Champion of the Protestant Cause and derides my next words about my saying this matter and argument was so demonstrative that I could not but stand amazed that Men who pretend to reason could refuse it as if what he had said had fully answered the demonstration as he calls it when as he had not the face to say one word to the latter and stronger part of it This is just as if one in the Schools could say Nego minorem to the first Syllogism of his opponent and not one Syllable to the following Syllogisms wherein the Argument it brought to a Head and yet brag that he had not onely answered but exposed his Opponent And so he deals with me about my Remarks upon this thing I observed that tho' our Saviour did not say plainly This Bread is my Body yet he said according to St. Luke and St. Paul This CUP is the new Testament in my Blood which passage I thought and said did fully determine that the Bread was as much meant in the This is my Body as the Cup was in the This is my Blood in St. Matthew and St. Mark. This the Answerer will not allow but goes as weakly to work about disproving as any Adversary could wish He begins with an excellent Observation that the word This in the Proposition This Cup is the new Testament in my Blood is joyned to the word Cup by a known Figure I will lay him all I shall be worth this year that there is never a Schoolmaster in this City can tell me by what Figure it is that THIS is joyned to Cup and for my part I have forgot my Rhetorick as well as Logick if there be such a Figure And am affraid it is some Metaphysical not Rhetorical Figure But to leave this ridiculous stuff what he would say is that by this Cup is meant That which is contained in the Cup And pray who ever denyed this and how does this disprove me His only business is to bewilder himself I brought that plain passage in St. Paul This Cup to determine what was meant by the THIS in the Obscure one in St. Matthew He is for carrying it back and for illustrating the plain Text by the obscure one which is such a sottish sort of management as will perplex Controversy to eternity and make every thing alike obscure His further Answer is that if we explain the words This Cup c. to mean This Wine is my Blood as it most certainly ought to be then the words in this sense will be contrary to the Rules of Humane discourse as he says he shews p. 33 34. of his Book I have looked there and desire every one else that hath a mind to read two or three Pages about nothing I will onely answer that our sense of the words is onely contrary to his Rules of Discourse and that since He was not the Master of Language to our Saviour to teach him how to express himself we will be ruled by our Saviour's words and the phrase of the Eastern Nations when our Saviour conversed in the world and not by this pragmatical Master of Mataphysical Ceremonies He hath had enough of this Remark and therefore lets the other pass quietly wherein I observed that as our Saviour after Consecration called the Wine the Fruit of (c) Matth. 26.29 the Vine so St. Paul does not less than three times call the Bread after Consecration Bread. I have promised in my Book and therefore should have shewn here against my Adversary that not onely our Saviour's and the Apostles expressions cannot be understood otherwise than to mean by THIS the Bread but that St. Ignatius and Justin Irenaeus and Origen and twenty other Fathers do say of Bread that It is the Body of Christ which it cannot be any otherwise than in a figurative sense but since I am told I shall have occasion to wade deeper into this Controversy I shall reserve it for a further opportunity if the Superiours have a mind to have the Antiquary of Putney set forth once more in his true Colours But this as He and They can agree it I will onely tell him here that I hope in God I am able and that I am sure I am willing to make good the Charge drawn up against him in the Expostulatory Letter I have but one word more to my Answerer that he is very disingenious in saying that I have a Reserved Distinction of Christ's Natural and Spiritual Flesh and Blood whereas if any one will take the pains to consult that place which he refers to in my Book he will find that the Distinction is not mine but the Fathers (d) Veteres Vindicati p. 102. and that by Spiritual was meant Christ's Sacramental or Symbolical Body as he might have seen often enough in that Book This is all that concerns me in that Introduction to TRANSVBSTANTIATION DEFENDED I shall not trouble my self with the rest of the Introduction or with the Book I will only tell him that he is fallen into the hands of one who it 's forty to one will spoil his ever putting out his Second Part against that Incomparable Discourse but that if he does and brings any thing against me as he threatens to do in that Second Part worth answering I will take care to return him the civility of an Answer and only desire him that he would manage what he says there with a little more care clearness and ingenuity or else I may be persuaded not to throw away my time in answering such weak and silly objections as He hath made against me here AN ANSWER TO The COMPILER of the Nubes Testium CHAP. I. Concerning the Donatists SECT I. THE Compiler of the Nubes Testium having undertaken to shew in the thirty seventh Chapter of his Papist Misrepresented and Represented the great improbability of any Innovations being made by the Church of Rome in Matters of Faith was almost willing in that place to have made it evident from the Vnanimous Tradition of the Primitive Fathers of the first five hundred years especially for which good purpose He was making up his Collections as he tells us a Papist Misrepres and Repres p. 57. but finding the Matter to increase much beyond expectation upon his hands He did reserve them for another Occasion and hath now acquitted himself of that obligation in the publishing of this Book In his first Book he was very solicitous with abundance of words to remove the false slander as he would have it thought of Novelty affixed to his Church in this Book He is as desirous of doing it by an Abundance of Quotations out of the Primitive Fathers and thereby of throwing it among us of the Reformation Since Novelty in Faith therefore is such a Scandal as all that are Christians are for clearing themselves from we of the Church of England are very willing to join issue with this Compiler and to refer the Judgment of the Points of
