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
them then consider with your selfe whether you haue not all the reason in the world to looke vpon this minister as a man that deserues no credit in matters of faith and Religion since he dares with such a brazen forehead auouch the doctrine of Transubstantiation neuer to haue beene knowne nor heard off in the Church before the Councel of Lateran seing this father aboue 150. yeares before the Councel reports it in as cleer termes as the Councel of Trent to haue beene the faith of all Christian Nations which truth will be much more confirmed and your ministers bold assertion confuted by the testimonies of worlds of fathers yet more ancient In the 10. Age. §. 22. S. Fulbertus Carnotensis Bishop Epist. ad Adeodatum ITs is not lawfull to doubt but that at whose becke all things did presently subsist out of nothing if by the like power in the spirituall Sacraments The earthly matter of bread and wine transcending the nature and merit of their kinde is changed into the substance of Christ Commutetur seing he sayes This is my body this is my bloud This father florished aboue 200. yeares before the Councel of Latteran and he doth heere acknowledge a substantiall change a change of One substance into another substance and sayes it was not then lawfull to doubt of it nefas est dubitare In the 9. Age. §. 23. Paschasius Rathertus Abbot of Corby and one of the learnedst of this Age l. de Corp. sang Domini THe will of God is so efficacious and Omnipotent that if he will a thing it is done Wherefore let no man be trobled about the body bloud of Christ that in the mysteries the â—re is true flesh true bloud since he would haue it so who hath created it for he hath done all that he would in heauen in â—earth And Because he would though heere be the figure of bread and wine they are to be beleeued to be no other thing according to the interiour after coÌ„secratioÌ„ but the body bloud of Christ HeÌ„ce truth it selfe vnto the disciples sayes This is my flesh for the life of the world And that I may speake a thing yet more wonderfull it is no other flesh theÌ„ that which was borne of Mary suffered on the Crosse rose out of the graue It is I say the selfe same and therefore it is the flesh of Christ which is euen to this day offered for the life of the world And expounding the words of Institution he sayes Catholiks all beare witnesse that the Eucharist is Christs owne flesh and bloud And though out of ignorance some erre yet there is none as yet who doth openly contradict what the whole world beleeueth confesseth And againe He Christ did not say thus when he brake gaue the bread to them This is or in this mystery is à certaine vertue or figure of my body but he sayes without fiction This is my body and therefore it is This which he sayd not that which euery one faigneth §. 24. NOw Madame let vs aske your Doctor who would faine seeme learned in the Records of Antiquity whether the Protestant doctrine doth agree with that which this ancient father sayes all Catholiks and the whole world then beleeued professed do Protestants now beleeue that in the mysteries there is true flesh true bloud the same and no other but that which was borne of Mary c That there is no other thing vpon the Altar after Consecration but the body and bloud of Christ That the wery selfe same flesh which rose out of the graue is euen to this very day offered on the Altar for the life of the world Are not Protestants rather of the religion of those few who this learned father sayes did then erre out of ignorance but did not as Protestants now do oppenly contradict what the whole Christian world hath for so many ages beleeued and professed In the 8. Age. §. 25. S. Iohn Damascen l. 4. de fide orthodoxa cap. 14. AS Bread and wine water be by the force of nature changed into the body and bloud of him that eateth and drincketh them are made an other body distinct from the former so the bread and wine and water proposed are by inuocation and the comming of the H. Ghost in a miraculous manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Transmade into the body and bloud of Christ Neither are the consecrated bread and wine the figure of Christs body but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very deifyed body it selfe of our Lord. For he did not say this is the figure of my body but my body nor this is the signe of my bloud but this is my bloud The Councel of Trent doth not deliuer in plainer words the doctrine of Transubstantiation then this learned father hath done aboue 900. yeares agoe Where is then Doctor Cozens his deepe knowledge in Antiquity He must either disproue this to be the saying of S. Iohn Damascen or confesse his owne want either of knowledge or of honesty or of both And will you madame put the eternall saluation of your soule into the hands of such a man In the 7. Age. §. 