if there were Errours fit to be thrown out of our Church you your self I am sure your Learned Men will grant that no Ordination can prejudice or hinder such a Rejection of Errours That there were such Errours crept in which ought to be cast out and were at our Reformation is what our Church-Men a Hundred times over have invincibly proved As to the Rule you bring from St. Ambrose that they enjoy not the Inheritance of Peter pag. 20. who receive not the Faith of Peter we are very ready to join issue with you or any of your Church upon it and I question not before you and I part on this subject to ruine the Papal and Roman Succession by your own Rule to wit by proving that they have receded from the Faith of Peter and the whole Primitive Church We readily own that a true and Apostolical Mission pag. 20. Commission and Ordination are considerable particulars and are as ready any time to assert that our Church hath them and to prove it against you at any time if you have a mind to undertake this point against her CHAP. XVI The Doctrine of the Church of England concerning the Eucharist put down Mr. Scl. 's Reasons from Scripture for Transubstantiation answered HAving traced you hitherto and found all your Attempts vain and your Reasons to no purpose which you took so much pains to scrape together to have proved that our Saviour Christ left his Catholick Church in a Monarchical State under a Particular Vicegerent and that that Vicegerent was the Bishop of Rome and his Church the Catholick Church And having shewn all your Attacks against and Remarks upon the Church of England to be very vain extremely abusive and extravagantly ridiculous I have now onely your last your great Reason to examine wherein you make an effort to prove that her Faith concerning the Eucharist is contrary to that of the Catholick Church If you could have proved this I must confess your forsaking our Communion would have been much more reasonable and therefore I question not but that as you have mustered up abundance of Authorities so you have done all you can to make them speak and declare against us but to how little purpose you have made all this noise and ado about this point also is what I shall quickly see Before I enter on your particular proofs I have a fresh complaint to make that you have not used herein that Ingenuity that would have become a Scholar one might very rationally have expected that as your Intentions were to prove against the Church of England that her Faith was as to the Eucharist false and corrupt so you would have set down what that her Faith is This would have looked like fair and ingenuous dealing first to have put down her Faith about the Eucharist and then to have shewn how contrary it was to Scripture and to the unanimous Consent of Antiquity If you reply to this my Complaint that her Faith is so well known that you needed not put it down together but that you have occasionally done it up and down these Authorities I must tell you that by the account you give of it occasionally one would be persuaded that it is far from being so well known I am sure that slender account or rather hints that you so often intersperse about it are utterly false and very foolish so that if any one should take an account of our Churches Faith from you and whom can they better take it from than one that was so lately a Minister among us they must believe that we hold the Eucharist to be mere figures mere representations and bare signs for that is the most you allow us to make of it that I can meet with in your Book all which how far it is from Truth I shall quickly shew you Well then since you had not the Ingenuity to put down an Account of the Church of England's Faith about the Eucharist I must that so I may the better examine the Proofs you bring and any one may compare the Authorities you quote and our Faith together and thereby more impartially judge and more readily discover whether Antiquity fairly laid down speak for or against us Concerning this Sacrament the Church of England in her 28th Article of Religion delivers her Opinion thus The Supper of the Lord is not onely a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death Insomuch that to such as rightly worthily and with Faith receive the same the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Bloud of Christ After which having declared her self against Transubstantiation as repugnant to plain Scripture and to the nature of a Sacrament and against any Corporal Presence of Christ's Natural Flesh and Bloud in the Declaration about kneeling at the end of our Communion-Service in our Liturgy she goes on in this Article to declare that The Body of Christ is given taken and eaten in the Supper onely after an heavenly and spiritual manner and that the Mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith which last expressions exclude the wicked from partaking of Christ's Body and allow them barely the Sign or outward part of the Eucharist In the Publick Catechism in the Liturgy having taught her Catechumens that there are two things in each of the Sacraments the outward Sign and the inward spiritual Grace she teaches them to answer that the outward part of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is Bread and Wine and that the inward part or thing signified is the Body and Bloud of Christ which are verily and indeed taken and received by the Faithfull in the Lord's Supper These passages are sufficient to shew that our Church holds a real but not carnal a Spiritual and Heavenly but not Corporal Participation of Christ's Body and Bloud which tho' locally and naturally in Heaven is yet after a Mystical and Supernatural way communicated to the Faithfull not by the mouth of the Body but by that of Faith. Thus much for her Sentiment concerning this Sacrament pag. 20. now I must try your Reasons against it You tell us that you had been a long time greatly concerned for the Interpretation of but five small words of our Saviour c. The result of your concern I suppose was that those five words I doubt we shall find more than five or double five concerned in this business are to be taken in a literal sense and that which you offer for proof of it is this First Because this Sacrament was his last Will and Testament which ought not to be worded obscurely or doubtfully to prevent quarrels and divisions Secondly Because this Will is repeated by so many of his Apostles without the least variation or caution against the
literal sense Thirdly Because it was an Oath or Sacrament a Testament a Precept an Article of Faith or a Position to continue in the Church for ever the true Interpretation whereof if Catholick Tradition have not given us it is likely it will never be agreed on These are the strength of what you say to the first of which I answer that this Will was neither worded obscurely or of doubtfull interpretation that there are Divisions about them is not owing to the words but to the perverse humours of some Men whose quarrels no plainness is able to prevent To your second I say that it is utterly false that our Saviour's Will or the Institution of this Sacrament was repeated by so many of his Apostles allowing Mark and Luke the name of Apostles tho' you know it is very unusual without the least variation to convince you of which do but look upon this Parallel Account that I here send you out of them and then consider what reason you had or with what face you could affirm as you do St. Matth. c. 26.26 c. And said take eat This is my Body drink you all of this for This is my Bloud of the New Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins St. Luke 22.19 c. saying This is my Body which is given for you this doe in remembrance of me saying This Cup is the New Testament in my Bloud which is shed for you St. Mark 14.22 c. And said take eat This is my Body and they all drank of it and he said unto them This is my Bloud of the New Testament which is shed for many St. Paul 1 Cor. 11.23 c. and said take eat This is my Body which is broken for you this doe in remembrance of me saying This Cup is the New Testament in my Bloud This doe ye as oft as you drink it in remembrance of me For the other part of your second Argument that the Apostles put down no caution against the literal sense the reason is evident enough because there was no need of it since the Words neither then nor now can be taken in a literal sense as I shall quickly shew you and since nothing was more common to the Jewish Mode of speaking than to give the name of the thing it self to that which is the sign of it As is most plain from the Paschal Lamb its being so x Deuteron 16.2 5 6. Matth. 26.17 Luke 22.7 11. often in both Testaments called the Passover whereof all know it was but the sign from y Gen. 17.13 Circumcision its being called the Covenant when it was but the sign of it nay nothing is more common among us than to say such an one lives at the Lion the Bear the Ship the Bible which yet any one that talks with us knows that we mean bearely the signs of them without any Caution given or requisite against taking us in a literal sense 3. Your third Argument I do not well understand since an Oath a Precept an Article of Faith and a Position are very odd terms to express this Sacrament by and it is the first time I ever heard it called or knew it to be an Article of Faith having ever before thought it to be a divine Rite or Practice that was by Christ's Command to continue ever in the Church but to pass over such trifles We do affirm that Catholick Tradition hath given us the true Interpretation of these words which is that they are to be taken in a Figurative sense and that by Body here is meant a hoc est Corpus meum dicendo id est Figura Corporis mei Tertull c. Marc. l. 4. c. 40. Figura as Tertullian Signum as St. b Non dubitavit dicere Hoc est Corpus meum cum Signum daret Corporis sui D. August contr Adamant c. 12. Edit Basil 1569. Augustine and many more acquaint us as we shall by and by prove In the mean time I must prove that these words This is my Body cannot be taken in a literal sense which our Enemies themselves of your Party will grant me if I prove that the THIS mentioned here is Bread. That it was is thus cleared That which our Saviour took into his hands when he was about the Institution was Bread that which he blessed was the same thing that he had taken into his hands that which he brake was the same thing that he had blessed that which he gave them when he said it was his Body was that which he had broken But that which he broke which he blessed which he took into his hands was Bread therefore it was Bread which he gave his Disciples and by THIS is meant This Bread. This Induction is so fair and so clear that I am sure you cannot evade it but farther If by the This here is not meant the Bread pray let us know what it was then exclusive to Bread and which is more how the Bread could be by the words This is my Body converted into the Body of Christ if the Bread was not mentioned here nor meant by the word This. This matter and Argument is so demonstrative that I cannot but stand amazed that men who pretend to Reason can refuse it I could urge this Argument much farther but will content my self with these few Remarks First That tho' our Saviour did not say plainly This Bread is my Body yet he said according to St. Luke and St. Paul Luke 22.20 1 Cor. 11.25 This CUP is the New Testament in my Bloud which passage doth fully determine that the Bread was as much meant in the This is my Body as the Cup was in the This is my Bloud â—atth 26.28 â—ark 14. â—4 in St. Matthew and St. Mark. Secondly That our Saviour himself calls the Wine after he had consecrated it the Fruit of the Vine Matth. 26.29 and St. Paul does not less than three times call the Bread after Consecration c 1 Cor. 11.26 27 28. Bread which places are evidence enough that our Saviour neither destroyed the Substances of the Elements nor that St. Paul or any of the Faithfull ever believed that he had Places I could bring enough out of the Fathers to confirm that by This they understood this Bread but must not to avoid being tedious one however out of your Fathers I cannot omit which as it proves what I say so it does prove you to be not onely a very excellent Translatour but a very honest sincere Man. It is from your Rupertus Abbas Tuitiensis who lived in the twelfth Century whose words are these as you cite them Hoc inquit id est hic Panis est Corpus meum sive Caro mea which words you thus translate pag. 81. This saith he is that This is my Body this is my Flesh A Translation so abominably false and so intolerably ridiculous that when I was at School I would have disdained to have been
