ancient Fathers did pass as deep a censure on this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or God-eating as the Heathens did and looked upon it as an instance of the greatest madness and stupidity to Worship as a God what they did Eat and Sacrifice And upon all occasions did upbraid the Heathens for being so exceeding mad and stupid It must be infinitely certain that they neither did nor could conceive this Doctrine to be the mind of Christ or his Apostles or the received tradition of the Church of Christ If Christ when he administred this Sacrament did give to his Disciples his natural Body Arg. 3. §. 3. and his proper Blood then was his natural Body broken and his Blood actually poured out before his Passion for he administred this Sacrament before his Passion and what he then administred was if we may believe his words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. his broken Body and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. his blood shed or extravasated now since his body was then whole and not yet broken on the Cross for us seeing his Blood remained still in its proper Chanuels and neither Heart nor Hand were pierced to let it out and therefore what he did then administer could not in any natural and proper sence be stiled his body broken and his blood shed for us his words must necessarily be interpreted in such a Tropical and Sacramental sence as Protestants do plead for Add to this That if Christ gave his Body in the natural sence at the last Supper then it was either a Sacrifice propitiatory or it was not if it was not then it is not now and then their Dream of the Mass is vanished if it was propitiatory at the last Supper then God was reconciled to all the world and Mankind was redeemed before the Passion of our Blessed Saviour For Christ expresly saith that he then gave unto them his body which was given for us Luk. 22.19 Mat. 26.28 and his Blood shed for many for the remission of Sins which if we literally understand his future passion must be vain and needless so dreadful are the consequences of this portentous Doctrine If we may credit the Apostle Paul what we receive in the participation of the Holy Sacrament is Bread Arg. 4. §. 4. for after Consecration he so stiles it 1 Cor. 10.16 17. at the least five times The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ for we are all partakers of this Bread Let a man examine himself 1 Cor. 11.28 and so let him eat of that Bread for as often as you eat this Bread and drink this Cup you shew the Lords Death c. Wherefore verse 26. whosoever shall eat this Bread and drink this Cup unworthily shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ In which expressions it is five times said that what we eat and do partake of what is unto us the Communion of Christs Body and sheweth forth his Death and therefore what is Consecrated in this Holy Sacrament is still bread And is it not a wonder that one passage mentioned by our Saviour whilst he was alive and had his blood within his Veins should be esteemed sufficient to make us all believe that his whole body and so his hand was in his hand and that this Living Christ was also Dead and Sacrificed and that his blood was shed before he suffered on the Cross and also that the same Body which was whole before the Eyes of his Disciples was also broken for them and many thousand contradictions more and yet that what the Holy Ghost who knew the meaning of our Saviours words as well as any R. Catholick hath called so often Bread and seems to all our sences so to be should not be deemed sufficient to make us think it Bread If Christ had said This is my Body and the Holy Ghost had never said that it was Bread we might have had some reason to suspect our sences in this matter But when it is so oft in Scripture affirmed to be Bread and is but once affirmed to be the Body of our Lord and it is absolutely necessary that one of these two affirmations should be acknowledged to be Tropical that as great evidence as sence and reason can afford in any case whatsoever should be of no effect at all or have no influence to move or to instruct our Judgments how to pass sentence in this case but that it should be thought as rational all other circumstances being equal to determine against the greatest evidence of sence and highest reason as to determin according to the verdict of them both is most apparently absurd Add to this that the Apostles buisness in this place was to reprove those persons who prophaned this Sacrament 1 Cor. 11.26 27 28. and used it as Common Bread and so discerned not the Lords Body and to convince them of the greatness of the Sin committed by their unworthy eating of this Bread and therefore it concerned him the better to convince them of so great a Crime and to discover the vileness of this prophanation to have expresly told them That what they thus prophaned was the very Son of God that suffered for them this being a most signal aggravation of their guilt whereas to say so often that it was Bread was to extenuate the Crime and therefore we may rationally presume St. Paul would have exprest himself not as we Protestants are wont to do but according to the Judgment of the Roman Catholicks had he believed as they do God never wrought a miracle in confirmation of the Faith of any body Argum. 5. Sect. 5. but he still represented it unto their sences and made it apparent to their eyes ears feeling or their experience that he wrought it there is not one instance to be given to the contrary from Scripture or any humane Writer the Devil himself is not so impudent as to require his servants to believe he works a wonder without some cunning slight to cheat their sences and make them seem to see hear or tast what really they do not To this convincing evidence and demonstration T. G. returns this sorry answer P. 293. that such miracles as are done for the Conversion of unbelievers ought to be objects of our sence but this is not done upon such an account but for the Sanctification of those that believe already and for these it is enough that Christ hath said it is his body they know very well the danger of not believing him more than their sences Answer 1. We have in Scripture many instances of Miracles done not for the Conversion of unbelievers but for the benefit of those that did believe and such were all the standing Miracles that are recorded in the Book of Moses the Manna the water of Jealousie the Vrim and Thummim c. Such also were all the Miracles that the Apostles wrought
