that the like sacrifice is now offer'd through all the World. How is it that the Sacrifice of Christians is to eat Bread if the Bread do not remain How is it that communicating one is partaker of what Melchisedeck offer'd if in communicating one do not receive neither Bread nor Wine The same Father in the third Book against Parmenian reproving the Donatists for forsaking the Church tells them S. Cyprian and the other Bishops did not separate themselves because they would not communicate with covetous persons and Usurers but that on the contrary they did eat with them the Bread of the Lord and drank his Cup. This passage sheweth that when S. Austin said to the new Baptised as hath been shewn that the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ it could not be understood but figuratively for here the Bread is said to be of the Lord now saith S. Athanasius that which is another's is not that other himself to whom it belongs Id quod alicujus est non idipsum est cujus est And S. Austin elsewhere distinguisheth betwixt the Bread which belongs to the Lord and the Bread which is the Lord. Speaking of Judas and the other Apostles he saith of the Apostles they are the Bread which was the Lord and of Judas He did eat the Bread of the Lord against the Lord they ate life he Death for 't is said by S. Paul That he which eateth unworthily eateth his own judgment and condemnation Seeing then that the Eucharist is distinguish'd from the Lord it necessarily follows That Bread remains in the Sacrament after Consecration The same Father in his 33 Sermon of the Words of our Lord saith The Lord gave to his Disciples the Blessed Sacrament with his own hands but we were not at the Banquet nevertheless by Faith we daily eat the same Supper and do not think that it had been any great advantage to have been present at that Supper that he gave with his own hands to his Disciples without Faith Faith afterwards was of greater advantage than treachery was then St. Paul who believed was not there present and Judas who betray'd his Master was present How many be there now that come to the Communion that altho they did not see that Table and tho they never saw with their Eyes nor tasted with their Palate the Bread which the Lord held in his hands nevertheless because the same Supper is still prepared do there eat and drink their own Damnation It plainly appears That the Bread which St. Austin saith our Saviour had in his hands during the Sacrament was true Bread because St. Austin saith That those who at present participate of the Sacrament do not Tast nor Eat the Bread which our Saviour held in his hands and which he distributed and of which the Disciples did formerly eat The same Father teaching that the Good might participate of the Divine Sacraments with the Wicked saith Judas and Peter had each of them a part of the same Bread which they received at the same hand of the Lord and nevertheless what society or likeness was there betwixt Peter and Judas In the 7th Chap. the wicked and the good hear the same Word of God do partake of the same Sacraments and eat the same holy nourishment Now what is this holy Food What is this Bread whereof one receives one Portion and another another Part Are they Accidents But Accidents are neither Bread nor Food It is not the real Body of Jesus Christ for it cannot be received by Parcels it must then be true Bread which remains after Consecration and which is as is said before Blessed Sanctified and Broke in Pieces on the Holy Table to be distributed Benedicitur Sanctificatur ad distribuendum comminuitur The same Doctor in Ep. 120. speaking of the Rich in opposition to the Poor of whom it is said That they shall eat and be satisfied These Rich Persons saith St. Austin have been brought to the Lords Table and receive from his hand his Body and Blood but they only adore and are not satisfied For just as St. Ambrose distinguisheth betwixt drinking the Wine Vinum bibere and drinking of the Wine de Vino bibere that is to say to tast of a little Wine de ejus portione libare so also St. Austin his Disciple distinguisheth betwixt receiving the Body and Blood of the Lord accipere Corpus Sanguinum Domini and to receive of the Body and Blood of the Lord Accipere de Corpore Sanguine Christi St. Austin explains himself more fully when he saith in his 86th Epist. That one receives in the Eucharist a Portion of the Body of the immaculate Lamb De Agni immaculati Corpore partem sumere And in the 35th Sermon on the Words of our Lord he saith In receiving the Sacrament we know what we should think of we receive a little and we are satned in the heart modulum accipimus