VETERES VINDICATI, IN AN Expostulatory Letter TO Mr. SCLATER of PUTNEY UPON HIS CONSENSUS VETERUM, etc. WHEREIN 

The Absurdity of his Method are shown,  
The Weakness of his Reasons are shown,   His false Aspersions upon the Church of England are wiped off, and her FAITH concerning the EUCHARIST proved to be THAT of the PRIMITIVE CHURCH.  
Together with Animadversions on Dean Boileau's French Translation of, and Remarks upon Bertram.  King Charles the Martyr to the Prince. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 27. 
But if you never see my face again— I do Require and entreat you as your FATHER, and your KING, that you never suffer your heart to receive the least check against, or Disaffection from the TRUE RELIGION established in the CHURCH of ENGLAND. I tell you I have TRIED IT, and after MUCH SEARCH and MANY DISPUTES have concluded IT to be BEST in the WORLD, not only in the Community, as Christian, but also in the special notion, as Reform; keeping the middle way between the POMP of SUPERSTITIOUS TYRANNY, and the MEANNESS of FANTASTIC ANARCHY.  
LONDON, Printed for Henry Mortlock, at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Churchyard, and at the White Hart in Westminster Hall. 1687.   

IMPRIMATUR, Guil. Needham RR. in Christo P. ac D. D. Wilhelmo Archiep. Cantuar. à Sacr. Domest.  
Ex Aedib. Lambeth. Apr. 7. 1687.   

TO THE READER.  
IT is not material to thee to know what were the particular Reasons that put me upon answering this Book of Mr. Sclater: whether it were a Challenge, or a Request, both, or neither; such as it is, it was designed for a Vindication of our most Holy Mother the Church of England from those very silly, and very false Aspersions cast upon her by Mr. Sclater up and down his Book. I hope no one will think that I have been too sharp upon him, I am certain his behaviour in his Book was so very extravagant, and his abuses so open, and so intolerable, that I can assure the Reader that it was with trouble that I did restrain using oftener a just Indignation. There is no one that reads him, who, had he been to examine his Quotations as I obliged myself for t he most of them, would not, I think, have been as sharp upon him as I have any where been. It would have stirred up a very meek man's Indignation to have been served as he did me his Reader with his Quotation from Hilary, 
pag. 38.  where having by chance cast my eye on the first part of the passage set down by him, I went hunting for the rest of it as it stood in his Book, quite through St. Hilary's whole Book from thence, and little dreamt of what I was very angry to find that I was to look backwards in St. Hilary for the other two parts of that passage. There are other deal in his Book much more provoking than this. However, if any one think I am too severe upon him, I must only say, that it is perchance more pardonable in me than in another: not that I have any personal quarrel against Mr. Sclater, whom I am morally certain I never spoke with in my life; but upon another account.  
One short Address I cannot avoid the making here to my Brethren of the Clergy, who have not opportunities of a full examination of these Controversies in Antiquity itself, that they would beware for Mr. Sclater's sake of taking things too much on trust from our Romish Adversaries, or of relying too much on some extraordinary passages out of the Fathers. This Address I make, because I have been informed that this unhappy man was very much imposed upon, and perhaps almost perverted by that passage out of St. chrysostom about St. Peter's having the Care of the whole Church committed to him: which passage therefore I was the more careful to examine, and to confute it, that some may see how unsafe it is to rely on scraps of Fathers about these Things, and how little they ought to value even the most favourable place out of Antiquity for Popery, since the stress of all Antiquity is directly against it, as our excellent Writers have abundantly shown, and even such as I are able to show.   

AN EXPOSTULATORY LETTER TO Mr. EDWARD SCLATER of PUTNEY.  
SIR,  
THE expectation that some person of more leisure, and better abilities would have condescended to the trouble of examining this your Treatise, was the sole reason that hindered your receiving this sooner from me: I am very certain there is nothing in it, either so strong, or so well managed, that could affright any such from bringing your Book to account, and therefore I must impute their neglect herein to another cause, which I believe you are not at all desirous to hear mentioned by me. I am sure I have the opinion of some and those learned persons to confirm me in this my belief.  
'Tis for your own sake therefore chief, and for those Readers who may possibly be startled at the Title of your Book, that I undertake to examine it, and to oblige you and them to see, how very little reason you had (or they to be moved by it) to call your Book Consensus Veterum, and what a miserable mistake you have made in this your forsaking the Communion of your Mother the Church of England, and falling to that of Rome.  
I hope you will not be angry that I take the same liberty to examine your method in this Change, that you say you did to examine that of our Church. One thing I'll promise you (which I am persuaded I shall in the examining of your reasons find you very often faulty in) that I will constantly, as to my Proofs and Authorities, use all the fairness and ingenuity that becomes a Scholar, or a Christian herein. The Cause of the Church of England is so infinitely better, and more steady, than that you have so lately espoused, that it would be as extremely imprudent, as unjust to practise the contrary in the defence of her; as she does not need, so I am sure she does abhor, and is far from admitting any indirect, or fraudulent management of her Cause.  
I shall therefore without any farther Preface, prosecute my design, and begin with your Preface, which presents the Reader with a needless Apology about the Plural Title of your Tract; for if those other quotations and proofs about the true Catholic Church, and the Supremacy of St. Peter and the Bishops of Rome were of any force with you, they deserve their place in the Plural Title of your Book, if they were not, yet that other about the Eucharist, though with you All in All, can be but one, how great soever.  
How Transubstantiation concludes Communion under one species, I cannot understand, since if Transubstantiation was always the Opinion of the Catholic Church, as you affirm it was, from the very beginning, it would have concluded then, as well as now, which I am sure it did not; for, besides our Saviour's Institution in both kinds, and his Precept as strict for either of them singly, as for both together, his most severe imposition of both, Joh. 6.53. we can show you herein the Obedience of the Catholic Church for above a thousand years, who were so humble, and so respectful also, as not to think themselves either wiser than our Saviour, or above his express commands herein. Afterwards indeed one part of the Catholic Church grew more knowing, and the Council of Constance (maugre our Saviour's express command to be seen in the Gospels, and very particularly in St. Paul) denied one half of the Communion, 
1 Cor. 11.24, 25.  the Cup, to the Laity, and so that Church continues ever since to do. Among those several Arguments or Reasons mustered up by Gerson at the Command, and for the Defence of this bold Council, I do not remember one, that is not either ridiculous in itself, or highly reflecting upon our blessed and most wise Saviour's prudence or foresight.  
But to pass by this, and your Argument from the 6th of S. John, which I shall remember when I come to that point in your Book; methinks your assuring yourself, that if your former Faith was not right in this (the Eucharist), it was wrong in all controverted Particulars, etc. is none of the clearest Inductions, and would have appeared something too bold, had you not helped it out a little with what I suppose you have heard some of your new Church say, that that Church hath the same Authorities and Traditions for them, as for this, etc. which I think to be one of the greatest truths in your Book, and I do assure you that I am perfectly of the same opinion, that the Church of Rome hath the same neither better nor worse Authorities and Traditions for all the Points controverted betwixt the Church of England and her, that she hath for Transubstantiation, which I question not to show, when I come to that point, to be either very bad, or none at all.  
Whether you have wrought in this your search according to the directions of the Church of England, will be better seen, when we come to your Proofs themselves; I cannot pass the Canon of our Church you have quoted here without making two short Remarks from it.  
The first of which is, 
Imprimis vero videbunt, ne quid unquam doceant pro Concione, quod à populo religiose teneri & credi velint, nisi quod consentaneum sit Doctrinae veteris aut Novi Testamenti, quodque ex illâ ipsâ Doctrinâ Catholici Patres, & Veteres Episcopi collegerint, etc. Liber Canon. Disciplinae Ecclesiae Anglicanae, 1571. Titulo Concionatores.  How little our Church is a favourer or encourager of the Private Spirit you talk so often about, or of private Interpretations, when she doth not allow the Guides of the Parochial Churches themselves to teach any thing for Faith in their Sermons, which is not agreeable to the Doctrine of the Old and New Testament, and the Interpretations of Catholic Antiquity.  
2. That it is a most false as well as a most ridiculous Assertion of your new Brethren of the Church of Rome, who say, our Church slights and rejects the Fathers, because they are all against her, and that she owns they are all against her: for a clear Contradiction to which, I would but desire of any Romanist to read this short Canon of a Synod of ours in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth seriously over, and to consider it, and I do not question if he would but speak plainly herein, as every ingenuous man ought, that he would own such Assertors to be guilty of a downright Calumny.  
For your Conditional Thanks that you seem willing to bestow on the Church of England for her Directions; she can have no reason to expect any from you, since I am pretty well assured that you have not observed her Directions, and therefore can owe her none on that account: and for your Conditional Prayers for the Teachers of her Communion, etc. I can assure you, that they are by her Injunctions, and without any conditions, not behindhand with you in such civilities, since thrice a week at least they are commanded in the Litany to put up constantly a Petition for you, and such as you.  
Galatinus and his Rabbins I shall refer to their place in your Book, to which I shall now pass, finding nothing farther in your Preface, that may not be better considered in the Answers to the Particulars of your Book.  

CHAP. I. The Method of the Answer, and a Consideration of Mr. Sclater's Reasons of doubting in our Communion.  
BEfore I undertake the Particulars of your Book, I cannot refrain the making a complaint to you, that you have not put your writing into a Method becoming a Scholar, but have managed your reasons so confusedly, and passed so abruptly from one head to another, that it is sometimes difficult to know which of your points you are then about. Method and clearness, and a fair transition from one part of a Discourse to another were never counted trifles, nor ever thought unworthy the care of any one Writer that did desire either to instruct or to convince his Readers.  
That I may avoid therefore myself, what I am forced to rereprehend in another, I shall in this my Expostulation confine myself to, and direct myself by, these Rules.  
1. To consider the Reasons of your doubting during your continuance in our Communion whether you were in the right way, and of a true Church. 2. The Method you used for the resolving yourself in your doubts. 3. The Reason or Reasons that convinced you so far as to leave our Communion, and to espouse that of the Church of Rome.  
I do not believe I can wrong your Book in taking such a Method, or disoblige you or any one else that may read this.  
As to the first head then, the Reasons of your doubting, one might with reason have expected, that you would a little more have enlarged yourself in a thing, the right managing of which was of so infinite concern, or at the least that you would have afforded the World tho' but one Reason, that might have given satisfaction. That, which you have put down, I mean the Text from S. Paul, Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall, I am sure, cannot, since that Text may as well serve against the approaching Easter as it did against the last, and you may as well use it now as you did then; and should a giddy mind possess you, and hurry you next to Socinianism, then to the Anabaptists, and herd you at last among the Quakers, no body could refuse you your Motto, and Let him that thinketh he standeth, etc. would serve you in as much stead for any of them, as it did now. Without any satisfaction at all therefore about the reasons of your doubt, which I wish we had had faithfully set down, that so the World might not take that leave it does now of judging what it pleases concerning the true reasons of your leaving us, I must follow you to that wherein you are more copious, the Method you used for the resolving yourself in your doubts, which you forgot to set down here.   

CHAP. II. His Account of Education and Interest examined and Refuted.  
BEfore you enter on your Method you tell us you had two very great things to conflict with, which were like to prove great obstacles in this your inquiry after truth, Education and Interest, 
pag. 1.  Through Education and Confidence in the Teachers you had been enured to, you complain you had almost been hardened against the lissening to any thing contrary to those Precepts and Doctrines they had rooted in you, etc.  
To hear an old Man complain of Education cannot but be a little strange, especially from one who hath been a Teacher himself (as he disdainfully I must believe, calls our Clergy) perchance betwixt Thirty and Forty Years; if Twenty, nay Ten, far too much sure for such a complaint: and in a Church too, which permits and encourages her Clergy in the perusing, canvasing and examining all Books of Controversy betwixt herself and the Church of Rome, and which is more, obliges them to a perusal and diligent examination of the Primitive Fathers by that very Canon you yourself quoted in your Preface, which I have put down also. 
pag. 2.  (1.) But this is the common voice of the Converts young or old, and therefore whether to purpose or no, you must for company use it, tho' it be really ridiculous from one in your circumstances, as I think I have made plain enough. And truly the complaint would far the handsomer become you, now when you are of a Church, that teaches her Members the pretty knack of captivating their understanding, stopping their ears, and shutting their eyes against any thing that might convince them of the Error they are in. I must confess that your Church is not singular herein, the Turks practise it as strictly as you, that they may secure their Members in their excellent and most safe (as they doubtless think it) Communion and Religion of Mahomet.  
But suppose Education might be a Prejudice, and would give a man a great deal of trouble to rid himself of the Prepossessions it commonly instills into green heads, yours could not give you any, since Alexander like you cut the Knot that might have given you great trouble to unloose, by abstracting yourself (when you entered on your Method) from yourself and Religion too; which doubtless is both a quick and a sure way of ridding a man's self of the Prejudices from any Religion, 
pag. 2.  by abstracting himself from Religion, and looking on himself as a Man of no Religion. I cannot but applaud your Method of getting shut of the Prejudices of Education, and cannot but admire it as the most clever, sure, short, unerring way that any man could take to get rid of Education, which I will now with you take leave of, and pass on to Interest, and see how you served it.  
And here again you are as concise with Interest, as you were before with Education, if a man may credit you. When I considered (say you) Solomon's Advice, 
pag. 2.  buy the Truth, and sell it not: I was easily persuaded to look upon Interest, as a thing worth nothing, etc. And did you serve it so? why then truly to give you your due, you are an extraordinary Person among the Converts; one to whom an Eye to worldly Interest cannot fairly be objected: and I suppose you are very willing and desirous too, that the World should have such an Opinion of you; that you have fairly quitted all purely for Conscience sake; that you had two Live indeed; but since you are convinced that you ought not to be any longer a Communicant with, much less a Minister of, the Church of England, you have sacrificed them both to the Interest of your Immortal Soul; that tho' as the World now goes, it is the sure and only way to Preferments in Church or State to continue a Member (at least outwardly) of the Church of England so called, yet you for your part have, and do count all this worldly Interest, as a thing worth nothing, and are resolved to turn your back to it, so that you may but provide for the Salvation of your Soul.  
This truly is the Picture of a very excellent Christian, the only question to be asked now is, whether it is Mr. Sclater's of Putney; I am sorry that I must acquaint the World, notwithstanding your speaking so contemptibly of Interest, that really it is no more yours than the man's in the Moon; for to be more serious with you, with what face could you write this, when almost all the Kingdom knows, that you hold both your Live still, tho' you disown your being so much as a Member of the Church of England; and how briskly you hectored and quarrelled the Church of Worcester, when they only desired to fill the Cure of Putney with a Minister of the Church of England, which you denied any longer to own yourself to be?  
A great many I am sure, think you did very ill to hold those Live in your present Condition, and I do assure you, it is infinitely worse to do it, and yet by writing to insinuate to the World, that you have not, but have accounted all worldly Interest (the Profits of two Live may be so named I hope) as a thing worth nothing. You have not lost, or delivered up any worldly concern that I can hear of on this account, you stand I believe in as much probability as ever you did of getting more: if this be the way of slighting, and undervaluing Interest, I do assure you that all the Covetous, the Extortioners, and the worldly Hypocrites do it as much as you.   

CHAP. III. His Method shown to be Unreasonable.  
LEaving then this false as well as disingenuous account of your setting aside, and ridding yourself of Interest, I must begin the Examination of your Method of resolving yourself in your Doubts, which indeed is surprising from a Minister, and became Des Cartes as to matters of Philosophy, a little better, than it can do you or any one else in Matters of Religion. Here (say you) as I had abstracted myself from myself and Religion too, 
pag. 2.  as a man of no Religion, but contemplating all: I must lay all before me, and look studiously upon them, etc.  
If you mean by this account of your Method, that you really put yourself into an abstracted state, and were really as of no Religion so of no Church at all during this your search for a Communion wherein you might be afterwards safe, I must tell you, that as your Method was most extravagant, so it was of too short a duration for your looking studiously, contemplating and comparing the two Communions of England and Rome together, since it is as certain that you were at Mass last Easter Day, 1686, as that you did give the Communion at Putney Church on Palm Sunday before it, and therefore must have been a Minister of the Church of England on the one Sunday, and a Member of the Church of Rome on the next, during the time betwixt which two Sundays I am certain you are far from being able to have considered and examined the Merits of the two Churches: you are not so quick a Man, 
pag. 2.  for all your pretended discovering at first sight that all other Communions were evidently confusion.  
But allowing that during this search you only Ex hypothesi put yourself in such a state without leaving actually our Communion till your Method and Reasons were over and satisfactory, it was a very odd Method for a Man that had been so long a Minister, and was so old a Man, and would much handsomer have become you, were you coming over from Paganism, or Mahometism, than from one Church that evidently hath the Catholic Faith to another. Whichsoever of the two Senses was that which you designed, I am certain that the first was fit only for a Madman, and the other almost as much unbecoming an old Clergy Man, who after Threescore (as I believe you are) falls to abstracting and doubting, and supposing, as if he had been in a Dream all the rest (and best part) of his Days, since he was in Orders: and at last when others being to dote, he gins to doubt, to search, and to make saving discoveries.   

CHAP. IU. The Confusion of his search, and the Absurdity of it shown.  
NOtwithstanding the Inconsistences in this your tale, which are so many as would almost ruin any one's having the least value for your Book, or for the Reasons and Arguments in it, I must follow, and see how dexterously you managed, or how well you used this your wondrous Method. 
pag. 2, 3.  Upon a reserved Principle (say you) that Christ hath a Church upon earth; in my inquiry amongst my Brethren of the Church of England (who were as much your Brethren in this state, and no more than they are Hobbes' or Spinoza's,) I gave most attention to those teachers or writers, that had most reverence for Church Authority, etc. I appeal to any Man of sense whether this passage does not favour much more of a Man already a Papist, than of a mere Seeker; but to pass that, Pray, Sir, what did you want, or what was you enquiring for? was it for the Catholic Church, or for a particular Communion, wherein you might be safe? if for the Catholic Church, you needed not to be curious whom you inquired of among our Teachers and Writers, since the meanest of them could readily have told you, that the Catholic Church is made up of all the Particular Churches planted in the four quarters of the World, holding from Christ the only Head of her the true Faith, and Catholic Unity; so that if you intended to find where she was fixed, that so you might in necessity tell her your grievances, she is confined to no place, 
pag. 5.  being a Diffusive Body throughout the World.  
If you wanted a Particular Communion, a true Member of the Catholic Church wherewith to communicate, and upon which to trust your Salvation, the Church of England (Particular as to place, Catholic as to Faith and Doctrine) is such; so that your inquiry might here have ended, since if you were a true Member of Hers, you were at the same time as true a Member of the Catholic Church.  
Here I must take occasion to tell you, that you seem by your Abstracting yourself from yourself, to have wildered yourself, and thence to have confounded the Notions of the Catholic and Particular Churches, while from our Saviour's promise that the Gates of Hell should never prevail against the Catholic Church, you argue the Church must be one, which no Body denies; that it must have one Faith, which no Body denies neither, and that it must by virtue of Christ's promise perpetually abide in this one Faith, nor is this denied any more than the other two by any of our Church; and what have you got hence? only that Christ hath and will always have a true Church upon Earth, which I know no Body ever denied. But here is the grand pinch, and what one may easily see you aim at, and that is to have this Catholic Church, and the Church of Rome to be all one and the same; which we shall see how you prove by and by.  
In the mean time I must return to you, where I left you quarrelling with our Churchmen, and see whether I can make an end of the Quarrel. You say that you found that those of our Church that had most Reverence for Church Authority, meant only their own, etc. You had done the World a great kindness, if you had told who they were you inquired of, and what were the Queries you put to them. I hope if you asked after the Catholic Church, they did not tell you that the National Church of England was the whole Catholic Church. If you asked after a Particular Church, surely you cannot blame them for asserting the Authority of their own Church. When you put the same Queries to the Romish Teachers or Writers, did they reject their own Church's Authority, did not they mean their own, when they would persuade you to their Communion, as much as our Men did that of our Church, when you inquired among them? where then is the fault? what would you have had 'em to do to please you? would you have had them to say that the Church of England is the Catholic Church, which no one that hath any sense can say of Her any more than of the Church of Rome? would you have had 'em to say that they had a Church indeed, but that either she had no Authority, or that no Body need to submit to it? which none but a mere Ignoramus could say.  
This, Sir, is perfect Trifling, this is to write a Book, and yet not to know what one wants, or what he would have. I wish to God you had reserved (when you were abstracting yourself) a little Logic, that a Man might have known what you meant here, and where one might have you; that so, when a Reader thinks by your Words and by Connexion that you are talking of the Catholic Church, you may not come off with a Pish, the Man understands me not, I was speaking of Particular Churches. I wish you had licked this your confused piece into a little better Method; and had bestowed on it a little thing called Intelligibility; but perhaps you thought such a stile fittest for a Man that was going to write about Transubstantiation.  
You are as little pleased with them, when you say they held the Scriptures in high esteem (you might without a falsity have added, in far greater than the Church of Rome does, of which you now are) though under that Notion, they understood no more, 
pag. 3.  than what themselves were pleased to allow to be Canonical, admitting also some Traditions, but taking and refusing as they saw good, etc.  
To be brief with you on this point, if you speak here of particular Persons in our Church, it is utterly false, since they are all obliged to believe that to be the Canon of Scripture, which is set down in the Articles of our Church, and there is not one Man of our Church that is at liberty to believe which he pleases, and to reject which he pleases from being Canonical Scripture to him, and for Traditions received in the Church, no particular Man hath any more power over them, than over the number of the Canonical Books. But if you speak of our Church itself here, (which your words without stretching will not bear,) it is as false of Her, since she believes and delivers those Books only as Canonical, which the Primitive Church believed and delivered down to her as such: She rejects none as Apocryphal, which were not also rejected as such by the Primitive Church, as the Famous and most Learned Bishop Cousin hath most incomparably proved it for her in that his excellent Scholastic History of the Canon of Scripture. And for Traditions she rejects none but such, as have no evidence, nor probability of their ever having been of use in the Primitive Church, or such as are of no moment; in which case I never saw reason, why the National Church of England hath not as much Authority herein to judge of these things, as the Church of Rome herself, who (for example sake) hath left off giving the Communion to Infants, tho' a Tradition of the Catholic Church.  
So that I cannot for my Life see; what you would fain, tho' most ridiculously, deduce from hence, that all with us resolved itself into the Judgement of a Private Spirit, 
pag. 3.  and must be (I suppose you mean the Private Spirit must be, tho' your words are far from bearing it) the chief, or rather only support of your Protestant Faith, etc. Since it is so palpably false, as I have just now shown, nothing as to matters of Faith, Discipline, or Church Communion among us being either left to, or guided by, or depending upon any Man, how great, or how learned soever, his private Spirit; and so ridiculous, that I could not forgive it any Man, that had not abstracted himself from his reason: but to do you right, you have almost a mind to come off it with your Methought; and I am content without being angry that it should pass for your thought, the abstracted-no-Religion Man's.  
You go on to show that you could not persuade yourself that Scripture alone could be the Judge of Controversies, 
pag. 3.  and resolve your doubts, when the Private Spirit was made the Judge of Scripture, etc. Let the private Spirit be excluded, will you admit it then? will you allow the Representative Church of England to interpret in new Emergencies, which fell not within the care of Antiquity and the Four General Councils? If you admit this, there need be no dispute, since long before your doubts, the Church of England hath by public Authority interpreted the Scripture in all matters of Faith and Discipline, and tied up all her Members; hath in all the points of Controversy betwixt us and Rome determined, that the sense of the Scripture is directly against them, and for us: If you will not admit it, I should be glad to see one reason against it, that would not as fully fly in the face of the Church of Rome.  
As to the Mischief upon this Principle of the Private Spirit, 
pag. 3, 4.  the Wars and Murders, etc. You ought to have remembered that that Principle was not set up by, but against the Church of England, and that it was not the Church, but the direct and sworn Enemies thereof that committed all those outrages; you cannot be ignorant that it was She only that suffered during that Rebellion and Schism: and therefore it is most unjust in you to insinuate as if She was cause of all that distraction, whereas nothing is more apparent than the contrary to it. And as to your Tanrum Religio, etc. I challenge you to show any one Principle of the Church of England that encourages, or does but glance towards Rebellion, Sedition, or disturbance of either Church or State: This I'll promise you for every one, I'll show you Ten of your new Church, I'll show you Councils for it, your own most famous of all the European Councils, the Fourth of Lateran leading the Van. Your Pope's deposing Princes, 
pag. 84.  giving away their Kingdoms (as they have done ours more than once) setting up in Rebellion Son against Father. I'll show you the Rebellious Holy League in France, one King most barbarously Murdered by it, a Pope [Sixtus Quintus] in a set Speech commending the Parricide: the Sorbone itself making Rebellious Decrees against the Two Harry's of France, both Massacred by their Catholic (as they call themselves) Subjects; but enough of this, wherein you know or at least should, that we have infinitely the advantage of your new Church as to Principles of Loyalty.  
The result it seems of your Inquiry and search among us was, that you could not comply with common reason if you did not disclaim the Judgement of your own, or any Man's private Spirit, etc. 
pag. 4.  I have upon this but one Question to ask you, and that is how you came to be a Roman Catholic; if you disclaimed your own reason or private Spirit, pray who chose your guide or Church for you; if you disclaimed every ones else, pray tell us how any Body else could do it for you? But notwithstanding this your disclaiming, we find you busy enough up and down the Book acting as if you never had done any such thing, discovering, judging, complying, contemplating, searching and Forty such expressions which used to denote the exercise of a Man's private Judgement and Reason.   

