THE CATHOLICK DOCTRINE OF TRANSVBTANTIATION proued to be ancient and Orthodoxall Against the sclanderous tongue of D. Iohn Cozens a Protestants minister auouching the sayd doctrine neuer to haue been knowne in the Church before the Councels of Latteran and of Trent Aug. in psal 36. Tanto magis debemus commemorare vanitatem Haereticorum quanto magis quaerimus salutem eorum By how much more we seeke the saluation of HereticKes by so much more we ought to maKe the vanity of their lyes appeare Luther Epist ad Io. Heruagium TypographuÌ„ The sacramentaries began their opinion of the sacrament with lyes and with lyes they defend it PRINTED AT PARIS M.DC.LVII TO THE READER COVRTEOVS READER As the cause of my first writing this paper was to satisfy the Countesse of Insiquin giue her not only the true sense and meaning of S. Austin but also the beleefe of all Orthodox Antiquity concerning the reall presence of Christ in the holy Eucharist so the reason why I now publish it is to informe those of the truth who peraduenture may haue heard of a conference which casually happened thereupon between my selfe and D. Iohn Cozens a Protestant minister Which because it is related by some of his friends with much partiality preiudice to the truth I am aduised by friends to publish it with all the most materiall circumstances wherewith it was accompanyed or which were the occasion of it whereby it will appeare that Luther the grand Patriarke of all Protestant Congregations neuer spoke truer then when speaking of the Abettors of the Sacramentarian doctrine which is the doctrine of the English pretended reformation he sayd Epist ad Ioannem Heruagium TypographuÌ„ The Sacramentaries began their opinion with lyes and with lyes they defend it this I say will appeare plainly by the following relation 1. The Countesse of Insiquin being trobled at her Honorable Lords being become a Roman Catholick and vsing all the meanes she could to draw him to returne againe to Protestanisme among other indeauours she applyed the industry of D. Io Cozens a Protastant minister who to that effect wrot sundry papers to him wherein he impugned the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome ouer the whole Church of Christ as a doctrine crept-in since the Apostles tymes and not warranted by the authority of Orthodox Antiquity 2. These papers the earle of Insiquin was pleased to send vnto me and withall requested me to returne an answer to them especially to the authorities alleadged therein out out of S. Gregory the great and S. Cyprian against our Catholick doctrine 3. In compliance with my Lords request I drew a short answer wherein I shewed first by the testimone of the Doctours owne brethren that his vrging of S. Gregories refusing the title of vniuersall Bishop is very vaine and idle and grounded vpon wilfull blindnesse and Hereticall obstinacy because it is cleerer then the sunne and confessed by the greatest schollers of Protestant syde that S Gregory notwithstanding the foresayd obiection did clayme and exercise the Primacy of authority and iurisdiction ouer all Churches in causes spirituall and Ecclesiasticall and therefore he tearmeth the see of Rome the head of all Churches the mother Church the mistresse of Nations and auoucheth them to be peruerse men that will not be subiect to her and that S. Peter was by God appointed ouer all the Church c. These acknowledgments are made of S. Gregory by Bale Bulinger Melanchton the Centurists and other Protestant writers against D. Cozens and his old worne-out obiection which hath beene so many tymes already answered and refuted not only by our Catholick Diuines but euen by Protestants In so much that Andreas Friccius a Protestant whom Peter Martyr styleth an excellent learned man writeth thus in confutation of this foolish obiection saying L. 2. de Eccles cap. 10. pa. 570. Some there be c. that obiect the authority of Gregory who saith that such a title pertaineth to the Precursor of Anti-Christ but the reason of Gregory is to be knowne and it may be gathered from his words which he repeateath in many Epistles that the title of vniuersall Bishop is contrary to and doth gainsay the grace which is commonly poured vpon all Bishops He therefore that calleth himselfe the only Bishop taketh the Bishop like power from te rest Wherefore this title he would haue to be reiected c. But it is neuerthelesse euident by other places that Gregory thaught that the charge and Principality of the whole Church was committed to Peter And yet for this cause Gregory thought not that Peter was the forerunner of Anti-Christ Thus Friccius So euident it is by the Confession of this Protestant that S. Gregory himselfe claymed and defended the Primacy of the Roman Bishop Church ouer all other Bishops and Churches whatsoeuer And yet D. Cozens will be still vrging against vs this obiection of s. Greg which proceeding doth euidently conuince him to be either extreme ignoraÌ„t little verst euen in his owne authors or else which is much worse to haue layd a syde all shame and honesty being resolued to maintaine any thing though neuer so cleer against his owne conscience so that he may for base ends and secular interest deceaue the vnlearned 4. Hauing shewed that his argument drawne from the authority of s. Gregory was of no credit euen with the learnedst of his owne schoole I went on declaring how the minister abused S. Cyprian by disiointing clipping and confounding S. Cyprians sayings that so he might obscure his meaning which are the ordinary shifts of Protestant ministers and are most vnexcusable in D. Cozens because he wilfully perseuers in it notwithstanding the notice which was lately taken thereof in the very selfe same controuerâ—y by that learned Diuine Mr. Thomas Carre in his occasionall discourses and in like occasion by D. Thomas Vane in his vindication of the Councel of Latteran both of them laying open his foul peruerting and corrupting of the fathers and the Councel to his eternall shame and confusion for it cannot but appeare to euery indifferent man that the minister is not so much a louer of truth as he would faine appeare to his followers but rather to be accounted of the number of those who loue darkenesse more then light falshood more then truth 5. These hereticall slights being discouered in the Minister I shewed how the places of S. Cyprian being faithfully cited make most cleerly for our Catholick doctrine seing it is cleer that he beleeued and taught that the Roman Church was by diuine institution the Principall and chief Church that she had the prerogatiue of being the mother Church of all other Churches that the Primacy or head-gouerning authority was by Christ giuen to S. Peter and his successor and that his Chaire that is the see of Rome is the fountaine and head-spring from whence do flow all the stremes of pure and infallible doctrine is the sunne from whence all the starres
beene partly already sheâ—ed and will heereafter more fully cleerly appeare by the testimonie of the ancient fathers bearning witnesse against him that in asserting â—he Doctrine of Transubstantiation neuer to haue beene knowne in the Church before the Councel of Latteran he doth vtter so madifest a falshood that he remaines conuicted either of much malice or of great ignorance both which considerations oblige all men to looke vpon him as a man of no credit in matters of religion WE whose are names vnderwritteÌ„ Doctours in Diuinity of the sacred Faculty of Paris haue perused the Treatise entituled The Docttrine of Transubstantiation ancient Orthodoxall And we do testify that we haue not found any thing therein that doth not perfectly agree with the Catholick RomaÌ„ faith sense of Orthodox Antiquity therefore we iudge that it may be profitably published for the cleering of the truth against the sclanderous tongue of D. Io Cozens a ProtestaÌ„t minister who is sayd to haue occasioned the writing of it by boldly affirming the Doctrine of TraÌ„substaÌ„tiation neuer to haue beene knowne nor heard of in the Church be fore the Councel of Latteran O LONERGAN R. Nugent THE DOCTRINE OF Transubstantiation Ancient Orthodoxall §. 1. FOR the right vnderstanding of S. Augustine the same is to be sayd of any other of the fathers we are to suppose that he being so eminently learned doth not contradict himselfe in doctrines of faith the most important mysteries of Christian Religion this being a thing which euen the meanest writers though in triuiall matters do euer scorne as too cleer an argument of grosse obliuion wors inconstancy though throw gods iudgment Hereticks haue euer beene lyable to this reproach shame none more then the sectaries of these tymes §. 2. SECONDLY to know assuredly what the fathers did beleeue and theach touching any article of faith we are to looke into those their elaborate workes where they do expresly professedly treate of that matter there we are the likeliest to finde what their beleef practice was concerning it Protestants do very much decline from this Rule all their endeauours are to cull heere there all the obscure sayings they can finde in other places of the fathers that by their strayned violent constructions they may wrest them to giue a shadow vnto their Hereticall senses and make their vnlearned followers beleeue that the Fathers were of their opinion taught their doctrine §. 