another place that our Lord gave to his Disciples at his Last Supper the Figure of his sacred Body and Blood. CHAP. XXV Some Corollaries against Transubstantiation HAving hitherto sufficiently answered all your pretended Proofs for Transubstantiation and shewn in part the Sense and Arguments of the Fathers against it instead of wearying my self or rather our Reader with any more of your Authors which you very irregularly place and which you your self will grant to be produced to no purpose if the former Primitive Fathers were of a contrary Faith about the Eucharist I shall here adjoyn a few Corollaries to vindicate the Faith of the Catholick and Apostolical Church of England against Transubstantiation and will make it apparently clear that her Doctrine and Faith herein is both Primitive and Orthodox and exactly the same with that of the Fathers of the Catholick Church My first Corollary shall be 1 Coroll That the Fathers gave such Titles to the Consecrated Elements of Bread and Wine as utterly exclude a Transubstantiation It was sufficiently common with them to call the Elements a Tertullian con Marcion l. 4. c. 40. Beda Comment in 3. Psalm the Figure b August de Doctr. Christi c. 7. Origen Dialog cont Marcion p. 116. Edit Wets the Sign c Basil Anaphora Cyril Hierosol Col. 4. Cat. Mys the Type d Greg. Naz. Orat. 118. Macarius Hom. 27. the antitype e August in Gratiano the Similitude f Theodoret. Dialog 2. and the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ g Tom. 6. Concil Edit Cossart and a whole Oecumenical Council of 338 Bishops at Constantinople A. D. 754. declare them to be the true and onely Image of our Saviour's Body and Blood. These Expressions and the like I argue to be utterly inconsistent with the Elements being Transubstantiated into the very Body and Blood of Christ since it is impossible any thing can be the Figure of a thing and the thing it self or the thing it self and yet but the figure of it he that will affirm this may without an absurdity say that the Sign of the King at a Tavern door is the King himself that the Picture of the Ship in St. Paul's Church-yard is as real a true Ship as any on the River and that the Image of the King in the Exchange is really King James 2d in his very Person In short if any thing be the Figure it cannot be the thing if it be the thing it self it cannot be the Figure of it since nothing can be the Figure of it self And therefore if Christ's Natural Body be really on the Altar that which is there cannot be the Figure of it But if as the Fathers almost unanimously speak that which is there be the Figure the Sign of it then consequently our Saviour's Natural Body it self is not This is so evident See Tertullian's 4th Book against Marcion ch 40th I think I need not say any more upon this Point I might very easily else have shewn that the Strength of one of Tertullian's Arguments for our Saviour his having a true substantial Body against Marcion depended wholly on the Eucharist its being the FIGURE of his Body but I will wave it and conclude this Corollary with that of Facundus h Et potest Sacramentum Adoptionis Adoptio nuncupari Sicut Sacramentum Corporis Sanguinis ejus quod est in Pane Poculo consecrato Corpus ejus Sanguinem dicimus Non quod propriè Corpus ejus sit Panis Poculum Sanguis Sed quod in se Mysterium Corporis ejus sanguinisque contineant Hinc ipse Dominus benedictum Panem Calicem quem Discipulis tradidit Corpus Sanguinem suum Vocavit Facund Herm. pro Defens 3. Capit. Con. Chalced. Lib. 9. c. 5. p. 404 405. Edit Sirmond 1629. Bishop of Hermiana in Africa the Sacrament of Adoption may be called by the name of Adoption as we call the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ the consecrated Elements of Bread and Wine his Body and his Blood not that the Bread is properly his Body or the Cup his Blood but because they contain the Mystery of his Body and Blood upon which very account it is that when our Lord delivered the consecrated Bread and Cup to his Disciples he called them his Body and his Blood. One thing I must not forget here that tho' these Fathers and the Church of England with them look upon the consecrated Elements as Signs and Figures onely yet they and we believe that by the Institution of Christ they are the Means of conveying all the Virtue and Benefits of our Saviour's crucifyed Body of communicating the Blood and Body of Christ unto every worthy Communicant This I could not omit to let you see the silliness of your foolish Cant up and down of meer Signs of what meer figures c. such Expressions were designed against the Church of England or what do they in your Book against her if they were I must tell you that they are sottishly ridiculous and most intolerable from a man who was I am sorry I can say it a Minister of the Church of England and therefore must so often have seen her Articles and so often have used her Communion-Service My Second Corollary is 2. Coroll That such things are attributed to the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ by the Primitive Fathers as do altogether exclude their being transubstantiated into the Natural Body and Blood of Christ I instance in that of the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ their being said to Nourish our Bodies That the consecrated Elements do nourish our Bodies is very apparent from a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justin Apolog 2. St. Justin Martyr's saying that our flesh and blood are nourished by the consecrated Elements being changed into our Substance From b Quando ergo Calix Panis percipiunt â—erbum Dei fit Eucharistia Sanguinis Corporis Christi ex quibus augetur consistit Carnis nostrae Substantia S. Iren. c. Haer. l. 5. c. 18. Irenaeus and c Caro Corpore Sanguine Christi vescitur ut Anima de Deo saginetur Tert. de Resurrect c. 8. Tertullian that our Flesh is fed and nourished with the Body and Blood of Christ From d Ille Cibus qui sanctificatur per Verbum Dei perque obsecrationem juxta id quod babet materiale in ventrem abit in secessum ejicitur Orig. in 15 Matt. p. 27. Origen that the Eucharist as to its Material Part undergoes the common course of our common repasts From e Quia sicut visibilis Panis Vini substantia exteriorem nutrit inebriat hominem ita Verbum Dei qui est Panis Vivus participatione sui Fidelium recreat mentes Isidor Hispal apud Rathramni Lib. de Corp. Sang. D. p. 120. Edit Paris Boileau 1686. Isidore of Sevil that the Substance of the Visible Bread
guilty of such pitifull stuff look at it again Mr. Sclater fetch down your Dictionary and try again at it and see whether you that translate but at this rate be fit to set up for a Book-writer and a Manager of Controversies and a Balancer of the Merits of the two Churches I am ashamed that any Man our Church should either have so little brains or so little honesty but to let your Translation alone Rupertus does confirm my reason for the determining This to mean This Bread when he says This saith our Saviour that is This Bread is my Body or my Flesh CHAP. XVII His false Slander of our Church and his foolish Observation about Judas shewn I Must next consider what you have of Argument in your Preface where you would have us believe that the sixth Chapter of St. John's Gospel is to be taken in a literal sense but since you were not at leisure to offer any Proof for it I need spend no time to answer one thing I must examine there and that is the danger you said you must live and die in under the denial or but doubting of so great a Truth Pref. in Communion with those that said How can this Man give us his Flesh to eat And doth our Church say so that our Saviour cannot give us his Flesh to eat How is it then that in the Prayer We do not presume c. she orders her Communicants to pray to our Gratious Lord to grant to them so to eat the Flesh of his dear Son Jesus Christ and to drink his Bloud that their sinfull Bodies may be made clean by his Body and their Souls washed through his most pretious Bloud c. That in the Prayer of Consecration the same Petition is put up to omit any more places This Sir is very provoking and highly unjust that a Man who hath perchance a hundred times used these very Prayers who did last Palm-Sunday use them reade them when he administred the Eucharist to the Parishioners of Putney should in the face of the Sun in our own Nation in our own Language publish so gross and Vntruth and affix so false a Scandal upon our Church as to say she affirms our Saviour cannot give us his Flesh to eat If these and such be the Fruits of your Conversion sit anima mea cum Philosophis rather than with such Christians Do not think to bring off your self with saying that our Church denies that any one can eat the Flesh of Christ in that sense which those people meant it that spoke these words that will not doe your business since that Church whereof you now are for all its belief of Transubstantiation abhors the Capernaitical sense of these words as much as we and are ready to say with us that our Saviour cannot and does not give us his Flesh to eat in that carnal sensual abominable manner that these Capernaites talked of Your next Observation in your Preface that Judas was one of the Disciples that went back and walked no more with our Saviour is I must confess a rarity which hath escaped I believe all our Commentatours but will your pretty and spitefull Observation hold Matth. 