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
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
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
beene partly already sheâ—ed and will heereafter more fully cleerly appeare by the testimonie of the ancient fathers bearning witnesse against him that in asserting â—he Doctrine of Transubstantiation neuer to haue beene knowne in the Church before the Councel of Latteran he doth vtter so madifest a falshood that he remaines conuicted either of much malice or of great ignorance both which considerations oblige all men to looke vpon him as a man of no credit in matters of religion WE whose are names vnderwritteÌ„ Doctours in Diuinity of the sacred Faculty of Paris haue perused the Treatise entituled The Docttrine of Transubstantiation ancient Orthodoxall And we do testify that we haue not found any thing therein that doth not perfectly agree with the Catholick RomaÌ„ faith sense of Orthodox Antiquity therefore we iudge that it may be profitably published for the cleering of the truth against the sclanderous tongue of D. Io Cozens a ProtestaÌ„t minister who is sayd to haue occasioned the writing of it by boldly affirming the Doctrine of TraÌ„substaÌ„tiation neuer to haue beene knowne nor heard of in the Church be fore the Councel of Latteran O LONERGAN R. Nugent THE DOCTRINE OF Transubstantiation Ancient Orthodoxall §. 1. FOR the right vnderstanding of S. Augustine the same is to be sayd of any other of the fathers we are to suppose that he being so eminently learned doth not contradict himselfe in doctrines of faith the most important mysteries of Christian Religion this being a thing which euen the meanest writers though in triuiall matters do euer scorne as too cleer an argument of grosse obliuion wors inconstancy though throw gods iudgment Hereticks haue euer beene lyable to this reproach shame none more then the sectaries of these tymes §. 2. SECONDLY to know assuredly what the fathers did beleeue and theach touching any article of faith we are to looke into those their elaborate workes where they do expresly professedly treate of that matter there we are the likeliest to finde what their beleef practice was concerning it Protestants do very much decline from this Rule all their endeauours are to cull heere there all the obscure sayings they can finde in other places of the fathers that by their strayned violent constructions they may wrest them to giue a shadow vnto their Hereticall senses and make their vnlearned followers beleeue that the Fathers were of their opinion taught their doctrine §. 3. AND in like manner if in any of all those plaine sentences which we alleage in proof of our doctrine there be any One word that can afford them matter of Cauil they will be sure to take hold of it contend without all shame honesty though the Meaning of the fathers be there in it selfe most cleer euident But who doth not see this way of proceding in Protestant Ministers to be most injurious to the holy fathers seing heereby they will presently appeare euen to euery ignorant person to contradit themselues so lose all credit authority for he that is once discouered to say vn say the same thing can be esteemed no better then either a wilfull Lyer or at least a person most forgetfull and inconstant and so of no credit at all as a witnesse of verity for who can giue credit to a man whom he findes to be full of contradictions And in very truth this is all that Protestant ministers ayme at to bring men into a high contempt of the fathers whitak de sacra scrip pa. 670. 676. 678. 690. D. Bear D. Morton Lubbertus alij when they instance vrge against them their owne contradictions saying as whitaker doth Basil fighteth with himselfe Damascen is contrary to himselfe I oppose Chrysostome against Chrysostome Let vs not attend what Cyprian sayd but let vs examin him by his owne lawe For were it not euident to them that the fathers do condemne their opinions patronize ours they would neuer endeauour so fowly to blemish them by vrging contradiction with themselues which as I sayd a fore the meanest writers though in triuiall matters do euer scorne §. 4. THirdly a most effectuall and sure meanes to know what any one of the ancient fathers beleeued and thaugt in any particular matter of faith is the testimony of the Pastours Doctours of the Church of the same age of the ages immediatly following for these being neerest to these fathers some of them eye-witnesses of their practice Hearers of their doctrine are best able to tell vs what religion such such fathers of their tymes professed Wherefore if the Church for example in S. Augustin tyme immediatly after did take no notice of any new doctrine deliuered by him concerning the reall presence of Christ in the Eucharist we are not to doubt but that S. Austine did agree in this point of beleef with the rest of the ancient fathers with the whole Church not withstanding some obscure places which per aduenture May befound here there in him which to vs now so farre off May seeme to carry agreat deale of difficulty for their right wnderstanting therefore Protestants can take no aduantage against vs from any such hard sayings of the fathers which to the vnlearned may seeme to make against our Catholick Doctrine for though they seeme to make against the generall receiued doctrine of the Church yet we are to beleeue that it is but seemingly only not really if the Church tooke no notice att all of it for had they beene then vnderstood so by the Châ—rch it is certaine she would haue taken notice of it opposed it as we see she did in the case of S. Cyprian about the doctrine of rebaptization §. 5. FOurthly for the vnderstanting of the fathers we are to obserue that they do often tymes in the pharse of scripture call the blessed Eucharist bread the Chalice wine euen after Consecration 1. Because the Elements were bread wine before 2. See the like maÌ„ner of shepec Io. 2.9 Matt. 11.15 Luc. 7.15 Gen. 9.19 Exod. 7 12. Concedo solere quae mutata â—uÌ„t vocari de nomine pristino Camier l. 10. de Euch. c. 22. Ioan. 6. v. 35. 48 51. Because they reserue the outward formes of bread wine as the Angells gen 18. are called men because they appeared in humane shape 3. Because it contayneth wnder the shape of bread the true bread of life Christ Iesus The Eucharist therefore may be sometyme called bread by the fathers in one of these senses without making any thing at all against our doctrine of the reall presence §. 6. IN like manner the fathers do in a true Catholik sense call the Eucharist a Sacrament a signe à figure of Christs body à remembrance of his passion It is a Sacrament that is as S. August defines it a visibile signe of inuisibile grace which doth inwardly refresh feede our
