of the firmament that is all particular Churches receiue the light of verity is the Origen and Center of vnity from whence do issue all the Lines of Power and iurisdiction which goe to the whole circumference of the Eccleasticall Hierarchy 6. Hauing returned this answer to my Lord of Insiquin his Lady with in few dayes after sent me another paper of her owne hand writing wherein she had collected out of some bookes of her owne some sayings of S. Austin which she conceiued to make very cleerely against our Catholik doctrine of the Reall presence of Christ in the Eucharist telling me withall that she had showne them to my Lord and that he had sayd that he could not well tell how they were to be vnderstood but that he did not doubt but that I could giue a satisfactory answer to them which therefore she desired of me and with what speed I could 7. Heereupon for my ladyes satisfaction I drew the following answer wherein I first deliuer some generall Rules to be obserued for the right vnderstanding of S. Austine or any other of the ancient fathers in the matter of the H. Eucharist Then applying the sayd Rules respectiuely to the places obiected out of S. Austine I shew how they make nothing at all against our Catholick doctrine This done I proue by cleere places of S. Austin that his beleef was the same with ours concerning the reall presence And lastly in further confirmation of our doctrine I adde the aggreing consent of all Orthodox Antiquity deliuered by the fathers of euery age from the dayes of S. Gregory the great vp to the Apostles all of them expounding the Scriptures in fauour of our doctriâ— and professing themselues to beleeue it and beating witnesse that it was in their tymes the beleef of all Orthodox Christians Churches which they taught and gouerned From all which I inferred and concluded against the authors of those bookes and all Protestant Ministers that pretend to Orthodox Antiquity for warrant of their doctrine that they be most foul impostours and wilfull deceauers and therefore of no credit nor to be beleeued nor trusted in matters of religion 8. This answer produced I know â—ot how a meeting with D. Cozens and this meeting a verbal contention about the sense of Antiquity concerning the reall presence of Christ in the Eucharist For vpon my coming to the Palais Royall to present this Answer to my Lady I was by and by after conducted by my Lord from his owne lodgins to D. Cozens his Chamber where I met my Lady with another ProtestaÌ„t Gentleman After the common salutes of Ciuility occasion being giuen me I told him the cause of my comming then to the Palais Royal was to bring my Lady an Answer which some three or foure dayes afore she had desired of me to some authorities of S. Austin which c. The Doctor replyed he knew not what she had done and that whatsoeuer it was she had done it of her selfe c. After some few words had passed between vs about that subiect I began with both their leaues to read my paper But I had scarce ended the first § but the minister interrupted me saying my lady may read your aÌ„swer another tyme if you haue any thing to say against our doctrine you may say it that which we beleeue is deliured by Gelasius and Theodoret two ancient fathers of the Church the rest did not disagre from them and they agree with vs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Theodoret. 9. I replyed first that I cam not to dispute about the meaning of Theodoret and Gelasius but to satisfy my lady concerning S. Austines sayings which she had sent me as making against our Catholick doctrine therefore I desired leaue to reade what I had made ready for that purpose Heere the Doctor cryed out as before my lady may reade you answer another tyme c. And then my lady shewed a desire that it might be so and sayd she would reade my paper afterwars and willed me to answer to Theodoret and Gelasius 10. Heereupon I replyed to the Doctor and sayd first Gelasius is not the man you take him to be who is he then sayd the Doctor not Gelasius the Pope sayd I neither doth he whosoeuer he be make any thing against vs as you may see in Bellarmine Heere the Doctor vttered against Bellarmine some scurrilous language of which Hereticall mouths are alwayes full but I tooke little notice of it and went on saying and for Theodoret it is euident his meaning is that in the Eucharist the mysticall signes that is the otward forme of bread and wine after consecration remaine in their owne proper nature figure and forme as before and not that they remaine in the same substance of bread and wine wherin they did inhere before consecration 11. The Doctor heere repeated with some vehemency 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in their substance in their substance in their former substance I answered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nature essence yea substance doth not only and alwayes signify substance as it is diuided against accident but also rhe true nature and essence of euery thing as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth which word Theodoret doth also vse in the same place vpon the same occasion and in the same sense and you will not deny but that Acccidents haue an intrinsecall nature and essence proper to themselues and really distinct from the substance in which they do naturally inhere 12. Heere the Doctor to shew what a deepe Physopher he is cryed out with a repetition Accidentis est inesse Accidentis est inesse What then sayd I I hope you will grant that Accidents haue an accidentall essence distinct from the nature essence of the substance wherein they in here How then doth this accidentis est inesse Proue that Theodoret speakes not of the proper nature essence of the AccideÌ„ts wheÌ„ he sayes the mysticall signes remaine in their former nature c. 13. Heere that I might be permitted to read some authorities of the ancient fathers which I had made ready to shew my lady the sense of Orthodox Antiquity I sayd to the Doctor we contend heere about the meaning of Theodoret the argument which euen now you made for your doctrine Gelasius and Theodoret taught this the rest of the fathers did not dissent from them ergo c. This argument I say might be easily turned against you with much more efficacy but let vs ex dato non concesso suppose without granting that Theodoret and Gelasius did fauour your doctrine and then I argue thus Faith relyeth vpon authority and therefore in matters of faith the greatest authority must command our beleefe and sway our vnderstanding but the rest of the fathers do euidently hold with vs and their authority is incomparably greater therefore we are to submit to it and beleeue what they beleeued 14. Heere I was with much a do permitted to reade some authorities of
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
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
