Jesus Christ as they are the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. To conclude St. Austin saith The Faith of the New-baptized was to be strengthened it was therefore here the proper place for him to have said That the Bread was no more Bread that the Wine was no longer Wine but that there remained only the Accidents of the one and the other The same Holy Father answering Bishop Boniface who desired to know how it might be said of an Infant newly Baptis'd he hath Faith he Believes who is incapable of believing and of whom no assurance can be given what he will be afterwards he saith That as every Sunday and Easter Day is called Easter and the Resurrection although the Lords Easter and Resurrection are things happened several Ages past so it may be said An Infant hath Faith because he hath the Sacrament of Faith. For saith he if the Sacraments had not some resemblance with the things whereof they are Sacraments they would be no Sacraments as therefore in some sort the Sacrament of the Body of Jesus Christ is the Body of Jesus Christ and the Sacrament of his Blood is the Blood of Christ so also the Sacrament of Faith is Faith now to believe is nothing else but to have Faith. He saith The Eucharist is called Flesh and Blood because it is both the one and the other in some sort now according to St. Gregory Nyssen What is not truly that by the name by which it is called is but figuratively or improperly that by the name whereof it is called Now that the Bread and Wine which are the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ are his Body and Blood in some sort secundum quendam modum it follows The Bread and Wine are not properly the Flesh and Blood and by consequence are not Transubstantiated Moreover St. Austin doth explain the Manner according to which the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ and he shews it by reason that generally the signs are called by the name of the things they signifie not that they are the things they signifie but because they are the signs and that they have some resemblance to them The same Father upon the third Psalm admires the Patience of Jesus Christ that bore the Treachery of Judas to the end although he was not ignorant of his Thoughts and admitted him to the Banquet at which saith St. Austin Jesus Christ recommended and gave to his Disciples the Figure or Type of his Flesh and Blood Cum adhibuit ad convivium in quo Corporis Sanguinis sui Figuram Discipulis commendavit tradidit Now the Figure is not the Truth but the Imitation of the Verity saith Gaudentius in Exod. Tractatu 2. Moreover St. Austin cannot find in the Scriptures that Jesus Christ in instituting the Sacrament gave to his Disciples the Figure of his Body and Blood but in these words Take Eat This is my Body This is my Blood he must then understand these words of the Institution in a figurative sense And according to the same Doctor a Sign is that which shews it self to the Senses and besides that shews something else to the Mind It must then follow That the Sign is a thing which remains to shew it self The same Father disputing against Adimantus the Manichean Chap. 12. and against the Adversary of the Law and the Prophets in the Second Book Cap. 6. who said The Blood is the Soul as is said Deuteronom 12. and by consequence that Men killed the Soul when they shed Blood. S. Austin replies That this Precept in Deuteronomy That Blood must not be eat because 't is the Soul is a Precept that must he understood as many other things contained in the Scriptures which are to be taken in Types and Figures Illud praeceptum posicum esse dicimus sicut alia multa pene omnia Scripturarum illarum Sacramenta signis figuris plena sunt And concludes towards the end of that Chapter That the Blood is the Soul as the Rock was Christ Sanguis est Anima quomodo petra erat Christus And upon Leviticus Quest. 54. The thing which signisies is wont to be called by the name of the thing signified as 't is written the Rock was Christ For 't is not said The Rock signifi'd Christ but as if it were that which indeed it was not in substance but only in signification And as in the beginning of the Chapter he saith That it must be understood in the Sign Jesus Christ making no difficulty to say This is my Body when he gave the Sign of his Body Sanguis est Anima praeceptum illud est in signo positum non enim Dominus dubitavit dicere Hoc est Corpus meum cum daret signum Corporis sui Seeing then St. Austin doth say That the Blood is the Soul as the Rock was Christ and as the Eucharist is the Sign of Jesus Christ he must of necessity have understood the Words of Institution of the Sacrament in a figurative sense and that so much the rather because this manner of speech Jesus Christ made no difficulty plainly shews that Jesus Christ did not speak in a proper but in a figurative sense as Fulgentius saith Although the Apostle saith That Jesus Christ is the Head