in corde saginamur Now that cannot be understood of the proper Body of Jesus Christ which cannot be received by Parcels therefore it must be meant of Bread which is the Figure of his Body or the Sacrament of it It is what St. Austin intends when he saith Nec quando manducamus when we eat Jesus Christ de illo partes facimus equidem in Sacramento sic fit We do not make Morsels but it is done in Sacrament that is to say That we break and divide the Sign and the Bread which is the Sacrament The same Father saying that the Accidents cannot in any wise subsist without their Subject saith in his 2d Book of Soliloquies Chap. 12. What can reconcile what you demand Or who can think it possible to be done that that which is in a Subject should remain the Subject it self ceasing to be For 't is a thing monstrous and very far from the Truth that that which doth not subsist if it be not in a Subject can be the Subject it self not remaining Also in the 13th Chap. 19th Book and in the Book of the Immortality of the Soul Chap. 5. The Subject being changed of necessity all that was in the Subject must be changed In the 8th Chap. What is not of it self if it be abandoned by that by which it is must undoubtedly cease to be Also in the 10th Chap. and in the Book of Categories speaking of Accidents A colour cannot be without a Subject And in the Epistle to Dardanus Take away the Bodies from the qualities of Bodies they will have no place to remain in and by consequence it is necessary that they cannot be And against Julian Chap. 5. It 's true saith St. Austin that the things that are in a Subject as the qualities are cannot be without the Subject wherein they are as the colour or form c. It 's impossible had St. Austin believed that the Bread did not remain in the Eucharist after Consecration that he should have esteemed that absurd
acquires a sanctification The author saith The Bread is changed but when he adds that 't is into a Spiritual virtue he quite excludes the change of its substance for by virtue and Spiritual cannot be understood any other change but that of virtue and quality seeing this Author speaks of this change as being common to the Water of Baptism to the Oyl of Unction and to the Bread of the Eucharist That the Fathers of the THIRD CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation TErtullian in his first Book against Marcion shewing that Jesus Christ is not contrary to the Creator as this Heretick affirm'd saith in his 14th Chap. Hitherto Jesus Christ has not condemn'd the Water wherewith he cleanseth his Children nor the Oyl wherewith he anoints them nor the Hony nor the Milk whereby he makes them his Children nor the Bread by which he represents his body By this passage the Bread represents the Body of Jesus Christ therefore the Bread remains in the Sacrament and this Bread is not really Jesus Christ because what doth represent is another thing than what is represented Two things have been said on this place of Tertullian first that the Bread signifies the accidents of Bread the second that the Word represent does signify in this place to make present As when in a Court of Justice a Prisoner is made appear as often as he is demanded Against the former there 's no reason to believe that Tertullian speaking of Water of Oyl of Hony and Milk should intend to speak of their accidents but of their very substance and that speaking of Bread he should speak only of its accidents Against the second it 's most certain that in matter of Sacraments the term to signify is taken literally to signify S. Austin saith Ep. 5. the signs when applyed to Holy things are called Sacraments Tertullian explains himself clearly Lib. 3. against Marcion so that there 's no cause of doubting when he saith That Jesus Christ has given to the Bread the priviledge of being the figure of his Body The same Tertullian lib. 4. contra Marcion cap. 40. doth prove that Jesus Christ had a real Body and not one in shew only as Marcion dream'd and he proves it by this argument That which hath a figure ought to be real and true now Jesus Christ hath in the Eucharist a figure of his Body therefore the Body of Jesus Christ is real and true and not a Phantome Jesus Christ saith Tertullian having taken the Bread which he distributed amongst his Disciples he made it his Body saying This is the figure of my Body now it had been no figure if Jesus Christ had not had a real and true Body for an empty thing as a Phantasm is is not capable of having any figure From hence 't is concluded that the Bread being the figure of the Body of Jesus Christ and that which is a figure being distinguished from the