that should we compare the Writers which wrote for that Doctrine which Berengarius afterwards taught with those that wrote against him all Learned Men will grant that Berengarius had vastly the advantage of his Adversaries since those who wrote for his Doctrine against Paschasius did so far excell in Learning those that did oppose him since the Scotus's the Rhathramn's and the Rabanus's were men of infinite more worth and learning than the Adelman's the Durand's and the Lanfrank's the last of whom tells the formal silly story about two Heresies e Lanfran de Euch. Sacr. in Tom. 6. Biblioth PP p. 203 204. Edit 1624. started about the Flesh of the Son of Man which the Sacramental Bread was to be converted into and makes the Council of Ephesus to have been procured for the suppression of those two Heresies which is such a forged and ridiculous piece of stuff as shews what learned Adversaries Berengarius was like to have when the most learned of them all is guilty of such ignorance It is not worth while to confute either Lanfrank's or any of the other Authour's Arguments against Berengarius set down by our Compiler he knows we do not derive our Doctrine from Berengarius and he might know would he consult our Protestant Writers that we have evidently shewn that Berengarius was no starter of a new Doctrine but that what Berengarius stood up for in the Eleventh Century had always been the Doctrine of the Catholick Church and this some of his own Church are so far satisfied of that One of them who is said to be a person of very great note in France at present did but the other day shew in an historical manner that the Belief of our Church concerning the blessed Eucharist was the Belief of the Catholick Church for a thousand years after Christ and that we ought not to be obliged to believe their Transubstantiation since it wanted what they themselves made necessary for any Catholick Doctrine at the Council of Trent the Tradition to wit of the Church of all Ages Setting then aside their objecting to us Berengarius in the Eleventh Century and our objecting to them Paschasius Radbertus in the Ninth Century whose opinion was so learnedly and so invincibly baffled by the famous Rhathramn assoon as it made any stir in the World let us pass on to that which we both so eagerly contend for in this point the Sentiments and Doctrines of the first six Centuries about the Eucharist I think the Controversie might be sufficiently determined from Scripture it self where the Eucharist is so often noted by Breaking of Bread in the Acts of the Apostles and St. Paul does so often call it Bread after Consecration but since our Compiler waves all proofs from Scripture and appeals to the Doctrine and Belief of the Primitive Fathers of the first six hundred years I am very willing to attend his Motions and to join issue with him herein The Question betwixt our Church and theirs may be stated in a very few words it is not whether Christ's Body be really present in the Eucharist which he knows we declare to be our Opinion since we believe that the consecrated Elements do by the appointment of God communicate to every faithfull Receiver the Body and Bloud of Christ but the real debate betwixt us is whether the Bread and Wine upon Consecration are transubstantiated into that very Body and Bloud of Christ which was nailed and poured out upon the Cross or in other words whether after Consecration there is no other Substance there but the Natural Body and Bloud of Christ This they of the Church of Rome affirm and this is what our Compiler must prove to have been the Belief and Doctrine of the first six hundred years if he intends to convince us Our Compiler hath amassed together so great a number of Testimonies upon this point with which he fills up forty pages that should I oblige my self to a particular Examination of every one of his Testimonies it would make a book as large as all I shall gather against his whole Treatise I will therefore to shorten my task but much more to deliver my Reader from a tedious repetition of the same Answers to those Testimonies which speak onely over again what was said before answer those that are of most moment and Authority and refer the rest unto the same classes with them He is very carefull to follow his Guide Natalis Alexandre out of whom he transcribes every syllable of his Testimonies for forty pages together except two small passages out of St. Austin which do not occur as far as I have observed in that long Dissertation yet is so cunning very often to curtail those parts of the Testimonies which he thought I suppose did speak too broad against them SECT II. The Compiler a Nub. Testium p. 109. Nat. Alex in Par. 3. Sec. 11 12. Dissertatio 12. p. 476. and his Guide also begin with St. Ignatius who is quoted bringing in the reason why the Hereticks abstained from Communion because they did not confess that the Eucharist