a thing he is always so carefull about when he speaks of any of those venerable Ancients Saint Hierome is as silent as to any Writings of his But that which is more than these two Negative Arguments the first Men that produced these supposititious Writings of Saint Dionysius were Hereticks and the first time was in the sixth Century at a Conference held in the Emperour Justinian's Palace betwixt the Catholicks and the Severian Hereticks who produced them but as dubious or probable at most sicut suspicamini Illa enâ—m Testimonia quae vos dicitis Dionysii Areopagitae te unde potestis ostendire vera esse sicut suspicamini si enim ejus erant non potuissent latere Beatum Cyrillum quando Beatus Athanasius si pro certo scisset ejus fuisse ante omnia in Nicaeno concilio testimoâ—ia protulisset adversus Arii-Blasphemias Collatio CP in T. 4. Conciliâ—r p. 176. Edit Cossart as the Catholicks told them but were rejected by the Catholick Bishops upon the very same reasons I have urged against them as I urged that Eusebius would have known of them had there been any such Writings so They urge that St. Athanasius would have made use of them at Nice against Arius as I urged that St. Hierom would have mentioned them so they urge that St. Cyril of Alexandria would have known of them But besides these sufficient reasons the Books themselves are the greatest Evidence of all they being writ in a style quite different from the Apostolical Times and treating of matters after such a different manner and of things unknown to those times if you desire to see these things proved and instanced in do but look into one of your own Writers the Learned Sorbonist I have mentioned above Du Pin's N. Bibliotheque p. 89 90 91 c. and then tell me how you could call these Arguments pitiful Objections which are perfect Demonstrations of these Writings of St. Dionysius their being forged so that we must set St. Denys aside and call in his Companion St. Martial But before we try him I would fain know what you mentioned him for you make no use of him or his Epistles in your Book this is such a strange piece of hardiness of you that I cannot but wonder at it Methinks you had business enough on your hands to prove the Genuineness of your other Authors and Liturgies and needed not to have brought in him by head and shoulders hither whom I will soon dispatch now he is here and tell you that there was no such Man in those Times and therefore no Epistles of his n Nouvelle Bibliotheque c. p. 496. Du Pin hath put the true Martial if there ever were really such a Person in the third Century but for the Epistles which o In Martiali Lemovicensi ap Lib. de scriptor E. Bellarmine had rejected at spurious long ago he sayes that no body doubts their being supposititious which is a great mistake in this Learned Man since you Mr. Sclater believe the contrary concerning them And truly I know not how to bring the honest Doctor off unless his meaning was that no body that had any learning or sense did as I verily believe he meant so that you may if you will tell him as the late Hierusalem Synod have in effect the famous Monsieur Claude that they are not ignorant and unlearned Having dispatch'd St. Martial St. Clemens Romanus is next put up whose genuine famous Epistle to the Corinthians we do with all Antiquity admit and admire the doubtfull fragment of the second Epistle with l Hist Eccles l. 3. c. 38. Edit Vales. Eusebius and Antiquity we cannot admit to the same honour the other enjoyes however we 'l not quarrel about it since I see nothing out of it in Controversy betwixt us the Constitutions are the things in question among us against the genuineness of which tho' you like your self offer not a syllable of Argument here for them I have this to say that m Hist Eccles l. 3. c. 38. Eusebius rejects them in express terms as spurious if they be the same work that in his time went under the name of Doctrina Apostolorum as the Opinion of some is but tho' these are not the same book yet ‖ Hist Eccl. l. 3. c. 38. Eusebius doth ex Consequenti condemn them when he admits of nothing either as genuine or probable besides the two Epistles We have the same silence in St. Hierom as to these Constitutions and therefore an Argument from him against them Photii Biblioth num 1.12 but without either of them I think it is enough to say they are infected with Arianism to omit other faults as Photius long since charged upon them and therefore cannot be the genuine work of Clemens Romanus S. Ignatius his seven genuine Epistles we receive with all readiness so that he does not suffer among us as well as his Master But for your next Author Andreas I must confess I am mightily at a loss I can hear no news of such an Author any where I have examined Eusebius and St. Hierom our Excellent Dr. Cave your Bellarmine and your learned Sorbonist