The history of Popish transubstantiation to which is premised and opposed, the Catholick doctrin of Holy Scripture, the ancient fathers and the Reformed churches, about the sacred elements, and presence of Christ in the blessed sacrament of the eucharist / written nineteen years ago in Latine, by the Right Reverend Father in God, John, late Lord Bishop of Durham, and allowed by him to be published a little before his death, at the earnest request of his friends.

CHAP. VI. (Book 6)

Shews more at large that the Doctrine and Practice of the Primitive Church is inconsistent with Transubstantiation; and Answers the Romish Objections vainly alleadged out of Antiquity.

1. MAny more Proofs out of Ancient * 1.1 Records might have been added to those we have hitherto brought, for a thousand years, but we, desiring to be brief, have omitted them in each Centu∣ry; As in the First, After the holy Scri∣ptures, the Works of a 1.2 Clemens Romanus, commended by the Papists themselves, and those of b 1.3 St. Ignatius, Bishop of An∣tioch and Martyr, are much against Tran∣substantiation. In the Second likewise, c 1.4 St. Theophilus, fourth Bishop of Antioch

after Ignatius; d 1.5 Athenagoras, and e 1.6 Tati∣anus, Scholars to Justin Martyr. In the Third, f 1.7 Clemens Alexandrinus, Tutor to Origen, and g 1.8 Minutius Felix, a Christian Orator. In the Fourth, h 1.9 Eusebius, Bishop of Cesarea, i 1.10 Juvencus, a Spanish Priest, k 1.11 Macarius Egyptius, l 1.12 St. Hilary, Bishop of Poictiers, m 1.13 Optatus, Bishop of Milevis, n 1.14 Eu∣sebius Emissenus, o 1.15 Gregorius Nazianzenus, p 1.16 Cyrillus Alexandrinus, q 1.17 Epiphanius Salami∣nensis, r 1.18 St. Hierom, s 1.19 Theophilus Alexandri∣nus, and t 1.20 Gaudentius, Bishop of Brixia. In the Fifth, u 1.21 Sedulius, a Scotch Priest, x 1.22 Gen∣nadius Massiliensis, and y 1.23 Faustus, Bishop of Regium. In the Sixth, z 1.24 Fulgentius Africanus, a 1.25 Victor Antiochenus, b 1.26 Primasius Bishop, and c 1.27 Procopius Gazeus. In the Seventh, d 1.28 He∣sychius, Priest in Jerusalem, and e 1.29 Maximus, Abbot of Constantinople. In the Eighth, f 1.30 Johannes Damascenus. In the Ninth, g 1.31 Ni∣cephorus the Patriarch, and h 1.32 Hincmarus Archbishop of Rhemes. Lastly in the Tenth, i 1.33 Fulbert Bishop of Chartres. And to compleat all; to these single Fathers, we may add whole Councils of them, as

that of k 1.34 Ancyra, of l 1.35 Neocesarea, and besides the first of m 1.36 Nice which I have mentioned, that of n 1.37 Laodicea, of o 1.38 Carthage, of p 1.39 Orle∣ans, the fourth of q 1.40 Toledo, that of r 1.41 Bracara, the sixteenth of s 1.42 To∣ledo, and that of t 1.43 Constantinople in Trullo. Out of all these appears most certain, that the infection of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was not yet spread over the Christian world; but that the sound Doctrine of the Body and Bloud of Christ, and of their true (yet spiritual not carnal) Presence in the Eu∣charist, with the Elements, still the same in substance after Consecration, was eve∣ry where owned and maintained. And though the Fathers used both ways of speaking (that is, that the Bread and Wine are the true Body and Bloud of Christ, and that their substance still re∣maining, they are Signs, Types, Resem∣blances, and Pledges of them; Images, Figures, Similitudes, Representations, and Samplers of them,) yet there was no cantrariety or diversity in the sense For they were not so Faithless as to believe that these are only naturall Elements, or bare Signs; and they were not of so gross and so dull an apprehension, as not to

distinguish betwixt the Sacramental and Mystick, and the carnal and natural pre∣sence of Christ, as it is now maintained by the Patrons of Transubstantiation. For in this they understood no other change than that which is common to all Sacra∣ments, whereby the outward natural part is said to be changed into the inward and divine, only because it represents it truly and efficaciously, and makes all worthy Receivers partakers thereof; and because by the vertue of the Holy Spirit, and of Christ's holy institution, the Elements obtain those divine Excellencies and Pre∣rogatives, which they cannot have of their own nature. And this is it which was taught and believed, for above a thou∣sand years together, by pious and lear∣ned Antiquity, concerning this most holy Mystery.