thing signified the Bread of the Eucharist is not properly and truely the Body of Jesus Christ and so the Bread is not destroy'd but remains to be the figure of the Body of Jesus Christ. If it be said the Bread is destroy'd and that the accidents of Bread are the figure of the Body of Jesus Christ this gives up the victory to Marcion to prove that Jesus Christ had a true Body and not one in shew only because Jesus Christ hath in the Eucharist the figure of Bread which is Bread only in appearance Marcion might have retorted the argument and said according to you Tertullian the Sacrament is the figure of the Body of Jesus Christ now as this figure is Bread in appearance and is called Bread only because of the outward accidents and qualities which it retains so also the Body of Jesus Christ was only a Body in appearance and was called a Body because it had the outward accidents and qualities Again as Tertullian saith That Jesus Christ distributed to his Disciples the Bread which he had taken to make it the figure of his Body it is most certain he took true Bread and by consequence that he distributed true Bread. The same Tertullian in his Treatise of the Soul disputing against the Accademitians that questioned the truth of the testimony of the Senses saith to them that we must not at all doubt of the testimony of the Senses lest occasion might farther be taken to doubt the actions of the humanity of Jesus Christ that it might not be said That it was untrue that he saw Satan fall from Heaven That it was not true that he heard the Father's voice from heaven bearing witness to his Son That he was deceived when he touched Peter's Wifes Mother That he was deceived when he smelt the sweet odour which he was pleas'd to accept for the preparation to his Death or That he tasted the Wine that he consecrated in remembrance of his Blood. It is evident that to consecrate Wine in remembrance of Blood cannot be understood of a substance which is destroy'd all saving the accidents This manner of expression in the language of the Ancients signifying no more but that a substance remains always in its first state only attains to a higher degree which is to be the Sacrament of a Heavenly and supernatural thing To conclude if Tertullian had believed that the Wine had been destroy'd and that nothing but the appearance was left against the testimony of all the Senses had it not been an unpardonable fault in Tertullian to prove that the Senses could not be deceived by the Example of the Eucharist where the Senses are quite deceived Origen did not believe Transubstantiation when he said in his Commentary on the 13th Chap. of S. Matth. expounding these words of the Gospel what enters into the Mouth defiles not the Man c. as there 's nothing that 's impure of it self to him that 's polluted and incredulous but a thing is impure by reason of his impurity and incredulity so also that which is sanctifyed by the word of God and Prayer doth not sanctify by its proper nature him that uses it If it were so it would also sanctify him that cats unworthily of the Lord and none should have been weak nor sick nor should have fallen asleep by reason of so eating If all that enters into the Mouth goes into the Belly and there is cast out into the draught this food which is sanctifyed by the word of God and by Prayer goes also into the Belly and is cast out into the draught according to its material substance But according to the Prayer which has been thereunto added it becomes profitable according to the measure of Faith by causing the mind to become inlightned having regard to what is profitable And 't is not the matter of Bread but the words which have been pronounc'd upon it that avails him which eateth in such a manner as is not unworthy of the Lord and this may be said of the
to you this Sacrament I say which lifts us up to Heaven It appears by these words that S. Gregory lookt upon the Consecrated Bread and Wine as figures of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ now if they are figures then they are not that whereof they be figures and by consequence there is in the Sacrament something else besides the very Body of Jesus Christ to wit the Bread and Wine which are the Types and figures of it For to say that S. Gregory means only that the accidents of Bread and Wine are the Types and figures when he saith his Sister mingled her tears with the Antitypes of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ as many as she could keep in her hands Si quid Antityporum pretiosi Corporis aut Sanguinis manus thesaurisasset these words as many as she could gather in her hands signify as many