〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
THE CATHOLICK DOCTRINE OF TRANSVBTANTIATION proued to be ancient and Orthodoxall Against the sclanderous tongue of D. Iohn Cozens a Protestants minister auouching the sayd doctrine neuer to haue been knowne in the Church before the Councels of Latteran and of Trent Aug. in psal 36. Tanto magis debemus commemorare vanitatem Haereticorum quanto magis quaerimus salutem eorum By how much more we seeke the saluation of HereticKes by so much more we ought to maKe the vanity of their lyes appeare Luther Epist ad Io. Heruagium TypographuÌ„ The sacramentaries began their opinion of the sacrament with lyes and with lyes they defend it PRINTED AT PARIS M.DC.LVII TO THE READER COVRTEOVS READER As the cause of my first writing this paper was to satisfy the Countesse of Insiquin giue her not only the true sense and meaning of S. Austin but also the beleefe of all Orthodox Antiquity concerning the reall presence of Christ in the holy Eucharist so the reason why I now publish it is to informe those of the truth who peraduenture may haue heard of a conference which casually happened thereupon between my selfe and D. Iohn Cozens a Protestant minister Which because it is related by some of his friends with much partiality preiudice to the truth I am aduised by friends to publish it with all the most materiall circumstances wherewith it was accompanyed or which were the occasion of it whereby it will appeare that Luther the grand Patriarke of all Protestant Congregations neuer spoke truer then when speaking of the Abettors of the Sacramentarian doctrine which is the doctrine of the English pretended reformation he sayd Epist ad Ioannem Heruagium TypographuÌ„ The Sacramentaries began their opinion with lyes and with lyes they defend it this I say will appeare plainly by the following relation 1. The Countesse of Insiquin being trobled at her Honorable Lords being become a Roman Catholick and vsing all the meanes she could to draw him to returne againe to Protestanisme among other indeauours she applyed the industry of D. Io Cozens a Protastant minister who to that effect wrot sundry papers to him wherein he impugned the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome ouer the whole Church of Christ as a doctrine crept-in since the Apostles tymes and not warranted by the authority of Orthodox Antiquity 2. These papers the earle of Insiquin was pleased to send vnto me and withall requested me to returne an answer to them especially to the authorities alleadged therein out out of S. Gregory the great and S. Cyprian against our Catholick doctrine 3. In compliance with my Lords request I drew a short answer wherein I shewed first by the testimone of the Doctours owne brethren that his vrging of S. Gregories refusing the title of vniuersall Bishop is very vaine and idle and grounded vpon wilfull blindnesse and Hereticall obstinacy because it is cleerer then the sunne and confessed by the greatest schollers of Protestant syde that S Gregory notwithstanding the foresayd obiection did clayme and exercise the Primacy of authority and iurisdiction ouer all Churches in causes spirituall and Ecclesiasticall and therefore he tearmeth the see of Rome the head of all Churches the mother Church the mistresse of Nations and auoucheth them to be peruerse men that will not be subiect to her and that S. Peter was by God appointed ouer all the Church c. These acknowledgments are made of S. Gregory by Bale Bulinger Melanchton the Centurists and other Protestant writers against D. Cozens and his old worne-out obiection which hath beene so many tymes already answered and refuted not only by our Catholick Diuines but euen by Protestants In so much that Andreas Friccius a Protestant whom Peter Martyr styleth an excellent learned man writeth thus in confutation of this foolish obiection saying L. 2. de Eccles cap. 10. pa. 570. Some there be c. that obiect the authority of Gregory who saith that such a title pertaineth to the Precursor of Anti-Christ but the reason of Gregory is to be knowne and it may be gathered from his words which he repeateath in many Epistles that the title of vniuersall Bishop is contrary to and doth gainsay the grace which is commonly poured vpon all Bishops He therefore that calleth himselfe the only Bishop taketh the Bishop like power from te rest Wherefore this title he would haue to be reiected c. But it is neuerthelesse euident by other places that Gregory thaught that the charge and Principality of the whole Church was committed to Peter And yet for this cause Gregory thought not that Peter was the forerunner of Anti-Christ Thus Friccius So euident it is by the Confession of this Protestant that S. Gregory himselfe claymed and defended the Primacy of the Roman Bishop Church ouer all other Bishops and Churches whatsoeuer And yet D. Cozens will be still vrging against vs this obiection of s. Greg which proceeding doth euidently conuince him to be either extreme ignoraÌ„t little verst euen in his owne authors or else which is much worse to haue layd a syde all shame and honesty being resolued to maintaine any thing though neuer so cleer against his owne conscience so that he may for base ends and secular interest deceaue the vnlearned 4. Hauing shewed that his argument drawne from the authority of s. Gregory was of no credit euen with the learnedst of his owne schoole I went on declaring how the minister abused S. Cyprian by disiointing clipping and confounding S. Cyprians sayings that so he might obscure his meaning which are the ordinary shifts of Protestant ministers and are most vnexcusable in D. Cozens because he wilfully perseuers in it notwithstanding the notice which was lately taken thereof in the very selfe same controuerâ—y by that learned Diuine Mr. Thomas Carre in his occasionall discourses and in like occasion by D. Thomas Vane in his vindication of the Councel of Latteran both of them laying open his foul peruerting and corrupting of the fathers and the Councel to his eternall shame and confusion for it cannot but appeare to euery indifferent man that the minister is not so much a louer of truth as he would faine appeare to his followers but rather to be accounted of the number of those who loue darkenesse more then light falshood more then truth 5. These hereticall slights being discouered in the Minister I shewed how the places of S. Cyprian being faithfully cited make most cleerly for our Catholick doctrine seing it is cleer that he beleeued and taught that the Roman Church was by diuine institution the Principall and chief Church that she had the prerogatiue of being the mother Church of all other Churches that the Primacy or head-gouerning authority was by Christ giuen to S. Peter and his successor and that his Chaire that is the see of Rome is the fountaine and head-spring from whence do flow all the stremes of pure and infallible doctrine is the sunne from whence all the starres
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
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
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