3. AND in like manner if in any of all those plaine sentences which we alleage in proof of our doctrine there be any One word that can afford them matter of Cauil they will be sure to take hold of it contend without all shame honesty though the Meaning of the fathers be there in it selfe most cleer euident But who doth not see this way of proceding in Protestant Ministers to be most injurious to the holy fathers seing heereby they will presently appeare euen to euery ignorant person to contradit themselues so lose all credit authority for he that is once discouered to say vn say the same thing can be esteemed no better then either a wilfull Lyer or at least a person most forgetfull and inconstant and so of no credit at all as a witnesse of verity for who can giue credit to a man whom he findes to be full of contradictions And in very truth this is all that Protestant ministers ayme at to bring men into a high contempt of the fathers whitak de sacra scrip pa. 670. 676. 678. 690. D. Bear D. Morton Lubbertus alij when they instance vrge against them their owne contradictions saying as whitaker doth Basil fighteth with himselfe Damascen is contrary to himselfe I oppose Chrysostome against Chrysostome Let vs not attend what Cyprian sayd but let vs examin him by his owne lawe For were it not euident to them that the fathers do condemne their opinions patronize ours they would neuer endeauour so fowly to blemish them by vrging contradiction with themselues which as I sayd a fore the meanest writers though in triuiall matters do euer scorne §. 4. THirdly a most effectuall and sure meanes to know what any one of the ancient fathers beleeued and thaugt in any particular matter of faith is the testimony of the Pastours Doctours of the Church of the same age of the ages immediatly following for these being neerest to these fathers some of them eye-witnesses of their practice Hearers of their doctrine are best able to tell vs what religion such such fathers of their tymes professed Wherefore if the Church for example in S. Augustin tyme immediatly after did take no notice of any new doctrine deliuered by him concerning the reall presence of Christ in the Eucharist we are not to doubt but that S. Austine did agree in this point of beleef with the rest of the ancient fathers with the whole Church not withstanding some obscure places which per aduenture May befound here there in him which to vs now so farre off May seeme to carry agreat deale of difficulty for their right wnderstanting therefore Protestants can take no aduantage against vs from any such hard sayings of the fathers which to the vnlearned may seeme to make against our Catholick Doctrine for though they seeme to make against the generall receiued doctrine of the Church yet we are to beleeue that it is but seemingly only not really if the Church tooke no notice att all of it for had they beene then vnderstood so by the Châ—rch it is certaine she would haue taken notice of it opposed it as we see she did in the case of S. Cyprian about the doctrine of rebaptization §. 5. FOurthly for the vnderstanting of the fathers we are to obserue that they do often tymes in the pharse of scripture call the blessed Eucharist bread the Chalice wine euen after Consecration 1. Because the Elements were bread wine before 2. See the like maÌ„ner of shepec Io. 2.9 Matt. 11.15 Luc. 7.15 Gen. 9.19 Exod. 7 12. Concedo solere quae mutata â—uÌ„t vocari de nomine pristino Camier l. 10. de Euch. c. 22. Ioan. 6. v. 35. 48 51. Because they reserue the outward formes of bread wine as the Angells gen 18. are called men because they appeared in humane shape 3. Because it contayneth wnder the shape of bread the true bread of life Christ Iesus The Eucharist therefore may be sometyme called bread by the fathers in one of these senses without making any thing at all against our doctrine of the reall presence §. 6. IN like manner the fathers do in a true Catholik sense call the Eucharist a Sacrament a signe à figure of Christs body à remembrance of his passion It is a Sacrament that is as S. August defines it a visibile signe of inuisibile grace which doth inwardly refresh feede our
addition substraction such like Heretical frauds and deceipts alleaged Which precaution I add as a thing very much to be taken notice of in order to a right vnderstanding of the fathers for as it hath euer beene the Custome of all Hereticks to depraue corrupt both the scriptures and the fathers so none haue beene euer more guilty of this heighnous crime then your Protestant ministers for I dare boldly auouch that there is not any one of your English Protestant writers that doth not when he comes to cite the fathers for their doctrine against vs most notoriously corrupt and falsify their words and sayings So that whatsoeuer you finde in their bookes cited as the saying for exaÌ„ple of S. Austin or any other ancient father in proof confirmation of their doctrine against vs you haue as much reason as any formerly euer had in like case to mistrust their fidelity for it is most certaine that Protestant ministers our English in particular haue in this point layd a side all shame and honesty as may be seene in Morton Vsher and others by any man that is so much a scholler as to be able to vndestand the fathers language and will but take the paynes to conferre the Cotations with their originals for to any such indifferent man it will manifestly appeare that these Ministers do fraudulently vse the authorities of the ancient fathers meerely to helpe a bad cause as well as their witts Will serue theÌ„ not that they do verily beleeue the fathers to be on their side against vs for this if they be schollers vnderstand what they read they cannot but see to be most false as I shall now demonstrate by giuing you the sense Not only of S. Austin but of all orthodox Antiquity beginning from S. Gregory the great so through all ages vp to the Apostles NOTE HEere in the first paper which I made ready in answer to your obiections I began with the testimony of S. Gregory But because your minister did with much coÌ„fidence boldnesse auouch that our Catholick Doctrine of the reall presence and of Transubstantiation was neuer receiued nor knowne in the Church before the Councel of Lateran that you may cleerely see how manifest an vntruth this is I will begin from the age immediately before the Councel of Lateran and shew by the irrefragable testimonies of the writers of that and other ages betwen the Leteran Councel and S. Gregory that our doctrine of transubstantiation hath beene euer beleeued and taught by the Pastours Doctors of the Church as a diuine reuealed verity conueyed vnto vs through all ages by full Tradition from Christ our Sauiour and his blessed Apostles And that I may proceed with more perspicuity therein and demonstrate the truth more conuincingly I will first sett downe what the Church doth propose by the Councel of Trent vnto all Christians to be beleeued concerning it §. 15. THat then which the Church doth beleeue teach concerning Transubstantiation the Councel of Trent doth deliuer as followeth Because Christ our Redeemour hath sayd that that was truly his body which he offered vnder the shape of bread sess 13. c. 4. therefore it hath beene alwayes beleeued in the Church of God the same this holy Synod doth now againe declare that by consecration of the bread and of the wine there is made a Conuersion of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood which Conuersion is fitly and properly called Transubstantiation by the Catholique Church The Councel doth heere deliuer three things The first is the doctrine itselfe which the Councel the teaching part of the Church doth heere expound declaring the meaning of her beleefe to be that in the Eucharist there is made à Conuersion of the substance of bread into the body of our Lord and of the substance of the wine into his blood the Accidents of bread and wine still remaining in their proper nature forme and figure as before This is her doctrine this the beleefe which she doth professe teach a substantiall Conuersion of the bread and wine into the body bloud of our Lord the outward formes of bread and wine still remaining as before §. 