a Consequence, if they had argued so as they did, and believed Tran∣substantiation. But if you allow them to believe (as certainly they did) that in the Sacra∣ment the real Substances of Bread and Wine remained, tho after the Sanctification, by the Operation of the Holy Ghost, they were the Body and Blood of Christ, and were to be called so; then this is a most excellent illustration of the Mystery of the Incarnation, in which the Human Nature retains its proper and true Substance, tho after the Union with the Divinity, Christ be called God, even as he was Man, by virtue of his Union with the Eternal Word.

And this shews how unreasonable it is to pretend, that because Substance and Nature are sometimes used even for accidental Qualities, they should be therefore understood so in the ci∣ted places; for if you take them in that sense, you destroy the force of the Argument, which from being a very strong one, will by this means become a most ridiculous Sophisin. Yet we are indeed beholden to those that have taken pains to shew, that Substance and Nature stand

often for accidental Qualities; for tho that cannot be applied to the former places, yet it helps us with an excellent Answer to many of those Passages with which they triumph not a little.

Having so far considered these Four Fathers, we shall only add to them the Definition of the Seventh General Council at Constantinople, Ann. 754. Christ appointed us to offer the Image of his Body, to wit, the substance of the Bread. The Council is indeed of no Authority with these we deal with: But we do not bring it as a Decree of a Council, but as a Testimony, that so great a number of Bishops did in the Eighth Century believe, That the substance of the Bread did remain in the Eucharist, and that it was only the Image of Christ's Body: and if in this Defi∣nition they spake not more consonantly to the Doctrine of the former Ages, than their Ene∣mies at Nice did, let what has been set down, and shall be yet adduced, declare.

And now we advance to the third Branch of our first Assertion, that the Fathers believed that the Consecrated Elements did nourish our Bodies; and the Proofs of this will also give a fur∣ther Evidence to our former Position; that the substance of the Elements does remain: And it is a Demonstration that these Fathers, who thought the Sacrament nourished our Bodies, could not believe a Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. For the proof of this Branch we desire the following Testimonies be considered.

First, Iustin Martyr, as was already cited, not only calls the Eucharist our Nourishment, but formally calls it that Food by which our Flesh and Blood through its transmutation into them are nourished.

Secondly, Irenaeus (Lib. 5. adv. Heret. c. 2.) proving the Resurrection of the Body by this Argument, That our Bodies are fed by the Body and Blood of Christ, and that therefore they shall rise again; he hath these Words, He confirmed that Cup, which is a Creature, to be His Blood, by which He encreases our Blood; and the Bread, which is a Creature, to be His Body, by which He encreases our Body: And when the mixed Cup and the Bread, receive the Word of God, it becomes the Eucharist of the Body and Blood of Christ, by which the substance of our Flesh is encreased and subsists. How then do they deny the Flesh to be capable of the gift of God, which is Eternal Life, that is nourished by the Body and Blood of Christ, and is made His Member. We hope it will be observed, that as these Words are express and formal; so the Design on which He uses them will admit of none of those Distinctions they commonly rely on.

Tertullian says, (Lib. de Resur. c. 8.) the Flesh is fed with the Body and Blood of Christ.

St. Austin (Serm. 9. de Divers.) after he had called the Eucharist our daily Bread, he exhorts us so to receive it, that not only our Bellies, but our Minds might be refreshed by it.

Isidore of Sevil says, The substance of the visible Bread nourishes the outward Man; or, as Bertram cites his Words, all that we receive externally in the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, is pro∣per to refresh the Body.

Next, let us see what the 16th Council of Toledo says in Anno 633. condemning those that did not offer in the Eucharist entire Loaves, but only round Crusts; they did appoint one entire Loaf carefully prepared to be set on the Altar, that it might be sanctified by the Priestly Benediction, and order, that what remained after Communion, should be either put in some Bag, or, if it was needful, to eat it up, that it might not oppress the Belly of him that took it with the burden of an heavy surcharge; and that it might not go to the Digestion, but that it might feed his Soul with spiritual Nourishment. From which Words, one of two Consequences will necessarily follow; either that the Consecrated Ele∣ments do really nourish the Body, which we intend to prove from them; or that the Body of Christ is not in the Elements, but as they are Sacramentally used, which we acknowledg many of the Fathers believed. But the last Words we cited of the Spiritual Nourishment, shew those Fathers did not think so; and if they did, we suppose those we deal with will see, that to believe Christ's Body is only in the Elements when used, will clearly leave the Charge of I∣dolatry on that Church in their Processions, and other Adorations of the Host.