was the flesh of Christ I have sufficiently answered this passage in my Preface by turning it upon my late Adversary from the Authority of Irenaeus b eum PANEM in quo gratiae actae sint CORPVS esse DOMINI SVI Iren. adv Haer. l. 4. c. 34. who explains the Eucharistia here by Bread which had been blessed and Origen c Orig. contra Celsum l. 8. who speaks of the Christians having a Bread which was called Eucharistia so that we say that the Eucharist or Blessed Bread is the Flesh of Jesus Christ but that this must be figuratively onely since Bread can no otherwise be the Body of Christ and Bread still at the same time The second Testimony from Ignatius falls in with the first so that I must pass to our Compiler's next d Nubes Test p. 110. Nat. Alex. p. 479. from Justin Martyr the strength of which lyes onely in his saying they were taught that the consecrated food was the Flesh and Bloud of Jesus Christ We have already granted that it is however to corroborate what we said above it is evident to a demonstration that this consecrated Food was still Bread and not transubstantiated into the Natural Body and Bloud of Christ because St. e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΕΞἩΣ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΤΠΕ ΦΟÎΤΑΙ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Just Mart. Apolog. 2. p. 98. Edit Paris 1636. Justin says at the same time and in the same sentence that our bodies are NOVRISHED by that very consecrated Food to affirm which of the Natural Flesh of Christ is impious and detestable St. Jrenaeus f Nubes Testium p. 111. Nat. Alex. p. 485 486 487. must be answered in the same way since when he says that the Bread is the Body of Christ and the Cup his Bloud he does also tell us g Sic nostra
transubstantiated into the Natural Body and Bloud of Christ I need not spend more words about the Testimonies from our Compiler's next Father Saint Ambrose the first c Nubes Test p. 128 129. Nat. Alexan. p. 579. of which onely runs a Comparison betwixt this our Sacrament and the Jews Manna and very deservedly prefers the first as most beneficial As for the rest of the Testimonies from this Father d Nubes Test p. 129 130 131 c. Nat. Alexan. p. 579 580 581 582 593 597. to be brief I say that we own a change in the Elements of Bread and Wine upon Consecration and that St. Ambrose does fitly call in the Omnipotence of God to prove it since we believe that all the Powers in the World were not able to institute this Sacrament to such a purpose were not able to give to Bread which was common before upon the pronouncing of a few words and Prayers the Virtue and Efficacy to communicate to a faithfull Receiver the Body and Bloud of our Saviour all the benefits of his meritorious Death and Passion That St. Ambrose contended for nor meant any other change is evident from the 4th Book if his de Sacramentis where contending in the same manner and upon the same Topick for a change He demands to know e Si ergo tanta vis est in Sermone Domini Jesu ut inciperent esse quae non erant quanto magìs operatorius est ut sint quae erant in aliud commutentur D. Ambros de Sacram. l. 4. c. 4. whether the Word of God which was able to give those things a Being which had none before was not much more able to make these Elements to continue what they were which must be as to their Substance and yet to change them into another thing which must be as to their Quality and Vse and this St. Ambrose farther proves when quickly after this He compares the change in the Elements to that of a person baptized whom no body believes to be changed as to his Substance but onely as to the Quality and Disposition of his Soul and Life I will add no more than that in this same fourth Book de Sacramentis this Father f Fac nobis hanc Oblatioonem acceptabilem quod est Figura Corporis Sanguinis Domini nostri Jesu Christi D. Ambr. de Sacr. l. 4. c. 5. calls this Sacrament the FIGVRE of the Body and Bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ The following Testimonies from St. Hierome are easily answered by telling our Compiler g Nubes Test p. 133 134. Nat. Alexan. p. 598 599 602. that the Body of Christ which the Priests are said to make is his Sacramental or Figurative not his Natural Body to say a Priest can make the Natural Body of Christ is I think too horrid to be owned by any that pretend either to Christianity or common sense and this Father doth sufficiently explain himself when he says h Nos autem audiamus PANEM quem fregit Dominus deditque Discipulis suis ESSE CORPVS Domini c. D. Hier. Ep. ad Hedib that the Bread which our Lord brake and gave his Disciples is his Body I do not see one Testimony from St. Austin worth staying upon we all believe that the faithfull do eat the Flesh and drink the Bloud of Christ but there is not a word in all of them i Nub. Test p. 135 136 137 c. Nat. Alex. p. 614 615 617 622 c. about the Bread and Wine 's being transubstantiated and no wonder since among the Fathers there is not One more direct against Transubstantiation in forty places of his Works than St. Austin I will but mention one very short passage but so plain and so direct as ought to be sufficient to have prevented the Romanists ever bringing St. Austin on the stage as a Patron of or Friend to their Transubstantiation it is from his Book against Adamantus where He tells us k Non enim Dominus dubitavit dicere Hoc est Corpus meum cum Signum daret Corporis sui D. Aug. con Adam c. 12. that our Lord made no difficulty to say This is my Body when he gave his Disciples the Sign of his Body St. Isidore Pelusiota's Testimony l Nub. Test p. 140. N. Alex. p. 676 677. hath been answered too often to take up any