16. THe second thing which the Councel doth declare is that the sayd Conuersion is fitly and properly called Transubstantiation by the Catholique Church And what man in his wits can make any doubt of this that such a Conuersion is fitly and properly called Transubstantiation Doth not euery schooâ—e boy know that Transubstantiation according to the Etymology and proper interpretation of the word Beza de Coen cout westph vol. 1. tract 6. Geneu 1582. Hocquidem saepe dâ—ximus quòdnuÌ„c quoque repetam retineri non posse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Christi verbis Hoc est corpus meum quin Transubstantiatio Papistica statuatur Morton inst sacr l. 2. c. 1. pag. 91. signifyes a Conuersion a Transmutation a Change a Passing of One substance into another substance And if it be not so why doth Beza with sundry others of his Schoole say that the property of speech in these words of Christ this is my body cannot be retained but the Papisticall Transubstantiation must be established Why doth Morton the pretended Bishop of Durham say to vs Catholiks If the words this my body be certainly true in a proper litterall sense then we are to yeeld vnto you Papists the whole cause to wit the doctrine of Transubstantiation corporeall materiall presence Propitiatory sacrifice proper adoration and the like Wherefore supposing there be in the Eucharist a Conuersion made of the bread and wine into the body and bloud of our Sauiour this Conuersion according to your owne Diuines may be fitly and properly called Transubstantiation seing the words of our Sauiour according to these men haue no other proper litterall signification Which is all the Church doth heere declare against our new Capharnaïtes who according to the Custome of all Hereticks deride Cauill at the language of the Church when they are not able to say any thing against the truth of her doctrine Iud. Epist v. 10. But against these men who as S. Iude saith blaspheme what things soeuer they are ignorant off you may take notice first that the doctrine being supposed the word is so proper to expresse the same that according to your owne greatest schollers it cannot be auoyded Secondly that all the venim they spit against the vse of this word not heard of in the Church before the Councel of Lateran is the very same which other ancient Hereticks did womit out against these sacred words Trinity Consubstantiall hypostasis Person the like which are now receiued by the Catholick Church to expresse more particularly the Christian doctrine in those particular points which Hereticks did then begin to oppose And so all they
obiect from the not vse of the word in former tymes proues only this which is a Confirmation of our doctrine that before the tyme of Berengarius the first that moued open warre against the B. Eucharist the doctrine of transubstantiatiō had beene beleeued taught in the Church as a diuine reuealed thruth for so many ages without contradiction no Heretikall that tyme lifting vp his Head to hisse against it The third thing which the Councel of Trent doth declare and testify is that this doctrine of Transubstantiation is Ancient and orthodoxall that is is the same which the Pastours and Doctors of the Church haue with one accord beleueed taught as an Apostolicall Tradition as a doctrine of faith which the Apostles receiued from our blessed Sauiour deliuered to their successors to be by them conuayed downe all along to Posterity The proof of this truth is the subiect of all that heere followes and that I may more fully cleerly demonstrate it I make this argument §. 17. IF the fathers of all ages from the Councel of Lateran vp to the Apostles did beleeue and teach that in the Eucharist the bread and wine is by consecration conuerted changed transmuted transelemented transmade into the body and bloud of Christ then the said fathers did beleeue and teach the same doctrine of Transubstantiation which the now Roman Church doth beleeue teach But the fathers of all ages from the Lateran Councel vp to the Apostles did beleeue teach that in the Eucharist the bread and wine is by consecration conuerted changed Transelemented Transmuted Transmade into the body bloud of Christ Therefore the fathers of all ages from the Councel of Lateran vp to the Apostles did beleeue and teach the same doctrine of Transubstantiation which the now Roman Church doth beleeue teach and consequently the said doctrine is ancient and Orthodoxall The argument is informe and therefore the premises being granted the consequence cannot be denyed without manifest contradiction The maior or first proposition is euident frō the Councel of Trēt aboue cited where the Councel doth declare the meaning of the Church and what she doth beleeue vnder the notion of Transubstantiation to wit that vnder the outward formes of bread wine there is by consecration made à Conuersion of the bread and wine into the body and bloud of our Sauiour Therefore if the sayd fathers did beleeue and teach that in the Eucharist there is made by the powerof Consecration such a substantiall Conuersion they did beleeue and teach the now Catholick Roman doctrine Werefore the whole difficulty of the argument doth consist in the assumption or Minor proposition affirming the fathers of all ages to haue beleeued and thaught the foresayd Conuersion of the Eucharisticall bread and wine into the body and bloud of our Sauiour which is as the Councel doth declare the expresse doctrine of Transubstantiation Now this I shall demonstrate by the cleerest testimonies of the learnedst of euery age bearing witnesse thereof as Interpreters of the scriptures as Doctours of the Church as witnesses of the Common beleef of the Christian world in the tymes wherein they liued In the 12. Age. §. 18. Euthymius in Cap. 26. Matt. OVr Sauiour did not say These are the signes of my body and of my bloud but these are my body and my bloud wherefore we are not to regard the nature of the things that are proposed but to their vertue for as he supernaturally Deifyed if I may so speake the flesh which he assumed so he ineffably changeth those things into his life-giuing body and into his most pretious bloud In the 11. Age. §. 19. Theophylactus Arch-bishop of Bulgary in cap. 6. Ioannis THE bread which in the mysteries is not a kinde of figure only of the flesh of our Lord but it is the flesh it selfe for he did not say the bread which I will giue is the figure of my flesh but it is my flesh For the bread by the Mysticall Benediction and Comming of the H. ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is transmade into the flesh of our Lord But how doth it not appeare flesh vnto vs but bread that we do noth abhorre from eating it for had it appeared flesh we had nor beene so well disposed to receiue it but now our Lord condescending to our infirmity our mysticall foode appeares vnto vs like those we are accustomed vnto The like he saith in cap. 26. Matt. in cap. 14. Marc. where expounding the words of institution he saith the bread is by ineffable operation transmade Transelemented into the body into the powerfull and life giuing flesh of our Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 §. 20. S. Lanfranck Arch-Bishop of Canterbery who was the greatest scholler of his age florished aboue 150. yeares before the Lateran Councell l. de Eucharist contra Bereng All asmany as reioyce to be called Christians do glory that in this Sacrament they receiue the true body true bloud of Christ both taken of the Virgin-Aske all that haue knowledge of the Latin or our Language demand of the Grecque Armenian or other Christians of what Nation soeuer and they do confesse all with One mouth that this is their faith The Church spred ouer all the world doth confesse that bread and wine are put vpon the Altar to be consecrated but they be in tyme of consecration after an incomprehensible ineffable manner Changed into the substance of flesh and bloud Howbeit it doth not deny bread but rather confirme it but that bread which came from heauen giues life vnto the world that bread which Ambrose and Austin in the same words call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is supersubstantiall We beleeue therefore that the earthly substances which are diuinely sanctifyed by Priestly ministery be ineffably incomprehensibly wonderfully the heauenly power working Conuerted into the essence of our Lords body the species or externall forme of the things and certain other qualities being reserued least men perceiuing crude bloudy things should haue horrour and that the faithfull might receiue a more ample reward of their beleefe our Lords body it selfe notwithstanding existing immortall incorrupted entire incontaminate and without hurt in heauen at the right hard of the father So that it may be truly sayd that we do receiue the body which was taken of the Virgin the same and not the same the same verily according to the Essence and property and vertue of the true nature but not the same if you regard the species or outward formes and other Accidents before mentioned of bread and wine Thus S. Lanfranck against Berengarius the first Master of the Sacramentarian heresy §. 21. NOw Madame I beseech you before you go any further to compare the doctrine of the Councel of Trent aboue related § 15. with that which this ancient father glory of our English Nation deliuers as the faith of all nations then Christian see what difference you can finde between
