〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
neere vnto him as to his Kate that is to his sacrilegious whore to be short doth he not confesse both of himselfe and the rest of his reformed ministers Praef. in Proposi de Bigam an 1528. proposit 62. 63. 66. That lustfull desires do burne in vs we cannot deny seing by reason thereof we are become infamous in the sight of our congregations Such are D. Cozens saincts fuch the first Apostles and founders of his Church Luther the grand Patriark a lewde Apostata fryar yoaked to a Nunne instructed by the Diuel Zuinglius a fyrebrand of Hell for his seditious and bloudy spirit Caluin and Beza two most infamous Sodomits Carolostadius a rude and sauage man istructed also by the Diuel Oecolampadius Bucer Bullinger Peter Martyr and the rest all of them as foule and vggly as the fire of lust and other horrid vices could make them These are the first founders and raysers of the Protestant building these the first Apostles and preachers the pretended reformation these the models on which all the rest of the Protestant ministery are formed framed and of which they are liuing copies such lips such lettice such saincts such Churches 19. S. Gaudentius being reiected as an insufficient witnesse of the faith of those primitiue tymes I cited S. Cyril of Alexandria and the Councel of Ephesus sec §. 30. 31. To which the Doctour answered this is iust our doctrine and then fell into a contestation with my Lord of Insiquin about the Eucharist being a sacrifice and one while he auouched it to be a true reall sacrifice another while that it was a sacrifice only as it is a â—emoriall of the sacrifice our Sauiour offered of himselfe on the crosse And indeed he deliuered himselfe so coÌ„fusedly so vncoÌ„staÌ„tly that he made it cleere that he neither knowes how to define a sacrifice nor what a true sacrifice meanes And as to the authority of S. Cyril I leaue it to any vnderstanding Protestant to iudge wheter Protestants do generally beleeue that the things offered on the Altar that is the bread and wine be by the power of life conuerted into the true body and bloud of our Lord as S. Cyril cited § 30. doth beleeue and teach 20. After S. Cyril I alleadged S. Ambrose saying how many examples do we vse to proue that the thing is not thâ— which nature hath made but that which the blessing hath consecrated that the power of consecration is greater then the power of natâ—re for by consecration the very nature it selfe is changed c. 21 The Doctors answer to this authority was that that which was before instituted and ordayned by nature for the nourishment of our bodyes is now by our Sauiours institution designed to signify thâ— spirituall nourishment of our soules I replyed it is cleer S. Ambrose speakes of a change in nature of an intrinsecall Physicall change of such a change as none but the omnipotent power of the Creatour can make in his creatures which the deputaâ—â—on and designation you speake of doth not doe Heere I would haue gone on citing the authority of S. Ambrose to shew that he speake of an intrinsecall Physicall change But the Doctor being now growne loude and clamorous and hauing in that heate of words sayd that the doctrine of Transubstantiation was neuer knowne nor heard of in the Church before the Councel of Latteran my Lord of Insiquin vrged him to shew where the Church was that then opposed that pretended errour and maintained the truth against that Councel defining as it did But the Doctour came so short in satisfying my Lords demand that verily though he did lowdly worde it for almost a quarter of an houre yet he did not vtter any one word that could satisfy any rationall man to the Queree which which my Lord vrged against him very handsomly and very home For he could not so much as name any one Pastor of the Church that did shew himselfe for the truth against that Councel and oppose himselfe as a wall for the house of God in defence of the Catholick doctrine He named indeed twice or thrice scotus yet so as he well appeared to be conscius of his being not able to make it good that Scotus euer opposed the authority and definition of the Councel of Latteran and much lesse that he could make him who was not then borne appeare as a Church opposing such a Councel as was that of Latteran which consisted of 1285. fathers assembled from all parts of the Christian World the Pope himselfe Innocentius the third being present and the foure Prtriarkes two in person the other two by their Legats themselues being hindred the one by sicknesse the other by the difficulty of passing through the Turkes dominions 22. The Doctour hauing as I sayd vociferated for almost a quarter of an houre without giuing any kinde of satisfaction to my Lords Queree he rose vp made his excuse that his affaires would not not permitt him to stay any longer tyme and so all taking leaue one of another we parted euery one which way his occasions called him 23. Since this meeting some of his friends haue raised reports of great victories gayned by him as in like occasions they did of the occasionall discourses which were held with him by that learned Diuine Mr. Thomas Carre about seueral Articles of our Catholick faith and by D. Thomas Vane about the Councel of Latteran But the victories he gained were ouer himselfe not ouer his aduersaries as the relation which I haue heere made doth demonstrate For what was his insimulating S. Gaudentius of heresy but a conuiction of his owne ignorance and a confession that that ancient father beleeued and taught that which the now Roman Church doth beleeue and teach concerning the doctrine of Transubstantiation What was his saying to the testimony of S. Cyril and the Councel of Ephesus This is iust our doctrine but an open acknowledgment that he neither knowes the doctrine of the English conuocation creed nor what S. Cyrill and the Councel of Ephesus doth teach nor what the Councel of Trent hath defined What was the exposition he gaue to the testimony of S. Ambrose but an open professing himselfe to be a man that is carryed away with wilfull obstinaâ—y See Reynerus c. 3. §. tertia causa exeodem Illyricus tit de Walden §. sui not guided by the loue of verity One of his brethren as great a pretended Gospeller coming to translate those words of S. Iohn v c. 1. v. sui eum non receperunt his owne receiued him not tooke sui his owne for the nominatiue plural of sus a sow and turned it thus the swine receiued him not This beastly Heretick might as well and with as much reason defend and iustify this his prophane exposition of Gods holy word as D. Cozens can defend and iustify the sence he giues to S. Ambrose his words Lastly what is his granting the Councel of
