$.28, against him. And if the Greeks were for him, why did they not engage openly in his Quarrel? They were at that Time fo exalperated against the Latins, that they even reproach'd them with the most trivial Things, as Shaving their Beards, Eating Hogs-flesh, and Confecrating in unleaven'd Bread; but never accufed them of any Error relating to the subject in Question: which is a Demonftrative Proof, that the Greeks agree'd with the Latins, and were against Brengarius in this Mystery.

3dly, the most learned Writers of the Eleventh Age knew nothing of the many famous Nations, the Doctor fpeaks of; and I may modeftly prefume, they could not be ignorant of the Religion profefs'd in any noted Nation of Christendom.

Hugh Bishop of Langres in France writing to Berengarius, told him, that he Scandaliz'd the whole Church: Univerfalem Ecclefiam scandalizes.

Durandus Abbot of Troarn in Normandy told him, he impugn'd the Doctrine of the whole Catholick Church. Quod Catholica per Orbem univerfum pradicat Ecclefia.

he

Lanfrank Primate of England, and a Man of extraordinary Parts in the Beginning of his Book against Berengarius tells him he holds an Opinion contrary to the whole World. Contra Orbem fentire ca pifti. And Guitmond Abbot of Averfe told him, was the Author of his Sect. It is (fays he) notoriously known at this Time, that this mad Doctrine never was taught, before Berengarius began to run Mad. L. 3. Norffimum eft hoc tempore, priufquam Berengarius infaniffet, hujufmodi infanias nunquam fuiffe. And in the fame Book he reproaches him, that not even any poor Town or Village had received his Doctrine: neque enim eis vel una Civitatula vel Villa conceffit. And pray, Sr, in what Part of the Terreftrial Globe were

then the many famous Nations discover'd fince by your unanswerable Doctor?

§. 29.

The Antiquity of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation.

Ut, to return to that Piece of Doctor Cofin's Hif

But

tory, where he tells us, that Transubstantiation was first invented about the Middle of the twelfth Century, I shall now produce fome Testimonies of Fa,. thers, that lived in the Fourth: and if these teach the Doctrine of Tranfubftantiation as plainly as Bellarmin himself, then the Doctor muft ftand condemned. I have already fairly proved St Austin and St Chryfoftom to be found Papifts in Relation to the Ar ticle in Question. To these I shall for Brevity's Sake only add four more, two Greek, and two Latin Fa thers (for I omit a whole Cloud more of Venerable Witneffes) viz, St Cyril of Jerufalem, St Gregory Nyf fen, St Ambrofe, and St Jerom. Whoever cannot find the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in these Fathers, must have very bad Eyes. I fay the Doctrine; for I am not difpofed to trifle about the Word.

St Cyril Catech. Myftag. 4.) writes thus. Jefus Chrift (fays he) in Cana of Galilee changed Water into Wine, which has fome Affinity with Blood, by his Will only. And can we not believe him, THAT HE CHANGED THE WINE INTO HIS OWN BLOOD? Let your Soul rejoice in the Lord being perfuaded of it as a Thing most certain, that the Bread, which appears to our Eyes is not Bread, tho our Taft do Judge it to be fo, but that it is the Body of Jefus Chrift. And that the Wine, which appears to our Eyes is not Wine, the our Senfe of Faft wh's it for Wine, but that it is the Blood of Jefus Chrift Nothing can be plainer than this.

St Gregory Nyffen in the fame Century having said, that the immoral Body of Chrift (as a powerful Prefervative) is received into our Bowels, and then enquired, how this fame Body, which is diftributed to so many thoufands of the Faithful over all the Earth, should be entire in each of these, and in each Part, which they receive, and yet not ceafe to remain entire in itself? He anfwers, beeaufe the visible Substance of Bread and Wine are changed into it. The Body of Chrift, fays he, is Deify'd by his Perfon. And therefore I have Reason to believe, that to this Day the Bread being fanctify'd by the Word of God IS CHANGED INTO THE BODY OF GOD THE SON.--- For there the Divine Perfon fanctify'd the Body, which had Bread for it's Nourishment, and fo was as it were Bread. And here in like Manner, Bread, to ufe the Words of the Apostle, is fanctify'd by the Word of God and Prayer. Not fo, that it is to be changed into the Body of Chrift by Nourishing it; BUT THAT IT IS SUDDENLY CHANGED INTO IT BY THESE WORDS, this is my Body; THE NATURE OF THOSE THINGS, THAT

APPEAR, BEING TRANSELEMENTED INTO IT BY THE POWER OF CONSECRATION. In Orat. Catech. Cap. 37. T. 3. Edit. Par.

