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
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
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
corpora ex EA viz. EVCHARISTIA NVTRITA reposita in terram resoluta in ea resurgent in suo tempore St. Iren. l. 5. c. 11. Edit Fevard that the Body of Man is nourished by that same consecrated Bread and Wine and urges it for an argument that our Bodies shall rise again because they have been nourished by the Body and Bloud of Christ every syllable of which is directly against any Transubstantiation The two Testimonies from St. Cyprian h Nub. Test p. 111 112. Nat. Alexan. p. 497 501. are of no weight since they onely call this Sacrament the Body and Bloud of Christ as all the rest hitherto have done And thus our Compiler hath brought us through the three first Centuries of the Church those Golden Ages whose Testimonies we so much value and admire out of whom the Reader may see that he hath not brought one passage which is not directly against himself He begins the next Centuries with the Council of Nice i Nubes Testium p. 112. Nat. Alex. p. 506. which says but what Ignatius did when it calls the Eucharist the Body of Christ as to Her farther Testimony from Gelazius Cyzicenus k Nub. Test p. 113. Nat. Alex. p. 506 507. about not minding the Bread and Wine before us but raising our minds by Faith to consider the Lamb of God offered without shedding of bloud by the Priests the sense of this passage is no other than that Communicants by Faith should represent to themselves the Offering of the Lamb of God and that receiving the pretious Body and Bloud of that Lamb of God they should believe them to be the Pledges of their Resurrection and had our Compiler but had the Ingenuity to have transcribed the two next lines to these out of his Master Father Alexandre Every one would at first blush have seen that by the pretious Body and Bloud of the Lamb of God which the Faithfull were to receive here into their mouths was not meant Christ's true Natural Body but his Figurative or Symbolical Body the consecrated l Propter hoc enim neque multum accipimus sed parum ut sciamus quod non ad satietatem sed ad sanctimoniam sumimus Gelas Cyzic in Nat. Alexandri Disser 12. in Par. 3. Sec. 11 12. p. 507. Elements of Bread and Wine since they are advised to take but a small portion of his Body and Bloud remembring that they did receive not to satisfie nature or to fill themselves but to sanctifie themselves it is sense to talk of receiving little or much of the consecrated Elements but I am sure it is far from it to talk of taking a little or much of the true Natural Body of Christ Eusebius's first Testimony m Nubes Test p. 113. Nat. Alex. p. 510. will not serve our Compiler's purpose since People do not use to celebrate the memory of that thing which is really present it self at the same time and therefore the Sacrifice spoken of in this Testimony is onely a Commemoration of that Sacrifice on the Cross once offered and the Opposition here is put betwixt this commemorative Sacrifice and those legal signs and figures which did not contain or exhibit the Truth it self and not betwixt the natural Body of Christ and the Sign or Figure of it for Eusebius doth in another part of this Work n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Demons Evangel l. 8. p. 380. Edit Paris 1628. tell us that our Lord commanded to make use of Bread for the Symbol or Sign of his Body The next Testimony from him Nub. Test p. 113. Nat. Alex. p. 518. falls in with Ignatius and the rest St. Hilary o Nub. Test p. 114. Nat. Alexan. p. 519. hath expressed himself in the next Testimony in a manner very different from the Fathers that were before him to reconcile him with whom I think his words ought to be extended no farther than to denote that in the Eucharist we do really receive the Body and Bloud of Christ I am sure He did not believe any Annihilation of the Elements or any Transubstantiation of them when in his Comments on St. Matthew observing that Judas did not communicate with the rest of the Apostles at the first Institution of the Eucharist he gives the reason of it because he was not fit to drink p Neque sane bibere cum eo poterat qui non erat bibiturus in regno cùm universos tum bibentes ex vitis istius fructu bibituros secum postea polliceretur D. Hilar. Commen in Matth. Canon 30. p. 435. Edit Erasm 1523. with our Saviour then who was not to drink with him in his Kingdom which thing our Saviour had promised that all the rest should who did then DRINK of the FRVIT of THIS VINE If it was Wine which they drank in the first Institution of the Eucharist it was certainly Bread which was broken by our Saviour and eaten by them The following large Testimony from St. Cyril q Nub. Test p. 114 115. Nat. Alexan. p. 524 525 527. of Jerusalem which speaks of the Bread's being the Body of Christ and that we ought not to look upon it after Consecration as naked and common Bread is what we all believe as well as any Romanist however though we must not look on it after Consecration as common Bread yet we may look upon it as blessed Bread and though we must not look on it then as naked Bread yet we must look on it still as Bread or else instead of saying that it was not common Bread St. Cyril must have said that it is not Bread at all which thing he was as far from thinking as from saying here where he tells his Auditors that r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 D. Cyril Catech. Myst 4. p. 237. Edit Par. 1640. under the Type or Symbol of Bread they were made Partakers of the Body of Christ and under the Symbol of Wine they did receive his Bloud There is no man who hath read Cyril himself that can be ignorant how in the Mystagogical Catechism next before this quoted by our Compiler St. Cyril speaks as great and as extraordinary things of the Chrism-oil for Confirmation and yet I never met with or heard of that Person who believed that either Cyril himself or any body else upon his words did believe that the Oil was transubstantiated when it was made Chrism St. Basil's Authorities ſ Nub. Test p. 116. Nat. Alex. p. 528. are not worth considering since they onely made this Sacrament to be the Body and Bloud of Christ and to be more excellent than the Sacrifices of Bulls and Goats which is denyed by none of us The next large passage from his Brother St. Gregory Nyssen t Nub. Test p. 116 117. Nat. Alex. p. 530. makes directly against our Compiler and so would every Reader have seen had our Compiler but had the honesty to have set down the whole