But none is so express as Origen, (Comment. in Mat. c. 15.) who on these words, 'Tis not that which enters within a Man which defiles a Man, says, If every thing that enters by the Mouth, goes into the Belly, and is cast into the Draught; then the Food that is sanctified by the Word of God, and by Prayer, goes also to the Belly, as to what is material in it, and from thence to the Draught; but by the Prayer that was made over it, it is useful in proportion to our Faith, and is the mean that the

Understanding is clear-sighted and attentive to that which is profitable; and it is not the matter of Bread, but the Word pronounced over it, which profits him that does not eat in a way unworthy of our Lord. This Doctrine of the Sacraments being so digested that some parts of it turned to Ex∣crement, was likewise taught by divers Latin Writers in the 9th Age, as Rabanus Maurus Arch-bishop of Mentz, and Heribald Bishop of Auxerre. Divers of the Greek Writers did also hold it, whom for a Reproach their Adversaries called Stercoranists. It is true, other Greek Fathers were not of Origen's Opinion, but believed that the Eucharist did entirely turn into the Substance of our Bodies. So Cyril of Ierusalem says, (Mystic. Catech. 5.) that the Bread of the Eucharist does not go into the Belly, nor is cast into the Draught, but is distributed thorough the whole Substance of the Communicant, for the good of Body and Soul.

The Homily of the Eucharist, in a Dedication that is in St. Chrysostom's Works, (Tom. 5.) says, Do not think that this is Bread, and that this is Wine; for they pass not to the Draught, as o∣ther Victuals do: And comparing it to Wax put to the Fire, of which no Ashes remain; he adds, So think that the M••teries are consumed with the Substance of our Bodies.

Iohn Damascene is of the same mind, who says, (Lib. 4. de Orthod. fide c. 14.) That the Body and the Blood of Christ passes into the Consistence of our Souls and Bodies, without being consumed, cor∣rupted, or passing into the Draught, God forbid, but passing into our Substance for our Conservation. Thus it will appear, that tho those last-cited Fathers did not believe as Origen did, that any part of the Eucharist went to the Draught; yet they thought it was turned into the Substance of our Bodies, from which we may well conclude, they thought the Substance of Bread and Wine remained in the Eucharist after the Consecration, and that it nourished our Bodies.

And thus we hope we have sufficiently proved our first Proposition in all its three Bran∣ches. So leaving it, we go on to the second Proposition, which is; That the Fathers call the consecrated Elements the Figures, the Signs, the Symbols, the Types, and Antitypes, the Commemoration, Representation, the Mysteries, and the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ.

Tertullian proving against Marcion, (Lib. 4 cont. Marc. c. 40.) that Christ had a real Body, he brings some Figures that were fulfilled in Christ, and says, He made the Bread which he took and gave his Disciples to be his Body, saying, This is my Body, that is, the Figure of my Body; but it had not been a Figure of his Body had it not been true, for an empty thing, such as a Phantasm, cannot have a Figure. Now had Tertullian, and the Church in his time, believed Transubstantiation, it had been much more pertinent for him to have argued, Here is corporally present Christ's Body, therefore he had a true Body, than to say, Here is a Figure of his Body, therefore he had a true Body; such an escape as this is not incident to a Man of common Sense, if he had believed Transubstantiation. And the same Father, in two other places before cited, says, Christ gave the Figure of his Body to the Bread, and that he represented his own Body by the Bread.