his bloud was his pronouncing of the forme of Consecration ouer them saying This is my body This is my bloud which words were efficacious practick such as these were fiat lux let light be made by the omnipotence of his power he makes them good therefore S. Irenaeus by them proues him to be the sonne of God true God because they are such a confession such a confirmation as requires omnipotâ—nce in the speaker to make them good And it is cleere that S. Irenâ—us doth heere supoose it to be the generall receiued doctrine of faith that Christ is truly really in the Eucharist from this vndoubted article of faiâ—h work of omnipotency beleeved to be in it he proues him to be God And l. 5. c. 1. Our saviour confessed that the Chalice of the Eucharist was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his proper bloud affirmed that the bread was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his proper body Againe l. 4. c. 34. The bread receauing the inuocation of God Consecration is no more common bread but Eucharist that is bread made heeuenly incorruptible by the inuocation consisting of two things the earthly and the heauenly that is the species the Deifyed body of Christ §. 43. S Iustin Martyr Apolog 2. Which as himselfe doth there testify was written Anno Domini 150. Non vt communem panem uâ— que communem pâ—tum haec summus sed que madmodum per verbum Dei incarnatus Iesus Christus saluator noster carnem sanguinem pro salute nostra habuir sic etiam per preces verbi Dei ab ipso Eucharistiam factam cibum ex quo sanguis carnes nostra aluztur illius incarnati Iesu carnem sanguinem esse edocti sumus We do not take these things as common bread common drinke but as by Gods word Iesus-Christ our Saviour incarnate had flesh bloud for our saluation so we are also taught that the foode whence our bloud flesh by mutation be nourished being by the prayers of the word of God by him made Eucharist that is consecrated is the flesh bloud of the same Iesus incarnate Heere S. Iustin doth not say the blessed Sacrament is earthly bread such as our fresh is nourished withall but that such foode as our flesh is nourished withall being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consecrated made Eucharist is now after consecration the flesh bloud of Christ that this was the beleefe of the Church in those primitiue tymes which were the very next succceding the Apostles §. 44. S. Ignatius the Disciple of S. Iohn the Apostle apud Theodoretum Dialog 3. THEY the simonians other old Heretiks who denyed our saviour to haue true humane nature admit not Eucharist oblations because they do not confesse the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour which suffered for our firmes Heere this holy father saies those Heretiks who denyed our saviour to haue true humane nature denyed the Eucharist least by confessing the Eucharist which is the flesh of Christ they should be enforced to grant that Christ had true human flesh The Doctor cannot question this authority of S. Ignatius being Theodoret vpon whom he relyes cites it Besydes The Epistles of S. Ignatius this ad Smyrnenses in particular are cited by Eusebius S. Athanasius S. Hierom Theodoret who where neerer to those tymes therefore had better meanes to know the truth in this particular then we that are so many ages since know nothing of those tymes but by their meanes who succeed them immediately And these fathers are for these respects sundry others of incomparably greater authority then all the Protestant ministers that euer were putt all together though we should suppose them to haue some morall honesty were not such forgers of lyes as they do prove themselues euery where in their writings §. 45. S. Denis the Areopagite who was S. Pauls Disciple de Eccles Hier. c. 3. O Most diuine holy sacrifice open those mysticall signifying vailes wherewith thou art covered Shew thy selfe clearly vnto vs replenish our spirituall eyes with thy singular reuealed brightnes To addresse such an inuocation to the Sacrament would be foolish impious if it were only Bakers bread not heauenly diuine liuing bread in it for he doth inuocate the Sacrament it selfe and doth aske of it those things which can only be demanded of God Therefore he beleeved that Christ himselfe God man was truly contained in the Sacrament The Doctor will peraduenture run heere to the old shift deny the authority of this Booke but as I said euen now of S. Ignatius his epistle so I say heere of this Booke auouch that the authority of S. Gregory the great of S. Martin Pope Martyr in Concilio Romano of Agatho Pope in his Epistle to the Emperour Constantine the fourth of Pope Nicolas the first in his Epistle to Michael the Emperour of the 6. Generall Councel Art 4. of the 7. Generall Councel Art 2. of S. Maximus of S. Thomas others is so farre aboue the authority of all Protestant Diuines Churches that ever were that these are to be by all wise men dispised contemned as the scorne of the world for opposing so great an authority auoucling S. Denis the Aropagite to be author thereof §. 46. HITHERTO we are come through all ages from the Concel of Latteran vp to the Apostles shewing the doctrine of Transubstantiation to haue beene beleeved taught by the Pastors Doctors of the Church of God all along as a doctrine of faith euery where receiued practised by the Church from whence by the receiued Rule of S. Augustine it doth immediately follow that for so much as the originall or beginning of this doctrine such is the Antiquity thereof cannot be found it is to be supposed it hath its Originall from the Apostles themselves which Rule saith D. Whiteguift the pretended Bishop of Canterbery Vviteguift Defen pag. 351. is of credit with the writers of our tyme namely with Swinglius Caluin Gualter surely saith he I think no learned man doth dissent from them But that we may more fully demonstrate this truth leaue no age out adde to what we sayd the Apostolicall credit together with the supreme souueraigne authority of Gods owne word who is infinit truth therefore can neither deceiue others nor be himselfe deceiued I will bring them in as witnesses of the first age who were the first masters of Christianity founders of the Church In the 1. Age. §. 47. S. Paul 1. Cor. 11.23 BRETHREN I receiued of our Lord that which also I haue deliuered vnto you that our Lord Iesus the night wherein he was bâ— be trayed tooke bread giuing thankes brake sayd Take yee eate this is my body which shall be deliuered for you c. The very same words fact of our Saviour are
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to their proper litteral sense that being so interpreted according to their proper litterall sense they do vnauoydably establish the doctrine of Transubstantiation which is beleeued taught as a diuine reuealed truth by the now Roman Catholick Church Hence I argue thus §. 50. IF our Sauiours words this is my body c. be true to be vnderstood in their proper litteral sense then the Papisticall Transubstantiation must be established Protestants must yeeld vnto vs Catholiks the whole cause to wit Transubstantiation adoration the like as both Beza Morton and others grant But the sayd words of our Sauiour are to be vnderstood according to their proper litteral sense as Cammierus Melanchton and othet great Protestants auouch and the full consent of fathers doth teach Ergo the sayd words of our Sauiour do establish the doctrine of Transubstantiation and the whole cause is confessedly ours by the warrant of Scripture consent of fathers and confession of Protestants themselues § 52. AGAINE that is the truth in matters of faith which the fathers of all ages haue with mutuall consent professed Otherwise it were but vaine and idle to dispute about their beleefe vnlesse their vnanimous testimony were a Rule which all Christians are obliged to follow in all doctrines of faith But if that be the truth which the fathers of all ages haue professed with mutuall consent it is altogether on the Papists syde as Duditius in generall and Melanchton in this particular point confesse Ergo the truth in matters of religion is altogether on our syde §. 53. SO that we haue from the free confessions of Protestants themselues that our doctrine of Transubstantiation is as â—n ancient as the Gospel it selfe if the words of truth it selfe be true in a proper litteral sense as they haue beene vnderstood and interpreted all along in all ages by the Pastors and Doctours of God Church Can there be any thing more in reason required to establish the verity of any doctrine of faith then to heare Truth it selfe teaching it and deliuering it in words that haue but one proper litterall sense and that must be vnderstood and interpreted according to it And to the contrary can there be any thing more conuincing the opposite Protestant doctrine to be damnably hereticall then this that it cannot possibly be true if our deare Lord and Sauiour making his last will and Testament did speake plainely and properly and so as no man afterwads could groundedly raise any doubts about the sense and meaning of his words §. 