other Quotations from the Homilies that go under the name of Eusebius Emisenus the Semi-Arian r Nub. Test p. 147 148 149. N. Alex. p. 710 711 712. I answer that were they really His yet They ought not to be admitted in this Controversie but since they are certainly believed by our Writers and owned by the Romish Writers not to be the Work of Eusebius Emisenus and since it is uncertain when these Homilies were first drawn up We cannot admit Them to any Authority or place within these six first Centuries and therefore need not trouble our Readers with any Answer unto them The last Passages from Isidore of Sevil ſ Nub. Test p. 150. N. Alex. p. 714 715. speak nothing to the purpose of a Transubstantiator we grant that Christians are obliged to offer the same Sacrifice which Christ instituted and that Sacrifice was a Commemoration of his most meritorious Passion to be undergone the next day for all men but how Transubstantiation can be proved hence is what I am far from being able to see I am sure St. Isidore was of the contrary Opinion when speaking of the Eucharist He said that the Substance t Sicut Visibilis Panis Vini substantia exteriorem nutrit inebriat hominem ita Verbum Dei qui est Panis Vivus participatione sui Fidelium recreat mentes S. Isidor Hispal apud Rathramni Lib. de Corp. Sang. Dom. p. 120. Edit Par. Boileu 1686. of the Visible Bread and Wine doth nourish and exhilarate the outward man that is our Bodies as the Word of God the Living Bread doth nourish the Souls of the faithfull Communicants SECT IV. I have now gone through all the Testimonies produced by our Compiler in order to the proving that Transubstantiation was as much the belief of the first six hundred years of the Christian Church as it is now of the Church of Rome and I cannot but appeal to the Reader how little these numerous Testimonies have advantaged the Roman Cause and how far any of them hath been from proving the belief in those best days of the Church of any Transubstantiation it had been easie for me here to have produced abundance of passages out of those Fathers which our Compiler hath quoted and out of other Eminent Fathers whom he hath omitted to evidence how far Antiquity was from knowing or believing any such monstrous thing as Transubstantiation I could not onely have produced their Opinions but their Practices also upon Record directly against any Transubstantiation as for example the making Plasters of the Eucharist their mingling the Consecrated Wine with their Ink to make their Subscriptions more authentick and solemn their burying the Eucharist with their Dead their ordering the Eucharist to be burnt if kept till it were stale or mouldy but as I have not leisure nor room here to produce those convincing Authorities of the Ancients so neither need I to insist farther on these Practices which speak so loudly how far the Christian World was then from believing the Eucharist to be through Transubstantiation the Natural Body and Bloud of our blessed and glorified Saviour I cannot however pass by without a Remark that Practice of burning the Eucharist if It had been kept too long This was formally provided here in England for Example in the Tenth Century near a Thousand years after Christ by the thirty eighth of the Canons of our Church a Docemus etiam ut Sacerdos semper habeat praeparatam prout opus fuerit Eucharistiam hanc in puritate custodiat caveatque ne inveterascat Sin diutius reservata fuerit quam oportuit ut nauseam pariat comburetur tunc in puro igne c. Can. 38. sub Edgaro apud Spelm. Concilia Tom. 1. p. 452. made in King Edgar's Reign And yet to let the world see what a sort of Enemies Berengarius met with in the very next Century when that Champion for the Primitive Doctrine about the Eucharist urged upon his Adversaries a Matter of Fact that the Eucharist was corruptible whereas the Natural Body and Bloud of Christ were owned by all to be incorruptible Guitmund the Archbishop of Aversa who was one of his Antagonists denies very briskly the matter of Fact and falls most outrageously b Berengarius dicit caro Christi incorruptibilis est Sacramenta vero Altaris si diutius serventur possunt corrumpi VIDENTVR ENIM PVTREFIERI now follows the Reply O calumniosa lingua ô lingua blasphemiis assueta promptior ad extorquendam superbe de Scripturis Dei suam perditionem c. Guitmundus Archiep. Avers de Verit. Euchar. l. 2. p. 228 229. apud Tom. 6. Biblioth PP Edit Par. 1624. upon Berengarius for it and exclaims without measure against his calumniating and blasphemous Tongue and goes on railing against poor Berengarius as if he had been guilty of the most impious falsity whereas if Berengarius's Tongue was blasphemous for urging a matter of Fact which the Practice of the Church had given sufficient Testimony to in ordering the Eucharist to be burnt that was corrupted I am sure Guitmund's Pen was not inexcusable to say no worse of it but altogether unbecoming a Christian much more an Archbishop I will stay no longer upon this Point which hath been so much and so invincibly exposed if any desire farther satisfaction herein I must refer him to our late Treatises on that Subject and if he would see Transubstantiation proved not to have been the sense of the Primitive Church in a lesser compass I refer him to the twenty fifth Chapter of Veteres Vindicati in answer to Mr. Sclater of Putney CHAP. VII Concerning Images SECT I. I Have now left upon my hands but one other of the Points at present under debate it is a point which gives so much offence to a great part of the World who are Christians and is such an Obstacle to a greater part who would or might become Christians I speak of the Worship of Images which they of the Church of Rome contend so much for and which we of the Reformation cannot contend too much against Our Compiler ushers in this Controversie with a large account about the warm debates for and against Images in the Eighth and Ninth Centuries of the Church his Margin to this account is so painted with Authorities for all he says in it that it would look like envy and a piece of very ill nature to deny his being very well read in the History of those times were I not very well assured that all this is but borrowed and that this ungratefull Plagium ought to be exposed and the world told that this formal Account and these Marginal Notes are all taken out of his old Master F. Alexandre a Natalis Alexandri Seculum 8. Cap. 2. Artic. 1. de Iconoclastarum Haeresi p. 65 66 67 70 71 c. I must doe our Compiler however this right to let the Reader know that He discovers something more of