The doctrine of the Trinity and transubstantiation compared as to Scripture, reason, and tradition. The first part in a new dialogue between a Protestant and a papist : wherein an answer is given to the late proofs of the antiquity of transubstantiation in the books called Consensus veterum and Nubes testium, &c.

The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transub∣stantiation compared, as to Scripture, Reason, and Tradition. In a New Dialogue between a Protestant and a Pa∣pist.

Pr.

I Remember your last Words at parting were, Fare∣wel; and God give his holy Spirit to instruct you. Which have run much in my Mind: For if the holy Spirit instruct us, what need is there of an Infallible Church? I hope those were not only words of course with you.

Pa.

No; but I meant that the holy Spirit should instruct you about the Authority of the Church.

Pr.

Was this indeed your meaning? Then you would have me believe the Church Infallible, because the holy Spirit which is Infallible will instruct me about it, if I seek his Directions.

P.

Yes.

Pr.

But then I have no Reason to believe it; for the holy Spirit after my seeking his Instructions, teaches me other∣wise. And if the holy Spirit is Infallible which way so∣ever it teaches, then I am infallibly sure there is no such thing as Infallibility in what you call the Catholick Church.

P.

Come, come; you make too much of a sudden Expression at parting; I pray let us return to our main business, which is to shew, that there is the same Ground from Scripture, Reason, and Tradition, to believe Transub∣stantiation,

as there is to believe the Trinity. And this I affirm again, after reading the Answers to the former Dia∣logue; and I now come somewhat better prepared to make it out.

Pr.

So you had need. And I hope I shall be able not only to defend the contrary, but to make it evident to you, that there is a mighty difference in these two Doctrines, as to Scripture, Reason, and Tradition. But I pray keep close to the Point: for I hate impertinent trifling in a De∣bate of such Consequence.

P.

I must confess, I over-shot my self a little in the former Dialogue, when I offer'd to prove the Doctrine of the Trinity unreasonable and absurd: For no Church can make such a Doctrine, which is unreasonable and absurd in it self, not to be so to me; No Church can make three and one to be the same, if they be repugnant in themselves. But my meaning was, that Mens Disputes about these things will never be ended, till they submit to the Autho∣rity of the Church.

Pr.

And then they may believe three, or three hundred Persons in the Trinity, as the Church pleases. Is that your meaning?

P.

No. But I said to my Carnal Reason it would appear so; but not to my Reason as under the Conduct of an In∣fallible Guide.

Pr.

Then an Infallible Guide can make three hundred to be but three; which is a notable trick of Infallibility.

P.

No; I tell you I meant only that we are not to fol∣low Carnal Reason, but the Church's Authority, i. e. we are not to search into Mysteries above Reason, but only believe what the Church delivers. And I intend now to argue the Point somewhat closely with you. Do you be∣lieve that there are any Mysteries in the Christian Do∣ctrine above Reason, or not? If not, you must reject the Trinity; if you do, then you have no ground for reject∣ing

Transubstantiation, because it is above Reason.

Pr.

You clearly mistake us; and I perceive were very little acquainted with our Doctrine: for we do not reject any Doctrine concerning God, meerly because it is above our Reason, when it is otherwise clearly proved from Scripture. For then we own our selves bound to submit in matters of Divine Revelation concerning an Infinite Being, though they be above our Capacity to comprehend them. But in matters of a finite Nature, which are far more easie for us to conceive, and which depend upon the Evi∣dence of Sense, we may justly reject any Doctrine which overthrows that Evidence, and is not barely above our Rea∣son, but repugnant to it.

P.

I do not well understand you.

Pr.

So I believe; but I will endeavour to help your Un∣derstanding a little. And I pray consider these things:

1. That there is a great difference in our Conceptions of Finite and Infinite Beings. For, whatsoever is Infinite, is thereby owned to be above our Comprehension, other∣wise it would not be Infinite. The Attributes of God which are essential to him, as his Wisdom, Goodness and Power, must be understood by us, so far as to form a true Notion of that Being which is Infinite; but then the Infinity of these Attributes is above our reach. And so his Infinite Duration, which we call Eternity; his Infinite Presence which we call his Immensity; the Infinite Extent of his Knowledg, as to future Contingencies; all these must be confessed to be Mysteries, not above our Reason, but above our Capacity. For we have great Reason to own them, but we have not Faculties to comprehend them. We cannot believe a God, unless we hold him to be Infinite in all Perfections: and if he be Infinite, he must be incomprehensible; so that Religion must be overthrown, if something incomprehensible be not allow∣ed. And as to finite Beings, so far as they run into what

we call Infinite, they are so far out of our reach; as ap∣pears by the insuperable Difficulties about the Infinite Di∣visibility of Quantity.

2. That we have certain Notions of some things in the visible World; both that they are, and that they have some Attributes essential to them. We daily converse with things visible and corporeal; and if we do not conceive something true and certain in our Minds about them, we live in a Dream and have only Phantasms and Illusions a∣bout us. If we are certain that there are real Bodies, and not meer Appearances, there must be some certain way of conveying such Impressions to our Minds, from whence they may conclude, this is a Horse, and this a Man, and this is Flesh, and this Blood, and this is Wood, and this Stone; otherwise all certainty is gone, and we must turn meer Scepticks.

3. That in examining the sense of Scripture we may make use of those certain Notions of visible things which God and Nature have planted in us; otherwise we are not dealt with as Reasonable Creatures. And therefore we must use those Faculties God hath given us, in reading and comparing Scriptures, and examining the sense that is offered by such Notions which are agreeable to the nature of things. As for instance, the Scripture frequent∣ly attributes Eyes and Ears and Hands to the Almighty: must we presently believe God to have an Human Shape because of this? No; we compare these with the neces∣sary Attributes of God, and from thence see a necessity of interpreting these Expressions in a Sense agreeable to the Divine Nature. So if other Expressions of Scripture seem to affirm that of a Body which is inconsistent with the Nature of it; as, that it is not visible, or may be in many Places at once, there is some Reason for me to un∣derstand them in a Sense agreeable to the Essential Proper∣ties of a Body.

4. There is a difference between our not apprehending the manner how a thing is, and the apprehending the im∣possibility of the thing it self. And this is the meaning of the distinction of Things above our Reason, and contrary to our Reason. If the Question be, how the same indivi∣dual Nature can be communicated to three distinct Per∣sons? We may justly answer, we cannot apprehend the manner of it, no more than we can the Divine Immensity, or an Infinite Amplitude without Extension. But if any go about to prove there is an impossibility in the thing, he must prove that the Divine Nature can communicate it self no otherwise than a finite individual Nature can: For all acknowledg the same common Nature may be com∣municated to three Persons, and so the whole Contro∣versie rests on this single Point as to Reason; whether the Divine Nature and Persons are to be judged and measu∣red as Human Nature and Persons are. And in this, I think we have the advantage in point of Reason of the An∣ti-trinitarians themselves, although they pretend never so much to it.

P.

Good night, Sir; I perceive you are in for an hour; and I have not so much time to spare, to hear such long Preachments. For my part, talk of Sense and Reason as long as you will, I am for the Catholick Church.

Pr.

And truly, she is mightily obliged to you for oppo∣posing her Authority to Sense and Reason.

P.

Call it what you will, I am for the Churches Authori∣ty; and the talk of Sense and Reason is but Canting without that.

Pr.

The matter is then come to a fine pass; I thought Canting had rather been that which was spoken against Sense or Reason. But I pray, Sir, what say you to what I have been discoursing?

P.

To tell you truth, I did not mind it; for as soon as I heard whither you were going, I clapt fast hold of the

Church, as a Man would do of a Mast in a Storm, and resolved not to let go my hold.

Pr.

What! altho you should sink together with it.

P.

If I do, the Church must answer for it; for I must sink or swim with it.

Pr.

What Comfort will that be to you, when you are called to an account for your self? But if you stick here, it is to no purpose to talk any more with you.

P.

I think so too. But now we are in, methinks we should not give over thus; especially since I began this Dialogue about the Trinity and Transubstantiation.

Pr.

If you do, we know the Reason of it. But I am re∣solved to push this matter now as far as it will go; and either to convince you of your Mistake, or at least to make you give it over wholly.

P.

But if I must go on in my Parallel, I will proceed in my own way. I mentioned three things, Scripture, Rea∣son, and Tradition. And I will begin with Tradition.

Pr.

This is somewhat an uncouth Method; but I must be content to follow your Conduct.

P.

No, Sir, the Method is very natural; for in Myste∣ries above Reason, the safest way is to trust Tradition. And none can give so good account of that as the Church.

Pr.

Take your own way: but I perceive Tradition with you is the Sense of the present Church; which is as hard to conceive, as that a Nunc stans should be an eternal Suc∣cession.

P.

As to comparing Tradition, I say, that the Mystery of the Trinity was questioned in the very Infancy of the Church, and the Arians prevail'd much against it in the beginning of the fourth Age; but Transubstantiation lay unquestion'd and quiet for a long time; and when it came into debate, there was no such opposition as that of Arius, to call in question the Authority of its Tradition; the Church received it unanimously, and in that Sense continued till rash Reason attempted to fathom the unlimited Miracles and Mysteries of God.

Pr.

I stand amazed at the boldness of this Assertion: But I find your present Writers are very little vers'd in An∣tiquity; which makes them offer things concerning the Ancient Church, especially as to Transubstantiation, which those who had been modest and learned, would have been ashamed of.

P.