26.23 25. how is it then that we meet with Judas in our Saviour's dish the very night before he was Crucified I know no other fetch that you can have to save your ingenious Observation besides that of a Gentleman who in a dispute holding that Abraham was justified by Faith and being pressed by the Opponent with that of St. James that Abraham was justified by Works saved his bacon by saying that there were perhaps two Abrahams and so you may gravely say that there were two Judas Iscariots CHAP. XVIII His Authorities from Galatinus and the Spurious Liturgies for Transubstantiation rejected and the reason of it His railing and Absurdities about these and other Spurious Pieces examined and exposed NOW we are come to your main Battel where like as the Turks are said to have had a sort of Souldiers called as I remember Asaphi whom they set in the front of their Battel to dull and evigorate their enemies by their cutting down of these dull Souls so you have placed Galatinus and his Rabbins in your front to hinder your Adversaries falling with too much stomach upon your main Body You saw it necessary however in your Preface to bespeak your Reader in favour of Galatinus Preface that he was always accounted a very learned Man. You had done well to have quoted some people on your side here because your bare word will not pass with me nor with any one else that will take the pains to reade our two papers I am sure he shewed neither Learning nor Honesty in those passages you quote from him See Dr. Cave's Chartophylax in Galatino p. 336. since he stole them from Porchetus Salvaticus without owning in the least whence he had them and for the Passages and Rabbins themselves it is the Opinion of Learned Men that there were neither such Rabbins nor such Works of theirs as to these things but that they are the Pious Frauds of Porchetus and others So that I need not trouble my self but set aside this forged stuff your calling them Prophetick pag. 21. and abusing the place of St. John of the Spirits blowing where it listeth c. would in any other sort of People have been called Enthusiasm and downright Fanaticism And truly you put in as fair for a touch of the latter as your veriest Enemy could desire when instead of Argument you vent your Anger and instead of reasoning fall into downright railing against the Impious Ambition and unlimitted appetite of rule of the Private Spirit which would fain soar above the Heavens and make it self Lord even of the Writings of God also Her private Glosses imperious Sentiments and contradictory Interpretations like the Victorious Rabble of the Fishermen of Naples riding in Triumph and trampling under their feet Ecclesiastical Traditions Decrees and Constitutions Ancient Fathers Ancient Liturgies the whole Church of Christ c. But pray Sir if your Catholick fit be over who is it that hath or own this Private Spirit you have been venting so much Spleen against If you designed it for a Character of the Church of England which I believe you did I am obliged to tell you that it is a most impudent and a most false Slander Do but look into that Canon of our Church which you your self quoted See the Canon it self and the Remarks above p. 2. and those little Remarks I made upon it do but peruse again what I said above as to our Church tying up and obliging all her Members by her Articles without leaving any of those things to a Private Spirit and then look at what your bitter Pen hath here vented if it do not make you eat up these Cholerick Nonsensical Words and recant this Scandal upon an Apostolical Catholick Church I must then tell you
that you left common Honesty and the Church of England at the same time But you go in your virulent strain and tell the world that it is not likely those who upon their own bare Authority and private Sentiments reject what Authors they please should with much kindness lissen to the Ancient Liturgies of Saint Peter Saint James the Elder Saint James the Younger and Saint Matthew or value the Testimonies of Saint Dionysius Saint Paul's Scholar Saint Martialis you should have added Saint Dionysius his companion into France Clemens Romanus Ignatius Andreas c. they must suffer too The Servant is not better than his Master c. who would not guess by this stinging farewell that the Learned Men of the Church of England had served our Saviour as bad as they have done these Liturgies Dennises Martials Andreases c. and that they had denied him as well as them I must tell you Mr. Sclater that your Book is one of the most disingenuous that I ever met with and that this passage deserves much severer Language than I shall bestow upon it but your Conclusion of it is just as true and not one jot more as that of our rejecting what Authors we please upon our own bare Authority and private Sentiments which I shall now examine and go through the Authors and Liturgies you put down For the Liturgies then first you tell us you do not know why these Ancient Liturgies should be rejected c. to which I can answer you as briefly that I do believe you that you do not but if you would take a little Heretical advice I could direct you to those who might inform your Ignorance herein but I believe you are too angry at me before this time to take my advice Against the Liturgies I have these things to urge first An Vniversal Silence concerning them for many Ages of the Church that of Saint James being the first heard of and that not till after the Fifth General Council being first mentioned in the Council held in Trullo which was under Justinian Rhinotmetus in the Sixth Century Eusebius than whom no one was more accurate and carefull to find out the Writings of those famous Persons whom he speaks of in his History among all the Catalogues he reckons up of the particular Apostles and First Fathers does not make the least mention of any of these Liturgies All Saint Jerome's care in his time could not furnish us with one Syllable about such Liturgies which reasons together with those taken from the Liturgies themselves have satisfied all reasonable Men that there were no such genuine things No Body now I mean to Learned Man believes Saint Peter's Liturgy the demonstrative Arguments against which are many it makes mention of Saint Cyprian and Cornelius the Bishop of Rome it prays for the Patriarch and the very Religious Emperours I could furnish you with more intrinsick Arguments against it and against the rest which labour under the same or worse Absurdities out of your own to omit our Authors the l Nouvelle Bibliotheque des Auteurs c. des Liturgies Faussement Attribué es aux Apôtres p. 21 22 23 24. A. Parâ—s 1686. present Learned and Judicious Sorbonist Du Pin hath gathered enough against it and the rest to prove them all suppositious if you have a mind to shew any parts in this sort of Learning I do not question but the worthy Doctor or some one here in England for him will give all due satisfaction in the point but alas Sir you seem to me who judge of you by your Book to be far from able to meddle in such matters One Liturgy of yours he hath not encountred that of Saint James the Elder not because he had nothing to object against it but because there was no such Liturgy to be objected against but you may pass for a Discoverer and a bringer to light of Ancient Authors and though you be denied a place with Baluzius and such yet no Body can deny you one with honest Annius Viterbiensis After all in defence of your self some Body wiser than some Body having I suppose put it into your head that these same Liturgies were not altogether unquestionable you gravely tell us in your Preface that it was not your business to assert the Authors of them c. To which I answer Preface that it is very well for you that it was not since I am sure you are a very unfit Man for any such thing so that now you your self are content that these Liturgy-Authors should suffer as well as their Master You say next pag. 28. Preface that it is enough for your purpose if they be allow'd of that Antiquity that may give them some competent interest in Tradition to be short with you they are not allowed any Authority since not onely ours but your own Authors Du Pin for example have proved them invinciblement pag. 22. as he words it supposititious and Novel either of which is enough to ruine them and hinder their having their place in Tradition These things are sufficient to shew that I need not say one word to your Authorities for Transubstantiation out of these forged Liturgies I will onely remark that you begin very unluckily with them pag. 28. and for your first Blessed God by whom we are vouchsafed to change the immaculate Body of Christ and his precious Bloud c. I would fain know into what the Priests were vouchsafed to change the Immaculate Body of Christ and his Bloud This is Transubstantiation with a vengeance I thought your business had been to prove that the Bread is changed into the Body the Wine into the very Bloud of Christ but here for a leading Card the Body and Bloud of Christ are changed into Bread and Wine or something else Well for a Man that keeps to his Text I know no Body like you and for supererogating no Body can come near you I question not but if you had a mind you could very easily prove that the Transubstantiation is to be from Body to Bread not from Bread into Body but this it is to be a Read Man when a Man can with a wet Finger prove either way and I verily believe you can as easily do the one as the other and bring as many Fathers for the one as for the other But farewell Liturgies I must now inquire about Saint Dionysius against whom you say we have such pitifull Objections pag. 29. Had you offered any reason for your calling them pitifull Objections it would have looked something like a Scholar but he that catcheth you at that may have you for nothing So that since you will not let me answer you I must say what I can for the Objections against Saint Dennis his being a Writer Eusebius is as much a Witness for us here as against the Liturgies though he speaks of Saint Dennis the Areopagite yet he gives not any hint of any Writings of his
he took our flesh upon him so no more need was there that the Bread should be transubstantiated to become his Sacramental Body and Blood. Nay St. Justin directly supposes the contrary when he makes the Eucharist to be Bread tho' not received then as common Bread and proves it too when he says * Which words you suppress in your translation Was you afraid we should conclude from them that Just Mart. did not think the Accidents did subsist in the Eucharist without the Substance But let that pass that by this consecrated nourishment the Body and Blood of Christ our Bodies our Flesh and Blood are nourished which I am sure your learned men will grant to be impious to say of the natural very Body and Blood of Christ and impossible if no substance but that be there So that it is evident that by the Body and Blood of Christ in this passage must be meant Christ his Symbolical Body and Blood or the Sign or Figure of his Natural Body and Blood the substance as well as accidents of the Elements remaining As to the reason you add that Justin should have told the Emperor if he meant no more by it that by the Flesh and Blood of Christ he intended only the Signs of them since it was he knew objected to the Christians his Brethren that in the Mysteries of their Religion they did eat mans flesh I do retort it upon you and challenge you to shew where they ever pleaded guilty or where they ever made any Apology for or distinction about their eating our Saviours Natural Flesh and Blood tho' they abstained from the Blood of every thing else as any one that is but little conversant in the first Antiquity knows they constantly pleaded against the so often objected dapes Thyesteas upon this point b Nihil rationabilius ut quia nos jam similitudinem mortis ejus in Baptismo accepimus similitudinem quoque carnis ejus sumamus similitudine pretiosi sanguinis potemur ita ut veritas non desit in Sacramento ridiculum nullum fit Paganis quod cruorem occisi hominis bibamus Aug. apud Grat. de Consecr Dist 2. Sect. utrum p. 1958. Edit