26. Venerable Bede in cap. 10. Prior ad Cor. ex Augustino serm de Neoph. IN the bread you shall receiue the very thing which did hang vpon the Crosse and in the cupp you shall receiue that which was powred out of the syde of Christ If this be true then the very thing which did hang vpon the Crosse is vnder the outward forme of bread and in the Cuppe there is the true bloud of Christ which doth imply the doctrine of Transubstantiation In the 6. Age. §. 27. S. Gregory the great Dialog 4. cap. 58. HIs bloud is poured into the Mouths of the faithfull Againe This Hoste doth singularly preserue the soul from eternall damnation which hoste doth repayre vnto vs by mistery the death of the only begotten who rising from the dead now dyeth not yet liuing in himselfe immortally and incorruptibily he is againe sacrificed for vs in this mystery of the holy oblation §. 28. S. Remigius in cap. 10. Prior ad Cor. THE flesh which the word of God the father assumed in the wombe of the Virgin and in the vnity of his person and the bread which is consecrated in the Church are One body for as that flesh is the body of Christ so this bread Transit passeth into the body of Christ neither are they two bodyes but one body Againe The bread which we breake on the Altar is it not the participation of the body of our Lord verily it is consecrated and blest by the Priests and by the H. Ghost then it is broken when as now though it seeme bread it is in verity the body of Christ Heere we see the doctrine of Transubstantiation was beleeued taught by the fathers of this age S. Remigius was a famous Bishop that florished in the very beginning
of this Century And Although English ministers may be as ignorant of him as Doctor Cozens was of S. Gaudentius yet he is famously knowne for a great scholler and an Apostolicall man heere in France therefore let the Doctor take heede that he vse him more ciuilly then he did S. Gaudentius east him not out of the number of the ancient Orthodox fathers amoÌ„g the Hereticks of those tymes In the 5. Age. §. 29. S. Leo the great serm 9. de ieiun Alens 7. YOV ought to Commumunicate of the Holy Table that you doubt nothing at all of the truth of the body and bloud of Christ for that is receiued with the mouth which by faith is beleeued §. 30. S. Cyril Patriark of Alex. ad Calosyr THat we should not feele horrour to see flesh and bloud on the sacred Altar God condescending to our frailty floweth into the things offered the Power of life Conuerting them into the verity of his owne flesh to the end that the body of life may be found as a quickening seede in vs. §. 31. The Councel of Ephes WE Celebrate in the Church the Holy S. Cyril Declar. Anathom 11 in Concil Eph. Quiekning and vnbloudy sacrifice beleeuing not that that which is set before vs to wit the Eucharist is the body of some common man like vs and his bloud but we receiue it rather as the life-giuing words owne flesh and bloud for common flesh cannot giue life § 32. Theodoret Dialog 2. THe mysticall signes after Consecration depart not from their nature 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but abyde still in the figure forme of their former substance and may be seene and touched as before But are vnderstood that is perceiued by the vnderstanding to be that which They are made to wit by consecration and are beleeued and adored as being that which they are beleeued to be Heere Theodoret doth teach 1. that the mystical signes the outward formes of bread wine after consecration do not recede from their nature but remaine still in the figure forme of their former substance to wit of bread and wine 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That there is a Change made by the inuocation of the Priest and 3. such a Change as brings in adoration of the things before vs vnder the exteriour signes before Consecration there are other things obiects of faith things to be adored things which are beleeued and adored as being the very things which they are beleeued to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which therefore is not bread and wine but the body and bloud of our Lord. And this was the Custome of the Church in Theodorets dayes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to adore in the Sacrament the flesh and body of Christ So that laying aside all strayned and violent constructions which Protestants force vpon his words Theodoret is plaine for the doctrine of Transubstantiation §. 33. S. Austine l. contra Aduers leg Proph. cap. 9. WE receiue mith faitfull hart and mouth the Mediatour of God and man Christ Iesus giuing vs his flesh to eate and bloud to drinke though it seeme more horrible to eate mans fleâ—h then to slay and to drinke mans bloud then to shed it Heere we haue by the testimony of S. Austine that the Church in his tyme and he too did beleeue and practice the eating with the mouth a mans body a whole man God and man as the now Roman Church doth beleeue and practice though to carnall men not acquainted with diuine mysteries it seemed horrible inhumane as it doth now to our new Capharnaites that is mis beleeuing Protestants §. 