Du Pin and cannot hear one word of such an Author However you quote him and in your Margin over against the Passage out of him I find Lib. de Passione D. by which I suppose you mean a book of St. Andrews concerning the Passion of our Lord. P. 30. I must now therefore question with you whether there be really such a book as you quote I am sorry I am forc't to tell you hereupon that you have discovered an intolerable and wretched Ignorance and have exposed it more to the World your own self than any enemy could have done it for you I must tell you that you have most sillily imposed upon your self and that I wonder that your new Superiours who I am assured perused and examined your book should suffer the cheat upon you and license you to put it upon the World. The Book you quote is the Passion of St. Andrew himself of which I hope I need not any Arguments to prove that himself was not the Author * Apud Sarium de vitis SS ad 30 Novem. p. 619. Edit Colon 1575. The book is said to have been writ by the Presbyters of Achaia present at his Martyrdom But that it is a spurious book I need not urge our own Men a Charto Phylo. Eccl. p. 5. Dr. Cave c. onely but your own Du Pin who upon reasons able to destroy the credit of it wholly says that b Nouvelle Bibliotheque des Auteurs Ecclesiastiques p. 48. at least it ought to be considered as a doubtfull writing which according to St. Hierom one cannot make use of to prove any Article of Faith as you have made Transubstantiation to be I have been the more particular about these Liturgies and Authors to let you see how
impertinent and how unjust your railing at our Church about these Books was and to expose your gross ignorance to your new Superiours that they also may see which perhaps they did not know before how unfit a man you were to meddle with this sort of learning and how wretchedly you have come off CHAP. XIX The Authorities from Ignatius Justin Martyr and Irenaeus for Transubstantiation answered I come now to examine as they come to hand your several Authorities for Transubstantiation the Liturgies as spurious are already dispatched The first of your Authorities from Ignatius which you needed not if you really did go to Theodoret for since it is now common in Ignatius himself from the Florentine Copy that the Hereticks that denyed Christ had a true Body abstained from the Eucharist because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ P. 30. c. does you no service because We of the Church of England who do not believe any Transubstantiation say with St. Ignatius that the Sacrament is the Body and Blood of Christ However as we say that it is figuratively such so there is nothing here to determine that St. Ignatius meant otherwise than we do since his Argument is as strong not to say stronger in a figurative sense against the Hereticks it invincibly proving as a Contr. Marc. l. 4. c. 40. Tertullian does upon the very same account that our Saviour had a true Body since none but such could have a figurative Body or Figure a Figure of a Figure or Phantome being perfect nonsense so that St. Ignatius is no help to prove a Transubstantiation and your reasoning upon it ridiculous since if the Hereticks had owned the Eucharist with Calvin or Zuinglius to have been the sign or Figure of Christs Body P. 30. they had quite ruined their own doctrine and had allowed Christ to have had a true Body since none but such could have a Sign or Figure but some Men are so fond of saying something that so it be but said they matter not whether it be for or against themselves which this your reasoning really is Your next Authority from St. Denys as spurious is to no purpose P. 30. nor your next upon the same account from your Andreas who methinks as an Apostle should have had the place of St. Denys and both of them before St. Ignatius but you I suppose either found them in this order or thought Ignatius fittest to be put first because he looked a little more to your purpose than either of them Tho' as to the latter of them your Andreas had you but shewn any ingenuity in what you cite from him he would have proved full as little to your purpose but you cunningly slip over in this short passage that which would have told you that the Sacrifice here spoken of could be no other than a figurative and representative Sacrifice since it is said to be offered in altari crucis upon the Altar of the Cross which you wisely tho' not over honestly leave out to make your Author speak something towards the purpose we meet him here for Your Note upon this Passage that truly eaten excludes eating in sign onely or Spirit does as much discover your Ignorance of the Sense of the Genuine Fathers as your Phrase in sign onely does your malice who cannot but know that the Church you have forsaken never said so to say that he which eats both in Sign and