room here And those Quotations from St. Cyril of Alexandria might have been spared also had our Compiler known the Design of them m Nub. Test p. 140 141 142. N. Alex. p. 678 679 681 682 684 685 686 687 688 690 c. St. Cyril's design in those Books out of which F. Alexandre and from him our Compiler have gathered all the Testimonies in the Nubes Testium was to prove that the Humanity of Christ is personally united to his Divinity and He urges Nestorius with this Argument among the rest that in the Eucharist we are made Partakers of the Life-giving Body of Christ that no flesh could have such a power but what was personally united to the Eternal Word of God. This is the purport of St. Cyril's reasoning hence and now what is all this towards the proving that the Bread and Wine are transubstantiated into the Natural Body and Bloud of Christ where is there a word in all these large passages set down by our Compiler that speaks any such thing There are some of these very passages which are so far from helping to prove a Transubstantiation that they do suppose the direct contrary I will instance onely in that of the n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cyr. Alex. in Joann l. 11. p. 1001. Edit Par. 1638. Son 's being united to us by the Mystical Eucharist or as it is expressed in the fourth Book of his Comments upon St. John That by the Eucharist we do receive the Son of God himself o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idem in Joan. l. 4. p. 364. in us If there be Transubstantiation either taught or believed here then by the Body of Christ we receive the Body of Christ and the Body of Christ is made the Instrument of conveying to us the Body of Christ which is admirable stuff but such as the Romanists must own who say that the Eucharist is the Natural Body and Bloud of Christ I cannot insist longer on such an absurdity but must pass on to the Testimony from Proclus p Nub. Test p. 146. N. Alex. p. 698. which is directly against our Compiler since it is the Presence of the Holy Ghost and not of the natural Body and Bloud of Christ that according to him q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ' ΑΥΤΟ Υ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Proclus CP de Trad. D. Litur p. 581. makes the Elements to become the Body and Bloud of Christ The next Authority from St. Leo Nub. Test p. 147 ex N. Alexandro p. 700. is not worth considering And as to the
Sincerity that was used in the APPROBATION of that Book of the Bishop of Meaux for which thô he himself had thanks yet it seems others must have Lashes and Curses for holding and asserting the same Doctrines that De Meaux does there As for our Compiler what condition soever he may look upon himself to be in notwithstanding his frequenting the Romish Chappels I must assure him that He is by the drawing up of this Nubes Testium become one of us that is lyes under the Pope's Curse and that he hath laid himself open to the malice of his Enemies of his own Party who now may inform the Pope's Nuncio against him and prove the Charge severely enough against him from this Answer which he hath drawn upon himself Having done with the Compiler before I conclude my Introduction I must not forget to be civil to a late Adversary who was pleased to do me the Honour to lead me in Triumph with the Excellent Dean of C. As he afforded me a place in his Introduction to his TRANSUBSTANTIATION DEFENDED so I was resolved to provide him a room in mine and not to troubâ—â— my book with one that nibbles only at half a Page in the Veteres Vindicati or Expostulatory Letter to Mr. Sclater of Putney He is very angry at my Argument about determining the THIS in the Proposition THIS IS MY BODY to mean Bread and takes me to task about my Logick as if I had never lookt into one or had forgot it I suppose my crime is that I did not talk Metaphysically and argue in Mood and Figure and skirmish with my Dilemma's and Sorites'es with Idea's and Predicates with Identicals and Tautologicals which are things very edifying and extreamly instructive to a Common Reader As to my Ignorance therefore in Logick I cannot help it at present but will when I am a little better convinced of my wants therein than our Author hath been able to do it but for miscalling the Sorites an Induction and not putting my Propositions in Mood and Figure I must tell him that I had two pretty good reasons the one was because I would not and the other because I durst not I would not because I believed that Induction was a word better known to the Generality of Readers than Sorites and that a plain rational way was more convictive to a Common Reader than to disturb him with my Majors and Minors with my Ergo's and Predicates if I could fairly avoid them I durst not for fear of the Poet for I could not but remember how very angry the Poet was with a very learned Answerer for arguing too closely how he twitted him with ergoteering and call'd him Grim Logician and I was therefore so affraid lest when he next fell to Hind-and-Panthering and to sorting out his beasts I should have been made a Beast for my pains and have been nicknam'd Isgrim the Logician to distinguish me from his other Isgrim These reasons I hope will be accepted if not assoon as I know it I will think of better And in the mean time look after the Vindication of my Argument to determine the THIS in our Saviours words to mean Bread 〈◊〉 Vindicati p. 57. I was saying above in that page which this Gentleman carps at that if I could prove that the THIS in those words was Bread that Proposition must not be taken in a literal or if he pleases in a proper sense And I did endeavour to clear it thus That which