CHAP. V His Method farther exposed, and the ridiculous Fruits of it.  
THE Fruit of all your search hitherto hath been only to find, 
pag. 4.  or at least to mistrust the ground you stood upon somewhat unsure, etc. What ground it was you then stood upon, I cannot guests, since before this you had abstracted yourself from Religion, and supposed yourself as of no Religion, so most certainly of no Church. But all this is assuredly but a figure to bring in the Rock, the Rock you think you were got upon, when once a Romanist. If I might have had a word with you before you had mounted your Rock, for now I am afraid there is no speaking with you, I would only have been informed by you, whether there is but one Rock, and whether I must give 
(a) Orig. Hom. 1. in Matth.  Origen the lie who tells me that all the Apostles were Rocks as well as Peter; and what I must say to 
(b) Prescript. c. 32. & 36. Edit. Franck. 1597.  Tertullian and others, that tell me, other Apostles planted Churches as well as Peter and Paul at Rome; and that I might be as safe in any of them all, as in that at Rome, since they and Rome had the same Faith (as 
(c) Cont. Haer. l. 1. c. 2, 3. Edit. Fevard. 1625.  Irenaeus says) delivered to them, and had a Ministry settled by Apostles among them. I wish I might be so happy as to have a satisfactory Answer to these Queries from you or any one else.  
But for the present you are too busy, having got the Text, that the Gates of Hell should not prevail (which Text by the buy how came you to interpret of a Church, since if you disclaim your private Judgement, it does, for any thing you can know, relate to something else?) You are sure upon it that Christ hath a Church, that that Church has but one Faith; which I have already told you our Church does not deny. And now you wanted nothing to find firm footing (sure footing you should have called it for Mr. Serjeant's sake) but to discover, 
pag. 4.  whether the Church from her Original was the Commissioned Interpreter of the Sacred Writings, etc.  
One would expect here in a thing of that moment some well managed Reasons from Scripture, Reason, and the Consent of Antiquity to prove that the Church of Rome (which you cannot deny that you mean here,) was this Commissioned Interpreter; but instead of that, you think you do it cleverly enough by insinuating that without it there would be no end of Controversies, which is not proving but begging. As to the choice of a Hundred Faiths (without such an Interpreter) which you say you saw you might have; if you mean in the Church of England, 
pag. 5.  and that you must mean, having already set aside all other Communions, and being now employed in the examining whether of the Two Churches, the Church of England or Rome, you might be safe with; I am obliged to tell you that there are no fewer than Ninety Nine mistakes in this short Sentence, since the Faith of the Church of England is but one, and as much one as that of the Church of Rome herself.  
But for all this talk you have not got to your Church yet, 
pag. 5.  which must be Visible; to wave needless Disputes, such the Church of England is as well as the Church of Rome. And now you want nothing but a definition of her, which you complain you could not get among us, and therefore was forced to go to the Books of Catholics: As to the complaint I answer that you needed not to have gone to the Catholics (as you call 'em) since the Church of England's definition in her Articles will I think, satisfy any reasonable Man, while 
(d) Article 19  it defines the Visible Church of Christ to be a Congregation of Faithful [here Heretics and Schismatics are both excluded] Men, in which the pure Word of God is Preached, and the Sacraments be duly Ministered according to Christ's Ordinance [and that must be by lawful Pastors] in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.  
You could not but know of this Definition of the Church of Christ, you had done well to have shown particularly, wherein it failed of separating Heretics or Schismatics from being either Flock or Shepherds in the Church. But no Ignorance is comparable to that which is affected. And since you would not be contented with ours, I'll even try S. N's. and see what reason it has to be preferred to that of the whole Church of England.  
The Church of Christ is one Society or company of Men. 
S. N. Ch. of E. S. N.   
The Visible Church of Christ is a Congregation.  
Linked and combined together in the same Profession of Christian Faith.  
Of Faithful Men. 
Ch. of E. S. N. Ch. of E.   
And use of Sacraments under lawful Pasters.  
And the Sacraments be duly Administered according to Christ's Ordinance.  
Thus far we agree, as for S. N's addition of those Pastors also under one Supreme Head Pastor or Conservator pacis & veritatis, do you or he prove it, and then put it into the Definition; it's being there now is no proof of the Truth of it. However you, I perceive, were satisfied with it, and think this Definition hath brought you to the Rock, hath done your business for you.  
I have often heard indeed of Men disputed into a Church, of Men cajoled, and of others threatened or frighted into a Church; but must confess I never heard of any before you definitioned into a Church; and truly it looks surprising that a Man should like a Church for a Definitions sake. Suppose your Definition prove false, are you resolved to leave that Church, and go to another that hath a better Definition? If this be your Humour, the Sophisters would be too hard for you, and lead you into an endless Maze. Satisfied however you are at present, and so overjoyed at this Definition, that you forgot what was necessary for it, and that was to prove and to confirm it; instead of which you fall into extravagant Praises, and a hurry of Words and Ecstasies to no purpose, whereas you neglect to prove, First, that this is a true and regular Definition, and Secondly, that it does belong to the Church of Rome so called exclusive of all other. Had you done this, 
pag. 6.  you had acted like a Scholar, whereas the other rabble of discoveries and abused Psalms prove nothing at all, and would far better have become some Woman or Poet-Convert than you, who should prove these things, and let them which can do no better, admire.  
After your fit of Ecstasies is over, you seem something willing to afford us some Testimonies of Antiquity, to what purpose I must now inquire that so we may avoid Confusion, and I may shorten my Answers. But here according to my own design, I must take leave of your Method of resolving yourself in your doubts, being arrived at that, which I took leave for order and clearness sake to call the Reasons of your Conversion, which convinced you so far, as to leave our Communion, and to espouse that of Rome. I will take leave of it with this Compliment, that it really is the most admirable one I ever heard of for a Clergyman of above Threescore.   

CHAP. VI His Proofs of a Monarchical Church under one Supreme Head from Scripture Answered.  
THE Fruit of your noble Method, and the effect of all your Search hitherto hath been (as far as I can perceive) that you have met with a Definition that pleases you: Now except you take S. N. to be as infallible in making of Definitions, as the Pope is said by some (and perhaps believed by you) to be in making of Canons for the Church, and that you ought to submit to his Definition, just as you do to the Pope's Decrees, with all submission, without any scruple, or examination, you know it will be expected from you to prove this his Definition to be true: I cannot dare to think you so much a Madman as to believe S. N's Infallibility at Definitions, and therefore now do wait for your proof of these two things.  
First, That this your espoused Definition is true, that is, that Christ his Catholic Church is Monarchical, and governed supremely by one chief Pastor, 
pag. 6.  his Generalissimo (a very fit Title in a literal sense for some of your Popes) or Vicegerent here on Earth; and Secondly, That this Definition doth belong to the Church of Rome, and not to the Church of England: Do but prove me the first, and I'll forgive you the trouble of proving the Second, and bestow it on you, as a just reward for your pains about the first.  
But before we begin, I must desire you to remember not to confound Particular Churches with the Catholic Church, and not to take that as said of the one, which does certainly belong to the other.  
You begin your Proofs with Scripture, which a Man may easily see is not at all on your side, you give us thence so few, and those nothing to the purpose. For as to the first out of Acts the Second, 
pag. 7.  Verse 1. how that which is only an Historical Relation should be a Heavenly Representation, I cannot imagine. No Body will deny that they that meet as the Apostles than were, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in one place [not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as you falsely quote it, and as ill translate it, at the same work] should be as the Apostles than were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of one accord, or of one mind; and which is more, that every Particular Church over the World should be as to the Rule of Faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of one mind; but I can never believe that for this reason they are, can, or aught to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, always meet at the same place, which your use of it would insinuate, and must require the one as well as the other for your purpose. But what this is to a Monarchical Church with a supreme Head I cannot guests; nor your other from St. Paul's frequent Injunctions to his several Plantations, that they should be all of one mind, 
pag. 7.  and speak the same things. You had done well to have quoted some passages to have illustrated what you say, or at least to have put down some references in the Margin; but this alas was not convenient, then even those that swallow what you say without examining, could not avoid seeing the Fallacy; for whereas St. Paul writing to Particular Churches exhorts them to be at Unity among themselves, you would fain turn it as if he should exhort them as to all particulars and circumstances, to be at Unity or to have the same with the other Churches; as if writing to Ephesus for example, he should exhort them to be of the same mind, and to speak the same things with the Church of Corinth, with the Church at Thessalonica, etc. Show this, and I'll yield the point; but remember that if you mean of the same mind and to speak the same things as to matters of Faith, this as it need not be proved, no Body gainsaying it, so it does no ways serve what you cited it for, to prove a Monarchical Church.  
It cannot appear otherwise than very strange to all considering Persons, that these People should generally with so much confidence affirm, that our Saviour left his Church in such a condition with a Supreme Vicegerent over it, and yet like you, when they should come to make the thing apparent from the History of those first times, penned in the Gospels, Acts and Epistles, are forced to drop the proof of it, and to impose upon their Readers a scrap or two out of those writings, not one jot to the purpose oftentimes. You will easily find that I mean this of you; and I must needs say that these your two useless proofs, I mean Quotations for they are far from Proofs, forced me upon this Remark.   

CHAP. VII. His Arguments for a Monarchical Church out of Antiquity refuted.  
ONE comfort however you seem to promise us, that you will make your Reader amends by your Testimonies out of the Fathers for your being so short, and so destitute of 'em from Scripture. You begin them in a acquaint stile, which I believe you took for a pretty fancy. 
pag. 7.  I followed (say you) I must confess a loof off, her [the Kings Daughter all glorious within] Companions, that followed her, etc. This passage is one of the pleasantest that I ever met with, and the fullest of Figure: I must profess, till I saw your Book, I always took St. Dennis, Ignatius, Irenaeus, etc. for Members of the Church, and never in the least dreamt that these persons were her Companions, or the Virgins that are her Fellows: and I must own that it is the first time I ever heard of a Members being a companion to the Body, or that a Man without the breach of common sense may say that his Hand or Foot is a Companion of his Body.  
But you, Sir, had been contemplating just before the ravishing Beauty of the King's Daughter all glorious within: and the Virgins that be her Fellows and Companions did so run in your head, that 'tis no wonder you mistook Dennis the Areopagite and the rest you mention after him for the Queen's Companions. At present however we must let them pass as such, whom you followed you tell us and lissened what they said of her, and overheard, First, Dionysius the Areopagite St. Paul's Scholar. Secondly, Clemens Romanus, etc.  
'Tis commonly said its ominous stumbling at the Threshold, and a bad presage to trip at the first attempt, and this truly is your very case, for it is a great mistake you should overhear either of them two using those passages you mention, since neither of them ever said the things, St. Dennis having never left any thing writ at all, nor St. Clemens any thing besides his two (allowing the fragment of the Second to be his) Epistles. So that your two first quotations are pitiful Forgeries, as I shall hereafter prove: but granting the passages were true, and as old as you would have 'em: 
pag. 7.  they are not one jot to your purpose. The first of 'em saying only that the Apostles desired their followers by their Instructions might be partakers of the Divine Nature; the latter, that Bishops should observe the Orders left by the Apostles; 
pag. 8.  both which are nothing to the purpose of a Monarchical Church, but prove the contrary, if it were worth the while to show it.  
Ignatius Saint and Martyr is the next you produce, 
pag. 8.  from him you tell us, that People in all things should submit to their Bishop, that no Man can be partaker of the Eucharist, that abstains from the Bishop's Altar. A Man would guests by these passages, that you had already forgot, what you were about to prove. You were to prove that Christ lest his Church under one particular Governor, and here you prove that People must be dutiful to their Bishops. 
pag. 8.  Ay but say you, St. Ignatius tells us there is but one Altar, and one Bishop, as also that there ought to be but one Church and one Faith, which is in Christ, etc. and that surely is to the purpose. This I utterly deny, I grant indeed St. Ignatius in his Epistle to the Philadelphians [not as you have mistaken it, to the Philippians; to which Church he wrote no Epistle, tho' some have coined one for him] doth speak of one Altar and one Bishop; and you had done fairly to have cited the passage at large, as you did the other two, nothing to the purpose; but this is a certain sign that runs almost through your Book, that where you only hint, or quote half, or put an &c. in the middle of a Sentence there all things will not be found fair. The passage than is this, 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. St. Ignat. Ep. ad Philadelph. Edit. J. Vossii.  Be careful therefore (saith he speaking to the Philadelphians) to make use of this one Eucharist: for there is but one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one Cup to Communicate to us [or unite us to] his Blood: one Altar, as but one Bishop with the Presbyters and Deacons my fellow-servants; that whatever ye do, ye may act according to God's appointment.  
Now this passage is so far from proving what you would have it, that there is but one Supreme Bishop, who you say is he of Rome, that it asserts the direct contrary, for if it proves, as you say it does, that there is but one Altar and one Bishop, I am as certain that it proves that one Bishop to be the Bishop of Philadelphia, and that one Altar to be this Bishops, since he exhorts these Philadelphians to make use and keep to that Eucharist, that was to be received from that one Altar, that did belong to that one Bishop: and that one Bishop I am sure was the then Bishop of Philadelphia. I will not urge upon you any place of Ignatius, but will only say, and will be at any time ready to prove, that he that citys Ignatius for a defender of a Monarchical Church under one Head on Earth, either hath not read Ignatius, or does not understand him.  
What you urge from St. Cyprian is to no purpose, since every one owns that every Member ought to keep the Unity of that Church to which he doth belong, and that no Man that is disobedient to the Church his Mother, will ever have God for his Father. Nor your long quotation from St. Irenaeus, where your faculty of translating appears to be none of the best, 
pag. 8.  This Preaching and this Faith, when the Church had heard spread through the whole World, she diligently keeps, as it were dwelling in one House; to wit, having one Soul and one Heart, etc. which give me leave to alter a little to St. Irenaeus his good sense, and then you shall have my Answer about it. The [Catholic] Church having received this Preaching and this Faith, although [she be] dispersed over the whole World, yet keeps and preserves them as diligently, as if she [were confined to or] did Inhabit a single House; and she doth believe them without any difference or disagreement, as tho' she had but one Soul, and but one Heart, and accordingly doth both preach, teach, and deliver these things, [these Articles of Faith] as if she had but one Mouth, etc. Of all the passages in Antiquity, I wonder what ill Fate put this piece of St. Irenaeus in your way: had you considered it well, I am sure we should not have met with it in your Book, since it does perfectly ruin the whole design of this part of your Book; for whereas the benefit you intended from it was to help you to prove that the Church of Christ is Monarchical under a single head, there is nothing less here, and every thing contrary; for as it speaks of the Catholic Church, as one through this Unity of Faith, so it proves (what we of the Church of England so much contend for) that the Particular Churches of Germany, Spain, France, Egypt and the East, of Lybia, Jerusalem, Rome, and the rest, do make up this Catholic Church, without the least hint of a Head over them all, or of any other Unity than that of Faith, the Light that doth, like the Sun, equally enlighten every where. You will say perhaps that the Church of Rome is not expressly mentioned here, and that probably it is, because all these Particular Churches mentioned are the several parts of her Body which really is the same as the Catholic Church. But to spoil this groundless Pretence, 
— neque haequae in Medio Mundi sunt constitutae.  not to insist on it that by the Churches constituted in the middle of the World in this passage, She as well as Jerusalem, and the Churches betwixt them is certainly intimated; I desire you but to peruse the Third Chapter of his Third Book against Heresies. Having in the beginning of this Chapter urged against the Heretics that none of the Apostles delivered to the Bishops their Successors any such things as they impiously taught, and that he could show this from the Successions in all the Churches, he thus addresses them, 
b Sed quoniam valde longum est in hoc tali volumine Omnium Ecclesiarum enumerare Successiones,— Romae fundatae & constitutae Ecclesiae— Traditionem, etc. St. Irenaeus l. 3. c. 3. contr. Haeres. Edit. Fevardent. 1625.  But because it is too tedious in such a Volume as this is to reckon up the Successions of all Churches, etc. he than reckons up that of the very great and very ancient Church founded at Rome by St. Peter and St. Paul, etc. If this passage do not prove the Church of Rome to be one of all those Churches, and as Particular a Church, as any of the rest, I will for the future (as you did) abstract myself, and deny my Eyes as well as my Reason.  
What you quote from Clemens of Alexandria and Tertullian, two of whose passages are part falsely, 
pag. 9  and part lamely translated) are nothing at all to your purpose, they only speak of the Catholic Church as one through the Unity of Faith, not a word of the Church of Rome, or of her being that one Church under one Head Bishop.  
The same advantage and no more doth that from St. Chrysostom afford you, 
pag. 9  which says, The Apostle calls it the Church of God, 
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that he may show it may be reduced into one [which with your leave I would express thus, to show, or having showed, that it ought to be at Unity, etc.] All which is no more than what the Members of the Church of England have said a Hundred Thousand times, that every Church, as well as that at Corinth ought to be at Unity.  
You might have quoted our Collect for all Conditions of Men [O God, the Creator and Preserver of all Mankind, 
p. 9  etc.] instead of the passage out of Theodoret, only you had a mind to show your great reading, otherwise ours would have served you to all the purposes this can, they both saying the same thing, that is, not one syllable to your intentions. 
p. 10.  St. Ambrose's and St. Hierome's are just the same, speaking that which none of our Church can deny, every member of it doth believe that there is one Catholic and Apostolic Church, and at the same time is as ready to profess, that he doth no more believe than any of the Primitive Christians ever did, that the Church of Rome is that Church, or that that one Catholic and Apostolic Church is governed by one Supreme Pastor the Bishop of Rome; which was the thing you were to prove, but how little you have performed it, I dare appeal to any one, that would but, as he reads, consider, and compare your quotations, and what I have said upon them.  
More Testimonies, it seems, you could have given us, 
p. 10.  but you say, it were too tedious, either to write or read, etc. There is another reason why they would be tedious, and that is, because if they are no better than these we have had already, they would have been nothing to the purpose: and to say those Testimonies you have presented us are not the best, would be to disparage your prudence and parts, which we need not do. One more however you cannot refrain giving us for good omens sake, that of Constantine the Great, whose Zeal for the Unity of the Catholic Church, and his most earnest endeavours for the peace thereof all know and admire, and therefore 'twas needless to recite, since it hath not one syllable to your business, which was not to prove, what both sides affirm, that there is a Catholic Church, but that the Church of Rome is that Catholic Church governed by one Supreme Pastor. Quod restat probandum & aternùm restabit.  
One thing I must desire of you by reason of these passages, that if ever you set up again for a Writer, you would either tell us what Editions the Books are of which you quote; or name the Books you picked 'em out of; you cite the 62d Chapter; Valesius' Edition says it's the 64th: you quote the 63d, and he says it's the 65th Chapter of Eusebius' 3d Book of the Life of Constantine.   

CHAP. VIII. The Ridiculousness of his Attempt against Protestant Communions exposed, and an Unity of Faith among them proved.  
HERE, 
pag. 10.  as tho' you had done wonders by your Authorities, you not without a secret vainglory, say, What would I have once given to have found such an Unity amongst Protestants? to have England, Scotland, Denmark, Zwethland, Geneva, Zurick, etc. thus Unius Labii: nay to have found but one County in my own dear Country, or perhaps one single Family so united a Brotherhood, etc. I wish, Sir, that it might have been my good fortune to have met you sometime with money in your Pocket in this generous mood, I do assure you that I would have been reasonable, and for one Guinea, would have proved it to you, or have forfeited 40, that all these Churches you have reckoned up in the North and Western parts of Europe are as much Vnius Labii, as all the Proofs you have tacked together do either prove or require; for to repeat the substance of them, there is none of them all doth either prove, or offer at it, that all the Particular Churches of Christ should have the same Customs, Rites, Ceremonies and Discipline without any difference one from another. That which they prove, and indeed there is but one that doth it clearly, that from Irenaeus, is, that the Unity of the Catholic Church dispersed throughout the world, or, which is the same thing, of all the Particular Churches every where which do make up the Catholic Church was in and from the one Faith, which she had from the Apostles: and this Faith was that which we call the Apostle's Creed, a Summary of which St. Irenaeus having set down in the short Chapter immediately before this out of which you have your quotation, gins this Chapter as you have quoted that the Catholic Church, having received this Preaching and this Faith (to wit, included in the Apostle's Creed, doth preserve it, and teach it inviolably, etc. and at the end of this same Chapter, 
c Et neque qui valde praevalet in Sermone ex iis qui praesunt Ecclesiis, alia quam haec sunt, dicet. Nemo enim super Magistrum est: neque infirmus in dicendo deminorabit Traditionem. Cùm enim una & eadem fides sit, neque is qui multum de ea potest dicere, amplius, (Lampliat) neque is qui minus, deminorat. S. Iraen. c. Haer. l. 1. c. 3. Edit. Fevard.  he tells us, that the Church was so much Vnius Labii (as your phrase is) in this Faith, that neither He that was more eloquent among the Pastors of the Church, will say [or teach] any things different from these [Articles of Faith] for no Man is above his Master: nor he that is less expert, will diminish any thing from this [Faith delivered or] Tradition. For since the Faith is one and the same, neither he that can say most about it, doth add any thing to it; nor he that can say least, doth take any thing from it. This Faith then (to use St. Irenaeus' simile) like the Sun, 
Ibidem.  enlightens all parts of the world, shines to them all, and doth influence all with her one Faith, as with a common heat, and makes all that embrace it throughout the world to become the constituent parts of the Catholic Church.  
By this time I do not question but that you think your Guinea might have been in danger, since no man that hath common sense can deny, that the Churches of England, Denmark, Swedland and the rest are Vnius Labii in this Faith, which is equally embraced and professed by them, and therefore hath the same influence over them, that it had over the several Churches in St. Irenaeus his time, to make them true Members of the Catholic Church. So that as all your money would have been lost on this account, so your Pity over your own dear Country is not only lost but childish and ridiculous too, and would far handsomer have become a Woman that never saw farther than her Psalter, than you that pretend to such a large knowledge in Fathers and Divinity.  
But tho' your Pity were lost, 
pag. 10, 11.  you are resolved your Country shall not want your hearty prayers, that true Charity— may possess their hearts, and that there may be a most holy love planted, and reigning in their hearts for ever, etc. I used to think it was the opinion of the Church of Rome and her Party, that we of the Church of England wanted the true Faith, if so, you are not then so charitable for all your Pretences as you might be, and a little petition, that true Faith, as well as true Charity may possess our hearts, would not be so very much, or so troublesome for you, now you are on your Rock, to put up for us. But perhaps your opinion is, that our Faith is good enough in this Church, only that we are an ill-natured, uncharitable Church, and therefore want such an Orator as you to obtain for us the Gift of Charity. But do we want Charity so much more, than our neighbours at Rome? God will one day judge, and let the world do it in the mean time, whether we or they want it more, they that damn all besides their own Church, or we that hold that even they may be saved. And for our Faith neither shall we need to flatter ourselves; by and by we shall be called to account by you about it, and proved to our sorrow to want that altogether as much as Charity, so that in the mean time how are you the compassionate, and charitable Man?  
'Tis no wonder that one that hath made so great a mistake, as to say, there is no Unity among the Reformed Communions, should make such ado to make the Church of Rome appear great, by reckoning up all the Universities, Bishoprics, etc. that own and submit to the Pope's Jurisdiction. I have not so much time to trifle away as to examine whether your Muster be right; all that it proves is, that a great many Churches that by the Rules of Christianity, and by the ancient Laws of the Catholic Church were free and independent, do now labour (willingly or unwillingly I do not pretend to know) under the Usurpation of the Church of Rome and her Universal Bishop, which Title Gregory the Great, himself a Bishop of that See, thought Antichristian. When you reckon Sicily and its Bishops, you ought to have remembered, that they have a Supreme Head of their own, the King of Spain (who is therefore once a year excommunicated by the other Supreme Head at Rome, but, for quietness sake, as constantly the next day absolved) who acts as supremely and Independently there, as the Pope himself does in Rome or any part of Italy. But this perchance you did not know, and therefore 'twould be very unreasonable to expect a true account of it from you.   

