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
recorded by S. Mathew 26. v. 26. by S. Marke 14. v. 22. by S. Lucke 22. v. 19. Our deare Lord had long before promised his Disciples to leaue vnto them this most rich pleadge of his eternall loue saying Iohn 6.51 The bread which I the some of God your Lord master Redeemer of mankinde will giue you to be your foode vnto eternall life which shall remaine in you as a quickening life-giuing seed for euer is not that heauenly bread made by the hands of Angels but it is a foode incomparably more excellent it is that which the Angels themselues do continually feed on are neuer satiated with looking feeding on it it is my flesh which I shall giue for the life salvation of the world vnlesse you eate this flesh of mine the flesh of the sonne of man you shall not haue life in you but he that eateth my flesh drincketh my bloud hath by right of my promise which neuer shall faile therefore is as sure as present possession life euerlasting for I will most assuredly raise him that shall eate my flesh worthily to life euerlasting in the last day For my flesh is meate indeed my bloud is drincke indeed why because He that eateth my flesh drincketh my bloud abydeth in me I in him This was the promise our deare Lord made vnto his Disciples he being goodnesse truth it selfe was as good as his word as the Apostle the Euangelists relate in the places aboue cited being now to leaue the world to make his last will testament He tooke bread into his sacred venerable hands gining tankes blessed it brake it gaue it to them saying Take ye eate for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is my owne very body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that very body which is giuen deliuered broken crucifyed for you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is my owne bloud this is the cup or drincke which is shed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for you for many vnto remission of sinnes This is my bloud of the new Testament This is the Cup the new Testament in my bloud which shall be shed for you for many vnto remission of sinnes §. 48. BY these words it is manifest our Saviour speakes of his owne true body bloud of that body which was given broken sacrificed crucifyed for vs of that bloud which was shed for vs for many for the whole world vnto remission of sinnes The words are so cleeer on our syde for Transubstantiation that as you haue heard Beza Morton other of the Protestant schoole confesse they cannot be vnderstood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in their proper litterall sense according to the property of the words but the Papisticall Transubstantiation must be established Protestants must yeeld vnto vs Papists the whole cause to wit of Transubstantiation adoratioÌ„ of the Sacrament the like So that our Catholick Doctrine of Transubstantion is confessedly as ancient as the Gospel it selfe if the words of truth be true in a proper lâ—tter sense will any Christian say the words of our Sauiour be not true in the sense he spoke them §. 49. HEERE now Madame I desire you to make a stand consider with your selfe 1. Wheter there can be any thing more in reason required for to establish the verity of any doctrine of faith then to heare Christ our Saviour the Oracle fountaine of truth deliuering it in words that haue but one proper litterall sense that haue beene all along vnderstood interpreted by the Pastors Doctors of the Church according to that one proper litteraâ— sense yea if the greatest Diuines of your owne syde may be beleeved must be so vnderstood 2. To consider wheter this doctrine of Transubstantiation be not de facto such The first part to witt that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is delivered by our Sauiour in words so plaine that they cannot be vnderstood in their proper litterall sense but the whole cause will be ours is the free confessionâ— as I haue shewed of your Diuines The second part to wit that the Pastors Doctors of Gods Church in all ages haue vnderstood expounded thE words of institution for Transubstantiation according to the proper litteral sense of the words besydes their testimonies which I haue alleadged in euery age which do euideÌ„tly demoÌ„strate their faith to haue beene the same with ours your owne men do freely acknowledge it saying vniuersally 〈◊〉 of the whole summe of our religion Duditius apud Bezam epist 1. Adamus Francisci Marg. Theolo p. 256. Antonius de Adamo anatom of the masse p. 136. Bucer scripta cruditorum aliquot virorum de Caena Domini pag. 37. see hospinian p. 1. pag. 292. Bucan lot Cam. p. 714. l. 10. de Euch. c. 2. Quaritur quid fit corpus meum sanguis meus nos condidè libeâ—è libenter respondaemus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 interpretandum In cellat men sal cap. dâ— Patribus Eccles If that be the truth which the Fathers haue professed with mutuall consent it is altogether on the Papists syde Transsubstantiation entred early into the Church We haue not yet hitherto beene able to know when this opinion