I hope I may make use of them to justify my self, tho you slight them, I mean the Consensus Veterum, the Nu∣bes Testium, and the single Sheet about Transubstantiation.

Pr.

Take them all, and as many more as you please, I am sure you can never prove Transubstantiation to have been, and the Trinity not to have been the constant Belief of the Primitive Church.

P.

Let me manage my own Argument first.

Pr.

All the Reason in the World.

P.

My Argument is, That the Doctrine of the Trinity met with far more Opposition than Transubstantiation did.

Pr.

Good Reason for it, because it was never heard of then. You may as well say, the Tradition of the Circu∣lation of the Blood lay very quiet, from the days of Hip∣pocrates to the time of Parisanus. Who was there that op∣posed things before they were thought of?

P.

That is your great Mistake; for Transubstantiation was very well known, but they did not happen to speak so much of it, because it was not opposed.

Pr.

But how is it possible for you to know it was so well known, if they spake not of it?

P.

I did not say, they did not speak of it, but not so much, or not half so express; because it is not customary for Men to argue unquestionable Truths.

Pr.

But still how shall it be known that the Church re∣ceived this Doctrine unanimously, if they do not speak ex∣presly of it? But since you offer at no Proof of your As∣sertion, I will make a fair offer to you, and undertake to prove, That the Fathers spake expresly against it.

P.

How is that? Expresly against it? God forbid.

Pr.

Make of it what you please, and answer what you can: I begin with my Proofs.

P.

Nay, then, we are in for all Night. I am now full of business, and cannot hearken to tedious Proofs out of the Fathers, which have been canvassed a hundred times.

Pr.

I will be as short as I can; and I promise you not to transcribe any that have hitherto written, nor to urge you with any spurious Writer, or lame Citation at second or third hand; and I shall produce nothing but what I have read, considered, and weighed in the Authors themselves.

P.

Since it must be so; let me hear your doubty Argu∣ments, which I cannot as well turn against the Trinity; For that is my Point.

Pr.

I leave you to try your Skill upon them. The first shall be from the Proofs of the Truth of Christ's Incarna∣tion; and I hope this will not hold against the Trinity. And those Arguments which they brought to prove Christ Incarnate, do overthrow Transubstantiation effectually. So that either we must make the Fathers to reason very ill against Hereticks; or, if their Arguments be good, it was impossible they should believe Transubstantiation. For can you suppose that any can believe it, who should not barely assert, but make the force of an Argument to lie in this, that the Substance of the Bread doth not remain after Con∣secration? And this I now prove, not from any slight in∣considerable Authors, but from some of the greatest Men in the Church in their time. I begin with St. Chrysostom, whose Epistle to Coesarius is at last brought to light by a learned Person of the Roman Communion; who makes no question of the Sincerity of it, and faith, The Latin Tran∣slation which only he could find entire, was about five hun∣dred years old; but he hath so confirm'd it by the Greek Fragments of it, quoted by Ancient Greek Authors, that there can be no suspicion left concerning it.

P.

What means all this ado before you come to the Point?

Pr.

Because this Epistle hath been formerly so confi∣dently denied to be St. Chrysostom's; and such care was late∣ly taken to suppress it.

P.

But what will you do with it now you have it?

Pr.

I will tell you presently. This Epistle was written by him for the satisfaction of Caesarius a Monk, who was in danger of being seduced by the Apollinarists.

P.

What have we to do with the Apollinarists? Do you think all hard words are akin, and so the affinity rises be∣tween Apollinarists and Transubstantiation?

Pr.

You shall find it comes nearer the matter than you imagined. For those Hereticks denied the Truth of the Human Nature of Christ after the Union, and said that the Properties of it did then belong to the Divine Nature; as appears by that very Epistle.

P.

And what of all this? Do we deny the truth of Christ's Human Nature?

Pr.

No; but I pray observe the force of his Parallel. He is proving that each Nature in Christ contains its Properties; for, saith he, as before Consecration we call it Bread, but after it by Divine Grace sanctifying it through the Prayer of the Priest, it is no longer called Bread, but the Body of our Lord, altho the nature of Bread remains in it; and it doth not become two Bodies, but one Body of Christ; so here the Divine Nature being joyned to the Human, they both make one Son, and one Person.

P.

And what do you infer from hence?

Pr.

Nothing more, but that the Nature of Bread doth as certainly remain after Consecration, as the Nature of Christ doth after the Union.

P.

Hold a little. For the Author of the single Sheet, saith, That the Fathers by Nature and Substance do often mean no more than the natural Qualities, or visible Ap∣pearances of Things. And why may not St. Chrysostom mean so here?

Pr.

I say, it is impossible he should. For all the Dis∣pute was about the Substance, and not about the Qualities, as appears by that very Epistle; for those Hereticks gran∣ted, that Christ had all the Properties of a Body left still; they do not deny that Christ could suffer, but they said, the Properties of a Body after the Union belonged to the Divine Nature, the Human Nature being swallowed up by the Union. And therefore St. Chrysostom, by Nature, must understand Substance, and not Qualities; or else he doth by no means prove that which he aimed at. So that St. Chry∣sostom doth manifestly assert the Substance of the Bread to remain after Consecration.

P.

But doth not St. Chrysostom suppose then, that upon Consecration, The Bread is united to the Divinity, as the Human Nature is to the Divine; else what Parallel could he make?

Pr.

I will deal freely with you by declaring, that not St. Chrysostom only, but many others of the Fathers, did own the Bread after Consecration to be made the real Body of Christ; but not in your Sense, by changing the Sub∣stance of the Elements into that Body of Christ which is in Heaven; but by a Mystical Union, caused by the Holy Spirit, whereby the Bread becomes the Body of Christ, as that was which was conceived in the Womb of the Blessed Virgin. But this is quite another thing from Transubstan∣tiation; and the Church of England owns, that after Con∣secration, The Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of Christ.

P.

But altho this be not Transubstantiation, it may be something as hard to believe or understand.

Pr.

By no means. For all the difficulties relating to the taking away the Substance of the Bread, and the Pro∣perties of Christ's Body, are removed by this Hypothesis.

P.

Let us then keep to our Point: but methinks this is but a slender appearance yet; St. Chrysostom stands alone for all that I see.

Pr.

Have but a little Patience, and you shall see more of his mind presently. But I must first tell you, that the Eutychians afterwards were condemned in the Council of Chalcedon for following this Doctrine of Apollinaris; and that Council defines, that the differences of the two Natures in Christ were not destroyed by the Union; but that their Properties were preserved distinct and concur to one Person. And against these, the other Fathers disputed just as St. Chrysostom had done before against the Apollinarists.

Theodoret brings the same Instance, and he affirms expresly, That the Na∣ture of the Elements is not changed, that they do not lose their proper Nature, but remain in their former Substance, Fi∣gure and Form, and may be seen and touched as before.

Still this is not to prove any Acci∣dental Qualities, but the very Sub∣stance of Christ's Body to remain.

P.

But was not Theodoret a Man of suspected Faith in ••he Church? and therefore no great matter can be made of his Testimony.

Pr.

Yield it then to us; and see if we do not clear Theodoret; but your own learned Men never question him, as to this matter (at least) and the ancient Church hath vindicated his Reputation. And he saith no more than St. Chrysostom before him, and others of great Esteem ••fter him.

P.

Who were they?

Pr.

What say you to a Pope, whom you account Head of the Church? Pope Gelasius writing against the same Hereticks, produces the same Exam∣ple; and he expresly saith, The Substance of the Bread and Wine doth not cease.

P.

I thought I should find you trip∣ping. Here you put a Fob-head of the Church upon us. For the Author of the single Sheet saith, this was another Gelasius, as is prov'd at large by Bellarmin.

Pr.

In truth, I am ashamed of the Ignorance of such small Authors, who will be medling with things they understand not. For this Writer, since Bellarmin's time, hath been evidently proved from Testimonies of Antiqui∣ty, such as Fulgentius and John the second, to have been Pope Gelasius, and that by some of the most learned Per∣sons of the Roman Communion, such as Cardinal Du Perron, Petavius, Sirmondus, and others.

P.

Have you any more that talk at this rate?

Pr.

Yes. What think you of a Patriarch of Antioch, who useth the same Similitude for the same purpose; and he affirms, that the sensible Substance still continues in the Eucharist, tho it hath Divine Grace joyned with it? And I pray, now tell me seriously, did the Tradition of Transubstantiation lie unquestion'd and quiet all this while? when we have three Patriarchs, of Constantinople, Rome, and Antioch, expresly against it; and one of them owned by your Selves, to be Head of the Church; and held by many to be Infallible, especially when he teaches the Church; which he doth, if ever, when he declares against Hereticks.

P.

I know not what to say, unless by Nature and Sub∣stance they meant Qualities and Properties.

Pr.

I have evidently proved that could not be their meaning.

P.

But I am told Monsieur Arnaud in his elaborate De∣fence against Claude goes that way, and he saith, The Eu∣tychians and Apollinarists did not absolutely deny any Sub∣stance to remain in Christ's Body, but not so as to be endued with such Properties as ours have.

Pr.