CHAP. IX. A Digression, wherein is proved that the Church of Rome is a particular Church, and that the Unity among the Primitive Churches was in Faith only.  
YOUR next design, if I understand you right, is to prove the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. But before I undertake to talk with you about that, I will take leave to make a Digression, the Design of which shall be to show you (that I may not be only employed in pulling down what you build) how much you have been mistaken about your Notion of the Catholic Church, and how miserably that Definition of S. N. or rather the Romish Missionaries have imposed upon you. I will contract it as much as I can, and care not how short I am, so that I be but clear and intelligible.  
The things therefore I propose to make appear are these,  
First, That the Church of Rome in the Primitive times was looked upon to be as particular a Church, as any other then in being.  
Secondly, That as an Unity in Faith was always required in every Particular Church to make it a true branch of the Catholic Church, so there were in those Primitive times always found, and always allowed of, differences as to Practices, Ceremonies, Discipline and such things between the several particular Churches without any breach of Catholic Peace and Unity.  
1. The first of these I am almost as much ashamed to attempt, as to prove that I had a Mother, it is so plain and visible through all Antiquity: that I admire any Man that owns his Reason can in the least question the Church of Rome's being as Particular a Church as any of its neighbours; such I am sure St. Paul thought it to be, when he wrote his Epistle from Corinth to that Church, and such St. Clemens knew it certainly to be, when he writes in the name of the Church settled at Rome the famous Epistle to the Church of Corinth: the Epistle St. Ignatius wrote to it, just before his Martyrdom there, does equally prove it with the other two, and not one syllable is there to be met with in these three best Monuments of Antiquity (as far as I can see) that does at all advance her above the common level of the other her sister Churches, or in the least hint her any ways being the Mistress, or Mother of them all, as the late and our modern Wisemen are pleased to say she is, but for proving it are willing to be excused.  
I question not but what I have cited out of St. Irenaeus proves the sentiment of him and his time to have been, that she was a particular Church among the rest in the world; he was certainly of this opinion, 
S. Iren. con. Haer. l. 3. c. 3.  when telling the Heretics that it would be too tedious to reckon up the Successions of ALL the CHURCHES, he puts down that of Rome, which he could not have done, had not she been one of those All he there mentions. I will but produce one more upon this too evident a point, Tertullian 
d— Edant ergo Origines Ecclesiarum suarum: evolvant ordinem Episcoporum suorum ita per Successiones ab initio decurrentem, ut primus ille Episcopus aliquem ex Apostolis vel Apostolicis viris, etc. habuerit auctorem & antecessorem. Hoc enim modo Ecclesiae Apostolicae census suos deferunt: sicut Smyrnaeorum Ecclesia habens Polycarpum ab Joanne conlocatum refert: Sicut Romanorum Clementem à Petro ordinatum edit: proinde utique & ceterae exhibent, etc. Tertull. de Prescript. c. 32. Edit. Franck. 1597. , who challenging the Heretics to show the Original of their Churches, the Succession of their Bishops in a direct line from either an Apostle, or an Apostolical Person that always kept within the Unity of the Church; tells them the Apostolical Churches could do this; for example the Church of Smyrna that had Polycarp placed there [for their first Bishop] by St. John, the Church of Rome that had Clemens ordained by St. Peter, and for the rest of those Churches, that they did the same.  
2. I'll pass now to the second point, to show, That as an Unity in Faith was always required in every Particular Church to make it a true part of the Catholic Church, so there were in those primitive times always found, and always allowed of, Differences as to Practice and Ceremonies, Discipline and such things between the several particular Churches without any breach of Catholic Peace and Unity.  
As to the Unity by Faith, I need not much, if at all, insist upon the proof of it, since we both make it necessary to the being a Member of the Catholic Church: 
S. Irenaeus cont. Haer. l. 1. c. 3.  St. Irenaeus in the Chapter you and I quoted, doth sufficiently prove that it was the Faith received from the Apostles, that made the Church one; that it was that which enlightened, and therefore saved every particular Church as well as particular Person: No Man speaks more of the beauty and necessity of Unity, and yet that He meant it only as to an Unity of Faith, is very apparent from that famous Epistle to Victor Bishop of Rome, who had most imprudently and irregularly excommunicated the Asiatic Churches for not keeping Easter at the same time He and most other Christians did.  
In this Epistle he tells Victor that before his time, All Churches tho' several of 'em differing in this thing of the time of observing Easter preserved Catholic Peace, and did communicate one with another, notwithstanding such a difference. 
Neque enim de Die (viz. celebr. Pasch.) solum controversia est, sed etiam de formâ ip●a Jejunii. Quidam enim existimant unico die sibi esse jejunandum: alii duobus, alii pluribus— nihilominus tamen & omnes isti pacem inter se retinuerunt, & nos invicem retinemus. Ita Jejuniorum Diversitas Consensionem [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Fidei commendat. apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 24. Ed. Vales.  He gives him the Instance (in this same Ep.) of St. Polycarp and Anicetus, who differing and resolved so to continue in this point, did most lovingly communicate together at Rome itself: Anicetus, as a particular mark of Honour and Brotherly Love, permitting St. Polycarp to Consecrate the Eucharist in his Church and stead: and did as lovingly part. He further informs him, that it was not about the time of observing Easter only that there were Differences between particular Churches: he mentions the much greater variety in the great duty of Fasting, that some fasted but one Day, some two, others more: yet did however preserve Peace and Unity with all that differed from them; and so he says, they still did continue to do in his time: and concludes this Narrative thus, That the Diversity of their Fasts did commend the Unity of their Faith; than which I could never desire a more evident proof for what I have affirmed, that different Customs were found and allowed of in the different particular Churches without breach of Catholic Unity and Communion.  
Tertullian is as express in both points of the Unity of Faith, and diversity of Discipline and Customs, that tho' the first is necessary to all Churches, yet that the other is lawful and practised in different Communions. 
e Regula quidem Fidei una omnino est, sola immobilis & irreformabilis, credendi scilicet in unicum Deum.— Hac Lege Pidei manante cetera jam disciplinae & conversationis admittunt novitatem correctionis. Tertul. de Virgin. velandis c. 1. Edit. Franck.  The Rule of Faith (says he) is altogether one, , and uncapable of any Reformation or Alteration, after which he sets down an Abridgement [as Irenaeus had done above] of the Apostles Creed, and then proceeds hac Lege, etc. This Law or Rule of Faith continuing firm, the other matters of Discipline and Manners do admit of Correction or Amendment. These two eminent Writers are so clear and convincing in this matter, that I'll wave the producing any more Authorities to this purpose besides that of the very eminent and famous Firmilian Bishop of the Cappadocian Caesarea, 
f Eos autem qui Romae sunt, non ea in omnibus observare quae sunt ab origine tradita, & frustra Apostolorum auctoritatem praetendere; scire quis etiam inde potest, quod circa celebrandos dies Paschae, & circa multa alia divinae rei Sacramenta, videat esse apud illos aliquas diversitates, nec observari illic omnia aequaliter quae Hierosolymis observantur. Secundum quod in caeteris quoque plurimis Provinciis, multa pro locorum & nominum (l. hominum) diversitate variantur; nec tamen propter hoc ab Ecclesiae Catholicae pace atque unitate aliquando discessum est. Firmiliani Epistola Cypriano, inter Epist. Cypriani 75. p. 220. Edit. Oxon.  who in an Epistle to St. Cyprian, acquaints the World, that they of the Romish Church did not observe in all things what had been delivered from the beginning (I pray then what's become of your Palladium, Tradition) and that they did to no purpose pretend the Authority of the Apostles: he instances about the Observation of Easter, and lays further to their charge some differences about many other divine affairs and administrations, and says that they do not observe the same Customs that are at Jerusalem. This he mentions not to blame them for them, but to reprove their Pride and their disturbing the Peace and Unity of the Catholic Church, by breaking Communion with other Churches upon such accounts, for in the next words to these I cite, himself mentions that in very many other Provinces, 
Cum una sit Fides, cur font Ecclesiarum diversae consuetudines, etc.  many things were varied according to the diversity of places and names, (men) however that the Peace and Unity of the Catholic Church was not hereby broken; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
3. Interrogatio Augustini ad Gregor. M.   

CHAP. X. An inquiry into RomanVnity under their Dictator.  
HAving now discharged myself of my digression, and satisfactorily I hope proved that which I undertook in it. I do now pass to your Muster of all those places and persons under the Pope, the Unity of which, your assurance is, doth hence proceed, 
p. 11.  because they submit themselves to the Judgement and Regulation of one Dictator, who conserveses the ancient Decrees of General Councils, deposited with him by the whole Church, from whom if any dissent, or walk irregularly, he is severed and cut off from the rest of the Members, etc.  
That the submission of all those Churches you mention to the Dictator at Rome, is the cause of that Unity you say is among them, no Body does deny any more, than that all the Philosophers among the Heathens would have been as much at Unity, had they made Aristippus or Pyrrho their Universal Dictator, and resolved never to think, speak or write besides what he was pleased to command or teach them. The Question betwixt us is, whether Christ did leave his Church in a Monarchical State under the sole ordering of St. Peter at first, to be continued after his decease under the successive Bishops of Rome; and this is the thing to be proved; as for what you talk about the Roman Dictator's keeping and managing the Canons of General Councils, I question not before we part upon this head to prove your Reasons for it either false, or ridiculous.  
But before we go any further, is the Church of Rome really at that Unity that one might expect from its having such an Universal Dictator over it? I trow not; for did you never hear of that long bandying (which perhaps is not ended) about the Immaculate Conception; nor of the violent Feuds betwixt the Jansenists and Molinists, which for all the Pope's determination continue to this Day? Is that whole Community agreed about the Infallibility? How is it then that some are for the Personal Infallibility of the Bishop of Rome as such; some that He is so only in Cathedra; some that only a General Council is such? Are they agreed about his Jurisdiction? How is it then that some put him under, and others above a General Council? Is his Supremacy determined wherein it doth consist? Whence is it then that the Clergy of France so lately made Determinations for the Limitation of it, 
1682.  and to deny his Deposing Power, or Meddling in Temporals: And the Clergy of Hungary under the Archbishop of Gran did 1684 Condemn the Determinations of France, to omit the Inquisition of Toledo doing the same thing against them? What was the reason that the Pope, who is Dictator, and might with a word as such silence these Quarrels, suffers these contrary Determinations, but that he hath wit enough to know that he is not so much a Dictator, as Mr. Sclater makes him, in France, and that his Bulls would signify no more there about these things, than they did about the Regale. Are not the Professed Members of that Communion for all their Dictator still quarrelling and bandying one against another, witness the Satyrs and virulent Libels betwixt the Jesuits and the Carmelites, to pass by the more personal ones betwixt Maimbourgh and Schelstreat, betwixt Alexander Natalis and D'enghien, betwixt Arnauld and Malebranch; I will but ask you one question, why all F. Alexandre Noel's Books, wherein he hath done all he can to vindicate their Religion, were all condemned to the Fire not excepting one by this Pope's Breve in Eighty Four. I doubt we shall find that Doctors differ about the deposing Power and the Pope's Supremacy in the bosom of the Church of Rome itself: and that the French did not submit quietly to the Condemnation of their Determinations by the Clergy of Hungary.  
These things perchance are most of 'em news to you, and therefore you cannot be blamed for thinking or writing that they are at Unity under their Dictator at Rome, because you knew no better; but if you be angry and say you did know them, I desire to know how you could say that the Members of that Church do submit to that Dictator, and are at Unity under him, whereas the Instances I have given are more than enough to convince, that what you have written is but a Dream, and your own confident mistake.   

CHAP. II. Arguments from the Three first Centuries and the beginning of the Fourth, for St. Peter's Supremacy, answered.  
TO leave this and proceed in your Book, your business being as I told you above, to prove that Christ left his Church in a Monarchical State under the sole ordering of St. Peter at first, to be continued after his decease under the successive Bishops of Rome: It is strange to see how confusedly you go about it, but much stranger that you should begin with St. Dennis, and not with the Scripture. But I am afraid this Book itself, as well as the private Spirit that used to sense it, are now distasted by you alike, and that it is looked upon as a far more dangerous than useful Book, and so fittest to be set aside, where there is no absolute necessity of bringing it upon the Stage.  
For your Testimony from St. Dennis, you know my mind already, 
pag. 11.  and we shall have occasion by and by to talk a little more about him. 
pag. 11.  St. Irenaeus his Testimony had come in I think, a little better under your last Head among your Testimonies for the Unity of the Catholic Church. But how it proves St. Peter's Supremacy I cannot devise, except you can prove that St. Peter and St. Paul were but One Individual, and make them two into one Man, as (p. 76.) you have made Scotus Erigena into two: Nor is there a word here about Supremacy; all that Irenaeus saith is, 
g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [viz. Romae,] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Iren. c. Haer. l. 3. c. 3. Edit. Fevard.  that St. Peter and St. Paul by their joint endeavours having founded that Church made Linus Bishop there, etc. which place seems to (if it really do not) exclude St. Peter's being Bishop there himself at all, so far is it from proving his Supremacy.  
But if it will not serve for this purpose, let's see what it will do for to prove the Catholic Church to be Monarchical, and no other than the Church of Rome. You found (say you) Irenaeus [I'll venture to put in, saying, for without it or such a word I must confess that I cannot make English out of your Period,] that it was of necessity that every Church should agree with the Church of Rome, etc. Your translation here I cannot admit, for convenire ad hanc Ecclesiam is surely to come up to this Church; the reason of which St. Irenaeus makes the potentior Principalitas (which I wonder you should omit in your Translation) the more powerful Principality, the Supreme Civil Government, Rome then being the Imperial City of the World, and the Seat of the Senate and chief Judicatures, which must of necessity bring People, Christians as well as others, thither from all parts, and therefore make the Church of Rome a most visible and eminent Church, and so the fittest for St. Irenaeus his design against the Heretics, when he had obliged himself to reckon up the Succession of one among the several Apostolical Churches of the World.  
I am not ignorant your now party are very earnest upon this place, and very desirous to have it believed that by potentior Principalitas here is meant the Dignity and Jurisdiction of the Church at Rome over all other Churches, and that therefore they should resort to her as to their Head and Mistress. But not to insist on the Inconsistency of such a sense of these words with all the accounts we have of this and the rest of the Apostolical Churches from the purest Antiquity (which I could easily show, had I room here,) I only ask them, what every Church was to go thither for? Was it for the Catholic Faith? that St. 
h Traditionem igitur Apostoloru● in toto mundo manifestatam in Omni Ecclesiâ adest perspicere omnibus qui, etc. Iren. con. Haer. l. 3. c. 3.  Irenaeus assures us they, every one had at home, the Apostles after their Churches planted delivering to them the true Faith, which then was kept as he assures us, inviolably by them, and therefore no need to go to Rome for it. Was it for Discipline? There was as little need for their going about this as for the other, since in the several Churches which they planted, the Apostles ordained them Bishops, delivering to them 
k Idem Ibidem.  suum ipsorum locum Magisterii, their own place and power of Jurisdiction, which certainly was for Discipline. If they of your Party can invent any other business for their going thither, I do not question but that any of our Writers will be able to refel it, as soon as mentioned.  
By this time you have taken leave of St. Peter, and are got to that, which you will begin again two pages hence, to prove the Primacy did not die with Peter; for Method truly I cannot but admire you: but must however take your Arguments, as they come. Well then you say of St. Clemens, that under him a great dissension arising among the Corinthians, 
pag. 11.  He wrote powerful Letters [I wish you had told us how many, Eusebius that had almost as good opportunities as you, heard but of one, and we commonly think it was but one that he wrote on this account] to them, compelling them to Peace, repairing their Faith, and declaring what Tradition they had lately received from the Apostles, etc. This Testimony to give it its due, if it can but pass Muster, will do your business, this compelling looks as if a Generalissimo had to do about it, and this repairing their Faith shows as clear as the Sun, that the Bishops of Rome had the sole keeping of the Apostolical Faith and Tradition, that so if any Church had lost it, they might know whither to go to have it repaired; a much nobler Province than that of conserving the ancient Decrees of General Councils.  
But is all this certainly true? why did you not then give us the passages where St. Clemens is so brisk upon the Corinthians? no Sir, if you had, they must have been of your own making, for I am pretty certain there is no such behaviour in that letter, but the direct contrary. I have particularly perused it upon this very occasion, and can meet with nothing, but suasory Arguments there, such as might have become any other Bishop as well as him; and therefore I must take the freedom to tell you, that I do not believe you have read this Epistle over, and that it was those you transcribed that imposed upon you, as you have done upon your Reader: and the same opinion I must have of your next Testimony from Tertullian, for could any but one that is a stranger to that particular Book (as well as to the rest of his Writings, as I believe I shall find you) quote him calling the Bishop of Rome Pontifex Maximus, Bishop of Bishops, bonus Pastor and benedictus Papa, when the Bishop of Rome is not once mentioned in this Tract; but granting him to be aimed at there, is it not as plain that all these Titles are given purely in derision [and therefore prove nothing to your purpose] by Tertullian now a Heretic, 
De Pudicitiâ.  and in this Tract ridiculing the discipline of the Catholic Church? You might with as good a face have cited St. Cyprian and the African Bishops in Council with him calling the Bishop of Rome Bishop of Bishops, for him I verily believe they meant there, tho' they did not name him: but that there was such a sting in the tail of these Bishop's Preface to their Council, as would have spoiled all your designs, and have blown away all your groundless talk about a Supremacy; for after they had resolved to give their own opinions concerning what they were met about, without judging others, or denying to communicate with those that might be of a different Judgement, and had said that none of them made himself Bishop of Bishops, or attempted to fright any of their Brother-Bishops into an Obedience, or Submission to their Opinion, (by which expressions they more than seem to wipe the Bishop of Rome) they give the reason of this their temper and moderation, because every Bishop— had his own , 
— Quando habeat omnis Episcopus pro licentiâ libertatis & potestatis suae, arbitrium proprium; tamque judicari ab alio non possit, quam nec ipse potest judicare. Sed expectemus universi Judicium Domini nostri Jesu Christi, qui unus & solus habet potestatem & praeponendi nos in Ecclesiae suae gubernation, & de actu nostro judicandi. Concil. Carthag. Episcoporum 87. A. D. 256. apud Cyprianum. p. 229. Edit. Oxon.  and could no more be judged by another [the Bishop of Rome himself not excepted,] than judge another [Bishop] and upon this conclude for themselves, that they must all expect the Judgement of. our Lord Jesus Christ, who alone had the power as of making them Bishops for the Government of his Church, so of calling them to an account for their discharge of the care and employment he had placed them in.  
There is no one that hath read St. Cyprian and considered him, that will not grant I might easily bring twenty places as evident as this for the Equality and Independency of Bishops: But I must remember my task is to answer yours, not to write a Book on this subject. 
pag. 12.  However this I could not omit thereby to obviate your quotation from him as if he should say the Church of Rome is the Mother and Root of the Catholic Church, 
l Cypriani Epistola. 45 Cornelio. Edit. Oxon. Pamel. 42.  whereas his advice (as he tells Cornelius here) to those persons was, upon his having communicated to them the Legality of Cornelius his Ordination about which there had been so much dissension, to keep to Unity the Mother and Root of the Catholic Church; and therefore to communicate with Cornelius who was a Catholic Bishop, and not with the Schismatics who did not keep to the Unity of the Church, for the persuading of whom to such Unity he had sent among them Caldonius and Fortunatus. A man would guests from your saying that Cyprian goes on, and advises the Bishops of Numidia, etc. that this Epistle had been writ to them, but this is but another touch of your skill, and reading the Authors you quote.  
But now you are returned to St. Peter again, 
pag. 12.  whom Eusebius (you say) calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Prince or Prolocutor, etc. which are betwixt you and me two very different things, that he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for his virtue or zeal's sake was their Prolocutor, I easily grant, but this does not prove him their Prince or Supreme, and you ought to remember that honorary Titles or Compellations are not to be rigidly taken, or stretched too far.  
As to your large Title and Testimony from the Epistle of Saint Athanasius to Marcus Bishop of Rome (where again you have lest St. Peter) upon which I suppose and that out of St. Bernard you ground your former Assertion that the Bishops of Rome are the Conservers of the ancient Decrees of General Councils; 
pag. 12.  I will be brief and tell you that it is a pitiful forged nonsensical piece of stuff, that you would here impose on us for the Venerable St. Athanasius. To wave Dr. Cave, and our own Writers, who make and prove it to be a forgery, your own great 
m De Scriptoribus Eccles. in Athanasio.  Bellarmine and Baronius had the same opinion of it, the latter of whom, as you may see in Bellarmine (the Script. Eccl. in Gratiano) hath quite ruined it. And here I cannot but admire that you should offer to put off such pitiful obsolete stuff in a Nation that hath so vast a number of learned men, and thereby to make yourself ridiculous and contemptible, when such learned men as Baronius and Bellarmine, who had as much zeal as any for the Chair at Rome, and more learning than 40000—, had already baffled the forgery, and caused it to be hist off the stage. But such stuff it seems will down with you, and so doth that which is as bad, you may easily guests what it is I mean.   