of the Body of the Church nevertheless he makes no Scruple to call Jesus Christ the Church which is his Body This manner of speech is never used in proper expressions no Body will say Jesus Christ made no difficulty to give Gold or Water if it were true Gold or Water which he gave The same holy Doctor saith in several places after the Apostle That the Bread in the Sacrament after Consecration is broken and distributed and he doth very well recommend this breaking the Bread as being a great mystery In his Epistle to Paulinus he saith In that Jesus Christ was known by the two Disciples in breaking the Bread no body ought to question but this breaking was the Sacrament whereby Jesus Christ brings us all to the knowledge of his Person A little before he saith By the Prayers we mean those which are said before one begins to bless what is upon the Lords Table The Prayers are said when that which is on the Lords Table is blessed sanctifyed and distributed In his Epistle to Casulanus he saith of S. Paul that in the night time he went to break Bread as it is broken in the Sacrament of his Body In his Commentary upon the first Epistle of S. John It was very reasonable that Jesus Christ recommending his Flesh broke Bread and it was very just that the Disciples knew him in breaking of Bread. In the 140. Sermon de temp and in the Hom. Of the consent of Evangelists lib. 3. c. 25. and de diversis Serm. 87. he saith Where would Jesus Christ be known In the breaking of Bread. We are then secure we break Bread
an Article of Faith. In the Fourth Method they laid down as a Maxim that the true means to discern what relates to matter of Faith or not is to see if the Article which is to be admitted was always believed as Matter of Faith that is to say that the French Bishops admitted in their pastoral Letter the Maxim which Vincentius Lyrinensis left us above 1100. years ago That great Care must be taken to retain in the Catholick Church what hath been believed every where by all and at all times as being the true Means whereby to discern what is Matter of Faith and what is not This same is the Rule given by Pope Pius the Fourth who obliges them to swear in the profession of Faith added to the Council of Trent That the Holy Scriptures should not be Interpreted But by the unanimous consent of the Ancient Fathers The Protestants have thought this Maxim so reasonable that Monsieur Larroque a French Minister saith in his Preface to the History of the Eucharist that he believes there is no Man of Sense but ought to admit of it And it was received as a Rule of Faith by the Reform'd Church of England by Philip Melancthon by Peter Martyr Gallasius Scultetus Casaubon Grotius Vessius Beza and by Gesselius who recites their Authorities in the Preface of his History of Memorable things from the Creation of the World to the year of Christ 1125. Seeing therefore that the Bishops of France have propos'd to us so just a Method let us examine if the Doctrine of Transubstantiation be a Doctrine of Faith and prove it not because the Council of Trent has defin'd it so Or that the Council of Lateran in the year 1215. suppos'd it to be so non quia ipsam quam tenemus fidem commendaverit Milevitanus Optatus vel Mediolanensis Ambrosius aut quia Collegarum Nostrorum Conciliis ipsa praedicta est saith S. Austin against the Donatists De unit Eccles. cap. 16. But because 't is contain'd in the Holy Scriptures and understood in that Sense by the unanimous consent of the Doctors and Councils that have gone before us This is what we now undertake to perform by the assistance of God's holy Spirit and with a disposition of Mind free from all Malice and Prejudice according to what Caesar saith in Salust in the beginning of the Book of Cataline Omnes homines qui de Rebus dubiis consultant ab ira odio vacuos esse debere haud facile animum pervidere verum ubi illa officiunt And St. Austin upon the Book against the Letter of the Manichean by them called the Letter of Foundation Ut autem facilius mitescatis c. nemo nostrum se jam quaeramus quasi ab utrisque nesciatur ita enim diligenter concorditer quaeri poterit si nulla temeraria prasumptions inventa cognita esse credatur But not to over-burthen this small Treatise with too great a number of Arguments or Citations we will chiefly examine two things First Who those Catholick Doctors are that believed the Doctrine of Transubstantiation not to be ancient Secondly If what those Doctors have writ be true And whether we can indeed produce sufficient Authorities to believe that the ancient Church did not hold nor believe it PART I. IN the first place That there have been Catholick Doctors which have taught that Transubstantiation is no ancient Doctrine Suarez formally asserteth it although indeed he saith their Opinion ought to be corrected The truth is Peter Lombard Master of the Sentences saith expresly Si quaeras qualis sit illa conversio an formalis an