54. WHEREFORE Madame seing our Catholick doctrine of Transubstantiation is so notoriously descended from Christ himselfe through all ages to vs by full Tradition of the Church by a conspicuous succession of Pastors deliuering the same from fathers to sonnes as a diuine reuealed verity you may safely conclud for the truth of our Catholick doctrine say with S. Hilary expounding the words of institution There is no place left of doubting of the truth of the flesh and bloud of our Sauiour for now both by our Sauiours profession and our beleef it is ttuly flesh and truly bloud Secondly against your Sacramentarian Ministers that they are men of no credit in matters of faith and religion seing it is manifest that all they obiect against our doctrine are forged lyes for what can be more manifestly vntrue then that which your Doctor doth without all shame auouch â— â— de Trinit to wit that before the latteran Councel the doctrine of Transubstantiation was not knowne in the Church §. 55. YOV will further see that all that these vnconscionable men do clamourously obiect against this diuine mystery ' hath no more difficulty then what their first Progenitours the murmuring Capharnaites conceiued through their grosse and inhumane imagination and opposed against our Sauiours heauenly doctrine forsaking therupon his deare fociety Iob. 66. as Protestants haue since forsaken vpon the same preteÌ„ce the CommunioÌ„ of his spouse the Church iustifying their horrid sacrilegious reuolt as those other carnall men did with this prophane and impious excuse How can this man giue vs his flesh to eate Iob. v. 52.90.64 This saying is heard and who can endure to heare it But if they would open their deaf eares to the voice of truth and render themselues capable to vnderstand the things which are of God by captiuating their vnderstanding into the obedieÌ„ce of Christ they would in the very same place of the Gospel finde these cleer lights of truth which would dispell all the clouds of their infidelity affoâ—d theÌ„ full and satisfactory answers to all that wilfull blindnesse doth obiect against a truth so cleerly deliuered by God in Scripture they would finde I say v. 51. c. v. 68. 69. these verities that this man who promiseth to giue his owne flesh vnder the forme of bread is the sonne of the liuing God and that his words are the words of eternall life insinitely efficacious operatiue that it is his omnipotent and lifegiuing spirit that quickeneth and floweth his operatiue vertue into his Creatures and produceth therein an effect which is to manifest the greateness of his power v. 49. 50. 58. and the riches of his glory in a farre more wonderfull manner then euer Manna did that most delicious food and bread made by the hands of Angels that it is as easy for him to descend froÌ„ heauen vpon our Altars v. 61. as it is to ascend thither where he was before that as reason reacheth only to things that are probable in nature so faith ascendeâ—h to all that is possibie to God to all that he auoucheth and therefore seing he saith the bread which I will giue v 51. v. 55. is my flesh my flesh is meate indeed v. 53. and vnlesse you eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall not haue life in you and the like all that are docible of God all that are endued from aboue with the light of faith do readily and firmely beleeue it to be most certainely true relying on his infinit authority who can neither deceaue nor be deceaued and lastly that the flesh that is as Origen S. Cyprian S. Chrysostome Thophylactus Euthymius and others expound it their carnall vnderstand of our Sauiours speech about his flesh to be eaten in the Sacrament profiteth nothing to saluation but requireth a more spirituall and eleuated vndestanding vnto which those dull carnall and murmuring Iewes had beene raysed by the light of faith conuoyed into their soules by the heauenly father had they not wilfully shut their obdurate harts against him v. 44 45. 4 §. 56. I Conclude therefore with S. Chrysostomes exhortation to you saying let vs giue credit to God euery where Homil. 89. in matt let vs not oppose against him though what he saith doth seeme to our senses and our thinking absurd let his saying
master our sense and raison let vs do this in all things and especially in the mysteries not regarding alone the things which ly before vs. but holding fast his words we cannot be Cozened our sense may easily be deceaued his words cannot be vntrue our sense is often tymes beguiled Seing therefore our Lord hath sayd this is my body let not staggering nor doubt lay hold on vs but let vs beleeue it and see it with the eyes of our vnderstanding for nothing that is sensible is giuen vnto vs heere by Christ but in seÌ„sible thing indeed yet all that he giueth is insensible Thus S. Chrysostome And I beseech you Madame to giue eare vnto him and follow his aduice and Counsel much safer and securer to saluation then the new pretended light of a few vpstâ—rt turbulent and factious Ministers that haue nothing in them derseruing credit and authority seing they are by their owne brethren confessed to be foule corrupters and horrible falsifiers of Gods word So Swinglius of Luther Carleile of the English Protestant ministers p. 116. 144. Epistolae ad Ioan nem Heruagium TypographuÌ„ louers of darkenesse more then light falshood more then truth who obtrue vpon their vnlearned Proselites a doctrine which as Luther the grand Protestant Apostle saith they began with lyes and with lyes they desend it which I haue alfo heere demonstrated against your minister who was not ashamed to auouch against the cleerest euidence of truth that the doctrine of Transubstantiation was not knowne nor heard of in the Church before the Councel of Latteran which assertion how false it is euery one that can but reade may see by turning first to the 15. § taking there out of the Coun of Trent the doctrine of Transubstantiation and then comparing that doctrine with the testimonies of the fathers of euery age whome I haue cited as interpreters of the Scripture as Doctors and Teachers of the Church and as witnesses of the common beleef of the Christian world in their tymes all of them deliuering in as expresse termes as the Councel of Trent that the beleef of all Orthodox Christians ouer the world then was that in the Eucharist there is by Consecration made a Conuersion a Transmutatiation a Trans-elementation a change of the substance of the bread and wine into the body and bloud of our Lord which is the formall doctrine of Transubstantiation and all that the Church doth propose to all Christian 1 to be beleeued as a diuine reuealed verity Vnlesse it be that the Councel declares that this substantiall Conuersion is fitly properly called Tranfubstantiation Wherein that man must extremely Cosen himselfe and declare himselfe to be altogether voyde of common sense that should offer to preferre the clamourous non sense of a Protestant minister that knowes not the proper sense meaning of thousands of Lattin words before the iudgment of a Generall Councel consisting of thousands of the learnedst of all nations then Orthodox and Chrstian especially considering that Transubstantiation as euery schoole boy-knowes according to the Etymon and proper interpretation of the word must signify a connersion change of one substance into another substance and the Church whose authority is the greatest next vnto the diuine authority hath power to vse assigne and apply words not vsed before to expresse more plainely the truth meaning of her diuine and Apostolicall doctrine against those that do oppose it with their prophane nouelties as the practise of the Church in all ages doth declare against the Rebells of light that moued worre against her in those tymes §. 57. I Shall not adde heere any more in disproof of your ministers foule Sclauders That which I haue allready sayd takes off their wizard and is abundantly sufficient to make them appeare to any man that is deuested of preiudice passion to be nothing but the foule impostures of Heretiks who care not what vntruths they vtter though neuer so much against their conscience so that they may but disgracâ— the Church of God and render her contemptible to men by charging he with grosse and damnable errours in doctrines of faith and religion and by this perswasion draw ignorant people to contemne her authority and forsake her Communion and assume vnto themselues the authority of iudges in matter of Religion and this for secular ends and priuat interest Now for conclusion of this answer I beseech you Madame to cast an impartiall eye vpon the pretended reformation and consider the first authors of it and how they do defend it and the effects which it hath euery where produced The authors you will finde to be a rabble of most seditious and leuâ—d Apostatas the Doctrine they broached is full of sacrilegious blasphemies the effects it hath produced in all contries licentious liberty rebellion and other horrid vices all which doth make it manifest to all that do not wifully shut theire eyes that Protestanisme is not a reformed but deformed religion and therefore an open way leadging strayte to perdition and that the ministers you credit are wolues