and frequently speak of a great fupernatural change made by the divine Benediction; which we alfo readily acknowledge. They fay indeed, that the Elements of Bread and Wine do by the divine Bleffings become to us the Body and Blood of Chrift: But they likewife fay that the Names of the things fignified are given to the Signs; that the Bread and Wine do ftill remain in their proper Nature and Subftance, and that they are turn'd into the Subftance of our Bodies; that the Body of Chrift in the Sacrament is not his natural Body, but the Sign and Figure of it; not that Body which was crucified, nor that Blood which was thed upon the Crofs; and that it is impious to understand the eating of the Flefb of the Son of Man and drinking bis Blood literally; all which are directly oppofite to the Doctrine of Tranfubftantiation and utterly inconfiftent with it. I will felect but fome few Teftimonies of many things which I might bring to this purpose.

I begin with Justin Martyr, who fays exprefly, that (p) our Blood and Flesh are nourifbed by the converfion of that food which we receive in the Eucharift: But that cannot be the natural Body and Blood of Chrift, for no Man will fay that that is converted into the nourishment of our Bodies.

The Second is (q) Irenæus, who peaking of this Sacrament fays, that the Bread whichis from the Earth receiving the divine invocation is now no longer common Bread, but the Eu

(p) Apd. 2. p. 98, Edit. Parif, 1636. (9) Lib. 4. c. 34.

charift

charift (or Sacrament.) confifting of two things, the one earthly, the other heavenly. He lays it is no longer Common Bread, but after Invocation or Confecration it becomes the Sacrament, that is, Bread fan&tified, confifting of two things, an earthly and an heavenly; the earthly thing is Bread, and the heavenly is the Divine Bleffing which by the Invocation or Confecration is added to it. And (r) elfewhere he hath this paffage, when therefore the Cup that is mix'd (that is of Wine and Water) and the Bread that is broken receives the Word of God, it becomes the Eucharift of the Blood and Body of Chrift, of which the fubftance of our Flesh is increafed and confifts; but if that which we receive in the Sacrament do nourish our Bodies, it must be Bread and Wine, and not the natural Body and Blood of Chrift. There is another remarkable Testimony of Ireneus, which though it be not now extant in thofe Works of his which remain, yet hath been preferv'd by (s) Oecumenius, and it is this: when (fays he) the Greeks had taken fome Servants of the Chriftian Catechumeni (that is fuch as had not been admitted to the Sacrament) and afterwards urged them by violence to tell them fome of the fecrets of the Chriftians, thefe Servants having nothing to say that might gratify thofe who offered violence to them, except only that they had heard from their Masters that the Divine Communion was the Blood and Body of Chrift, they thinking that it was really Blood and Flesh, declar'd as much to thofe that que

(1) Lib. 5. 60. 23, (s) Comment, in 1 Pct. 6. 3.

ftion'd

*

fion'd them. The Greeks taking this as if it were really done by the Chriftians, difcovered it to others of the Greeks; who bereupon put San&us and Blandina to the torture to make them confefs it. To whom Blandina boldly anfwer'd, How could they endure to do this, who by way of exercife (or, abftinence) do not eat the Flesh which may lawfully be eaten? By which it appears that this which they would have charg'd upon Chriftians, as if they had literally eaten the Flesh and Blood of Chrift in the Sa crament, was a falfe Accufation which thefe Martyrs denied, laying they were fo far from that, that they for their part did not eat any Flesh at all.

The next is Tertullian, who proves against Marcion the Heretick, that the Body of our Saviour was not a meer Phantafm and Appearance, but a real Body, because the Sacra ment is a Figure and Image of his Body; and if there be an Image of his Body he must have a real Body, otherwife the Sacrament would be an Image of an Image.His Words are thefe,(t) The Bread which our Saviour took and diftributed to his Difciples be made his own Body, faying this is my Body, that is, the Image.or Figure of my Body. But it could not have been the Figure of bis Body, if there had not been a true and real Body. And arguing against the Scepticks who denied the certainty of Senfe, he ufeth this Argument: That if we queftion our Senfes we may doubt whether our Bleffed Saviour were not deceived in what he heard, and faw,

-1 (1) Adverf. Marchionem 1. 4. p. 571. Edit. Rigal. Parif. 1634

and

and touched. (*) He might (fays he) be deceived in the voice from Heaven, in the fmell of the Ointment with which he was anointed against bis Burial, and in the taste of the Wine which be confecrated in remembrance of his Blood. So that it feems we are to truft our Senfes, even in the matter of the Sacrament: And if that be true, the Doctrine of Tranfubftantiation is certainly falfe.

Origen in his (w) Comment on Matth. 15. peaking of the Sacrament hath this Paffage, That food which is fanttifica by the Word of God and Prayer, as to that of it which is material, goeth into the Belly and is caft out into the draught, which none will furely fay of the Body of Chriff. And afterwards he adds by way of explication, it is not the matter of the Bread, but the Words which are spoken over it, which profiteth him that worthily eateth the Lord, and this (he fays) be bad fpoken concern ing the Typical and Symbolical Body. So that the matter of Bread remaineth in the Sacrament, and this Origen calls the Typical and Symbolical Body of Chrift; and it is not the natural Body of Chrift which is there eaten; for the food eaten in the Sacrament, as to that of it which is material, goeth into the Belly and is caft out into the Draught. This Teftimony is fo very plain in the Caufe that Sextus Senenfis fufpe&ts this place of Origen was depraved by the Hereticks. Cardinal Perros is contented to allow it to be Origen's, but rejects his Teftimony because he was accufed of Herefy by fome of

(u) Lib, de Anima. p. 319. (w) Edit, Huetti.

the

the Fathers, and fays he talks like a Heretick in this place. So that with much ado this Te. Alimony is yielded to us. The fame Father in his (*) Homilies upon Leviticus fpeaks thus, There is alfo in the New Teftament a letter which kills him who doth not spiritually unders ftand thofe things which are faid; for if we take according to the Letter that which is faid, EXCEPT TE EAT MY FLESH AND DRINK MT BLOOD, this Letter kills. And this alfo is a killing Teltimony, and not to be anfwer'd but in Cardinal Perron's way,by Faying he talks like a Heretick..

St. Cyprian hath a whole Epiftle (y) to Cetilius, against thofe who gave the Communion in Water only without Wine mingled with it; and his main Argument against them is this,. that the Blood of Chrift with which we are redeemed and quickned cannot seem to be in the Cup when there is no Wine in the Cup by which the Blood of Chrift is represented: and afterwards he fays that contrary to the Evangelical and Apoftolical Doctrine, Water was in fome Places offer'd (or given) in the Lords Cup, which (fays he) alone cannot exprefs (or reprefent) the Blood of Chrift. And lastly he tells us, that by Water the People is underflood, by Wine the Blood of Chrift is fhewn (or reprefented) but when in the Cap Water is mingled with Wine the People is united to Chrift. So that according to this Argument, Wine in the Sacramenrai Cap is no otherwife changed into the Blood of Chrift, than the Water mixed with it is chang