2. There are also some other things whereby we may understand that the An∣cients did not belief Transubstantiation, or that the presence of the Body and Bloud of Christ is so inseparably tyed to the accidents of Bread and Wine, that Christ must needs be present as long as those acci∣dents retain any resemblance of Bread and Wine, even when they are not put to that use appointed by divine institution.

For it is certain, that it was the custom of many of the Ancients to burn * 1.44 what remained of the Bread and Wine after the Comunion was ended. And who can believe that any Chri∣stian * 1.45 should dare or be willing to burn his Lord and Saviour, in Body and Bloud, though it were never so much in his power? Doubtless it would have been as horrid and detestable an action as was that of the perfidious Jews, for Christians, if they believed Transubstantiation, to burn that very natural body which the Jews Cruci∣fied, and which was born of the Virgin Mary. Therefore those Christians who used anciently to burn those fragments of the Bread, and remains of the Wine, which were not spent in the celebration of the Sacrament, were far enough from holding the present Faith and Doctrine of Rome. The same appears further by the penalty threatned by the Canon to every Clergy-man, by whose neglect a Mouse or any * 1.46 other Creature should eat the Sacrifice, (that is, the Consecrated Bread.) And who but an Idiot, a man deprived of his rea∣son, could ever believe that the natural Body of Christ can be gnawed and even eaten by Rats, or any brute Creatures?

This sorely perplext the first maintainers of Transubstantiation, who would invent any thing, rather than own it possible; well knowing how abominable it is, and how dishonourable to Christian Religion. Yet this is not inconsistent with the now Roman Faith; nay, it necessarily follows from the Tenet of Transubstantiation that the Body of Christ may be in the belly of a Mouse a 1.47 under the ac∣cidents of Bread. And the con∣trary opinion is not only disown∣ed now by the Papists, but under pain of Excommunication for∣bidden by the b 1.48 Pope ever to be owned; so that they must believe as an Article of Faith c 1.49, what is most abhorrent to Faith.

3. But yet at last, let us see what props these new builders pretend to borrow from Antiquity to uphold their Castle in the air, Transubstantiation. They use indeed to scrape together many Testimonies of the Fathers of the first and middle age, where∣by they would fain prove, that those Fathers believed and taught the Transub∣stantiation of the Bread and Wine into the natural Body and Bloud of Christ, just as the Roman Church, at this day, doth teach and believe. We will therefore

briefly examine them, that it may yet more fully appear that Antiquity and all Fathers did not in the least favour the new Tenet of Transubstantiation; but that, that true Doctrin which I have set down in the begining of this book, was constantly own∣ed and preserved in the Church of Christ.

4. Now, almost all that they produce out of the Fathers will be conveniently reduced to certain heads, that we may not be too tedious in answering each testimo∣ny by it self.

5. To the first head belong those d 1.50 that call the Eucharist the Body and Bloud of Christ. But I answer, those Fathers explain themselves in many places, and interpret those their expressions in such a manner, that they must be understood in a Mystick and spiritual sense, in that Sacraments usually take the names of those things they represent, because of that resem∣blance which they have with them; e 1.51 not by the reality of the thing, but by the significa∣tion of the Mystery, as we have shewn be∣fore out of St. Austin and others. For no body can deny, but that the things that are seen are signs and figures, and those that are not seen, the Body and Bloud of Christ: And that therefore the nature of this mystery is such, that when we receive

the Bread and Wine, we also together with them receive at the same time the bo∣dy and Bloud of Christ, which in the cele∣bration of the holy Eucharist, are as truly given as they are represented. Hence came into the Church this manner of speaking, the Consecrated Bread is Christs Body.

6. We put in the second rank those places that say, that the Bishops and * 1.52 Priests make the body of Christ with the sacred words of their mouth, as St. Hie∣rom speaks in his Epistle to Heliodorus, and St. Ambrose and others. To this I say, that at the prayer and blessing of the Priest, the common Bread is made Sacramental bread, which, when broken and eaten is the Communion of the body of Christ, and therefore may well be called so, Sacramen∣tally. For the bread (as I have often said before) doth not only represent the body of our Lord, but also being received, we are truly made partakers of that precious body. For so saith S. Hier. The body and bloud of Christ is made at the Prayer of the Priest, that is, * 1.53 the Element is so qualified that being re∣ceived it becomes the Communion of the Body and Bloud of Christ, which it could not without the preceding Prayers. The Greeks call this, To prepare and to consecrate the * 1.54 Body of the Lord. As S. Chrysostam saith well,

These are not the works of mans power, but still the operation of him, who made them in the last Supper; as for us, we are only Ministers, but be it is that sanctifies and changeth them.