St. Austin says, (Com. in Psal. 3) He commended and gave to his Disciples, the Figure of his Body and Blood. The same Expressions are also in Bede, Alcuine, and Druthmar, that lived in the Eighth and Ninth Centuries. But what St. Austin says elsewhere (Lib. 3. de Doct. Chr. c. 16.) is very full in this matter, where, treating of the Rules by which we are to judg what Expressions in Scripture are figurative, and what not, he gives this for one Rule: If any place seem to command a Crime or horrid Action, it is figurative; and to instance it, cites these words, Except ye eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the Son of Man, you have no Life in you; which (says he) seems to command some Crime, or horrid Action, therefore it is a Figure, commanding us to communicate in the Passion of our Lord, and sweetly and profitably to lay up in our Memory, that his Flesh was crucified and wounded for us. Which words are so express and full, that whatever those we deal with may think of them, we are sure we cannot devise how any one could have delivered our Doctrine more formally. Parallel to these are Origen's words, (Homil. 7. in Lev.) who calls the understanding the Words of our Saviour, of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood according to the Letter, a Letter that kills.

The same St. Austin calls the Eucharist, a Sign of Christ's Body, in his Book against Adiman∣tus, (Lib. cont. Adimant. manich. c. 12.) who studied to prove that the Author of the Old and

New Testament was not the same God; and among other Arguments, he uses this, That Blood in the Old Testament is called the Life or Soul, contrary to the New Testament: To which St. Austin answers, That it was so called, not that it was truly the Soul or Life, but the Sign of it; and to shew, that the Sign does sometimes bear the Name of that whereof it is a Sign, he says, Our Lord did not doubt to say, This is my Body, when he was giving the Sign of his Body. Where, if he had not believed the Eucharist was substantially different from his Body, it had been the most impertinent Illustration that ever was, and had proved just against him, that the Sign must be one and the same with that which is signified by it.

For the Sacrament being called the Type, the Antitype, the Symbol and Mystery of Christ's Body and Blood: The ancient Liturgies, and Greek Fathers use these Phrases so fre∣quently, that since it is not so much as denied, we judg we need not laboriously prove it. Therefore we pass over this, believing it will be granted; for if it be denied, we undertake to prove them to have been used not only on some occasions, but to have been the constant Style of the Church. Now that Types, Antitypes, Symbols, and Mysteries, are distinct from that which they shadow forth, and mystically hold out, we believe can be as little disputed. In this Sense all the Figures of the Law are called Types of Christ by the Fathers, and both the Baptismal Water and the Chrism are called Symbols and Mysteries. And tho there was not that occasion for the Fathers to discourse on Baptism so oft, which every body received but once, and was administred ordinarily but on a few days of the Year, as they had to speak of the Eucharist, which was daily consecrated; so that it cannot be imagined, there should be near such a number of places about the one as about the other; yet we fear not to undertake to prove, there be many places among the Ancients, that do as fully express a change of the Baptismal Water, as of the Eucharistical Elements. From whence it may appear, that their great Zeal to prepare Persons to a due value of these holy Actions, and that they might not look on them as a vulgar Ablution, or an ordinary Repast, carried them to many large and high Expressions, which cannot bear a literal meaning. And since they with whom we deal are fain to fly to Metaphors and Allegories for clearing of what the Fathers say of Bap∣tism, it is a most unreasonable thing to complain of us for using such Expositions of what they say about the Eucharist.

But that we may not leave this without some Proof, we shall set down the words of Fa∣cundus, (Desens. Conc. Chalced. lib. 9.) who says, The Sacrament of Adoption, that is Baptism, may be called Adoption, as the Sacrament of his Body and Blood, which is in the consecrated Bread and Cup, is called his Body and Blood; not that the Bread is properly his Body, or the Cup properly his Blood, but because they contain in them the Mystery of his Body and Blood; and hence it was that our Lord called the Bread that was blessed, and the Cup which he gave his Disciples, his Body and Blood. Therefore as the Believers in Christ, when they receive the Sacrament of his Body and Blood, are rightly said to have received his Body and Blood; so Christ, when he received the Sacrament of the Adoption of Sons, may be rightly said to have received the Adoption of Sons. And we leave every one to ga∣ther from these words, if the cited Father could believe Transubstantiation, and if he did not think that Baptism was as truly the Adoption of the Sons of God, as the Eucharist was his Body and Blood, which these of Rome acknowledg is only to be meant in a moral Sense.

That the Fathers called this Sacrament the Memorial and Representation of the Death of Christ, and of his Body that was broken, and his Blood that was shed, we suppose will be as little denied, for no Man that ever looked into any of their Treatises of the Eucharist, can doubt of it.

