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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
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
them then consider with your selfe whether you haue not all the reason in the world to looke vpon this minister as a man that deserues no credit in matters of faith and Religion since he dares with such a brazen forehead auouch the doctrine of Transubstantiation neuer to haue beene knowne nor heard off in the Church before the Councel of Lateran seing this father aboue 150. yeares before the Councel reports it in as cleer termes as the Councel of Trent to haue beene the faith of all Christian Nations which truth will be much more confirmed and your ministers bold assertion confuted by the testimonies of worlds of fathers yet more ancient In the 10. Age. §. 22. S. Fulbertus Carnotensis Bishop Epist. ad Adeodatum ITs is not lawfull to doubt but that at whose becke all things did presently subsist out of nothing if by the like power in the spirituall Sacraments The earthly matter of bread and wine transcending the nature and merit of their kinde is changed into the substance of Christ Commutetur seing he sayes This is my body this is my bloud This father florished aboue 200. yeares before the Councel of Latteran and he doth heere acknowledge a substantiall change a change of One substance into another substance and sayes it was not then lawfull to doubt of it nefas est dubitare In the 9. Age. §. 23. Paschasius Rathertus Abbot of Corby and one of the learnedst of this Age l. de Corp. sang Domini THe will of God is so efficacious and Omnipotent that if he will a thing it is done Wherefore let no man be trobled about the body bloud of Christ that in the mysteries the â—re is true flesh true bloud since he would haue it so who hath created it for he hath done all that he would in heauen in â—earth And Because he would though heere be the figure of bread and wine they are to be beleeued to be no other thing according to the interiour after coÌ„secratioÌ„ but the body bloud of Christ HeÌ„ce truth it selfe vnto the disciples sayes This is my flesh for the life of the world And that I may speake a thing yet more wonderfull it is no other flesh theÌ„ that which was borne of Mary suffered on the Crosse rose out of the graue It is I say the selfe same and therefore it is the flesh of Christ which is euen to this day offered for the life of the world And expounding the words of Institution he sayes Catholiks all beare witnesse that the Eucharist is Christs owne flesh and bloud And though out of ignorance some erre yet there is none as yet who doth openly contradict what the whole world beleeueth confesseth And againe He Christ did not say thus when he brake gaue the bread to them This is or in this mystery is à certaine vertue or figure of my body but he sayes without fiction This is my body and therefore it is This which he sayd not that which euery one faigneth §. 24. NOw Madame let vs aske your Doctor who would faine seeme learned in the Records of Antiquity whether the Protestant doctrine doth agree with that which this ancient father sayes all Catholiks and the whole world then beleeued professed do Protestants now beleeue that in the mysteries there is true flesh true bloud the same and no other but that which was borne of Mary c That there is no other thing vpon the Altar after Consecration but the body and bloud of Christ That the wery selfe same flesh which rose out of the graue is euen to this very day offered on the Altar for the life of the world Are not Protestants rather of the religion of those few who this learned father sayes did then erre out of ignorance but did not as Protestants now do oppenly contradict what the whole Christian world hath for so many ages beleeued and professed In the 8. Age. §. 25. S. Iohn Damascen l. 4. de fide orthodoxa cap. 14. AS Bread and wine water be by the force of nature changed into the body and bloud of him that eateth and drincketh them are made an other body distinct from the former so the bread and wine and water proposed are by inuocation and the comming of the H. Ghost in a miraculous manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Transmade into the body and bloud of Christ Neither are the consecrated bread and wine the figure of Christs body but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very deifyed body it selfe of our Lord. For he did not say this is the figure of my body but my body nor this is the signe of my bloud but this is my bloud The Councel of Trent doth not deliuer in plainer words the doctrine of Transubstantiation then this learned father hath done aboue 900. yeares agoe Where is then Doctor Cozens his deepe knowledge in Antiquity He must either disproue this to be the saying of S. Iohn Damascen or confesse his owne want either of knowledge or of honesty or of both And will you madame put the eternall saluation of your soule into the hands of such a man In the 7. Age. §. 26. Venerable Bede in cap. 10. Prior ad Cor. ex Augustino serm de Neoph. IN the bread you shall receiue the very thing which did hang vpon the Crosse and in the cupp you shall receiue that which was powred out of the syde of Christ If this be true then the very thing which did hang vpon the Crosse is vnder the outward forme of bread and in the Cuppe there is the true bloud of Christ which doth imply the doctrine of Transubstantiation In the 6. Age. §. 27. S. Gregory the great Dialog 4. cap. 58. HIs bloud is poured into the Mouths of the faithfull Againe This Hoste doth singularly preserue the soul from eternall damnation which hoste doth repayre vnto vs by mistery the death of the only begotten who rising from the dead now dyeth not yet liuing in himselfe immortally and incorruptibily he is againe sacrificed for vs in this mystery of the holy oblation §. 28. S. Remigius in cap. 10. Prior ad Cor. THE flesh which the word of God the father assumed in the wombe of the Virgin and in the vnity of his person and the bread which is consecrated in the Church are One body for as that flesh is the body of Christ so this bread Transit passeth into the body of Christ neither are they two bodyes but one body Againe The bread which we breake on the Altar is it not the participation of the body of our Lord verily it is consecrated and blest by the Priests and by the H. Ghost then it is broken when as now though it seeme bread it is in verity the body of Christ Heere we see the doctrine of Transubstantiation was beleeued taught by the fathers of this age S. Remigius was a famous Bishop that florished in the very beginning