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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to their proper litteral sense that being so interpreted according to their proper litterall sense they do vnauoydably establish the doctrine of Transubstantiation which is beleeued taught as a diuine reuealed truth by the now Roman Catholick Church Hence I argue thus §. 50. IF our Sauiours words this is my body c. be true to be vnderstood in their proper litteral sense then the Papisticall Transubstantiation must be established Protestants must yeeld vnto vs Catholiks the whole cause to wit Transubstantiation adoration the like as both Beza Morton and others grant But the sayd words of our Sauiour are to be vnderstood according to their proper litteral sense as Cammierus Melanchton and othet great Protestants auouch and the full consent of fathers doth teach Ergo the sayd words of our Sauiour do establish the doctrine of Transubstantiation and the whole cause is confessedly ours by the warrant of Scripture consent of fathers and confession of Protestants themselues § 52. AGAINE that is the truth in matters of faith which the fathers of all ages haue with mutuall consent professed Otherwise it were but vaine and idle to dispute about their beleefe vnlesse their vnanimous testimony were a Rule which all Christians are obliged to follow in all doctrines of faith But if that be the truth which the fathers of all ages haue professed with mutuall consent it is altogether on the Papists syde as Duditius in generall and Melanchton in this particular point confesse Ergo the truth in matters of religion is altogether on our syde §. 53. SO that we haue from the free confessions of Protestants themselues that our doctrine of Transubstantiation is as â—n ancient as the Gospel it selfe if the words of truth it selfe be true in a proper litteral sense as they haue beene vnderstood and interpreted all along in all ages by the Pastors and Doctours of God Church Can there be any thing more in reason required to establish the verity of any doctrine of faith then to heare Truth it selfe teaching it and deliuering it in words that haue but one proper litterall sense and that must be vnderstood and interpreted according to it And to the contrary can there be any thing more conuincing the opposite Protestant doctrine to be damnably hereticall then this that it cannot possibly be true if our deare Lord and Sauiour making his last will and Testament did speake plainely and properly and so as no man afterwads could groundedly raise any doubts about the sense and meaning of his words §. 54. WHEREFORE Madame seing our Catholick doctrine of Transubstantiation is so notoriously descended from Christ himselfe through all ages to vs by full Tradition of the Church by a conspicuous succession of Pastors deliuering the same from fathers to sonnes as a diuine reuealed verity you may safely conclud for the truth of our Catholick doctrine say with S. Hilary expounding the words of institution There is no place left of doubting of the truth of the flesh and bloud of our Sauiour for now both by our Sauiours profession and our beleef it is ttuly flesh and truly bloud Secondly against your Sacramentarian Ministers that they are men of no credit in matters of faith and religion seing it is manifest that all they obiect against our doctrine are forged lyes for what can be more manifestly vntrue then that which your Doctor doth without all shame auouch â— â— de Trinit to wit that before the latteran Councel the doctrine of Transubstantiation was not knowne in the Church §. 55. YOV will further see that all that these vnconscionable men do clamourously obiect against this diuine mystery ' hath no more difficulty then what their first Progenitours the murmuring Capharnaites conceiued through their grosse and inhumane imagination and opposed against our Sauiours heauenly doctrine forsaking therupon his deare fociety Iob. 66. as Protestants haue since forsaken vpon the same preteÌ„ce the CommunioÌ„ of his spouse the Church iustifying their horrid sacrilegious reuolt as those other carnall men did with this prophane and impious excuse How can this man giue vs his flesh to eate Iob. v. 52.90.64 This saying is heard and who can endure to heare it But if they would open their deaf eares to the voice of truth and render themselues capable to vnderstand the things which are of God by captiuating their vnderstanding into the obedieÌ„ce of Christ they would in the very same place of the Gospel finde these cleer lights of truth which would dispell all the clouds of their infidelity affoâ—d theÌ„ full and satisfactory answers to all that wilfull blindnesse doth obiect against a truth so cleerly deliuered by God in Scripture they would finde I say v. 51. c. v. 68. 69. these verities that this man who promiseth to giue his owne flesh vnder the forme of bread is the sonne of the liuing God and that his words are the words of eternall life insinitely efficacious operatiue that it is his omnipotent and lifegiuing spirit that quickeneth and floweth his operatiue vertue into his Creatures and produceth therein an effect which is to manifest the greateness of his power v. 49. 50. 58. and the riches of his glory in a farre more wonderfull manner then euer Manna did that most delicious food and bread made by the hands of Angels that it is as easy for him to descend froÌ„ heauen vpon our Altars v. 61. as it is to ascend thither where he was before that as reason reacheth only to things that are probable in nature so faith ascendeâ—h to all that is possibie to God to all that he auoucheth and therefore seing he saith the bread which I will giue v 51. v. 55. is my flesh my flesh is meate indeed v. 53. and vnlesse you eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his bloud you shall not haue life in you and the like all that are docible of God all that are endued from aboue with the light of faith do readily and firmely beleeue it to be most certainely true relying on his infinit authority who can neither deceaue nor be deceaued and lastly that the flesh that is as Origen S. Cyprian S. Chrysostome Thophylactus Euthymius and others expound it their carnall vnderstand of our Sauiours speech about his flesh to be eaten in the Sacrament profiteth nothing to saluation but requireth a more spirituall and eleuated vndestanding vnto which those dull carnall and murmuring Iewes had beene raysed by the light of faith conuoyed into their soules by the heauenly father had they not wilfully shut their obdurate harts against him v. 44 45. 4 §. 56. I Conclude therefore with S. Chrysostomes exhortation to you saying let vs giue credit to God euery where Homil. 89. in matt let vs not oppose against him though what he saith doth seeme to our senses and our thinking absurd let his saying