Taur St. Austin as quoted by Gratian is so express both against your reason and your opinion that I cannot omit it here he sayes Nothing is more reasonable than that as we have received the similitude of his to wit Christs death in Baptism so we should also receive the likeness of his Flesh and drink the likeness of his Pretious Blood that so neither may Truth be wanting in the Sacrament nor Pagans have an occasion of ridiculing us for drinking the Blood of one that was slain Which it seems Pagans would then have done had the Christians then talked of drinking literally Christs Natural Blood and the Jews and Mahometans do now do since some Christians took up an Opinion and talked of doing it in a literal sense witness that severe Observation and Reflexion of Averroes upon them sufficiently known Your first place from St. Irenaeus is not exactly translated eum panem in quo gratiae actae sint c. is not barely that Bread in the Eucharist is the Body of Christ but that that Bread which hath been consecrated is the Body of his Lord. This passage is so far from being for that it is directly against you that Bread which hath been consecrated is demonstration that he looked upon it as to the substance to be Bread still here you were forced to shew us a little of your Legerdemain or else I am sure this Chapter of Irenaeus had been secure enough from your quoting it there being that in the middle of this passage which you have slily left out which is perfect demonstration against Transubstantiation b Quomodo autem rursus dicunt carnem in corruptionem devenire non percipere vitam quae à corpore Domini sangaine alitur Iren. l. 4. c. 34. while St. Irenaeus argues for the immortality of our bodies from their having been nourished by the Body and Blood of Christ and as much against you is your next passage from him and as well translated by you for as that which is Bread from the Earth perceiving very wise Bread truly this same was the call of God or as I would say being consecrated now is not common Bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things one earthly i. e. the accidents and the other Spiritual so our bodies receiving the Eucharist are not now corruptible having the hope of the Resurrection What can be more plain against Transubstantiation than this place which still supposes it to be Bread when it sayes that after Consecration it is not common Bread had Irenaeus taught or believed a Transubstantiation here he must have said that after Consecration it is not Bread at all and not have talked of a terrestrial or corporeal thing or part in the Eucharist as well as a heavenly or spiritual but you say this earthly part is the accidents I would fain know what part of St. Irenaeus or the Ancients you learned this from I am sure you ought to be ashamed of talking at this ridiculous rate there is any Body scarce but knows that earthly and material or corporeal are Synonymous but you however contrary to all Reason and all Philosophy must be setting up material Accidents and you might as well have told us of incorporeal bodies and corporeal nothings as of earthly Accidents but such inconsistent ridiculous stuff will down it seems with a man that believes Transubstantiation Your talk about imposing a new signification upon the Bread and Wine is nothing to the purpose p. 31. since our Church makes the Elements not only to signifie but to communicate to us the Body and Blood of Christ after a spiritual and heavenly manner which thing requires an Omnipotent Power for the instituting it for such an effect and enduing it with such a virtue or power CHAP. XX. His several Proofs from Tertullian answered and his Falsification of that Author exposed TErtullian your next Author you have abused worse than St. Justin I must profess that when I first took your Book into my hand I did expect you would have had the prudence to have let him and Theodoret alone but it seems all the Fathers either are for Transubstantiation or you will make them so It is pleasant to see what shufling you make about your first quotation from him and how afraid you are of his p. 32. id est Figura Corporis mei that you durst not translate it and next how sillily or rather falsly you english nisi veritatis esset Corpus unless it had been the truth There needs nothing else to impeach your attempt of ignorance and a depraving Tertullian than the putting his own words together †Corpus suum illum fecit hoc est Corpus meum dicendo id est Figura Corporis mei Figura enim
non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus ceterum vacua res quod est Phantasma figuram capere non posset Tert. c. Marcion l. 4. c. 40. Edit Franck. He made speaking of our Saviour that Bread his â—ody when he said This is my Body that is the Figure of my Body Now it could not have been the Figure unless there were a true Body of Christ since an empty thing as a Phantome really is can have no figure of it self I appeal now to your own self as well as to the world whether any thing can be more direct against Transubstantiation than this passage put together and fairly translated Nor can you make any thing out of his fecit since he does not only sufficiently explain himself here but a very little lower he asks Marcion deriding him * Cur autem panem Corpus suum appellat non magis peponem quem Marcion cordis loco habuit Non intelligens vâ—terem suisse islam figuram corporis Christi dicentis per Jeremiam c. Idem codem loco how our Saviour came to call Bread his Body and not rather a Pompion And then tells him that Bread was the antient Figure of our Saviours Body in that passage of Jeremy ch 11.19 according to the Version of the Septuagint So that what you would infer from the quotation is altogether groundless and your next argument is worse that there is no such repugnancy between the Body of Christ and the Sign and Figure of his Body for if it is the Body it cannot be the Figure p. 32. if it be the Figure only it cannot be the Body But some men can believe as well as say any thing You next furnish us with a plain Declaration from Tertullian p. 33. that the Flesh is fed with the Body and Blood of Christ c. You ought to have put down here whether you quoted this place for or against Transubstantiation a man would suspect you had here turned the Tables since this place is perfect Demonstration against Transubstantiation while it makes our bodies to be fed with Christs Body to affirm which of his Natural Body is impious among your own learned men as well as us but of this distinctly before we part The bare Translation of the first passage you quoted and I translated clearly from Tertullian is answer enough to all your silly borrowed Criticism about Representation p. 33. I come now to your last place from him which I accuse of a direct falsification of the Text as well as of perverting the sense of our Author This you and your new Superiors may think a heavy charge and that I ought to have examined well before I laid it upon you to tell you and the world the truth I did for I did not rely onely on my own notes nor on the Franeker Edition of Junius of 1597. out of which I had them and which I again consulted on this occasion but I examined these several Editions that of Rhenanus at Basil 1528. which was the second Edition of Tertullian whom â—henanus printed the first time there in 1521. I cannot find by his notes that this his second differed at all in this place in controversie from his first Edition at the Margin of this Edition over against the passage Non sciet Maritus c. which you quote he puts Eucharistia in Capital Letters and in his Notes guesses that dicitur hath been mistook for benedicitur I examined also another Edition of Rhenanus at Basil 1539. a third of his at Paris 1545. that of Pamelius with Latinius and Mercer at Cologne 1617. that of de La Barre at Paris 1580. that of de La Cerda at Paris 1624. that best Edition of Rigaltius at Paris 1634. the Annotationes Diversorum upon Tertullian wherein this passage is so often quoted and commented upon printed at Paris 1635. that of F. George the Capuchin at Paris 1646 48 50. and lastly that in C. Moreau's Tertull. Omniloquium Alphabet at Paris 1657. So that I suppose I may after an exact and troublesome search of these eleven several Editions be allowed to tell you that you have falsified Tertullian by leaving Panem out of this short quotation which every one of these Editions hath to which Panem the illum doth relate and not to Christ so that to confute you I need but restore Tertullian to himself whom you make to say Non sciet Maritus quid secreto ante omnem cibum gustes si sciverit PANEM non illum credit esse qui dicitur Tertull. ad Uxorem l. 2. c. 5. Edit Franck. Thy Husband shall not know what thou dost taste before all other meats which Translation I allow tho' some translate it interrogatively and if he shall know he doth not believe it to be Him whom it is said to be whereas his own words are and tho' he shall know it to be BREAD he doth not believe it to be THAT Bread which it is said to be to wit Eucharistical or Blessed Bread. Let any one compare our two Translations with Tertullian's own words and then let him freely give sentence betwixt us CHAP. XXI The Proofs from Clemens Alex. Origen Hilary Gregory Naz. Basil and Macarius answered YOur next passage out of Clemens Alexandrinus is not a jot to your purpose p. 33. It were easie for me to bring places out of him directly contrary to Transubstantiation but I have been forced to be so long in exposing and confuting your Authorities hitherto that I must omit them and shorten my answers as much as I can having already ruined your best strength The several passages out of Origen can do you no more service than those already answered and are as well translated by you You have discovered a gross ignorance in the translation of the first Passage from him What Nonsense do you make with translating in Specie first in kind then in form when as it is plain enough that by in Specie is meant clearly in opposition to the darkness of the legal Types As to the Christian now eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of him who said his Flesh was truely Meat and his Blood Drink indeed c. Which is the strength of your three first Proofs had you been conversant in Origens Writings had you but read his Homilies on the Book next before this out of which you quote I mean on Leviticus you might have been sufficiently fore-armed against taking these Expressions in a literal sense while Origen would have told you that there is a letter or literal Expressions in the Gospel which kills him look to your self Mr. Sclater who doth not understand spiritually the things it speaks Est in novo Testamento litera quae occidat eum qui non spiritaliter quae dicuntur intelligit Si enim secundum literam sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum est nisi manducaveritis Carnem meam biberitis Sanguinem meum occidit