substantialis an alterius generis definire non audeo Secondly Scotus saith That there were formerly three Opinions touching the changing the Bread into the Body of Christ the first of which held that the Bread remain'd in the Eucharist In the Paragraph quantum ergo ad istum articulum c. he saith that at present the Church of Rome holds Transubstantiation Nunc autem ipsa tenet Sancta Rom. Ecclesia panem transubstantiari And a little under he saith ad tertium ubi stat vis dicendum quod Ecclesia declaravit istum intellectum esse de veritate fidei in illo Symbolo edito sub Innocentio tertio in Concilio Lateraenensi And since this Declaration made by this Council held in the year 1215. it is an Article of Faith. Tenendum est esse de substantia fidei hoc post istam declarationem solemnem Bellarmine doth own that Scotus did believe Transubstantiation was no Article of Faith before the Council of Lateram under Innocent the Third but he adds that 't was because Scotus did not know of the Council held under Gregory the Seventh and that he had not read the Authorities of the Fathers which saith Bellarmine I have now recited Thirdly Peter Dayly Cardinal and Bishop of Cambray saith It doth not clearly follow from the Determination of the Church that the substance of Bread ceaseth therefore he doth not believe this to be the ancient Doctrine Fourthly Cardinal Cusa Excit l. 6. Serm. 40. Super una Oblatione consummavit c. saith That there were some ancient Divines which did not believe Transubstantiation Fifthly Erasmus in his Notes on the First to the Corinthians saith That it was late ere the Church established Transubstantiation Sixthly Alphonsus à Castro saith That the ancient Writers very seldom spake of Transubstantiation Seventhly Tonstall Bishop of Durham about the middle of the last Century speaking of the Breads being changed into the Body of Christ saith It were much better to leave it to the Liberty of Christians to believe as they pleas'd of the manner in which this change is made as it was practis'd in the Church before the Council of Lateran Eighthly Cassander in his Consultation with the Emperour Maximilian the Second touching the differences of Religion confesseth that Transubstantiation is a Novelty and that 't were much better to keep to the terms of the Ancients that the Abuses therein approach near to Idolatry Ninthly Charles du Moulin the Oracle of the French Civilians upon the Edicts and Ordinances of France against the Injuries of Popes Num. 406. speaks in these Terms Innocent the Third forged or at least established it as a general Article of Faith and as necessary to be believed by all as that of the holy Trinity the Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the true Body and true Blood of Jesus Christ. Tenthly John Yribarne a Spanish Divine in the 4th Sent. Dist. 11. q. 3. Disp. 42. S. 1. saith That in the Primitive Church is was matter of Faith that the Body of Jesus Christ was contain'd under the Species of Bread and Wine but that 't was not any matter of Faith to hold that the substance of Bread was changed into the Flesh of Jesus Christ and that it subsisted
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
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
more drink the Fruit of the Vine until I drink it with you in a new manner whereof you shall bear testimony for you shall see me after my Resurrection But wherefore continues S. Chrysostom did he drink Wine after his Resurrection and not Water it is because he would thereby destroy a pernicious Heresy For because there would be Hereticks that would only make use of water in the Mysteries be would represent the Mysteries he gave Wine and when after the Resurrection he eat his common Repast he drank Wine the Fruit of the Vine now the Vine doth produce Wine and not Water This Passage marketh in the first place That Jesus Christ drinking the Fruit of the Vine after his Resurrection and not Water he accomplish'd what he said in celebrating the Eucharist I will no more drink of this Fruit of the Vine until I drink it new in my Fathers Kingdom This shews that Jesus Christ drank true Wine in the Institution of the Eucharist for what is to be done again must needs be done before Secondly St. Chrysostom doth not only say that Jesus Christ drank Wine but he saith further That he distributed Wine amongst his Disciples and the Fruit of the Vine which doth not produce Water but Wine So that these words of St. Chrysostom import clearly That the Wine remains in the Eucharist The same Father on these words of the First to the Corinthians The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ speaks thus What is the Bread it is the Body of Jesus Christ. What becomes of them which receive it they become the Body of Jesus Christ. Now this Proposition The Bread is the Body of Jesus Christ cannot be in a Literal Sense for saith Vasquez The Bread without a Figure cannot be called the