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
neere vnto him as to his Kate that is to his sacrilegious whore to be short doth he not confesse both of himselfe and the rest of his reformed ministers Praef. in Proposi de Bigam an 1528. proposit 62. 63. 66. That lustfull desires do burne in vs we cannot deny seing by reason thereof we are become infamous in the sight of our congregations Such are D. Cozens saincts fuch the first Apostles and founders of his Church Luther the grand Patriark a lewde Apostata fryar yoaked to a Nunne instructed by the Diuel Zuinglius a fyrebrand of Hell for his seditious and bloudy spirit Caluin and Beza two most infamous Sodomits Carolostadius a rude and sauage man istructed also by the Diuel Oecolampadius Bucer Bullinger Peter Martyr and the rest all of them as foule and vggly as the fire of lust and other horrid vices could make them These are the first founders and raysers of the Protestant building these the first Apostles and preachers the pretended reformation these the models on which all the rest of the Protestant ministery are formed framed and of which they are liuing copies such lips such lettice such saincts such Churches 19. S. Gaudentius being reiected as an insufficient witnesse of the faith of those primitiue tymes I cited S. Cyril of Alexandria and the Councel of Ephesus sec §. 30. 31. To which the Doctour answered this is iust our doctrine and then fell into a contestation with my Lord of Insiquin about the Eucharist being a sacrifice and one while he auouched it to be a true reall sacrifice another while that it was a sacrifice only as it is a â—emoriall of the sacrifice our Sauiour offered of himselfe on the crosse And indeed he deliuered himselfe so coÌ„fusedly so vncoÌ„staÌ„tly that he made it cleere that he neither knowes how to define a sacrifice nor what a true sacrifice meanes And as to the authority of S. Cyril I leaue it to any vnderstanding Protestant to iudge wheter Protestants do generally beleeue that the things offered on the Altar that is the bread and wine be by the power of life conuerted into the true body and bloud of our Lord as S. Cyril cited § 30. doth beleeue and teach 20. After S. Cyril I alleadged S. Ambrose saying how many examples do we vse to proue that the thing is not thâ— which nature hath made but that which the blessing hath consecrated that the power of consecration is greater then the power of natâ—re for by consecration the very nature it selfe is changed c. 21 The Doctors answer to this authority was that that which was before instituted and ordayned by nature for the nourishment of our bodyes is now by our Sauiours institution designed to signify thâ— spirituall nourishment of our soules I replyed it is cleer S. Ambrose speakes of a change in nature of an intrinsecall Physicall change of such a change as none but the omnipotent power of the Creatour can make in his creatures which the deputaâ—â—on and designation you speake of doth not doe Heere I would haue gone on citing the authority of S. Ambrose to shew that he speake of an intrinsecall Physicall change But the Doctor being now growne loude and clamorous and hauing in that heate of words sayd that the doctrine of Transubstantiation was neuer knowne nor heard of in the Church before the Councel of Latteran my Lord of Insiquin vrged him to shew where the Church was that then opposed that pretended errour and maintained the truth against that Councel defining as it did But the Doctour came so short in satisfying my Lords demand that verily though he did lowdly worde it for almost a quarter of an houre yet he did not vtter any one word that could satisfy any rationall man to the Queree which which my Lord vrged against him very handsomly and very home For he could not so much as name any one Pastor of the Church that did shew himselfe for the truth against that Councel and oppose himselfe as a wall for the house of God in defence of the Catholick doctrine He named indeed twice or thrice scotus yet so as he well appeared to be conscius of his being not able to make it good that Scotus euer opposed the authority and definition of the Councel of Latteran and much lesse that he could make him who was not then borne appeare as a Church opposing such a Councel as was that of Latteran which consisted of 1285. fathers assembled from all parts of the Christian World the Pope himselfe Innocentius the third being present and the foure Prtriarkes two in person the other two by their Legats themselues being hindred the one by sicknesse the other by the difficulty of passing through the Turkes dominions 22. The Doctour hauing as I sayd vociferated for almost a quarter of an houre without giuing any kinde of satisfaction to my Lords Queree he rose vp made his excuse that his affaires would not not permitt him to stay any longer tyme and so all taking leaue one of another we parted euery one which way his occasions called him 23. Since this meeting some of his friends haue raised reports of great victories gayned by him as in like occasions they did of the occasionall discourses which were held with him by that learned Diuine Mr. Thomas Carre about seueral Articles of our Catholick faith and by D. Thomas Vane about the Councel of Latteran But the victories he gained were ouer himselfe not ouer his aduersaries as the relation which I haue heere made doth demonstrate For what was his insimulating S. Gaudentius of heresy but a conuiction of his owne ignorance and a confession that that ancient father beleeued and taught that which the now Roman Church doth beleeue and teach concerning the doctrine of Transubstantiation What was his saying to the testimony of S. Cyril and the Councel of Ephesus This is iust our doctrine but an open acknowledgment that he neither knowes the doctrine of the English conuocation creed nor what S. Cyrill and the Councel of Ephesus doth teach nor what the Councel of Trent hath defined What was the exposition he gaue to the testimony of S. Ambrose but an open professing himselfe to be a man that is carryed away with wilfull obstinaâ—y See Reynerus c. 3. §. tertia causa exeodem Illyricus tit de Walden §. sui not guided by the loue of verity One of his brethren as great a pretended Gospeller coming to translate those words of S. Iohn v c. 1. v. sui eum non receperunt his owne receiued him not tooke sui his owne for the nominatiue plural of sus a sow and turned it thus the swine receiued him not This beastly Heretick might as well and with as much reason defend and iustify this his prophane exposition of Gods holy word as D. Cozens can defend and iustify the sence he giues to S. Ambrose his words Lastly what is his granting the Councel of
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