tenuisti Idem Tract 50. in Joh. T. eod p. 358 371. thou hast Christ present by faith and in the sign by the Sacrament of Baptism and the meat and drink of the Altar According to his carnal presence it is truly said to his Disciples me you shall not have alwayes how shall I send my hand to Heaven that I may hold him sitting there †send thy faith and thou dost hold him To conclude the Fathers po expresly say that Christ pronounced of the Bread this is my body and of the Wine this is my Blood which say the R. Doctors had our Lord affirmed we must have understood him figuratively and metaphorically For proof hereof B. Morton of the Mass l. 2. chap. 6. § 6 behold a Torrent of ancient Fathers pressing upon you Irenaeus Tertullian Origen Hierom Ambrose Agustine Cyril of Hierusalem Cyril of Alexandria Theodoret Gaudentius Cyprian Clemens of Alexandria and Isidore thirteen to the dozen whose sayings we may best know by their own Idiom and Tenure of speech 1. Accipiens panem corpus suum esse confitebatur Irenaeus l. 4. c. 57 The first noting Christ to have confessed Bread to have been his body The second Christ to have called Bread his body Third that Christs speech was spoken of Bread The fourth that that which he brake was Bread The fifth 2. Christus panem corpuâ— suum appellat Tertullianus adv Judeos that it was Bread which he brake The sixth that it was Bread of the Lord not Bread the Lord. The seventh that the words my Body were spoken of the Bread The eighth that Christ saith of the Bread this is my Body And the same Father as if he had studied to take away all scales of doubtfulness from the eyes of our minds 3 Nec matteria panis est sed super illum dâ—ctus sermo qui prodest non indigne comedent i. Orig in mat 15. illustrates the matter thus So saith he did Christ call his Body Bread as elsewhere he calleth his Flesh a grain of Wheat except the grain of Wheat die it bringeth forth no fruit The ninth that Christ gave to the Bread the name of his Body The tenth that Christ said of the consecrated Bread this is my 4 Nos audiamus panem quem fregit Dominus esse corpus servatoris Hieron Ep. ad Helvid Qu. 2. 5. Panem fractum tradidit disâ—lpulis suis dicens Accipite hoc c. Ambrose l. 4. de Sacrament cap. 5. 6. Judas manducavit panem Domini c. Augustinus Tract 59. in Joh. Cyril Hieros 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Catech Myst 4 p 528. 8. Cum ipse Christus sic affirmat ac dicat de pane Hoc est corput meum c. Cyril Alez Catech. 4 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. Dial. 1. c. 8. 10. Gaudent tract de rat sacra Body The eleventh 11. Vinum fuisse quod sanguinem suum dixit Christus Cyprian Ep. 63. that it was Wine which he called his Blood The twelfth that he blessed Wine when he said drink and the last the Bread strengthning mans Body was therefore called the Body of Christ To these citations add that of Cyprian and †Theophilus the Lord calleth Bread his Body which is made up of many grains 12. Clem. Alex. Paedag l. 2. c. 3. and that of Tatian or †Ammonius having taken the Bread then afterward the cup of Wine and testified it to be his Body and Blood 13. Panis quia confirmat corpus ideo corpus Christi nuncupatur I st dor l. 1. de officiis cap. 8. be commanded them to eat and drink thereof Forasmuch as it was the memorial of his future Passion and Death That also of * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dial. 1 T. 4 p 17 Theodoret that in the institution of the mysteries Christ called Bread his Body and that which was mixt his blood And as if this was beyond all dispute he puts this question to the Heretique * ΟΡΘ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 EPAN 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΕΡΑΠId. ibid. knowest thou that God called Bread his proper Body and makes him answer yea I know it By all which passages a Dominus corpus suum punem vocat Ep. 76. and many more that might be cited it appeareth that in those elder times the words of the institution were no otherwise conceived than as if Christ had plainly said this Bread is my Body and this Wine is my Blood b In Evan l 1 p 152 L. 2. and therefore that they did as certainly conceive the sense and meaning of these words c Mox accepto pane deinde vini calice corpus esse suum ac sanguinem restatus manducare illos jussit c. Ammon Harmon Evang. T. 3. Biblioth Patr. p. 28. this is my Body to be Metaphorical and figurative as any Protestant now doth note also by the way that this sufficiently checks the clamors of T. G. against the Doctor for saying they believe Bread to be God for let him put what sense he can upon the Fathers words the same will justifie the words of Dr. Stilling fleet which being Written to a Protestant Lady were very proper and lyable to no exception since they import this only that the Romanist believes that to be a God which we believe is Bread and to one of that perswasion the Doctors argument is a most powerful disuasive from the embracing of the Roman faith but to proceed To all these Fathers we will adjoyn three Councils The first is that of Carthage held An. Dom. 397. by above Two hundred Bishops whereof St. Austin and Aurelius were two which thus decrees that a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cod. Can. Eccles Afr. c. 37. in the Holy mysteries nothing be offered but only the body and blood of the Lord. as also the Lord commanded it that is the Bread and the Wine mingled with water The second is that of Trull whose judgment Balsamon relateth in these words b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bals. in Can. 40. Syn. Carthag p. 653. The 32 Canon of the Synod of Trull giveth an ordinance at large that the unbloody Sacrifice be made with Bread and Wine mingled with water because Bread is the figure of the Lords body and the Wine a figure of his blood c In Can. 40. Concil Carthag p. 426 427. Zonaras saith the same In the Seventh Council of Constantinople held An. Dom. 754. by Three hundred thirty eight Bishops the Bread is called d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the holy Image of Christ and the true Image of his natural body and the Image of his flesh given by God And this was certainly the Doctrine of the Church of England about 650 years agoe witness the Homily appointed publickly to be read to the People upon Easter-day before they did receive the Sacrament where we have these words viz. * Aeifrick Saxon Homily v.