CHAP. XII. His Arguments from the Fourth Century for St. Peter's Supremacy refuted.  
WHAT you wanted of evidence from the three first Centuries of the Church, which are far from affording you any Practice of such a Supremacy, or any hints of there being any such thing settled at Rome, but all speak the direct contrary to it, as I could very easily show; you think to make up from little scraps of Fathers of the fourth and fifth Centuries, whose Rhetorical and honorary Expressions ought not to be taken in a strict literal sense, because otherwise it were easy to make them contradict themselves, nay altogether unavoidable to prevent it. The Instance shall be in St. Hilary whom you first quote. 
pag. 12.  He tells us (say you) Christ gave St. Peter the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and that he built his Church upon him: and yet in another part of his Works 
n Super hanc igitur Confessionis Petram Ecclesiae aedificatio est— Haec Fides Ecclesiae fundamentum est. Hilarius de Trinit. l. 6.  this Father makes the Confession itself (as most of the Fathers do) the Rock, on which our Saviour built his Church. If you will then take the words you quote in a strict sense, and I take those that I quote in as strict and literal; St. Hilary I perceive is like to suffer betwixt us, and be made directly to contradict himself. As to the keys, that I'll answer anon. As we served St. Hilary, so we must Epiphanius about the Rock, whom you quote making St. Peter, 
pag. 13.  the first of the Apostles, the firm Rock upon which God's Church was built. Him 
e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Epiphan. adv. Haeres. L. 2. Tom. 1. p. 500 Edit. Petau.  I quote also making St. Peter's Confession (not his person) the foundation of the Catholic Church. I must confess that it is purely necessity that forces me, or any of our Church to show these incoherences in the Fathers if taken in a rigid literal sense, whereas allowing them a latitude befitting Homities, not Controversies, Rhetorical Amplifications, not close inartificial Discourses, they are consistent enough.  
And so for St. Ambrose saying, Christ left St. Peter, as it were the Vicegerent or Deputy of his Love to us; 
pag. 13.  in another place He makes this very 
o Statim loci non immemor sui primatum egit— primatum Confessionis utique, non honoris, primatum Fidei non Ordinis. S. Ambros. de Incarnate. c. 4.  Primacy, a Primacy of Confession, not of Honour, of Faith, not of Order; which expressions of his, together with the perfect silence of Scripture and Prime Antiquity as to the thing, make me I must confess neither Proselyte to subscribe to, 
pag. 13.  nor an Admirer of, what you quote from St. Hierome, that although God's Church was not so altogether founded upon St. Peter, but that the other Apostles also had a share with him in the Office [with your leave from your own Margin I translate, that all the Apostles were equal in the foundation, did equally receive the power of the keys, which expressions by the buy as they contradict your own Testimonies from St. Hilary and Epiphanius, so they ruin your pretensions for the Papal Supremacy of Jurisdiction] yet one is chosen amongst the Twelve, that a Head being placed over all, occasion of Schism might be taken away. I will but urge one place of Scripture, why I think I ought not to subscribe to it, and that is Acts 8.14. Now when the Apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received [by the Ministry of Philip] the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John; which had Peter been their Head [their Prince, their General, as others call him] would have looked just as well, and not a jot less, as if the College of Cardinals upon any important business into France should delegate and send the Pope and the Dean of their College thither.  
But to pass these Objections and to admit St. Hierome's assertion, 
pag. 13.  it nor that from Optatus concerning the Prima Cathedra prove any thing more than a Primacy of Order, which our Church I believe will not deny to the Bishop of Rome; but that's not the thing will, or ever hath for these eight or nine hundred years contented them, they are for a Supremacy of Jurisdiction, as well as a Primacy of Order; their chief ground for which pretention is, as I take it, the investing St. Peter their Predecessor with the power of the keys, the thing I shall according to my promise undertake here the consideration of.  
The dispute betwixt us about it is, not whether the keys were given to St. Peter, which no body of our Church did ever deny, but whether he received them in his own person, for his particular use and trust exclusively to all the rest of the Apostles. That he did not receive them in his own person, is plain from, and the Judgement of, Antiquity; to you I need only urge your own Testimony from St. 
p— Cuncti claves regni coelorum accipiant, & ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur. L. 1. adv. Jovin. c. 14.  Hierome who makes the Apostles equally to receive the power of the keys, and to be equal in the foundation of the Catholic Church; for others sake I might urge St. Cyprian 
q Vnus pro omnibus loquens, & Ecclesiae voce respondens. S. Cyprian. Ep. 59 Edit. Oxon. , who makes St. Peter the mouth of them all, and to make that Confession (upon which the keys were bestowed) in the name of the Church. St. Augustine 
r August. Ep. 165. Edit. Frob.  who is of the same opinion, and others, but I had rather recur to Scripture itself, where I think it is evident enough, that he did in the name, and for the use of them all receive those keys: This I prove from St. Matthew, who brings in our Saviour (within two Chapters from that 
s Matth. 16.13, 14, etc. , wherein the discourse of our Saviour with his Disciples, and his gift of the keys to Peter is recorded) speaking to his Disciples as invested already with this power of binding and losing 
t S. Matt. 18.17, 18. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the Church, but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be to thee as an Heathen man and a Publican; verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound, etc. and whatsoever ye shall lose— shall be loosed in heaven. : which place with me puts it past all doubt, that the rest of the Apostles were equally concerned in that speech of our Saviour's to St. Peter, and thereby had equal power. But if they will not allow this place to suppose a power already given, they will not dare to deny that it doth confer, so that if he had the power given to him particularly in the Sixteenth Chapter of this Gospel, they all have it now in the Eighteenth, and thereby the same Jurisdiction and Authority in the Church; which quite destroys all you have been hitherto about, which was indeed to prove St. Peter had the same Supremacy invested on him by our Saviour, which the Bishops of Rome do since from him exercise and enjoy; But how little you have performed, I dare appeal to any indifferent person, to your own self, if you will but compare your papers and mine together: so that I might save myself the trouble to try what you say about that Primacy not dying with Peter; but I will not, lest you should say, I left that part unanswered.   

CHAP. XIII. Arguments for the Primacy not dying with Peter answered, the Proofs out of St. chrysostom for St. Peter's Supremacy fully confuted.  
YOUR Arguments for the Primacy not dying with Peter are few and which is worse nothing to your purpose, 
pag. 13.  since they are far from proving what you desire: but you ought to have remembered that it is not only your Task to prove that there was such a Primacy, and that it was not to die with St. Peter, but that it was to descend to the successive Bishops of Rome after his decease, and not to any of the Apostles, nor to the Bishops of Antioch. But since I perceive we shall find the first, to wit of proving the Primacy not to die with St. Peter, too many for you, it would be cruel to put you upon proving any of the other: for as to that proof out of the Epistle of St. Hierome to Demetrias, all it proves is that Innocentius was Anastasius' Successor in the Apostolical Chair at Rome: now if you cannot prove hence, 
pag. 14.  either that this was the sole and only Apostolical Chair, or that it was always the chief and governing Chair of the Catholic Church, every one will see that you alleged a place nothing to the purpose, having not a word of St. Peter in it; that you cannot show either of them, is what I, to prevent your trouble of enquiring among your people about it, will make appear in a very few words.  
That the Apostolical Chair at Rome is not the only Chair in the Church Catholic 
v Percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas, apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesidentur.— proxima est tibi Achaia, habes Corinthum— Philippos,— Thessalonicenses,— Ephesum— Romam. Tertull. de Prescript. contr. Haeret. c. 36. Edit. Junii Franekerae. 1597. , Tertullian is demonstration; Run over (saith he) the Apostolical Churches, in which the very Chairs the Apostles used are to this day presided in by the Bishops in their several places: and then he reckons Corinth and Philippi, and Rome itself among the rest.  
That it was not originally the chief or governing Chair is as plain from the account we have in Euscbius from 
x— Pest servatoris Ascensum Petrum; Jacobum & Joannem, quamvis Dominus ipsos caeteris praetulisset, non idcirco de primo honoris gradu inter se contendisse, sed Jacobum cognomine Justum, Hierosolymorum Episcopum elegisse. Clemens apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 1. Edit. Vales.  Clemens his Sixth Book of Institutions; That after our Lord's Ascension, Peter, James and John, tho' preferred [not Peter alone] by our Lord above the rest of the Apostles, did not thereupon contend among themselves for the first place of Honour, but chose James the Just Bishop of Jerusalem. Whose Chair I am sure this passage makes Primus Honoris Gradus, the chief Cathedra in the world.  
Having thus spoiled this your proof, your next will give me the less trouble, 
pag. 14.  wherein St. Hierome tells Damasus, that in this miserable condition of the Eastern Churches being overrun by Heresies, he would stick to St. Peter 's Chair and that Faith commended by St. Paul, etc. which passage would have cleared itself, had you but been so just as to have translated the very next words, which bring us St. Hierome's reason for this his resolution of slighting all Heretics, and communicating with the Apostolical Chair at Rome, because he had in that Church been first made a Christian, 
— Ind nunc meae animae postulans cibum, unde olim Christi vestimenta suscepi. Hieron. Ep. Damaso.  and therefore thence would receive the spiritual food for his Soul. Had you Mr. Scl. but made St. Hierome's resolution your own, you had never fallen from the Catholic, Apostolical and Orthodox Communion of the Church of England unto that of—. In the mean time remember that you have not proved either a Primacy, or a Succession in it for the Bishops of Rome.  
In the next place, as tho' conscious to yourself that you had done nothing hitherto, and that your Arguments for the Supremacy and then for the Succession were too weak, you fall again to the proving that St. Peter was Supreme, O incomparable Method! and are now resolved to do it to purpose. But how? out of St. Chrysostome's Homilies and Comments; There is no one that hath looked, tho' but a little, into that Father, that will not smile at this your attempt. However you tell us, and no body will deny it, that he gives St. Peter extraordinary and noble Titles, 
pag. 15.  that he calls him, Prime Leader of the Apostles, the head of Orthodoxy, the great Highpriest of the Church— the Pillar of the Church— the Head of the Chorus of the Apostles, and says that He took the charge of the whole Church throughout the World, etc.  
I have only this question to put to you, whether you take St. chrysostom, as to these passages concerning St. Peter (the greatest as well as the clearest of which for your purpose I have here set down) in a strict literal sense? if you own it, as you seem to do by placing them here for such a purpose, I must then plainly tell you, that you do a very great wrong to this Holy and learned Father, than whom no one perchance ever gave himself a greater liberty as to Rhetorical flights in his Homilies: since in other places he bestows Titles as high and as great as these on other Apostles, which if I take in the same sense that you do these, the Good Father is made inconsistent with himself, and to preach downright falsities and contradictions. I'll instance only in St. John and St. Paul; do but give yourself the trouble to read over his Preface to his Comments on St. John's Gospel, and tell me then, whether you do not find him among other large Eulogies calling St. John the Pillar of all the Churches throughout the world, 
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Tom. 2. p. 555. add fin. Edit. Savil.  and telling us that He had the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.  
But for St. Paul, I am confident I can make even you confess that He mounts him above St. Peter himself, concerning whom you have furnished a Catalogue of such glorious Titles. Look but upon his Comment on that 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrys. Tom. 3. p. 679.  saying of St. Paul's [2 Cor. 11.28.] about his care of all the Churches (a passage by the buy that is more, than all your whole Church can patch together for St. Peter,) how he advances our Apostle; there he tells us, that St. Paul had the care and charge not of a single House, but of Cities, and Countries, and Nations, yea of the whole world 
b— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orat. 5. contr. Jud. Tom. 6. pag. 364. : in another place that he was entrusted with the charge and Government of the whole world, which is the very same Commission and as full and clear as that great one (which is your chief and best) that you quote for St. Peter of his having the charge of the Church throughout the world. And he does not only make St. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal in dignity to St. Peter, but which is much more advances him above him, as I undertook to prove. 
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. D. Chrys. Orat. 9 Tom. 6. p. 97. Edit. Savil.  No one (says he speaking of St. Paul) is greater than he, no nor equal to him neither, etc.  
By this time I hope I have made it evident, that St. chrysostom will not do your business, that he is as much, nay more against you, than for you; and that you and I ought both of us to own our several Quotations for Rhetorical Flights, since in another 
d— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. D. Chrys. Tom. 8. p. 115. Edit. Savil.  place, if you and I be obstinate against any allowances for these passages; He spoils all we have both brought, when he tells us, That the Apostles were appointed by God to be Rulers, not [Temporal] Rulers, to receive each his Nation or City, but [Spiritual Rulers] entrusted in Common All together with the Care of [the Catholic Church throughout] the World. Therefore as all your Authorities from St. chrysostom for St. Peter's Supremacy are out of doors, 
pag. 15.  so that from St. Augustine comes too late having the same fault, as I could most easily show, but do not think I need to trouble myself with it, 
pag. 15.  or what the Pope's Legates said at Chalcedon, that being to make a Man his own witness. Especially since that great Council had so little value for what they said that they did (notwithstanding all the Pope's opposition) decree that Constantinople should enjoy equal Privileges with old Rome, and which is more did declare, 
e Etenìm antiquae Romae Throno QVOD VRBS ILLA IMPERARET jure Patres Privilegia tribuere, & EADEM CONSIDERATIONE moti 150 Dei amantissimi Episcopi S. Sancto novae Romae Throno AEQVALIA PRIVILEGIA addixerunt, etc. Concil. Chalced. cap. 28. Edit. Bever. Oxon.  that as well old as new Rome had such great Privileges bestowed upon them, purely because they were successively the Imperial Cities of the world.   

CHAP. XIV. The ridiculous Use of his Testimonies shown, and his foolish Aspersions upon the Church of England wiped off.  
THese Testimonies, say you, I content myself withal, as sufficient to show, 
pag. 15.  I have not gone rashly on without the advice of ancient Councillors, etc. It had been one further happiness for your Testimonies could they but have contented others as well, as you say they have done you; but how can that be expected, since they are (as I think I have fully shown) far from being satisfactory, because altogether insufficient for the design you gathered them for. In a word, you have neither proved that Christ left his Church in a Monarchical State, nor that St. Peter was made the sole Head and Dictator (as you word it) of the Catholic Church, nor lastly that the Bishops of Rome have, and do succeed him in such, a charge. Had you done these, you had done your cause service: to attempt and not to do it, is but to tell the World that it cannot be done; and what thanks you will have for that, I can very easily guests.  
All these Testimonies you sum up with St. Bernard, 
pag. 15.  but since he lived far too late to be admitted a Witness about these things, and you might as well have quoted those two Monsters of Men Gregory the Seventh and Innocent the Third for those purposes; I must set him aside.  
No Body ought to wonder that you are pleased with what you have thus scraped together, or that you think you have found something, since every one likes his own best; how little reason you had to flatter yourself, I think I have abundantly proved; but on you go, and now strongly imagine that the wise God and his Son— could leave (which is a little too bold with God, did leave, might surely serve you) none other at his Ascension, 
pag. 16.  etc. To be short, Sir, all this pleasant fancy is answered already, and all you have so carefully been about hitherto, proves but a Dream, a Delusion proceeding from your examining things by false Measures, and through a false Glass. But for all this, This must be the Church you called Catholic in your Creed, and till now, did not so well mind, etc. Alas, Sir, that a Man of your parts and years should not before this have minded what Catholic meant, and where that Church was, when there's scarce a person of any tolerable sense in England, that cannot with a great deal of readiness give a sufficient account of these things: but here is the Mystery, you have found that the Church of Rome is this very Church mentioned in our common Creed, and that when we profess we believe the Holy Catholic Church, we mean tho' we do not mind it, the Church of Rome.  
It is to no purpose to endeavour to reclaim such Men as you, since you seem to have abandoned the common principles by which Mankind govern themselves, for else how could you dream of a part being the whole; a Member, the Body. That the Church of Rome was from the beginning reckoned a particular Church, I think is as plain as that Rome is in Italy; I have proved it so fully above, that I almost loath such a ridiculous subject of discourse. 
pag. 17.  And your Authorities from Pacian and Cyril of Jerusalem are not one jot to your purpose, if you intent them to confirm that the Church of Rome is the Catholic Church; all that they say or prove being that Catholic is the Surname of true Christians, and that every one should inquire for, and unite with the Catholic Church into whatsoever place he comes. Now what is this to the Church of Rome, here is no mention of her here, not a syllable to determine that she is the Catholic Church, to unite with which these two Fathers are careful to advise.  
These things, you tell us, gave you some small encouragement to betake yourself to that Communion, that was both Christian and Catholic, etc. for which very reason you needed not have left the Communion of the Church of England, which is both Christian and Catholic.  
You ought to dislike Papist upon the same ground you dislike Protestant, and if Christian was too large for you, you needed not to leave the Church of England to be both Catholic and Christian: the Church of England denominates herself from no particular Persons good or bad, but is a True Church having lawful Pastors and a Catholic Faith.  
You next say you cannot imagine why Protestants should so decline the Title (of Catholic you mean) or suffer it with so much silence to be laid aside, unless it be, 
pag. 18.  because it imports a Faith spread throughout the World, which they very well know, would be utterly impossible to prove their Protestant Faith ever was, etc. Whether this passage is more ridiculous or false, I must own that upon the sudden I cannot tell; if you mean here as you ought the Church of England, (as you must to be consistent with yourself, having a good while ago cast off all the other Reformed Communions) nothing can be more false and ridiculous, since twice a Day we use it constantly in our Service, and surely you will not be so extravagantly unreasonable to say we do not Mean or Pray for ourselves, when we Pray for the Good Estate of the Catholic Church: So that our decling the Title, and suffering it with so much silence to he laid aside, must be put to the account of the grosser sort of Untruths.  
And we need not wonder that you would offer a false reason for a false thing; our Faith and the Faith of all the Reformed Churches having been already proved to be Catholic; and therefore your utterly impossible to prove it to be a Faith spread throughout the World, must be put up on the same account.  
Nor is there ever a Member of the Church of England of any Learning that I ever met with, or heard of, that either declined the Title of a [Reformed] Catholic, or was not ready only to profess, but also to prove that by being a Son of the Church of England he was a Member of a Catholic Church.  
As to what you add about the other Adjunct in our (ours I say of the Church of England, as well as yours at Rome) Creed, Apostolical, that you saw less reason for their claim to that, and to give them their due, they were more modest than much to insist upon it, etc. This Sentence is Brass every bit of it; for if you mean the Church of England here, I am astonished to think you should have so little Conscience, or so little Modesty to publish such a gross untruth in the face of a Church, that is so far from not insisting on the Title of Apostolical, that it denounces every person excommunicate that shall dare to say the Church 
g Whosoever shall hereafter affirm that the Church of England by Law established under the King's Majesty is not a TRUE and an APOSTOLICAL CHURCH, teaching and maintaining the DOCTRINE of the APOSTLES, let him be Excommunicated ●pso facto, and not restored, but only by the Archbishop, after his Repentance and public Revocation of this his WICKED ERROR. Can. 3. of the Synod in 1603.  of England is not an Apostolical Church, and calls such an affirmation an impious Error. But if you are resolved to carry things at this rate by brazening us down, 'tis to no purpose to contend with you; I must needs tell you that you might as well have published to the World that the Church of England hath no Creed in her public Service, nor believes a Trinity, nor hath any Bishops to preside ov●●, her, as this of her neither having nor pretending to Apostolical Faith and Succession. If you include also the rest of the Reformed Churches, you might easily know, that there is no thing they so much insist upon as the proving their Faith and Practices to be purely Apostolical, and therefore their Churches to be such; so that neither are they so modest as not to insist on their being Apostolical; as to the want of Succession among them that you object against 'em, and they do not deny; you yourself have furnished them with an answer to your Party from St. Ambrose's words, 
Non habent Petri haereditatem, qui Petri Fidem non habent. de Poenit. l. 1. c. 6.  that they enjoy not the inheritance [or Succession] of Peter, who have not the Faith of Peter.  
But here you have a mind to make the Church of England to be of your opinion, that is, that the foreign Reformed Churches have no true Ministers, because those that come out of France with the Title of Ministers, are not allowed to exercise their Ministry, before they receive the Orders of the Church of England, 
pag. 19  etc. It is true, they are not allowed to have a Cure of Souls here without the taking of Episcopal Orders, because it is expressly provided by Act of Parliament among us, that no one shall have such a Cure of Souls without Episcopal Orders, which Act you know was fully designed against our home Dissenters, who had opportunities of Episcopal Orders at home; not against them, who could not have them at home, with whom also we had nothing to do: But since no exception was made in the Act for them, the Church cannot dispense with an Act of Parliament in their favour: However that she allows theirs to be true tho' imperfect Churches, is hence plain, because her Members in their Travels communicate with those Churches; which thing she would never permit, had they no Ministry; it was the Practice of our Exiles in France during the long Rebellion; and Dr. R. Watson hath lately put forth the most Learned and most Religious Bishop Cousin (who was one of those noble exiled Confessors) his Defence of their communicating there with Geneva rather than Rome. So that your Argument fails you also here.   

CHAP. XV. More of his foul Aspersions on the Church of England exposed and confuted.  
YOU are next resolved to have a little fling at the Church of England about her Orders, which you say, 
pag. 19  they [of that Church] very much endeavour to prove, and fain would have confessed to be [received from] undoubted Bishop's of the Church of Rome: But here your heart failed you, and this is all you have to say against our Orders, which is nothing at all, since we are much abler, and as ready to prove the Legitimacy of our Orders, as you can those of your Pope himself: this is to bark, when you dare not come near to fasten, but if you have a mind to show your parts upon this subject, do but undertake and answer Archbishop Bramhals Confutation of the Nagshead Ordination, etc. and I'll do, as I hear you have, renounce my Orders. But Alas Sir I might as well put you upon carrying Westminster Abbey to Putney, as upon the Answering that Unanswerable Book.  
After the civil hint that the Church of England hath no true Orders, you are for making her amends, out of Reverence to her, by proving that she is a very Nonsensical foolish Church, which you attempt by two small (you have a kindness still for her, or else we might have had four, perhaps ten great) Observations.  
Your first is, That this reduces the Catholic Church into a narrow corner of the World— Toto divisos orbe Britannos, 
1 Obs. pag. 19  and as small a handful in that narrow Corner, etc.  
But pray Mr. Sclater how are we got hither? What is this, This, that reduces the Catholic Church, etc. Hath the Church of England denied the foreign Reformed Churches to be true Churches? Pray show us where? But suppose she had, this will not prove that the Catholic Church is reduced into this narrow Corner of the World, except you show, that she hath also denied the Church of Rome, and those Churches that submit to her to be true Churches. Nor this neither will not confirm your Observation, supposing the Church of England had rejected both the foreign Reformed, and Vnreformed Churches out of the Catholic Church; since you have surely heard of such a Church, as the Large Greek Church under the Four Patriarches, of the Russian Church, of the vast Aethiopian Church, of the Armenian, and of the Nestorians to omit others. Have you or can you prove that the Church of England hath excluded all these also from being Parts or Members of the Catholic Church? If you cannot, how doth she confine the Catholic Church here, or what contradiction is she guilty of, that abhors the thought of such a thing as you would fasten upon her.  
I cannot refrain showing a just resentment here, and therefore must tell you, that this your Observation is the most disingenuous, and the most foolish that I ever met with in my Life, and that I could never have suspected that any Man that had common sense, and pretended to Conscience, could have been guilty of so foul a thing, had I not met with it in this Book.  
And just such stuff as this is the Remark in this Observation, upon our Church, that she is pleased in order to avoid the Word Catholic, to call it an Universal Church, etc. Who would expect that a Man that hath been a Minister in our Church these Thirty Years, that hath used our Service perchance a Thousand times, should make such a strange Remark; hath our Church (as you say she hath) in order to avoid the Word Catholic, struck it out of that Translation of the Apostles Creed, which she appoints in her Liturgy? Hath she struck it out, and put in Universal in the Four places it used to occur in in the Creed of St. Athanasius? Is it gone out of the Nicene Creed she appoints? Pray get some Body to look those Three Creeds for you. A Man would believe you had not seen a Common-Prayer-Book these Thirty Years, or pass a much severer Sentence upon you. Doth not the Church of England command its Daily Use in the General Collect, which we daily put up for the good Estate of the Catholic Church? And further she is so far from altering or endeavouring to avoid, as you most falsely would observe she doth, the Word Catholic, 
See Bishop Sparrows Collection of Canons, etc.  that whereas in the Injunctions of King Edward the Sixth, 1547. the Form of bidding the Common-Prayers [before Sermon] begun thus; You shall Pray for the whole Congregation of Christ's Church, and, etc. in those of Queen Elizabeth, 1559, and in the 55th of the Canons Ecclesiastical of the Synod under King James the First, 1604. the Word Catholic is put in, and every Minister is commanded to begin his bidding of Prayer in these very words, Ye shall Pray for Christ's Holy Catholic Church, etc. Nay you yourself used the term Catholic (while you continued, and as a Member of our Church) on last Palm-Sunday at Putney Church, or else you broke our Church Laws: So that I cannot now avoid the ask you yourself what you now think of this your Remark, and whether you had not saved yourself a disparagement, had you had the good fortune not to have put it down.  
You have a Second Remark much akin to the First, in which you profess you can no more tell [how she can be the Catholic Church] than she is able to find herself in the innumerable huddle of ten times Ten more Dissenters, Dissemblers, and Indifferents, 
pag. 19  than her number is able to make, etc. How you come to know the number of those that hold Communion with the Church of England to be so very small, is matter of wonder to me; but if I should say that your Calculation is most intolerably false, I am sure you cannot disprove me, since I am certain I have truth and the common Judgement of all unprejudiced Men on my side, that Calculating the numbers of the several Parishes through England, there are one with another Ten (I may I believe safely say Twenty) times more that hold Communion with the Church of England than dissent from it: As for Dissemblers and Indifferents how you come to know men's Hearts so well is owing more to your new than old Religion, which would have taught you more Prudence about such things.  
After you have come off so wretchedly with your first Observation, no Body will expect wonders from your second, which is, 
2 Obs. pag. 20.  That you should have had the better Opinion of this handful (as you ridiculously call the Church of England) if their Faith had been conformable to the Faith of those Bishops from whom their Bishops had their Mission, etc.  
That our Bishops have their Mission from Rome, is what we utterly deny, that they were, some of 'em, in the beginning of the most necessary Reformation ordained by those that held with the Church of Rome in her corrupt Faith and Practices is what we do not deny. This however we say cannot prejudice our Reformation, since if there were Errors fit to be thrown out of our Church, you yourself (I am sure your Learned Men) will grant that no Ordination can prejudice or hinder such a Rejection of Errors. That there were such Errors crept in which ought to be cast out, and were at our Reformation, is what our Churchmen a Hundred times over have invincibly proved.  
As to the Rule you bring from St. Ambrose that they enjoy not the Inheritance of Peter, 
pag. 20.  who receive not the Faith of Peter, we are very ready to join issue with you, or any of your Church upon it, and I question not before you and I part on this subject, to ruin the Papal and Roman Succession by your own Rule, to wit, by proving that they have receded from the Faith of Peter and the whole Primitive Church.  
We readily own that a true and Apostolical Mission, 
pag. 20.  Commission and Ordination are considerable particulars, and are as ready any time to assert that our Church hath them, and to prove it against you at any time, if you have a mind to undertake this point against her.   