portions and parts of the Eucharist as she could gather up paululum Eucharistiae as Eusebius speaks in the sixth Book of his Hist. chap. 36. as having gather'd together a little of the Sacrament and having separated it from a greater Mass or from a greater quantity of liquor Now all antiquity agree that the lines the superficies the qualities are inseparable from their subject so that this little parcel of Antitypes this parcel of the figures cannot be a part of accidents and of appearances Gregory Nyssen going to prove that the Water of Baptism for being Water ought not to be despised but that after Consecration it hath a marvellous Virtue he proves it by the Example of the Eucharist and extream Unction The Bread saith he before Consecration is but common Bread but after Consecration it is called and is the Body of Christ so also the Mystical Oyl and Wine before Benediction are common things and of no virtue but after Benediction both of them have a great virtue Now these words shew that the Bread and Wine remain after Consecration for it appears that St. Gregory's Design is to prove that common and ordinary things have a marvellous force after Consecration and if the Bread and Wine were destroy'd after Consecration what did operate would not be a vile and mean thing because it would be the very Body of Jesus Christ and St. Gregory would not well have proved that vile things have any marvellous virtue in them after Consecration for instance Bread and Wine which not subsisting after Consecration could not have the virtue to sanctify S. Ambrose in his Epistle to Justus explaining what Gomer is saith it is a measure and that this measure signifies the quantity of Wine which rejoyces the heart of Man and having explain'd the Wine of the drinking Wisdom Sobriety and Temperance he saith That it is to be understood more fully of the Blood of Jesus Christ which neither admits increase nor decrease as to grace But of which if one receive more or less the measure however of Redemption is equal to all Plenius de sanguine intelligitur cujus ad gratiam nihil minuitur nihil adaugetur si parum sumas si plurimum haurias eadem perfecta est omnibus mensura Redemptionis This manner of speaking of taking more or less of the Blood of Jesus Christ is not to be understood of the proper Body of Jesus Christ which is indivisible there must be therefore in the Eucharist besides the proper Blood of Jesus Christ a Typical and Symbolical Blood which is the Wine which is so called and of which we may say we receive more or less The same Father saith elsewhere That as often as we receive the Sacraments which by the virtue of Holy Prayer are transfigur'd into the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ we shew forth the Death of Christ. It is certain that by these words S. Ambrose lookt upon the Bread and Wine as figures of the Flesh and Blood now the figure being a thing distinct from what it represents as being two correlatives the one of which is not the other it must be concluded that S. Ambrose believed that there is Bread and Wine in the Eucharist which are the figures of the Bread and Heavenly Power The same Father speaking of the blessing of Aser explaining these Words Ashur his Bread is fat he shall feed Princes saith Jesus Christ who is Ashur that is rich has nourish'd Princes When he multiply'd the five and seven Loaves and gave them to his Apostles to distribute to the multitude he every day gives us this Bread saith he when the Priest doth consecrate we may also by this Bread understand the Lord himself continues S. Ambrose who has given us his Flesh to eat By these words it appears S. Ambrose distinguishes three sorts of Bread which Jesus Christ gave to these Princes the first is that which he gave in multiplying the five and seven Loaves John 6. and Matth. 15. the second is the Bread which the Priest consecrates at Mass the third is that of which it is said I am the Bread of Life which is Jesus Christ himself As then the second is not the first so neither is the second the third The Consecrated Bread is another thing than Jesus Christ the Bread of Life and by consequence there is in the Sacrament a Bread distinct from Jesus Christ the Heavenly Bread. Gaudentius upon Exodus saith With great reason we receive with the Bread the figure of the Body of Christ because as the Bread is compos'd of many grains which being ground into Flower is kneaded with Water and baked by Fire so also the Body of Christ is made and collected of the whole race of Mankind and is perfected by the Fire of the Holy Ghost Now as this Author places the figure of the Body of Jesus Christ in