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.
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,
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 [Page 4] 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 Typographū. The Sacramentaries began their opinion with lyes, and [Page 5] 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.
[Page 6]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 [Page 7] 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 [Page 8] 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 [Page 9] 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 [Page 10] of s. Greg: which proceeding doth euidently conuince him to be either extreme ignorāt & 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 [Page 11] 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 controuer [...]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 [Page 12] 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, [Page 13] 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 of the firmament that is, all particular Churches receiue the light of verity; is the Origen and Center of vnity, from whence do issue all the Lines of Power and iurisdiction which goe to the whole circumference of the Eccleasticall Hierarchy.
6. Hauing returned this answer to my Lord of Insiquin; his Lady with in few dayes after sent me another paper of her owne hand writing wherein she had collected [Page 14] out of some bookes of her owne some sayings of S. Austin which she conceiued to make very cleerely against our Catholik doctrine of the Reall presence of Christ in the Eucharist, telling me withall that she had showne them to my Lord, and that he had sayd that he could not well tell how they were to be vnderstood, but that he did not doubt but that I could giue a satisfactory answer to them: which therefore she desired of me, and with what speed I could.
7. Heereupon for my ladyes satisfaction I drew the following answer: wherein I first deliuer some generall Rules to be obserued for the right vnderstanding of S. [Page 15] Austine or any other of the ancient fathers in the matter of the H. Eucharist. Then applying the sayd Rules respectiuely to the places obiected out of S. Austine I shew how they make nothing at all against our Catholick doctrine. This done, I proue by cleere places of S. Austin that his beleef was the same with ours concerning the reall presence. And lastly in further confirmation of our doctrine I adde the aggreing consent of all Orthodox Antiquity deliuered by the fathers of euery age from the dayes of S. Gregory the great vp to the Apostles, all of them expounding the Scriptures in fauour of our doctri [...] and professing themselues to [Page 16] beleeue it, and beating witnesse that it was in their tymes the beleef of all Orthodox Christians & Churches which they taught and gouerned. From all which I inferred and concluded against the authors of those bookes and all Protestant Ministers that pretend to Orthodox Antiquity for warrant of their doctrine, that they be most foul impostours, and wilfull deceauers and therefore of no credit nor to be beleeued nor trusted in matters of religion.
8. This answer produced, I know [...]ot how, a meeting with D. Cozens, and this meeting a verbal contention about the sense of Antiquity concerning the reall presence [Page 17] of Christ in the Eucharist. For vpon my coming to the Palais Royall to present this Answer to my Lady, I was by and by after conducted by my Lord from his owne lodgins to D. Cozens his Chamber where I met my Lady with another Protestāt Gentleman. After the common salutes of Ciuility, occasion being giuen me, I told him the cause of my comming then to the Palais Royal was to bring my Lady an Answer which some three or foure dayes afore she had desired of me to some authorities of S. Austin which &c. The Doctor replyed, he knew not what she had done, and that whatsoeuer it was, she had done it of her selfe &c.
After some few words had passed between vs about that subiect, I began with both their leaues to read my paper. But I had scarce ended the first §. but the minister interrupted me saying: my lady may read your āswer another tyme; if you haue any thing to say against our doctrine, you may say it: that which we beleeue is deliured by Gelasius and Theodoret two ancient fathers of the Church; the rest did not disagre from them, and they agree with vs [...] saith Theodoret.
9. I replyed first that I cam not to dispute about the meaning of Theodoret and Gelasius, but to satisfy my [Page 19] lady concerning S. Austines sayings which she had sent me, as making against our Catholick doctrine: therefore I desired leaue to reade what I had made ready for that purpose. Heere the Doctor cryed out as before, my lady may reade you answer another tyme &c. And then my lady shewed a desire that it might be so, and sayd she would reade my paper afterwars and willed me to answer to Theodoret and Gelasius.
10. Heereupon I replyed to the Doctor and sayd; first Gelasius is not the man you take him to be: who is he then sayd the Doctor? not Gelasius the Pope, sayd I, neither doth he whosoeuer he be, make any thing against [Page 20] vs, as you may see in Bellarmine. Heere the Doctor vttered against Bellarmine some scurrilous language, (of which Hereticall mouths are alwayes full,) but I tooke little notice of it, and went on saying and for Theodoret it is euident his meaning is that in the Eucharist the mysticall signes, that is, the otward forme of bread and wine after consecration remaine in their owne proper nature figure and forme as before; and not that they remaine in the same substance of bread and wine wherin they did inhere, before consecration.
11. The Doctor heere repeated with some vehemency [...]; [Page 21] in their substance, in their substance, in their former substance. I answered [...], nature, essence, yea & substance, doth not only, and alwayes signify substance, as it is diuided against accident, but also rhe true nature and essence of euery thing, as [...] doth which word Theodoret doth also vse in the same place, vpon the same occasion, and in the same sense, and you will not deny but that Acccidents haue an intrinsecall nature and essence proper to themselues and really distinct from the substance in which they do naturally inhere.