St. Austin says, (Epist. 23. ad Bonifac.) That Sacraments must have some Similitude of these things of which they be the Sacraments, otherwise they could not be Sacraments. So he says, the Sacrament of the Body of Christ is after some manner his Blood. So the Sacrament of Faith (that is Baptism) is Faith.

But more expresly, speaking of the Eucharist as a Sacrifice of Praise, he says, (Lib. 20. cont. Faust. Manich. c. 21.) The Flesh and Blood of this Sacrifice was promised before the coming of Christ by the Sacrifices of the Types of it: In the Passion of Christ, it was done in the Truth it self: And after his Ascent, is celebrated by the Sacrament of the remembrance of it. But he explains this

more fully on the 98th Psalm, where he having read, ver. 5. Worship his Footstool; and seeking for its true meaning, expounds it of Christ's Body, who was Flesh of this Earth, and gives his Flesh to be eaten by us for our Salvation, which, since none eats, except he have first adored it; He makes this the Footstool which we worship without any Sin, and do sin if we do not wor∣ship it. So far the Church of Rome triumphs with this place. But let us see what follows, where we shall find that which will certainly abate their Joy; He goes on and tells us, not to dwell on the Flesh, lest we be not quickened by the Spirit; and shews how they that heard our Lord's words were scandalized at them as hard words; for they understood them, says he, foolishly, and carnally, and thought he was to have cut off some parcels of his Body to be given them: But they were hard, not our Lord's saying; for had they been meek, and not hard, they should have said within them∣selves, He says not this without a cause, but because there is some Sacrament hid there; for had they come to him with his Disciples, and asked him, he had instructed them: For he said it is the Spirit that quickens, the Flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and Life. And adds, understand spiritually that which I have said; for it is not this Body which you see, that you are not to eat; or to drink this Blood which they are to shed, who shall crucify me: but I have recommended a Sacrament to you, which being spiritually understood, shall quicken you; and tho it be necessary that it be celebrated visibly, yet it must be understood invisibly. From which it is as plain as can be, that St. Austin believed that in the Eucharist we do not eat the natural Flesh, and drink the natural Blood of Christ; but that we do it only in a Sacrament, and spiritually, and invisibly.

But the force of all this will appear yet clearer, if we consider that they speak of the Sacrament as a Memorial that exhibited Christ to us in his absence: For tho it naturally follows, that whatsoever is commemorated must needs be absent; yet this will be yet more evident, if we find the Fathers made such Reflections on it.

So Gaudentius says, (Tract. in Exod.) This is the hereditary Gift of his New Testament, which that Night he was betrayed to be crucified, he left as the Pledg of his Presence: this is the Provision for our Iourney with which we are fed in this way of our Life, and nourished till we go to him out of this World; for he would have his Benefits remain with us: He would have our Souls to be always sanctified by his precious Blood, and by the Image of his own Passion.

Primasius (Comm. in 1 Epist. ad Cor.) compares the Sacrament to a Pledg, which one, when he is dying, leaves to any whom he loved. Many other places may be brought, to shew how the Fathers speak of Memorials and Representations, as opposite to the Truth and Presence of that which is represented.

And thus we doubt not but we have brought Proofs, which, in the Judgment of all that are unprejudiced, must demonstrate the truth of this our second Proposition, which we leave, and go on to the third, which was;

That by the Doctrine of the Fathers, the unworthy Receivers did not receive Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament. For this our first Proof is taken from Origen, (Com. in Mat. c. 15.) who after he had spoken of the Sacraments being eaten, and passing to the Belly, adds, These things we have said of the typical and symbolical Body; but many things may be said of the Word that was made Flesh, and the true Food, whom whosoever eats, he shall live for ever; whom no wicked Person can eat: for if it were possible that any who continues wicked, should eat the Word that was made Flesh, since he is the Word, and the Living Bread, it had never been written, Whoso eats this Bread, shall live for ever. Where he makes a manifest difference between the typical and sym∣bolical Body received in the Sacrament, and the incarnate Word, of which no wicked Person can partake. And he also says, (Hom. 3. in Mat.) They that are Good, eat the Living Bread that came down from Heaven; and the Wicked eat Dead Bread, which is Death.

