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 Substance unto
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
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
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
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
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