I grant this is the main of his Defence; but I con∣fess, Monsieur Arnaud hath not so much Authority with me, as a General Council which declared the contrary; viz. That the Eutychians were condemned for not holding two Sub∣stances or Natures in Christ after the Union. And Domnus Antiochenus, who first laid open the Eutychian Heresie, saith, It lay in making a mixture and confusion of both Natures in Christ, and so making the Divinity passible; and to the same purpose others. There were some who charged both Apollinaris and Eutyches with holding, that Christ brought his Body from Heaven, and that it was not con-substantial with ours; but Apollinaris himself, in the Fragments pre∣served by Leontius, not only denies it, but pronounces an Anathema against those that hold it. And Vitalis of Antioch, a great Disciple of his, in discourse with Epiphanius, utter∣ly denied a Coelestial Body in Christ. Vincentius Lerinensis saith, his Heresie lay in denying two distinct Substances in Christ. St. Augustin saith, he held but one Substance after the Union; so that he must deny any Substance of a Body to remain after the Union, which he asserted to be wholly swallowed up, and the Properties to continue: Which was another kind of Transubstantiation; for no more of the Substance of Christ's Body was supposed to remain after the Union, than there is supposed to be in the Elements after Consecration. But in both Cases the Properties and Quali∣ties were the same still. And it is observable, that in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Eutyches rejected it, as a Calumny cast upon him, that he should hold that Christ brought a Body from Heaven. But the Eutychian Doctrine lay in taking away the Substance of the Body, and making

the Divinity the sole Substance, but with the Accidents and Properties of the Body. And for this they produced the Words of Saint John, The Word was made Flesh; which they urged with the same Confidence that you now do, This is my Body. And when they were urged with Diffi∣culties, they made the very same recourse to God's Omni∣potency, and the Letter of Scripture, and made the same Declamations against the use of Reason that you do; and withal, they would not have the Human Nature to be anni∣hilated, but to be changed into the Divine; just as your Authors do about the Substance of the Bread. So that it is hard to imagin a more exact Parallel to Transubstantia∣tion than there is in this Doctrine; and consequently there can be no more evident Proof of it, than the Fathers ma∣king use of the Instance of the Eucharist, to shew, tha•• as the Substance of Bread doth remain after Consecration; so the Substance of Christ's Body doth continue after the Union. And when the Fathers from the remaining Proper∣ties do prove the Substance to remain, they overthrow the possibility of Transubstantiation. For, if they might be without the Substance, their whole Argument loses its force, and proves just nothing.

P.

But all this proves nothing as to the Faith of the Church; being only Arguments used by Divines in the heat of Disputes.

Pr.

Do you then in earnest give up the Fathers as Dis∣putants to us; but retain them as Believers to your selves? But how should we know their Faith but by their Works?

P.

I perceive you have a mind to be pleasant; but my meaning was, that in Disputes Men may easily over-shoot themselves, and use ineffectual Arguments.

Pr.

But is it possible to suppose they should draw Arguments from something against the Faith of the Church. As for instance; Suppose now we are disputing about Tran substantiation, you should bring an Argument from the

Human Nature of Christ, and say, That as in the Hypo∣statical Union the Substance is changed, and nothing but the Accidents remain; so it is in the Elements upon Con∣secration. Do you think I should not presently deny your Example, and say, your very Supposition is Heretical? So no doubt would the Eutychians have done in case the Faith of the Church had then been, that the Substance of the Elements was changed after Consecration. And the Euty∣chians were the most sottish Disputants in the World, if they had not brought the Doctrine of Transubstantiation to prove their Heresy.

P.

Methink you are very long upon this Argument; when shall we have done at this rate?

Pr.

I take this for your best Answer; and so I proceed to a second Argument, which I am sure will not hold a∣gainst the Trinity; and that is from the natural and unsepa∣rable Properties of Christ's Body; which are utterly incon∣sistent with the belief of Transubstantiation. And the force of the Argument in general lies in this, That the Fathers did attribute such things to the Body of Christ, which render it uncapable of being present in such a manner in the Sacrament as Transubstantiation supposes. And no Men who understand themselves, will assert that at one time, which they must be bound to deny at another; but they will be sure to make an Exception or Limitation, which may reconcile both together. As if you should say, That the Body of Christ cannot be in more places than one at once, upon the Doctrine of St. Thomas; ye would presently add, with regard to the Sacrament, i. e. not in regard of its na∣tural Presence, but in a Sacramental it may: So, if the Fa∣thers had an Opinion like yours as to the Body of Christ, they would have a Reserve, or Exception, as to the Sacra∣ment. But it appears by their Writings, that they attri∣bute such Properties in general to the Body of Christ, as overthrow any such Presence, without Exceptions or

Limitations. But that is not all: For I shall now prove,

1. That they do attribute Circumscription to Christ's Body in Heaven, so as to exclude the possibility of its being upon Earth.

2. That they deny any such thing, as the supernatural Existence of a Body after the manner of a Spirit.

P.

What do you mean? I am quite tired already; and now you are turning up the other Glass.

Pr.

Since you will be dabling in these Controversies, you must not think to escape so easily. I have been not a little offended at the Insolence of some late Pamphlets upon this Argument; and now I come to close Reasoning, you would fain be gone.

P.

I am in a little haste at present; I pray come quickly to the Point.

Pr.

As soon as you please. What think you, if a Man now should bring an Argument to prove a matter of Faith from hence, That Christ's Body could not be in Heaven and Earth at once, would this argument hold good? Yet thus Vigilius Tapsitanus argues against those who denied two Na∣tures in Christ; for, saith he, The Bo∣dy of Christ when it was on Earth, was not in Heaven; and now it is in Heaven, it is not upon Earth; and it is so far from being so, that we expect him to come from Heaven in his Flesh, whom we be∣lieve to be now present on Earth by his Divinity. How can this hold, if the Body of Christ can be in Heaven and Earth at the same time?

P.

He speaks this of the Natural Presence of Christ's Body, and not of the Sacramental.

Pr.

The Argument is not drawn from the manner of the Presence, but from the Nature of a Body, that it could not be in Heaven and Earth at the same time. And so

St. Augustin said, That Christ was every where present as God; but confined to a certain place in Heaven according to the Measure of his true Body.

P.

This is only to disprove the Ubiquity of Christ's Bo∣dy; and not his being in several places at the same time.

Pr.

Then you yield it to be repugnant to the Nature of a Body to be every where present.

P.

Yes.

Pr.

But what if there be as great a repugnancy from St. Augustin's Argument, for a Body to be present in several places at once?

P.

I see no such thing.

Pr.

No? His Argument is from the Confinement of a true Body to a certain place. And if it be in many places at once, it is as far from being confined, as if it took up all places. And there are some greater Difficulties as to a Bo∣dy's being distant from it self, than in asserting its Ubiquity.

P.

I perceive you are inclined to be a Lutheran.

Pr.

No such matter. For I think the Essential Proper∣ties of a Finite and Infinite Being are incommunicable to each other, and I look on Ubiquity as one of them.

P.

Then the same Argument will not hold as to Presence in several places, for this is no Infinite Perfection.

Pr.

You run from one Argument to another. For these are two distinct ways of arguing; and the Argu∣ment from the Repugnancy of it to the Nature of a Body, doth as well hold against Ubiquity, as that it is a Divine Perfection. And St. Augustin in that excellent Epistle doth argue from the Essential Properties and Dimensions of Bodies, and the difference of the Presence of a Spirit, and a Body. I pray read and consider that Epistle, and you will think it impossible St. Augustin should believe Transubstantiation.

P.

St. Augustin was a great Disputant, and such are wont while they are eager upon one Point, to forget ano∣ther. But St. Augustin elsewhere doth assert the Presence of Christ's real Body in the Sacrament.

Pr.

Then the plain Consequence is, that he contradict∣ed himself.

P.

But he doth not speak of a Sacramental Presence.

Pr.

What again? But St. Augustin makes this an essen∣tial difference between a Divine and Corporal Presence; that the one doth not fill places by its Dimensions as the other doth; so that Bodies cannot be in di∣stant places at once. What think you of this?

P.

I pray go on.

Pr.

What think you of the Manichees Doctrine, who held that Christ was in the Sun and Moon when he suffered on the Cross? Was this possible or not?

P.

What would you draw from hence?

Pr.

Nothing more, but that St. Au∣gustin disproved it, because his Body could not be at the same time in the Sun and Moon, and upon Earth?

P.

As to the ordinary course of Nature, St. Augustin's Argument holds, but not as to the Miraculous Power of God.

Pr.

There is a difference between the ordinary Course of Nature, and the unchangeable Order of Nature.

P.

Let me hear this again; for it is new Doctrine to us.

Pr.

That's strange! Those things are by the ordi∣nary Course of Nature, which cannot be changed but by Divine Power; but imply no Repugnancy for God to al∣ter that Course; but those are by the unchangeable Order of

Nature, which cannot be done without overthrowing the very Nature of the things; and such things are impossi∣ble in themselves, and therefore God himself cannot do them.

P.

It seems then you set Bounds to God's Omnipo∣tency.

Pr.

Doth not the Scripture say, there are some things impossible for God to do?

P.

Yes; such as are repugnant to his own Perfections; as it is impossible for God to lye.

Pr.

But are there no other things impossible to be done? What think you of making the time past not to be past?

P.

That is impossible in it self.

Pr.

But is it not impossible for the same Body to be in two different times?

P.

Yes.

Pr.

Why not then in two or more different Places; since a Body is as certainly confined, as to Place, as it is to Time?

P.

You are run now into the Point of Reason, when we were upon St. Augustin's Testimony.

Pr.

But I say, St. Augustin went upon this ground, that it was repugnant to the Nature of a Body to be in more places than one at the same time. And so likewise Cassi∣an proves, That when Christ was upon Earth he could not be in Heaven, but in regard of his Divinity. Is there not the same Repugnancy for a Body in

Heaven to be upon Earth, as for a Body upon Earth to be in Heaven?

P.

