Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A42578
|
Veteres vindicati, in an expostulatory letter to Mr. Sclater of Putney, upon his Consensus veterum, &c. wherein the absurdity of his method, the weakness of his reasons are shewn, his false aspersions upon the Church of England are wiped off, and her faith concerning the Eucharist proved
|
Gee, Edward, 1657-1730.
|
1687
(1687)
|
Wing G462; ESTC R22037
|
94,746
|
111
|
him say Let us take the Body and Blood of Christ whereas he hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here and faith let us take to wit the consecrated Elements AS the Body and Blood of Christ which is a trick you played St. Justin Martyr as well as Cyril and then you from Grodecius translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by species a word unknown to the Primitive Christians in the sense you Transubstantiatours use it in witness b Non valebit Christi sermo ut Species mutet Elementorum p. 48. ex Arubrosio your own Quotations out of St. Ambrose when as any one that knows but a little Greek could tell you it means a Figure But to rescue Cyril clearly out of your hands had you but turned one leaf backward you might have read that which would if you had any ingenuity in you have hindred your bringing Cyril on the stage for a favourer or teacher of Transubstantiation there in his Mystigogical Catechism about Chrism having spoken of the use and vast benefit of it he thus addresses his Auditors but take heed that thou do not think that Chrism to be bare Oyl 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyr. catechism Mystag 3. p. 235 Edit Paris 1640. for as the Encharistical Bread after the Invocation and illapse of the Holy Spirit is no longer ordinary Bread but the Body of Christ even so this holy Oyl is no longer bare or as one may say common Oyl after the Invocation of the Holy Spirit but Charisma Christi the Gift or Grace of Christ and a little after he sayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idem â—odem loco the Body is anointed with the Oyl that is seen by us but the Soul is sanctified by the Holy and Quickening Spirit Here we meet with as high and as strange Expressions about the Chrism as in the next Cathechism about the Eucharistical Bread and Wine as there the Bread upon Consecration is said to be no longer common Bread just so it is said here about the Chrism that it is not common Oyl after Consecration as he talks there of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which you would have us to believe is no more than the bare appearance of Bread so here of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which upon the same reason must be onely the appearance of Oyl without any Substance In a word if St. Cyril proves a Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine there he as certainly proves a Transubstantiation of the Chrism-Oyl here if you say as all confess that he doth not prove this of the Oyl I must say upon equal grounds that he doth no more prove the other of the Bread and Wine so that St. Cyril is not for your purpose of proving Transubstantiation But before I pass to your next Author I have a question to ask you and that is why you put down the Text it self of Cyril here whereas your English if it be your own is word for word translated from Grodecius his Latin Translation of St. Cyril I appeal to your own Conscience whether what I say is not true but since you may be too peevish to tell me I will give an instance or two besides those already observed where you have both equally added to the Text of St. Cyril or grosly mistaken it St. Cyril sayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which two last words you have altered into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this place you verbatim from c Aquam aliquando mutavit in vinum quod est sanguini propinquum in Cana Galilaeae sola voluntate Grodec Lat. Inter. Grodecius translate thus he sometimes changed Water into Wine which is neer to blood in Cana of Galilee by his onely Will whereas according to Grodecius his Greek there is not a Syllable of such an Expression as which is neer to blood and according to yours not a Syllable for by his onely Will and yet you two could nick it so exactly But that which is the pleasantest of all is that you not onely transcribe a Blunder of his but make it ten times worse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyril ex Luc. 5.34 Filiis Sponsi Grodecil Interpr Latina To the Sons of his Spouse Sclaters Engl. Translat Cyril in this Passage speaks of the Children of the Bride-chamber Grodecius hath made them the Children of the Bridegroom and you have made them the Children of the Bride when you call them the Sons of his Spouse by which you mean our Saviour's Spouse which I am sure is his Bride the Church This is translating with a witness and this it is to make a Man's self a slave to another Man's Translation which is guilty of such Blunders and Errours and yet by putting your Margin full of Greek to make the World believe you had been at the Fountain-head your self I must confess it is the first time I ever heard of a He-Bride or could have suspected that a Man that hath so much Greek and Hebrew in his head would have translated hic Sponsus our Saviour his Spouse I haue been so large upon these two Fathers St. Gregory Nyssen and St. Cyril not onely because they are always reckoned the chiefest Authors for Transubstantiation but because I might thereby very much shorten the Answers I am to make to your following Authorities which I shall consider if they speak any thing new if not refer to some of my Answers already made CHAP. XXIII Those from Epiphanius St. Ambrose and St. Chrysostom answered YOur Testimony out of Epiphanius proves nothing more than your Infirmity in translating P. 42. for he that believeth not that he is true you have ridiculously made it who believeth it not to be his very true Body But such dealing is not strange to me to find in you this Talent runs almost through your whole book You are very copious in the next place from St. Ambrose P. 42. your first Testimony from him proves nothing against the Church of England nor your second since in our Liturgy we use in the distributing the Consecrated Bread the same Expressions used then the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ and our People are taught to say Amen P. 43. Nor your third fourth and those which follow wherein this Father uses so much of Allegory and therefore is not to be confined to a literal Sense P. 44 45 46 c. Your last from him is your best one which however proves no more than what we never deny that the Nature of the Elements are changed as to their Virtue and Quality but as to a change of their very substance we do deny it upon reasons from Scripture and purer Antiquity nor doth this Father attempt the Proof of any such a Change. He proves the contrary p. 43. when in your first Testimony from him he speaks of the Elements Continuing What they were that is as to their Substance or Essence and yet being changed into another thing Quanto magis Operatorius est