Zeno, Bishop of Verona, that, as is believed, lived near Origen's time, (Tom. 2. Spir. Dach.) says, (as he is cited by Ratherius Bishop of Verona) There is cause to fear, that he in whom the Devil dwells, does not eat the Flesh of our Lord, nor drink his Blood, tho he seems to communicate with the Faithful; since our Lord hath said, He that eats my Flesh, and drinks my Blood, dwells in me, and I in him.

St. Ierom on the 66th of Isaiah, says, They that are not holy in Body and Spirit, do neither eat the Flesh of Iesus, nor drink his Blood; of which he said, He that eats my Flesh, and drinks my Blood, hath Eternal Life. And on the 8th Chapter of Hosea, he says, They eat not his Flesh, whose Flesh is the Food of them that believe. To the same purpose he writes in his Comments on the 22d of Ieremy, and on the 10th of Zechariah.

St. Austin says, (Tract. 26. in Ioan.) He that does not abide in Christ, and in whom Christ does not abide, certainly does not spiritually eat his Flesh, nor drink his Blood, tho he may visibly and car∣nally break in his Teeth the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ: But he rather eats and drinks the Sacrament of so great a matter to his Iudgment.

And speaking of those, who by their Uncleanness become the Members of an Harlot; he says, (Lib. 21. de Civ. Dei c. 25.) Neither are they to be said to eat the Body of Christ, because they are not his Members. And besides, he adds, He that says, whoso eats my Flesh, and drinks my Blood, abides in me, and I in him; shews what it is, not only in a Sacrament, but truly to eat the Body of Christ, and drink his Blood. To this we shall add, that so oft cited Passage; (Tract. 54. in Ioan.) Those did eat the Bread that was the Lord; the other (he means Iudas) the Bread of the Lord against the Lord. By which he clearly insinuates, he did believe the unworthy Receivers did not receive the Lord with the Bread: And that this hath been the constant Belief of the Greek Church to this day, shall be proved, if it be thought necessary, for clearing this matter.

And thus far we have studied to make good what we undertook to prove: But if we had enlarged on every Particular, we must have said a great deal more; to shew from many un∣deniable Evidences, that the Fathers were Strangers to this new Mystery. It is clear from their Writings, that they thought Christ was only spiritually present; that we did eat his Flesh, and drink his Blood only by Faith, and not by our bodily Senses; and that the words of eating his Flesh, and drinking his Blood, were to be understood spiritually. It is no less clear, that they considered Christ present only as he was on the Cross, and not as he is now in the Glory of the Father: And from hence it was, that they came to order their Eucharistical Forms so, as that the Eucharist might represent the whole History of Christ from his Incarnation to his Assumption. Besides, they always speak of Christ as absent from us, according to his Flesh and Human Nature, and only present in his Divinity and by his Spirit; which they could not have said, if they had thought him every day present on their Altars in his Flesh and Human Nature; for then he were more on Earth than he is in Heaven, since in Heaven he is circumscribed within one place. But according to this Doctrine he must be always in above a Million of places upon Earth; so that it were very strange to say he were absent, if they believed him thus present.

But to give yet further Evidences of the Fathers not believing this Doctrine, let us but re∣flect a little on the Consequences that necessarily follow it: which be, 1. That a Body may be, by the Divine Power, in more places at once. 2. That a Body may be in a place with∣out Extension or Quantity; so a Body of such Dimensions, as our blessed Lord's Body, can be in so small a room as a thin Wafer; and not only so, but that the whole Body should be en∣tirely in every crumb and point of that Wafer. 3. That a Body can be made or produced in a place that had a real Being before, and yet is not brought thither, but produced there. 4. That the Accidents of any Substance, such as Colour, Smell, Taste, and Figure, can re∣main without any Body or Substance in which they subsist. 5. That our Senses may deceive us in their clearest and most evident Representations. 6. Great Doubts there are what be∣comes of the Body of Christ after it is received; or, if it should come to be corrupted, or to be snatched by a Mouse, or eat by any Vermine. All these are the natural and necessary Effects of this Doctrine, and are not only to be perceived by a contemplative and searching Understanding, but are such as stare every body full in the Face: and hence it is, that since this was submitted to in the Western Church, the whole Doctrine of Philosophy, has been altered, and new Maxims and Definitions were found out, to accustom the Youth while raw and easy to any Impression, to receive these as Principles, by which their Minds being full of those first Prejudices, might find no difficulty to believe this.