Body of Jesus Christ nor the Body of Jesus Christ be called Bread. The same Father in his Commentary upon the Epistle to the Galatians Chap. 5. explaining these words of the Apostle The Flesh lusteth against the Spirit and the Spirit against the Flesh The Manicheans understood by the Flesh the substance of the Body and by the Spirit they understood the Soul and they said That the Apostle cut Man into two and intimated that Man was compos'd of two contrary Substances one bad which was the Flesh and the other good which was the Spirit which proceeded from the good God and the Body from the bad God S. Chrysostom answers That the Apostle in this place doth not call the Flesh the Body Apostolum non hic carnem appellare Corpus as the Manicheans supposed and saith That the Apostle do's not always mean by the Flesh the nature of the Body Naturam Corporis but that very often by the Flesh he means something else as evil Desires and having proved this by sundry passages of the Apostle and other holy Writers he proves it at last by the example of the Iucharist and of the Church which he saith is called Body in the Holy Scriptures he saith farther That the Scripture is wont to call by the name of Flesh as well the Church as the Mysteries saving It is his Body Rursum Carnis vocabulo Scriptura solet appellare tum Mysteria tum totam Ecclesiam dicens eam Christi Corpus esse It appears by these words of St. Chrysostom's That he did not believe that the Consecrated Bread and Wine were the same with the Body of Christ seeing he proves by the Eucharist that the Consecraeted Bread and Wine are called Flesh and that the Word Flesh in this place is taken for something else besides Body and that he puts the Term Flesh given to the Consecrated Bread and Wine which are the Mysteries in the rank of other Terms of Flesh given to evil Desires and to the Church which are mystical and figurative Terms So St. Chrysostom believed the Bread and Wine remained and are so called the Body of Jesus Christ mystically as the Church is called the Body of Jesus Christ. The same St. Chrysostom wrote a Letter to Caesarius which indeed is not inserted in his Works but is sound in Manuscript in the Library at Florence and it was also found in England in Archbishop Cranmer's Library it is mention'd in the Bibliotheca Patrum Printed at Collen 1618. in this Bibliotheque Tom. 4. there is found the Collections of an ancient nameless Author who wrote against the Severian and Acephalian Hereticks wherein is recited a Passage taken out of this Letter So also Monsieur de Marca Arch-Bishop of Paris acknowledges the truth of this Letter in his Posthume and French Treatise of the Eucharist witness the Abbot Fagget in his Letter to Monsieur de Marca President of the Parliament at Pan who saith also this Letter was found by Monsieur Bigot in a Library at Florence St. Chrysostom in this Letter writeth against Apollinarius and saith Jesus Christ is both God and Man God because of his Impassibility Man by his Passion one Son one Lord both Natures united making but one the same Power the same Dominion although they be two different Natures each conserves its own Nature because they are two and yet without confusion for as the Bread before it is sanctified is called Bread when by the intercession of the Priest Divine Grace has sanctified it it loses the name of Bread and becomes worthy to be called the Body of Jesus Christ although the Nature of Bread abides in it so that they are not two Bodies but one sole Body of the Son so the Divine Nature being united to the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ it did not make two Persons but one only Person and one Son. St. Chrysostom saith plainly That the Nature of Bread abideth after Consecration and this Father's Argument would be of no validity if this nature of the Bread was nothing but in shew for Apollinarius might have made another opposite Argument and say That indeed it might be said there were two Natures in Jesus Christ but that the Humane Nature was only in appearance as the Bread in the Eucharist is but in shew and hath only outward and visible qualities remaining in it whereby it is term'd to be Bread. The Author of the imperfect Work upon St. Matthew written in the time of the Emperour Theodosius did not believe Transubstantiation when he spake in these Terms in Homily Eleventh If it be dangerous to employ the holy Vessels about common uses wherein the true Body of Jesus Christ is not contain'd but the Mysteries of his Body how much rather the Vessels of our Bodies which God has prepared to dwell in That the Fathers of the FIFTH CENTURY did not believe Transubstantiation S. Jerom in his Epistle to Eustochium speaking of Virgins saith That when they were reproved for Drunkenness they excus'd themselves by adding Sacriledge to Drunkenness saying God forbid that I should abstain from the Blood of the Lord. In the Second Book against Jovinian