haec litera Orig. Hom. 7. in Lâ—vit Basil 1571. and he instances in this very thing for if saith he one takes in a literal sense the Expressions of eating his Flesh and drinking Christ's Blood this letter or literal sense will kill which is the sense of the Great St. Athanasus after him upon this Passage in the sixth of St. John. Your last place from him out of his eighth Book against Câ—lsus p. 34. hath not a syllable for your Transubstantiation all it says is that the Bread which had been offered was become or made by Consecration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a sacred Body that hath the virtue to sanctifie those that do with Faith receive it Which is what we can and do subscribe to who utterly reject Transubstantiation Your next Author is St. Cyprian p. 34 35. but since all Scholars are satisfied the Piece you quote is none of his and the Learned Sorbonist Du Pin gives this short but very sharp Character of it Nouvelle Bibliotheque de Auteurs c. p. 472. that it is a ridiculous Piece and full of Impertinences we can neither permit it a place here nor any where else and as short I must be with you about your next Authority of the Semi-Arian Eusâ—bius Emissenus p. 37. since those Homilies under his name are rejected as supposititious St. Hilary is your next Author p. 38. whose words a man would believe were really thus connected and in the same order he finds them set down by you but I do assure every one that you are not a man to be trusted in these things The passage ought to be divided into three distinct parts with a mark of separation betwixt them and which is more the first part to be placed last and the middle first and the third in the middle Certainly Mr. Sclater you never saw St. Hilary in your life or you would never have been guilty of such wretched dealing if your Skill in the Fathers lyes in playing such tricks with them I do assure you I will never quote after you But for the words themselves in their true order tho' they seem to take our Saviour's words my flesh is meat indeed in a strict sense against the Doctrine of the much Antienter Writers Tertullian Origen and Athanasius above quoted who expresly reject the literal sense as dangerous and ridiculous and therefore so may we yet do not prove any Transubstantiation since our Saviour may be received in St. Hilary's sense cibo Dominico in the Eucharist not as you very homely translate it in our Lord's meat with the Sacramental Bread by an Vnion with it which a The Union of the most Holy Body and precious Blood of our Lord-Jesus Christ are the words of the Priest when he breaks the Bread Pag. 28. your own quotation out of your St. James's Liturgy would teach without any Annihilation of the substance of the Bread which I believe St. Hilary never so much as dreamed of and therefore could be no Patron of your Novel Doctrine of Transubstantiation Gregory Nazianzen's first passage says no more than our Church p. 38. which calls the Sacred Elements the Body and Blood of Christ and directs b In the Prayer in our Communion Service We do not presume c. her Communicants to pray that they may worthily eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of Christ As to your Observation that St. Gregory's advice had been needless if we did onely eat the flesh of Christ in sign and figure had you been skilfull as I suppose you are willing enough to be thought in his Writings you might have found as ridiculous as you think it St. Gregory himself calling the Blessed Bread and Wine the Antitypes or figures of the Body and Blood of Christ in that very Oration you your self next quote and within a dozen lines of that very place you produce thence where he tells us that his Sister Gorgonia in a great sickness mingled her tears with the Antitypes or Symbols of our Saviour's precious Body and Blood Et si quid uspiam Antityporum pretiosi corporis aut sangulnis manus recondiderat id lacâ—ymis admiscuisset ô rem admirandam statim liberatam se morbo sentit Greg. Naz. Orat. 11. in Laudem Gorgoniae p. 187. Edit Paris 1630. with as many of them as she had treasured up I hope you do not believe that she had as many Bodies of Christ as she had in her hands parts of these Antitypes which I do assure you do mean nothing more than Signs or Figures This passage hath not onely confuted your first but provided fully against the second out of him about his Sister Gorgonia her prostrating her self before the Altar with Faith p. 38. and praying to him with great clamour as you neatly translate it who is worshipped upon the Altar Desperatis omnibus aliis auxiliis ad mortalium omnium medicum confugit atque intempestà nocte captatâ cum morbus nonnihil remisisset ad Altare c. Idem cadem Oratione p. 186. Upon this you tell us gravely that she prayed not to Bread and Wine and I tell you that she prayed no more unto the Host since neither our Bread and Wine nor your Host were then upon the Altar for it was at Midnight that Gorgonia went privately into the Church when there was no Priest nor Service nor Eucharist or Host to be worshipped but she alone as far as we can gather from St. Gregory prostrated before the Altar at or upon which God is worshipped But some Men if they get a little thing by the end that looks as if it might do them a Service quickly lay hold of it and never consider the connexion it hath in the Discourse from whence it is taken if you had but read this Oration you so readily quote and had but considered it it might have saved you the making two silly remarks You quote next St. Basil's Book De Baptismo c. 2. whereas the St. Basil that I use Printed at Paris hath two Books de Baptismo p. 39. in the second of which under the third Question I find what you quote but cannot find that it is any thing to your purpose we say with him that every one ought to prepare for the worthy receiving this holy Sacrament and that the worthy Receiver is made Partaker of the Body and Blood of Christ. In his Antiphone the Bread and Wine are called the Types or Figures of the Body and Blood of Christ As far from helping to prove Transubstantiation are the two first passages from Macarius p. 39. that he understood the eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of Christ in the Catholick that is in the spiritual sense is past question evident from his 27. Homily l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Macar Homil. 27. pag. 164. Edit Paris 1621. where among other things that the Saints before our Saviour's time were ignorant of he
reckons this that in the Church should be offered Bread and Wine Antitypes or Symbols of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and that those which eat of this Visible Bread should spiritually eat the Flesh of the Lord. This passage is so convictive of it self that it needs not help to inforce it against all literal eating of Christ's Body and Blood and against Transubstantiation I need say nothing to your last Testimony from him nor shall onely that your Translation of this short passage is very silly and very false too Do you or your new Superiours look at it again and then deny it if you can CHAP. XXII Arguments for Transubstantiation from Gregory Nyssen and Cyril of Hierusalem answered and a ridiculous Mistake of Mr. Sclater's observed GRegory Nyssen's Testimonies are the next you do produce to prove a Transubstantiation p. 40. and do indeed promise more in order to it than any you have hitherto produced while they say that the sanctified Bread is changed into the Body of the Word of God. However that Gregory Nyssen meant no change of the substance of the Bread and Wine or that they were annihilated and the Body and Blood of Christ substituted into their place but meerly a change in their Vse Office and Virtue is past all question evident since in another place he illustrates this change of the Elements of Bread and Wine by and compares it to that of the Altar which I hope you do not believe Nam Altare hocsanctum cuiadsistimus lapis est naturâ communis sed quoniam Dei cultui consecratum Altare immaculatum est Panis item panis est initio communis sed ubi eum Mysterium sacrificaverit Corpus Christi fit dicitur Eadem item Verbi vis etiam Sacerdotem augustum honorandum facit novitate Benedictionis à communitate Vulgi sâ—gregatum cum nihil vel corpore vel formâ mutatus ille sit qui erat invisibili quadam vi ac gratiâ invisibilem animam in melius transformatam gerens Ac simili rationum consequeâ—tiâ etiam aqua cum nihil aliud sit quam aqua supernâ Gratiâ benedicente ei in eam quae mente percipitur hominem renovat regenerationem Greg. Nyss in Baptismum Christi Oratio p. 802 803. Edit Paris 1615. or any of your Party dare say that upon its being dedicated to the Service of God it undergoes any change of substance but meerly a change of use it being now separated to God's Service which before was of common use and for the most common Services He compares it to the change in a Priest which is not of the Substance of his Body when he is ordained but of his Soul onely by an invisible Grace which qualifies him for the particular office of a Priest He compares it to the change of Water in Baptism which all the world will grant is not in the substance but in the virtue onely through the benediction of the divine Grace I could bring his Comparison of the change of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist to that of Chrism but these I have brought I think are more than enough to prove that our Gregory Nyssen meant no other change of the Elements than a change of Vse of Office and of Virtue and that if your people are resolved that he shall mean a change of Substance we shall have Transubstantiations enough then the Water in Baptism is no Water though it seem such to all Senses but is transubstantiated into a divine Grace and you and I when we were ordained were really transubstantiated into the meer Office of a Priest and for all our eating and drinking are as meer Accidents as those in the Eucharist one thing I am puzled at and that is what the Stones of the Altar are transubstanced into These Sir as ridiculous as they be must be necessary Consequences of your making our Author teach Transubstantiation in the Eucharist and all the Arts of your whole Party cannot avoid them so that I suppose we have reason to deny you Gregory Nyssen his being a Teacher or Favourer of your Vpstart Doctrine I should before parting examine your translating Gregory Nyss but I am too much in hast to stay upon such wretched blundering onely one observation I must advertise the young Criticks of and that is that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in all other authors signifies put to death in Greg. Nyss according to the sage Mr. Sclater signifies made immortal Cyril of Jerusalems Testimonies do promise at first view p. 40 41. as much or more than the last from Gregory Nyssen to prove all you intend them for to wit a Transubstantiation when they not onely say with Gregory Nyssen that the Bread and Wine after Consecration are made the Body and Blood of Christ but which is further that the Bread which is seen by us is not Bread although the tast perceive it to be Bread but the Body of Christ To which I answer first that St. Cyril is far from teaching Transubstantiation in these places since what he sayes first is not denyed by our Church that the Bread and Wine are made by Consecration the Body and Blood of Christ and are no longer common Bread and common Wine which very expressions sufficiently prove them to be as to their Substance Bread and Wine still tho' now hereby distinguished from common Bread and Wine And therefore upon this very ground Cyril advises his Catechumens to consider the Elements consecrated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyr. Myst Catech. 4. p. 237. Edit Paris 1640. not as bare Bread and Wine which certainly proves them to be so as to their substance tho' their Senses suggested to them that they were nothing else than bare Elements but as our Lord said they were his Body and his Blood. So that we hence give a good account of that other expression that seems the more favourable to Transubstantiation about the visible Bread being not Bread but the Body of Christ which we are as ready now as Cyril was then to say is not Bread bare Bread after consecration but the Body of Christ inasmuch as it is now honoured with the Title of the Body of Christ since it is made by Consecration the Instrument to make us Partakers of the Body of Christ as St. Paul sayes 1 Cor. 10.16 and after him Cyril himself in this Catechism advises his Catechumens to receive with all assurance the consecrated Elements as the Body and Blood of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Idem eodem loco upon this very reason because under the Type or Figure of Bread is given to the worthy Receiver the Body of Christ and under that of Wine is given his Blood. This Passage you or rather Grodecius for you do but translate him have endeavoured to make speak for you which is an easy thing to make any Authors do if you should serve them as you have done him for 1. you make