see them But we have great reason to suspect that they also are cited more Romano i.e. with great impertinence and falshood And I am certainly informed from Oxford that what is cited as from Vrsin is really the words of Vrsins Adversary Such ingenuity we meet with in the Citations of the Roman party Having produced these Testimonies of the Fathers which I have proved to be impertinent or spurious and these confessions of the Protestants which are insignificant or false or only such as do assert that Cyprian de Caena Domini Eusebius Emissenus and such spurious pieces seem to speak in favour of this Idle Dream He thus concludes that to deny what is confirmed by the Testimony of so many Ancient Fathers P. 308 309 and strengthned by the confession of our Brethren is most unreasonable But alas this flourish doth most assuredly confound the Church of Rome and evidently confutes that Doctrine it was intended to confirm For First it is confessed by many Doctors of the the Church of Rome that Transubstantiation is no ancient Doctrine viz. Peter Lombard Scotus Biel Erasmus and Peroon And Secondly a In Primitiva Ecclesia non erat de fide substantiam panis in co pus Christi converti Job Yribarn in 4 Sent. Dist 11. Q. 3. Disp 42. Sect. 1. That in the Primitive Church it was not any Article of Faith Thirdly b Scotus in 4 Distinct 11. Qâ—aest 3. s 1 â— Aâ—â—â—m That were it not for the authority and Determination of the Roman Church the words of Christ might more simply plainly and truly be understood and expounded Fourthly the Cardinal of c Distinct 4. Qu. 6. A. 2. Cambray adds that the opinion which holds the substance of bread not to remain doth not evidently follow of the Scripture nor to his seeming of the Churches determination Fifthly Your Secular d Discourse Modest p. 13. Priests affirm that it was concluded among the Fathers of the Society and what Catholick would not believe them that the Fathers have not so much as touched the point of Transubstantiation Sixthly It is no wonder saith e Antequam quaestio illa de Transubstantiatione in Ecclesia palam agitaretur minimè mirum est si unus aut alter aut etiam aliqui ex veteribus minus consideratè Rectè hâc de re senserint scripserint de Transub l. 2. c. 7. Gregory de Valentia if one or two or more of the Ancients have thought or written of this matter not so considerately and rightly And f Hinc discimus non essemirandum si Augustinus Theodoretus alii Veteres quaedam dixerint quae in specitem videntur favere haereticis L. 2. Euch. c. 25 p. 649. B. Bellarmin confesseth it is not to be wondred at if St. Austin Theodoret and other of the Ancients speak something which in show seems to favour the Hereticks The sayings of the ancient Fathers which interpret the words of Christ This is my Body in a figurative sence as much as any Protestant can do and which forced these Confessions from so many Cardinals Bishops Schoolmen Priests and Jesuites are these g Pane corpus suum representat l. 1. adv Marcion c. 14. by Bread Christ represents his Body saith Tertullian and again h Panem corpus suum appellat ut hinc jam eum intelligas corporis sui figuram pani dedisse L. 3. c. 19. Christ hath called Bread his Body that thereby thou mayest understand that he hath given to Bread the Figure of his Body And again i L. 4. c. 4 c. This is my Body that is the Figure of my Body St. k Ep. 63. §. 6. p. 175. Cyprian noteth That it was Wine even the Fruit of the Vine which the Lord saith was his Blood Our Lord saith St. l Paedag. l. 1. c. 6. p. 100 106. Clemens did bless Wine when he said Take drink this is my Blood and that it was Wine which was blessed be sheweth again saying I will no more drink of the Fruit of the Vine 2. Paedag. l. 1. c. 6. p. 100. 106. Our Lord in the Gospel of St. John doth otherwise expound Meat by Symbols when he saith Eat my Flesh and Drink my Blood an evident Symbol of Faith and the promises And again there is a donable Blood of the Lord Paed. l. 2. c. 2. one Carnal by which we are redeemed froim destruction and another Spiritual by which we are Anointed Origen speaks thus m Nec materia panis sed super illum dictus sermo est qui prodest non indigne Domino comedenti illum haee quidem de typico Symbolicoque corpore Orig. in Mat. 15. p. 17. Col. 1. B. It is not the matter of bread but the word spoken which profiteth him that doth not unworthily eat thereof and these things I speak of the Typical and Symbolical Body To the Fathers of the first three hundred years we will add the Testimonies of those that flourished in the 4th the first whereof shall be n Euseb l. 8. c. 1. Eusebius who saith ' That our Saviour delivered to his Disciples the Symbols of his Divine Dispensation commanding them to make the Image of his own Body and appointing them to use bread for the Symbol of his body And that o Euseb Demonst l. 1. c. 10 p. 27. we still celebrate upon the Lords Table the memory of his Sacrifice by the Symbols of his Body and Blood according to the Ordinances of the New Testament And lastly p Demoâ—ist l. 5. c. 3. p. 141. Our Saviour and Lord first and then all the Priests that have followed in all Nations celebrating the Spiritual Divine Service according to the Ordinances of the Church signifie unto us by the bread and wine the Mysteries of his body and blood q Serm. in illud quiounque dixerit verbum p. 979. Athanasius faith ' That Christ distinguished the Spirit from the Flesh that we might learn that the things he spake were not Carnal but Spiritual For how many men might his body have sufficed that it might be the food of the whole world it is as if he should have said that which is given for the world shall be given for meat that it may be Spiritually given to all In the Church saith r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Macar Aegypt Hom 27 p. 164. Marcarius is offered bread and wine the Type of his Flesh and Blood and they which are partakers of the visible bread do Spiritually eat the Flesh of our Lord. Now we shall be partakers of the Passeover saith Å¿ Orat. 2 de Pasch To. 1. p. 692. Gregory Nazianzen but as yet in a Figure though more clear then in the Old Law For the Passover of the Law I will be bold to say it was but a more obscure figure of a figure Elsewhere he calls the Symbols the t In Epita Gorgon p. 187. Antitypes of the
precious body or blood of the Lord under the Type of bread the body is given to thee and under the Type of wine the blood So St. u Catech. Myst 4. p. 237. Cyril Hieros x Constit l. 5. c. 16. Pseudo Clemens saith That Christ having given us the Mysteries figurative of his precious body and blood c. went up into the Mount of Olives and that y Constit l. 6. c. 23. the Mystical and unbloody Sacrifice is celebrated by the Symbols of his body and blood And he adds That in the Participation of this Sacrament they used this thanksgiving z L. 5. c. 16 We give thee thanks our Father for the precious blood of Jesus Christ which was shed for us for the precious body of which we celebrate these Signs by his command to announce his Death Of the same Judgment were the Latine Fathers for a Dicit Sacerdos fac nobis hanc oblationem ascriptam rationabilem acceptabilem quod est figura Domini nostri Jesu Christi Ambrose in the fourth Book of the Sacraments Chap. 5. affirmeth that in his time this clause was in the publick Service make this Oblation to be set to our account acceptable and reasonable which is the figure of the body and blood of the Lord. And again b Hic in imagine quidem Christus offertur in caelo verò in veritate L. 1. Officiorum cap. 48. T. 1. p. 37. Christ here saith he is offered in the Image in Heaven in the Truth Hilary the Deacon saith c Nam Mâ—ses â—ece pâ—o sanguine vituli in patera aspersit filios Israel dicens hoc est Testamentum hoc figura fuit Testamenti Testamentum ergo sanguine constitutum est Quia beneficii divini sanguis testis est in cujus typum nos calicem Mysticum Sanguinis ad tuitionem corporis nostri animae percipimus In 1 Cor 11. The blood is a witness of divine benefit for the Figure of which we receive the mystical Cup of Blood for the preservation of the Body and the Soul Gelasius saith d Certe Imago Similitudo corporis sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur Contra Eutych indeed the Image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the Mysteries In the Fifth Century St. Chrysostom speaks thus e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. 