7. In the third place, to what is * 1.55 brought out of the Fathers, concerning the conversion, change, transmutation, transfiguration, and transelementation of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist, (wherein the Papists do greatly glory, boasting of the consent of Antiquity with them;) I answer that there is no such consequence, Transubstantiation being another species of change, the enumera∣tion was not full, for it doth not follow, that because there is a conversion, a trans∣mutation, a transelementation, there should be also a Transubstantiation; which the Fathers never so much as men∣tioned. For because this is a Sacrament, the change must be understood to be Sa∣cramental also, whereby common Bread and Wine become the Sacrament of the Body and Bloud of Christ, which could not be did not the substance of the Bread and Wine remain, for a Sacrament con∣sisteth of two parts, an earthly and a hea∣venly. And so because ordinary Bread is changed by consecration into a Bread which is no more of common use, but

appointed by divine institution to be a Sa∣cramental sign whereby is represented the Body of Christ, in whom dwelleth the fulness of the Godhead bodily; and be∣ing thereby dignified, having great ex∣cellencies superadded, and so made what it was not before, it is therefore said by some of the Fathers to be changed, to be made another thing. And truly that change is great and supernatural, but yet not substantial, not of a substance which substantially ceaseth to be, into another substance which substantially beginneth to be, but it is a change of state and con∣dition which alters not the natural pro∣perties of the Element. This is also con∣firmed by Scripture, which usually de∣scribes and represents the conversion of men, and the supernatural change of things, as though it were natural, though it be not so. So those that are renewed by the Word, and Spirit, and Faith of Christ, are said to be a 1.56 regenerated, converted, and transformed, to put off the old man, and put on the new man, and to be new Creatures; but they are not said to be∣come another substance, to be transub∣stantiated: For men thus converted have still the same humane body, and the same rational soul as before, though in a far

better state and condition, as every Chri∣stian will acknowledge. Nay, the Fathers themselves use those words, Transmutati∣on, Transformation, Transelementati∣ons, upon other occasions, when they speak of things whose substance is neither lost nor changed. For those words be of so large a signification, that though some∣times a substantial change is to be under∣stood by them, yet for the most part they signifie only a moral change, a change of qualities, of condition, of office, of use, and the like. To this sense they are used by the Greek Fathers, (a 1.57 Irenaeus, b 1.58 Cle∣mens Alexandrinus, c 1.59 Origene, d 1.60 Cyril of Je∣rusalem, e 1.61 Basil, f 1.62 Gregory Nazianzen, g 1.63 Gre∣gory Nyssene, h 1.64 Cyril of Alexandria, i 1.65 Chryso∣stom, k 1.66 Theodoret, Theophylact, and Occumenius,) to express the a 1.67 Resurrection of the Body, the efficacy b 1.68 of divine Doctrine, the San∣ctification of a c 1.69 regenerated person, the immortality d 1.70 of the flesh after the Resur∣rection, the e 1.71 repentance of sinners, the f 1.72 assumption of the humane nature in the Person of Christ, the g 1.73 regeneration of

Saints, the h 1.74 vertue of the divine grace, the power of Baptism i 1.75, and the excellency of Charity, and lastly the k 1.76 alteration for the better, the greatness, usefulness, power and dignity of many things. Neither are the Latine l 1.77 Fathers without such kind of expressions, for they do not make the conver∣sion of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist more essential or substantial, than in Baptism the conversion of man born again to a new life, or (as they speak) whose humane natural condition is changed into a nobler, a heavenly state, which is a moral and mystick change, and not natural or sub∣stantial. The Ancientest of them, m 1.78 Ter∣tullian said, That God had promised to man the body and substance of Angels, and that men should be transformed into Angels, as Angels have been transformed into men. Now, who would infer from hence, that Angels have been essentially changed into men; or that humane bodies should be so trans∣formed into an Angelical substance, that they should be no longer men nor humane bodies, but properly and essentially An∣gels? Which Tertullian himself is expresly against, and saith, That Angels were so * 1.79 changed into men that still they remained

Angels, without quitting their proper sub∣stance. As others have spoken of the Bread in the Eucharist, That it so becomes the body of Christ, that still it is what it was, as St. Am∣brose; That it looseth not its nature, as Theo∣doret; * 1.80 that the substance of the Bread re∣mains, as Gelasius affirms. And doubtless the same meant all the Ancients, who ac∣cording to their way of speaking said any thing of the change of Bread and Wine. For all the Vouchers brought by the Pa∣pists speak only of an accidental, mystical, and moral; nothing at all of a substanti∣al change. Transubstantiation is taken by its defenders for a material change of one substance into another; we indeed allow a Transmutation of the Elements; but as for a substantial one we vainly seek for it, it is no where to be found.