our Saviour took into his hands when he was about the Institution was Bread That which He blessed was the same thing that he had taken into his hands That which he brake was the same thing that he had blessed That which He gave them when he said it was his Body was that which he had broken But that which He broke which he blessed which he took into his hands was BREAD Therefore it was Bread which he gave his Disciples and by THIS is meant This Bread. (a) Veteres Vindicati p. 57. This Induction I said was so fair and so clear that I was sure Mr. Slater could not evade it This my Answerer calls mighty boasting and will needs have it that the Induction is a meer fallacy and Illusion and which is as obliging tells me it proceeded from Ignoratio Elenchi Ignorance of Argument or Proof But how I pray Why after he hath run me down with a Kitchin-boy and forc't me into an Absurdity as he I warrant him good man thought he had He very gravely assures me that it could not be Bread because it was then changed Before we make one step further I must ask him what Church he is of this I know he will be angry at but it is necessary because he either is not of the Church of Rome or doth not understand his own Church I am enquiring what is meant by the Word THIS at the beginning of the Proposition THIS IS MY BODY and collected that it was Bread because that was the Subject of our Saviour's Discourse and Actions immediately before But this Gentleman answers me that it could not be bread because it was then changed that is to reconcile him and his Church together the Bread was changed and it was not changed It was not changed saith the Church of Rome since the change ensues the pronouncing the whole Proposition of THIS IS MY BODY It was changed saith the Answerer to me But whether before or at the pronouncing of THIS he hath not told us I cannot but desire of him who is so civil as to send me to read Logick again that he would condescend so far as look into the Councel of Florence and see by whose words and when the Change of the Bread is made in Consecration Let him look into Turrecremata's Discourse there to convince (b) Concil Floren. Pars 2. Collatio 22. Num. 5 8. p. 1143 1153. in Tom. 13. Concil Edit Cossart 1672. the Orientals that the Change is onely made by the pronouncing of our Lords own words THIS is my Body and then tell me whether he is still of the opinion that by THIS cannot be meant the Bread since it is already changed As this is enough to shew not only the weakness of his answer but the Silliness of his argument from Raw Flesh and Water and Sacramental Bread so what follows will as fully discover his disingenuity After I had spoken of the clearness of my Induction I urged my Argument further Veteres Vindicati p. 57. that if by THIS is not meant the Bread I desired to know what it was exclusive to Bread And further how the Bread could be by the words THIS IS MY BODY converted into the Body of Christ if the Bread was not mentioned here nor meant by the word THIS This part of the Argument our Answerer durst not undertake but very fairly slips it over tho' connected to the Induction and falls to upbraiding me as if I was for being the Great
passage of Gregory Nyssen as his Master F. Alexandre had done The design of the whole passage is to shew how man that consists of two parts body and soul may in both of them become immortal for the soul He makes its being joined by Faith unto Christ to be the means of its attaining Salvation and Immortality but for the body which had been poisoned and made mortal by sin Gregory Nyssen makes the Reception of the Body and Bloud of Christ into our Stomach and the Dispersion of the Sacrament into our several parts to be necessary to our Bodies being cured of that poison which had affected every part of our bodies and to their being made immortal All this is but what Irenaeus said so long before and this nourishing of our Bodies in a strict and proper sense cannot without Blasphemy be attributed to the Natural Body and Bloud of Christ The next passage from the same Father in our Compiler v Nubes Test p. 118. Nat. Alex. p. 532 533. is made up of Scraps out of a fair large quotation in his Master F. Alexandre and cannot be fairly and clearly understood without the rest which however I shall not trouble my self to set down since it falls in with the reasoning of the first Testimony from this Father and the Answer to that is as sutable to this last As to the last Testimony from Gregory Nyssen * Nubes Test p. 118. Nat. Alexan. p. 537. I grant that this Father speaks of a Change in the Elements in order to their being made the Body and Bloud of Christ but that He means no change of the substance of these Elements of Bread and Wine but merely a change of their Quality and Virtue is evident from his Comparisons of the change in this Sacrament to the changes of Water in the other Sacrament of Baptism of a Priest upon Ordination x Greg. Nyss Orat. in Baptism Christi p. 802 803. Ed. Par. 1615. of an Altar upon its Dedication of the Oil for Confirmation none of which is believed by any man of sense to be transubstantiated but onely to receive a change of their Vse Quality and Virtue and therefore this last Instance of our Compiler's from this Father is very impertinent since in that very Oration about Baptism the change of the Elements in the Eucharist is made use of as one Instance among the rest of a change made in Virtue and Quality onely He that will be at the pains to reade that Oration over will find it as evident as the Sun at midday that when Gregory Nyssen talks of the changes there He neither means nor contends for any other change than that which we believe