These are new Questions, which I have not met with in our Writers, and therefore I shall take time to answer them. But all these Testimonies proceed upon a Body considered under the Nature of a Body; but in the Sacrament we consider Christ's Body as present after the manner of a Spirit.

Pr.

That was the next thing I promised to prove from the Fathers, that they knew of no such thing, and therefore could not believe your Doctrine. Have you observed what the Fathers say about the difference of Body and Spirit?

P.

Not I; but I have read our Authors, who produce them for our Doctrine.

Pr.

That is the perpetual fault of your Writers, to attend more to the sound of their Words, than to the force of their Reasonings. They bring places out of Po∣pular Discourses intended to heighten the Peoples Devo∣tion, and never compare them with those Principles which they assert, when they come to Reasoning; which would plainly shew their other Expressions are to be understood in a Mystical and Figurative Sense. But I pray tell me, do you think the Fathers had no distinct Notion of a Body and Spirit, and the Essential Properties of both?

P.

Yes doubtless.

Pr.

Suppose then they made those to lye in such things as are inconsistent with the Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament after the manner of a Spirit; do you think

then they could hold it to be so present? And if they did not, they could not believe Transubstantia∣tion.

P.

Very true.

Pr.

What think you then of St. Augustin, who makes it impossible for a Body to be without its Dimensions and Extension of Parts? But you assert a Body may be without them; or else it cannot be after the man∣ner of a Spirit, as you say it is in the Sacrament.

P.

I pray shew that St. Augustin made it inconsistent with the Nature of a Body to be otherwise.

Pr.

He saith, That all Bodies how gross or subtle so∣ever they be, can never be all every where (i. e. cannot be indivisibly present after the manner of a Spirit) but must be extended according to their several Parts, and whether great or little, must take up a space, and so fill the Place, that it cannot be all in any one Part. Is this possible to be reconciled with your Notion of a Body being present after the manner of a Spirit?

P.

To be present after the manner of a Spirit, is with us, to be so present, as not to be extended, and to be whole in every part.

Pr.

But this St. Augustin saith, no Body can be; and not only there, but elsewhere he saith, Take away Dimen∣sions from Bodies, and they are no longer Bodies. And

that a greater part takes up a greater space, and a lesser a less; and must be always less in the part than in the whole.

P.

But he speaks of Extension in it self, and not with respect to Place.

Pr.

That is of Extension that is not extended; for if it be, it must have respect to Place; but nothing can be plainer, than that St. Augustin doth speak with respect to Place. And he elsewhere saith, That every Body must have Place, and be extended in it.

P.

But he doth not speak this of the Sacrament.

Pr.

But he speaks it of all Bodies wheresoever present; and he doth not except the Sacrament, which he would certainly have done, if he had believed as you do con∣cerning it.

P.

St. Augustin might have particular Opinions in this, as he had in other things.

Pr.

So far from it, that I shall make it appear, that this was the general Sense of the Fathers. St. Gregory Nazian∣zen saith, That the Nature of Bodies requires, that they have Figure and Shape, and may be touched, and seen, and circum∣scribed. St. Cyril of Alexandria saith, That if God himself were a Body, he must be liable to the Properties of Bodies, and he must be in a place, as Bodies are. And all those Fathers, who prove, that God cannot be a Body, do it from such Arguments as shew, that they knew nothing of a Bodies Being after the manner of a Spirit: For then the force of their Arguments is lost, which are taken from the Essential Properties of a Body, such as Extension, Divisibility, and Circumscription. But if a Body may be without these, then God may be a Body after the manner of a Spirit; and so the Spirituality of the Divine Nature will be taken away.

P.

I never heard these Arguments before, and must take some time to consider.

Pr.

The sooner the better; and I am sure if you do, you will repent being a New Convert. But I have yet something to add to this Argument; viz. That those who have stated the Difference between Body and Spirit, have made Extension, and taking up a place, and Divisibility, ne∣cessary to the very Being of a Body; and that what is not cir∣cumscribed, is incorporeal.

P.

Methinks your Arguments run out to a great length. I pray bring them into a less Compass.

Pr.

I proceed to a Third Argument from the Fathers, which will not take up much time; and that is, That the Fathers knew nothing of the Subsistence of Accidents with∣out their Substance, without which Transubstantiation cannot be maintained: And therefore in the Roman Schools, the pos∣sibility of Accidents subsisting without their Subjects, is de∣fended. But on the contrary, Maximus, one of the eldest of the Fathers, who lived in the Second Century, affirms it to be of the Essence of Accidents to be in their Substance.

St. Basil saith, Nature doth not bear a distinction between Body and Figure, altho Reason makes one.

Isidore P••lusiota, saith, That Quality cannot be without Sub∣stance.

Gregory Nyssen, That Figure cannot be without Body, and that a Body cannot be conceived without Qualities: And that if we take away Colour, and Quantity, and Resistance, the whole Notion of a Body is destroy'd. Take away Space from Bodies, saith St. Augustin, and they can be no where; and if they can be no where, they cannot be: And so he saith, if we take away Bodies from their Qualities. And in plain terms, That no Qualities, as Colours, or Form, can remain without their Subject.

And that no Accidents can be without their Subject, is in general affirmed by Isidore Hispalensis, Boethius, Damascen, and others, who give an Account of the Philosophy of the Ancients.

P.

All this proceeds upon the old Philosophy of Accidents: What if there be none at all?

Pr.

What then makes the same Impression on our Senses when the Substance is gone, as when it was there? Is there a perpetual Miracle to deceive our Senses? But it is impos∣sible to maintain Transubstantiation, as it is defined in the Church of Rome, without Accidents: They may hold some other Doctrine in the place of it, but they cannot hold that. And that other Doctrine will be as impossible to be understood. For if once we suppose the Body of Christ to be in the Sacrament, in place of the Substance of the Bread, which appears to our Senses to be Bread still: Then sup∣pose there be no Accidents, the Body of a Man must make the same Impression on our Senses, which the Substance of Bread doth, which is so horrible an Absurdity, that the Phi∣losophy of Accidents cannot imply any greater than it. So that the New Transubstantiators had as good return to the Old Mumpsimus of Accidents.

P.

I suppose you have now done with this Argument.

Pr.

No: I have something farther to say about it, which is, that the Fathers do not only assert, That Accidents can∣not be without their Subject, but they confute Hereticks on that Supposition; which shew'd their assurance of the Truth of it.

Irenoeus overthrows the Valentinian Conjugations, because Truth can no more be without a Subject, than Water without Moisture, or Fire without Heat, or a Stone without Hard∣ness; which are so joined together, that they cannot be sepa∣rated.

Methodius confutes Origen's Fancy about the Soul ha∣ving the Shape of a Body without the Substance, be∣cause the Shape and the Body cannot be separated from each other.

St. Augustin proves the Immortality of the Soul from hence, because meer Accidents can never be separated from the Body, so as the mind is by abstraction. And in another place he asserts it to be a monstrous absurd Doctrine, to sup∣pose that, whose Nature is to be in a Subject, to be capable of subsisting without it.

Claudianus Mamertus proves, That the Soul could not be in the Body as its Subject; for then it could not subsist when the Body is destroy'd.

P.

I hope you have now done with this Third Argu∣ment.

Pr.

Yes; and I shall wait your own time for an Answer. I go on to a Fourth: And that is from the Evidence of Sense asserted and allowed by the Fathers, with respect to the Bo∣dy of Christ.

P.

I expected this before now. For, as the Author of the Single Sheet observes: This is the Cock-Argument of one of the Lights of your Church; and it so far resembles the Light, that like it, it makes a glaring shew, but go to grasp it, and you find nothing in your hand.

Pr.

Then it's plain our Senses are deceived.

P.

Not as to Transubstantiation: for he believes more of his Senses than we do: for his Eyes tell him there is the Colour of Bread, and he assents to them; his Tongue, that it has the Taste of Bread, and he agrees to it: and so for his Smelling and Feeling: But then he hath a notable fetch in his Conclusion: viz. That his Ears tell him from the Words spoken by Christ himself, that it is the Body of Christ, and he believes these too. Is not here one Sense more than you believe? And yet you would persuade the World, that we do not believe our Senses.

Pr.

This is admirable Stuff; but it must be tenderly dealt with. For I pray what doth he mean when he saith, he believes from Christ's own Words, that it is the Body of Christ? What is this It? Is it the Accidents he speaks of be∣fore? Are those Accidents then the Body of Christ? Is it the Substance of Bread? But that is not discerned by the Senses, he saith: and if it were, will he say, that the Substance of Bread is the Body of Christ? If neither of these, then his believing It is the Body of Christ, signifies nothing; for there can be no sense of it.

P.

However, he shews, That we who believe Transubstan∣tiation, do not renounce our Senses, as you commonly reproach us: For we believe all that our Senses represent to us, which is only the outward appearance. For, as he well observes, If your Eyes see the Substance of things, they are most ex∣traordinary ones, and better than ours. For our parts, we see no farther than the Colour or Figure, &c. of things which are only Accidents, and the entire Object of that Sense.

Pr.

Is there no difference between the Perception of Sense, and the Evidence of Sense? We grant, that the Perception of our Senses goes no farther than to the outward Accidents; but that Perception affords such an Evidence by which the Mind doth pass Judgment upon the thing represented by the outward Sense. I pray tell me, have you any certainty there

is such a thing as a material Substance in the World?

P.

Yes.

Pr.

Whence comes the certainty of the Substance, since your Senses cannot discover it? Do we live among nothing but Accidents? Or can we know nothing beyond them?