82. in Matthaeum T. 2. p. 510. if really Christ dyed not Hom. 47. in T. 2. p. 750. of what is this Celebration Symbola Hom. 47. in T. 2. p. 750. see how he studies to make us alwayes mindful of his death hence by the Sacraments he calls to mind his passion Again it is a carnal thing to doubt how Christ could give his flesh to eat we ought to understand it Mystically and spiritually his words were spiritual and had nothing carnal in them Theodoret speaks thus f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret Dial. 1. T. 4. p. 17 18. G. 12. Our Saviour changed the names and gave unto the body that which is the name of the Symbol and to the Symbol the name of the body So when he had named himself the Vine he called that which was the Symbol the blood And when the Heretick desired to know the reason of this change of names he gives it thus Christ would have those who are partakers of the Divine Mysteries not to attend unto the nature of the things they see but by reason of the change of names to believe that change which is made by Grace For he that called that which was Wheat and Bread his natural body and again calls himself a Vine he honoured the Symbols which are seen with the appellation of his body and his blood not changing the nature but adding Grace unto it And ween the Heretick had granted that the Sacrament contained the Symbols of a real body g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. Dial. 2. T. 4. p. 84. This is well answered saith the Orthodox For every Image ought to have his Architype and Painters imitate the nature and paint the Images of things visible Gaudentius saith that * Tract 2. in Exod. v. Supr in the Bread the figure of Christs body is reasonably understood St. Hierom that the Lord did not offer Water but Wine for a Type of his blood St. Austin saith h In Typo sangui nis sui non obtulit aquam sed vinum l. 2. adv Jovinian p. 27. F. the Lord did not doubt to say this is my body when he gave the sign of his body And most emphatically in these words i Dominus non dubitavit dicere hoc est corpus meum quum figuum daret corporis sui Contr. Adimantum c. 12. T. 6. p. 128. a preceptive speech for bidding a crime or commanding something good or profitable is not figurative but if it seems to command a crime or forbid a good then it is figurative Vnless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man k Si preceptiva locutio est aut flagitium aut facinus vetans aut utllitatem aut beneficentiam jubens non est figurata Si autem flagitium aut facinus videatur jubere aut utilitatem aut beneficentiam vetare sigurata est Nisi manducaveritis inquit Christus Joh. 6.53 Carnem c. Facinus vel flagitium videtur jubere Figura est ergo precipiens passioni Domini esse communicandum suaviter atque utiliter recondendum in memoria quòd pro nobis caro ejus crucifixa vulnerata sit L. 3. de Doctr. Christian c. 16. c. Seems to command a wickedness it is therefore a figure commanding us to Communicate with the Passion of our Lord and sweetly and profitably to lay it up in our memory that his flesh was crucifyed and wounded for us Again l Sacramenta sunt signa rerum aliud existentia aliud significantia Idem contra Maxim S. 3. cap. 22. T. 6. p. 522. the Sacraments are signs of things being one thing and signifying another Again the Israelites did m Bibebant de spirituali sequente petra petra autem erat Christus Videte ergo petrâ manente signa variata ibi perra Christus nobis Christus quod in altari Dei ponitur Id. Tract 45 in Joh. I. 9. p. 333. drink of the spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ see therefore faith remaining how the signs are varied there the Rock was Christ to us that which is placed upon the Altar is Christ Lastly n Habes Christum in praesenti per sidem in presenti per signum in presenti per Baptismatis Sacramentum in presenti per altaris cibum potum Secundum presentiam carnis rectè dictum est discipulis me autem no semper habebitis Quomodo absentem tenebo Quo modo in coelum manum mittam ut ibi sedentem teneam Fidem mitte
Usher Answ to the Jesuits challenge p. 79. Much is betwixt the body Christ suffered in and the body that is hallowed to housel the body truly that Christ suffered in was born of the flesh of Mary with blood and with bone with skin and with sinews in humane limbs with a reasonable soul living and his spiritual body which we call the housel is gathered of many Corns without blood and bone without limb without Soul and therefore nothing is to be understood therein bodily but spiritually This mystery is a pledge and a figure Christs body is truth it self And again Christ hallowed Bread and Wine to housel before his suffering and said this is my body and my blood Yet he had not then suffered but so notwithstanding he turned through invisible vertue the Bread to his own body and that Wine to his blood as he before did in the Wilderness before that he was born to men when he turned that heavenly meat to his flesh and the flowing water from that stone to be his own blood The like matter also was delivered to the Clergy by the Bishops at their Synods out of two or three writings of the same Aefrick in the one one whereof directed to e Impress Lond. cum Homil. Paschali Ms. in Bibl. Bodl. Wulfsine Bishop of Shirburn we read thus That housel is Christs body not bodily but spiritually Not the body which he suffered in but the body of which he spake when he blessed Bread and Wine to housel the night before his suffering and said by the blessed Bread this is my body and again by the holy Wine this is my blood which is shed for many in forgiveness of sins In the other written to Wulfstane Archbishop of York thus The Lord which hallowed housel before his suffering and saith that the Bread was his own body and that the Wine was truly his blood halloweth daily by the hands of the Priest Bread to his body and Wine to his blood in spiritual mystery as we read in books And yet notwithstanding that lively Bread is not bodily so nor the self-same body that Christ suffered in nor that holy Wine is that Saviours blood which was shed for us in bodily thing but in spiritual understanding But now if T. G. should deny all this that is the testimony of almost all the Fathers of the Church and the confessions of so many Cardinals and Schoolmen and of the Fathers of the Society aforesaid to prove that Transubstantiation is a late upstart Doctrine and that the Scripture is to be interpreted according to the mind of Protestants to shew the unreasonableness of this denyal I would propose this case to his consideration and the Readers viz. in supposition that a controversie arise in this present