doth happen to the Elements upon Consecration to wit a change in their Vse Quality and Virtue Our Compiler hath mangled also the next Testimony from Ephrem Syrus y Nubes Test p. 118. Nat. Alexan. p. 541. but to no purpose at all since notwithstanding all his care Ephrem Syrus is as express against their Doctrines as we can desire He teaches here that the Receiving of the Body and Bloud of Christ is to be procured by Faith which this Father makes the Instrument of conveying them to us which is sufficiently plain against our Compiler's Church which will have the Wicked to receive the Body and Bloud of Christ as well as the Faithfull The two next Testimonies from St. Optatus and Gaudentius z Nubes Test p. 119. Nat. Alexan. p. 550 552. are not against us they fall in with St. Ignatius and are considered there and which is more are confirmed by our Compiler's second Testimony * Nubes Test p. 119. Nat. Alexan. p. 552 553. from Gaudentius which acquaints us that it was consecrated Bread and therefore Bread still which our Lord gave to his Disciples and said This is my Body †Cùm PANEM consecratum VINVM Discipulis suis porrigeret sic ait Hoc est Corpus Hic est Sanguis meus St. Gaudent Tract 2. in Exod. SECT III. Having hitherto observed with diligence our Compiler and examined particularly his several Quotations for Transubstantiation I should be as tedious to the Reader as troublesome to my self if I should take the same method in examining the rest of his Testimonies which do follow and indeed there will be little occasion for it since the rest of his Quotations upon this Subject are either very vain or very much forced to make an appearance for Transubstantiation It would be very irksome to answer particularly every one of his numerous Quotations from St. Chrysostome a Nubes Test p. 120 121 122 c. Nat. Alexan. p. 554 555 556 c. it is almost a sufficient answer to say that they are every one of them except the two small ones out of his Book De Sacerdotio taken out of his Homilies wherein all Learned Men know and own that that Father did indulge too much to the warmth of his fruitfull fancy and to the very heights of Rhetorick and Eloquence and therefore those towering expressions must be allowed for as rhetorical flights and those passages which seem the nearest to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation must be taken in a figurative sense because spoken allegorically and many of them with a very big hyperbole I would desire of any man of Learning and Ingenuity whether he thinks St. Chrysostome did believe himself or would have others to take him in a literal sense in most of the Quotations set down by our Compiler when for example He talks of their seeing Christ's Garment when He tells those that were desirous of seeing Christ's shape form cloaths ond shoes that they did see him that they did touch him and that they did eat him when He talks of the Tongues of the Communicants being purpled or dyed with our Saviour's tremendous Bloud when He talks of their not onely touching and eating our blessed Saviour but of their fastening their teeth into his Flesh I must confess that I cannot though F. Alexandre and from him our Compiler it seems could transcribe these passages without a sacred horrour and that I cannot but think that Holy Father did wonderfully transgress the Rules of true Eloquence since I think such extravagant expressions are apter to excite a horrour of the Thing much more than a Love of Christ in our Hearts However after all these rhetorical hyperbolical and figurative Declamations we are very certain that this good Father was far from believing a Transubstantiation since in a point of Controversie and in cold bloud as it were when he was securing his Friend against the Apollinarian Heresie He does urge the Continuation of the Elements of Bread and Wine in their own proper substance after their Consecration for an Argument against that Heresie b D. Chrys Epistola ad Caesar Monachum which thing He could not have done had He believed himself that the Elements of Bread and Wine upon Consecration were
Discretion in this Account than his Master himself our Compiler * Nub. Test p. 151. begins his account with telling his Reader that the Jews Marcionites Manichees and Theopaschits had always shew'd themselves profess'd Enemies of Holy Images but his Master F. Alexandre tells us a greater piece of news that the Gentiles as well as b Nat. Alex. ibidem p. 65. Gentiles Judaei Marcionitae Manichaei Theopaschitae jam olim Sacris Imaginibus bellum indixere c. Jews Marcionites Manichees and Theopaschits had of a long time or as our Compiler translates jam olim always been enemies of the Holy Images I think this about the Pagans being such enemies to Images is a Discovery and a thing which few people would have thought or hit on but so it is if we may believe F. Alexandre and therefore his Transcriber was to blame not to let his English Reader hear of it that so he might know whom we herd with that are such enemies to Images and that he might upon occasion call Protestants either Pagans or Iconoclasts since they are all of a humour and in the same faction against Holy Images It is not my business to examine this account of the Quarrels in the Eighth Century about Images it is owned that in that Century as one part of the Church by a large Council of Bishops did put a stop to and utterly forbid the making and Worship of Images which was an Evil then creeping into the Church so after them another Synod at Nice did endeavour to undoe what those religious Bishops had appointed and did command that Images should be put into Churches and be worshipped there But it must be remembred