Spirit does not eat truely is to give the lye to a whole Tract of S. (b) Tractatus 26 in Joann Austins where among twenty other Confutations you may find that such Persons as Moses Aaron and Phineas who pleased God visibilem cibum spiritaliter intellexerunt spiritaliter esurierunt spiritaliter gustaverunt ut spiritaliter satiarentur did spiritually understand the visible Food the Manna did spiritually hunger after and tast of it that they might be spiritually filled and satisfied and that the true eating the Bread of Life so as not to dye does belong (c) Pertinent ad virtusem Sacramenti non ad visibile Sacramentum Qui manducat intus non foris qui manducat in corde non qui premit dente August Tract 26. in Joan to the virtue of the Sacrament and not to the visible Sacrament and that the true receiver is he who eateth inwardly not outwardly who eateth with the heart and not he who presseth it with his teeth Justin Martyr you next cite saying P. 31. 'T is not common Bread or common Drink we take how then Why as the Word of God Jesus Christ our Saviour was made Flesh so we are taught that our Nourishment by Prayer proceeding from him being made the Eucharist to be the Flesh and Blood of the same incarnate Jesus c. This Translation I accuse not onely of falshood and of perverting the plain sense of St. Justin but of direct Nonsense for first whereas St. Justin sayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Just M. Apol 2. p. 98. Edit Morel Paris 1636. We do not receive these things the consecrated Bread and the consecrated Wine mingled with Water A S common Bread or common Drink you make him say that ' iis not common Bread or common Drink we take which is directly contrary to the true sense of his Words which are so far from denying that they evidently suppose and prove them to be still Bread and Wine after Consecration or else they could not be received in a different manner from that at common Meals Again whereas our Author goes on but as by the Word of God Jesus Christ our Saviour being incarnate had both Flesh and Blood for our Salvation you nonsensically translate him as the Word of God Jesus Christ our Saviour was made Flesh where you not only lame his sense and obscure it but quite pervert it you making the Word of God to be our Saviour himself the second Person in the Trinity whereas Justin means by it the Power of the Holy Ghost which over-shadowed the Blessed Virgin. I will give you but another touch of your nonsense and that is when you translate so we are taught that our nourishment by prayer to be the flesh instead of is the flesh I hate so mean an employment as to be thus taken up in ripping up your pitiful dealing or else I could expose you further from this very passage out of Justin but I think this enough to let you and your new Superiors see what wretched stuff we are like to be put off with and how vastly unfit you are to meddle about such things To leave then this miserable murthering of Justin I come now to see what you would have thence suppose you had known which you did not what the Author meant here You argue our Saviour was made Flesh therefore the Eucharist is Flesh or Justin could not say they were so taught I answer That as our Saviour was not Transubstantiated when
to make Bertram a good Catholick that is in your stile a true man for Transubstantiation at last when hitherto their Church had damned this Writer to the Pit of Hell and Mr. Sclater himself hath very chronologically put him among the followers of Berengarius who first disturbed the long peace p. 76. p. 75. and as long continued Faith of the Catholick Church of Transubstantiation This strange attempt was accompanied with Arts and Tricks as strange and unusual with all honest men that is with a violent perverting of the Authors sense and an unjust and most foolish Turn of the whole design of Bertram †In his â—emarks upon Bertram p. 207 208 c. Printed at the end of his Translation Paris 1686. This Gentle man makes Bertram to write his Book against some that held our Saviour's Natural Body was received in the Eucharist without any Vail or Figure that is to put it into downright English with the very same dimensions Skin Hair Flesh Head Feet and Armes that he had on the Cross But is it probable there ever were any such men No it is so far from it that it is impossible there ever could since this Opinion must be grounded upon their seeing it so which I am sure never was never could be this Gentleman thinks the very †Praes p. 21. knowing what stercoranism means is enough to confute it but is it not far stronger against this fancy of his for I dare not call it any mens Opinion since I am very well satisfied there never could be any men that held such a thing It is pleasant however to see how the Dean goes about to prove that there was such an Opinion and such men against