CHAP. XVI. The Doctrine of the Church of England concerning the Eucharist put down. Mr. Scl. is Reasons from Scripture for Transubstantiation answered.  
HAving traced you hitherto, and found all your Attempts vain, and your Reasons to no purpose, which you took so much pains to scrape together, to have proved that our Saviour Christ left his Catholic Church in a Monarchical State under a Particular Vicegerent, and that that Vicegerent was the Bishop of Rome, and his Church the Catholic Church. And having shown all your Attacks against, and Remarks upon the Church of England to be very vain, extremely abusive, and extravagantly ridiculous; I have now only your last, your great Reason to examine, wherein you make an effort to prove, that her Faith concerning the Eucharist is contrary to that of the Catholic Church.  
If you could have proved this, I must confess your forsaking our Communion would have been much more reasonable: and therefore I question not, but that as you have mustered up abundance of Authorities, so you have done all you can to make them speak and declare against us: but to how little purpose you have made all this noise and ado about this point also is what I shall quickly see.  
Before I enter on your particular proofs, I have a fresh complaint to make, that you have not used herein that Ingenuity, that would have become a Scholar; one might very rationally have expected that as your Intentions were to prove against the Church of England, that her Faith was as to the Eucharist false and corrupt, so you would have set down what that her Faith is. This would have looked like fair and ingenuous dealing, first to have put down her Faith about the Eucharist, and then to have shown, how contrary it was to Scripture, and to the unanimous Consent of Antiquity. If you reply to this my Complaint, that her Faith is so well known that you needed not put it down together, but that you have occasionally done it up and down these Authorities; I must tell you that by the account you give of it occasionally, one would be persuaded that it is far from being so well known: I am sure that slender account, or rather hints that you so often intersperse about it, are utterly false and very foolish: so that if any one should take an account of our Church's Faith from you, and whom can they better take it from than one that was so lately a Minister among us, they must believe that we hold the Eucharist to be mere figures, mere representations, and bare signs; for that is the most you allow us to make of it that I can meet with in your Book; all which how far it is from Truth I shall quickly show you.  
Well then, since you had not the Ingenuity to put down an Account of the Church of England's Faith about the Eucharist, I must, that so I may the better examine the Proofs you bring, and any one may compare the Authorities you quote, and our Faith together, and thereby more impartially judge, and more readily discover, whether Antiquity fairly laid down speak for, or against us.  
Concerning this Sacrament the Church of England in her 28th Article of Religion delivers her Opinion thus, The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death. Insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with Faith receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ, and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ. After which having declared herself against Transubstantiation as repugnant to plain Scripture, and to the nature of a Sacrament, and [against any Corporal Presence of Christ's Natural Flesh and Blood in the Declaration about kneeling at the end of our Communion-Service in our Liturgy,] she goes on in this Article to declare that The Body of Christ is given, taken and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner: and that the Mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith; which last expressions exclude the wicked from partaking of Christ's Body, and allow them barely the Sign, or outward part of the Eucharist.  
In the Public Catechism in the Liturgy, having taught her Catechumen that there are two things in each of the Sacraments, the outward Sign, and the inward spiritual Grace, she teaches them to answer that the outward part of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is Bread and Wine, and that the inward part or thing signified, is the Body and Blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the Faithful in the Lord's Supper.  
These passages are sufficient to show that our Church holds a real, but not carnal, a Spiritual and Heavenly but not Corporal, Participation of Christ's Body and Blood, which tho' locally and naturally in Heaven, is yet after a Mystical and Supernatural way communicated to the Faithful not by the mouth of the Body, but by that of Faith.  
Thus much for her Sentiment concerning this Sacrament, 
pag. 20.  now I must try your Reasons against it. You tell us that you had been a long time greatly concerned for the Interpretation of but five small words of our Saviour, etc. The result of your concern I suppose was that those five words (I doubt we shall find more than five, or double five concerned in this business) are to be taken in a literal sense; and that which you offer for proof of it is this. First, Because this Sacrament was his last Will and Testament, which ought not to be worded obscurely or doubtfully to prevent quarrels and divisions. Secondly, Because this Will is repeated by so many of his Apostles without the least variation or caution against the literal sense. Thirdly, Because it was an Oath or Sacrament, a Testament, a Precept, an Article of Faith, or a Position to continue in the Church for ever, the true Interpretation whereof, if Catholic Tradition have not given us, it is likely it will never be agreed on.  
These are the strength of what you say, to the first of which I answer that this Will was neither worded obscurely, or of doubtful interpretation; that there are Divisions about them is not owing to the words, but to the perverse humours of some Men, whose quarrels no plainness is able to prevent. To your second I say, that it is utterly false that our Saviour's Will, or the Institution of this Sacrament was repeated by so many of his Apostles (allowing Mark and Luke the name of Apostles, tho' you know it is very unusual) without the least variation: to convince you of which, do but look upon this Parallel Account that I here send you out of them, and then consider what reason you had, or with what face you could affirm as you do.  
St. Matth. c. 26.26, etc. 
— And said, take eat, This is my Body,— drink you all of this, for This is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins.  St. Luke 22.19, etc. 


— saying, This is my Body, which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me:  
— saying, This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood, which is shed for you.    St. Mark 14.22, etc. 
— And said, take eat, This is my Body,— and they all drank of it, and he said unto them, This is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many.  St. Paul, 1 Cor. 11.23, etc. 


— and said, take, eat, This is my Body, which is broken for you, this do in remembrance of me.  
— saying, This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood, This do ye, as oft as you drink it in remembrance of me.     
For the other part of your second Argument, that the Apostles put down no caution against the literal sense, the reason is evident enough, because there was no need of it, since the Words neither then, nor now can be taken in a literal sense, as I shall quickly show you; and since nothing was more common to the Jewish Mode of speaking, than to give the name of the thing itself to that which is the sign of it: As is most plain from the Paschal Lamb its being so 
x Deuteron. 16.2, 5, 6. Matth. 26.17. Luke 22.7, 11.  often in both Testaments called the Passover, whereof all know it was but the sign; from 
y Gen. 17.13.  Circumcision its being called the Covenant, when it was but the sign of it: nay nothing is more common among us, than to say such an one lives at the Lion, the Bear, the Ship, the Bible, which yet any one, that talks with us, knows that we mean bearely the signs of them, without any Caution given, or requisite against taking us in a literal sense.  
3. Your third Argument I do not well understand, since an Oath, a Precept, an Article of Faith, and a Position are very odd terms to express this Sacrament by: and it is the first time I ever heard it called, or knew it to be an Article of Faith, having ever before thought it to be a divine Rite or Practice that was by Christ's Command to continue ever in the Church: but to pass over such trifles; We do affirm, that Catholic Tradition hath given us the true Interpretation of these words, which is, that they are to be taken in a Figurative sense, and that by Body here is meant 
a— hoc est Corpus meum dicendo, id est Figura Corporis mei. Tertull. c. Marc. l. 4. c. 40.  Figura, as Tertullian, Signum, as St. 
b Non dubitavit dicere, Hoc est Corpus meum, cum Signum daret Corporis sui. D. August. contr. Adamant. c. 12. Edit. Basil. 1569.  Augustine, and many more acquaint us, as we shall by and by prove. In the mean time I must prove that these words, This is my Body, cannot be taken in a literal sense; which our Enemies themselves of your Party will grant me, if I prove that the THIS mentioned here is Bread.  
That it was is thus cleared, 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 broke 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.  
This Induction is so fair and so clear, that I am sure you cannot evade it: but farther,  
If by the This here is not meant the Bread, pray let us know what it was then exclusive to Bread, and which is more; 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 matter and Argument is so demonstrative, that I cannot but stand amazed that men who pretend to Reason can refuse it; I could urge this Argument much farther, but will content myself with these few Remarks. First, That tho' our Saviour did not say plainly, This Bread is my Body, yet he said according to St. Luke and St. Paul, 
Luke 22.20. 1 Cor. 11.25.  This CUP is the New Testament in my Blood; which passage doth 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, 
●atth. 26.28. ●ark 14. ●4.  in St. Matthew and St. Mark. Secondly, That our Saviour himself calls the Wine after he had consecrated it, the Fruit of the Vine, Matth. 26.29. and St. Paul does not less than three times call the Bread after Consecration 
c 1 Cor. 11.26, 27, 28.  Bread; which places are evidence enough, that our Saviour neither destroyed the Substances of the Elements, nor that St. Paul, or any of the Faithful ever believed that he had.  
Places I could bring enough out of the Fathers to confirm that by This they understood this Bread, but must not to avoid being tedious, one however out of your Fathers I cannot omit, which as it proves what I say, so it does prove you to be not only a very excellent Translator, but a very honest sincere Man. It is from your Rupertus Abbas Tuitiensis (who lived in the twelfth Century) whose words are these as you cite them, Hoc [inquit] id est hic Panis est Corpus meum, sive Caro mea, which words you thus translate, 
pag. 81.  This (saith he) is that, This is my Body, this is my Flesh. A Translation so abominably false, and so intolerably ridiculous, that when I was at School, I would have disdained to have been guilty of such pitiful stuff: look at it again Mr. Sclater, fetch down your Dictionary, and try again at it, and see whether you that translate but at this rate, be fit to set up for a Book-writer, and a Manager of Controversies, and a Balancer of the Merits of the two Churches. I am ashamed that any Man our Church should either have so little brains or so little honesty: but to let your Translation alone, Rupertus does confirm my reason for the determining This to mean This Bread, when he says, This [saith our Saviour] that is, This Bread is my Body or my Flesh.   

CHAP. XVII. His false Slander of our Church, and his foolish Observation about Judas shown.  
I Must next consider what you have of Argument in your Preface, where you would have us believe that the sixth Chapter of St. John's Gospel is to be taken in a literal sense; but since you were not at leisure to offer any Proof for it, I need spend no time to answer: one thing I must examine there, and that is the danger you said you must live and die in, under the denial, or but doubting of so great a Truth, 
Pref.  in Communion with those that said, How can this Man give us his Flesh to eat? And doth our Church say so, that our Saviour cannot give us his Flesh to eat? How is it then, that in the Prayer [We do not presume, etc. she order her Communicants to pray to our Gracious Lord to grant to them, so to eat the Flesh of his dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his Blood, that their sinful Bodies may be made clean by his Body, and their Souls washed through his most precious Blood, etc. That in the Prayer of Consecration the same Petition is put up, to omit any more places?  
This, Sir, is very provoking, and highly unjust, that a Man, who hath perchance a hundred times used these very Prayers, who did last Palm-Sunday use them, read them when he administered the Eucharist to the Parishioners of Putney, should in the face of the Sun, in our own Nation, in our own Language publish so gross and Untruth, and affix so false a Scandal upon our Church as to say, she affirms our Saviour cannot give us his Flesh to eat. If these and such be the Fruits of your Conversion, sit anima mea cum Philosophis rather than with such Christians.  
Do not think to bring off yourself with saying that our Church denies that any one can eat the Flesh of Christ in that sense which those people meant it that spoke these words: that will not do your business, since that Church whereof you now are, for all its belief of Transubstantiation, abhors the Capernaitical sense of these words as much as we, and are ready to say with us that our Saviour cannot, and does not give us his Flesh to eat in that carnal, sensual, abominable manner that these Capernaites talked of.  
Your next Observation in your Preface that Judas was one of the Disciples that went back and walked no more with our Saviour, is I must confess a rarity, which hath escaped, I believe, all our Commentatours: but will your pretty (and spiteful) Observation hold? 
Matth. 26.23, 25.  how is it then that we meet with Judas in our Saviour's dish the very night before he was Crucified? I know no other fetch that you can have to save your ingenious Observation besides that of a Gentleman, who in a dispute holding that Abraham was justified by Faith, and being pressed by the Opponent with that of St. James that Abraham was justified by Works, saved his bacon by saying that there were perhaps two abraham's: and so you may gravely say, that there were two Judas Iscariots.   

CHAP. XVIII. His Authorities from Galatinus, and the Spurious Liturgies for Transubstantiation rejected, and the reason of it. His railing and Absurdities about these and other Spurious Pieces examined and exposed.  
NOW we are come to your main Battle, where, like as the Turks are said to have had a sort of Soldiers called, as I remember, Asaphi, whom they set in the front of their Battle to dull and evigorate their enemies by their cutting down of these dull Souls, so you have placed Galatinus and his Rabbins in your front to hinder your Adversaries falling with too much stomach upon your main Body. You saw it necessary however in your Preface to bespeak your Reader in favour of Galatinus, 
Preface  that he was always accounted a very learned Man. You had done well to have quoted some people on your side here, because your bare word will not pass with me, nor with any one else, that will take the pains to read our two papers; I am sure he shown neither Learning nor Honesty in those passages you quote from him, 
See Dr. Cave's Chartophylax in Galatino. p. 336.  since he stole them from Porchetus Salvaticus without owning in the least whence he had them: and for the Passages and Rabbins themselves, it is the Opinion of Learned Men, that there were neither such Rabbins, nor such Works of theirs as to these things, but that they are the Pious Frauds of Porchetus and others: So that I need not trouble myself, but set aside this forged stuff; your calling them Prophetic, 
pag. 21.  and abusing the place of St. John of the Spirits blowing where it listeth, etc. would in any other sort of People have been called Enthusiasm, and downright Fanaticism.  
And truly you put in as fair for a touch of the latter as your veriest Enemy could desire, when instead of Argument you vent your Anger, and instead of reasoning fall into downright railing against the Impious Ambition, and unlimited appetite of rule of the Private Spirit, which would fain soar above the Heavens, and make itself Lord even of the Writings of God also. Her private Glosses, imperious Sentiments, and contradictory Interpretations, like the Victorious Rabble of the Fishermen of Naples, riding in Triumph, and trampling under their feet Ecclesiastical Traditions, Decrees, and Constitutions, Ancient Fathers, Ancient Liturgies, the whole Church of Christ, etc.  
But pray, Sir, if your Catholic fit be over, who is it that hath or own this Private Spirit you have been venting so much Spleen against? If you designed it for a Character of the Church of England, which I believe you did; I am obliged to tell you that it is a most impudent, and a most false Slander. Do but look into that Canon of our Church, which you yourself quoted, 
See the Canon itself, and the Remarks above. p. 2.  and those little Remarks I made upon it, do but peruse again, what I said above, as to our Church tying up, and obliging all her Members by her Articles without leaving any of those things to a Private Spirit: and then look at what your bitter Pen hath here vented; if it do not make you eat up these Choleric Nonsensical Words, and recant this Scandal upon an Apostolical Catholic Church, I must then tell you that you left common Honesty, and the Church of England at the same time.  
But you go in your virulent strain, and tell the world that it is not likely; those who upon their own bare Authority, and private Sentiments reject what Authors they please— should with much kindness listen to the Ancient Liturgies of Saint Peter, Saint James the Elder, Saint James the Younger, and Saint Matthew, or value the Testimonies of Saint Dionysius Saint Paul's Scholar, Saint Martialis [you should have added, Saint Dionysius his companion into France,] Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, Andreas, etc. they must suffer too. The Servant is not better than his Master, etc. who would not guests by this stinging farewell, that the Learned Men of the Church of England had served our Saviour as bad as they have done these Liturgies, Dennises, Marshals, Andreases, etc. and that they had denied him as well as them. I must tell you, Mr. Sclater, that your Book is one of the most disingenuous, that I ever met with, and that this passage deserves much severer Language than I shall bestow upon it: but your Conclusion of it is just as true, (and not one jot more) as that of our rejecting what Authors we please upon our own bare Authority and private Sentiments: which I shall now examine, and go through the Authors, and Liturgies you put down.  
For the Liturgies than first you tell us you do not know why these Ancient Liturgies should be rejected, etc. to which I can answer you as briefly, that I do believe you that you do not; but if you would take a little Heretical advice, I could direct you to those who might inform your Ignorance herein; but I believe you are too angry at me before this time to take my advice. Against the Liturgies I have these things to urge first, An Universal Silence concerning them for many Ages of the Church, that of Saint James being the first heard of, and that not till after the Fifth General Council, being first mentioned in the Council held in Trullo, which was under Justinian Rhinotmetus in the Sixth Century. Eusebius, than whom no one was more accurate and careful to find out the Writings of those famous Persons whom he speaks of in his History, among all the Catalogues he reckons up of the particular Apostles and First Fathers, does not make the least mention of any of these Liturgies. All Saint Jerome's care in his time could not furnish us with one Syllable about such Liturgies; which reasons together with those taken from the Liturgies themselves have satisfied all reasonable Men that there were no such genuine things. No Body now (I mean to Learned Man) believes Saint Peter's Liturgy, the demonstrative Arguments against which are many, it makes mention of Saint Cyprian and Cornelius the Bishop of Rome, it prays for the Patriarch, and the very Religious Emperors. I could furnish you with more intrinsic Arguments against it and against the rest which labour under the same or worse Absurdities out of your own (to omit our) Authors; the 
l Nouvelle Bibliotheque des Auteurs etc. des Liturgies Faussement Attribué es aux Apôtres. p. 21, 22, 23, 24. A. Par●s. 1686.  present Learned and Judicious Sorbonist Du Pin hath gathered enough against it and the rest to prove them all suppositious: if you have a mind to show any parts in this sort of Learning, I do not question, but the worthy Doctor, or some one here in England for him, will give all due satisfaction in the point, but alas, Sir, you seem to me; who judge of you by your Book, to be far from able to meddle in such matters. One Liturgy of yours he hath not encountered, that of Saint James the Elder, not because he had nothing to object against it, but because there was no such Liturgy to be objected against: but you may pass for a Discoverer, and a bringer to light of Ancient Authors, and though you be denied a place with Baluzius and such, yet no Body can deny you one with honest Annius Viterbiensis.  
After all in defence of yourself, some Body wiser than some Body having I suppose put it into your head, that these same Liturgies were not altogether unquestionable, you gravely tell us in your Preface that it was not your business to assert the Authors of them, etc. To which I answer, 
Preface.  that it is very well for you that it was not, since I am sure you are a very unfit Man for any such thing; so that now you yourself are content that these Liturgy-Authors should suffer as well as their Master. You say next, 
pag. 28. Preface.  that it is enough for your purpose, if they be allowed of that Antiquity, that may give them some competent interest in Tradition; to be short with you, they are not allowed any Authority, since not only ours, but your own Authors, Du Pin for example, have proved them invinciblement, 
pag. 22.  (as he words it) supposititious and Novel, either of which is enough to ruin them, and hinder their having their place in Tradition.  
These things are sufficient to show that I need not say one word to your Authorities for Transubstantiation out of these forged Liturgies: I will only remark that you begin very unluckily with them, 
pag. 28.  and for your first, Blessed God, by whom we are vouchsafed to change the immaculate Body of Christ, and his precious Blood, etc. I would fain know into what the Priests were vouchsafed to change the Immaculate Body of Christ, and his Blood. This is Transubstantiation with a vengeance. I thought your business had been to prove, that the Bread is changed into the Body, the Wine into the very Blood of Christ, but here for a leading Card, the Body and Blood of Christ are changed into Bread and Wine, or something else. Well for a Man that keeps to his Text I know no Body like you, and for supererogating no Body can come near you. I question not but if you had a mind, you could very easily prove, that the Transubstantiation is to be from Body to Bread, not from Bread into Body; but this it is to be a Read Man, when a Man can with a wet Finger prove either way; and I verily believe you can as easily do the one as the other, and bring as many Fathers for the one as for the other: But farewell Liturgies, I must now inquire about Saint Dionysius, against whom you say we have such pitiful Objections. 
pag. 29.   
Had you offered any reason for your calling them pitiful Objections, it would have looked something like a Scholar, but he that catcheth you at that, may have you for nothing: So that since you will not let me answer you, I must say what I can for the Objections against Saint Dennis his being a Writer.  
Eusebius is as much a Witness for us here, as against the Liturgies, though he speaks of Saint Dennis the Areopagite, yet he gives not any hint of any Writings of his, a thing he is always so careful about, when he speaks of any of those venerable Ancients. Saint Hierome is as silent as to any Writings of his: But that which is more than these two Negative Arguments, the first Men that produced these supposititious Writings of Saint Dionysius were Heretics, and the first time was in the sixth Century at a Conference held in the Emperor Justinian's Palace betwixt the Catholics and the Severian Heretics who produced them but as dubious or probable at most (sicut suspicamini, 
Illa en●m Testimonia quae vos dicitis Dionysii Areopagitas te, unde potestis ostendire vera esse, sicut suspicamini: si enim ejus erant, non potuissent latere Beatum Cyrillum quando & Beatus Athanasius, si pro certo scisset ejus fuisse, ante omnia in Nicaeno concilio testimo●ia protulisset adversus Arii-Blasphemias Collatio CP. in T. 4. Conciliar. p. 176. Edit. Cossart.  as the Catholics told them) but were rejected by the Catholic Bishops upon the very same reasons I have urged against them: as I urged that Eusebius would have known of them, had there been any such Writings, so They urge that St. Athanasius would have made use of them at Nice against Arius; as I urged that St. Hierom would have mentioned them, so they urge that St. Cyril [of Alexandria] would have known of them. But besides these sufficient reasons, the Books themselves are the greatest Evidence of all, they being writ in a style quite different from the Apostolical Times, and treating of matters after such a different manner, and of things unknown to those times: if you desire to see these things proved and instanced in, do but look into one of your own Writers the Learned Sorbonist I have mentioned above; 
Du Pin's N. Bibliotheque, p. 89, 90, 91, etc.  and then tell me, how you could call these Arguments pitiful Objections, which are perfect Demonstrations of these Writings of St. Dionysius their being forged, so that we must set St. Denys aside, and call in his Companion St. Martial.  
But before we try him, I would fain know what you mentioned him for, you make no use of him or his Epistles in your Book: this is such a strange piece of hardiness of you, that I cannot but wonder at it; Methinks you had business enough on your hands to prove the Genuineness of your other Authors and Liturgies, and needed not to have brought in him by head and shoulders hither, whom I will soon dispatch; now he is here, and tell you that there was no such Man in those Times, and therefore no Epistles of his. 
n Nouvelle Bibliotheque, etc. p. 496.  Du Pin hath put the true Marshal [if there ever were really such a Person] in the third Century, but for the Epistles (which 
o In Martiali Lemovicensi ap. Lib. de scriptor. E.  Bellarmine had rejected at spurious long ago) he says, that no body doubts their being supposititious, which is a great mistake in this Learned Man, since you, Mr. Sclater, believe the contrary concerning them. And truly I know not how to bring the honest Doctor off, unless his meaning was, that no body that had any learning or sense did, as I verily believe he meant, so that you may, if you will, tell him, as the late Jerusalem Synod have in effect the famous Monsieur Claude, that they are not ignorant and unlearned.  
Having dispatched St. Martial, St. Clemens Romanus is next put up, whose genuine famous Epistle to the Corinthians we do with all Antiquity admit and admire; the doubtful fragment of the second Epistle with 
l Hist. Eccles. l. 3. c. 38. Edit. Vales.  Eusebius and Antiquity we cannot admit to the same honour the other enjoys, however we'll not quarrel about it, since I see nothing out of it in Controversy betwixt us: the Constitutions are the things in question among us, against the genuineness of which (tho' you like yourself offer not a syllable of Argument here for them) I have this to say, that 
m Hist. Eccles. l. 3. c. 38.  Eusebius rejects them in express terms as spurious, if they be the same work that in his time went under the name of Doctrina Apostolorum, as the Opinion of some is; but tho' these are not the same book, yet 
‖ Hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. 38.  Eusebius doth ex Consequenti condemn them, when he admits of nothing either as genuine or probable besides the two Epistles. We have the same silence in St. Hierom as to these Constitutions, and therefore an Argument from him against them; 
Photii Biblioth. num. 1.12.  but without either of them, I think it is enough to say they are infected with Arianism, to omit other faults, as Photius long since charged upon them, and therefore cannot be the genuine work of Clemens Romanus.  
S. Ignatius his seven genuine Epistles we receive with all readiness, so that he does not suffer among us as well as his Master. But for your next Author Andreas, I must confess I am mightily at a loss, I can hear no news of such an Author any where, I have examined Eusebius and St. Hierom, our Excellent Dr. Cave, your Bellarmine, and your learned Sorbonist Du Pin, and cannot hear one word of such an Author. However you quote him, and in your Margin over against the Passage out of him I find Lib. de Passione D. by which I suppose you mean a book of St. Andrews concerning the Passion of our Lord. 
P. 30.  I must now therefore question with you, whether there be really such a book as you quote? I am sorry I am forced to tell you hereupon, that you have discovered an intolerable and wretched Ignorance, and have exposed it more to the World your own self, than any enemy could have done it for you. I must tell you that you have most sillily imposed upon yourself, and that I wonder that your new Superiors (who, I am assured, perused and examined your book) should suffer the cheat upon you, and licence you to put it upon the World. The Book you quote is the Passion of St. Andrew himself, of which I hope I need not any Arguments to prove that himself was not the Author. 
* Apud Sarium de vitis SS. ad 30 Novem. p. 619. Edit. Colon. 1575.  The book is said to have been writ by the Presbyters of Achaia present at his Martyrdom. But that it is a spurious book I need not urge our own Men 
a Charto Phylo. Eccl. p. 5.  Dr. Cave, etc. only, but your own Duke Pin, who (upon reasons able to destroy the credit of it wholly) says that 
b Nouvelle Bibliotheque des Auteurs ecclesiastics, p. 48.  at least it ought to be considered as a doubtful writing, which according to St. Hierom, one cannot make use of to prove any Article of Faith; as you have made Transubstantiation to be. I have been the more particular about these Liturgies and Authors to let you see how impertinent, and how unjust your railing at our Church about these Books was, and to expose your gross ignorance to your new Superiors, that they also may see (which perhaps they did not know before) how unfit a man you were to meddle with this sort of learning, and how wretchedly you have come off.   