Now it is certain, had the Fathers believed this, they who took a great deal of pains to resolve all the other Mysteries of our Faith, and were so far from being short or defective in it, that they rather over-do it; and that not only about the Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation, but about Original Sin, the Derivation of our Souls, the Operation of the Grace of God in our Hearts, and the Resurrection of our Bodies, should yet have been so con∣stantly silent in those Mysteries, tho they ought rather to have been cleared than the other. Because in the other Heads the Difficulties were more speculative and abstracted, and so Scruples were only incident to Men of more curious and diligent Enquiries. But here it is otherwise, where the matter being an Object of the Senses, every Man's Senses must have raised in him all or most of those Scruples: And yet the Fathers neither in their Philosophi∣cal Treatises, nor in their Theological Writings, ever attempt the unridling those Difficulties. But all this is only a Negative, and yet we do appeal to any one that has diligently read the Fathers, St. Austin in particular; if he can perswade himself, that when all other Mysteries, and the Consequences from them, were explained with so great Care and even Curiosity, these only were things of so easy a Digestion, that about them there should have been no Scruple at all made.

But it is yet clearer, when we find the Fathers not only silent, but upon other occasions de∣livering Maxims and Principles so directly contrary to these Consequences, without any re∣served Exceptions or Provisions for the strange Mysteries of Transubstantiation: They tell us plainly, Creatures are limited to one place, and so argued against the Heathens believing their Infe∣riour Deities were in the several Statues consecrated to them: From this they prove the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, that he did work in many places at once, and so could not be a Creature, which can only be in one place. Nay, they do positively teach us, that Christ can be no more on Earth, since his Body is in Heaven, and is but in one place. They also do tell us, That that which hath no Bounds nor Figure, and cannot be touched nor seen, cannot be a Body, and that all Bodies are extended in some place, and that Bodies cannot exist after the manner of Spirits. They also tell us in all their Reasonings against the Eternity of Matter, That nothing could be produced that had a Being before it was produced. They also teach us very formally, That none of the Qualities of a Body could subsist, except the Body it self did also subsist. And for the Testimonies of our Senses, they appeal to them on all occasions as Infallible; and tell us, that it tended to reverse the whole state of our Life, the order of Nature, and to blind the Providence of God; to say, he has given the Knowledg and Enjoyment of all his Works to Liars and Deceivers, if our Senses be false. Then we must doubt of our Faith, if the Testimony of the Eyes, Hands and Ears were of a Nature capable to be deceived. And in their Contests with the Marcionites and others about the Truth of Christ's Body, they appeal always to the Testimony of the Senses as infallible: Nay, even treating of the Sacrament, they say, it was Bread as their Eyes witnessed, and truly Wine, that Christ did consecrate for the Memory of his Blood; telling, that in this very particular we ought not to doubt the Testimony of our Senses.

But to make this whole matter yet plainer; It is certain, that had the Church in the first Ages believed this Doctrine, the Heathens and Jews who charged them with every thing they could possibly invent, had not passed over this, against which all the Powers of Reason, and the Authorities of Sense, do rise up. They charge them for believing a God that was born, a God of Flesh, that was crucified and buried. They laughed at their Belief of a Iudgment to come, of endless Flames, of an Heavenly Paradise, and the Resurrection of the Flesh. The first Apologists for Christianity, Iustin, Tertullian, Origen, Arnobius, and Cyril of Alexandria, give us a full account of those Blasphemies against our most holy Faith; and the last hath given us what Iulian objected in his own words, who having apostatized from the Faith in which he was initiated, and was a Reader in the Church, must have been well acquainted with, and instructed in their Doctrine and Sacraments. He then who laughed at every thing, and in par∣ticular at the Ablution and Sanctification in Baptism, as conceiving it a thing impossible that Water should cleanse and wash a Soul: Yet neither he, nor Celsus, nor any other ever charged on the Christians any Absurdities from their Belief of Transubstantiation. This is, it is true, a Ne∣gative

Argument; yet when we consider the Malice of those ingenious Enemies of our Faith, and their Care to expose all the Doctrines and Customs of Christians, and yet find them in no place charge the strange Consequences of this Doctrine on them; we must from thence con∣clude, there was no such Doctrine then received: for if it had been, they, at least Iulian, must have known it; and if they knew it, can we think they should not have made great noise about it?