against which our Author did write this Tract he tells us that one Abbaudus and one Gaultier Prior of St. Victor held that our Saviour's Natural Body was palpable and sensible in the Eucharist but since these men by his own Confession lived two or three hundred years at soonest after Bertram it is but a very odd way of proving that there were such men in or before Bertram's time because there were about three hundred years after Such proof is fitter for Children than Deans of Cathedrals to use and ought no more to pass from him p. 213 214. than if it came from them but to help himself and his ridiculous Authorities he tells us that it is not probable that they two were the first Authors of this Opinion now for brevity sake to set this aside which is pitiful begging and not proving were these two men after all the Abbaudus and Gualtier of this Opinion that our Saviour's Body is received in the Eucharist without any Vail or Figure This is so very false that I wonder how any man that hath common sense or any learning could have the face to assert it * Cogitavetam illis aliqua respondere qui dicunt ipsum Corpus non frangi sed in Albedine ejus Rotunditate aliquid factitari sed recogitans ineptum esse in Evangelio Christi de Albedine Rotunditate dispâ—tare c. Abbaudus p. 211. sensualiter non solum Sacramento sed etiam veriâ—ate manibus Sacerdotum tractari frangi fideliâ—m dentibus attèri Ecce Catholiâ—â— Eides Istâ— autem Scholasticus sic exponit vere quidem ait est sed in Sacramento tantum Gaultier p. 212. in the Remarks they say indeed that the Natural Body of Christ is palpable and sensible in the Eucharist but that they do not mean sensible to the Eye or visible is hence apparent because they talk of the Whiteness and and the Roundness which certainly are that which you call the vails of our Saviour's Body and all the intent of their Arguments was to prove that tho' our Saviour's Body was hid under the Accidents of Whiteness Roundness c. yet that it is palpable and subject to be broke since Whiteness and Roundness which are meer Accidents could not be broken or parted asunder So that now we find by this Dean's help at last that Rathramn's or Bertram's Book was writ against no body and about nothing since it is impossible there ever were such Persons or such an Opinion for any body to write against Certainly this Gentleman thought all the world asleep besides their own Party or he could never have had the courage to have writ such stuff and tho' I do not wonder at the French King 's giving his Royal Privilege to this Book and calling the Translator his dearly beloved because I suppose he does not desire to be thought to have read or examined the Book yet I am perfectly amazed to find the Approbation of the Sorbonne to this most ridiculous nonsensical Piece and can give my self no other reason for it than that those People are resolved to approve and license any thing against us tho' it be at the same time as much against common sense and reason I hope some one will do what I cannot have room or leasure to do here that is take this Dean Boileau's Translation and Remarks to task the very foundation of which I have perfectly ruined in that little I have said here But to return My fourth Corollary is 4 Coroll That the Illustrations and Comparisons by which the Fathers used to prove a Change in the Elements do prove their Opinions to have been opposite to Transubstantiation I will here instance in the several Comparisons (1) Greg. Nyssen Orat. in Bapt. Christi of the Water in Baptism (2) Ambros de Sacram l. 4. c. 4. of the Person baptized (3) Cyrit Hier. Catech. Mystag 3. of the Oyl in Chrism (4) Greg. Nyssen supra of the Ordained Person (5) Idem Ibidem and of the Altar These the Fathers made use of to prove such a change in the Elements of Bread and Wine Now there is no man of any learning or sense will say they taught any Transubstantiation of the Water of the Person baptized of the Oyl of the Stones of the Altar or of the Person ordained and therefore neither any Transubstantiation of the Elements of Bread and Wine They compare these several changes together and make them to be parallel and equal So that it is evident they meant an equal change in them and no Transubstantiation of one of them more than of the rest And farther all the change they attribute to any of these things the Water the Oyl the Baptized person c. is not at all as to their substance by removing it away but as to the Virtue Quality Office and Vse of them by the Accession or Influence of the Spirit of God as I have particularly shewed above in Gregory Nyssen Cyril of Hierusalem and St. Ambrose so that I may hence conclude that as the Primitive Fathers taught no substantial change of any of those things mentioned in order to the Effects they are dedicated to so they taught none of the Bread