disâ—â—â—guised false Prophets deceiptfull teachers vnsent messengers who preach their owne foolish dreames corrupted fancies for Gods holy word and diuine reuealed verities you may know them whose they are by their pride auarice enuy vicious liues and ministers lying spirit which are Caracters giuen by ProtestaÌ„ts themselues of their owne ministery but are farre from being testimonies of Gods holy spirit inhabiting in them to teach them all truth and lead them the wayes of saluation That you may discouer their fraud auoyde their snarres and free your selfe from their tyrrany I beseech you Madamâ— to make your recourse to the throne of Grace with a deepe sense of your saluation imploring his mercy in the aboue cited words of S. Denis saying Replenish O Lord our spirituall eyes with thy singular and reuealed brightnes And you may not doubt but that he will poure into your soul the light of faith which is to bring you to the knowledge of sauin truth and with his grace inable you to imbrace it and professe it which shall be the dayly prayer MADAME Of your most humble and very sincere seruant W.W. An admonition for Doctour Cozens IF in replying to what is heere alleadged out of the fathers in proof of the antiquity of our doctrine he will shew himselfe a Doctour and speake to the purpose and not a Deceiuer vsing hereticall slights and fallacies to deceaue the ignorant let him first reflect on the state of the question which is heere between vs and Protestants and let all he sayes dirâ—ctly tend to confute and disproue that which we maintaine to be ancient and Orthodoxall against him all other sectaries do that oppose vs. The Question is in a matter of fact to wit wheter the ancient fathers the Pastors and Doctors of Gods Church did not beleeue and teach the same doctrine of Transubstantiation which the now Roman Catholick Church doth beleeue
of the firmament that is all particular Churches receiue the light of verity is the Origen and Center of vnity from whence do issue all the Lines of Power and iurisdiction which goe to the whole circumference of the Eccleasticall Hierarchy 6. Hauing returned this answer to my Lord of Insiquin his Lady with in few dayes after sent me another paper of her owne hand writing wherein she had collected out of some bookes of her owne some sayings of S. Austin which she conceiued to make very cleerely against our Catholik doctrine of the Reall presence of Christ in the Eucharist telling me withall that she had showne them to my Lord and that he had sayd that he could not well tell how they were to be vnderstood but that he did not doubt but that I could giue a satisfactory answer to them which therefore she desired of me and with what speed I could 7. Heereupon for my ladyes satisfaction I drew the following answer wherein I first deliuer some generall Rules to be obserued for the right vnderstanding of S. Austine or any other of the ancient fathers in the matter of the H. Eucharist Then applying the sayd Rules respectiuely to the places obiected out of S. Austine I shew how they make nothing at all against our Catholick doctrine This done I proue by cleere places of S. Austin that his beleef was the same with ours concerning the reall presence And lastly in further confirmation of our doctrine I adde the aggreing consent of all Orthodox Antiquity deliuered by the fathers of euery age from the dayes of S. Gregory the great vp to the Apostles all of them expounding the Scriptures in fauour of our doctriâ— and professing themselues to beleeue it and beating witnesse that it was in their tymes the beleef of all Orthodox Christians Churches which they taught and gouerned From all which I inferred and concluded against the authors of those bookes and all Protestant Ministers that pretend to Orthodox Antiquity for warrant of their doctrine that they be most foul impostours and wilfull deceauers and therefore of no credit nor to be beleeued nor trusted in matters of religion 8. This answer produced I know â—ot how a meeting with D. Cozens and this meeting a verbal contention about the sense of Antiquity concerning the reall presence of Christ in the Eucharist For vpon my coming to the Palais Royall to present this Answer to my Lady I was by and by after conducted by my Lord from his owne lodgins to D. Cozens his Chamber where I met my Lady with another ProtestaÌ„t Gentleman After the common salutes of Ciuility occasion being giuen me I told him the cause of my comming then to the Palais Royal was to bring my Lady an Answer which some three or foure dayes afore she had desired of me to some authorities of S. Austin which c. The Doctor replyed he knew not what she had done and that whatsoeuer it was she had done it of her selfe c. After some few words had passed between vs about that subiect I began with both their leaues to read my paper But I had scarce ended the first § but the minister interrupted me saying my lady may read your aÌ„swer another tyme if you haue any thing to say against our doctrine you may say it that which we beleeue is deliured by Gelasius and Theodoret two ancient fathers of the Church the rest did not disagre from them and they agree with vs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Theodoret. 9. I replyed first that I cam not to dispute about the meaning of Theodoret and Gelasius but to satisfy my lady concerning S. Austines sayings which she had sent me as making against our Catholick doctrine therefore I desired leaue to reade what I had made ready for that purpose Heere the Doctor cryed out as before my lady may reade you answer another tyme c. And then my lady shewed a desire that it might be so and sayd she would reade my paper afterwars and willed me to answer to Theodoret and Gelasius 10. Heereupon I replyed to the Doctor and sayd first Gelasius is not the man you take him to be who is he then sayd the Doctor not Gelasius the Pope sayd I neither doth he whosoeuer he be make any thing against vs as you may see in Bellarmine Heere the Doctor vttered against Bellarmine some scurrilous language of which Hereticall mouths are alwayes full but I tooke little notice of it and went on saying and for Theodoret it is euident his meaning is that in the Eucharist the mysticall signes that is the otward forme of bread and wine after consecration remaine in their owne proper nature figure and forme as before and not that they remaine in the same substance of bread and wine wherin they did inhere before consecration 11. The Doctor heere repeated with some vehemency 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in their substance in their substance in their former substance I answered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nature essence yea substance doth not only and alwayes signify substance as it is diuided against accident but also rhe true nature and essence of euery thing as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth which word Theodoret doth also vse in the same place vpon the same occasion and in the same sense and you will not deny but that Acccidents haue an intrinsecall nature and essence proper to themselues and really distinct from the substance in which they do naturally inhere 12. Heere the Doctor to shew what a deepe Physopher he is cryed out with a repetition Accidentis est inesse Accidentis est inesse What then sayd I I hope you will grant that Accidents haue an accidentall essence distinct from the nature essence of the substance wherein they in here How then doth this accidentis est inesse Proue that Theodoret speakes not of the proper nature essence of the AccideÌ„ts wheÌ„ he sayes the mysticall signes remaine in their former nature c. 13. Heere that I might be permitted to read some authorities of the ancient fathers which I had made ready to shew my lady the sense of Orthodox Antiquity I sayd to the Doctor we contend heere about the meaning of Theodoret the argument which euen now you made for your doctrine Gelasius and Theodoret taught this the rest of the fathers did not dissent from them ergo c. This argument I say might be easily turned against you with much more efficacy but let vs ex dato non concesso suppose without granting that Theodoret and Gelasius did fauour your doctrine and then I argue thus Faith relyeth vpon authority and therefore in matters of faith the greatest authority must command our beleefe and sway our vnderstanding but the rest of the fathers do euidently hold with vs and their authority is incomparably greater therefore we are to submit to it and beleeue what they beleeued 14. Heere I was with much a do permitted to reade some authorities of