P.

I grant we may know in general that there are such things as Substances in the World.

Pr.

But can we not know the difference of one Substance from another, by our Senses? As for instance, can we not know a Man from a Horse, or an Elephant from a Mouse, or a piece of Bread from a Church? Or do we only know. there are such and such Accidents belong to every one of these; but our Senses are not so extraprdinary to discover the Substances under them? I pray answer me one Questi∣on, Did you ever keep Lent?

P.

What a strange Question is this? Did you not tell me, you would avoid Impertinencies?

Pr.

This is none, I assure you.

P.

Then I answer, I think my self obliged to keep it.

Pr.

Then you thought your self bound to abstain from Flesh, and to eat Fish.

P.

What of all that?

Pr.

Was it the Substance of Flesh you abstained from, or only the Accidents of it?

P.

The Substance?

Pr.

And did you know the difference between the Sub∣stance of Flesh and Fish by your Tast?

P.

Yes.

Pr.

Then you have an extraordinary Tast, which goes to the very Substance?

P.

But this is off from our Business, which was about the Fathers, and not our own Judgment about the Evidence of Sense.

Pr.

I am ready for you upon that Argument. And I only desire to know whether you think the Evidence of Sense

sufficient, as to the true Body of Christ, where it is suppo∣sed to be present?

P.

By no means; For then we could not believe it to be present, where we cannot perceive it.

Pr.

But the Fathers did assert the Evidence of Sense to be sufficient, as to the true Body of Christ; so Irenoeus, Tertullian, Epiphanius, Hilary, and St. Augustin. I will produce their Words at length, if you desire them.

P.

It will be but lost labour, since we deny not, as Car∣dinal Bellarmin well saith, The Evidence of Sense to be a good positive Evidence, but not a negative, i. e. that it is a Body, which is handled, and felt, and seen; but not, that it is no Body which is not.

Pr.

Very well! And I pray then what becomes of your single Sheet man, who so confidently denies Sense to be good positive Evidence as to a real Body; but only as to the out∣ward appearance?

P.

You mistake him; for he saith, We are to believe our Senses, where they are not indisposed, and no Divine Reve∣lation intervenes, which we believe there doth in this Case; and therefore, unless the Fathers speak of the Sacrament, we have no reason to regard their Testimonies in this mat∣ter. But we have stronger Evidence against you from the Fathers, for they say we are not to rely on the Evidence of Sense, as to the Sacrament. So St. Cyril, St. Chrysostom, and St. Ambrose.

Pr.

I am glad you offer any thing which deserves to be considered. But have you already forgot Bellarmin's Rule, That Sense may be a good positive Evidence, but not a nega∣tive, i. e. it may discover what is present as a Body, but not what is not, and cannot be so present, viz. the Invisible Grace which goes along with it; and as to this the Fathers might well say, we are not to trust our Sense.

P.

This is making an Interpretation for them.

Pr.

No such matter. It is the proper and genuine Sense of their Words; as will appear from hence.

(1.) They assert the very same, as to the Chrism and Baptism, which they do as to the Eucharist.

(2.) That which they say, our Senses cannot reach, is something of a spiritual Nature, and not a Body. And here the Case is extremely different from the Judgment of Sense, as to a material Substance. And if you please, I will evidently prove from the Fathers, that that wherein they excluded the Judgment of Sense in the Eucharist, was something wholly Spiritual and Immaterial.

P.

No, no, we have been long enough upon the Fathers, unless their Evidence were more certain one way or other. For my part, I believe on the account of Divine Revelation in this matter, This is my Body; here I stick, and the Fa∣thers agreed with us herein, that Christ's words are not to be taken in a figurative Sense.

Pr.

The contrary hath been so plainly proved in a late excellent Discourse of Transubstantiation, that I wonder none of your Party have yet undertaken to answer it; but they write on, as if no such Treatise had appear'd: I shall therefore wave all the Proofs that are there produced, till some tolerable Answer be given to them.

P.

Methinks you have taken a great Liberty of talking about the Fathers, as tho they were all on your side; but our late Authors assure us to the contrary; and I hope I may now make use of them, to shew that Transubstantiation was the Faith of the Ancient Church.

Pr.

With all my heart, I even long to hear what they can say in a matter, I think, so clear on our side.

P.

Well, Sir, I begin with the Consensus Veterum, written by one that professed himself a Minister of the Church of England.

Pr.

Make what you can of him, now you have him; but I will meddle with no personal Things, I desire to hear his Arguments.

P.

What say you to R. Selomo, interpreting the 72. Psal. v. 16. Of Wafers in the days of the Messias; to R. Moses Haddarsan, on Gen. 39. 1. and on Psal. 136. 25, to R. Caha∣na, on Gen. 49. 1. who was long before the Nativity of Christ; R. Johai, on Numb. 28. 2. and to R. Judas, who was many years before Christ came.

Pr.

Can you hold your Countenance when you repeat these things? But any thing must pass from a New Convert. What think you of R. Cahana, and R. Judas, who lived so long before our Saviour, when we know that the Jews have no Writings preserved near to our Saviour's time, besides the Bible, and some say the Paraphrasts upon it. I would have been glad to have seen these Testimonies taken from their Original Authors, and not from Ga∣latinus, who is known to have been a notorious Plagiary, as to the main of his Book, and of little or no Credit as to the rest. But it is ridieulous to produce the Testimonies of Jewish Rabbins for Transubstantiation, when it is so well known that it is one of their greatest objections against Chri∣stianity, as taught in the Roman Church, as may be seen in Joseph Albo, and others. But what is all this to the Testi∣mony of the Christian Fathers?

P.

Will not you let a Man shew a little Jewish Learning upon occasion? But if you have a mind to the Fathers, you shall have enough of them; for I have a large Catalogue of them to produce, from the Consensus Veterum, Nubes Testium, and the single Sheet, which generally agree.

Pr.

With Coccius or Bellarmin, you mean; but before you produce them, I pray tell me what you intend to prove by them?

P.

The Doctrine of our Church.

Pr.

As to what?

P.

What have we been about all this while?

Pr.

Transubstantiation. Will you prove that?

P.

Why do you suspect me before I begin?

Pr.

I have some Reason for it. Let us first agree what we mean by it. Do you mean the same which the Church of Rome doth by it, in the Council of Trent?

P.

What can we mean else?

Pr.

Let us first see what that is. The Council of Trent declares, That the same Body of Christ, which is in Heaven, is really, truly and substantially present in the Eucharist after Consecration, under the Species of Bread and Wine. And the Roman Catechism saith, It is the very Body which was born of the Virgin, and sits at the right hand of God. (2.) That the Bread and Wine after Consecration, lose their proper Substances, and are changed into that very Substance of the Body of Christ. And an Anathema is denounced against those who affirm the contrary. Now if you please, proceed to your Proofs.

P.

I begin with the Ancient Liturgies of St. Peter, St. James, and St. Matthew.

Pr.

Are you in earnest?

P.

Why; what is the matter?

Pr.

Do not you know, that these are rejected as Sup∣posititious, by your own Writers? And a very late and learned Dr. of the Sorbon, hath given full and clear Evi∣dences of it.

P.

Suppose they are, Yet they may be of Antiquity enough, to give some competent Testimony as to Tradition.

Pr.

No such matter: For he proves St. Peter's Liturgy, to be later than the Sacramentary of St. Gregory; and so can prove nothing for the first 600 years; and the Aethio∣pick Liturgy, or St. Matthew's, he shews to be very late. That of St. James, he thinks to have been some time before the Five General Councils; but by no means to have been St. James's.

P.

What think you of the Acts of St. Andrew, and what he saith therein, about eating the Flesh of Christ?

Pr.

I think he saith nothing to the purpose. But I am ashamed to find one, who hath so long been a Minister in this Church, so extreamly ignorant, as to bring these for good Authorities, which are rejected with scorn by all Men of Learning and Ingenuity among you.

P.

I am afraid you grow angry.

Pr.

I confess, Ignorance and Confidence together, are very provoking things; especially, when a Man in years pre∣tends to leave our Church on such pitiful Grounds.

P.

But he doth produce better Authorities.

Pr.

If he doth, they are not to his purpose.

P.

That must be tried; What say you to Ignatius? I hope you allow his Epistles?

Pr.

I see no reason to the contrary. But what saith he?

P.

He saith, That some Hereticks then would not receive the Eucharist and Oblations, because they will not confess the Eucharist to be the Flesh of our Saviour Christ. And this is produced by both Authors.

Pr.

The Persons Ignatius speaks of, were such as denied Christ to have any true Body, and therefore did forbear the Eucharist, because it was said to be his Body. And in what ever Sense it were taken, it still supposed that which they denied, viz. that he had a true Body: For, if it were fi∣guratively understood, it was as contrary to their Doctrine, as if it were literally. For a Figure must relate to a real Body, as Tertullian argued in this Case. And Ignatius in the same Epistle, mentions the trial Christ made of his true Body, by the Senses of his Disciples, Take hold of me, and handle me, and see, for I am no incorporeal Doemon; and immediately they touched him, and were convinced. Which happen'd but a few days after Christ had said, This is my Body; and our Savi∣our gave a Rule for judging a true Body, from an ap∣pearance, or spiritual Substance; A Spirit hath not Flesh and

Bones, as ye see me have. Therefore it is very improbable that Ignatius so soon after, should assert that Christ's true and real Body was in the Eucharist, where it could be nei∣ther seen nor felt: For then he must overthrow the force of his former Argument. And to what purpose did Christ say, That a Spirit had not Flesh and Bones, as they saw him to have; if a Body of Christ might be so much after the manner of a Spirit, as tho it had Flesh and Bones, yet they could not possibly be discerned? But after all, suppose Ignatius doth speak of the Substance of Christ's Flesh, as present in the Eucharist; yet he saith not a word of the changing of the Substance of the Bread into the Sub∣stance of Christ's Body; which was the thing to be proved.