34. Againe Epist 162. OVR Lord doth patiently sustaine Iudas a Diuell a theefe his betrayer he permitteth him to receiue among the innocent disciples that which the faithfull do know to be the price of our redemption Now do the faithfull know do they beleeue bakers bread to be the price of our redemption yet S. Austine saith Iudas receiued that which the faithfull beleeue to be the price of our redemption Againe His holy mother as he relates l. 9. Confess cap. 13. departing out of this world desired memory to be made of her at the Altar from whence she knew the holy sacrifice to be dispensed wherewith the indightment against vs was blotted out She then beleeued that on the Altar was offered the life-giuing body and bloud of our Lord. §. 35. S. Chrysostome Homil. de Ench. AS Wax ioigned with fire is likened vnto it so as nothing of the substance of it remaineth nothing aboundeth so heere conceiue the mysteries to be consumed with the substance of the body of our Sauiour Againe Homil 83 in Matt. The things set before vs are not the workes of humane power wâ— hold but the place of ministers it is he Christ who doth Sanctify and Change these thing And Homil. 24. Prior. ad Cor. That which is in the Chalice is that which issued from our Sauiours syde This body the sages adored in the Crib thou seest it not in the Crib but on the Altar-Thou dost not see it only but also doest thouch it thou dost not touch it only but also doest eate it Thinke Wit thy selfe what honour is done vnto thee Homil. 60. ad Popul Antioch what a table thou art made partaker off We are vnited vnto fed with that very thing at which the Angels when they behold it do tremble In the 4. Age. §. 36. S. Gaudentius Bishop of Brixia tract 2. THE Lord Creator of creatures that of earth made bread againe because he can doth 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 §. 37. S. Ambrose de myster init cap. 9. HOW many examples do we vse to proue that the thing is not that which nature made but that which the blessing hath consecrated and that the power of Consecration is greater then the power of nature for by Consecration the wery nature it selfe is changed Thou hast learned therefore that of bread is made the body of Christ and that wine water is put into the Chalice but by the Consecration of the heauenly word it is made bloud And hauing alleadged many examples as of Moyses his rod change into à serpent watâ—er into wine he goes on saying Now if human benediction preuailed so farre as to Change conuert nature what say we of the diuine Consecration where the very words of our Sauiour are operatiue do worke for this Sacrament which thou receiuest is made by the word of Christ If the word of Elias preuailed so farre as to bring downe fyre from heauen shall not the word of Christ preuaile so farre as to Change the species or nature of the Elements Of the workes of the whole word thou hast read that he sayd the word and they were made he commanded and they were created the word of Christ then which
was able to make of nothing that which was not cannot he change the things that haue being into that which they were not it is not a lesse matter to giue new natures then tâ—o change them Thus S. Ambrose by all which it is cleere that he speakes not heere of an accidentall Morall change in vse and office not of an externall deputation of the bread and wine corporall foode to signify spirituall nourishment butt of a Physicall change of a change in nature of such a change as none but omnipotent power of the Creator can make in his Creatures §. 38. S. Gregory Nyssen Orat. Cathec cap. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. ic transmade into the body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 WE do rightly and with good reason beleeue that the bread being sanctifyed by Gods word is changed into the body of God the word Christ through the dispensation of his grace entreth by his flesh into all the faithfull and mingleth himselfe with their bodyes which haue their consistence from bread and wine to the end that man being vnited to that which is immortall may attaine to be made partaker of incorruption And these things he bestoweth transelementing by the vertue of his benediction the nature of the things that are seene into it Now to change bread into the body of Christ to traÌ„selement the nature of bread into the flesh of Christ really and substantially vnder the remayning signes and outward forme of bread is to Change and conuert the Elements of bread that is the primordiall and fundamentall entities the matter and the forme whereof the nature of bread is compounded and doth consist into the body and flesh of our Sauiour which is the expresse doctrine of Transubstantiation §. 