age about the sense of a Law which was made 500 years past and that a considerable number of those who framed the novel exposition should confess that for the last Two hundred years the contrary to what they maintained was generally received in the Kingdom as the sense of the Law and should farther confess that the most eminent Lawyers of the former ages from the first enacting of the Law held the same with the latter Nor had there ever been any disagreement or opposition among them in that point whether it be not a sufficient proof that what they taught to be the sence of the Law was generally received as the sence and meaning of it from the beginning The Testimonies themselves of those antient Lawyers would be conviction enough how much more when strengthned by the confession of the adverse party it self Now if this be so in the delivery of the sense of a human Law where it happens very often that great Lawyers may be and often are of different judgments how much more in the delivery of a Divine Doctrine where the Pastors of the Church are bound to deliver what they received and the succeeding age is still bound to receive what they delivered surely if we add to this the confession of the very Adversaries themselves the proof as St. Ireneus saith must be true and without contradiction for if the Testimony of Ten Fathers and a few false impertinent confessions of our meanest Writers was by T.G. esteemed sufficient cause of this Triumphant flourish the Testimony of so many hundred Fathers of the Church and the confession of so many Cardinals and Schoolmen Jesuits and Fathers of the Roman party must be a demonstration of the truth of our assertion and exposition of the words of Christ sufficient to convince the obstinacy of this vain Apostate wherefore I shall conclude with that most pertinent exhortation of the learned Origen d Haec qui audire nesciâ— detorqueat ortasse avertaâ— auditum secundum illos qui â—â—icebant 〈…〉 bis carnem suam manducare sed vos Si fiâ—â—â— estis Ecclesiae si Evangelicis imbuti mysteriis si verbum caro fastum habitat in vobis agnoscite quia figurae sunt quae in divinis voluminibus scripta sunt ideo tanquam spirituales non tanquam carnales examinate intelligite quae dicuntur Si â—nim tanquam carnales ista suscipitis laedunt vâ—s non alunt-Est in N. Testamento litera quae occidit c. ut supra Orig. in Levit. c. 10. Hom 7. p. 87. If you be Sons of the Church if you are imbued with Gospel Mysteries and if the word made flesh doth dwell within you acknowledge these are figures which are written in the Sacred Volumns and therefore understand ye what is written as spiritual and not as carnal men for if as carnal you receive them they will hurt but will not nourish you There is in the New Testament a letter which killeth him that doth not spiritually understand it for if according to the letter you do follow that which is said except you eat the flesh c. the letter killeth Hence we may see the vanity of this assertion of T. G. That the definition of the present Church of Rome for that is most absurdly called the Church-Catholick p. 252. is ground sufficient to believe the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Whereas it is confessed by their most learned Writers that in primitiva Ecclesia non erat de fide i. e. this was not any Article of Faith delivered to her by the antient Church and that the e De Transubstantiatione panis in corpus Christi rara est in antiquis scriptoribusmentio Alphonsus a castro de Haer l 8. v indulgentia thing as well as name of transubstantiation is very rarely mentioned by the antient Fathers Nay they spake nothing of it And it is evident from the clear pregnant Testimonies and the concurrent judgment of many Hundred Fathers that the Church of Christ did generally hold the contrary to what the Church doth now define and held that exposition of our Saviours words was true and Genuine which they have now condemned as Heretical 2. How
introduced Now who knows not that the substance of Bread is not a proper object of Latria and it that Christ God-man was properly contained in the Sacrament there could be no suspition of Idolatry in the adoration of it What I have thus discoursed I judge sufficient to convince the Reader that this was not the practice of the Ancient Church What T. G. offers to the contrary is §. 6. that St. Basil saith the words of invocation when the Eucharistical Bread was shewed T G. p. 222 223. are Apostoliâ—al Tradition Ergo the Host was worshiped with Latria St. Austins Mother assisted at the Altar from whence she knew the Holy Victim was disp aced Ergo the Host was Worshiped with Latria Optatus calls the Altar the Seat of the Body of our Lord. Ergo the Host was Worshiped with â—atria He might have added that Protestant do call the Sacrament the Blood and Body of our Lord they do uncover and shew it to the people they therefore do adore it with Latria These are the wretched Sophisms by which this universal practice is confirmed and they prove only this That the abettors of them do not renounce their sence and reason only when they do believe this Doctrine but also when they discourse on this unhappy Subject Thus when T. G. proceeds to tell us p. 224. That the practice of the Church was so notorious in this point of the Adoration of the Eucharist that the Heathens because they knew that the Christians made use of Bread and Wine in the Mysteries objected to them that they Worshiped Ceres and Bacchus Nothing is so notorious as is the weakness of this Inference For if this argument be valid the Heathens thought that Christians Worshiped Ceres and Bacchus because they used Bread and Wine in their Mysteries therefore all Christians Worshiped what seemed to be Bread and Wine this must be also valid the Heathens thought that the Jews did Worship Saturn because they met on Saturday August conâ—a Faust Mamich l. 20. c. 13. as the same Austin in the same place informs us therefore all Jews Worshiped Saturday 2. St. Austin saith and he himself confesseth that the Heathens thus conceived not because they Worshiped the likeness of Bread and Wine but because they used Bread and Wine in their Mysteries the bare use therefore not the Worship of these things was that which gave the rise to this absurd imagination as St. Austin deems it Like to this stuff is that of Chrysestom viz. That the whole order of heavenly Powers lift up their voice T G. p. 224. and the place round about the Altar is filled in honour of him that lyeth upon it And that of Nazianzen p. 222. affirming That Gorgonia went with Faith to the Altar and with a loud voice besought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 him that was honoured upon it For who knows not that Christ is honoured at the Holy Table when by the invocation of his Holy name the Sacrament of his true Body and Blood is Consecrated and to his Glory is distributed to all the Faithfull who knows not that the honour done to that which represents and is the true memorial of our Blessed Lord is Honour done to him And therefore these expressions only signifie that Holy Angels and Good Christians do honour the memorials of Christs Body and this we Protestants do as truly but more safely then the Church of Rome witness the preparations made before we do receive them and the Reverence we use when we receive them and witness lastly our confession Eucharistiam ut signum utile divinitus institutum venerandam confitemur saith Albertinus And that Nazianzen could intend no more is clear from what he doth