of the Reall Bodily being of Christ in the Sacrament did begin The fathers words sayings are with the Papists they are seruiceable to Anti-Christ ouer much varying from the Scriptures The third to wit that our Sauiours words This is my body must be vnderstood according to their proper litterall seÌ„se besides the authority of the Church who is the best mistresse of faith whom by Gods command we are to heare obey it is the expresse doctrine of the greatest schollers that euer were in the Protestant schoole It is asked saith Cammierus what is or what signifies these words my body my bloud I answer saith he ingenuously freely willingly that they must be vnderstood according to the propriety of the wotds And melanchton who for his supposed worth in learning is esteemed by Lauatherus the phenix of his age of whom Luther giueth this testimony saying He farre excelleâ—h all the ancient Doctors of the Church exceedeth euen Austin himselfe this great Diuine father of the protestant Church saith Melanchton l. 3. Epist saying Oecolamp fol. 13. 2 There is no care that hath more trobled my minde then this of the Eucharist not only my selfe haue weighed what might be say on either syde but I haue sought out the iudgmeÌ„t of the old writers touching the same when I haue layd all together I finde no good reason that may satsfy a conscience departing from the Property of Christs word this is my body So that heere we haue by the testimony of most irrefragable witnesses that our Sauiours words of institution this is my body this is my bloud must be interpreted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
THE CATHOLICK DOCTRINE OF TRANSVBTANTIATION proued to be ancient and Orthodoxall Against the sclanderous tongue of D. Iohn Cozens a Protestants minister auouching the sayd doctrine neuer to haue been knowne in the Church before the Councels of Latteran and of Trent Aug. in psal 36. Tanto magis debemus commemorare vanitatem Haereticorum quanto magis quaerimus salutem eorum By how much more we seeke the saluation of HereticKes by so much more we ought to maKe the vanity of their lyes appeare Luther Epist ad Io. Heruagium TypographuÌ„ The sacramentaries began their opinion of the sacrament with lyes and with lyes they defend it PRINTED AT PARIS M.DC.LVII TO THE READER COVRTEOVS READER As the cause of my first writing this paper was to satisfy the Countesse of Insiquin giue her not only the true sense and meaning of S. Austin but also the beleefe of all Orthodox Antiquity concerning the reall presence of Christ in the holy Eucharist so the reason why I now publish it is to informe those of the truth who peraduenture may haue heard of a conference which casually happened thereupon between my selfe and D. Iohn Cozens a Protestant minister Which because it is related by some of his friends with much partiality preiudice to the truth I am aduised by friends to publish it with all the most materiall circumstances wherewith it was accompanyed or which were the occasion of it whereby it will appeare that Luther the grand Patriarke of all Protestant Congregations neuer spoke truer then when speaking of the Abettors of the Sacramentarian doctrine which is the doctrine of the English pretended reformation he sayd Epist ad Ioannem Heruagium TypographuÌ„ The Sacramentaries began their opinion with lyes and with lyes they defend it this I say will appeare plainly by the following relation 1. The Countesse of Insiquin being trobled at her Honorable Lords being become a Roman Catholick and vsing all the meanes she could to draw him to returne againe to Protestanisme among other indeauours she applyed the industry of D. Io Cozens a Protastant minister who to that effect wrot sundry papers to him wherein he impugned the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome ouer the whole Church of Christ as a doctrine crept-in since the Apostles tymes and not warranted by the authority of Orthodox Antiquity 2. These papers the earle of Insiquin was pleased to send vnto me and withall requested me to returne an answer to them especially to the authorities alleadged therein out out of S. Gregory the great and S. Cyprian against our Catholick doctrine 3. In compliance with my Lords request I drew a short answer wherein I shewed first by the testimone of the Doctours owne brethren that his vrging of S. Gregories refusing the title of vniuersall Bishop is very vaine and idle and grounded vpon wilfull blindnesse and Hereticall obstinacy because it is cleerer then the sunne and confessed by the greatest schollers of Protestant syde that S Gregory notwithstanding the foresayd obiection did clayme and exercise the Primacy of authority and iurisdiction ouer all Churches in causes spirituall and Ecclesiasticall and therefore he tearmeth the see of Rome the head of all Churches the mother Church the mistresse of Nations and auoucheth them to be peruerse men that will not be subiect to her and that S. Peter was by God appointed ouer all the Church c. These acknowledgments are made of S. Gregory by Bale Bulinger Melanchton the