CHAP. XIX. The Authorities from Ignatius, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus for Transubstantiation answered.  
I come now to examine, as they come to hand, your several Authorities for Transubstantiation: the Liturgies as spurious are already dispatched. The first of your Authorities from Ignatius, (which you needed not, if you really did, go to Theodoret for, since it is now common in Ignatius himself from the Florentine Copy) that the Heretics [that denied Christ had a true Body] abstained from the Eucharist, because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, 
P. 30.  etc. does you no service, because We of the Church of England who do not believe any Transubstantiation, say with St. Ignatius, that the Sacrament is the Body and Blood of Christ. However as we say that it is figuratively such, so there is nothing here to determine that St. Ignatius meant otherwise than we do, since his Argument is as strong (not to say stronger) in a figurative sense against the Heretics; it invincibly proving (as 
a Contr. Marc. l. 4. c. 40.  Tertullian does upon the very same account) that our Saviour had a true Body, since none but such could have a figurative Body, or Figure: a Figure of a Figure or Phantom being perfect nonsense: so that St. Ignatius is no help to prove a Transubstantiation, and your reasoning upon it ridiculous, since if the Heretics had owned the Eucharist with Calvin or Zuinglius to have been the sign or Figure of Christ's Body, 
P. 30.  they had quite ruined their own doctrine, and had allowed Christ to have had a true Body, since none but such could have a Sign or Figure: but some Men are so fond of saying something, that so it be but said, they matter not, whether it be for, or against themselves, which this your reasoning really is. Your next Authority from St. Denys, as spurious is to no purpose; 
P. 30.  nor your next upon the same account from your Andreas, who, methinks as an Apostle, should have had the place of St. Denys, and both of them before St. Ignatius; but you I suppose either found them in this order, or thought Ignatius fittest to be put first, because he looked a little more to your purpose than either of them: Tho' as to the latter of them, your Andreas, had you but shown any ingenuity in what you cite from him, he would have proved full as little to your purpose, but you cunningly slip over in this short passage that which would have told you that the Sacrifice here spoken of could be no other than a figurative and representative Sacrifice, since it is said to be offered in altari crucis, upon the Altar of the Cross; which you wisely tho' not over honestly leave out to make your Author speak something towards the purpose we meet him here for. Your Note upon this Passage that truly eaten excludes eating in sign only or Spirit does as much discover your Ignorance of the Sense of the Genuine Fathers, as your Phrase in sign only does your malice, who cannot but know that the Church you have forsaken never said so: to say that he which eats both in Sign and Spirit, does not eat truly, is to give the lie to a whole Tract of S. 
(b) Tractatus 26 in Joann.  Augustine's, where among twenty other Confutations you may find that such Persons as Moses, Aaron and Phineas, who pleased God, visibilem cibum spiritaliter intellexerunt, spiritaliter esurierunt, spiritaliter gustaverunt ut spiritaliter satiarentur; did spiritually understand the visible Food [the Manna,] did spiritually hunger after and taste of it, that they might be spiritually filled and satisfied: and that the true eating the Bread of Life so as not to die does belong 
(c) Pertinent ad virtusem Sacramenti, non ad visibile Sacramentum. Qui manducat intus non foris, qui manducat in cord, non qui premit dente. August. Tract. 26. in Joan,  to the virtue of the Sacrament, and not to the visible Sacrament: and that the true receiver is he who eateth inwardly, not outwardly, who eateth with the heart, and not he who presseth it with his teeth.  
Justin Martyr you next cite, saying, 
P. 31.  'Tis not common Bread or common Drink we take, how then? Why as the Word of God, Jesus Christ our Saviour, was made Flesh, so we are taught that our Nourishment by Prayer, proceeding from him, being made the Eucharist, to be the Flesh and Blood of the same incarnate Jesus, etc. This Translation I accuse not only of falsehood, and of perverting the plain sense of St. Justin, but of direct Nonsense: for first whereas St. Justin says, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. S. Just. M. Apol. 2. p. 98. Edit. Morel. Paris. 1636.  We do not receive these things [the consecrated Bread and the consecrated Wine mingled with Water] A S common Bread or common Drink, you make him say that ‛ iis not common Bread, or common Drink we take: which is directly contrary to the true sense of his Words, which are so far from denying, that they evidently suppose and prove them to be still Bread and Wine after Consecration, or else they could not be received in a different manner from that at common Meals. Again, whereas our Author goes on but as by the Word of God, Jesus Christ our Saviour being incarnate, had both Flesh and Blood for our Salvation, you nonsensically translate him, as the Word of God, Jesus Christ our Saviour, was made Flesh, where you not only lame his sense and obscure it, but quite pervert it, you making the Word of God to be our Saviour himself, the second Person in the Trinity, whereas Justin means by it the Power of the Holy Ghost, which over-shadowed the Blessed Virgin. I will give you but another touch of your nonsense, and that is when you translate, so we are taught that our nourishment by prayer— to be the flesh, instead of, is the flesh I hate so mean an employment as to be thus taken up in ripping up your pitiful dealing, or else I could expose you further from this very passage out of Justin; but I think this enough to let you and your new Superiors see what wretched stuff we are like to be put off with, and how vastly unfit you are to meddle about such things.  
To leave then this miserable murdering of Justin, I come now to see what you would have thence; suppose you had known, which you did not, what the Author meant here. You argue our Saviour was made Flesh, therefore the Eucharist is Flesh, or Justin could not say they were so taught. I answer, That as our Saviour was not Transubstantiated when he took our flesh upon him, so no more need was there that the Bread should be transubstantiated to become his Sacramental Body and Blood. Nay, St. Justin directly supposes the contrary when he makes the Eucharist to be Bread, tho' not received then as common Bread, and proves it too, when he says 
* Which words you suppress in your translation. Was you afraid we should conclude from them that Just. Mart. did not think the Accidents did subsist in the Eucharist without the Substance? But let that pass.  that by this consecrated nourishment [the Body and Blood of Christ] our Bodies, our Flesh and Blood are nourished, which I am sure your learned men will grant to be impious to say of the natural very Body and Blood of Christ, and impossible if no substance but that be there. So that it is evident that by the Body and Blood of Christ in this passage must be meant Christ his Symbolical Body and Blood, or the Sign or Figure of his Natural Body and Blood, the substance as well as accidents of the Elements remaining.  
As to the reason you add, that Justin should have told the Emperor (if he meant no more by it) that by the Flesh and Blood of Christ, he intended only the Signs of them, since it was, he knew, objected to the Christians his Brethren, that in the Mysteries of their Religion they did eat man's flesh: I do retort it upon you, and challenge you to show, where they ever pleaded guilty, or where they ever made any Apology for, or distinction about their eating our Saviour's Natural Flesh and Blood, tho' they abstained from the Blood of every thing else, as any one that is but little conversant in the first Antiquity knows they constantly pleaded against the so often objected dapes Thyesteas; upon this point 
b Nihil rationabilius, ut quia nos jam similitudinem mortis ejus in Baptismo accepimus, similitudinem quoque carnis ejus sumamus, & similitudine pretiosi sanguinis potemur: ita ut, & veritas non desit in Sacramento, & ridiculum nullum fit Paganis, quod cruorem occisi hominis bibamus. Aug. apud Grat. de Consecr. Dist. 2. Sect. utrum. p. 1958. Edit. Taur.  St. Austin, as quoted by Gratian, is so express both against your reason and your opinion, that I cannot omit it here, he says, Nothing is more reasonable than that as we have received the similitude of his, to wit Christ's death in Baptism, so we should also receive the likeness of his Flesh, and drink the likeness of his Precious Blood; that so neither may Truth be wanting in the Sacrament, nor Pagans have an occasion of ridiculing us for drinking the Blood of one that was slain. Which it seems Pagan's would then have done; had the Christians then talked of drinking literally Christ's Natural Blood: and the Jews and Mahometans do now do, since some Christians took up an Opinion, and talked of doing it in a literal sense, witness that severe Observation and Reflection of Averro upon them sufficiently known.  
Your first place from St. Irenaeus is not exactly translated, eum panem in quo gratiae actae sint, etc. is not barely that Bread in the Eucharist is the Body of Christ; but that that Bread, which hath been consecrated is the Body of his Lord. This passage is so far from being for, that it is directly against you; that Bread which hath been consecrated is demonstration that he looked upon it, as to the substance to be Bread still; here you were forced to show us a little of your Legerdemain, or else I am sure this Chapter of Irenaeus had been secure enough from your quoting it, there being that in the middle of this passage (which you have slily left out) which is perfect demonstration against Transubstantiation 
b Quomodo autem rursus dicunt carnem in corruptionem devenire, & non percipere vitam, quae à corpore Domini & sangaine alitur. Iren. l. 4. c. 34.  while St. Irenaeus argues for the immortality of our bodies from their having been nourished by the Body and Blood of Christ: and as much against you is your next passage from him, and as well translated by you, for as that which is Bread from the Earth, perceiving (very wise Bread truly this same was) the call of God [or as I would say, being consecrated] now is not common Bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two things, one earthly (i. e. the accidents) and the other Spiritual: so our bodies receiving the Eucharist are not now corruptible, having the hope of the Resurrection. What can be more plain against Transubstantiation than this place, which still supposes it to be Bread, when it says that after Consecration it is not common Bread; had Irenaeus taught or believed a Transubstantiation here, he must have said that after Consecration it is not Bread at all, and not have talked of a terrestrial or corporeal thing or part in the Eucharist, as well as a heavenly or spiritual: but you say this earthly part is the accidents. I would fain know, what part of St. Irenaeus or the Ancients you learned this from, I am sure you ought to be ashamed of talking at this ridiculous rate; there is any Body scarce, but knows that earthly and material or corporeal are Synonymous, but you however contrary to all Reason, and all Philosophy, must be setting up material Accidents, and you might as well have told us of incorporeal bodies, and corporeal nothings, as of earthly Accidents: but such inconsistent ridiculous stuff will down it seems with a man that believes Transubstantiation.  
Your talk about imposing a new signification upon the Bread and Wine is nothing to the purpose, 
p. 31.  since our Church makes the Elements not only to signify, but to communicate to us the Body and Blood of Christ after a spiritual and heavenly manner, which thing requires an Omnipotent Power for the instituting it for such an effect, and enduing it with such a virtue or power.   

CHAP. XX. His several Proofs from Tertullian answered, and his Falsification of that Author exposed.  
TErtullian your next Author you have abused worse than St. Justin, I must profess that when I first took your Book into my hand, I did expect you would have had the prudence to have let him and Theodoret alone: but it seems all the Fathers either are for Transubstantiation, or you will make them so.  
It is pleasant to see what shuffling you make about your first quotation from him, and how afraid you are of his, 
p. 32.  id est Figura Corporis mei, that you durst not translate it; and next how sillily or rather falsely you english nisi veritatis esset Corpus, unless it had been the truth. There needs nothing else to impeach your attempt of ignorance, and a depraving Tertullian than the putting his own words together.  

† Corpus suum illum fecit, hoc est Corpus meum dicendo, id est Figura Corporis mei: Figura enim non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset corpus ceterum vacua res, quod est Phantasma figuram capere non posset. Tert. c. Martion. l. 4. c. 40. Edit. Franck.  He made [speaking of our Saviour] that [Bread] his ●ody, when he said This is my Body, that is the Figure of my Body: Now it could not have been the Figure, unless there were a true Body [of Christ] since an empty thing as a Phantom really is, can have no figure of itself. I appeal now to your own self as well as to the world, whether any thing can be more direct against Transubstantiation, than this passage put together, and fairly translated. Nor can you make any thing out of his fecit. since he does not only sufficiently explain himself here, but a very little lower, he asks Martion deriding him, 
* Cur autem panem Corpus suum appellat, & non magis peponem, quem Marcion cordis loco habuit? Non intelligens v●terem suisse islam figuram corporis Christi dicentis per Jeremiam, etc. Idem codem loco.  how our Saviour came to call Bread his Body, and not rather a Pompion? And then tells him that Bread was the ancient Figure of our Saviour's Body in that passage of Jeremy ch. 11.19. according to the Version of the Septuagint.) So that what you would infer from the quotation is altogether groundless: and your next argument is worse that there is no such repugnancy between the Body of Christ, and the Sign and Figure of his Body, for if it is the Body, it cannot be the Figure; 
p. 32.  if it be the Figure only, it cannot be the Body. But some men can believe as well as say any thing.  
You next furnish us with a plain Declaration from Tertullian, 
p. 33.  that the Flesh is fed with the Body and Blood of Christ, etc. You ought to have put down here, whether you quoted this place for, or against, Transubstantiation: a man would suspect you had here turned the Tables, since this place is perfect Demonstration against Transubstantiation, while it makes our bodies to be fed with Christ's Body, to affirm which of his Natural Body is impious among your own learned men as well as us: but of this distinctly before we part.  
The bare Translation of the first passage you quoted, and I translated clearly, from Tertullian is answer enough to all your silly borrowed Criticism about Representation. 
p. 33.  I come now to your last place from him, which I accuse of a direct falsification of the Text, as well as of perverting the sense of our Author. This you and your new Superiors may think a heavy charge, and that I ought to have examined well, before I laid it upon you: to tell you and the world the truth, I did; for I did not rely only on my own notes, nor on the Franeker Edition of Junius of 1597. out of which I had them, and which I again consulted on this occasion, but I examined these several Editions, that of Rhenanus at Basil 1528. which was the second Edition of Tertullian, whom ●henanus printed the first time there, in 1521. I cannot find by his notes that this his second differed at all in this place in controversy from his first Edition; at the Margin of this Edition over against the passage Non sciet Maritus, etc. which you quote, he puts Eucharistia in Capital Letters, and in his Notes guesses that dicitur hath been mistake for benedicitur. I examined also another Edition of Rhenanus at Basil 1539. a third of his at Paris 1545. that of Pamelius with Latinius and Mercer at Cologne 1617. that of de La Bar at Paris 1580. that of de La Cerda at Paris 1624. that best Edition of Rigaltius at Paris 1634. the Annotationes Diversorum upon Tertullian, wherein this passage is so often quoted and commented upon, printed at Paris 1635. that of F. George the Capuchin at Paris 1646,— 48,— 50. and lastly that in C. Moreau's Tertull. Omniloquium Alphabet. at Paris 1657. So that I suppose I may after an exact and troublesome search of these eleven several Editions, be allowed to tell you, that you have falsified Tertullian by leaving Panem out of this short quotation, which every one of these Editions hath, to which Panem, the illum doth relate, and not to Christ: so that to confute you, I need but restore Tertullian to himself, whom you make to say, 
Non sciet Maritus quid secreto ante omnem cibum gusts? & si sciverit PANEM, non illum credit esse qui dicitur. Tertull. ad Uxorem. l. 2. c. 5. Edit. Franck.  Thy Husband shall not know what thou dost taste before all other meats; (which Translation I allow, tho' some translate it interrogatively) and if he shall know, he doth not believe it to be Him, whom it is said to be; whereas his own words are, and tho' he shall know it to be BREAD, he doth not believe it to be THAT Bread, which it is said to be, to wit Eucharistical or Blessed Bread.  
Let any one compare our two Translations with Tertullian's own words, and then let him freely give sentence betwixt us.   

CHAP. XXI. The Proofs from Clemens Alex. Origen, Hilary, Gregory Naz. Basil and Macarius answered.  
YOur next passage out of Clemens Alexandrinus is not a jot to your purpose. 
p. 33.  It were easy for me to bring places out of him directly contrary to Transubstantiation, but I have been forced to be so long in exposing and confuting your Authorities hitherto, that I must omit them, and shorten my answers as much as I can, having already ruined your best strength.  
The several passages out of Origen can do you no more service than those already answered, and are as well translated by you. You have discovered a gross ignorance in the translation of the first Passage from him. What Nonsense do you make with translating in Specie, first in kind then in form; when as it is plain enough that by in Specie is meant clearly in opposition to the darkness of the legal Types. As to the Christian now eating the Flesh, and drinking the Blood of him, who said his Flesh was truly Meat, and his Blood Drink indeed, etc. (Which is the strength of your three first Proofs;) had you been conversant in origen's Writings, had you but read his Homilies on the Book next before this out of which you quote, I mean on Leviticus, you might have been sufficiently fore-armed against taking these Expressions in a literal sense; while Origen would have told you, that there is a letter [or literal Expressions] in the Gospel, which kills him, (look to yourself Mr. Sclater) who doth not understand spiritually the things it speaks, 
Est & in novo Testamento litera, quae occidat eum, qui non spiritaliter quae dicuntur intelligit. Si enim secundum literam sequaris, hoc ipsum quod dictum est, nisi manducaveritis Carnem meam, & biberitis Sanguinem meum, occidit haec litera. Orig. Hom. 7. in L●vit. Basil. 1571.  and he instances in this very thing: for if (saith he) one takes in a literal sense the Expressions of eating his Flesh, and drinking Christ's Blood, this letter [or literal sense] will kill: which is the sense of the Great St. Athanasus, after him, upon this Passage in the sixth of St. John.  
Your last place from him out of his eighth Book against C●lsus, 
p. 34.  hath not a syllable for your Transubstantiation, all it says is, that the Bread which had been offered, was become or made by Consecration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a sacred Body, that hath the virtue to sanctify those that do with Faith receive it. Which is what we can and do subscribe to who utterly reject Transubstantiation.  
Your next Author is St. Cyprian, 
p. 34, 35.  but since all Scholars are satisfied the Piece you quote is none of his, and the Learned Sorbonist Du Pin gives this short but very sharp Character of it, 
Nouvelle Bibliotheque de Auteurs, etc. p. 472.  that it is a ridiculous Piece, and full of Impertinences; we can neither permit it a place here nor any where else: and as short I must be with you about your next Authority of the Semi-Arian Eus●bius Emissenus, 
p. 37.  since those Homilies under his name are rejected as supposititious.  
St. Hilary is your next Author, 
p. 38.  whose words a man would believe were really thus connected, and in the same order he finds them set down by you, but I do assure every one that you are not a man to be trusted in these things. The passage ought to be divided into three distinct parts, with a mark of separation betwixt them, and which is more, the first part to be placed last, and the middle first, and the third in the middle. Certainly, Mr. Sclater, you never saw St. Hilary in your life, or you would never have been guilty of such wretched dealing, if your Skill in the Father's lies in playing such tricks with them, I do assure you I will never quote after you. But for the words themselves in their true order; tho' they seem to take our Saviour's words, my flesh is meat indeed in a strict sense (against the Doctrine of the much Ancienter Writers, Tertullian, Origen and Athanasius (above quoted) who expressly reject the literal sense as dangerous and ridiculous, and therefore so may we) yet do not prove any Transubstantiation; since our Saviour may be received in St. Hilary's sense cibo Dominico, in the Eucharist (not as you very homely translate it, in our Lord's meat) with the Sacramental Bread, by an Union with it, which 
a The Union of the most Holy Body, and precious Blood of our Lord-Jesus Christ, are the words of the Priest, when he breaks the Bread, Pag. 28.  your own quotation out of your St. James' Liturgy would teach, without any Annihilation of the substance of the Bread, which I believe St. Hilary never so much as dreamt of, and therefore could be no Patron of your Novel Doctrine of Transubstantiation.  
Gregory Nazianzen's first passage says no more than our Church, 
p. 38.  which calls the Sacred Elements the Body and Blood of Christ, and directs 
b In the Prayer in our Communion Service, (We do not presume, etc.  her Communicants to pray that they may worthily eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of Christ. As to your Observation, that St. Gregory's advice had been needless, if we did only eat the flesh of Christ in sign and figure: had you been skilful, (as I suppose you are willing enough to be thought) in his Writings, you might have found, as ridiculous as you think it, St. Gregory himself calling the Blessed Bread and Wine, the Antitypes or figures of the Body and Blood of Christ, in that very Oration you yourself next quote, and within a dozen lines of that very place you produce thence; where he tells us that his Sister Gorgonia, in a great sickness mingled her tears with the Antitypes or Symbols of our Saviour's precious Body and Blood, 
Et si quid uspiam Antityporum pretiosi corporis aut sangulnis manus recondiderat, id lac●ymis admiscuisset, o rem admirandam, statim liberatam se morbo sentit. Greg. Naz. Orat. 11. in Laudem Gorgoniae, p. 187. Edit. Paris, 1630.  with as many of them as she had treasured up. I hope you do not believe that she had as many Bodies of Christ, as she had in her hands parts of these Antitypes, which I do assure you do mean nothing more than Signs or Figures. This passage hath not only confuted your first, but provided fully against the second out of him, about his Sister Gorgonia her prostrating herself before the Altar with Faith, 
p. 38.  and praying to him with great clamour (as you neatly translate it) who is worshipped upon the Altar. 
Desperatis omnibus aliis auxiliis ad mortalium omnium medicum confugit, atque intempestà nocte captatâ, cum morbus nonnihil remisisset, ad Altar, etc. Idem cadem Oratione, p. 186.  Upon this you tell us gravely, that she prayed not to Bread and Wine, and I tell you, that she prayed no more unto the Host, since neither our Bread and Wine, nor your Host were then upon the Altar, for it was at Midnight that Gorgonia went privately into the Church, when there was no Priest, nor Service, nor Eucharist or Host to be worshipped, but she alone, as far as we can gather from St. Gregory, prostrated before the Altar, at or upon which God is worshipped. But some Men if they get a little thing by the end, that looks as if it might do them a Service, quickly lay hold of it; and never consider the connexion it hath in the Discourse from whence it is taken; if you had but read this Oration you so readily quote, and had but considered it, it might have saved you the making two silly remarks.  
You quote next St. Basil's Book, De Baptismo, c. 2. whereas the St. Basil that I use Printed at Paris hath two Books de Baptismo; 
p. 39  in the second of which under the third Question I find what you quote, but cannot find that it is any thing to your purpose: we say with him that every one ought to prepare for the worthy receiving this holy Sacrament, and that the worthy Receiver is made Partaker of the Body and Blood of Christ. In his Antiphone the Bread and Wine are called the Types or Figures of the Body and Blood of Christ.  
As far from helping to prove Transubstantiation are the two first passages from Macarius; 
p. 39  that he understood the eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of Christ in the Catholic, that is, in the spiritual sense, is past question evident from his 27. Homily, 
l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Macar. Homil. 27. pag. 164. Edit. Paris. 1621.  where among other things that the Saints before our Saviour's time were ignorant of, he reckons this, that in the Church should be offered Bread and Wine, Antitypes or Symbols of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; and that those which eat of this Visible Bread, should spiritually eat the Flesh of the Lord. This passage is so convictive of itself, that it needs not help to enforce it against all literal eating of Christ's Body and Blood, and against Transubstantiation. I need say nothing to your last Testimony from him, nor shall, only that your Translation of this short passage is very silly, and very false too. Do you or your new Superiors look at it again, and then deny it, if you can.   