This I think is Teaching the Doctrine of Tranfubftantiation, tho the Word itself be not made Ufe of.

St Ambrofe likewife teaches it fo very plainly, that the Proteftant Centurists made bold to give him a Reprimand for it, saying, Ambrofe did not write well of Tranfubftantiation. Cent. 4. C. 4. Col. 295. It feems then he wrote of it; and fince he lived above 700 Years before the middle of the twelfth Century, I know not what will become of Doctor Cofin's Epocha.

Let us then fee, how he handles this Subject in his Book de Initiatis. Perhaps, fays he, you may tell me I fee another Thing. I must therefore proye, that

what you receive, is not that which Nature framed, but that, which the Benediction has confecrated; and that the Benediction has a greater Force than Nature. Mofes held a Rod in his Hand, he threw it down, and it was made a Serpent. Again he took hold of the Serpent, and it return'd into the nature of a Rod The Rivers of Egypt ran with Streams of pure Water, when presently Blood gush'd forth out of the Fountain. There was no Water in the Rivers, and again at the Prayer of Mofes the Blood ceafed, and the Nature of Waters return'd ---.

111

To thofe he adds other Miracles: viz. that when Mofes held up his Rod, the Sea open'd a Passage for the Ifraelits. That Fordan ran back. That Mofes brought Water out of a Rock by Striking it; and that Elisha made Iron Swim upon the Water contrary to it's Nature. Then he go's on thus. We fee therefore that Grace is stronger than Nature. Now, if a Man's Blessing could change the Courfe of Nature, what do we think of the Divine Confecration itself, in which the very Words of our Saviour operate? For the Sacrament, which you receive, is made by the Words of Christ. And if Elisha's Words were able to draw Fire from Heaven, will not Chrift's Words BE ABLE TO CHANGE THE SPECIES OF THE ELEMENTS ? We read of all Creatures in the World, he faid and they were made, he commanded, and they were created: Is not then the Word of Chrift, which could give a Being to that, which had none, able to CHANGE THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE, INTO WHAT THEY WERE NOT BEFORE? For it is not leß TO GIVES NEW NATURES TO THINGS, THAN TO CHANGE THEIR NATURES.

Laftly St Jerom Epift. ad Heliod. writes thus. God forbid I should peak detractingly of thofe Men [ Bishops] who fucceeding the Apostles in their Functions do MAKE THE BODY OF CHRIST with their facred Month

Thefe certainly are Authentick Witnesses of the publick Faith of the Church in their Times, both in Regard of their Holineß and Learning and because they never were accused by the Church of any Error againft Faith; which Cenfure they could not have efcaped, had they been guilty of Broaching any Doc. trine contrary to the known Faith of the Universal Church. Whence it is plain, that they taught no other Doctrine, than what they had received by a conftant Tradition from the Apostles: for otherwife they would undoubtedly have been publickly cenfured for Introducing Novelties into the Church.

Even many Proteftants convinced by thefe, and other numberlefs Teftimonies of the Ancient-Fathers have own'd the Antiquity of Transubstantiation. For befides the Centurifts, who blame several Fathers by Name for teaching it, Adamus Francisci (marg. Theol. p. 256.) confelles that Tranfubftantiation enter'd early into the Church. And Antonius de Adamo another Proteftant Writer (Anat. Miff. p. 36.) fairly owns, that he has not hitherto been able to know, when this Opinion of the real, and bodily Being of Chrift in the Sacrament did begin. Which according to St Austin's Maxim against the Donatifts, is Owning in Effect, that it had it's Beginning from Chrift, and his Apostles.

Hence I may fairly conclude, that Doctor Cofin's Calling Tranfubftantiation a Novelty invented about the Middle of the twelfth Century, and your telling me, that the Primitive Church and Fathers are all against it, are two Affertions wholly void of Truth.

St Ignatius Bishop of Antioch in the very firft Age a Difciple of the Apostles, and an illuftrious Martyr, is alone fufficient to difprove both the Doctor, and yourfelf; and give us certain Information of what the Primitive Church believed and taught concerning the Eucharist. For in his Genuine Epistle to the Church