him say Let us take the Body and Blood of Christ whereas he hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here and faith let us take to wit the consecrated Elements AS the Body and Blood of Christ which is a trick you played St. Justin Martyr as well as Cyril and then you from Grodecius translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by species a word unknown to the Primitive Christians in the sense you Transubstantiatours use it in witness b Non valebit Christi sermo ut Species mutet Elementorum p. 48. ex Arubrosio your own Quotations out of St. Ambrose when as any one that knows but a little Greek could tell you it means a Figure But to rescue Cyril clearly out of your hands had you but turned one leaf backward you might have read that which would if you had any ingenuity in you have hindred your bringing Cyril on the stage for a favourer or teacher of Transubstantiation there in his Mystigogical Catechism about Chrism having spoken of the use and vast benefit of it he thus addresses his Auditors but take heed that thou do not think that Chrism to be bare Oyl 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyr. catechism Mystag 3. p. 235 Edit Paris 1640. for as the Encharistical Bread after the Invocation and illapse of the Holy Spirit is no longer ordinary Bread but the Body of Christ even so this holy Oyl is no longer bare or as one may say common Oyl after the Invocation of the Holy Spirit but Charisma Christi the Gift or Grace of Christ and a little after he sayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idem â—odem loco the Body is anointed with the Oyl that is seen by us but the Soul is sanctified by the Holy and Quickening Spirit Here we meet with as high and as strange Expressions about the Chrism as in the next Cathechism about the Eucharistical Bread and Wine as there the Bread upon Consecration is said to be no longer common Bread just so it is said here about the Chrism that it is not common Oyl after Consecration as he talks there of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which you would have us to believe is no more than the bare appearance of Bread so here of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which upon the same reason must be onely the appearance of Oyl without any Substance In a word if St. Cyril proves a Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine there he as certainly proves a Transubstantiation of the Chrism-Oyl here if you say as all confess that he doth not prove this of the Oyl I must say upon equal grounds that he doth no more prove the other of the Bread and Wine so that St. Cyril is not for your purpose of proving Transubstantiation But before I pass to your next Author I have a question to ask you and that is why you put down the Text it self of Cyril here whereas your English if it be your own is word for word translated from Grodecius his Latin Translation of St. Cyril I appeal to your own Conscience whether what I say is not true but since you may be too peevish to tell me I will give an instance or two besides those already observed where you have both equally added to the Text of St. Cyril or grosly mistaken it St. Cyril sayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which two last words you have altered into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this place you verbatim from c Aquam aliquando mutavit in vinum quod est sanguini propinquum in Cana Galilaeae sola voluntate Grodec Lat. Inter. Grodecius translate thus he sometimes changed Water into Wine which is neer to blood in Cana of Galilee by his onely Will whereas according to Grodecius his Greek there is not a Syllable of such an Expression as which is neer to blood and according to yours not a Syllable for by his onely Will and yet you two could nick it so exactly But that which is the pleasantest of all is that you not onely transcribe a Blunder of his but make it ten times worse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril ex Luc. 5.34 Filiis Sponsi Grodecil Interpr Latina To the Sons of his Spouse Sclaters Engl. Translat Cyril in this Passage speaks of the Children of the Bride-chamber Grodecius hath made them the Children of the Bridegroom and you have made them the Children of the Bride when you call them the Sons of his Spouse by which you mean our Saviour's Spouse which I am sure is his Bride the Church This is translating with a witness and this it is to make a Man's self a slave to another Man's Translation which is guilty of such Blunders and Errours and yet by putting your Margin full of Greek to make the World believe you had been at the Fountain-head your self I must confess it is the first time I ever heard of a He-Bride or could have suspected that a Man that hath so much Greek and Hebrew in his head would have translated hic Sponsus our Saviour his Spouse I haue been so large upon these two Fathers St. Gregory Nyssen and St. Cyril not onely because they are always reckoned the chiefest Authors for Transubstantiation but because I might thereby very much shorten the Answers I am to make to your following Authorities which I shall consider if they speak any thing new if not refer to some of my Answers already made CHAP. XXIII Those from Epiphanius St. Ambrose and St. Chrysostom answered YOur Testimony out of Epiphanius proves nothing more than your Infirmity in translating P. 42. for he that believeth not that he is true you have ridiculously made it who believeth it not to be his very true Body But such dealing is not strange to me to find in you this Talent runs almost through your whole book You are very copious in the next place from St. Ambrose P. 42. your first Testimony from him proves nothing against the Church of England nor your second since in our Liturgy we use in the distributing the Consecrated Bread the same Expressions used then the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ and our People are taught to say Amen P. 43. Nor your third fourth and those which follow wherein this Father uses so much of Allegory and therefore is not to be confined to a literal Sense P. 44 45 46 c. Your last from him is your best one which however proves no more than what we never deny that the Nature of the Elements are changed as to their Virtue and Quality but as to a change of their very substance we do deny it upon reasons from Scripture and purer Antiquity nor doth this Father attempt the Proof of any such a Change. He proves the contrary p. 43. when in your first Testimony from him he speaks of the Elements Continuing What they were that is as to their Substance or Essence and yet being changed into another thing Quanto magis Operatorius est
ut sint quae erant in aliud commutentur Ambros de Sacram. l. 4. c. 4. which must be as to quality and Vse and had you but translated this passage like a Scholar and continued your quotation a line or two further you had found him proving this change of the Elements by and comparing it with Ipse dixit factum est ipse mandavit creatum est Tu ipse eras sed eras vetus ereaturae pestea quam consecratus es nova creatura esse caepisti Idem Ibidem p. 439. Tom. 4. Edit Froben that of a man by Baptism whom no body believes to be changed thereby as to his substance but onely to be renewed inwardly and changed from a sinful state to a state of virtue and holiness by the influence of the Spirit of God and therefore St. Ambrose could not affirm any more of the Elements than a change of quality by an accession of virtue and power to sanctifie and to communicate to us Christs Body and Blood and to apply to us all the Merits of his meritorious passion But after all this Father himself puts the thing out of debate betwixt us when in your last Testimony p. 49. he calls the consecrated Bread the Sacrament or Symbol of his Flesh Vere ergo carnis illius Sacramentum est ante Benedictionem verborum coelestium alia species nominatur post consecrationem corpus significatur post consecrationem sanguls nuncupatur Ambros de iis qui Mysteriis initiantur c. 9. and says that after consecration it is the sign of his Body for so I translate corpus significatur because afterwards speaking of the Wine he says that after consecration it is called or bears the name of his Blood. Upon this place indeed you set up for a Critick and give us a touch of your Greek and Hebrew which I cannot read without smiling at it all that I will say to you upon it is that it is very hard for those that understand not Greek and Hebrew p. 50 51. that they must not be allowed to know what significo means had that word been a branch from either of those tongues your Criticism would have looked somewhat like whereas now it is but a more formal piece of trifling Optatus his Testimony is nothing to the Purpose and that from Gaudentius is so far from being for your Transubstantiation that it is directly against you as had I time or room here I could easily shew St. Hierom's places prove the very same p. 51. Nos autem audiamus Panem quem fregit Dominus deditque Discipulis suis esse Corpus Domini Salvatoris ipso dicente ad eos atcipite comedite Hoc est Corpus meum St. Hieron Hedibiae Tom. 3. p. 144. Edit Froben that is against you as first that which says it was Bread our Saviour gave to his Disciples and that that Bread was his Body which sort of expressions your own learned men allow to prove a figurative Body onely since Bread can no otherwise be the Body of Christ I wonder what you brought the Testimonies for about the Clergy's always praying if you did it for a touch at our married Clergy remember that it touches your self and tho' it does not me p. 53. yet this I will assure you that St. Hierom's Argument is very faulty and proves nothing at all because it proves too much since if the Clergy must abstain from Matrimony because they must always pray upon the very same reason all the Christian Laity will be obliged also to abstain from it 1 Thess 5.17 p. 54 55 56 c. they being most expresly commanded to pray without ceasing From St. Chrysostom you have brought us a great many passages How much that Learned Father delighted in Rhetorual Flights hath been already observed above when I examined just such quotations as these