We know some think their charging the Christians with the eating of Human Flesh, and Thyestian Suppers, related to the Sacrament: but that cannot be, for when the Fathers answer that Charge, they tell them to their Teeth it was a plain lie: and do not offer to explain it with any relation to the Eucharist, which they must have done if they had known it was founded on their Doctrine of receiving Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament. But the truth is, those horrid Calumnies were charged on the Christians from the execrable and abo∣minable Practices of the Gnosticks, who called themselves Christians; and the Enemies of the Faith, either believing these were the Practices of all Christians, or being desirous to have others think so, did accuse the whole Body of Christians as guilty of these Abominations. So that it appears, those Calumnies were not at all taken up from the Eucharist, and there being nothing else that is so much as said to have any relation to the Eucharist, charged on the Christians, we may well conclude from hence, that this Doctrine was not received then in the Church.

But another Negative Argument is, That we find Heresies rising up in all Ages against all the other Mysteries of our Faith, and some downright denying them, others explaining them very strangely; and it is indeed very natural to an unmortified and corrupt Mind, to reject all Divine Revelation, more particularly that which either choaks his common Noti∣ons, or the Deductions of appearing Reasonings; but most of all, all Men are apt to be startled, when they are told, They must believe against the clearest Evidences of Sense; for Men were never so meek and tame, as easily to yeild to such things. How comes it then that for the first seven Ages there were no Heresies nor Hereticks about this? We are ready to prove, that from the Eighth and Ninth Centuries, in which this Doctrine began to appear, there has been in every Age great Opposition made to all the Advances for setting it up, and yet these were but dark and unlearned Ages, in which Implicit Obedience, and a blind Sub∣jection to what was generally proposed, was much in Credit. In those Ages, the Civil Powers being ready to serve the Rage of Church-men against any who should oppose it, it was not safe for any to appear against it. And yet it cannot be denied, but from the days of the second Council of Nice, which made a great step towards Transubstantiation, till the fourth Council of Lateran, there was great Opposition made to it by the most Eminent Persons in the Latin Church; and how great a part of Christendom has departed from the Obe∣dience of the Church of Rome in every Age since that time, and upon that account, is well enough known.

Now, is it to be imagined, that there should have been such an Opposition to it these nine hundred Years last past, and yet that it should have been received the former eight hundred Years with no Opposition, and that it should not have cost the Church the trouble of one Ge∣neral Council to decree it, or of one Treatise of a Father to establish it, and answer those Objections that naturally arise from our Reasons and Senses against it?

But in the end there are many things which have risen out of this Doctrine as its natural Consequences, which had it been sooner taught and received, must have been apprehended sooner, and those are so many clear Presumptions of the Novelty of this Doctrine; The Elevation, Adoration, Processions, the Doctrine of Concomitants, with a vast Superfaetation of Rites and Rubricks about this Sacrament are lately sprung up. The Age of them is well known, and they have risen in the Latin Church out of this Doctrine, which had it been sooner received, we may reasonably enough think must have been likewise ancienter. Now for all these things, as the Primitive Church knew them not, so on the other hand, the great simplicity of their Forms, as we find them in Iustin Martyr, and Cyril of Ierusalem, in the

Apostolical Constitutions, and the pretended Denis the Areopagite, are far from that Pomp which the latter Ages that believed this Doctrine brought in; the Sacraments being given in both kinds, being put in the Hands of the Faithful, being given to the Children for many Ages, being sent by Boys or common Persons to such as were dying, the eating up what remained, (which in some places were burnt, in other places were consumed by Children, or by the Clergy;) their making Cataplasms of it; their mixing the consecrated Chalice with Ink to sign the Excommunication of Hereticks. These, with a great many more, are such Convi∣ctions to one, that has carefully compared the ancient Forms with the Rubricks and Rites of the Church of Rome, since this Doctrine was set up, that it is as discernable as any thing can be, that the present Belief of the Church of Rome is different from the Primitive Doctrine.