39. S. Cyril of Hierusâ—lem Cathec 4. HE our Sauiour changed once water into wine and is he not worthy to be beleeued of vs that he hath changed wine into bloud Cathec 1. The bread and wine of the Eucharist before the sacred inuocation of the adored Trinity were simple bread wine but the inuocation being once done the bread indeed is made the flesh of Christ and the wine his bloud And Cathec 4. with assurance let vs receiue the body and bloud of Christ for in the forme of bread the body is giuen to thee and in the forme of wine the bloud knowing and beleeuing most assuredly that that which appeareth bread is not bread though it seeme so to the tast but it is the body of Christ and that which appeareth wine is not wine as the tast doth iudge it to be but the bloud of Christ Conceaue it not as bare bread and bare wine for it is the holy body bloud of Christ for though the sense doth suggest this vnto thee yet let faith confirme thee that thou iudge not according to the tast but rather take it as of faith most certaine without doubting in the least degree that the body bloud is giuen thee Doth the Councel of Ttent it selfe speake plainer and deliuer in cleerer words the doctrine of Transubstantiation then the fathers of this age haue done almost 1300 yeares agoe do they not acknowledge a substantiall Conuersion of the bread and Wine into the body and bloud of our Lord do they not acknowledge it to be an obiect of faith a great and vnsearchable mystery a worke wrought by the omnipotent Power and word of God How vnexcusable are then your ministers who would make you beleeue the doctrine of Transubstantiation to be no ancienter then the Councel of Latteran In the 3. Age. §. 40. The Author of the serm de Coena Domini Which Caluin and Peter Mattyr acknowledge and cite for S. Cyprians That bread which our Lord gaue vnto his Disciples being changed not in shape but in nature is by the omnipotency of the word made flesh as in the person of Christ the Humanity did appeare the Diuinity lay hid so heere a Diuine essence doth vnspeakably poure it selfe into a visible Sacrament Heere this Author doth teach that as in Christ some thing was visible something invisible so heere in the Sacrament the species are visible the Deifyed flesh is inuisible the nature of bread is changed by Gods omnipotence into flesh therefore is no more heere in the Sacrament §. 41. Origen Homil. 5. in Diuers Lec Eu. When thou receiuest the incorruptible banquet when thou enioyest the bread cup of life eatest drinkest the body bloud of our Lord then our Lord enters vnder thy roofe Do thou therefore humbling thy selfe imitate the Centurion and say Lord I am not worthy thou shouldst enter vnder my roofe c. for where he enters vnworthily there he enters to iudgment to the receiuer Heere according to Origen we have that in the Eucharist there is one that may be spoken vnto called Lord that this Lord enters into those also that receiue him vnworthyly into the wicked but not into their soules therefore into their bodyes at the mouth into that house which we carry about vs. §. 41. Tertullian l. 4. cont Marc cap. 40. THE bread taken distributed to his Disciples he made it his body saying This is my body In these few words Tertullian deliuers three things First the râ—all presence of Christs body in the Eucharist 2. The Change of one substance into another substance to wit of the bread into the body of Christ 3. the Power efficacy of his words fecit dicendo Hoc est corpus meum He made it his body saying this is my body In the 2. Age. §. 42. S. Irenaeus l. 5. c. 32. HE Christ took bread which is of the Creature gaue tanckes saying Thiâ— is my body likewise he confessed the Chalice which is of the creature to be his bloud taught the new oblotion of the new TestameÌ„t which the Church receiuing from the Apostles doth offer to God in all the world Againe l. 4. cap. 34. How can they those Hereticks who denyed our Sauiour to be true God yet beleeued the Eucharist be assured that the bread in which tankes is giuen that is the consecrated bread is the body bloud of their Lord the Chalice his bloud if they do not acknowledge him to be the sonne of the maker of the world by whom wod doth fructisy fountaines flow the earth bringeth forth grasse c. And cap. 37. How if our Lord be the sonne not of God but of another father did he rightly taking bread of the condition of the Creature which is according to vs confesse it to be his body how hath he confirmed the mixture of Chalice to be his bloud Heere S. Irenaeus doth proue establish the article of out Saviours being the sonne of God true God by the omnipotent power he doth exercise in the Eucharist by making the bread the wine his body bloud for his Confessing the bread to be his body his Confirming the wine to be