P.

But Justin Martyr doth speak of the change, and his Words are produced by all three. And they are thus ren∣dred in the single Sheet. For we do not receive this as common Bread, or common Drink, but as by the Word of God, Jesus Christ our Redeemer being made Man, had both Flesh and Blood for our Salvation; so also, we are taught that this Food, by which our Blood and Flesh are by a change nourish∣ed, being consecrated by the Power of the Word, is the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ incarnate: What say you to this?

Pr.

I desire you to consider these things. (1.) That Justin Martyr doth not say, That the Bread and Wine are by Consecration changed into the Individual Flesh and Blood, in which Christ was Incarnate; but that, as by the Power of the Word, Christ once had a Body in the Womb of the Virgin; so by the Power of the same Word, upon Consecra∣tion, the Bread and Wine do become the Flesh and Blood of Christ Incarnate; so that he must mean a parallel, and not the same Individual Body, i. e. that as the Body in the Womb became the Body of Christ by the Power of the Holy Spirit; so the Holy Spirit after Consecration, makes the Elements

to become the Flesh and Blood of Christ, not by an Hy∣postatical Union, but by Divine Influence, as the Church is the Body of Christ. And this was the true Notion of the Ancient Church, as to this matter, and the expressions in the Greek Liturgies to this day confirm the same. (2.) He doth not in the least imply that the Elements by this change do lose their Substance; for he mentions the nourish∣ment of our Bodies by it; but he affirms, that notwithstand∣ing their Substance remain, yet the Divine Spirit of Christ, by its Operation, doth make them become his Body. For we must observe, that he attributes the Body in the Womb, and on the Altar, to the same 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Divine Word. For he did not think Hypostatical Union necessary, to make the Elements become the Body of Christ, but a Divine Energy was sufficient, as the Bodies assumed by Angels are their Bodies, tho there be no such vital Union, as there is between the Soul and Body of a Man.

P.

I go on to Irenoeus, from whom two places are produ∣ced, one by the Consensus Veterum, where he saith, That which is Bread from the Earth, perceiving the call of God, now is not common Bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two things, one Earthly, and the other Spiritual.

Pr.

Very well! Then there is an Earthly, as well as a Spi∣ritual thing in the Eucharist, i. e. a Bodily Substance, and Di∣vine Grace.

P.

No; he saith, The Earthly is the Accidents.

Pr.

Doth Irenoeus say so?

P.

No; but he means so.

Pr.

There is not a word to that purpose in Irenoeus; and therefore this is downright Prevarication. I grant Ire∣noeus doth suppose a change made by Divine Grace; but not by destroying the Elements, but by super-adding Divine Grace to them; and so the Bread becomes the Body of Christ, and the Wine his Blood.

P.

The other place in Irenoeus is, where he saith, That as the Bread receiving the Word of God, is made the Eucha∣rist, which is the Body and Blood of Christ, so also our Bodies being nourished by it, and laid in the Earth, and there dis∣solved, will arise at their time, &c.

Pr.

What do you prove from this place?

P.

That the same Divine Power is seen in making the Eu∣charist the Body and Blood of Christ, which is to be in the Re∣surrection of the Body.

Pr.

But doth this prove, that the Substance of the Bread is changed into the Substance of Christ's Body?

P.

Why not?

Pr.

I will give you a plain Argument against it; for he saith, Our Bodies are nourished by the Body and Blood of Christ. Do you think that Irenoeus believed the substance of Christ's Body was turned into the substance of our Bodies, in order to their nourishment? No; he explained himself just before in the same place; De Calice qui est Sanguis ejus, nutritur; & de pane qui est Corpus ejus; augetur: So that he attributes the nourishment to the Bread and Wine; and therefore must sup∣pose the substance of them to remain, since it is impossible a substantial nourishment should be made by meer Accidents. And withal, observe, he saith expresly, That the Bread is the Body of Christ; which your best Writers (such as Bel∣larmin, Suarez and Vasquez) say, is inconsistent with Tran∣substantiation.

P.

My next Author is Tertullian, who is produced by the Consensus Veterum, and the Single Sheet, but omitted by the Nubes Testium; but the other proves, That Bread which was the Figure of Christ's Body in the Old Testament, now in the New, is changed into the real and true Body of Christ.

Pr.

This is a bold Attempt upon Tertullian, to prove, that by the Figure of Christ's Body, he means his true and real Body. For his Words are, Acceptum panem & distribu∣tum

Discipulis Corpus illum suum fecit, Hoc est Corpus meum dicendo, id est, Figura Corporis mei. He took the bread, and gave it to his Disciples, and made it his Body, saying, This is my Body; i. e. this is the Figure of my Body. How can those men want Proofs, that can draw Transubstantiation from these Words, which are so plain against it?

P.

You are mistaken; Tertullian by Figure meant, it was a Figure in the Old Testament, but it was now his real Body.

Pr.

You put very odd Figures upon Tertullian: I appeal to any reasonable man, whether by the latter words he doth not explain the former? For he puts the Sense upon Corpus meum, by adding dicendo to them; i. e. This is the meaning of that speech, when he calleth the Bread his Body.

P.

Doth not Tertullian say, That it had not been the Fi∣gure, unless it had been the Truth?

Pr.

This is again perverting his words, which are, Figu∣ratum non fuisset nisi veritatis esset Corpus; i. e. there had been no place for a Figure of Christ's Body, unless Christ had a true body. For he was proving against Marcion, that Christ had a true Body; and among other Arguments he produces this from the Figure of his Body, which he not only men∣tions here, but in other places; where he saith, That Christ gave the Figure of his Body to the Bread; which cannot re∣late to any Figure of the Old Testament.

P.

But doth not Tertullian say afterwards, That the Bread was the figure of Christ's body in the Old Testament?

Pr.

What then? He had Two Designs against Marcion; one to prove, that Christ had a true body, which he doth here from the figure of his body: and the other, that there was a Correspondency of both Testaments: and for that pur∣pose he shews, that the bread in Jeremiah, was the figure of Christ's body.

P.

But the Author of the Single Sheet, cites another place of Tertullian, where he saith, that our flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that our soul may be filled with God.

Pr.

By the body and blood of Christ, he means there, the Elements, with Divine Grace going along with them; as ap∣pears by his design, which is, to shew how the body and soul are joyned together in Sacramental Rites. The flesh is wash∣ed, and the soul is cleansed; the flesh is anointed, and the soul consecrated; the flesh is signed, and the soul confirmed; the flesh hath hands laid upon it, and the soul enlighten'd; the flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul may be filled with God. Now unless Tertullian meant the Elements, the Parallel doth not proceed; for all the rest are spoken of the external Symbols; and so this doth not at all con∣tradict what he saith elsewhere, no more than the Passage in the second Book adUxorem doth. For there he speaks of Christ, with respect to the invisible Grace, as he doth here, as to the outward Symbols.

P.

Clemens Alexandrinus saith, That Melchisedeck gave Bread and Wine in figure of the Eucharist.

Pr.

And what then? What is this to Transubstanti∣ation?

P.

Origen saith, When you eat and drink the body and blood of our Lord, then our Lord enters under your roof, &c.

Pr.

Are you sure that Origen said this? But suppose he did, must he enter with his flesh and bones, and not much rather by a peculiar presence of his Grace? For is it not Origen who so carefully distinguishes the Typical and Sym∣bolical body of Christ, from the Divine Word, and so expresly mentions the material part of the Elements after Con∣secration, which pass into the Draught, &c. Is all this meant of the Accidents only?

P.

What say you to St. Cyprian de Coena Domini?

Pr.

I beg your pardon, Sir; this is now known and ac∣knowledged to be a late Author, in comparison, and can∣not come within your 600 years; and therefore is not ancient enough to be considered.

P.

But in his genuine Writings he speaks of those who of∣fer'd Violence to the body and blood of our Lord in the Eu∣charist.

Pr.

And I pray what follows? That the substance of the Elements is gone: Where lies the Consequence? But St. Cy∣prian saith, the bread was his body, and the wine his blood; therefore their substance must remain.

P.

What say you to Eusebius Emesenus?

Pr.

That he is not within our compass; and withal, that he is a known Counterfeit.

P.

I perceive you are hard to please.

Pr.

You say very true, as to supposititious Writers.

P.

I hope you have more Reverence for the Council of Nice.

Pr.

But where doth that speak of Transubstantiation?

P.

It calls the Eucharist the body of Christ.

Pr.

And so doth the Church of England; therefore that holds Transubstantiation. I pray bring no more such Testi∣monies, which prove nothing but what we hold.

P.

I perceive you have a mind to cut me short.

Pr.

Not in the least, where you offer any thing to the pur∣pose. But I pray spare those who only affirm, that the Eu∣charist is the body and blood of Christ after Consecration. For I acknowledg it was the Language of the Church, especial∣ly in the fourth Century, when the Names of the Elements were hardly mention'd to the Catechumens; and all the Discourses of the Fathers to them, tended to heighten the Devotion and Esteem of the Eucharist. By which Obser∣vation you may easily understand the meaning of the Elo∣quent Writers of that Age, who speak with so much My∣stery and Obscurity about it. If you have any that go beyond lofty expressions, and Rhetorical flights, I pray produce them.