immediately subjoyn viz. In Epitaph Gorgon p. 187 That if his Sister could lay hold of any of the Antitypes of our Lords Blood and Body she presently bedewed them with her Tears What therefore lay upon the Altar was only the Antitype of Christs true Body This also was the mind of Chrysostom for he declares Epistol ad Caefar Monach. That before the Bread is Sanctified we name it Bread but the Divine Grace Sanctifying it by the means of the Priest it is sâ—eâ—d from the name of Bread and is esteemed worthy to be called the Lords Body although the nature of Bread remaineth in it To the words of Chrysostom p. 224. cited from Hom. 24. in Epist ad Corinth I answer That Chrysostom doth here exhort us to Worship Christs Body which we do he also saith we see this Body on the Altar Nay elsewhere he adds * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aâ— Pop. Antâ—oc Hom. 15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib. Hom. 24 Vide Albert l. 2. at Sacr. Euch. p. 535 536. we see it slain and jugulated d In Mat. Hom. 82. And when the Hereticks do ask whence it is evident that Christ was Crucified we stop their mouths saith he by the consideration of these Mysteries for if Christ be not â—ead 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what do these Symbols mean Christs Body therefore is seen upon the Altar not as to its substance for there according to the Roman Doctors its being is invisible but as to that Sacrament which represents his Body this then must be the mind of Chrysostom that Body which is really in Heaven and in the Altar is seen slain and jugulated in effigie do you adore Hitherto we have complained only of the want of reason in the citations following we have just reason to suspect his want of Conscience For with what Conscience could he offer this passage of f Theodoret in confirmation of this practise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dial. 2 p. 84.85 viz. The mystical symbols * Those words T. G. leaves out do not receed from their nature for they abide in their proper substance figure and from and may be seen and touched as they were before but they are understood to be what they are made and are believed and adored as being the things they are believed for can that be a Demonstration of this practise which is a most convincing demonstration that the supposition upon which the Romanist doth build this practise is absurd and false And that the Adoration of the Host would be the Adoration of what continues Bâ—ead as certainly as the humanity of Christ continues to retain its nature and its proper substance had not T. G. sufficient reason to leave our these words which are so clear a Condemnation of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and consequently of the Adoration of the Host that their great Doctors are even forced to say that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 substance Theodoret doth understand no substance out only accidents which are the opposite to substance And that by substance and nature he meaneth form and figure though in this very place he makes a clear distinction of substance both from form and figure and consequently that he grants unto the Heretick that
whether they had the knowledge of our condition yea or not Sect. 4. Fourthly That the forementioned Fathers did often speak to their departed Friends as present although they did not think them so to be Sect. 5. Fifthly That the very same Authors do make the like addresses to insensate Creatures which makes it reasonable to look upon them as Rhetorical Apostrophe's ibid. Sixthly That there is great difference betwixt the practise which then began to be approved in some parts of the Christian World and the practise of the Church of Rome as V.G. 1. That no instance can be given of any Christian that put up mental Prayers unto them or dia ascribe unto them the knowledge of the heart 2. That they prayed unto them only upon supposition of their presence at their Tombs and Oratories Sect. 6. The Authors cited by T. G. are partly spurious or doubtful Sect. 7. Partly impertinent and such as use either Rhetorical Apostrophe's or only wishes Sect. 8. or such as only do ascribe unto them the worship of honour and affection but say not any thing which necessarily includeth Prayer Sect. 9. Or only do assert that they did pray with us and so did help us with their Prayers Sect. 10. Or that they did commend themselves unto their Prayers by desiâ—ing God that for their intercession he would be gracious Sect. 11. § 1. AND thus we have confirmed the truth of our assertion from the most pregnant Testimonies of the ancient Fathers of the four first Centuries We come now to consider what T.G. offers from the Fathers to prove the invocation of the Saints departed to have been the practice of the Primitive Church Unto which purpose he alledgeth some passages of Gregory Nazianzen and Nyssen St. Cyril and St. Ambrose Ruffinus St. Basil Chrysostome St. Austin to which we Answer 1. That all these Fathers lived in the declining times of the fourth Century or after the conclusion of it Bas M. A. 370. Nazian 379. Nissenus 380. Ambrose 374. Chrysost An. 398. Hierom. ob 420. Ruffinus 418. August 396. Cyril Alex. 412. Theodoret 423. Nor can one Item of such a practice be produced from any of the former Writers so that if all these Fathers did expresly say what T. G. doth contend they do it would be only this That the most ancient Fathers of the three first Centuries and to the middle of the fourth were in this matter perfect Protestants whereas some of the middle Fathers who lived in the declining Ages of the Church do seem to speak in favour of the Church of Rome Now in this case we say with Cyprian (a) Si in aliquo nutaverit vacillaverit veritas ad originem Dominicam Evangdicam Apostolicam traditionem revertamur inde surgat actus nestri ratiâ— unde ordo origo surrexit Ep. 74. Sect. 14. If verity doth warp or lean aside we must look back and return to Divine Evangelical and Apostolick Tradition and derive the order of our action from the original ground where it first began And with Tertullian (b) Ostendam hoc exigere veritatem cui nemo praescribere potesi non sputium temporum non patrocinia personarum non privilegium regionum ex his enim ferè consuetudo ab aliqua ignorantia vel simplieitate initium sortita in usam per successionem corroboratur ita adversus veritatem vindicatur sed Dominus noster Christus veritatem senon consuetudinem cognominavit siquidem semper Christus prior omnibus aeque veritas sempiterna antiqua res De Veland Virg. c. 1. If a custome proceeding from ignorance or simplicity be confirmed by use of succession and opposed against verity we must observe that neither space of time nor priviledge of persons may prescribe against truth for Christ is eternal and before all and in like sort verity is most ancient For who knoweth not that above 100 years before this time the practice of communicating Infants had obtained in the Church St. * De Lapsis Sect 7. 