that the Bread is made up of sundry grains reduced into Meal kneaded with Water and baked with fire it follows that he believed the Bread remained in the Sacrament and so much the rather because this Bishop saith elsewhere figura non est veritas sed imitatio veritatis S. Chrysostom expounding these words I will no more drink of this fruit of the vine until I drink it new in the Kingdom of my Father saith because Jesus Christ had spoke to his Disciples of his Passion and of his Death now he speaks to them of his Resurrection making mention of his Kingdom calling his resurrection by this name Now wherefore did Jesus Christ drink after his Resurrection fearing lest ignorant persons should think his Resurrection was only imaginary because many took the act of drinking as a true sign of the Resurrection Therefore the Apostles going to prove his Resurrection say we that have eat and drank with him Jesus Christ. Therefore assuring them that they should see him after his Resurrection and that he would stay with them and that they might bear witness of his Resurrection might see and behold him tells them I will no
it is said The Lord in the Type of his Blood did not offer Water but Wine These words are indeed Jovinian's but St. Jerom sinds no fault with them For he himself saith the same upon the 31 Chapter of Jeremy Vers. 12. on these Words They run after God's Creatures the Wheat the Wine and the Oyl the Bread and the Wine saith he whereof is made the Bread of the Lord and wherein is accomplished the Type of his Blood. Now saith St. Ambrose The Type is not the Truth but it is the shadow of the Truth There must then be in the Eucharist Bread and Wine distinct from the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ to be the Types and Figures of it The same Father in his Letter to Hedibia Let us hear that the Bread which the Lord broke and gave his Disciples was the Lord's own Body saying Take Eat This is my Body and a little after he saith If the Bread that came down from Heaven is the Body of the Lord and the Wine which he distributed among his Disciples his Blood c. St. Jerom saith That Jesus Christ brake and distributed Bread to his Disciples that he gave them Bread and that the Bread and Wine were his Flesh and Blood. It cannot then be said That what Jesus Christ gave in communicating his Disciples was not Bread and Wine and when he saith both the one and the other was his Body and Blood it cannot be understood but only figuratively for we see above in St. Cyprian that the Jesuites Salmeron and Bellarmine do confess That if Jesus Christ said of the Bread This is my Body it must be meant This Bread is the Figure of my Body the one not being capable of being the other but figuratively And the Reason is given by Vasquez when he saith If the Pronoun This in the words of Consecration be understood of the Bread undoubtedly by virtue of it there can be wrought no Transubstantiation because of necessity the Bread must needs remain Si Pronomen hoc in illis verbis demonstraret panem fatemur fore ut nulla conversio virtute illorum fieri posset quia panis de quo enunciatur manere debeat The same S. Jerom in his Commentary upon the 26 Chapter of St. Matthew saith Jesus Christ having eaten the Paschal Lamb took Bread which strengthens the Heart of Man and proceeded to the accomplishment of the Sacrament of the true Passover that as Melchisedeck had offered Bread and Wine in Figure he also himself would represent the truth of his Body According to this Father the Bread and Wine represent the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and therefore are not properly and truly the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ but are something else besides them and by consequence remain in the Sacrament For to say as the Author of the Second Book of the perpetuity of the Faith of the Eucharist doth against Monsieur Claude that St. Jerom means by representing to make a thing be present we before refuted this Fancy in Tertullian who speaks just as St. Jerom And the terms sufficiently declare that St. Jerom's meaning is That Jesus Christ made use of Bread and Wine to signifie and shew forth his Body and Blood as Melchisedeck had done that is to say as he had represented both the one and the other by the Oblation of Bread and Wine St. Austin in his Sermon to the newly Baptized which it's true is not found in his other Works but was preserv'd and is cited by St. Fulgentius de Baptismo Aethiop Cap. 7. What you see saith he upon the Altar of God you saw also the last Night but you were not yet aware of how great a thing it is a Sacrament That which you see is Bread