8. To the fourth head I refer what the * 1.81 Fathers say of our touching and seeing the Body of Christ, and drinking his Bloud in the Sacrament, and thereto I answer, That we deny not but that some things Emphatical and even Hyperbolical have been said of the Sacrament by Chry∣sostome, and some others; and that those things may easily lead unwary men into error. That was the ancient Fathers care, as it is ours still, to instruct the people not

to look barely on the outward Elements, but in them to eye with their minds the Body and Bloud of Christ, and with their hearts lift up to feed on that heavenly meat: For all the benefit of a Sacrament is lost, if we look no farther than the Elements. Hence it is that those holy men, the better to teach this Lesson to their hearers, and move their hearts more efficaciously, spake of the Signs as if they had been the thing signified, and like Orators said many things which will not bear a litteral sense, nor a strict ex∣amen. Such is this, of an uncertain Au∣thor under the name of St. Cyprian, We are * 1.82 close to the Cross, we suck the bloud, and we put our tongues in the very wounds of our Re∣deemer, so that, both outwardly and inwardly we are made red thereby. Such is that of a 1.83 St. Chrysostome, In the Sacrament the Bloud is drawn out of the side of Christ, the b 1.84 Tongue is made bloudy with that wonderful bloud. Again, c 1.85 Thou seest thy Lord saecrificed, and the croud∣ing multitude round about sprinkled with his bloud; he that sits above with the Father is al the same time in our hands. d 1.86 Thou dost see and touch and eat him. e 1.87 For I do not shew thee ei∣ther Angels or Archangels, but the Lord of them himself. Again, f 1.88 He incorporates us with himself as if we were but the same thing, he

makes us his body indeed, and suffers us not on∣ly to see, but even to touch, to eat him, and to put our teeth in his flesh; so that by that food which he gives us, we become his flesh. Such is that of St. Austin, Let us give thanks, not * 1.89 only that we are made Christians, but also made Christ. Lastly, such is that of B. Leo, In that mystical distribution, it is given us to be made his flesh. Certainly, if any man would wrangle and take advantage of these, he might thereby maintain, as well that we are Transubstantiated into Christ, and Christs flesh into the Bread, as that the Bread and Wine are Transubstantiated into his Body and Bloud. But Protestants who scorn to play the Sophisters, interpret these and the like passages of the Fathers, with candour and ingenuity, (as it is most fitting they should.) For the expressions of Preachers, which often have some∣thing of a Paradox, must not be taken according to that harsher sound where∣with they at first strike the Auditors ears; the Fathers spake not of any Transub∣stantiated bread, but of the mystical and consecrated, when they used those sorts of expressions; and that for these Rea∣sons: 1. That they might extoll and am∣plifie the dignity of this Mystery, which all true Christians acknowledge to be

very great and peerless. 2. That Com∣municants might not rest in the outward Elements, but seriously consider the thing represented, whereof they are most cer∣tainly made partakers, if they be worthy Receivers. 3. And lastly, That they might approach so great a Mystery with the more zeal, reverence, and devotion. And that those Hyperbolick expressions are thus to be understood, the Fathers themselves teach clearly enough, when they come to interpret them.

9. Lastly, Being the same holy Fathers who (as the manner is to discourse of Sa∣craments) speak sometimes of the Bread and Wine in the Lords Supper, as if they were the very Body and Bloud of Christ, do also very often call them Types, Ele∣ments, Signs, the Figure of the Body and Bloud of Christ; from hence it appears most manifestly that they were of the Protestants, and not of the Papists opi∣nion. For we can without prejudice to what we believe of the Sacraments, use those former expressions which the Papists believe, do most favour them, if they be understood, as they ought to be, Sacra∣mentally. But the latter none can use, but he must thereby overthrow the ground∣less Doctrine of Transubstantiation; these

two, the Bread is Transubstantiated into the Body, and the Bread also is the Type, the Sign, the Figure of the body of Christ being wholly inconsistent. For it is im∣possible that a thing that loseth its being should yet be the sign and representation of another; neither can any thing be the Type and the Sign of it self.