Centurists and other Protestant writers against D. Cozens and his old worne-out obiection which hath beene so many tymes already answered and refuted not only by our Catholick Diuines but euen by Protestants In so much that Andreas Friccius a Protestant whom Peter Martyr styleth an excellent learned man writeth thus in confutation of this foolish obiection saying L. 2. de Eccles cap. 10. pa. 570. Some there be c. that obiect the authority of Gregory who saith that such a title pertaineth to the Precursor of Anti-Christ but the reason of Gregory is to be knowne and it may be gathered from his words which he repeateath in many Epistles that the title of vniuersall Bishop is contrary to and doth gainsay the grace which is commonly poured vpon all Bishops He therefore that calleth himselfe the only Bishop taketh the Bishop like power from te rest Wherefore this title he would haue to be reiected c. But it is neuerthelesse euident by other places that Gregory thaught that the charge and Principality of the whole Church was committed to Peter And yet for this cause Gregory thought not that Peter was the forerunner of Anti-Christ Thus Friccius So euident it is by the Confession of this Protestant that S. Gregory himselfe claymed and defended the Primacy of the Roman Bishop Church ouer all other Bishops and Churches whatsoeuer And yet D. Cozens will be still vrging against vs this obiection of s. Greg which proceeding doth euidently conuince him to be either extreme ignoraÌ„t little verst euen in his owne authors or else which is much worse to haue layd a syde all shame and honesty being resolued to maintaine any thing though neuer so cleer against his owne conscience so that he may for base ends and secular interest deceaue the vnlearned 4. Hauing shewed that his argument drawne from the authority of s. Gregory was of no credit euen with the learnedst of his owne schoole I went on declaring how the minister abused S. Cyprian by disiointing clipping and confounding S. Cyprians sayings that so he might obscure his meaning which are the ordinary shifts of Protestant ministers and are most vnexcusable in D. Cozens because he wilfully perseuers in it notwithstanding the notice which was lately taken thereof in the very selfe same controuerâ—y by that learned Diuine Mr. Thomas Carre in his occasionall discourses and in like occasion by D. Thomas Vane in his vindication of the Councel of Latteran both of them laying open his foul peruerting and corrupting of the fathers and the Councel to his eternall shame and confusion for it cannot but appeare to euery indifferent man that the minister is not so much a louer of truth as he would faine appeare to his followers but rather to be accounted of the number of those who loue darkenesse more then light falshood more then truth 5. These hereticall slights being discouered in the Minister I shewed how the places of S. Cyprian being faithfully cited make most cleerly for our Catholick doctrine seing it is cleer that he beleeued and taught that the Roman Church was by diuine institution the Principall and chief Church that she had the prerogatiue of being the mother Church of all other Churches that the Primacy or head-gouerning authority was by Christ giuen to S. Peter and his successor and that his Chaire that is the see of Rome is the fountaine and head-spring from whence do flow all the stremes of pure and infallible doctrine is the sunne from whence all the starres
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
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
his bloud was his pronouncing of the forme of Consecration ouer them saying This is my body This is my bloud which words were efficacious practick such as these were fiat lux let light be made by the omnipotence of his power he makes them good therefore S. Irenaeus by them proues him to be the sonne of God true God because they are such a confession such a confirmation as requires omnipotâ—nce in the speaker to make them good And it is cleere that S. Irenâ—us doth heere supoose it to be the generall receiued doctrine of faith that Christ is truly really in the Eucharist from this vndoubted article of faiâ—h work of omnipotency beleeved to be in it he proues him to be God And l. 5. c. 1. Our saviour confessed that the Chalice of the Eucharist was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his proper bloud affirmed that the bread was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his proper body Againe l. 4. c. 34. The bread receauing the inuocation of God Consecration is no more common bread but Eucharist that is bread made heeuenly incorruptible by the inuocation consisting of two things the earthly and the heauenly that is the species the Deifyed body of Christ §. 