20. Cyprian makes mention of it twice the †l. 8. c. 13. Apostolick Constitutions declare that first the Priests communicated then Virgins after them Widows and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or their little Infants In the same Century (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Apud Phot. in Bibl. 177 Theodorus Bishop of Mopsuestia in Sicily concludes against his Adversaries that Infants must be acknowledged to be guilty of sin because it was the custome to administer Christs Body to them for the Remission of Sin They also held that it was necessary to eternal life for Infants to receive this Sacrament When Christ saith If you eat not my flesh you shall not have life in you should I say that an Infant should have life who ends his life without that Sacrament So Austin Again (d) Dominum audiamus inquam non quidam hoc de Sacramento Iavacri dicentem sed de Sacramento Sanâ—â— monsae suae quo nemo ritè nisi Baptizatus accedit nisi manducaâ—â—â— t is carnem meam biberitis sanguinem meum non habebitis vitan 〈◊〉 vobis an verò quisquam etiam hoc dicere audebit quod ad parâ—â—â— los haec sententia non pertineat possinique sine participatione corpâ—â—â— hujus sanguin is in se habere vitam Tom. 7. l. 1. de peccat 〈◊〉 ritis remiss c. 20. Let us hear our Lord saith he speaking of the Sacrament of the holy Table whether none rightly comes but he that is baptized and then citing this place Vnless you eat my flesh c. he adds Dare any say that this sentence belongs not to Children but that they may without the participation oâ— the body and blood of Christ have life in themselves For this he also urgeth the Testimony of thâ— See of Rome for then this Doctrine 〈◊〉 well as Practice was received there (e) Ecce B. memoriae Innocentius Papa sine Baptismo Christi sine participatione Corporis Sanguinis Christi vitam non habere parvulos dicit To. 7. contra duas Ep. Pelag. l. 2. c. 4. p. 190. L. Si autem cedunt Pelagiani Apostolicae sedi vel potiùs ipsi Magistro Domino Apostolorum qui dicit non habitures vitam in seipsis nisi manducaverint carnem filii hominis c. quod nisi Baptizati non utâ—que possunt nempe aliquando fatebuntur parvulos non Baptizatos vitam habere non posse Epist ad Paulinum Ep. 106. p. 101. Behold saith he Pope Innocent of blessed memory declares that little ones cannot have life without Baptism and the participation of the Body and Blood of Christ And in his Epistle to Paulinus if the Pelagians saith he will yield to the Apostles Seat or rather to their Lord and Master saying that except we eat his flesh and drink his blood which the unbaptized cannot do we shall not have life they will at last confess that
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that to be made doth not continually import a change of nature and therefore that this passage of St. Ambrose cannot with any certainty be thus interpreted Secondly we must not know what follows in that very Chapter to explain these words and to confute the Doctrine of Transubstantiation viz. p Si tant a vis Sermone Domini Jesu ut inciperent esse quae non erant quanto magis operatorius est ut sint quae erant N. B. in aliud commutentur ibid. if there be so great force in Christs words that by it things begin to be that which before they were not how much more operative must it be to cause that things be what they were and yet be changed into another Which words are extant thus in all the Ancient Maniscripts and old Editions of St. Ambrose and are thus cited by Guitmund Yvo Algerus Gratian and Anselm and in the old Editions of Lanfrancus though in the late Editions of St. Ambrose they are corrupted and to abet this fraud Lanfraneus in a new Edition is produced affirming that some Copies did admit a diverse lection We must not know what also here he doth affirm That q Sed forte dicis speciem sanguinis non video Sed habet fimilitudinem sicut enim similitudinem mortis sumpsisti ita etiam smilitudinem pretion sanguinis bibis ut nullus horror cruoris sit pretium tamen operetur redemptionis ibid. as we do receive in Baptism the likeness of his death so in the holy Sacrament do we receive the likeness of his pretious blood Again we must be told St. Ambrose saith * T. G. p. 305 de Sacram. l. 6 c 1. That as our Lord Jesus Christ is the true Son of God not as men are by Grace but as the Son of the substance of his Father so it is his very true Flesh as him self hath said which we receive and his very true Blood which we drink But then we must not know what follows to explain this passage and to confirm our Doctrine viz. That r In similitudinem quidem accipls Sacramentum sed vere naturae gratiam virtutemque consequeris de Sacr l 1 c. 6. we receive this Sacrament in a Similitude but truly do obtain the grace and the vertue of the nature whence it is evident that it is therefore said to be Christs very Flesh and Blood because it doth convey the vertue of them which is more evident form that which follows to wit that Å¿ Quomodo discendit panis vivus de Caeso Resp quia idem Dominus noster Jesus Christus consors est divinitatis corporis to quia accipis Panem N. B. Divinae ejus substantiae in illo participaris alimento ibid. our Lord Christ being partaker of the Divinity and humane nature thou who receivest Bread dest in that nourishment partake of his Divinity And let it be observed that Ambrose doth indeed affirm that as Christ said that which we receive is truly Flesh and is true drink but he doth not affirm that we receive it truly and substantially and as when Christ declared that unless we eat the Flesh of the Son of Man c. That Flesh drink he spake of was true Flesh and drink but the receiving the eating and the drinking of it was Metaphorical so may it be here and hence * De Baptismo Aethiopum c. ult Cyril Glaphyr in Exod. l. 2. Fulgeutius and others tells us that we do eat it in our Baptisme and therefore as we are said to eat it there so also may we be conceived to eat it in the other Sacrament Lastly we must be told how the same Ambrose doth assert that the Word of Christ which of nothing could make that to be which was not can change those things which are into that which before they were not And yet that this mutation was not a change of nature but of signification and of the vertue of the Sacrament is evident from that vvhich follovvs in this Chapter viz. That * T. G. p. 304. Non corporealis esus sed spiritualis est ante benediction in verborum caelestium aliaâ—pecies nominatur post consecrationem corpus Christi significatur c. 9. de his qui initiantur it is not Corporal meat but Spiritual and that before the benediction it is named another kind but after Consecration it signifies Christs body or that elsevvhere he tells us that the power of God so operates to change them as that they still continue what they were before Nay this is also evident from the vvords cited by T. G. viz. That word of Christ which of nothing could make that to be which was not can it not change those things which are into those things which they were not For it is not a less matter to give new natures to things than to change their natures vvhere evident it is that this nevv nature given to the Sacramental Elements is opposed to the mutation of their nature and therefore it is evident that in the judgment of St. Ambrose this change was made not by mutation of the nature of Bread and Wine but by addition of a new nature to them i.e. by the addition of new qualities and vertues in which familiar acceptation of the word St. Peter tells us that by the promises of Christ we are all made partakers of the diuine nature And the Fathers frequently affirm that by faith and by the holy spirit we are changed into another nature and that after the Resurrection we shall thus be changed Or this kind * De Sacr. Euch. l. 2. p. 489.504 Albertinus hath collected above Thirty instances Ob. The change which is made in the nature of Bread is here illustrated by the examples of those miraculous changes T. G. p. 304. which were wrought by holy men of old in the natures of things as of Moses his Rod being turned into a Serpent the waters of Aegypt into Blood c. Answ But this c. conceals three instances produced by Ambrose which only signifie an accidental change viz. t Jordanus retrorsum conversus contra naturam in sui fontis revertltur exordium nonne claret naturam vel maritinotum fluctuum vel fluvialis cursus esse mutatam Marath fluvius amarissâ—mus erat ut sitiens populus bibere non posset Mifit Moses lignum in aquam amari tudinem suam aqua rum natura deposuit quam infusa subito gratia temperavit Sub Haeliseo propheta uni ex filiis prophetarum excussum est ferrum de securi statim mersum est Rogavir Helisaeum qui amisserit ferrum misit etiam Helisaeus lignum in aquam ferrum natavit utique hoc praetet naturam factum esse cognoscimus cap. 9. de his qui initiantur The sweetning of the waters of Marah the swimming of the Iron and the returning of the waters of the River Jordan Whence it is