10. But if without admitting of a Sa∣cramental sense the words be used too rigorously, nothing but this will follow, that the Bread and Wine are really and properly the very Body and Bloud of Christ, which they themselves disown, that hold Transubstantiation. Therefore in this change, it is not a newness of sub∣stance, but of use and vertue that is pro∣duced; which yet the Fathers acknow∣ledged with us, to be wonderful, super∣natural, and proper only to Gods Om∣nipotency: For that earthly and corrup∣tible meat cannot become to us a spiritu∣al and heavenly, the Communion of the Body and Bloud of Christ, without Gods especial power and operation. And whereas it is far above Philosophy and Humane Reason, that Christ from Hea∣ven (where alone he is locally) should reach down to us the divine vertue of his Flesh, so that we are made one body with

him; therefore it is as necessary as it is reasonable, that the Fathers should tell us, that we ought with singleness of heart to believe the Son of God, when he saith, This is my body; and that we ought not to measure this high and holy Mystery by our narrow conceptions, or by the course of nature. For it is more acceptable to God with an humble simplicity of faith to reverence and embrace the words of Christ, than to wrest them violently to a strange and improper sense, and with curiosity and presumption to determine what exceeds the capacity of Men and Angels. Thus much in general may suffice to answer those places of the Fathers, which are usually brought in the behalf of Transubstantiation. He that would have a larger refutation of those objections fetcht from Antiquity, may read Hospini∣anus his History of the Sacrament, and * 1.90 Antonius de Dominis in his Fifth Book of the Christian Commonwealth, Chap. 6. and in his detection of the errors of Suarez, Chap. 2.

11. That place of Ignatius cited by * 1.91 Theodoret, out of the Epistle to the Smyr∣nenses (where now it is not to be found) and objected by some of the Romish Faith, That the Hereticks Simoniani and Menan∣driani

would have no Eucharistical Oblations, because they denied the Sacrament to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, makes nothing for Transubstantiation, as Bellarmine him∣self confesseth. For (saith he) those Here∣ticks * 1.92 did not oppose the Sacrament of the Eu∣charist, so much as the mystery of the Incarna∣tion; and therefore (as Ignatius shews in that place) they would deny that the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ, that is, (as Theodoret inter∣prets * 1.93 it) that the divine Mysteries of Bread and Wine should be the signs of a real Body of Christ truly existing, because they would not own that Christ had taken flesh. And so lest they should be forced to acknowledge the reality of the flesh of Christ, they would wholly reject the Signs and Sacraments of it; for the signs of the body being given, the true body is given also, because the substance and the type infer one another, and a Phantasm or Illusion is not capable of a sign or representation.

12. The words out of Justin Martyr, * 1.94 whereby they would prove Transubstan∣tiation, do strongly disprove it. For (saith he) as by the word of God, our Saviour was incarnate, so by the Prayers of Gods word, the Eucharist is made, whereby our bodies are nou∣rished, the Body and Bloud of Christ. Now when Christ took humane flesh, none

could say without Heresie that he was Transubstantiated.

13. Neither is that against the Prote∣stants which is brought out of St. Cyprian, * 1.95 (though it be none of his) of the bread changed not in appearance, but in nature. For he, whoever it was, took not the word nature in a strict sense, or else he was con∣trary to Theodoret, Gelasius, and others above-mentioned, who expresly deny that the bread should be thus changed: But at large, as nature is taken for use, quali∣ties, and condition. For by the infinite power of the Word the nature of the bread is so changed, that what was before a bare Element, becomes now a divine Sacrament, but without any Transubstan∣tiation; as appears by what follows in the same period, of the Humane and Divine Natures of Christ, where the Manhood is not substantially changed into the God∣head, except we will follow Eutyches the Heretick.

14. The words of Cyril, as the Roman * 1.96 Doctors fay, are so clear for them, that they admit of no evasion: For (saith he) he that changed once the Water into Wine, is he not worthy to be believed that he changed the Wine into Bloud? Therefore let us with all cer∣tainty receive the Body and Bloud of Christ, for

his Body under the appearance of the Bread, and his Bloud under the appearance of the Wine are given to thee. Indeed Protestants do * 1.97 freely grant, and firmly believe, that the Wine (as hath often been said) is chan∣ged into the Bloud of Christ, but every change is not a Transubstantiation; nei∣ther doth Cyril say that this change is like that of the water, for then it would also appear to our senses; but that he who changed the Water sensibly, can also change the Wine Sacramentally, will not be doubted by any. As for what he calls the Appearances of Bread and Wine, he doth not thereby exclude, but rather in∣clude their substance, and mean the Bread and Wine it self: For so he intimates by what there follows; Do not look on them as bare Bread and Wine; as much as to say, it is bread indeed, but yet not bare bread, but something besides. But that this con∣version of the Water into Wine makes nothing for Transubstantiation, may be thus made to appear. That Gods Omni∣potency can change one substance into another, none will deny, and we see it done by Christ in the Town of Cana of Galilee, when he changed the Water into Wine; and it was a true and proper Tran∣substantiation. But the Papists in the