and a Cup of Wine and it is also what your Eyes declare unto you but what your Faith should instruct you in is That the Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ and the Cup his Blood. If you tell me Jesus Christ is born he was crucified he was buried he rose again and is ascended into Heaven whither he has carry'd his Body and is at present on the right hand of God from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead how then can the Bread be his Body and the Cup his Blood these things my Brethren are called Sacraments because one thing is seen in them and another thing is understood by them what is seen hath a Corporeal Substance what is understood hath a Spiritual Fruit. If then you desire to understand what the Body of Jesus Christ is hearken to the Apostle which saith You are the Body of Christ and his Members If then you are the Body of Jesus Christ and his Members it is the Mystery of what you are which is upon the Holy Table it is the Mystery of the Lord which you receive in saying Amen you answer and subscribe to what you are All you that are united in Charity you make but one Body of Jesus Christ of which you are the Members which is what is signified by the Bread compos'd of several Grains and by the Wine which is made of sundry Grapes For as Bread to be made a visible Species of Bread is made of sundry Grains collected together in one and the Wine c. St. Austin saith That the Bread is the Body of Christ which cannot be but improperly and figuratively as hath been shewed above for by Confession of Roman Catholick Doctors every Proposition that saith of the Bread That it is the Body must needs be typical and figurative He saith what is seen is Bread as our Eyes declare to us now what our Eyes report to us is true Bread as when one says What you see is true Gold and Silver or Marble and 't is what your Eyes testifie that is to say That one sees true Gold and true Marble and that one makes use of their Eyes to confirm it In the same sense he saith That Jesus Christ although in Heaven yet the Bread is the Body and the Wine the Blood because they are the Sacraments of it He saith What one sees hath a bodily species now in this Passage by bodily species he means the very Substance and not the Accidents For he saith afterwards speaking of Bread in general as Bread to be a visible species of Bread must be made of several Grains reduced into one lump now by the species of Bread it is plain St. Austin there means true Bread and a true Substance He saith What you see is Bread and a Cup now by Cup he doth not mean the appearance of a Cup he means a true Cup. He saith this Bread is the Mystery of the Lord. Which is nothing else but that 't is the Figure of the Lord as when he saith This Bread is the Mystery of Believers Mysterium vestrum in Mensa Domini accipitis That is to say That the Bread and Wine are the Figure of
Body Typical or Symbolical Many things might be said also of the Word made Flesh and true nourishment the which whosoever eats shall never dye and which no wicked person can eat for could it be that he which continues wicked should eat of the Word incarnate seeing he is the Word and Bread of Life it would not have been written Whosoever eateth this Bread shall live Eternally When he saith of the Bread of the Eucharist that it sanctifieth not of it self it cannot he understood of the true Body of Jesus Christ but of the Bread which remains When he saith This Bread sanctified by the invocation of God and by Prayer remains in its material being it means plainly That it remains in its former substance When he saith That this Bread as to the matter of it goes down into the Belly and is cast into the draught as the other meats This not being to be understood of Jesus Christ without Blaspheming is necessarily to be understood of the Bread. When he calls this Bread the Typical Body it shews plainly That this not being the true Body it is not Transubstantiated When having spoken of the Typical Body he after speaks of the Word made Flesh which cannot but give life to those which eat and receive him he sufficiently distinguisheth the Bread of the Eucharist from Jesus Christ the former of which may be mortal but the latter can never be so to those who receive and eat him This passage is so clear and evident that Sixtus Senensis in his Bibl. l. 6. annot 66. found no better expedient than to say That 't was probable This passage had been corrupted by the Hereticks Gennebrard and Du Perron suspected Erasmus to have ill translated it But the learned Monsieur Huet nominated to be Bishop of Soissons saith It evidently appears by the Original Greek