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
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
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
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
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
Substance unto which those Accidents do belong In a word had there been such a thing as Transubstantiation believed then as the Fathers could not have urged the Example of the Eucharist its continuing in the very same NATURE and SUBSTANCE it had before Consecration against the Eutychian Hereticks so it is Morally Impossible that those Hereticks should omit so home an Argument in Defence of themselves but since these are never known to have urged any such thing for themselves and we find the Greatest and most Learned Fathers urging the Example of the EUCHARIST its remaining in the TRUE SUBSTANCES of BREAD and WINE after CONSECRATION we have all the Reason in the World to conclude that the Fathers neither did nor could ever believe such a thing as Transubstantiation I might have added another Corollary from the Distinction between the Natural and the Spiritual Flesh and Blood of Christ so much insisted on by the Fathers Clemens of Alexandria (4) Paedag. L. 2. c. 2. and others and especially by Rathramn or Bertram who hath made it the Subject of the Second Part of his Book from Section 50th p. 127 by our Countreymen (5) Illa Eucharistia non est Câ—â—pus Christi CORPORALITER sed SPIRITVALITER non Corpus illud QVO passus est sed Corpus illud de quo locuâ—as est quando Panem Vinum in EUCHARISTIAM nocte unâ ante Passionem suam Consecravit Alsric apud Wheloci notas in Bed. H. E. l. 4. c. 24. Alfrick Arch-Bâ—â—â—op of Canterbury in an Epistle to Wulphin Bishop of Shirbâ—urn and by Wulphin himself (6) Hostia illa est Christi Corpus non Corporaliter sed Spiritualiter Non Corpus in quo passus est sed Corpus de quo locutus est quando Panem Vinum ea quae Passionem antecessit nocte in Hostiam Consecravit de Sacrato Pane dixit Hoc est Corpus Meum c. Wulfini Oratio Synodica apudVsser de Christ Eccl. Succes Statu c. 2. p. 44. in a Synodical Oration of his to his Clergy in the Tenth Century near a Thousand years after Christ. I might also have insisted on some more such particularly on that Account in Hesychius (7) Hesychius in Levit. l. 2. c. 8. of the Custome of the Church of Jerusalem to burn what was left of the Consecrated Elements but to avoid being tedious those I have already made are abundantly sufficient to shew that Transubstantiation was not could not be the Belief of the FATHERS that their FAITH concerning the EUCHARIST is the very SAME with the FAITH taught and embraced by the CHURCH of ENGLAND which was the Thing I undertook to evince CHAP. XXIV Two or Three Reflexions upon the Remainder of Mr. Sclater's Book The Conclusion HAving done This I shall not trouble my self with the rest of your Citations but shall wave them as not one jot to the Purpose since if they should be against OUR CHURCH I have already proved that they as are much against THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH I will onely make two or three Reflections upon the Rest of your Book and then take leave of you The First shall be upon your Great Lateran Council p. 84. That it did determine allowing what is denyed by some of your own side that things were managed fairly at this Meeting for Transubstantiation and for the PAPAL POWER of DEPOSING KINGS at the same time If it erred in Determining the LATTER why not in Determining the FIRST I am sure that TRANSUBSTANTIATION is as MUCH against the PRIMITIVE FATHERS as that DAMNABLE HERETICAL DOCTRINE of POPES POWER of DEPOSING of KINGS and DISPOSING of their KINGDOMS can be A Discourse concerning Christ's Kingdom in TWO SERMONS preached before the University of Cambridge Printed for Green 1682 p. 18 19. And we do not envy your having TRANSUBSTANTIATION determined by such a Council as FIRST Conciliarly determined that HELLISH DOCTRINE of DEPOSING of KINGS a Practice so Impious that Dr. BARNES not LONG SINCE in a SERMON before the FAMOUS UNIVERSITY of CAMBRIDGE thought it to be ONE of the most IRREFRAGABLE ARGUMENTS to use his own words to prove HIM CHRIST his PRETENDER VICAR the POPE to be THE ANTICHRIST and he goes on to tell THEM That whereas some have taken a great deal of Pains to prove HIM the POPE so from the obscure Prophecies of Daniel And others with great Labour and Difficulties have applied all the Phaenomena and Characters of the Apocalyptical falle Prophet to the POPE THIS is a most SURE and COMPENDIOUS WAY of stamping upon HIM the MARK of the BEAST This Doctor 's words and Opinion I have chosen the rather for this Purpose because I believe he doth not pass in the Rank of MISREPRESENTERS among YOU and because it was in a SERMON before an UNIVERSITY p. 18. wherein HE told them he would deal sincerely with THEM I am perswaded that those of your Party that know HIM will grant him to be none of our fiery Zealots p. 49 50. N. B. and Furioso's against Popery tho' HE doth in the second SERMON speak of JUST EXCLAMATIONS against the SUPERSTITIONS and IDOLATRIES of the CHURCH of ROME and of a COMMENDABLE INDIGNATION against the WICKED and HELLISH PRACTICES of the ROMISH EMISSARIES to ESTABLIH the POPISH RELIGION My next Reflexion is p. 75 76. that your Account of Berengarius discovers abundance of malice and of ignorance too because He could not be the first Disturber of the long Peace of the Church by teaching a Doctrine opposite to Transubstantiation since in the Century before that Berengarius lived in not to go abroad in our OWN NATION the SAME DOCTRINE that Berengarius did stand up for was the COMMON FAITH of OUR CHURCH and was publickly taught and believed as appears most evidently to a Demonstration from the Publick Authorized SAXON HOMILY for EASTER and from the Writings and SYNODICAL ORATIONS wherein a Man may most reasonably expect to meet with the genuine and publick Faith of the Church of ALFRICK ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURY our ENGLISH PATRIARCH and of WULPHINE Bishop of SHIRBOURN as I have already observed (l) p. 73.81 N. B. and put down their words and the SAME FAITH was generally believed by almost ALL the FRENCH and ITALIANS as well as by the ENGLISH in Berengarius his time as Matthew Westminster tells us (m) Eeodem tempore Berengariuâ—in haereticam prolapsus pravitatem omnes Gallos Italos et Anglos suis jampenecorruperat pravitatibus Matth. West ad annum 1087. who was mistaken in saying it was by the Infection of Berengarius's Doctrine since it is certain THAT was the GENERAL and PUBLICK DOCTRINE here in the Century before and in FRANCE the Century before that to wit in the NINTH CENTURY as one may believe from the Writingr of Bertram and Erigena And here I cannot but observe how much you discover a gross ignorance when you make Bertram p. 76. and Scotus Erigena whom you