the fathers And the first I lighted on in turning to them was this of S. Gaudentius The Lord Creator of natures who of earth made bread againe because he can do it and hath promised to do it of bread makes his owne body and he that of water made wine now of wine hath made his owne bloud 15. The Doctour not looking as it seemes for this authority and therefore hauing no answer or rather shift ready for it cryes out Gaudentius who is this Gaudentius He is sayd I a graue father of the primitiue Church and was Bishop of Brixia A graue father sayd the Doctor he was some Heretick Fye Doctor sayd I will you offer to call Heretick a learned father and Canonized sainct Canonized sayd he by whom By the Church sayd I. By the Church sayd the Doctor with scorne by your Church By that Church sayd I which was euer esteemed the church of God 16. Heere because the Doctour did not admitt S. Gaudentius for an authenticall witnesse that we might not decline from the maine question without further insisting vpon this authority I went to others better knowne the Doctor and cited S. Cyrill of Alexandria Though now before I cite him it will not be amisse to make some reflection vpon this most vnchristian and detestable way of declining the authorities of the fathers very familiar with the ministers of the Protestant Kerke when they are pressed with places that are so cleer against them that they cannot shuffle them ouer by any other Hereticall slights For then you shall heare them as euen now you heard this minister breake out into most disgracefull reuiling language against the ancient fathers of Gods Church though neuer so learned and holy So D. Bilson a knowne Minister of the English pretended reformation so farre enrageth against S. Epiphanius Bishop of Salamina and a learned father of the fourth age for reiecting all figuratiue glosses vpon the words of Institution This is my body that forgetting all modesty reuerence due vnto those gray-headed tymes he saith Bilson 4. part p. 752. 753. Epiphanius was a prating deacon of more tongue then witt more face then learning c. which scurrilous insolency these Doctours learned of their grand Patriark Luther who whensoeuer he was pressed by his aduersaries with the authorities of fathers which he could not answer was wont to breake out in these and such like prophane speeches which declare him to haue beene more an impe of Sathan then a Christian Luther tom 2. witt li. de seruo Arbitrio pa. 434. an 1551. see the same booke printed 8. p. 72. 73 276. 337. the fathers of so many ages haue beene plainly blind and most ignorant in the Scriptures and haue erred all their life tyme and vnlesse they were amended before their deaths they were neither saincts nor partaining to the Church But what christian will make any more account of such like lewde and vnchristian censures then of a thing that deserues all contempt for what but wilfull ignorance Hereticall pride could haue carryed these men so precipitously vpon such an vn christian censure of S. Gaudentins S. Epiphanius and the father in generall 17. S. Gaudentius was a famous Bishop of the primitiue tymes neuer stayned with any errour in faith noted by any ancient or moderne writer He was so eminent both for his learning for his vertues that though he were vnder yeares he was by the perswasion chiefly of S. Ambrose chosen to succed S. Philastrius in rhe Bishop rick of Brixia and being then farre absent in a pilgrimage in the East and hearing of his election he gaue a rare example of many admirable vertues not to be found among Protestant Ministers For he laboured all that he could to decline that dignity and for that end stayd there in the East till by the threates of an excommunication he was constrayned to returne home and vndergoe that burden The Doctour therefore remaines conuicted of great ignorance and of great temerity and of being greatly iniurious to this ancient holy father and remaines obliged vnder paine of damnation to make him restitution and cleer him from the foule sclander he hath layd vpon him and dispossesse my lady of the euil opinion she hath conceiued against so great a sainct by his lewde and temerations language 18. And this were enough to make any man thâ—t hath a care of his saluation to detest and abhorre the Protestant spirit which carryes men that are throughly possessed with it into such vast absurdities or rather sacrilegious impieties and to hate that religion which cannot be maintayned but by insimulating the Orthodox fathers of the primitiue tymes of heresy and razing out of the Calender of Gods saincts such as the Church euer looked on as mirours of sanctity And to the contrary which is as detestable as the other to canonize for saincts and register in the number of worthy and reuerend men the foulest monsters for their liues that euer the sunne beheld For occasion being giuen me by the Doctour to obiect Luther against him as a most vicious man and yet the first founder of the Protestant Kerke the Doctour replyed saying sir you do Luther wrong he was a worthy and reuerend man And yet if there be any credit to be giuen to their owne Ecclesiasticall histories to Luther himselfe the bestwitnes of his owne life and actions this reuerend man was the foulest and lewdest Heretick that euer appeared in the Church of God Caluin apud Schlus lib. 1. Theolog Cal. fo 126. Oecol Confess ad resp Lutheri Rheg l. contra Io Hosium de Caena Doth not Caluin say of him that magnis vitiis laborabat he was infected with great vices Doth not Oecolampadius affirme that erat superbiae arrogantiae plenus he was puffed vp with pride and arrogancy Doth not Conradius Rhegius auouch that for the same pride wherewith he doth extoll himselfe God tooke from him his true spirit and in place of it gaue him a proud angry and lying fpirit Tom. 5. wittem de matrim f. 119 Colloq mens f. 529. Doth no he himselfe with most horrid impudency relate the shamfull exorbitances into which the rage of his lust carryed him after he became an Apostata from his faith and religious Order and had yoaked himselfe with a vowed Nunne so vshering his vocation to Protostanisme with the sinne of sacrilegious adultery for which he deserued to be hanged by the imperiall lawes Doth he not seeke to iustify these horrid crimes with fouler doctrine vbi supra 2 witt f. 328. and acknowledge to haue learned the doctrine of his pretended reformation of the Diuel Sâ—e Hâ—spinian Histor Sacram part altera f. 131. Manlius loc Comm. pa. 42. to haue had all along after his reuolt such intrinsecall and inward familiarity and frindship with him that he did often eate at the same table and lay in the same bed with him and as
recorded by S. Mathew 26. v. 26. by S. Marke 14. v. 22. by S. Lucke 22. v. 19. Our deare Lord had long before promised his Disciples to leaue vnto them this most rich pleadge of his eternall loue saying Iohn 6.51 The bread which I the some of God your Lord master Redeemer of mankinde will giue you to be your foode vnto eternall life which shall remaine in you as a quickening life-giuing seed for euer is not that heauenly bread made by the hands of Angels but it is a foode incomparably more excellent it is that which the Angels themselues do continually feed on are neuer satiated with looking feeding on it it is my flesh which I shall giue for the life salvation of the world vnlesse you eate this flesh of mine the flesh of the sonne of man you shall not haue life in you but he that eateth my flesh drincketh my bloud hath by right of my promise which neuer shall faile therefore is as sure as present possession life euerlasting for I will most assuredly raise him that shall eate my flesh worthily to life euerlasting in the last day For my flesh is meate indeed my bloud is drincke indeed why because He that eateth my flesh drincketh my bloud abydeth in me I in him This was the promise our deare Lord made vnto his Disciples he being goodnesse truth it selfe was as good as his word as the Apostle the Euangelists relate in the places aboue cited being now to leaue the world to make his last will testament He tooke bread into his sacred venerable hands gining tankes blessed it brake it gaue it to them saying Take ye eate for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is my owne very body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that very body which is giuen deliuered broken crucifyed for you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is my owne bloud this is the cup or drincke which is shed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for you for many vnto remission of sinnes This is my bloud of the new Testament This is the Cup the new Testament in my bloud which shall be shed for you for many vnto remission of sinnes §. 48. BY these words it is manifest our Saviour speakes of his owne true body bloud of that body which was given broken sacrificed crucifyed for vs of that bloud which was shed for vs for many for the whole world vnto remission of sinnes The words are so cleeer on our syde for Transubstantiation that as you haue heard Beza Morton other of the Protestant schoole confesse they cannot be vnderstood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in their proper litterall sense according to the property of the words but the Papisticall Transubstantiation must be established Protestants must yeeld vnto vs Papists the whole cause to wit of Transubstantiation adoratioÌ„ of the Sacrament the like So that our Catholick Doctrine of Transubstantion is confessedly as ancient as the Gospel it selfe if the words of truth be true in a proper lâ—tter sense will any Christian say the words of our Sauiour be not true in the sense he spoke them §. 