about St. Peters Supremacy and that his Homilies are not to be strictly taken nor can be in a literal sense hath been abundantly proved above However here you are for having the passages you cite him for about a Transubstantiation taken in a literal sense which no man of learning would have said since it is impossible they should I will instance but in one of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 D. Chrys in Matth. Tom. 2. p. 514. Edit Savil. How many now say I would see his Form his Figure his Garments and his Shoes behold thou seest him thou touchest him thou eatest him I appeal to that person of meanest judgment in your whole Church whoever he be to your own second thoughts whether any one can or does strictly speaking See Touch or Eat our Saviour therefore if you will have a literal sense of these and such his hyperbolical expressions you are easily answered that these passages you quote from St. Chrysostom prove nothing at all because they prove too much because they assert that which all learned men nay all men except you grant to be impossible But besides all this you your self afford us a little passage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idem in 1 Ep. ad Corinth Tom. 3. p. 379. which evidently destroys your attempt of making St. Chrysostom a Transubstantiation man which you endeavour by your English to obscure as you have served many a larger place in your Book and therefore I will clear the place thus for as that Body is united to Christ so we also are united to him by this Bread which sufficiently proves the Substance of the Bread to remain in the Eucharist St. Chrysostom's opinion as to this point in controversie betwixt us is so apparent from the late recovered Epistle of his to Caesarius as nothing can be more I shall reserve it to a further particular occasion CHAP. XXIV His further Arguments for it out of St. Austin Cyril of Alexandria Theodoret c. Answered I Must in the next place follow you to St. Austin p. 59 60 c. and see what you would have from him who is so extraordinary plain and so point blank against Transubstantiation I will not onely say that the Places you have from him as spoken allegorically cannot do your business tho' you help them as you did St. Hierom when you translated Vinum Blood St. Chrysostom when you translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Eucharist by translating Sacramentum a Sacrifice but will give you a place or two to convince you that St. Austin was not for Transubstantiation In his Book against Adamantus he says plainly Non enim Dominus dubitavit dicere Hoc est Corpus meum cum Signum daret Corporis sui Aug. contr Adamant c. 12. Edit Basil For our Lord made no Scruple to say this is my Body when he gave the Sign of his Body In his Epistle to Boniface he sayes (l) Si enim Sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum quarum Sacramenta sunt non haberent omnino Sacramenta non essent Ex
hac autem similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum Sacramentum Corporis Christi Corpus Christi est Sacramentum Sanguinis Christi Sanguis Christi est ita Sacramentum Fidei Fides est Aug. Ep. 23. ad Boniface P. 62 63. P. 63. that if the Sacraments had no resemblance with those things whereof they are the Sacraments they would not be Sacraments at all from their resemblance it is that they commonly bear the names of the things themselves for as the Sacrament of the Body of Christ is after a certain manner the Body of Christ so the Sacrament of Faith is Faith. I might easily shew you how he distinguishes between Sacramentum and Res Sacramenti that Judas onely received Panem Domini whereas the rest of the Apostles received Panem Dominum but I must hasten to your next Testimonies from St. Cyril of Alexandria the first of which hath been already more than once answered your second is directly against your self the Jews fault being that they understood our Saviour in a literal sense and not in the Spiritual in which he meant it and Nicodemus his fault was of the same nature about Regeneration so that you certainly took this place on trust without considering it and your Jeer at the end of it is both groundless and ridiculous hictius doctius hei Presto be gone do far better become your People who teach that upon pronouncing hoc est corpus meum the Bread is gone and the Body of Christ is in its room in a trice but to pass such childish stuff your last Testimony from this St. Cyril does not deserve any consideration it proving nothing for your purpose I am now arrived at †Theodoret. P. 63. him whom of all men I little thought you would have cited in and of all places you would not have medled with that you do but to give you your due you are a hardy man and resolved to go through with Theodoret also tho' you loose some Skin by it and get never so many blows and hard words Well then you bring us his second Dialogue against the Eutychians where after the Questions asked and answered about the Sacramental Bread and Wine their being the symbols of the true Body and Blood of Christ which is also received it self in the Eucharist the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orthodox Eutychian thinking he had caught the Orthodox Adversary argues upon his concession that as the Symbols then of the Body and Blood here you make a stop and it was time for you to do it wherein you shew tho' no honesty yet some cunning but I must continue the objection of the Eutychian to make the sense clear and full as well as to ruine your silly design hence are one thing before Consecration but after it are changed and made another thing just so the Body of our Lord after its assumption is changed into the divine Substance or Nature This was the Eutychians Argument upon which the †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret Dial. 2. p. 85. Edit Sirmond 1642. Orthodox makes a quick reply and tells him that he was caught in his own Nets since the Mystical Symbols the blessed Bread and Wine do not after or upon their Consecration depart from their essential Nature but continue in their former Substance Form and Kind and are as visible and as palpable now as they were before their Consecration c. This place of Theodoret is so demonstrative against Transubstantiation that you had need if you must be bringing it in for you to obscure the sense by your abrupt caetera and to falsify it too as you have done here by a ridiculous Translation which quite spoils Theodoret's Argumont hence against the Eutychians as I shall by and by shew in one of my Corollaries in the interim to let you and the world see the intolerable disingenuity of your Translating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appear no other than in their own nature I will but bring a short passage out of his first Dialogue to evince it where he sayes * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idem Dial. 1. p. 18. our Saviour honoured the Symbols and Signs the Sacramental Bread and Wine with the names of his Body and his Blood not by changing at all their NATURE but by adding of GRACE to Nature Proclus of Constantinople your next Author is directly against your self 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΑΥΤΟΥ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Procli C. P. de Traditione D. Liturgiae p. 581. Edit Romae 1630. since it is the Presence of the Holy Ghost according to him and not of the Natural Body and Blood of Christ which makes the Bread and mingled Wine the very Body and Blood of Christ Your Quotation from Eucherius p. 64. falls in with those from St. Ambrose and is answered there That from Isidore Pelusiota p. 65. and that from Pope Leo which is false translated have been answered sufficiently above Your Story out of Gregory Turonensis p. 66. were it true makes nothing to your purpose but you ought to remember that we always demand the genuine plain Testimonies of Fathers in the Controversie about Transubstantiation and cannot admit or rely upon Stories and Miracles such as this is and that from p. 69. Paulus Diaconus I am weary of this tedious Examination of further particular places of Writers at too great a distance to be set up were they really what they are far from being against the Primitive Fathers as to this Controversie I will onely vindicate your Pope Gregory the Great and our Countryman Venerable Bede p. 68. and then leave off this Method of answering The place you quote from Gregory does you no service since it is so very allegorical and cannot be taken in a literal sense but that which we meet with in his (d) Ipsi qui sumimus Communionem bujus sancti panis Calicis unum Christi Corpus efficemur Quaesumus ut illius Salutaris capiamus effectum cujus per Mysteria PIGNUS accepimus Greg. L. Sacram. p. 1337. Ed. Par. 1695. Sacramentary is directly against Transubstantiation where in Prayer it 's said We which do receive the Communion or Sacrament of the consecrated Bread and Cup are made one Body of Christ. (c) Ut videlicet pro carne Agni vel sanguinem suae carnis sanguinisque Sacramâ—ntâ—â—n in Panis ac Vini Figurâ substituens c. Beda Comm. in Luc. 22. p. 424. Edit Colon. 1612. Venerable Bede's words are as clear as we could wish and as full against Transubstantiation as we can speak when he sayes that our Saviour Christ substituted into the place of the Flesh and Blood of the Paschal Lamb the Sacrament of his own Flesh and Blood under the figure of Bread and Wine (f) Coenâ in quâ Figuram sacrosancti corporis sanguinisque sui Discipulis tradidit c. Idem in Psal 3. p. 324. and in
and Wine do nourish the outward man that is our Bodies as the Word of Christ the Living Bread doth nourish the Souls of the Faithfull Communicants Rathramne or Bertram f Up and down the secod part of his Book from p. 127. uses this Nourishment of our Bodies by the Sacramental Body and Blood for an Argument to prove his distinguishing betwixt the Sacramental and the Natural Body of Christ to be just and necessary g Illa Eucharistia temporaria est non aeterna corruptibilis critque minutim divisibilis inter Dentes manditur in secessum emittitur Homilia Anglo Sax. apud not as Whelochi in Beda L. 5. c. 22. p. 472. Edit Cantabrig 1644. Our Saxon Paschal Homily which used to be read in our Churches in the Tenth Century follows Rathramn exactly in this point and teaches that the Sacramental Body is corruptible because it may be broke into several pieces grinded by the Teeth and being swallowed down into the Stomach is thence cast into the draught Having collected Passages enough that which I intend to prove from them is that the Natural Body and Blood of Christ into which you Transubstantiators say the Bread and Wine upon Consecration are transubstantiated cannot without the greatest impiety be thus said to Nourish our Bodies There is no one that understands what Nourishment means how that macerating by the Teeth Digestion in the Stomach Separation in the Guts of the impure and excrementitious which passes into the draught from the purer which passing through the Lacteals and other chanels falls into the Common Mass of Blood are all necessary in order to Nourishment but must at the same time abhor the very thought of our Saviours Natural Body undergoing such tortures and changes in order to the Nourishment of our Bodies Either it is Bread or Wine or the Natural Body and Blood of Christ that undergoes these several stages in order to our