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
souls The externall formes of bread wine are a signe of Christs true body blood contayned by way of foode vnder them It is a figure and remembrance of Christs death passion but to inferre from hence as Protestant Ministers do ergo Christ is not there really present is as idle as this Herod made a supper in rembrance of his birth day to the Chief of Gelilee ergo he was not present at it We therefore say that Christ as being in a different manner in the Sacrament is a figure type of himselfe as offered on the Crosse for our Redemption What opposition Protestants heere make against the truth of Christs being present in the Sacrament the same did Apollinaris Marcion Make against the truth of our sauiours Humanity because forsooth the scriptures auouch him to be made according to the similitudiâ—e shape likenesse of man and the same did other ancient hereticks vrge against his diuinity because S. Paul intitleth him the image of God the Caracter figure of his fathers substance And as the fathers then replyed to both those sortes of hereticks that Christ had the likenesse of a man was a true perfect man was the image of God yet true God the figure of his fathers substance the substance it selfe so we say to these new Capharnaites the Eucharist is a commemoration a signe à figure of Christs body also his true naturall body and that not only the outward formes but the very body of Christ as vnder them without extension in a manner impassible is a sacrament signe figure remenbrance of his body as offered on the Crosse for though it be the same in substance yet not in shew appearance nor indued with the same qualities of extension circumscription passibility and the like Wherefore these manner of speekes rightly vnderstood do no wayes preiudice or exclude the truth of Chtists being really present in the Eucharist vnder the formes of bread and wine §. 7. LAstly we must obserue that there are three sortes of eating Christ insinuated by the fathers of the Primitiue Church One is Sacramentally only as when euil men receiue the Sacrament vnworthily For these though they receiue the very Sacrament and in it the true body and blood of Christ yet do they not receiue the true spirituall effect and fruict thereof which is grace nourishment of their soules §. 8. ANother manner of eating Christ is spiritually only for that without Sacracramentall receiuing good men by faith and grace do communicate with Christ participate the fruit of his passion In this sense S. Austin saies crede manducasti beleeue thou hast eaten which maÌ„ner of speech in the fathers hath no relation at all to the Orall manducation of Christ in the Eucharist Wherefore when your Ministers do apply such like sayings of the fathers where they treate of this spirituall eating Christ the bread of life by faith beleefe only to the eating of Christ by the Sacrament they do wrong the fathers in peruerting their meaning that so vnder the shadow of their authority they may freely vent their prophane Hereticall doctrine abusing thereby the fathers as all Heretiks euer haue done the holy scriptures §. 9. THe third manner of eating Christ mentioned by the Fathers is both Sacramentally and spiritually as all good Christians do when with due preparation and dispositioÌ„ they receiue both the outward Sacrament the inward grace and fruit of it To which manner of eating Christ by faith in the Sacrament the sathers do frequently exhort vs and for that end to cleanse the soul prepare the hart c. And therefore they call it spirituall food the bread of the minde the proper nourishmeÌ„t of the spirit because indeed the spirituall repast and refection of the minde is the chief and most souueraigne effect of this diuine BaÌ„quet Neuerthelesse it excludeth not as S. Cyril notheth but presupposeth the corporall eating from which 20. in Ioan. cap. 13. as from the fountaine and sea of grace the spirituall is deriued Hence Tertullian saith the flesh is fed with the body and blood of Christ that the soul may be fattened with God â—â—de Resuâ—rect carn ca. p. §. 10. APplying these obseruations respectiuely to the places obiected against vs you will easily vnderstand the true meaning of the ancient fathers and finde a solid answer to all that your ministers do most clâ—amourously and most impertinently vrge against vs. The first place where Austin saies That which you see is bread c. you will find answered § 5. And therefore the argument which Protestants vrge from this notioÌ„ of bread and which fox relates as a kilcow tow it Fox pag 1258. col 2. n. 80. that which he tooke blessed that which he blessed he brake that which he brake he gaue but he tooke bread ergo he gaue bread This argument I say is no wiser then this that which Good tooke out of Adams syde Gen. 2. was a ribb but what he tooke that he brought deliuered to Adam for his wife ergo 〈◊〉 deliuered Him a ribb for his wife §. 11. TO the second place what dost thou prepare thy teeth belly beleeue thou hast eaten you haue an answer § 8. for S. Austin speakes non there of the Sacrament of the Eucharist nor of those who receiue it but of the incredulous Iewes who had now giuen an expresse commandment to lay hold on our Sauiour for he expounds the 56. verse of S. Iohn cap. 11. he exhorts them to apprehend him by faith that is to beleeue in him and receiue him for the Messias Sauiour §. 12. When S. Austin sayes he that feedeth with the hart not he that grindeth with the teeth c. He doth not denye the latter that is Sacramentall receiuing the true body and blood of our Sauiour but only signifyes that not he that grindeth with the teeth only can partake of the fruit of the Sacrament that he that feedeth with the hart without Orall eating may benefit himselfe by it §. 13. IN like sorte I answer to the third place obiected out of S. Austin for he only denyeth the wicked to eate of the bread of our Lord c. because they are not incorporated in his mysticall body or els because they do it not fruitfully to the benefit of their soules Psal 1.5 as Dauid saies The wiked shall not rise in iudgement because they shall nat rise to saluation but to damnation Otherwise S. Austin doth in many places grant that the wicked do truly eate the body of Christ in the Sacrament though as S. Paul sayes to their iudgment §. 14. ALl the other places that are or may be alleadged out of S. Austin or any other ancient Father may in like manner be easily answered by applying some one of the premitted obseruations to them if the sayd places be faithfully and fully without deprauation corruption
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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