evident that all the instances produced leave it uncertain whether St. Ambrose did intend a proper change of substance or only a change of qualities and vertues Secondly had Ambrose only given instances of a substantial change it would not hence have followed that he did intend to prove the Sacramental Symbols were so changed but only a majori to prove that he who was the Author of such substantial mutations could certainly effect that change which was but accidental Thus from the substantial conversion of water into Wine he proves u Credendum jam est ex hoc mortalem hominem in immortalitatem posse converti quando vilis substantia in pretiosam conversa est substantiam Serm. 19. we ought to think that God can change our mortal into a glorious and immortal body which change is only accidental and from x Si ergo inquit superveniens Spiritus Sanctus in virginem conceptionem operatus est generationis munus implevit non utique dubitandum est quod superveniens in fontem vel super eum qui Baptismum consequitur veritatem regeneratiouis cooperetur cap. 9. de his qui initiantur the supernatural production of our Lord by vertue of the holy Ghost he in this very Chapter proves we must not doubt but the same Spirit can Regenerate the Baptized person So that we see it is familiar with him to prove the possibility of accidental changes by examples of a change substantial Ob. St. Ambrose saith a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Act. Hom. 23. the Symbols are not what nature formed them but what the Benediction consecrated them Answ True because they are not only so but by this more excellent and Spiritual change obtain a name which is more excellent denominations being taken from the better Thus Chrysostom affirms That such is the power of Baptism that it doth not suffer men to be still Men. And Leo b De Pass Dom. Ser. 14. That the Baptized person is not the same-before and after Baptism And Epiphanius That when we are endowed with Temperance the Flesh it no more Flesh c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Haeres 66. Whence yet it were ridiculous to argue that either Baptism or Teâ—perance offentially change either the flesh or nature of a Christian Ob. He affirms further That by this Benediction nature is changed Answ True but then that word not only in the Authors before mentioned but in St. d De Virg. l. 2. Haxamer l. 3. c. 2. Ambrose doth very often signisie only a change of quality and virtue For he affirms That Thecla changed the nature of the Beasts that were designed to devour her and that the Beasts themselves had changed their nature i.e. their fierceness and rapacity and in this very place he saith That the Nature of the water of the River Jordan was clearly changed because that it was driven back We must be told that Chrysostom doth say T. G. p. 303. that things that lye before us are not the works of humane power we only hold the the place of Ministers but he that Sanctifieth changeth them is Christ But then we must not know that in this very Homily the Consecrated Elements are stiled the Symbols of Christs Body In Mat. Hom. 82. p. 510. l. 36 and that disputing against Marcian and Valentinian who held Christ had no real Body he confutes and stops their mouth by saying That in the Blessed Sacrament we have the Symbol of that Body Whereas could he have truly said we have their real Flesh and Blood he had then spoken what would have more effectually confuted their absurd position 2. We must not know that in that very place he confutes the Heresie of the Encratitae P. 511. l. 10 15. by shewing That when our Lord delivered the Mysteries he delivered the Wine and that after his Resurrection he drank wine to verifie this saying I will no more drink of the Fruit of the Vine till I drink it new with you in my Fathers Kingdome Nor Thirdly That Christ in those Holy Mysteries doth give himself unto the Faithful but to none other P. 514. l. 28. But had we no such indications of the mind of Chrysostom the words themselves are very insignificative and unconcluding for that which Chrysostom affirmeth of the Eucharist that these things are not the works of humane power we Protestants acknowledge as knowing that it is no work of humane power to cause the virtue of the Holy Spirit to attend these Mysteries and to make that to be food of the Soul which naturally can only feed the Body He that thus Sanctifies and changeth these material Symbols must be God And hence St. Chrysostom informs us the case is just the same in Baptism That it is not an Angel who there moves the Water Hom. 35. in Joh In 1 ad Cor. Hom. 8. but that it is Lord of Angels 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who works all things there That man doth nothing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but that it is the power of God that worketh all things And whereas he adds that it is he who Sanctifies these things and changeth them St. Cyril doth inform us Catech. Mystag 5. that whatsoever the Holy Spirit toucheth is Sanctified and Changed St. * Paedag. l. 3. c 2. In Cant. Hom 4. In Gen. Hom. 41. vid Albert de sacr Euch. l. 2. P. 545. Clemens That the Devil doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. transmute Women into Whores Nyssenus that Regeneration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i.e. doth change us into the Sons of Light and of the day And Chrysostom himself informs us That to make the barren Womb to bear is an example of this Transmutation Such therefore we may rationally conceive that change to be of which St. Chrysostom here speaketh Gaudentius must tell us T. G. p. 306. That the Maker and Lord of natures who produceth Bread out of the Earth doth again of Bread because he can and hath promised to do it make his own Body and he who made Water of Wine maketh of Wine his own Blood But then we must not know Tract in Ex. 2. that in the same place he asserts That when our Saviour said This is my Body he gave to his Disciples Consecrated Bread and Wine Or that because our Saviour in the Gospel saith I am the true Vine he did sufficiently declare that all the Wine he offered in the figure of his Passion was his Blood or that we eat his Flesh when we receive his Doctrine which doth sufficiently confute the Roman Doctrine and shew the change of which Gaudentius speaks to be Spiritual and Mystical For if the Consecrated Signs be Bread and Wine they are not properly Christs Body if what is offered be a Figure of his Passion it is not the Truth For as Gandentius there telleth us figura non est veritas sed imitatio veritatis i.e. a figure is the imitation of the truth but