Nourishment Neither you nor we talk of any third Body for these purposes If there be no Bread and Wine upon Consecration left which you affirm then it is unavoidable that the Natural Body and Blood of Christ which are come into the others place must afford this Nourishment to our Bodies but if you dare not affirm this which it were most blasphemous to do it will of necessity follow that the substances of the Bread and Wine do after consecration continue in order to this Nourishment and therefore no Transubstantiation either is or could be believed by them who did attribute this power of nourishing to the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ. My next Corallary is 3. Coroll That the Fathers speak such things of the Eucharist as are perfectly inconsistent with its having after Consecration the bare Accidents and Species of Bread and Wine The Proof of this Corollary depends upon the preceding which shewed that the General Doctrine of the Fathers was that our Bodies are nourished by the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ. Now as I made it evident in the last Corollary that this Nourishment was infinitely inconsistent with the Nature of Christ his Natural Body now and for ever to continue in a glorified state so it is as easie to shew that such Nourishment is as inconsistent with your upstart ridiculous Doctrine of Accidents Since the bare Accidents and Species cannot nourish a Body and since it is impossible that That which hath neither Substance Matter Quantity nor Body should give or add to another both Substance Matter Quantity and Body every one of which are necessary to a corporal Nourishment from which we must conclude that the Fathers never so much as dreamed of bare Accidents after Consecration since They taught and wrote that which is utterly inconsistent with such things and consequently with Transubstantiation This Corollary I intended chiefly for your sake Mr. Sclater and the late Translator's of Bertram * Printed at Paâ—is 16â—â— Monsiâ—ur Bâ—ileâ—u the Dean of Sens. As you had a mind to iâ—â—ose upon us that Irenaeus his pars terrena of the Eucharist was the Accidents which consequently must nourish us p. 〈◊〉 notwithstanding their having nothing of Substance so †p. 89. §. 19. p. 118. §. 40. p. 152 126. §. 19 c. he very gravely up and down his Translation and his Remarks tells us of the Bodies being nourished by that which falls under the sense by which he onely means as he continually explains himself the meer figure and vail the meer Accidents of Bread and Wine with which the Natural Body and Blood of Christ are vailed I must acknowledge that I am astonished to see a man who hath doubtless a great deal of Learning write direct non-sense with such formal Gravity I durst appeal to his own Conscience and am perswaded that he does not believe himself that Figures Vails and Accidents which according to all mens notions of them are without any substance and are perfect nothings as to Body can give nourishment to or increase the Substances of our Bodies A man might as well write that people may dine at Church on the Ministers voice as that non-entities meer nothings can nourish our Bodies But if you two be resolved to believe so still I would desire no other Argument to make you both recant than that you two were the thing possible in Nature to separate the Accidents Qualities and Modifications of Bodies from the substances of the Bodies themselves might be put up and constrained to live but one fortnight upon these same Accidents and Vails and try how nourishing they are I am pretty certain that it would cure you of believing corporeal Accidents and him of ever writing again that Figures do or can nourish I will conclude this Corollary with a passage out * Quis concâ—sserit aut cui posse fieri videatur ut id quod in Subjecto est maneat ipso intereunte Subjecto Monstruosum enim à veritate alienissunum est ut id quod non esset nisi in ipso esset etiam cum ipsum non fuerit possit esse D. August Solioliq l. 2. c. 13. p. 536. Edit Basil 1569. of St. Austins Soliloquies which will abundantly confirm all that I have said in this Corollary Who can grant saith he or think it possible that that which is in and depends for its being upon a Subject can continue when the Subject it self is perished for it is a Monstrous thing and as far as can be from Truth that that which would have no Being but for the Subject in which it is can still have a Being when its Subject on which it depended hath none Before I pass to my next Corollary I must make a little Digression to expostulate with the French Dean about his Translation of Rathramn or Bertram and his Remarks upon it He must certainly think so much wrong could not be put upon so venerable a Writer and no body would speak in his behalf it was a strange attempt
and Wine in order to their Communicating to us the Benefits and Virtue of our Saviour's Passion I will end this Corollary with that of Theodoret (2) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret. Dial. 1. p. 18. Edit Sirmond 1642. our Saviour honoured the Symbols and Signs the Consecrated Bread and Wine with the Titles of his Body and his Blood not by changing their NATURE at all but by adding GRACE to NATURE My fifth Corollary shall be That the Argument from the Eucharist used by the Fathers to prove the Verity of the two Natures in Christ doth evidently deny and reject any Transubstantiation This I shall demonstrate from particular Fathers most eminent in their times the first of which shall be the Great St. Chrysostom in his Epistle to Caesarius a Monk whom he was endeavouring to secure from Apollinarius his Heresie who denyed the Truth of the two Natures in Christ For the disproving of which false Doctrine among other Arguments He urges this from the Eucharist (1) Sicut enim antequam sanctificetur Panis Panem nominamus divinâ autem illum sanctificantè Gratiâ mediante Sacerdote liberatus est quidem Appellatione PANIS dignus autem habitus est Dominici Corporis APPELLATIONE etiaâ—si NATURA PANIS in ipso permansit non duo Corpora sed unum Corpus Filii praedicatur Sic hic Divina 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est inundante Corporis naturâ unum filium unam Personam utreque haec fecerunt Agnoscendum tamen inconfusam indivisibilem rationem non in unâ solum Naturâ sed in duobus perfectis D. Chrys Ep. ad Caes in the Appendix to the Defence of the Exposition c. p. 156. For as in the Eucharist before the Bread is Consecrated we call it Bread but after that by the mediation of the Priest the Divine Grace hath sanctified it it is no longer called Bread but is honoured with the name of our Lord's Body tho' the nature of Bread continue in it still and it doth not become two distinct Bodies but one Body of the Son of God even so here the Divine Nature being united to the humane or Body they together make up but one Son one Person But must however be acknowledged to remain without Confusion after an indivisible manner not in one NATURE but in TWO PERFECT NATURES The very same Argument doth Theodoret urge against the Eutychians whose Heresie was the same with that of Apollonarius as I have above put down his words at large from his second Dialogue against the Eutychian Heresie p. 70. One of your own Popes â—elasius I. against the same Hereticks sayes (2) Certe Sacramenta quae sumimus Corporis sanguinis Christi Divina Res est propter quod per eadem Divinae essicimur Consortes Naturae tamen esse non desinit SUBSTANTIA vel NATURA PANIS VINI certe IMAGO SIMILITUDO CORPORIS SANGUINIS Christi in Actione Mysteriorum celebrantur Satis ergo nobis evidenter ostendituâ— hoc nobis in ipso Christo Domino sentiendum quod in ejâ—s Imagine profitemur celebramus sumiâ—â—us ut sieâ—â— in hane scilicet in Divinam transeunt Sancto spiritu perâ—iciente Substantiam PERMANENTE tamen in suae rect suâ PROPRIETATE NATURA Sic illud ipsum Mysterium Principale cujus nobis efficientiam virtutémque veraciter REPRESENTANT ex quibus constat proprit PERMANENTIBUS Unum Christum quiae integrum verâ—mque Permantre demonstrant Gelasius Papa de duabus in Christo Naturis in Biblioth P Prum Parte 3. Tom. 5. p. 671. Edit Colon. 1618. Doubtless the SACRAMENTS of the Body and Blood of Christ which we receive are a Divine Thing in that they make us Partakers of the Divine Nature though the SUBSTANCE or NATURE of the BREAD and WINE doth still Remain and indeed the Image and Likeness of Christ's Body and Blood is celebrated in the Mysterious Action By this therefore we are plainly taught to think the same of our Lord Christ himself as we profess celebrate and receive in or by his IMAGE that as the Elements pass into a Divine Nature by the Operation of the Holy Ghost and yet continue to have their own Proper Nature so that principal Mystery the Incarnation the Virtue and efficacy of which the Consecrated Elements do truly Represent unto us doth as evidently demonstrate that there is One True and entire Christ consisting of two distinct Natures Ephrem or Ephramius the Patriarch of Antioch in the sixth Century urges the same Argument (3) Apud Photii Biblioth num 229. against the same Hereticks That which I gather from these evident places of these great Men is that as they held the humane Nature to continue entire after its Vnion with the Divine into the One Person of Christ so they held the true Substance of the Bread to continue after its Consecration into the Sacramental Body of Christ and that if they had not believed this they would never have used it as an Argument to prove the other These Places and this Argument are so convictive that I admire that any man can believe Transubstantiation that does but reade and consider them I know some of your Writers say that the Fathers by Substance and Nature here mean onely the outward Appearance and the bare Accidents But not to insist how we shall ever know any Author's sense in any one thing if men may take this Liberty not onely to make a word signifie what they please but the direct contrary to what it should and alwayes doth This is to make the whole Argument of these several Greatest Men of a Pope himself and him perhaps as learned as ever sat in the Chair and as Infallible perfect Foolery and direct Sophistry to give up their Cause as well as their Arguments unto the Hereticks their Enemies while they make these Learned Fathers to prove that Christ had not the Appearance onely which none of the Eutychians did deny him but a true humane Nature by the Example of a Thing which had not the true Nature of Bread but the bare Appearance of it without any Substance Certainly such men do not consider what great wrong they doe to these Fathers in making their Arguments so very weak and impertinent Had They then believed Transubstantiation it had been perfect Madness in Them to use the Eucharist for an Argument against the Hereticks since the Hereticks would most easily have retorted it and shewn out of their own mouths that as upon Consecration the Substance of the Bread is gone and nothing but the appearance of Bread remains so upon the Vnion of the two Natures the humane was absorpt or to borrow a word of you for the Eutychians transubstantiated into the Divine and onely the Appearance of flesh remained and this the Fathers could never have disproved if they themselves had held that the Appearance of a Thing as to Colour Dimension Smell Tast c. might subsist without the