also that this last Conventicle of Nice was despised by the Western part of the Christian World and her Definitions condemned in a Council of three hundred Bishops at Frankford under Charles the Great who himself or some by his Command yet not without his Royal Assistence did with so much learning and accuracy fully confute all the Pleas and grounds for Images made use of by that Conventicle at Nice And as to our own Nation so far were They from submitting to what had been enacted at Nice that when the Emperour Charles the Great transmitted hither the Definitions of the Synod at Nice to Offa King of Mercia Hoveden c Imagines Adorari debere quod omnino Ecclesia Dei execratur Contra quod scripsit Albinus Alcuinus r. Epistolam ex authoritate Divinarum Scripturarum mirabiliter affirmatam illamque cum eodem libro ex Persona Episcoporum ac Principum nostrorum Regi Francorum attulit R. Hoveden Annal. Pars 1. p. 405. Edit Wechel 1601. tells us that the Church of God here did abominate and abhor what they had enacted at Nice about the Adoration of Images and that the famous Alcuin wrote and carried a Letter in the name of the Bishops and Princes of England to that Emperour wherein from the Sacred Authority of Scripture Alcuin baffled the Adoration of Images Passing therefore these things as nothing to the purpose of the present debate which should be to shew that Images were not onely used but adored within and during the first six Centuries after Christ We challenge our Enemies to shew that the Church of God in those first ages did not onely use but worship Images Our Compiler manages the beginning of his account so slyly and in his old way that I question not but most of his credulous and unthinking Readers do thereupon believe that Images were always used in the Catholick Church and always worshipped by Her. The Jews saith he Marcionites Nubes Test p. 151. Manichees and Theopaschits had ALWAYS shew'd themselves profess'd Enemies of Holy Images and had been industrious for the suppressing them among Christians But in the year 723 the Jews with an unusual fury declared War against them c. I appeal to all Learned men whether most men would not hence believe that Images had always been used and worshipped in the Primitive Church and I do not see why all that reade him should not believe the same since it is very natural for every one to argue thus with himself that the Holy Images could not Always have been opposed by the Jews Marcionites and the other Hereticks except they had Always been used and worshipped in the Church If then our Compiler did thus believe himself and had a mind to convey the same belief unto his Readers I must tell him that for all his reading of Father Alexandre's Books He discovers a great deal of ignorance in this thing since what He writes here is a notorious falshood but if he pretends that his meaning onely was that since Images were used in the Christian Church they had always been opposed by those Jews and others I must then assure him that He deals most disingenuously and uses too much craft for an Honest Writer while He suppresses that in this account which could onely keep his Readers from believing a gross untruth If our Compiler would doe the Controversie about Image-Worship any true service and keep within his own bounds the Belief and Practice of the first five hundred years of the Church He must shew that for those five hundred years as well as since Images were not onely used but worshipped by the Christians in their Assemblies How unable either our Compiler or his Master Father Alexandre are to shew such a worship of Images then is hence apparent in that they are not able to produce any Authour for the first three hundred years of the Church that speaks of Images either used or worshipped in the Church of Christ during that space of time I know our Compiler quotes Tertullian d Nub. Test p. 160. N. Alex. Dissertatio 6. be in Sec. 8. p. 628. but He is very unhappy in it since all the world knows that know any thing of Antiquity that Tertullian was so a far from speaking of the use of Images or the Lawfulness of them among Christians or any people else that he was against the very art of painting and making Images and lookt upon it as utterly unlawfull and universally forbidden e Idolum tam fieri quam coli Deus prohibet Propter hanc causam ad eradicandam scilicet materiam Idololatriae Lex Divina proclamat Ne feceris Idolum conjungens neque similitudinem eorum quae in coelis sunt c. Toto mundo ejusmodi Artibus interdixit Servis Dei. Tert. de Idololat c. 14. Edit Franek by God and farther that place of Tertullian which our Compiler alludes to for he does not give us Tertullian's but his Master F. Alexandre's words speaks not of any Image but of a mere embleme engraven upon a Chalice As to the three Testimonies f Nub. Test p. 154 155. N. Alex. p. 627 624. about the Statue of our Saviour set up before her door by the Woman whom our Saviour cured of the Issue of Bloud our