49. HEERE now Madame I desire you to make a stand consider with your selfe 1. Wheter there can be any thing more in reason required for to establish the verity of any doctrine of faith then to heare Christ our Saviour the Oracle fountaine of truth deliuering it in words that haue but one proper litterall sense that haue beene all along vnderstood interpreted by the Pastors Doctors of the Church according to that one proper litteraâ— sense yea if the greatest Diuines of your owne syde may be beleeved must be so vnderstood 2. To consider wheter this doctrine of Transubstantiation be not de facto such The first part to witt that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is delivered by our Sauiour in words so plaine that they cannot be vnderstood in their proper litterall sense but the whole cause will be ours is the free confessionâ— as I haue shewed of your Diuines The second part to wit that the Pastors Doctors of Gods Church in all ages haue vnderstood expounded thE words of institution for Transubstantiation according to the proper litteral sense of the words besydes their testimonies which I haue alleadged in euery age which do euideÌ„tly demoÌ„strate their faith to haue beene the same with ours your owne men do freely acknowledge it saying vniuersally 〈◊〉 of the whole summe of our religion Duditius apud Bezam epist 1. Adamus Francisci Marg. Theolo p. 256. Antonius de Adamo anatom of the masse p. 136. Bucer scripta cruditorum aliquot virorum de Caena Domini pag. 37. see hospinian p. 1. pag. 292. Bucan lot Cam. p. 714. l. 10. de Euch. c. 2. Quaritur quid fit corpus meum sanguis meus nos condidè libeâ—è libenter respondaemus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 interpretandum In cellat men sal cap. dâ— Patribus Eccles If that be the truth which the Fathers haue professed with mutuall consent it is altogether on the Papists syde Transsubstantiation entred early into the Church We haue not yet hitherto beene able to know when this opinion of the Reall Bodily being of Christ in the Sacrament did begin The fathers words sayings are with the Papists they are seruiceable to Anti-Christ ouer much varying from the Scriptures The third to wit that our Sauiours words This is my body must be vnderstood according to their proper litterall seÌ„se besides the authority of the Church who is the best mistresse of faith whom by Gods command we are to heare obey it is the expresse doctrine of the greatest schollers that euer were in the Protestant schoole It is asked saith Cammierus what is or what signifies these words my body my bloud I answer saith he ingenuously freely willingly that they must be vnderstood according to the propriety of the wotds And melanchton who for his supposed worth in learning is esteemed by Lauatherus the phenix of his age of whom Luther giueth this testimony saying He farre excelleâ—h all the ancient Doctors of the Church exceedeth euen Austin himselfe this great Diuine father of the protestant Church saith Melanchton l. 3. Epist saying Oecolamp fol. 13. 2 There is no care that hath more trobled my minde then this of the Eucharist not only my selfe haue weighed what might be say on either syde but I haue sought out the iudgmeÌ„t of the old writers touching the same when I haue layd all together I finde no good reason that may satsfy a conscience departing from the Property of Christs word this is my body So that heere we haue by the testimony of most irrefragable witnesses that our Sauiours words of institution this is my body this is my bloud must be interpreted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
teach that is whether they did not beleeue teach that in the Sacrament of the Eucharist there is by Consecration made a conuersion of the substance of the bread and wine into the body and bloud of our Lord the outward formes of bread and wine still remaining which is the Doctrine of Transubstantiation as the Councel of Trent aboue cited § 15. doth expresly declare This being the question controuerted between vs and the Nouelists of these tymes we maintaine the affirmatiue and auouch that the ancient holy fathers of all ages did with one accord beleeue and teach in this point what the now Roman Church doth beleeue and teach and in proof thereof we haue alleadged the testimonies which they giue both of their owne faith and of the faith of the whole Christian world in their tymes and that so fully and in as cleer and as expresse words as the Councel of Trent it selfe doth deliuer the same in words which taken in their proper and litteral sense doe formally auouch a Conuersion and Change of the substance of the bread and wine into the body and bloud of our Lord in words which cannot without manifest violence be wrested into any other sense no more then the words of the Councel of Trent Wherefore the Doctour if he will say any thing at all to the purpose in opposition to vs must either bring a greater authority as plainely and as expresly denying and contradicting what the aboue-cited fathers do affirme and teach which he will neuer be able to do seing there can be no greater authority on earth then the vnanimous consent of the fathers and the testimony of the whole Catholick and vniuersall Church or els he must proue the fore alleadged testimonies not to be the sayings of those fathers vnto whom they are ascribed which will be as hard for him to doe as the former for he may as well deny that there were euer any such men as those fathers as deny the cited bookes and authorities to be theirs One of these two things the Doctor must necessarly performe to weaken our assertion which maintaines the doctrine of Transubstantiation to haue beene beleeued and taught by the ancient Orthodox fathers of all ages For what wise man will not dispise and contemne as the foolish and idle conceipts of Hereticks the faigned glosses the senselesse expositions the violent and strayned constructions so manifestly contrary to the proper and litteral sense of the words and to the plaine meaning of the fathers which Protestant ministers do frequently make of their sayings when they are vrged against them as making cleerly on our sydes in their plaine and litterall sense As we haue cleerly stated our doctrine of faith concerning Transubstantiation as it is proposed by the Councel of Trent to all Christians to be beleeued and as we haue demonstrated it by the full testimony of Orthodox Antiquity to haue euer beene beleeued and taught by the Pastors and Doctors of the Church who did all vnderstand and expound in our Catholick sense our Sauiour promise Io. 6. and the words of Institution So the Doctor to cleere himselfe and his ProtestaÌ„t congregation from the note of innouation and damnable heresy must first set downe his doctrine cleerly not obscurely particularly not confusedly in such a manner as all may know what they are to beleeue in particular concerning our Sauiours being really present or not present in the Eucharist Secondly hauing cleerly particularized his doctrine he must produce cleere testimonies of the Orthodox fathers of euery age from Luther vp to the Apostles which do formally auouch the sayd Protestant doctrine taking the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to their proper and naturall signification in the sense which they do offer immediatly Thirdly he must produce cleere Scripture that is Scripture which taking the words in their plaine and litteral sense doth establish that doctrine Scripture that is cleerly so expounded by the faâ—hers of euery age vp to the Apostles Scripture and that chiefly of the Institution which doth affirme it formally and was alwayes so vnderstood by the fathers This we haue done in confirmation of our Catholick doctrine and this the Doctour must do for the establishment of his opinion Otherwise he will neuer proue his doctrine to be ancient and Orthodoxall nor she himselfe a scholler nor a louer of truth nor free himselfe from the note of heresy But this task he will neuer be able to performe solidly and truly so as any man that is but meanly conuersant in the fathers may rest satâ—sfyed and therefore he will euer remaine guilty of the greuous sinne of schisme tâ—ll he enter into the Communion of the Roman Church out of which no man is saued FINIS ERROVRS OF THE PRINT corrected Errour Reade pag. 6. l. 7. thaught taught p. 14. l. 13. maud mand p 17. l. 18. blessed he blessed p 18. l. 4. Good God p. 33. l. 20. Christ then Christ then p. 59. l. 13. Reade before consecration there is bread and wine after consecration there are c. p. 66. l. 5. Change Changed p. 75. l. 17. Cany Carry p. 78 l. 3. dele bloud ibidem l. â—9 of Cbalice of the Chalice p. 91. l. 4. the some the sonne ibidem l. 13. hards bands p. 120. l. 4. whos 's they ministers they whose ibidem l. 7. dele ministers l. 10. sauin sauing p. 129. l. 18. the instit the institution