obiect from the not vse of the word in former tymes proues only this which is a Confirmation of our doctrine that before the tyme of Berengarius the first that moued open warre against the B. Eucharist the doctrine of transubstantiatiō had beene beleeued taught in the Church as a diuine reuealed thruth for so many ages without contradiction no Heretikall that tyme lifting vp his Head to hisse against it The third thing which the Councel of Trent doth declare and testify is that this doctrine of Transubstantiation is Ancient and orthodoxall that is is the same which the Pastours and Doctors of the Church haue with one accord beleueed taught as an Apostolicall Tradition as a doctrine of faith which the Apostles receiued from our blessed Sauiour deliuered to their successors to be by them conuayed downe all along to Posterity The proof of this truth is the subiect of all that heere followes and that I may more fully cleerly demonstrate it I make this argument §. 17. IF the fathers of all ages from the Councel of Lateran vp to the Apostles did beleeue and teach that in the Eucharist the bread and wine is by consecration conuerted changed transmuted transelemented transmade into the body and bloud of Christ then the said fathers did beleeue and teach the same doctrine of Transubstantiation which the now Roman Church doth beleeue teach But the fathers of all ages from the Lateran Councel vp to the Apostles did beleeue teach that in the Eucharist the bread and wine is by consecration conuerted changed Transelemented Transmuted Transmade into the body bloud of Christ Therefore the fathers of all ages from the Councel of Lateran vp to the Apostles did beleeue and teach the same doctrine of Transubstantiation which the now Roman Church doth beleeue teach and consequently the said doctrine is ancient and Orthodoxall The argument is informe and therefore the premises being granted the consequence cannot be denyed without manifest contradiction The maior or first proposition is euident frō the Councel of Trēt aboue cited where the Councel doth declare the meaning of the Church and what she doth beleeue vnder the notion of Transubstantiation to wit that vnder the outward formes of bread wine there is by consecration made à Conuersion of the bread and wine into the body and bloud of our Sauiour Therefore if the sayd fathers did beleeue and teach that in the Eucharist there is made by the powerof Consecration such a substantiall Conuersion they did beleeue and teach the now Catholick Roman doctrine Werefore the whole difficulty of the argument doth consist in the assumption or Minor proposition affirming the fathers of all ages to haue beleeued and thaught the foresayd Conuersion of the Eucharisticall bread and wine into the body and bloud of our Sauiour which is as the Councel doth declare the expresse doctrine of Transubstantiation Now this I shall demonstrate by the cleerest testimonies of the learnedst of euery age bearing witnesse thereof as Interpreters of the scriptures as Doctours of the Church as witnesses of the Common beleef of the Christian world in the tymes wherein they liued In the 12. Age. §. 18. Euthymius in Cap. 26. Matt. OVr Sauiour did not say These are the signes of my body and of my bloud but these are my body and my bloud wherefore we are not to regard the nature of the things that are proposed but to their vertue for as he supernaturally Deifyed if I may so speake the flesh which he assumed so he ineffably changeth those things into his life-giuing body and into his most pretious bloud In the 11. Age. §. 19. Theophylactus Arch-bishop of Bulgary in cap. 6. Ioannis THE bread which in the mysteries is not a kinde of figure only of the flesh of our Lord but it is the flesh it selfe for he did not say the bread which I will giue is the figure of my flesh but it is my flesh For the bread by the Mysticall Benediction and Comming of the H. ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is transmade into the flesh of our Lord But how doth it not appeare flesh vnto vs but bread that we do noth abhorre from eating it for had it appeared flesh we had nor beene so well disposed to receiue it but now our Lord condescending to our infirmity our mysticall foode appeares vnto vs like those we are accustomed vnto The like he saith in cap. 26. Matt. in cap. 14. Marc. where expounding the words of institution he saith the bread is by ineffable operation transmade Transelemented into the body into the powerfull and life giuing flesh of our Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 §. 20. S. Lanfranck Arch-Bishop of Canterbery who was the greatest scholler of his age florished aboue 150. yeares before the Lateran Councell l. de Eucharist contra Bereng All asmany as reioyce to be called Christians do glory that in this Sacrament they receiue the true body true bloud of Christ both taken of the Virgin-Aske all that haue knowledge of the Latin or our Language demand of the Grecque Armenian or other Christians of what Nation soeuer and they do confesse all with One mouth that this is their faith The Church spred ouer all the world doth confesse that bread and wine are put vpon the Altar to be consecrated but they be in tyme of consecration after an incomprehensible ineffable manner Changed into the substance of flesh and bloud Howbeit it doth not deny bread but rather confirme it but that bread which came from heauen giues life vnto the world that bread which Ambrose and Austin in the same words call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is supersubstantiall We beleeue therefore that the earthly substances which are diuinely sanctifyed by Priestly ministery be ineffably incomprehensibly wonderfully the heauenly power working Conuerted into the essence of our Lords body the species or externall forme of the things and certain other qualities being reserued least men perceiuing crude bloudy things should haue horrour and that the faithfull might receiue a more ample reward of their beleefe our Lords body it selfe notwithstanding existing immortall incorrupted entire incontaminate and without hurt in heauen at the right hard of the father So that it may be truly sayd that we do receiue the body which was taken of the Virgin the same and not the same the same verily according to the Essence and property and vertue of the true nature but not the same if you regard the species or outward formes and other Accidents before mentioned of bread and wine Thus S. Lanfranck against Berengarius the first Master of the Sacramentarian heresy §. 21. NOw Madame I beseech you before you go any further to compare the doctrine of the Councel of Trent aboue related § 15. with that which this ancient father glory of our English Nation deliuers as the faith of all nations then Christian see what difference you can finde between
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