P.

I perceive you are afraid of S. Greg. Nazianzen, and S. Basil, but especially S. Chrysostom, you fence so much be∣forehand against Eloquent Men.

Pr.

As to the other two, there is nothing material alledg∣ed by any to this purpose; but S. Chrysostom, I confess, doth speak very lofty things concerning the Sacrament in his po∣pular Discourses, but yet nothing that doth prove Transub∣stantiation.

P.

What think you of his Homilies, 51 and 83. on S. Mat. 46. Homily on S. John 24. Homily on 1st to the Corinth. the Homilies on Philogonius and the Cross? Are there not strange things in them concerning the Eucharist? About eating Christ, and seeing him lie before them slain on the Altar; about touching his Body there, and the Holy Spirit, with an innumerable Host, hovering over what is there proposed, with much more to that purpose.

Pr.

You need not to recite more; for I yield that St. Chrysostom delighted in the highest flights of his Eloquence, on this Subject, in his Homilies; and he tells for what Reason, to excite the Reverence and Devotion of the Peo∣ple. But yet himself doth afford us a sufficient Key to these expressions, if we attend to these things concerning his manner of speaking:

(1.) That he affirms those things which no side can al∣low to be literally understood. As when he so often speaks of our seeing and touching Christ upon the Altar, which is in∣consistent with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation: For Christ is utterly invisible on the Altar, even by Divine Power, saith Suarez. He is invisible in the Sacrament. saith Bellarmin; and he saith also, that he cannot be touched. What then is to be said to such expressions of S. Chrysostom?

Behold thou seest him, thou touchest him, thou eatest him.

It is not his Sacrament only which is offer'd us to touch, but himself. What if you do not hear his Voice, do you not see him lying before you?

Behold Christ lying before you slain. Christ lies on the holy Table, as a Sacrifice slain for us. Thou swearest upon the holy Table where Christ lies slain.

When thou seest our Lord lying on the Table, and the Priest praying and the by-standers purpled with his Blood.

See the Love of Christ; he doth not only suffer himself to be seen by those who desire it, but to be touched and eaten, and our Teeth to be fixed in his Flesh.

Now these Expressions are on all sides granted to be lite∣rally absurd and impossible; and therefore we must say of him as Bonaventure once said of S. Augustin, Plus dicit sanctus & minus vult intelligi; We must make great allowance for such Expressions, or you must hold a Capernaitical Sense.

And it is denied by your selves, that Christ is actually slain upon the Altar; and therefore you yield, that such Expres∣sions are to be figuratively understood.

(2.) That he lets fall many things in such Discourses which do give light to the rest: As,

(1.) That Flesh is improperly taken when applied to the Eucharist.

(2.) He calls the Sacrament the Mystical Body and Blood of Christ.

(3.) That the eating of Christ's Flesh is not to be under∣stood literally, but spiritually.

(4.) He opposes Christ's sacramental Presence, and real corporal Presence to each other.

(5.) He still exhorts the Communicants to look upwards towards Heaven.

And now if you lay these things together, this Eloquent Father will not, with all his Flights, come near to Transub∣stantiation.

P.

No! In one place he asserts the Substance of the Ele∣ments to be lost.

Pr.

Thanks to the Latin Translators, for the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the Criticks observe, doth not signify to destroy, but to refine, and purify a Substance. But I do not rely upon this; for the plain answer is, that S. Chrysostom doth not there speak of the Elements upon Consecration, but what becomes

of them, after they are taken down into the Stomach. St. Chrysostom thought it would lessen the Peoples Reverence and Devotion, if they passed into the draught, as Origen af∣firmed; and therefore he started another Opinion; viz. That as Wax, when it is melted in the fire, throws off no superfluities, but it passes indiscernably away; so the Elements, or Mysteries, as he calls them, pass imperceptibly into the substance of the Bo∣dy, and so are consumed together with it. Therefore, saith he, approach with Reverence, not supposing that you receive the di∣vine body from a Man, but as with Tongs of Fire from the Se∣raphims: Which the Author of the Consensus Veterum tran∣slates, but Fire from the Tongues of Seraphims. S. Chrysostom's Words are, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: And the Sense is, that the divine Body (i. e. the Eucharist, after Con∣secration, being by the divine Spirit made the divine Body, as in St. Chrysostom's Liturgy, there is a particular Prayer for the Holy Ghost to come, and so make the Bread to be the divine Body, or the holy Body of Christ), is to be taken, not with our Mouths, which can only receive the Elements, but after a di∣vine manner, as with Tongs of fire from Seraphims; by which he expresses the spiritual acts of Faith and Devotion, as most agreeable to that divine Spirit which makes the Elements to become the holy Body of Christ. But that St. Chrysostom did truly and firmly believe the Substance of the Bread to remain after Consecration, I have already proved from his Epistle to Coesarius.

P.

I pray let us not go backward, having so much ground to run over still.

Pr.

I am content, if you will produce only those who speak of the change of Substance, and not such as only menti∣on the Body and Blood of Christ after Consecration, which I have already told you, was the Language of the Church; and therefore all those Testimonies are of no force in this matter.

P.

Then I must quit the greatest part of what remains, as Optatus, Gaudentius, S. Jerom, and others; but I have some still left which will set you hard. What say you then to Gregory Nyssen, who saith, the sanctified bread is changed into the body of the Word of God. And he takes off your Answer of a mystical Body; for he puts the Question, How the same Body can daily be distributed to the faithful throughout the World, it remaining whole and entire in it self?

Pr.

Gregory Nyssen was a Man of Fancy, and he shewed it in that Catechetical Discourse: However, Fronto Ducoeus thought it a notable place to prove Transubstantiation, which I wonder at, if he attended to the Design of it; which was to shew, that as our Bodies, by eating, became subject to Cor∣ruption, so by eating they become capable of Immortality; and this he saith, Must be by receiving an immortal Body into our B dies, such as the Body of Christ was: But then, saith he, how could that body, which is to remain whole in it self, be di∣stributed to all the faithful over the whole Earth? He answers, by saying, That our Bodies do consist of Bread and Wine, which are their proper Nourishment; and Christ's Body being like ours, that was so too; which by the Uni••n with the Word of God, was changed into a Divine Dignity. But what is this to the Eucharist, you may say? He goes on therefore, so I believe the sanctified Bread, by the power of the Word of God, to be changed into the Body of God the Word. Not into that Individual Body, but after the same manner, by a Pre∣sence of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or God the Word in it; and that this was his meaning, doth evidently appear by what follows. For, saith he, that Body, viz. to which, he was Incarnate, was sanctified by the Inhabitation of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, dwelling in the Flesh; therefore, as the Bread was then changed into a Divine Dignity in the Body, so it is now; and the Bread is changed into the Body of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (not of Jesus Christ) as it was said by the Word, This is my Body. And so by receiving this Divine Body into our bodies, they are made capable of Immor∣tality.

And this is the true Account of Gregory Nyssen's meaning, which if it prove any thing, proves an Impana∣tion, rather than Transubstantiation.

P.

But Hilary's Testimony cannot be so avoided; who saith, That we as truly eat Christ's Flesh in the Sacrament, as he was truly Incarnate; and that we are to judg of this; not by carnal Reason, but by the Words of Christ, who said, My Flesh is meat indeed, and my Blood is drink indeed.

Pr.

I do not deny this to be Hilary's Sense. But yet this proves nothing like to Transubstantiation. For it amounts to no more than a Real Presence of the Body of Christ in the Sacrament; and you can make no Argument from hence, unless you can prove that the Body of Christ cannot be present, unless the Substance of the Bread be destroy'd, which is more than can be done, or than Hilary imagined. All that he aimed at, was to prove a real Union be∣tween Christ and his People, That Christ was in them more than by meer consent; and to prove this, he lays hold of those words of our Saviour, My Flesh is meat indeed, &c. But the substantial Change of the Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body, signifies nothing to his purpose; and Bel∣larmin never so much as mentions Hilary in his proofs of Transubstantiation, but only for the real Presence. But I must add something more, viz. that Hilary was one of the first who drew any Argument from the literal Sense of John 6. I do not say, who did by way of Accommodation, apply them to the Sacrament, which others might do before him. But yet, there are some of the eldest Fathers, who do wholly exclude a literal Sense, as Tertullian look'd on it, As an Absurdity that Christ should be thought truly to give his Flesh to eat. Quasi vere carnem suam illis edendam determinasset. And Origen saith, It is a killing Letter, if those Words be literally understood. But this is to run into another debate, whereas our Business is about Transubstantiation. If you have any more, let us now examine their Testimonies.

P.

What say you then to St. Ambrose, who speaks home to the Business, for he makes the Change to be above Nature, and into the Body of Christ, born of the Virgin? There are long Citations out of him, but in these words lies the whole strength of them.

Pr.