ut sint quae erant in aliud commutentur Ambros de Sacram. l. 4. c. 4. which must be as to quality and Vse and had you but translated this passage like a Scholar and continued your quotation a line or two further you had found him proving this change of the Elements by and comparing it with Ipse dixit factum est ipse mandavit creatum est Tu ipse eras sed eras vetus ereaturae pestea quam consecratus es nova creatura esse caepisti Idem Ibidem p. 439. Tom. 4. Edit Froben that of a man by Baptism whom no body believes to be changed thereby as to his substance but onely to be renewed inwardly and changed from a sinful state to a state of virtue and holiness by the influence of the Spirit of God and therefore St. Ambrose could not affirm any more of the Elements than a change of quality by an accession of virtue and power to sanctifie and to communicate to us Christs Body and Blood and to apply to us all the Merits of his meritorious passion But after all this Father himself puts the thing out of debate betwixt us when in your last Testimony p. 49. he calls the consecrated Bread the Sacrament or Symbol of his Flesh Vere ergo carnis illius Sacramentum est ante Benedictionem verborum coelestium alia species nominatur post consecrationem corpus significatur post consecrationem sanguls nuncupatur Ambros de iis qui Mysteriis initiantur c. 9. and says that after consecration it is the sign of his Body for so I translate corpus significatur because afterwards speaking of the Wine he says that after consecration it is called or bears the name of his Blood. Upon this place indeed you set up for a Critick and give us a touch of your Greek and Hebrew which I cannot read without smiling at it all that I will say to you upon it is that it is very hard for those that understand not Greek and Hebrew p. 50 51. that they must not be allowed to know what significo means had that word been a branch from either of those tongues your Criticism would have looked somewhat like whereas now it is but a more formal piece of trifling Optatus his Testimony is nothing to the Purpose and that from Gaudentius is so far from being for your Transubstantiation that it is directly against you as had I time or room here I could easily shew St. Hierom's places prove the very same p. 51. Nos autem audiamus Panem quem fregit Dominus deditque Discipulis suis esse Corpus Domini Salvatoris ipso dicente ad eos atcipite comedite Hoc est Corpus meum St. Hieron Hedibiae Tom. 3. p. 144. Edit Froben that is against you as first that which says it was Bread our Saviour gave to his Disciples and that that Bread was his Body which sort of expressions your own learned men allow to prove a figurative Body onely since Bread can no otherwise be the Body of Christ I wonder what you brought the Testimonies for about the Clergy's always praying if you did it for a touch at our married Clergy remember that it touches your self and tho' it does not me p. 53. yet this I will assure you that St. Hierom's Argument is very faulty and proves nothing at all because it proves too much since if the Clergy must abstain from Matrimony because they must always pray upon the very same reason all the Christian Laity will be obliged also to abstain from it 1 Thess 5.17 p. 54 55 56 c. they being most expresly commanded to pray without ceasing From St. Chrysostom you have brought us a great many passages How much that Learned Father delighted in Rhetorual Flights hath been already observed above when I examined just such quotations as these about St. Peters Supremacy and that his Homilies are not to be strictly taken nor can be in a literal sense hath been abundantly proved above However here you are for having the passages you cite him for about a Transubstantiation taken in a literal sense which no man of learning would have said since it is impossible they should I will instance but in one of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 D. Chrys in Matth. Tom. 2. p. 514. Edit Savil. How many now say I would see his Form his Figure his Garments and his Shoes behold thou seest him thou touchest him thou eatest him I appeal to that person of meanest judgment in your whole Church whoever he be to your own second thoughts whether any one can or does strictly speaking See Touch or Eat our Saviour therefore if you will have a literal sense of these and such his hyperbolical expressions you are easily answered that these passages you quote from St. Chrysostom prove nothing at all because they prove too much because they assert that which all learned men nay all men except you grant to be impossible But besides all this you your self afford us a little passage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idem in 1 Ep. ad Corinth Tom. 3. p. 379. which evidently destroys your attempt of making St. Chrysostom a Transubstantiation man which you endeavour by your English to obscure as you have served many a larger place in your Book and therefore I will clear the place thus for as that Body is united to Christ so we also are united to him by this Bread which sufficiently proves the Substance of the Bread to remain in the Eucharist St. Chrysostom's opinion as to this point in controversie betwixt us is so apparent from the late recovered Epistle of his to Caesarius as nothing can be more I shall reserve it to a further particular occasion CHAP. XXIV His further Arguments for it out of St. Austin Cyril of Alexandria Theodoret c. Answered I Must in the next place follow you to St. Austin p. 59 60 c. and see what you would have from him who is so extraordinary plain and so point blank against Transubstantiation I will not onely say that the Places you have from him as spoken allegorically cannot do your business tho' you help them as you did St. Hierom when you translated Vinum Blood St. Chrysostom when you translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Eucharist by translating Sacramentum a Sacrifice but will give you a place or two to convince you that St. Austin was not for Transubstantiation In his Book against Adamantus he says plainly Non enim Dominus dubitavit dicere Hoc est Corpus meum cum Signum daret Corporis sui Aug. contr Adamant c. 12. Edit Basil For our Lord made no Scruple to say this is my Body when he gave the Sign of his Body In his Epistle to Boniface he sayes (l) Si enim Sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum quarum Sacramenta sunt non haberent omnino Sacramenta non essent Ex