Lords Supper tell us of quite another change, which, if well considered, can∣not so much as be understood. For the sub∣stance of the Bread is not changed into another that had no being, but, as they say, the bread is changed into that body of Christ which really existed and had a be∣ing these many hundred years, ever since the Incarnation: Whereas that very Wine which Christ made of the Water, was not in being before the change which he wrought. Now it is easie for any to understand, that he who created all things out of nothing, can well make a new Wine of Water, or any other thing; but it is more than absurd, that the body of Christ, or any other substance already in being, perfect and complete, should be made afresh of another substance, when it really subsisted before. Which they well understood who devised an adduction, or bringing of the Body of Christ into the place of the Bread, and that is as much as to deny Transubstantiation; except it can be said that a man is Transubstantiated in∣to another, as often as he comes into his place, which no man in his right wits can fancy.

15. St. Ambrose said also that the nature is * 1.98 changed, and indeed it is so; for other is

the nature of the Element, and other that of the Sacrament; neither do Pro∣testants deny that the Element is changed by the blessing, so that the bread being made sacred, is no more that which nature formed, but that which the Blessing consecrated, and by consecrating changed. Mean while St. Am∣brose in that place doth not make the words or Blessing of Christ to have any other operation, than to make that which was, still to be, and yet to be changed; there∣fore the bread is not made the body of Christ by Transubstantiation, but by a Sacramental change. He adds, That Sacra∣ment which thou receivest is made by the word of Christ; and if the word of Elias had so much power as to bring down fire from heaven, shall not the words of Christ be efficacious enough to change the properties of the Elements? Thou hast read of the Creation of all things, that he said the word and it was done; and shall not that word of Christ, which made all out of nothing, change that which is already into that which it was not? Thou thy self wert, but wert the old man, but being baptized, thou art now be∣come a new Creature? Now it is as much to give a new nature, as to change the nature of a thing. By these words he plainly declares his opinion that, by vertue of this change, the Elements of Bread and Wine

cease not to be what they are by essence, and yet by the Consecration are made what before they were not. But where did our Transubstantiators learn out of St. Ambrose, or any of the Fathers, that to make the Sacrament is the same as to bring the natural body of Christ, and put it under the accidents of the bread, or in the place of its substance which is vanisht away? They say, That the comparison be∣twixt * 1.99 the things changed by Christ and the Pro∣phet would be silly, if there be no more than a Sacramental change in the Eucharist; as though the Sacramental change were a thing of nought. For (saith Cardinal Bel∣larmine) * 1.100 what power is there required to do nothing? But Protestants answer, that the Greatness, Majesty, Excellency, and Dignity of the Sacrament is such, that they admire no less the Omnipotency of God in sanctifying the Creatures to so high an office, and so holy an use, than in creating the world out of nothing, or changing the nature of things by the Mi∣nistry of his Prophets. For it is not by mans power, but by the divine vertue, that things earthly and mean of them∣selves, are made to us assured Pledges of the Body and Bloud of Christ. And if they urge the Letter of those words of

St. Ambrose, By the word of Christ the species of the Elements are changed, as Bellarmine and others do, why then, they must con∣fess, that not only the substance, but also the species, or accidents (as they call them) of the Bread and Wine, are changed into the Body and Bloud of Christ. And so, being St. Ambrose and all the Ancients said indifferently, as well that the species of the Bread and Wine, as that the Bread and Wine themselves are changed, who will not from hence understand that the groundless Fabrick of Transubstantiation (whereby they would have the substance of the Elements so abolished in the Sacrament, that their meer accidents or appearances remain without any subject) is strongly battered and utterly ruined?

16. All other Testimonies of the Fa∣thers, * 1.101 if they say that the Bread is made the Body of Christ, are willingly owned by Pro∣testants. For they hold that the Element cannot become a Sacrament, nor the Sa∣crament have a being without the thing which it represents. For the Cardinal himself will not affirm that the Body of * 1.102 Christ is produced out of the Pread. This is therefore what we say with St. Austin, and endeavour to prove by all means;

That the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is made of two things, the visible Element, and the invi∣sible Flesh and Bloud of Christ, as the Person of Christ consisteth of the Godhead and Man∣hood, he being true God and true Man; for every compound retains the nature of that whereof it is made: Now the Sacrament is com∣posed of two things, the Sign, and the thing signified, that is the Body of Christ.

