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
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
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
souls The externall formes of bread wine are a signe of Christs true body blood contayned by way of foode vnder them It is a figure and remembrance of Christs death passion but to inferre from hence as Protestant Ministers do ergo Christ is not there really present is as idle as this Herod made a supper in rembrance of his birth day to the Chief of Gelilee ergo he was not present at it We therefore say that Christ as being in a different manner in the Sacrament is a figure type of himselfe as offered on the Crosse for our Redemption What opposition Protestants heere make against the truth of Christs being present in the Sacrament the same did Apollinaris Marcion Make against the truth of our sauiours Humanity because forsooth the scriptures auouch him to be made according to the similitudiâ—e shape likenesse of man and the same did other ancient hereticks vrge against his diuinity because S. Paul intitleth him the image of God the Caracter figure of his fathers substance And as the fathers then replyed to both those sortes of hereticks that Christ had the likenesse of a man was a true perfect man was the image of God yet true God the figure of his fathers substance the substance it selfe so we say to these new Capharnaites the Eucharist is a commemoration a signe à figure of Christs body also his true naturall body and that not only the outward formes but the very body of Christ as vnder them without extension in a manner impassible is a sacrament signe figure remenbrance of his body as offered on the Crosse for though it be the same in substance yet not in shew appearance nor indued with the same qualities of extension circumscription passibility and the like Wherefore these manner of speekes rightly vnderstood do no wayes preiudice or exclude the truth of Chtists being really present in the Eucharist vnder the formes of bread and wine §. 7. LAstly we must obserue that there are three sortes of eating Christ insinuated by the fathers of the Primitiue Church One is Sacramentally only as when euil men receiue the Sacrament vnworthily For these though they receiue the very Sacrament and in it the true body and blood of Christ yet do they not receiue the true spirituall effect and fruict thereof which is grace nourishment of their soules §. 8. ANother manner of eating Christ is spiritually only for that without Sacracramentall receiuing good men by faith and grace do communicate with Christ participate the fruit of his passion In this sense S. Austin saies crede manducasti beleeue thou hast eaten which maÌ„ner of speech in the fathers hath no relation at all to the Orall manducation of Christ in the Eucharist Wherefore when your Ministers do apply such like sayings of the fathers where they treate of this spirituall eating Christ the bread of life by faith beleefe only to the eating of Christ by the Sacrament they do wrong the fathers in peruerting their meaning that so vnder the shadow of their authority they may freely vent their prophane Hereticall doctrine abusing thereby the fathers as all Heretiks euer haue done the holy scriptures §. 9. THe third manner of eating Christ mentioned by the Fathers is both Sacramentally and spiritually as all good Christians do when with due preparation and dispositioÌ„ they receiue both the outward Sacrament the inward grace and fruit of it To which manner of eating Christ by faith in the Sacrament the sathers do frequently exhort vs and for that end to cleanse the soul prepare the hart c. And therefore they call it spirituall food the bread of the minde the proper nourishmeÌ„t of the spirit because indeed the spirituall repast and refection of the minde is the chief and most souueraigne effect of this diuine BaÌ„quet Neuerthelesse it excludeth not as S. Cyril notheth but presupposeth the corporall eating from which 20. in Ioan. cap. 13. as from the fountaine and sea of grace the spirituall is deriued Hence Tertullian saith the flesh is fed with the body and blood of Christ that the soul may be fattened with God â—â—de Resuâ—rect carn ca. p. §. 10. APplying these obseruations respectiuely to the places obiected against vs you will easily vnderstand the true meaning of the ancient fathers and finde a solid answer to all that your ministers do most clâ—amourously and most impertinently vrge against vs. The first place where Austin saies That which you see is bread c. you will find answered § 5. And therefore the argument which Protestants vrge from this notioÌ„ of bread and which fox relates as a kilcow tow it Fox pag 1258. col 2. n. 80. that which he tooke blessed that which he blessed he brake that which he brake he gaue but he tooke bread ergo he gaue bread This argument I say is no wiser then this that which Good tooke out of Adams syde Gen. 2. was a ribb but what he tooke that he brought deliuered to Adam for his wife ergo 〈◊〉 deliuered Him a ribb for his wife §. 11. TO the second place what dost thou prepare thy teeth belly beleeue thou hast eaten you haue an answer § 8. for S. Austin speakes non there of the Sacrament of the Eucharist nor of those who receiue it but of the incredulous Iewes who had now giuen an expresse commandment to lay hold on our Sauiour for he expounds the 56. verse of S. Iohn cap. 11. he exhorts them to apprehend him by faith that is to beleeue in him and receiue him for the Messias Sauiour §. 12. When S. Austin sayes he that feedeth with the hart not he that grindeth with the teeth c. He doth not denye the latter that is Sacramentall receiuing the true body and blood of our Sauiour but only signifyes that not he that grindeth with the teeth only can partake of the fruit of the Sacrament that he that feedeth with the hart without Orall eating may benefit himselfe by it §. 13. IN like sorte I answer to the third place obiected out of S. Austin for he only denyeth the wicked to eate of the bread of our Lord c. because they are not incorporated in his mysticall body or els because they do it not fruitfully to the benefit of their soules Psal 1.5 as Dauid saies The wiked shall not rise in iudgement because they shall nat rise to saluation but to damnation Otherwise S. Austin doth in many places grant that the wicked do truly eate the body of Christ in the Sacrament though as S. Paul sayes to their iudgment §. 14. ALl the other places that are or may be alleadged out of S. Austin or any other ancient Father may in like manner be easily answered by applying some one of the premitted obseruations to them if the sayd places be faithfully and fully without deprauation corruption