that this passage is no way changed The same Origen saith in Tom. 32. of his Commentary on S. John that the morsel of Bread Christ gave to Judas and those he gave the Apostles saying Take Eat were of the same sort Now if the morsel given to Judas was true Bread as it is granted and if the Bread given the other Apostles was not true Bread then the one and the other were not of the same kind The same Origen in the Seventh Homily on Leviticus saith That Jesus Christ before his Passion drank Wine but being ready to suffer he refused to drink it Ubi vero tempus advenit Crucis suae accipiens inquit Galicem benedixit dedit Discipulis suis dicens Accipite Bibite ex hoc Vos inquit bibite quia non accessuri estis and altare ipse autem tanquam accessurus ad altare dicit Amen dico vobis quia non bibam de generatione vitis hujus usque quò bibam illud novum vobiscum in Regno Patris mei Origen affirms That our Saviour in celebrating the Eucharist did not drink Wine because he was ready to approach the Altar of his Passion and that the Apostles did drink Wine because they were not yet ready to approach to the Altar of Martyrdom And that in this sense the Figure of the Old Testament was accomplished where 't was forbidden to Aaron and his Priests to drink Wine when they were about to approach to the Altar All this Discourse is false if Jesus Christ spake not these words of true Wine I will not drink c. and if what the Apostles drank was not true Wine Let us see now what St. Cyprian saith The Sacrifice of the Lord recommends to us Unity for when Jesus Christ called his Body the Bread which is made of several Grains he recommended the Unity of Christian People and when he called his Blood the Wine made of several Grains and Grapes he represented one Flock united by the Band of Charity Now these words where Jesus Christ called the Bread his Body and the Wine his Blood is as if he had said of the Bread This is my Body and of the Wine This is my Blood. And if hereunto we add the words of the Jesuite Salmeron who said If Jesus Christ had said This Bread is my Body and this Wine is my Blood it would have obliged us to have understood these words in a figurative sense because the Bread cannot be a humane Body nor the Wine Blood but in a figurative Sense Bellarmine saith the same If Jesus Christ had said This Bread is my Body this proposuion must be understood in a figurative Sense otherwise the Expression would be absurd and impossible Now as we see S. Cyprian saith that Jesus Christ said of the Body That 't is his Body and of the Wine That 't was his Blood it must be concluded therefore that Jesus Christ said of the Bread and Wine That they were his Body and Blood that is to say That the Bread and Wine were his Body and Blood in Figure both the one and the other being represented and signified by the Bread and Wine And therefore in his Epistle to Cecilius where at large he proves the Wine must be mingled with Water he saith If there be no Wine in the Cup the Blood of Jesus Christ cannot be represented to us because 't is the Wine that represents to us the Blood of Jesus Christ. And again Vini ubique mentio est ideo ponitur ut I omini Sanguis Vino intelligatur He saith of the Water that Sola Christi sanguinem non potest exprimere In aqua vidimus populum intelligi in Vino ostendi Sanguinem Christi So that seeing St. Cyprian saith That the Wine representeth expresseth sheweth and makes us see the Blood of Jesus Christ as the Water representeth expresseth and shews us the Christian People it cannot be imagin'd that St. Cyprian believed the Wine was destroy'd but on the contrary he believed that after Consecration the Wine remained and that 't was true Wine that he called his Blood according to what he saith in the same Letter Quia in parte invenimus Calicem mixtum fuisse quem Dominus obtulit vinum fuisse quod Sanguinem suum dixit That the Fathers of the FOURTH CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation EUstathius Patriarch of Antioch upon these words of Solomon in the Proverbs Eat my Bread and drink the Wine which I have prepar'd saith That the wise Man by the Bread and Wine did foreshew the Antitypes of the Body of Jesus Christ Now that which is a Type is an Image what is an Image cannot be the thing but in Figure so that the Bread is not destroy'd because it is the Type and the Image Eusebius of Caesarea interpreting these words of Genesis Chap. 49. Vers. 12. His Eyes shall be red with Wine and his Teeth white with Milk saith That the first words signifie the Joy that the mystical Wine doth cause in the Disciples of Jesus Christ when he saith to them Take Drink ye ALL