Compiler might very well have spared them since Eusebius in the very next words to his account of it tells us g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Hist Eccl. l. 7. c. 18. Edit Vales that it was through her heathenism that she did this and that upon the same ground the Painted Images of our Saviour and Peter and Paul were in many hands which a heathenish gratitude had taught some to make to shew their respect to them All the following Testimonies about the Transient Sign or Figures of the Cross used by Constantine the Great and afterwards h Nub. Test p. 155 156 157 c. N. Alex. in Panoplia Seculi septimi p. 67 68 69 70 76 71 64 65 77 78 c. are to no purpose since our Compiler cannot shew withall that they were worshipped if he could why did he not let him shew that as they used in Constantine's time the Figure of the Cross so They adored it let him shew that the Ancients did practise what the Church of Rome now does that They adored the Image of the Cross and which is far more according to themselves that Latria was paid to it which the Church of Rome now says i Crux Legati quia DEBETVR EI LATRIA erit à dextris c. Pontificale Romanum p. 480. col 1. Edit Romae 1611. is due to it That the Reader may see the direct contrary Practice betwixt the Church of God in those days and the Church of Rome at this present I will produce onely St. Ambrose's account of Helena the Mother of Constantine's finding at Jerusalem the Cross on which our Saviour was crucified He tells us k Invenit ergo Titulum REGEM ADORAVIT non LIGNUM utique quia hic GENTILIS est ERROR VANITAS IMPIORUM Ambros in Orat. de Obitu Theodosii T. 3. p. 61. Edit Erasm 1538. that upon her finding the Title by which she knew our Saviour's Cross from either of the other two She ADORED the KING of Heaven not THE WOOD OF THE CROSS which would have been in Helena and in it self is a PAGANISH ERROUR and the VANITY of the IMPIOUS By these words I question not but St. Ambrose meant that to have Adored the Cross would have been downright Idolatry and yet our Compiler hath furnished us in defence of Image-Worship with two or three Fathers which are of the opposite Opinion his St. Asterius Amasenus l Nub. Test p. 163 164. Nat. Alex. Panopl Sec. 7. p. 71. is so far from thinking it an Impious Vanity to adore the Cross that He if we may believe the Romish Writers and the second Synod at Nice for there is nothing of this Oration in Rubenius's Edition or in the Biliotheca Patrum of La Bigne says that Christians are COMMANDED by the LAW of GOD to ADORE the CROSS m Apparet Signum viz. Crucis Quod ex PRAESCRIPTO LEGIS Christiani ADORANT Asterius Orat. de S. Euphemia in Nubes Testium p. 164. We are very unhappy that we could never see this Command in the Law could we but see it or had St. Ambrose ever dreamt of such a Law neither He nor we would call Adoration of the Cross Idolatry but this of Asterius is too gross and too absurd to deserve a word of answer As Asterius said the Adoration of the Cross was commanded so Paulinus Nolanus another of our Compiler's Vouchers assures us n Nubes Testium p. 168 169. Nat. Alex. Panopl Sec. 7. p. 61 62. that it was practised yearly at Jerusalem when at every Easter the Bishop of that Church did produce the Cross on which our Saviour suffered and which was kept by Him to be ADORED by the People and his third Authour o 〈◊〉 Nubes Testium p. 172. Nat. Alex. Panopl Sec. 7. p. 66. Rusticus Diaconus to clear the Point tells us that the WHOLE CHVRCH throughout the WHOLE WORLD did without any Contradiction or Dispute ADORE the NAILS p Clavos Lignum venerabilis Crucis Omnis per totum mundum Ecclesia absque ulla contradictione-adorat Rust Diac. in Nubes Test p. 172. with which our Saviour was fastned as well as the WOOD of the HOLY CROSS on which He suffered I question not but every one that reads these passages will admire how things came to be so much altered or rather how St. Ambrose and this Paulinus who were Contemporaries for some time should give us such diametrically opposite accounts about the Adoration of the Cross I will onely desire the Reader that I may deliver him from his admiration to observe that Paulinus in this very Epistle tells us that the place from whence our Saviour ascended into Heaven could never after our Saviour's ascension be paved with Marble or any thing else but that the Earth threw it all off and that the footsteps of our Saviour are plainly to be seen there and which is a better Story that though the Bishops of Jerusalem did give an infinite number of the pieces of the Cross to Pilgrims and others who begged them of those Bishops yet that the Cross it self is to put it into our Compiler's translation nothing at all diminished but remains as entire as if never touch'd or mangled I hope this will give the Reader enough of Paulinus whose Epistle I have once read over but hope in God I never shall again As for Rusticus Diaconus I will return no other answer than that those who know any thing of the State and Practices of the Church for the first six Centuries know very well that what Rusticus says is not to speak softly the greatest Truth Though Paulinus Nolanus is not worth the vindicating yet I cannot but tell our Compiler that he wrongs Him very much when He says q Nubes Test p. 166 167. Nat. Alexan. Dissert 6. Sec. 8. p. 631. after F. Alexandre that the blessed Trinity was described in Mosaick work in a Church built by this Paulinus whereas there is no such thing mentioned by Paulinus there in that Epistle nor ought it or can it be gathered from the Verses set down by F. Alexandre and our Compiler since though the Son might be represented by a Lamb and the Holy Ghost by a Dove there was nothing to represent God the Father except these wise Gentlemen will have him represented by a Voice which is a little too odd and a Voice too hard a thing to be painted The rest of our Compiler's Testimonies within the first six Centuries prove no more than the use of r Nub. Test p. 160 163 164 165 172. Nat. Alexan. Dissert 6. Sec. 8. p. 629. 630 631 632 633. Painting in the Churches the Saints and the Martyrs Sufferings and some Scripture Histories all which is nothing to the purpose except he could prove which he is far from being able to doe that those that brought those Paints into the Churches were as carefull to worship them as the Church of Rome now is However we