And thus far we have set down the Reasons that perswade us that Transubstantiation was not the Belief of the first seven or eight Centuries of the Church. If there be any part of what we have asserted, questioned, we have very formal and full Proofs ready to shew for them; though we thought it not fit to enter into the particular Proofs of any thing, but what we undertook to make out when we waited on your Ladyship.

Now there remains but one thing to be done, which we also promised; and that was to clear the Words of St. Cyril of Ierusalem. We acknowledg they were truly cited; but for clearing of them, we shall neither alledg any thing to the lessening the Authority of that Father, though we find but a slender Character given of him by Epiphanius and others: Nor shall we say any thing to lessen the Authority of these Catechisms, though much might be said. But it is plain, St. Cyril's Design in these Catechisms, was only to possess his Neophites with a just and deep sense of these holy Symbols. But even in his 4th Catechism he tells them, not to consider it as meer Bread and Wine, for it is the Body and Blood of Christ. By which it appears he thought it was Bread still, though not meer Bread.

And he gives us elsewhere a very formal Account in what Sense he thought it was Christ's Body and Blood; which he also insinuates in this 4th Catechism: For in his first Mist. Cate∣chism, when he exhorts his young Christians to avoid all that belonged to the Heathenish Ido∣latry, he tells, that on the Solemnities of their Idols they had Flesh and Bread, which by the Invocation of the Devils were defiled, as the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the holy Invocation of the bles∣sed Trinity was bare Bread and Wine; but the Invocation being made, the Bread becomes the Body of Christ. In like manner, says he, those Victuals of the Pomp of Satan, which of their own Nature are common or bare Victuals, by the Invocation of the Devils become prophane.

From this Illustration, which he borrowed from Iustin Martyr his second Apology, it ap∣pears, that he thought the Consecration of the Eucharist was of a like sort or manner with the Profanation of the Idolatrous Feasts; so that as the substance of the one remained still unchan∣ged, so also according to him must the substance of the other remain. Or, if this will not satisfy them, let us see to what else he compares this change of the Elements by the Consecra∣tion: In his third Mist. Catechism, treating of the Consecrated Oil, he says; As the Bread of the Eucharist after the Invocation of the Holy Ghost, is no more common Bread, but the Body of Christ; so this holy Ointment is no more bare Ointment, nor, as some may say, common; but it is a Gift of Christ, and the Presence of the Holy Ghost, and becomes energetical of his Divinity. And from these places let it be gathered what can be drawn from St. Cyril's Testimony. And thus we have perfor∣med like wise what we promised, and have given a clear Account of St. Cyril's meaning from himself; from whose own words, and from these things which he compares with the Sancti∣fication of the Elements in the Eucharist, it appears he could not think of Transubstantiation; otherwise he had neither compared it with the Idol-Feasts, nor the consecrated Oil, in nei∣ther of which there can be supposed any Transubstantiation.

Having thus acquitted our selves of our Engagement before your Ladyship; we shall con∣clude this Paper with our most earnest and hearty Prayers to the Father of Lights, that he may of his great Mercy redeem his whole Christian Church from all Idolatry; That he may open the Eyes of those, who being carnal, look only at carnal things, and do not rightly consider the excellent Beauty of this our most holy Faith, which is pure, simple, and spiritual: And

that he may confirm all those whom he has called to the knowledge of the Truth; so that nei∣ther the Pleasures of Sin, nor the Snares of this World, nor the Fear of the Cross, tempt them to make shipwrack of the Faith and a good Conscience. And that God may pour out Abundance of his Grace on your Ladyship, to make you still continue in the Love and Obedi∣ence of the Truth, is the earnest Prayer of,

MADAM,

Your Ladyship's most Humble Servants. Edward Stillingfleet,

Gilbert Burnet.

London, Apr. 15. 1676.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Apolog. 2.
• * 1.2

  Lib. 4. adv. Her. c. 34.