17. Let the Champions of Transub∣stantiation strut and vapour now, with their two and thirty stout Seconds, a 1.103 who have stood for them, as they say, before the time of Pope Innocent the Third! For what b 1.104 Innocent the Third decreed, and the Council of Trent c 1.105 defined, (that it was ever the perswasion of the Catholick Church, that the Bread is so changed into the Body of Christ, that the substance of the bread vanishing away, only the flesh of Christ should remain under the accidents of the bread,) is so far from being true, that the Doctrine of Transubstan∣tiation, not only as to the name, but as to the thing it self, is wholly destitute of the Patronage of Antiquity, and left to shift for it self. d 1.106 Alphonsus à Castro said, that in ancient Writers mention was made very seldom of Transubstantiation; had he said never, it had been more true. For so our Jesuites e 1.107 in England confessed, That

the business of Transubstantiation was not so much as toucht by the ancient Fathers; which is very true, as will appear more at large in the following Chapter.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Authors left out in the fore∣going Chapter.
• a 1.2

  Constit. Ap l 6. c. 23. & 29.
• b 1.3

  Epist ad Philadel.
• c 1.4

  Ad An∣••••••. l. 2.
• d 1.5

  Athe∣nag legat. pro Christ.
• e 1.6

  In Diat∣ies.
• f 1.7

  De Stro l. 1. & de padag. l. 2.
• g 1.8

  In Octa∣vio
• h 1.9

  De Dem. Evan. l 1. c. 10. & l. 8. c. 2.
• i 1.10

  Juv. de Hist. E∣vang. l. 4.
• k 1.11

  Mac. Hom. 37.
• l 1.12

  In Mat. & de Syn.
• m 1.13

  Contra Parm l. 3.
• n 1.14

  Hom de Corp. Chr.
• o 1.15

  Orat. fun. Gorg.
• p 1.16

  In Joh. l. 4. c. 1••.
• q 1.17

  In An∣corato
• r 1.18

  1 Contra Jovin. & in Jer. 31. & in Mat. 26.
• s 1.19

  Epist. Pasch. 2
• t 1.20

  Gaud. in Exod 2.
• u 1.21

  In Epist. St Paul.
• x 1.22

  De Dogm. Eccl. c. 25.
• y 1.23

  Homil. 2. in Epith
• z 1.24

  De fide cap 16. & Epist. ad Fer∣rand.
• a 1.25

  Com. in Ma••k ••.
• b 1.26

  In Epist. ad Cor.
• c 1.27

  In Gen. 9
• d 1.28

  In Levit. 1. 6.
• e 1.29

  In Hierareh Dion.
• f 1.30

  De fide Orthod.
• g 1.31

  De Cherub c. 6.
• h 1.32

  In vita S. Remig.
• i 1.33

  Epist. ad Adeodat.
• k 1.34

  An. 314. Can. 2.
• l 1.35

  A. eodem. Can. 13.
• m 1.36

  In Act. l 2. Can. 30.
• n 1.37

  A. 364. Can. 25.
• o 1.38

  A. 397. Can. 24.
• p 1.39

  A 541. Can. 4.
• q 1.40

  A. 633. Can. 17.
• r 1.41

  A. 675. Can. 2.
• s 1.42

  A. 693. Can. 6.
• t 1.43

  A. 691. Can. 32.
• * 1.44

  Hesych. l 2. in Levit. cap. 8. A. D. 600.
• * 1.45

  Concil. Angl. Sp••lm. tredicimus inter eos qui Bedaetitulum prae∣ferunt, A D. 7••0. & sub Edgaro Rege 38. Ibid A. D. 97••.
• * 1.46

  Conc. Are∣lat. 3. Ci tal. à Gra∣tiano de Conseor. dist. ••. A. D. 640.
• a 1.47

  Alex. Ales. lib. 4. q. 45. m. 1. art. 2. & q. 53. m. 3. Thom. in 3. q. 80. art. 3. & in 4. d, 9. q. 2.
• b 1.48

  Greg. XI. in director. Inquis. p. 1. n. 15. & p ••. q. 10.
• c 1.49

  Vasq disp. I 95. in 3. c 5.
• d 1.50

  Answer to the Al∣legations out of Iren. Orig. Cyril Hier. Gre. Naz. St. Hier. St. Austia and o∣thers.
• e 1.51

  De Con∣secr dist 2. c sicut.
• * 1.52

  An An∣swer to the proofs out of St. Hier. Ep. ad He∣liod. 2. & ad Evag. ••••. & ••••▪ Ambr. de iis qui init c. 9. &c.
• * 1.53