CHAP. XXII. Arguments for Transubstantiation from Gregory Nyssen and Cyril of Jerusalem answered, and a ridiculous Mistake of Mr. Sclater's observed.  
GRegory Nyssen's Testimonies are the next you do produce to prove a Transubstantiation, 
p. 40.  and do indeed promise more in order to it, than any you have hitherto produced, while they say that the sanctified Bread is changed into the Body of the Word of God. However that Gregory Nyssen meant no change of the substance of the Bread and Wine, or that they were annihilated, and the Body and Blood of Christ substituted into their place, but merely a change in their Use, Office and Virtue, is past all question evident, since in another place he illustrates this change of the Elements of Bread and Wine by, and compares it to, that of the Altar, which I hope you do not believe, 
Name & Altar hocsanctum, cuiadsistimus, lapis est naturâ communis— sed quoniam Dei cultui consecratum— Altar immaculatum est— Panis item, panis est initio communis: sed ubi eum Mysterium sacrificaverit, Corpus Christi fit & dicitur.— Eadem item Verbi vis etiam Sacerdotem augustum & honorandum facit, novitate Benedictionis à communitate Vulgi s●gregatum.— cum nihil vel corpore vel formâ mutatus— ille sit, qui erat, invisibili quadam vi, ac gratiâ, invisibilem animam in melius transformatam gerens.— Ac simili rationum conseque●tiâ, etiam aqua, cum nihil aliud sit quam aqua, supernâ Gratiâ benedicente ei, in eam, quae ment percipitur, hominem renovat regenerationem. Greg. Nyss. in Baptismum Christi Oratio, p. 802, 803. Edit. Paris. 1615.  or any of your Party dare say, that upon its being dedicated to the Service of God, it undergoes any change of substance, but merely a change of use, it being now separated to God's Service, which before was of common use, and for the most common Services He compares it to the change in a Priest, which is not of the Substance of his Body when he is ordained, but of his Soul only by an invisible Grace, which qualifies him for the particular office of a Priest. He compares it to the change of Water in Baptism, which all the world will grant is not in the substance, but in the virtue only, through the benediction of the divine Grace.  
I could bring his Comparison of the change of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist to that of Chrism, but these I have brought, I think, are more than enough to prove that our Gregory Nyssen meant no other change of the Elements than a change of Use, of Office, and of Virtue; and that if your people are resolved that he shall mean a change of Substance, we shall have Transubstantiations enough, than the Water in Baptism is no Water, though it seem such to all Senses, but is transubstantiated into a divine Grace; and you and I when we were ordained were really transubstantiated into the mere Office of a Priest, and for all our eating and drinking are as mere Accidents as those in the Eucharist: one thing I am puzzled at, and that is what the Stones of the Altar are transubstanced into.  
These, Sir, as ridiculous as they be, must be necessary Consequences of your making our Author teach Transubstantiation in the Eucharist, and all the Arts of your whole Party cannot avoid them; so that I suppose we have reason to deny you Gregory Nyssen his being a Teacher, or Favourer of your Upstart Doctrine I should before parting examine your translating Gregory Nyss. but I am too much in haste to stay upon such wretched blundering, only one observation, I must advertise the young Critics of, and that is, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in all other authors, signifies put to death, in Greg. Nyss. according to the sage Mr. Sclater signifies made immortal.  
Cyril of Jerusalem's Testimonies do promise at first view, 
p. 40, 41.  as much or more than the last from Gregory Nyssen, to prove all you intent them for, to wit, a Transubstantiation, when they not only say with Gregory Nyssen, that the Bread and Wine after Consecration are made the Body and Blood of Christ; but which is further, that the Bread which is seen by us is not Bread, although the taste perceive it to be Bread, but the Body of Christ. To which I answer first, that St. Cyril is far from teaching Transubstantiation in these places; since what he says first is not denied by our Church, that the Bread and Wine are made by Consecration the Body and Blood of Christ, and are no longer common Bread, and common Wine, which very expressions sufficiently prove, them to be as to their Substance Bread and Wine still, tho' now hereby distinguished from common Bread and Wine. And therefore upon this very ground Cyril advises his Catechumen to consider the Elements consecrated, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cyr. Mist. Catech. 4. p. 237. Edit. Paris. 1640.  not as bare Bread and Wine (which certainly proves them to be so as to their substance) tho' their Senses suggested to them, that they were nothing else than bare Elements, but, as our Lord said they were, his Body and his Blood. So that we hence give a good account of that other expression that seems the more favourable to Transubstantiation, about the visible Bread being not Bread, but the Body of Christ: which we are as ready now as Cyril was then, to say is not Bread, bare Bread after consecration, but the Body of Christ, inasmuch as it is now honoured with the Title of the Body of Christ, since it is made by Consecration the Instrument to make us Partakers of the Body of Christ, as St. Paul says 1 Cor. 10.16. and after him Cyril himself in this Catechism advises his Catechumen to receive with all assurance [the consecrated Elements] as the Body and Blood of Christ, 
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc. Idem eodem loco.  upon this very reason because under the Type or Figure of Bread is given [to the worthy Receiver] the Body of Christ and under that of Wine, is given his Blood.  
This Passage you, (or rather Grodecius, for you do but translate him) have endeavoured to make speak for you: which is an easy thing to make any Authors do, if you should serve them, as you have done him; for 1. you make 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 hindered 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 Oil: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 Oil is no longer bare or, as one may say, common Oil after the Invocation of the Holy Spirit, but Charisma Christi the Gift or Grace of Christ: and a little after he says, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Idem ●odem loco.  the Body is anointed with the Oil 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 Oil 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 only the appearance of Oil 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 Oil, 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 itself 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, grossly mistaken it. St. Cyril says 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [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 near to blood in Cana of Galilee, by his only Will; whereas according to Grodecius his Greek, there is not a Syllable of such an Expression, as, which is near to blood, and according to yours, not a Syllable for, by his only Will; and yet you two could neck it so exactly.  
But that which is the pleasantest of all is, that you not only 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 Errors, and yet by putting your Margin full of Greek to make the World believe you had been at the Fountainhead yourself. 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 have been so large upon these two Fathers, St. Gregory Nyssen and St. Cyril, not only 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 Talon 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, etc.  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 Use: 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 only 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 sanctify and to communicate to us Christ's 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 Critic, 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 show.  
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 only, since Bread can not otherwise be the Body of Christ.  
I wonder what you brought the Testimonies for, about the Clergies always praying; if you did it for a touch at our married Clergy, remember that it touches yourself; 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, etc.  they being most expressly 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. Peter's 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 judgement 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 yourself 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 controversy 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, etc. Answered.  
I Must in the next place follow you to St. Austin, 
p. 59, 60, etc.  and see what you would have from him, who is so extraordinary plain and so point blank against Transubstantiation. I will not only 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 says, 
(l) Si enim Sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum, quarum Sacramenta sunt non haberent, omnino Sacramenta non essent. Ex hac autem similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt. Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum Sacramentum Corporis Christi Corpus Christi est, Sacramentum Sanguinis Christi Sanguis Christi est, ita Sacramentum Fidei Fides est. Aug. Ep. 23. ad Boniface. P. 62, 63. P. 63.  that if the Sacraments had no resemblance with those things whereof they are the Sacraments, they would not be Sacraments at all: from their resemblance it is that they commonly bear the names of the things themselves: for as the Sacrament of the Body of Christ is after a certain manner the Body of Christ, so the Sacrament of Faith is Faith. I might easily show you, how he distinguishes between Sacramentum and Res Sacramenti, that Judas only received Panem Domini, whereas the rest of the Apostles received Panem Dominum; but I must hasten to your next Testimonies from St. Cyril of Alexandria, the first of which hath been already more than once answered; your second is directly against yourself, the Jews fault being that they understood our Saviour in a literal sense, and not in the Spiritual in which he meant it; and Nicodemus his fault was of the same nature about Regeneration, so that you certainly took this place on trust without considering it; and your Jeer at the end of it is both groundless and ridiculous; hictius doctius, hei Presto, be gone, do far better become your People who teach that upon pronouncing hoc est corpus meum the Bread is gone, and the Body of Christ is in its room in a trice: but to pass such childish stuff, your last Testimony from this St. Cyril does not deserve any consideration, it proving nothing for your purpose.  
I am now arrived at 
† Theodoret. P. 63.  him, whom of all men I little thought you would have cited in, and of all places you would not have meddled with that you do; but to give you your due, you are a hardy man, and resolved to go through with Theodoret also, tho' you lose some Skin by it, and get never so many blows and hard words. Well then you bring us his second Dialogue against the Eutychians, where after the Questions asked and answered about the Sacramental Bread and Wine, their being the symbols of the true Body and Blood of Christ, which is also received itself in the Eucharist: the 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.— Orthodox.—  Eutychian thinking he had caught the Orthodox Adversary, argues upon his concession, that as the Symbols then of the Body and Blood [here you make a stop, and it was time for you to do it, wherein you show, tho' no honesty, yet some cunning; but I must continue the objection of the Eutychian to make the sense clear and full, as well as to ruin your silly design hence] are one thing before Consecration, but after it are changed, and made another thing; just so the Body of our Lord after its assumption is changed into the divine Substance or Nature. This was the Eutychians Argument upon which the 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theodoret. Dial. 2. p. 85. Edit. Sirmond. 1642.  Orthodox makes a quick reply, and tells him that he was caught in his own Nets, since the Mystical Symbols [the blessed Bread and Wine] do not after [or upon] their Consecration departed from their essential Nature, but continue in their former Substance, Form, and Kind, and are as visible, and as palpable now, as they were before their Consecration, etc. This place of Theodoret is so demonstrative against Transubstantiation, that you had need, if you must be bringing it in for you, to obscure the sense by your abrupt & caetera, and to falsify it too as you have done here by a ridiculous Translation, which quite spoils Theodoret's Argumont hence against the Eutychians, as I shall by and by show in one of my Corollaries; in the interim to let you and the world see the intolerable disingenuity of your Translating 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appear no other than in their own nature, I will but bring a short passage out of his first Dialogue to evince it, where he says, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Idem. Dial. 1. p. 18.  our Saviour honoured the Symbols and Signs [the Sacramental Bread and Wine] with the names of his Body and his Blood, not [by] changing at all their NATURE, but by adding of GRACE to Nature.  
Proclus of Constantinople your next Author is directly against yourself, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ΑΥΤΟΥ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Procli C. P. de Traditione D. Liturgiae. p. 581. Edit. Romae. 1630.  since it is the Presence of the Holy Ghost according to him, and not of the Natural Body and Blood of Christ, which makes the Bread and mingled Wine, the very Body and Blood of Christ.  
Your Quotation from Eucherius (p. 64.) falls in with those from St. Ambrose, and is answered there. That from Isidore Pelusiota, (p. 65.) and that from Pope Leo, which is false translated, have been answered sufficiently above. Your Story out of Gregory Turonensis, (p. 66.) were it true, makes nothing to your purpose; but you ought to remember that we always demand the genuine plain Testimonies of Fathers in the Controversy about Transubstantiation, and cannot admit, or rely upon Stories and Miracles, such as this is, and that from (p. 69.) Paulus Diaconus.  
I am weary of this tedious Examination of further particular places of Writers at too great a distance to be set up, were they really what they are far from being, against the Primitive Fathers as to this Controversy. I will only vindicate your Pope Gregory the Great, and our Countryman Venerable Bede, 
p. 68  and then leave off this Method of answering. The place you quote from Gregory does you no service, since it is so very allegorical and cannot be taken in a literal sense; but that which we meet with in his 
(d) Ipsi qui sumimus Communionem bujus sancti panis & Calicis, unum Christi Corpus efficemur.— Quaesumus— ut illius Salutaris capiamus effectum cujus per Mysteria PIGNUS accepimus. Greg. L. Sacram. p. 1337. Ed. Par. 1695.  Sacramentary is directly against Transubstantiation, where in Prayer it's said, We which do receive the Communion or Sacrament of the consecrated Bread and Cup, are made one Body of Christ.  

(c) Ut videlicet pro carne Agni vel sanguinem suae carnis sanguinisque Sacram●nt●●n in Panis ac Vini Figurâ substituens, etc. Beda Comm. in Luc. 22. p. 424. Edit. Colon. 1612.  Venerable Bede's words are as clear as we could wish, and as full against Transubstantiation as we can speak, when he says, that our Saviour Christ substituted into the place of the Flesh and Blood of the Paschal Lamb, the Sacrament of his own Flesh and Blood under the figure of Bread and Wine, 
(f) Coenâ, in quâ Figuram sacrosancti corporis, sanguinisque sui Discipulis tradidit, etc. Idem in Psal. 3. p. 324.  and in another place, that our Lord gave to his Disciples at his Last Supper the Figure of his sacred Body and Blood.   