master our sense and raison let vs do this in all things and especially in the mysteries not regarding alone the things which ly before vs. but holding fast his words we cannot be Cozened our sense may easily be deceaued his words cannot be vntrue our sense is often tymes beguiled Seing therefore our Lord hath sayd this is my body let not staggering nor doubt lay hold on vs but let vs beleeue it and see it with the eyes of our vnderstanding for nothing that is sensible is giuen vnto vs heere by Christ but in seÌ„sible thing indeed yet all that he giueth is insensible Thus S. Chrysostome And I beseech you Madame to giue eare vnto him and follow his aduice and Counsel much safer and securer to saluation then the new pretended light of a few vpstâ—rt turbulent and factious Ministers that haue nothing in them derseruing credit and authority seing they are by their owne brethren confessed to be foule corrupters and horrible falsifiers of Gods word So Swinglius of Luther Carleile of the English Protestant ministers p. 116. 144. Epistolae ad Ioan nem Heruagium TypographuÌ„ louers of darkenesse more then light falshood more then truth who obtrue vpon their vnlearned Proselites a doctrine which as Luther the grand Protestant Apostle saith they began with lyes and with lyes they desend it which I haue alfo heere demonstrated against your minister who was not ashamed to auouch against the cleerest euidence of truth that the doctrine of Transubstantiation was not knowne nor heard of in the Church before the Councel of Latteran which assertion how false it is euery one that can but reade may see by turning first to the 15. § taking there out of the Coun of Trent the doctrine of Transubstantiation and then comparing that doctrine with the testimonies of the fathers of euery age whome I haue cited as interpreters of the Scripture as Doctors and Teachers of the Church and as witnesses of the common beleef of the Christian world in their tymes all of them deliuering in as expresse termes as the Councel of Trent that the beleef of all Orthodox Christians ouer the world then was that in the Eucharist there is by Consecration made a Conuersion a Transmutatiation a Trans-elementation a change of the substance of the bread and wine into the body and bloud of our Lord which is the formall doctrine of Transubstantiation and all that the Church doth propose to all Christian 1 to be beleeued as a diuine reuealed verity Vnlesse it be that the Councel declares that this substantiall Conuersion is fitly properly called Tranfubstantiation Wherein that man must extremely Cosen himselfe and declare himselfe to be altogether voyde of common sense that should offer to preferre the clamourous non sense of a Protestant minister that knowes not the proper sense meaning of thousands of Lattin words before the iudgment of a Generall Councel consisting of thousands of the learnedst of all nations then Orthodox and Chrstian especially considering that Transubstantiation as euery schoole boy-knowes according to the Etymon and proper interpretation of the word must signify a connersion change of one substance into another substance and the Church whose authority is the greatest next vnto the diuine authority hath power to vse assigne and apply words not vsed before to expresse more plainely the truth meaning of her diuine and Apostolicall doctrine against those that do oppose it with their prophane nouelties as the practise of the Church in all ages doth declare against the Rebells of light that moued worre against her in those tymes §. 57. I Shall not adde heere any more in disproof of your ministers foule Sclauders That which I haue allready sayd takes off their wizard and is abundantly sufficient to make them appeare to any man that is deuested of preiudice passion to be nothing but the foule impostures of Heretiks who care not what vntruths they vtter though neuer so much against their conscience so that they may but disgracâ— the Church of God and render her contemptible to men by charging he with grosse and damnable errours in doctrines of faith and religion and by this perswasion draw ignorant people to contemne her authority and forsake her Communion and assume vnto themselues the authority of iudges in matter of Religion and this for secular ends and priuat interest Now for conclusion of this answer I beseech you Madame to cast an impartiall eye vpon the pretended reformation and consider the first authors of it and how they do defend it and the effects which it hath euery where produced The authors you will finde to be a rabble of most seditious and leuâ—d Apostatas the Doctrine they broached is full of sacrilegious blasphemies the effects it hath produced in all contries licentious liberty rebellion and other horrid vices all which doth make it manifest to all that do not wifully shut theire eyes that Protestanisme is not a reformed but deformed religion and therefore an open way leadging strayte to perdition and that the ministers you credit are wolues disâ—â—â—guised false Prophets deceiptfull teachers vnsent messengers who preach their owne foolish dreames corrupted fancies for Gods holy word and diuine reuealed verities you may know them whose they are by their pride auarice enuy vicious liues and ministers lying spirit which are Caracters giuen by ProtestaÌ„ts themselues of their owne ministery but are farre from being testimonies of Gods holy spirit inhabiting in them to teach them all truth and lead them the wayes of saluation That you may discouer their fraud auoyde their snarres and free your selfe from their tyrrany I beseech you Madamâ— to make your recourse to the throne of Grace with a deepe sense of your saluation imploring his mercy in the aboue cited words of S. Denis saying Replenish O Lord our spirituall eyes with thy singular and reuealed brightnes And you may not doubt but that he will poure into your soul the light of faith which is to bring you to the knowledge of sauin truth and with his grace inable you to imbrace it and professe it which shall be the dayly prayer MADAME Of your most humble and very sincere seruant W.W. An admonition for Doctour Cozens IF in replying to what is heere alleadged out of the fathers in proof of the antiquity of our doctrine he will shew himselfe a Doctour and speake to the purpose and not a Deceiuer vsing hereticall slights and fallacies to deceaue the ignorant let him first reflect on the state of the question which is heere between vs and Protestants and let all he sayes dirâ—ctly tend to confute and disproue that which we maintaine to be ancient and Orthodoxall against him all other sectaries do that oppose vs. The Question is in a matter of fact to wit wheter the ancient fathers the Pastors and Doctors of Gods Church did not beleeue and teach the same doctrine of Transubstantiation which the now Roman Catholick Church doth beleeue
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
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