I answer, several things for clearing of his meaning. (1.) That St. Ambrose doth parallel the Change in the Eu∣charist, with that in Baptism; and to prove Regeneration therein, he argues from the miraculous Conception of Christ in the Womb of the Virgin; but in Baptism no body supposes the Substance of the Water to be taken away; and therefore it cannot hold as to the other, from the Supernatural Change; which may be only with respect to such a Divine Influence, which it had not before Consecration. (2.) He doth pur∣posely talk obscurely and mystically about this matter, as the Fathers were wont to do to those, who were to be ad∣mitted to these Mysteries. Sometimes one would think he meant that the Elements are changed into Christ's Indivi∣dual Body born of the Virgin: and yet presently after, he distinguishes between the true Flesh of Christ, which was crucified and buried, and the Sacrament of his Flesh. If this were the same, what need any distinction? And that this Sacramentum Carnis, is meant of the Eucharist, is plain by what follows; for he cites Christ's words, This is my Body. (3.) He best explains his own meaning, when he saith, not long after, That the body of Christ in the Sacrament, is a Spiritual body, or a body produced by the Divine Spirit; and so he parallels it with that spiritual Food, which the Israelites did eat in the Wilderness: And no man will say, that the Substance of the Manna was then lost. And since your Au∣thors make the same St. Ambrose, to have written the Book De Sacramentis, there is a notable passage therein, which helps to explain this; for there he saith expresly, Non iste Panis est qui vadit in Corpus, sed ille Panis Vitoe Eternoe qui animoe nostroe Substantiam fulcit. It is not the Bread which

passes into the Body, but the Bread of Eternal Life, which strengthens the Substance of our Soul. Where he not only calls it Bread after Consecration, which goes to our Nourish∣ment; but he distinguishes it from the Bread of Eternal Life, which supports the Soul, which must be understood of Divine Grace, and not of any Bodily Substance.

P.

I perceive you will not leave us one Father of the whole number.

Pr.

Not one. And I hope this gives an incomparable Advantage to the Doctrine of the Trinity in point of Tra∣dition, above Transubstantiation: when I have not only proved, that the greatest of the Fathers expresly denied it, but that there is not one in the whole number who affirm∣ed it. For altho there were some difference in the way of explaining how the Eucharist was the Body and Blood of Christ; yet not one of them hitherto produced, doth give any countenance to your Doctrine of Transubstantiation, which the Council of Trent declared to have been the constant belief of the Church in all Ages; which is so far from being true, that there is as little ground to believe that, as Transubstantiation it self. And so much as to this Debate, concerning the comparing the Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation, in point of Tradition; if you have any thing to say further, as to Scripture and Reason, I shall be ready to give you Satisfaction the next Opportunity.

FINIS.

Notes

• Sicut enim antequam sanctificatur pa∣nis, panem nominamus, divinâ autem il∣lum sanctificante Grati••, mediante Sa∣cerdote, liberatus est quidem ab appel∣latione panis, dignus autem habitus est Dominici Corporis appellatione, etiamsi natura Panis in ipso permansit, & non duo Corpora, sed unum Corpus Filii praedicatur, sic & hic divina 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Graec. Exemplar. Ep Bigot.) id est inundante Corporis Natura unum Filium, unam Personam utra{que} haec fecerunt.
• Papist Misre∣presented, and Represented, 2 Part. ch. 3. p. 23.
• Concil. Chal∣ced. Act. 5.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Dial. 1.

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Dial. 2.
• Certè Sacramenta quae sumimus Cor∣poris & Sanguinis Domini divina res est, propter quod & per eadem divinae effi∣cimur consortes Naturae, & tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura Panis & Vini. Gelas. in Biblioth. Patr. To. 4.
• Pag. 20.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ephraem. Antioch. ap. Phot. Cod. 229.
• Tom. 3. 1. 5. c. 1, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11.
• Ap. Facund. 1. 8. c. 5.
• Ap. Canis. An∣tiq. Lection. To. 4. p. 112, 114, 127.
• Epiph. haer. 77. Vincent. Com∣mon. Aug. de Haeres. c. 55.
• Concil. Chal.. ced. Act. 1.
• Theodor. Dial. 1. & 2.
• Nam quando in Terra fuit, non erat ubi{que} in Coelo. Et nunc quia in Coelo est, non est ubi{que} in Terra, & in tan∣tum non est, ut secundum ipsam (Car∣nem) Christum spectemus esse ventu∣rum de Coelo•• quem secundum verbum nobiscum esse credimus in terra. Cont. Eutych. l. 4. n. 14.
• Et ubique totum praesentem esse non dubites tanquam Deum—& in loco aliquo Coeli propter veri Corporis modum. Ad Dardan.
• Non enim Corpora sunt quorum am∣plior sit in tribus quam in singulis mag∣nitudo, nec loca suis molibus tenent, ut distantibus spatiis simul esse non pos∣sint. Ad Dardan.
• Secundum praesentiam verò copora∣lem simul & in Sole & in Luna & in Cruce esse non posset. C. Faust. l. 20. c. 11.
• Et cum in Terra loquitur in Coelo uti{que} nisi per Dei Infinitatem esse non possit. De Incarn. l. 4. c. 6.
• Sive ista crassiora, si∣vesubtiliora, sed tamen Corpora, quorum nullum po∣test esse ubi∣que totum, quoniam per innumerabiles partes aliud alibi habeat necesse est. Et quantum∣cun{que} sit Corpus, seu quantulumcunque corpusculum, loci occupet spatium, eundemque locum sic impleat, ut in nullâ ejus parte sit totum. Ad Volusian,
• Quanquam si hoc demas Corporibus, quantum mea opinio est, ne{que} sentiri possunt, neque omnino Corpora esse rectè existima∣rem. De Quant. Animae, c. 4.

  Quod per loci spatium aliqua longitudine, latitudine, altitudine ita sistitur vel movetur, ut majore sui parte majorem locum occupet, & breviore brevio∣rem, minus{que} sit in parte quam in toto. Ad Hieron. Ep. 166.
• Non om∣nino potest esse aliquod Corpus, sive Coeleste, sive Terrestre, sive Aereum, sive humidum, quod non minus sit in parte quam in toto, neque ullo modo possit in loco hujus partis simul habere aliam partem, sed aliud hic, aliud alibi habens per quaelibet spatia locorum distantia & dividua, vel potius ut ita dicam, sectili more distenditur. C. Epist. Manich. c. 16.

  Omne Corpus locale est, & omne locale Corpus est. 63. Quaest. c. 35.

  Corpus quodlibet per localia spatia porrectum est. 83. Quaest. c. 51.
• Orat. 34. & in Ep ad Cledon. Dial. 2. de Trin.
• Claud. Ma∣mert. de Statu Animae, l. 1. c. 5, 17, 18. l. 3. c. 14.
• Apud Euseb. de Praep. E∣vangel. l. 7. c. 22.
• Basil. Epist. 43.
• Isidor. Epist. l. 2. Ep. 72.
• Greg. Nyssen. in Hexaem. p. 13

  De Hom. Opi∣ficio. c. 24.
• Aug. Ep. ad Dardanum. cont. Julian. l. 5. c. 9.
• Isid. Origin. l. 2. c. 26.

  Boeth. de Prae∣dic. Damas∣cen Dial. c. 1.

  Alcuin. Dial. c. 5, 12.
• Iren. l. 2. c. 14.
• Apud. Phot. Cod. 234.
• Aug. de Im∣mort. Anim. c. 10.

  Soliloq. l. 2. c. 13.
• De Statu Ani∣mo. l. 3. c. 3.
• Iren. l. 3. 20. 5. 7.

  Tertul. deCar∣ne Christi, c. 5. Advers. Marc. l. 4. c. 43. l 3. c. 8, 11. Epiphan. haer. 42, 64. Hilar. in Psal. 137. Aug. c. Faust. l. 29. c. 2. l. 14. c. 10. 83. Quaest. c. 14. Serm. 238.
• De Euch. l. 1. c. 14.
• Cyril. Mystag. 3, & 4, 5. Catech. 3. Chrysost. in Matt. hom 83. Ambros. de his qui initiantur, c. 9.
• Consensus Ve∣terum, p. 21, 22, 23.
• Consens. Vet. p. 27.
• Nouvelle Bi∣blioth. des An∣tienes Ecclesi∣astiques par Ellies du Pin. 1686.
• P. 22.
• P. 23.
• Consens. p. 30.
• Consens. Veter p. 30.

  Nubes Testi∣um, p. 109.
• Tertull. c. Marcion. l. 4, c. 40.
• Apol. 2.
• P. 31. Iren. l. 4. c. 34.
• Iren. l. 5. c. 11.
• Con. Marcion. l. 4. c. 40.
• Con. Marcion. l. 3. c. 19. l. 5. c. 8.
• De Resur. c. 8.
• Strom. 4.
• Hom. 5. in di∣vers. loc.
• Comment. in Matth. 15.
• Cypr. de lapsis.
• Epist. 63. N. 6.
• Nubes Testi∣um. p. 120. &c. Consens. Vet. p. 54, &c.
• Disp. 53. Sect. 4

  De Euch. l. 1. c. 2.

  Hom. 83. in Mat.

  Hom. 51. in Mat.

  In Heb. Hom. 14.

  In Rom. Hom. 8.

  Ad Pop. Anti∣och. Hom. 15.
• De Sacerd. l. 3.
• In Joh. Hom. 45.
• Hom. in Gal. c. 5.
• Hom. de Re∣sur. To. 5.
• Hom. 46. in Joh.
• Hom. 28. in 1. Ep. ad Co∣rinth.

  Hom. 24. in 1. ad Corinth.

  Hom. 22. in Hebr.
• Hom. de Poe∣nit. To. 6.
• P. 56.
• Eucholog. p. 77.
• Greg. Nyssen. Orat. Catech. 37.
• Nubes Testi∣um, p. 124.
• Tertul de Re∣sur. carn. c. 37. Orig. hom. 7. in Levit.
• Ambros. de his qui initi∣antur, c. 9.
• C. 3.
• De Sacram. l. 5. c. 4.