43. S Iustin Martyr Apolog 2. Which as himselfe doth there testify was written Anno Domini 150. Non vt communem panem uâ— que communem pâ—tum haec summus sed que madmodum per verbum Dei incarnatus Iesus Christus saluator noster carnem sanguinem pro salute nostra habuir sic etiam per preces verbi Dei ab ipso Eucharistiam factam cibum ex quo sanguis carnes nostra aluztur illius incarnati Iesu carnem sanguinem esse edocti sumus We do not take these things as common bread common drinke but as by Gods word Iesus-Christ our Saviour incarnate had flesh bloud for our saluation so we are also taught that the foode whence our bloud flesh by mutation be nourished being by the prayers of the word of God by him made Eucharist that is consecrated is the flesh bloud of the same Iesus incarnate Heere S. Iustin doth not say the blessed Sacrament is earthly bread such as our fresh is nourished withall but that such foode as our flesh is nourished withall being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consecrated made Eucharist is now after consecration the flesh bloud of Christ that this was the beleefe of the Church in those primitiue tymes which were the very next succceding the Apostles §. 44. S. Ignatius the Disciple of S. Iohn the Apostle apud Theodoretum Dialog 3. THEY the simonians other old Heretiks who denyed our saviour to haue true humane nature admit not Eucharist oblations because they do not confesse the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour which suffered for our firmes Heere this holy father saies those Heretiks who denyed our saviour to haue true humane nature denyed the Eucharist least by confessing the Eucharist which is the flesh of Christ they should be enforced to grant that Christ had true human flesh The Doctor cannot question this authority of S. Ignatius being Theodoret vpon whom he relyes cites it Besydes The Epistles of S. Ignatius this ad Smyrnenses in particular are cited by Eusebius S. Athanasius S. Hierom Theodoret who where neerer to those tymes therefore had better meanes to know the truth in this particular then we that are so many ages since know nothing of those tymes but by their meanes who succeed them immediately And these fathers are for these respects sundry others of incomparably greater authority then all the Protestant ministers that euer were putt all together though we should suppose them to haue some morall honesty were not such forgers of lyes as they do prove themselues euery where in their writings §. 45. S. Denis the Areopagite who was S. Pauls Disciple de Eccles Hier. c. 3. O Most diuine holy sacrifice open those mysticall signifying vailes wherewith thou art covered Shew thy selfe clearly vnto vs replenish our spirituall eyes with thy singular reuealed brightnes To addresse such an inuocation to the Sacrament would be foolish impious if it were only Bakers bread not heauenly diuine liuing bread in it for he doth inuocate the Sacrament it selfe and doth aske of it those things which can only be demanded of God Therefore he beleeved that Christ himselfe God man was truly contained in the Sacrament The Doctor will peraduenture run heere to the old shift deny the authority of this Booke but as I said euen now of S. Ignatius his epistle so I say heere of this Booke auouch that the authority of S. Gregory the great of S. Martin Pope Martyr in Concilio Romano of Agatho Pope in his Epistle to the Emperour Constantine the fourth of Pope Nicolas the first in his Epistle to Michael the Emperour of the 6. Generall Councel Art 4. of the 7. Generall Councel Art 2. of S. Maximus of S. Thomas others is so farre aboue the authority of all Protestant Diuines Churches that ever were that these are to be by all wise men dispised contemned as the scorne of the world for opposing so great an authority auoucling S. Denis the Aropagite to be author thereof §. 46. HITHERTO we are come through all ages from the Concel of Latteran vp to the Apostles shewing the doctrine of Transubstantiation to haue beene beleeved taught by the Pastors Doctors of the Church of God all along as a doctrine of faith euery where receiued practised by the Church from whence by the receiued Rule of S. Augustine it doth immediately follow that for so much as the originall or beginning of this doctrine such is the Antiquity thereof cannot be found it is to be supposed it hath its Originall from the Apostles themselves which Rule saith D. Whiteguift the pretended Bishop of Canterbery Vviteguift Defen pag. 351. is of credit with the writers of our tyme namely with Swinglius Caluin Gualter surely saith he I think no learned man doth dissent from them But that we may more fully demonstrate this truth leaue no age out adde to what we sayd the Apostolicall credit together with the supreme souueraigne authority of Gods owne word who is infinit truth therefore can neither deceiue others nor be himselfe deceiued I will bring them in as witnesses of the first age who were the first masters of Christianity founders of the Church In the 1. Age. §. 47. S. Paul 1. Cor. 11.23 BRETHREN I receiued of our Lord that which also I haue deliuered vnto you that our Lord Iesus the night wherein he was bâ— be trayed tooke bread giuing thankes brake sayd Take yee eate this is my body which shall be deliuered for you c. The very same words fact of our Saviour are
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