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
Lateran to haue desined and authentically declared the doctrine of Transubstantiation to be an article of faith a diuine reuealed verity conueyed downe to vs by full tradition of the Church and yet that we must contemne it as an errour vpon Luther Caluin and the rest of the Protestant ministers word what I say is this but to grant that to be a Protestant a man must haue his braynes inuerted and preferre the corrupt fancies wilfull mustakes and damnable lyes of a few new Turbulent and fâ—ctious Apostatas before the vnanimous testimony of a world of learned wise and holy men and that in a matter of aboue 300. yeares before Luther or any of his lewde associats were borne and of which all those other holy and learned fathers were eye-witnesses as what was the religion of the Christian world at that tyme what the doctrine of faith which their Ancestors euery where professed and deliuered to them as an Apostolicall Tradition and diuine reuealed verity concerning the reall presence of Christ in the Eucharist These are the vicctories D. Cozens hath gayned to wit ouer himselfe and ouer his Protestant Congregation which as they proue D. Cozens to be no Doctour of sauing truth so they proue the religion which he doth professe and teach to be most prophane and false and altogether grounded vpon sclanderous lyes vttered out of malice against the Roman Church truth of her Catholick faith 23. Heere againe I cannot but beseech the Protestant Reader for the loue he beares to that sacred ransome of his soul the pretious bloud of our Sauiour that he will consider what a kinde a thing the Protestant religion is which relyes vpon such Principles and which hath no more certainty of truth then it is certaine that the bare word of Luther Caluin swinglius Bâ—za and the rest of that black-gard is to be preferred before the vnanimous testimony of 1285. fathers assembled together in general Councel from all parts of the Christian world bearing witnesse in a matter of fact of their owne tymes aboue 300. yeares before any of those other lewde Apostatas were borne 24. Though that which hath beene hitherto related of the Answers which D. Cozens made to the authorities of the fathers and of the sclanderous vntruths he vttered against the Roman Catholick faith do sufficiently declare him to be a man of the very same stampe with all the rest of the ministery of the Protestant kerke that is one that is alwayes ready to say and vnsay as shall be most for the aduantage of his cause and to vtter any thing without remorse that may proue disgracefull to the Roman Church yet in this meeting he gaue vpon seuerall occasions two or three other strong proofes thereof much to be obserued by all those that suffer themselues to be deceiued by him and rely vpon his word and doctrine in matters of faith and religion One is that whereas I had vpon occasion affirmed of Luther that he denyed S. Iames his Epistle to be the word of God D. Cozens denyed this of Luther with as much confidence as if he had had a face of brasse And yet there is nothing more acknowledged by those of Luthers schoole then this that Luther saies of S. Iames his Epistle that it is straminea epistola an epistle of straw and vnworthy altogether of an Apostolicall spirit In which respect Luther in Prolog huius epistola In which respect as also for other his horrible prophanings of Gods holy word L. de Sacram fol. 412. swinglius dorh style him a foul corrupter and horrible falsifyer of Gods word one that followed the Marcionites and Arians that razed out such places of holy writ that were against them Another argument of D. Cozens inconstancy in his assertions and confidence in impugning the knowne truth is that after he had most boldly auouched that the doctrine of Transubstantiation and adoration of the Sacrament was neuer knowne nor practized in the Church before the Lattetan Councel he presently corrected himselfe as if he had beene two fauourable towards the truth and not vttered a falshood loâ—de enough and therefore to make it wider he sayd that neither then was the foresayd doctrine defined by the Councel but afterwards by the Decree of Innocentius the third And yet there can be nothing more cleer then that the whole Councel did define the doctrine we speake of For it is one of the very first Heads or Articles of faith which the Councel doth define beginning the Decrees with firmiter credimus simpliciter confitemur we firmely beleeue and plainly confesse c. that the true body and bloud of Christ is truly contained in the Sacrament of the Altar vnder the formes of bread and wine Verum Christi corpus sanguis in Sacramento Altaris sub speciebus panis vini veraciter continetur transubstantiatiatis pane in corpus vino in sanguinem potesta te diuina Decreta Concil Lat. 4. cap. 1. the bread being by diuine power transubstantiated into the body and the wine into the bloud Thus the Councel And yet D. Cozens is not ashamed to auouch that not the Councel of Lateran but Innocentius the third defined the doctrine of Transubstantiation Neither is his impudence lesse intollerable in denying the Adoration of the Sacrament to be more ancient then the Latteran Councel for no Catholick Diuine can now speake plainer then the fathers of the purest tymes of the Church do for it namely Theodoret S. Austin S. Chrysostome S. Ambrose S. Gregory Nazianzen and others whose authorities may be seene in Coccius Gualterus and Bellarmine and are arkdowledged by Chemnitius Chemnit exam part 2. pag. 92. Parkins Chrispinus Bilson the Centurists and other Protestant writers and Marbachius another Protestant author doth confesse it to be a Most ancient custome which the Church vsed in shewing to the people the Eucharist to be adored in the Masse c. How then is the Doctour not ashamed to maintaine such foul and palpable vntruths with so much boldnesse Who would be a minister of the Protestant Kerke seing it is an office which no man can personate but by laying a syde all regard to truth and publish himselfe to be a meere impostour and seing the building which he is to sustaine is so ruinous that he cannot vphold it and keepe it from ruine but by ruining his owne soule and running wilfully into damnation 25. And what man is there desirous of saluation that will not hold himselfe obliged to abandon such a man as a most vnsafe guide to heauen yea as a certaine deceauer of soules one of the number of those whom S. Paul saies are subuerted and condemned by their owne iudgment because it is euident that he defends a cause a doctrine a faith a religion which cannot be defended but by forging lyes impugning the knowne truth and maintaining Principles contrary to the light of nature and common reason as hath
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