  Ep. 85. ad Evag.
• * 1.54

  St. Chrys∣Hom. 83. in St. Mat.
• * 1.55

  An An∣swer to what is cited out of St. Cyp. Ambrose, both the Cyrills. Chrys. Gre. Nyss. & alio∣rum.
• a 1.56

  Joh. 3. 3. 1 Pet. 1. 3. 1 Cor. 4. 15. Rom. 12. 3. Eph. 4. 22 Gal. 6. 15.
• a 1.57

  Iren. l. 5. c. 10.
• b 1.58

  Clem. Alex. l. 4. Strom.
• c 1.59

  Orig. Serm. 2. in diversos.
• d 1.60

  Cyril. Hier. Ca∣tech. 18.
• e 1.61

  Basil. exhort. ad Bapt. & S. Chrys. hom. 5. de Poenit.
• f 1.62

  Greg. Naz. Orat 40.
• g 1.63

  Greg. Nyss. lib 2. contra Eunom. Hom. 1. de Resur. Ep ad Eustath. Latin. & Ambros.
• h 1.64

  Cyril. Alexand. Epist. Pas••h 6, 7. & 14.
• i 1.65

  ••. Chrysost. Hom 23. in Act. Apost. Idem Hom. 33. in 1 Cor.
• k 1.66

  Theod. Dial. 2. Theoph. in Joh 6. & Oecum in Pet. 1. & alii.
• a 1.67

  Iren. l. 5. c. 10.
• b 1.68

  Clem. Alex. l. 4. Strom.
• c 1.69

  Orig. Serm. 2. in diversos.
• d 1.70

  Cyril. Hier. Ca∣tech. 18.
• e 1.71

  Basil. exhort. ad Bapt. & S. Chrys. hom. 5. de Poenit.
• f 1.72

  Greg. Naz. Orat 40.
• g 1.73

  Greg. Nyss. lib 2. contra Eunom. Hom. 1. de Resur. Ep ad Eustath. Latin. & Ambros.
• h 1.74

  Cyril. Alexand. Epist. Pas••h 6, 7. & 14.
• i 1.75

  ••. Chrysost. Hom 23. in Act. Apost. Idem Hom. 33. in 1 Cor.
• k 1.76

  Theod. Dial. 2. Theoph. in Joh 6. & Oecum in Pet. 1. & alii.
• l 1.77

  St. Austin. l. 4. con∣tra Crescon. cap. 54. St. Ambr. de Myst. c. 9. & de Sacr. l. 4. c. 4. Faust. Reg. sive Eus. Emiss. de Pas••h 55. Facund. l 9. c. ult.
• m 1.78

  Contra Marc l. 3. c. 9. 24. &. 26.
• * 1.79

  De Carne Christi. cap 3.
• * 1.80

  Superius citati.
• * 1.81

  Answer to the Te∣stimonies of S Chry. Cyril. Alex. and others.
• * 1.82

  Serm de Coen. Dom.
• a 1.83

  Hom. in Encoen.
• b 1.84

  Hom. 82. in Mat.
• c 1.85

  Lib. de Sacerd. 3.
• d 1.86

  Hom. 51 & 83. in Mat.
• e 1.87

  Hom. 24. 1 Cor.
• f 1.88

  Hom. 4. in Jo••. & 83. in Mat.
• * 1.89

  Tract. 21. in Joh. Epist. 23.
• * 1.90

  Lib. 2. & 4. A Sect. 1. usque ad 13.
• * 1.91

  Answer to single testimony of Fa∣thers. Dial. 3. ex Ep. 5. Ig∣nat.
• * 1.92

  De Euch. l. 1. c. 1. 8. 3.
• * 1.93

  Dial. 2.
• * 1.94

  Apol. 2. ad Ant imp.
• * 1.95

  Serm. de Coen. Dom.
• * 1.96

  Bell l. 2. de Euch. c. 13. Cyril. Hi∣eros Catec. mystig 4
• * 1.97

  Sensu jam saepius dicto.
• * 1.98

  Lib. ••. de San••c. 4. & de init, Myst. c. 9.
• * 1.99

  Bell loco ••itato.
• * 1.100

  Lib. 2. de Euch. c. 9.
• * 1.101

  The rest of the Fa∣thers.
• * 1.102

  De Con∣secr. dist. 2 c. hoc est.
• a 1.103

  Card. Bellar de Euch l. 3 c. 20. 3. v.
• b 1.104

  Extra de Trin. & side Cathol. c. 1
• c 1.105

  Sess. 13. ca. 4.
• d 1.106

  Lib. 8. contr. Hae∣reses In∣dulg.
• e 1.107

  Discurs. modest. de Jesuit. p. 13. & Wa••s. Quodl. l. 2. art. 4.