CHAP. XXV. Some Corollaries against Transubstantiation.  
HAving hitherto sufficiently answered all your pretended Proofs for Transubstantiation, and shown in part the Sense and Arguments of the Fathers against it, instead of wearying myself, or rather our Reader with any more of your Authors which you very irregularly place, and which you yourself will grant to be produced to no purpose, if the former Primitive Fathers were of a contrary Faith about the Eucharist: I shall here adjoin a few Corollaries to vindicate the Faith of the Catholic and Apostolical Church of England against Transubstantiation, and will make it apparently clear that her Doctrine and Faith herein is both Primitive and Orthodox, and exactly the same with that of the Fathers of the Catholic Church.  
My first Corollary shall be, 
1 Coral.  That the Fathers gave such Titles to the Consecrated Elements of Bread and Wine, as utterly exclude a Transubstantiation.  
It was sufficiently common with them, to call the Elements 
a Tertullian. con. Martion. l. 4. c. 40. Beda. Comment. in 3. Psalm.  the Figure, 
b August. de Doctr. Christi c. 7. Origen. Dialog. count. Martion. p. 116. Edit. Wets.  the Sign, 
c Basil. Anaphora. Cyril. Hierosol. Col. 4. Cat. Mys.  the Type, 
d Greg. Naz. Orat. 118. Macarius. Hom. 27.  the antitype, 
e August. in Gratiano.  the Similitude, 
f Theodoret. Dialog. 2.  and the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ, 
g Tom. 6. Concil. Edit. Cossart.  and a whole Ecumenical Council of 338 Bishops at Constantinople, A. D. 754. declare them to be the true (and only) Image of our Saviour's Body and Blood.  
These Expressions and the like I argue to be utterly inconsistent with the Elements, being Transubstantiated into the very Body and Blood of Christ, since it is impossible any thing can be the Figure of a thing, and the thing itself; or the thing itself, and yet but the figure of it: he that will affirm this may without an absurdity say that the Sign of the King at a Tavern door is the King himself, that the Picture of the Ship in St. Paul's Churchyard is as real a true Ship, as any on the River, and that the Image of the King in the Exchange is really King James 2d. in his very Person. In short, if any thing be the Figure, it cannot be the thing; if it be the thing itself, it cannot be the Figure of it, since nothing can be the Figure of itself. And therefore if Christ's Natural Body be really on the Altar, that which is there cannot be the Figure of it; But if (as the Fathers almost unanimously speak) that which is there be the Figure, the Sign of it, then consequently our Saviour's Natural Body itself is not.  
This is so evident, 
See Tertullian's 4th Book against Martion. ch. 40th.  I think I need not say any more upon this Point, I might very easily else have shown that the Strength of one of Tertullian's Arguments, for our Saviour his having a true substantial Body, against Martion depended wholly on the Eucharist, its being the FIGURE of his Body: but I will wave it, and conclude this Corollary with that of Facundus, 
h Et potest Sacramentum Adoptionis, Adoptio nuncupari. Sicut Sacramentum Corporis & Sanguinis ejus, quod est in Pane & Poculo consecrato, Corpus ejus & Sanguinem dicimus. Non quod propriè Corpus ejus sit Panis & Poculum Sanguis: Sed quod in se Mysterium Corporis ejus, sanguinisque contineant. Hinc & ipse Dominus benedictum Panem & Calicem, quem Discipulis tradidit, Corpus & Sanguinem suum Vocavit. Facund. Herm. pro Defence. 3. Capit. Con. Chalced. Lib. 9 c. 5. p. 404, 405. Edit. Sirmond. 1629.  Bishop of Hermiana in Africa, the Sacrament of Adoption may be called by the name of Adoption, as we call the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, the consecrated Elements of Bread and Wine, his Body and his Blood; not that the Bread is properly his Body, or the Cup his Blood, but because they contain the Mystery of his Body and Blood: upon which very account it is, that when our Lord delivered the consecrated Bread and Cup to his Disciples, he called them his Body and his Blood. One thing I must not forget here, that tho' these Fathers and the Church of England with them, look upon the consecrated Elements as Signs and Figures only, yet they and we believe that by the Institution of Christ they are the Means of conveying all the Virtue and Benefits of our Saviour's crucified Body, of communicating the Blood and Body of Christ unto every worthy Communicant. This I could not omit to let you see the silliness of your foolish Cant up and down of mere Signs of what, mere figures, etc. such Expressions were designed against the Church of England, or what do they in your Book against her; if they were, I must tell you that they are sottishly ridiculous, and most intolerable from a man, who was, I am sorry I can say it, a Minister of the Church of England, and therefore must so often have seen her Articles, and so often have used her Communion-Service.  
My Second Corollary is, 
2. Coral.  That such things are attributed to the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ, by the Primitive Fathers, as do altogether exclude their being transubstantiated into the Natural Body and Blood of Christ.  
I instance in that of the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ their being said to Nourish our Bodies.  
That the consecrated Elements do nourish our Bodies is very apparent from 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Justin. Apolog. 2.  St. Justin Martyr's saying that our flesh and blood are nourished by the consecrated Elements being changed into our Substance: From 
b Quando ergo Calix & Panis percipiunt ●erbum Dei, fit Eucharistia Sanguinis & Corporis Christi, ex quibus augetur & consistit Carnis nostrae Substantia. S. Iren. c. Haer. l. 5. c. 18.  Irenaeus and 
c Caro Corpore & Sanguine Christi vescitur, ut & Anima de Deo saginetur. Tert. de Resurrect. c. 8.  Tertullian, that our Flesh is fed and nourished with the Body and Blood of Christ: From 
d— Ille Cibus, qui sanctificatur per Verbum Dei, perque obsecrationem, juxta id quod babet materiale, in ventrem abit & in secessum ejicitur. Orig. in 15 Matt. p. 27.  Origen, that the Eucharist as to its Material Part, undergoes the common course of our common repasts: From 
e Quia sicut visibilis Panis & Vini substantia exteriorem nutrit & inebriat hominem: ita Verbum Dei, qui est Panis Vivus, participatione sui Fidelium recreat mentes. Isidor. Hispal. apud Rathramni. Lib. de Corp. & Sang. D. p. 120. Edit. Paris. Boileau. 1686.  Isidore of Sevil, that the Substance of the Visible Bread and Wine do nourish the outward man, that is our Bodies, as the Word of Christ, the Living Bread doth nourish the Souls of the Faithful Communicants.  
Rathramne or Bertram 
f Up and down the secod part of his Book from p. 127.  uses this Nourishment of our Bodies by the Sacramental Body and Blood, for an Argument to prove his distinguishing betwixt the Sacramental and the Natural Body of Christ to be just and necessary: 
g Illa Eucharistia temporaria est, non aeterna: corruptibilis; critque minutim divisibilis: inter Dentes manditur, & in secessum emittitur. Homilia Anglo Sax. apud not as Whelochi in Beda. L. 5. c. 22. p. 472. Edit. Cantabrig. 1644.  Our Saxon Paschal Homily, which used to be read in our Churches in the Tenth Century follows Rathramn exactly in this point, and teaches that the Sacramental Body is corruptible, because it may be broke into several pieces, grinded by the Teeth, and being swallowed down into the Stomach, is thence cast into the draught.  
Having collected Passages enough, that which I intent to prove from them is, that the Natural Body and Blood of Christ (into which you Transubstantiators say the Bread and Wine upon Consecration are transubstantiated) cannot without the greatest impiety be thus said to Nourish our Bodies. There is no one that understands what Nourishment means, how that macerating by the Teeth, Digestion in the Stomach, Separation in the Guts of the impure and excrementitious (which passes into the draught) from the purer, which passing through the Lacteals, and other channels falls into the Common Mass of Blood, are all necessary in order to Nourishment; but must at the same time abhor the very thought of our Saviour's Natural Body undergoing such tortures and changes in order to the Nourishment of our Bodies. Either it is Bread or Wine, or the Natural Body and Blood of Christ that undergoes these several stages in order to our Nourishment: Neither you nor we talk of any third Body for these purposes. If there be no Bread and Wine upon Consecration left, which you affirm, than it is unavoidable that the Natural Body and Blood of Christ which are come into the others place must afford this Nourishment to our Bodies; but if you dare not affirm this, which it were most blasphemous to do; it will of necessity follow that the substances of the Bread and Wine do after consecration continue in order to this Nourishment, and therefore no Transubstantiation either is or could be believed by them, who did attribute this power of nourishing to the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ.  
My next Corollary is, 
3. Coral.  That the Fathers speak such things of the Eucharist, as are perfectly inconsistent with its having after Consecration the bare Accidents, and Species of Bread and Wine.  
The Proof of this Corollary depends upon the preceding, which shown that the General Doctrine of the Fathers was that our Bodies are nourished by the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ. Now as I made it evident in the last Corollary that this Nourishment was infinitely inconsistent with the Nature of Christ his Natural Body now, and for ever to continue, in a glorified state; so it is as easy to show, that such Nourishment is as inconsistent with your upstart ridiculous Doctrine of Accidents: Since the bare Accidents and Species cannot nourish a Body, and since it is impossible that That which hath neither Substance, Matter, Quantity nor Body should give or add to another both Substance, Matter, Quantity and Body, every one of which are necessary to a corporal Nourishment: from which we must conclude that the Fathers never so much as dreamt of bare Accidents after Consecration, since They taught and wrote that which is utterly inconsistent with such things, and consequently with Transubstantiation.  
This Corollary I intended chief for your sake Mr. Sclater, and the late Translator's of Bertram, 
* Printed at Pa●is. 16●●  Monsi●ur B●ile●u the Dean of Sens. As you had a mind to impose upon us that Irenaeus his pars terrena of the Eucharist was the Accidents, which consequently must nourish us, 
p. 〈◊〉.  notwithstanding their having nothing of Substance; so 
† p. 89. §. 19 p. 118. §. 40. p. 152, 126. §. 19, etc.  he very gravely up and down his Translation, and his Remarks tells us of the Bodies being nourished by that which falls under the sense, by which he only means as he continually explains himself, the mere figure and vail, the mere Accidents of Bread and Wine, with which the Natural Body and Blood of Christ are vailed.  
I must acknowledge that I am astonished to see a man, who hath doubtless a great deal of Learning, writ direct nonsense with such formal Gravity: I durst appeal to his own Conscience, and am persuaded that he does not believe himself, that Figures, Vails and Accidents, which according to all men's notions of them are without any substance, and are perfect nothings as to Body, can give nourishment to, or increase the Substances of our Bodies. A man might as well write that people may dine at Church on the Minister's voice, as that nonentity, mere nothings can nourish our Bodies. But if you two be resolved to believe so still, I would desire no other Argument to make you both recant, than that you two (were the thing possible in Nature to separate the Accidents, Qualities, and Modifications of Bodies from the substances of the Bodies themselves) might be put up, and constrained to live but one fortnight upon these same Accidents and Vails, and try how nourishing they are: I am pretty certain that it would cure you of believing corporeal Accidents, and him of ever writing again that Figures do, or can nourish.  
I will conclude this Corollary with a passage out 
* Quis conc●sserit, aut cui posse fieri videatur, ut id quod in Subjecto est, maneat ipso intereunte Subjecto? Monstruosum enim, & à veritate alienissunum est, ut id, quod non esset, nisi in ipso esset, etiam cum ipsum non fuerit, possit esse. D. August. Solioliq. l. 2. c. 13. p. 536. Edit. Basil. 1569.  of St. Augustine's Soliloquies, which will abundantly confirm all that I have said in this Corollary, Who can grant, (saith he) or think it possible, that that which is in [and depends for its being upon] a Subject, can continue, when the Subject itself is perished? for it is a Monstrous thing, and as far as can be from Truth, that that which would have no Being but for the Subject in which it is, can still have a Being, when its Subject [on which it depended] hath none.  
Before I pass to my next Corollary, I must make a little Digression to expostulate with the French Dean about his Translation of Rathramn or Bertram, and his Remarks upon it: He must certainly think so much wrong could not be put upon so venerable a Writer, and no body would speak in his behalf; it was a strange attempt to make Bertram a good Catholic, that is in your stile, a true man for Transubstantiation at last, when hitherto their Church had damned this Writer to the Pit of Hell, and Mr. Sclater himself hath very chronologically put him among the followers of Berengarius, who first disturbed the long peace, 
p. 76. p. 75.  and as long continued Faith of the Catholic Church of Transubstantiation. This strange attempt was accompanied with Arts and Tricks, as strange, and unusual with all honest men, that is, with a violent perverting of the Author's sense, and an unjust, and most foolish Turn of the whole design of Bertram. 
† In his remarks upon Bertram, p. 207, 208, etc. Printed at the end of his Translation. Paris, 1686.  This Gentle man makes Bertram to write his Book against some that held our Saviour's Natural Body was received in the Eucharist without any Veil or Figure, that is, to put it into downright English, with the very same dimensions, Skin, Hair, Flesh, Head, Feet and Arms that he had on the Cross. But is it probable there ever were any such men? No, it is so far from it, that it is impossible there ever could, since this Opinion must be grounded upon their seeing it so, which I am sure never was, never could be: this Gentleman thinks the very 
† Praes. p. 21.  knowing what stercoranism means is enough to confute it; but is it not far stronger against this fancy of his, for I dare not call it any men's Opinion, since I am very well satisfied there never could be any men that held such a thing.  
It is pleasant however to see, how the Dean goes about to prove, that there was such an Opinion, and such men, against against which our Author did write this Tract; he tells us, that one Abbaudus, and one Gaultier, Prior of St. Victor held that our Saviour's Natural Body was palpable and sensible in the Eucharist: but since these men by his own Confession lived two or three hundred years at soon after Bertram, it is but a very odd way of proving that there were such men in or before Bertrams time, because there were about three hundred years after. Such proof is fit for Children, than Deans of Cathedrals to use, and ought no more to pass from him, 
p. 213, 214.  than if it came from them: but to help himself and his ridiculous Authorities, he tells us that it is not probable, that they two were the first Authors of this Opinion; now for brevity sake to set this aside, which is pitiful begging and not proving, were these two men after all, the Abbaudus and Gaultier of this Opinion, that our Saviour's Body is received in the Eucharist without any Veil, or Figure? This is so very false, that I wonder how any man, that hath common sense or any learning could have the face to assert it; 
*— Cogitavetam & illis aliqua respondere, qui dicunt ipsum Corpus non frangi, sed in Albedine ejus & Rotunditate aliquid factitari, sed recogitans ineptum esse in Evangelio Christi, de Albedine & Rotunditate disp●tare, etc. Abbaudus p. 211.— & sensualiter, non solum Sacramento, sed etiam veri●ate manibus Sacerdotum tractari & frangi & fideli●m dentibus attèri. Ecce Catholi●● Eides. Ist● autem Scholasticus sic exponit, vere quidem ait, est; sed in Sacramento tantum. Gaultier p. 212. in the Remarks.  they say indeed that the Natural Body of Christ is palpable and sensible in the Eucharist, but that they do not mean sensible to the Eye, or visible, is hence apparent because they talk of the Whiteness and and the Roundness, which certainly are that which you call the vails of our Saviour's Body; and all the intent of their Arguments was to prove, that tho' our Saviour's Body was hid under the Accidents of Whiteness, Roundness, etc. yet that it is palpable, and subject to be broke, since Whiteness and Roundness which are mere Accidents, could not be broken, or parted asunder. So that now we find by this Dean's help at last, that Rathramns or Bertrams Book was writ against no body, and about nothing, since it is impossible there ever were such Persons, or such an Opinion for any body to write against.  
Certainly this Gentleman thought all the world asleep besides their own Party, or he could never have had the courage to have writ such stuff, and tho' I do not wonder at the French King's giving his Royal Privilege to this Book, and calling the Translator, his dearly beloved, because I suppose he does not desire to be thought to have read, or examined the Book, yet I am perfectly amazed to find the Approbation of the Sorbonne to this most ridiculous nonsensical Piece, and can give myself no other reason for it, than that those People are resolved to approve and licence any thing against us, tho' it be at the same time as much against common sense and reason. I hope some one will do, what I cannot have room, or leisure to do here, that is, take this Dean Boileau's Translation, and Remarks to task, the very foundation of which I have perfectly ruined in that little I have said here; But to return,  
My fourth Corollary is, 
4 Coral.  That the Illustrations and Comparisons, by which the Fathers used to prove a Change in the Elements, do prove their Opinions to have been opposite to Transubstantiation.  
I will here instance in the several Comparisons, 
(1) Greg. Nyssen Orat. in Bapt. Christi.  of the Water in Baptism, 
(2) Ambros. de Sacram. l. 4. c. 4.  of the Person baptised, 
(3) Cyrit. Hier. Catech. Mystag. 3.  of the Oil in Chrism, 
(4) Greg. Nyssen. supra.  of the Ordained Person, 
(5) Idem Ibidem.  and of the Altar. These the Fathers made use of to prove such a change in the Elements of Bread and Wine. Now there is no man of any learning or sense will say they taught any Transubstantiation of the Water, of the Person baptised, of the Oil, of the Stones of the Altar, or of the Person ordained, and therefore neither any Transubstantiation of the Elements of Bread and Wine. They compare these several changes together, and make them to be parallel and equal: So that it is evident they meant an equal change in them, and no Transubstantiation of one of them, more than of the rest.  
And farther, all the change they attribute to any of these things, the Water, the Oil, the Baptised person, etc. is not at all as to their substance, by removing it away; but as to the Virtue, Quality, Office, and Use of them by the Accession or Influence of the Spirit of God, as I have particularly showed above in Gregory Nyssen, Cyril of Jerusalem and St. Ambrose: so that I may hence conclude, that as the Primitive Fathers taught no substantial change of any of those things mentioned, in order to the Effects they are dedicated to, so they taught none of the Bread and Wine in order to their Communicating to us the Benefits and Virtue of our Saviour's Passion.  
I will end this Corollary with that of Theodoret, 
(2) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theodoret. Dial. 1. p. 18. Edit. Sirmond 1642.  our Saviour honoured the Symbols and Signs; the Consecrated Bread and Wine, with the Titles of his Body and his Blood, not [by] changing their NATURE at all, but [by] adding GRACE. to NATURE.  
My fifth Corollary shall be, That the Argument from the Eucharist used by the Fathers to prove the Verity of the two Natures in Christ, doth evidently deny, and reject any Transubstantiation.  
This I shall demonstrate from particular Fathers, most eminent in their times; the first of which shall be the Great St. Chrysostom, in his Epistle to Caesarius a Monk, whom he was endeavouring to secure from Apollinarius his Heresy, who denied the Truth of the two Natures in Christ. For the disproving of which, false Doctrine among other Arguments, He urges this from the Eucharist. 
(1) Sicut enim antequam sanctificetur Panis, Panem nominamus, divinâ autem illum sanctificantè Gratiâ, mediante Sacerdote, liberatus est quidem Appellatione PANIS, dignus autem habitus est Dominici Corporis APPELLATIONE, etia●si NATURA PANIS in ipso permansit, & non duo Corpora, sed unum Corpus Filii praedicatur: Sic & hic Divina 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, id est, inundante Corporis naturâ, unum filium, unam Personam, utreque haec fecerunt. Agnoscendum tamen inconfusam, & indivisibilem rationem, non in unâ solum Naturâ, sed in duobus perfectis. D. Chrys. Ep. ad Caes. in the Appendix to the Defence of the Exposition, etc. p. 156.  For as [in the Eucharist] before the Bread is Consecrated, we call it Bread, but after that by the mediation of the Priest, the Divine Grace hath sanctified it, it is no longer called Bread, but is honoured with the name of our Lord's Body, tho' the nature of Bread continue in it still; and it doth not become two distinct Bodies, but one Body of the Son of God; even so here the Divine Nature being united to the humane [or Body], they together make up but one Son, one Person. But must however be acknowledged to remain without Confusion after an indivisible manner, not in one NATURE, but in TWO PERFECT NATURES.  
The very same Argument doth Theodoret urge against the Eutychians, whose Heresy was the same with that of Apollonarius, as I have above put down his words at large from his second Dialogue against the Eutychian Heresy (p. 70.)  
One of your own Popes, ●elasius I. against the same Heretics, says, 
(2)  Sacramenta, quae sumimus Corporis & sanguinis Christi, Divina Res est, propter quod & per eadem Divinae essicimur Consortes Naturae, & tamen esse non desinit SUBSTANTIA vel NATURA PANIS & VINI: & certe IMAGO & SIMILITUDO CORPORIS & SANGUINIS Christi in Actione Mysteriorum celebrantur. Satis ergo nobis evidenter ostenditu●, hoc nobis in ipso Christo Domino sentiendum, quod in ej●s Imagine profitemur, celebramus & sumi●●us. ut sie●● in have, scilicet in Divinam transeunt, Sancto spiritu per●iciente Substantiam, PERMANENTE tamen in suae (rect.) suâ PROPRIETATE NATURA: Sic illud ipsum Mysterium Principale, cujus nobis efficientiam, virtutémque veraciter REPRESENTANT, ex quibus constat proprit PERMANENTIBUS Unum Christum, quiae integrum, ver●mque Permantre demonstrant. Gelasius Papa de duabus in Christo Naturis in Biblioth. P Prum. Parte 3. Tom. 5. p. 671. Edit. Colon. 1618.  Doubtless the SACRAMENTS of the Body and Blood of Christ, which we receive, are a Divine Thing, in that they make us Partakers of the Divine Nature, though the SUBSTANCE or NATURE of the BREAD and WINE doth still Remain: and indeed the Image and Likeness of Christ's Body and Blood is celebrated in the Mysterious Action. By this therefore we are plainly taught to think the same of our Lord Christ himself, as we profess, celebrate and receive, in, or by, his IMAGE, that as the Elements pass into a Divine Nature, by the Operation of the Holy Ghost, and yet continue to have their own Proper Nature, so that principal Mystery (the Incarnation) the Virtue and efficacy of which the [Consecrated Elements] do truly Represent unto us, doth as evidently demonstrate, that there is One True and entire Christ, consisting of two distinct Natures.  
Ephrem, or Ephramius, the Patriarch of Antioch in the sixth Century urges the same Argument 
(3) Apud Photii Biblioth. num. 229.  against the same Heretics.  
That which I gather from these evident places of these great Men is, that as they held the humane Nature to continue entire after its Union with the Divine into the One Person of Christ, so they held the true Substance of the Bread to continue after its Consecration into the Sacramental Body of Christ; and that if they had not believed this, they would never have used it as an Argument to prove the other.  
These Places and this Argument are so convictive, that I admire that any man can believe Transubstantiation, that does but read and consider them. I know some of your Writers say, that the Fathers by Substance and Nature here mean only the outward Appearance and the bare Accidents.  
But, not to insist how we shall ever know any Author's sense in any one thing, if men may take this Liberty not only to make a word signify what they please, but the direct contrary to what it should and always doth; This is to make the whole Argument of these several Greatest Men, of a Pope himself, and him perhaps as learned as ever sat in the Chair, and as Infallible, perfect Foolery and direct Sophistry; to give up their Cause, as well as their Arguments unto the Heretics, their Enemies, while they make these Learned Fathers to prove that Christ had not the Appearance only (which none of the Eutychians did deny him) but a true humane Nature by the Example of a Thing, which had not the true Nature of Bread, but the bare Appearance of it without any Substance.  
Certainly such men do not consider what great wrong they do to these Fathers in making their Arguments so very weak, and impertinent: Had They then believed Transubstantiation, it had been perfect Madness in Them to use the Eucharist for an Argument against the Heretics, since the Heretics would most easily have retorted it, and shown out of their own mouths, that as upon Consecration the Substance of the Bread is gone, and nothing but the appearance of Bread remains; so upon the Union of the two Natures the humane was absorbed, or (to borrow a word of you for the Eutychians) transubstantiated into the Divine, and only the Appearance of flesh remained: and this the Fathers could never have disproved, if they themselves had held, that the Appearance of a Thing as to Colour, Dimension, Smell, Taste, etc. might subsist without the Substance unto which those Accidents do belong.  
In a word, had there been such a thing as Transubstantiation believed then, as the Fathers could not have urged the Example of the Eucharist its continuing in the very same NATURE and SUBSTANCE it had before Consecration against the Eutychian Heretics; so it is Morally Impossible that those Heretics should omit so home an Argument in Defence of themselves: but since these are never known to have urged any such thing for themselves, and we find the Greatest and most Learned Fathers urging the Example of the EUCHARIST its remaining in the TRUE SUBSTANCES of BREAD and WINE after CONSECRATION, we have all the Reason in the World to conclude that the Fathers neither did, nor could ever believe such a thing as Transubstantiation.  
I might have added another Corollary from the Distinction between the Natural and the Spiritual Flesh and Blood of Christ so much insisted on by the Fathers, Clemens of Alexandria, 
(4) Paedag. L. 2. c. 2.  and others, and especially by Rathramn or Bertram, who hath made it the Subject of the Second Part of his Book from Section 50th. p. 127; by our Countrymen 
(5) Illa Eucharistia non est C●●pus Christi CORPORALITER sed SPIRITVALITER non Corpus illud QVO passus est, sed Corpus illud de quo locu●as est: quando Panem & Vinum in EUCHARISTIAM nocte unâ ante Passionem suam Consecravit. Alsric. apud Wheloci notas in Bed. H. E. l. 4. c. 24.  Alfrick Archbishop of Canterbury in an Epistle to Wulphin Bishop of Shirb●urn, and by Wulphin himself 
(6) Hostia illa est Christi Corpus non Corporaliter, sed Spiritualiter. Non Corpus in quo passus est, sed Corpus de quo locutus est, quando Panem & Vinum ea quae Passionem antecessit nocte in Hostiam Consecravit, & de Sacrato Pane dixit, Hoc est Corpus Meum, etc. Wulfini Oratio Synodica apudVsser. de Christ. Eccl. Success. & Statu. c. 2. p. 44.  in a Synodical Oration of his to his Clergy, in the Tenth Century near a Thousand years after Christ.  
I might also have insisted on some more such, particularly on that Account in Hesychius 
(7) Hesychius in Levit. l. 2. c. 8.  of the Custom of the Church of Jerusalem to burn what was left of the Consecrated Elements; but to avoid being tedious, those I have already made are abundantly sufficient to show, that Transubstantiation was not, could not be the Belief of the FATHERS; that their FAITH concerning the EUCHARIST is the very SAME with the FAITH taught and embraced by the CHURCH of ENGLAND, which was the Thing I undertook to evince.   

CHAP. XXIV. Two or Three Reflections upon the Remainder of Mr. Sclater's Book: The Conclusion.  
HAving done This, I shall not trouble myself with the rest of your Citations, but shall wave them as not one jot to the Purpose, since if they should be against OUR CHURCH, I have already proved that they as are much against THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH, I will only make two or three Reflections upon the Rest of your Book, and then take leave of you.  
The First shall be upon your Great Lateran Council, 
p. 84.  That it did determine (allowing, what is denied by some of your own side, that things were managed fairly at this Meeting) for Transubstantiation, and for the PAPAL POWER of DEPOSING KINGS at the same time. If it erred in Determining the LATTER, why not in Determining the FIRST. I am sure that TRANSUBSTANTIATION is as MUCH against the PRIMITIVE FATHERS, as that DAMNABLE HERETICAL DOCTRINE of POPE'S POWER of DEPOSING of KINGS, and DISPOSING of their KINGDOMS can be. 
A Discourse concerning Christ's Kingdom, in TWO SERMONS preached before the University of Cambridge, Printed for Green, 1682, p. 18, 19  And we do not envy your having TRANSUBSTANTIATION determined by such a Council, as FIRST Conciliarly determined that HELLISH DOCTRINE of DEPOSING of KINGS, a Practice so Impious that Dr. BARNES not LONG SINCE in a SERMON before the FAMOUS UNIVERSITY of CAMBRIDGE thought it to be ONE of the most IRREFRAGABLE ARGUMENTS (to use his own words) to prove HIM [CHRIST his PRETENDER VICAR the POPE] to be THE ANTICHRIST, and he goes on to tell THEM, That whereas some have taken a great deal of Pains to prove HIM [the POPE] so, from the obscure Prophecies of Daniel; And others with great Labour and Difficulties have applied all the Phaenomena, and Characters of the Apocalyptical fall Prophet to the POPE; THIS is a most SURE and COMPENDIOUS WAY of stamping upon HIM the MARK of the BEAST. This Doctor's words and Opinion I have chosen the rather for this Purpose, because I believe he doth not pass in the Rank of MISREPRESENTERS among YOU, and because it was in a SERMON before an UNIVERSITY, 
p. 18.  wherein HE told them, he would deal sincerely with THEM. I am persuaded that those of your Party that know HIM will grant him to be none of our fiery Zealots, 
p. 49, 50. N. B.  and Furioso's against Popery, tho' HE doth in the second SERMON speak of JUST EXCLAMATIONS against the SUPERSTITIONS and IDOLATRIES of the CHURCH of ROME, and of a COMMENDABLE INDIGNATION against the WICKED and HELLISH PRACTICES of the ROMISH EMISSARIES to ESTABLIH the POPISH RELIGION.  
My next Reflection is, 
p. 75, 76.  that your Account of Berengarius discovers abundance of malice and of ignorance too, because He could not be the first Disturber of the long Peace of the Church, by teaching a Doctrine opposite to Transubstantiation, since in the Century before that Berengarius lived in, not to go abroad, in our OWN NATION the SAME DOCTRINE, that Berengarius did stand up for, was the COMMON FAITH of OUR CHURCH, and was publicly taught, and believed, as appears most evidently to a Demonstration from the Public Authorized SAXON HOMILY for EASTER, and from the Writings, and SYNODICAL ORATIONS (wherein a Man may most reasonably expect to meet with the genuine and public Faith of the Church) of ALFRICK ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURY [our ENGLISH PATRIARCH] and of WULPHINE Bishop of SHIRBOURN, as I have already observed, 
(l) p. 73.81. N. B.  and put down their words; and the SAME FAITH was generally believed by almost ALL the FRENCH and ITALIANS as well as by the ENGLISH in Berengarius his time, as Matthew Westminster tells us 
(m) Eeodem tempore Berengariu●in haereticam prolapsus pravitatem, omnes Gallos', Italos et Anglos suis jampenecorruperat pravitatibus. Matth. West. ad annum, 1087.  who was mistaken in saying it was by the Infection of Berengarius' Doctrine, since it is certain THAT was the GENERAL and PUBLIC DOCTRINE here in the Century before; and in FRANCE the Century before that (to wit, in the NINTH CENTURY) as one may believe from the Writingr of Bertram and Erigena.  
And here I cannot but observe how much you discover a gross ignorance, when you make Bertram, 
p. 76.  and Scotus Erigena (whom you have split into two) Followers of Berengarius, whenas They both lived two Hundred years before Him. Nay a man would believe almost from you, that Berthram was at this present alive, when you say that Berengarius' Opinion and Arguments are still urged by Bertram, 
p. 76.  lately reprinted in English. You have a great deal more of such wretched stuff, but I am so weary of it, that I will but speak a word or two to you as to the Greeks, and then pass to a sarewell request to you, and your new Superiors.  
That the present great Ignorance, Poverty and Ambition of the Greek Church hath taught a great many of them, leaving their own ancient Faith, to embrace for lucre sake the Latin Doctrine of Transubstantiation, is what we cannot now deny, but that which we have to say upon this business is, that those persons neither learned this new fangled Doctrine from the Fathers, from their own Liturgies, or from the ancient Creeds, or Ecclesiastical Constitutions; 
See Dr. Smith of Oxford his Miscellanea  that Gabriel of Philadelphia (who studied and lived so long at Milan and Venice) first broached Transubstantiation in their language, since whom many Latinized Greeks have espoused it, and the four Patriarches, at the Instance of Monsieur Nointel, 
Ricaut his Preface to his Present State of the Greek Church.  or rather his French Money (as I hope a Gentleman who was then in Turkey will e'er long make it sufficiently appear) subscribed the Oriental Confession (drawn up by one bred in Italy) in the year 1672. not, as you falsely tell us, 1643.  
As their Ignorance (which is so great, that Sr. P. Ricaut says most Mechanics among us are more learned and knowing than the Doctors and Clergy of Greece) disposes them for any Doctrine whatever, so their great Poverty (which no body denies) and their unaccountable and prodigious Ambition hurry them on to any thing for lucre sake. The Dire effects of their extravagant Ambition are sufficiently seen in that they have thereby run their poor Church into such arrears with the Port, that it will never be able to claw off. 
Ricaut 's Present State of the Greek Church.  Through their changing of Patriarches (whereof they 
a p. 102, 102, etc. p. 98.  had six in eight years at Constantinople) and their most unchristian shouldering of one another out, the Poor Church was indebted in the year 1672. to the Grand Signior three hundred and fifty thousand Dollars, as Sr. Paul says he was informed by the Bishop of Smyrna.  
This is enough to show the miserable Humour as well as Condition of those People, who to get moneys to buy out the incumbent Patriarch and to place themselves tho' but for a month on the Patriarchal Throne at Constantinople, would I question not subscribe a worse Doctrine than that of Transubstantiation, since they have ignorance enough for any. The behaviour of the Archbishop of Samos to Doctor Smith of Maudlin's, makes me to have a very slender opinion of those sort of men: 
See Dr. Smith's Preface to Miscellanea  when he met with him in France, than Children only received in the one kind, and they could not digest Flesh; but as soon as he had crossed the Water, and breathed a little English Air, than Children did undoubtedly partake in both kinds, as he quickly wrote to Doctor Smith. But enough of this Man, and the Humour of that miserable People, which is nothing to the purpose of a Consensus Veterum.  
The Request I have now to make to you Mr. Sclater is, that you would consider what a miserable mistake you have made about these things, how grievously you have suffered yourself to be imposed upon, in leaving a Communion which is truly Catholic and Apostolical, and hath not one unlawful Term of Communion, and in falling to a Church which for all the Paints and Washes laid on it appears to be very deformed, and hath a great many unlawful Terms of Communion. If their Condition be dangerous that were bred in that Communion, if they have any opportunities (as all here in England have) of knowing more and of better information; what must be thought of yours, who can pretend no want of Information, have had so long a Tract of opportunities to have secured you even in old age from such a doleful Fall; I do from my soul wish that you may (before death surprises) recover yourself, and return to that true Faith from which you have swerved, and that all that lie under the same guilt may in God's good time be again gathered into our Apostolical Church. May God remove all Ostacles, that do at present hinder such a Return.  
And my request to your Superiors is, that if ever they think fit to have another Convert appear in Print against us, they would oblige us so far as to choose one that hath a little more Modesty, and a little more Learning, one that can distinguish between the Presbyters of Achaia and St. Andrew, between the Second General Council of Constantinople, 
p. 72.  and the (reputed) Seventh at Nice, whence he quotes that impudent lie of Epiphanius the Deacon; one that can translate what he is taught to borrow; that so if ever any of our Church vouchsafe to answer him, he may not have so many complaints to make as I have had in the Examination of Mr. Sclater's Book.  
March 1st. 1686.   
THE END.