Lateran to haue desined and authentically declared the doctrine of Transubstantiation to be an article of faith a diuine reuealed verity conueyed downe to vs by full tradition of the Church and yet that we must contemne it as an errour vpon Luther Caluin and the rest of the Protestant ministers word what I say is this but to grant that to be a Protestant a man must haue his braynes inuerted and preferre the corrupt fancies wilfull mustakes and damnable lyes of a few new Turbulent and fâ—ctious Apostatas before the vnanimous testimony of a world of learned wise and holy men and that in a matter of aboue 300. yeares before Luther or any of his lewde associats were borne and of which all those other holy and learned fathers were eye-witnesses as what was the religion of the Christian world at that tyme what the doctrine of faith which their Ancestors euery where professed and deliuered to them as an Apostolicall Tradition and diuine reuealed verity concerning the reall presence of Christ in the Eucharist These are the vicctories D. Cozens hath gayned to wit ouer himselfe and ouer his Protestant Congregation which as they proue D. Cozens to be no Doctour of sauing truth so they proue the religion which he doth professe and teach to be most prophane and false and altogether grounded vpon sclanderous lyes vttered out of malice against the Roman Church truth of her Catholick faith 23. Heere againe I cannot but beseech the Protestant Reader for the loue he beares to that sacred ransome of his soul the pretious bloud of our Sauiour that he will consider what a kinde a thing the Protestant religion is which relyes vpon such Principles and which hath no more certainty of truth then it is certaine that the bare word of Luther Caluin swinglius Bâ—za and the rest of that black-gard is to be preferred before the vnanimous testimony of 1285. fathers assembled together in general Councel from all parts of the Christian world bearing witnesse in a matter of fact of their owne tymes aboue 300. yeares before any of those other lewde Apostatas were borne 24. Though that which hath beene hitherto related of the Answers which D. Cozens made to the authorities of the fathers and of the sclanderous vntruths he vttered against the Roman Catholick faith do sufficiently declare him to be a man of the very same stampe with all the rest of the ministery of the Protestant kerke that is one that is alwayes ready to say and vnsay as shall be most for the aduantage of his cause and to vtter any thing without remorse that may proue disgracefull to the Roman Church yet in this meeting he gaue vpon seuerall occasions two or three other strong proofes thereof much to be obserued by all those that suffer themselues to be deceiued by him and rely vpon his word and doctrine in matters of faith and religion One is that whereas I had vpon occasion affirmed of Luther that he denyed S. Iames his Epistle to be the word of God D. Cozens denyed this of Luther with as much confidence as if he had had a face of brasse And yet there is nothing more acknowledged by those of Luthers schoole then this that Luther saies of S. Iames his Epistle that it is straminea epistola an epistle of straw and vnworthy altogether of an Apostolicall spirit In which respect Luther in Prolog huius epistola In which respect as also for other his horrible prophanings of Gods holy word L. de Sacram fol. 412. swinglius dorh style him a foul corrupter and horrible falsifyer of Gods word one that followed the Marcionites and Arians that razed out such places of holy writ that were against them Another argument of D. Cozens inconstancy in his assertions and confidence in impugning the knowne truth is that after he had most boldly auouched that the doctrine of Transubstantiation and adoration of the Sacrament was neuer knowne nor practized in the Church before the Lattetan Councel he presently corrected himselfe as if he had beene two fauourable towards the truth and not vttered a falshood loâ—de enough and therefore to make it wider he sayd that neither then was the foresayd doctrine defined by the Councel but afterwards by the Decree of Innocentius the third And yet there can be nothing more cleer then that the whole Councel did define the doctrine we speake of For it is one of the very first Heads or Articles of faith which the Councel doth define beginning the Decrees with firmiter credimus simpliciter confitemur we firmely beleeue and plainly confesse c. that the true body and bloud of Christ is truly contained in the Sacrament of the Altar vnder the formes of bread and wine Verum Christi corpus sanguis in Sacramento Altaris sub speciebus panis vini veraciter continetur transubstantiatiatis pane in corpus vino in sanguinem potesta te diuina Decreta Concil Lat. 4. cap. 1. the bread being by diuine power transubstantiated into the body and the wine into the bloud Thus the Councel And yet D. Cozens is not ashamed to auouch that not the Councel of Lateran but Innocentius the third defined the doctrine of Transubstantiation Neither is his impudence lesse intollerable in denying the Adoration of the Sacrament to be more ancient then the Latteran Councel for no Catholick Diuine can now speake plainer then the fathers of the purest tymes of the Church do for it namely Theodoret S. Austin S. Chrysostome S. Ambrose S. Gregory Nazianzen and others whose authorities may be seene in Coccius Gualterus and Bellarmine and are arkdowledged by Chemnitius Chemnit exam part 2. pag. 92. Parkins Chrispinus Bilson the Centurists and other Protestant writers and Marbachius another Protestant author doth confesse it to be a Most ancient custome which the Church vsed in shewing to the people the Eucharist to be adored in the Masse c. How then is the Doctour not ashamed to maintaine such foul and palpable vntruths with so much boldnesse Who would be a minister of the Protestant Kerke seing it is an office which no man can personate but by laying a syde all regard to truth and publish himselfe to be a meere impostour and seing the building which he is to sustaine is so ruinous that he cannot vphold it and keepe it from ruine but by ruining his owne soule and running wilfully into damnation 25. And what man is there desirous of saluation that will not hold himselfe obliged to abandon such a man as a most vnsafe guide to heauen yea as a certaine deceauer of soules one of the number of those whom S. Paul saies are subuerted and condemned by their owne iudgment because it is euident that he defends a cause a doctrine a faith a religion which cannot be defended but by forging lyes impugning the knowne truth and maintaining Principles contrary to the light of nature and common reason as hath
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
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
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
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