12. Heere the Doctor to shew what a deepe Physopher he is, cryed out with a [Page 22] repetition: Accidentis est inesse, Accidentis est inesse. What then, sayd I: I hope you will grant that Accidents haue an accidentall essence distinct from the nature & essence of the substance wherein they in here. How then doth this accidentis est inesse Proue that Theodoret speakes not of the proper nature & essence of the Accidēts, whē he sayes; the mysticall signes remaine in their former nature &c.
13. Heere that I might be permitted to read some authorities of the ancient fathers which I had made ready to shew my lady the sense of Orthodox Antiquity, I sayd to the Doctor, we contend heere about the meaning of Theodoret; the argument [Page 23] which euen now you made for your doctrine: Gelasius and Theodoret taught this, the rest of the fathers did not dissent from them ergo &c. This argument I say might be easily turned against you with much more efficacy: but let vs ex dato & non concesso suppose without granting that Theodoret and Gelasius did fauour your doctrine, and then I argue thus.
Faith relyeth vpon authority, and therefore in matters of faith the greatest authority must command our beleefe and sway our vnderstanding: but the rest of the fathers do euidently hold with vs, and their authority is incomparably greater, therefore we are to submit to it, [Page 24] and beleeue what they beleeued.
14. Heere I was with much a do permitted to reade some authorities of the fathers. And the first I lighted on in turning to them, was this of S. Gaudentius: The Lord & Creator of natures who of earth made bread, againe, (because he can do it, and hath promised to do it,) of bread makes his owne body and he that of water made wine, now of wine hath made his owne bloud.
15. The Doctour not looking, as it seemes, for this authority and therefore hauing no answer or rather shift ready for it, cryes out, Gaudentius, who is this Gaudentius? He is, sayd I, a [Page 25] graue father of the primitiue Church, and was Bishop of Brixia. A graue father? sayd the Doctor, he was some Heretick. Fye Doctor, sayd I, will you offer to call Heretick a learned father, and Canonized sainct? Canonized? sayd he, by whom? By the Church sayd I. By the Church? sayd the Doctor with scorne, by your Church. By that Church sayd I, which was euer esteemed the church of God.
16. Heere because the Doctour did not admitt S. Gaudentius for an authenticall witnesse; that we might not decline from the maine question; without further insisting vpon this authority, I went to others better knowne [Page 26] the Doctor, and cited S. Cyrill of Alexandria. Though now before I cite him, it will not be amisse to make some reflection vpon this most vnchristian and detestable way of declining the authorities of the fathers very familiar with the ministers of the Protestant Kerke, when they are pressed with places that are so cleer against them that they cannot shuffle them ouer by any other Hereticall slights. For then you shall heare them, as euen now you heard this minister, breake out into most disgracefull & reuiling language against the ancient fathers of Gods Church, though neuer so learned and holy. So D. Bilson a knowne Minister of the [Page 27] English pretended reformation, so farre enrageth against S. Epiphanius Bishop of Salamina and a learned father of the fourth age, for reiecting all figuratiue glosses vpon the words of Institution This is my body, that forgetting all modesty & reuerence due vnto those gray-headed tymes he saith: Bilson 4. part. p. 752. 753. Epiphanius was a prating deacon of more tongue then witt, more face then learning &c. which scurrilous insolency these Doctours learned of their grand Patriark Luther, who, whensoeuer he was pressed by his aduersaries with the authorities of fathers which he could not answer, was wont to breake out in these and such like prophane speeches which [Page 28] declare him to haue beene more an impe of Sathan then a Christian: Luther tom. 2. witt: li. de seruo Arbitrio pa. 434. an. 1551. & see the same booke printed 8. p. 72. 73 276. 337. the fathers of so many ages haue beene plainly blind, and most ignorant in the Scriptures, and haue erred all their life tyme and vnlesse they were amended before their deaths they were neither saincts nor partaining to the Church. But what christian will make any more account of such like lewde and vnchristian censures then of a thing that deserues all contempt: for what but wilfull ignorance & Hereticall pride could haue carryed these men so precipitously vpon such an vn christian censure of S. Gaudentins? S. Epiphanius, and the father in generall.
[Page 29]17. S. Gaudentius was a famous Bishop of the primitiue tymes, neuer stayned with any errour in faith, noted by any ancient or moderne writer. He was so eminent both for his learning & for his vertues, that, though he were vnder yeares, he was by the perswasion chiefly of S. Ambrose chosen to succed S. Philastrius in rhe Bishop rick of Brixia: and being then farre absent in a pilgrimage in the East and hearing of his election, he gaue a rare example of many admirable vertues not to be found among Protestant Ministers. For he laboured all that he could to decline that dignity, and for that end stayd there in the East, till by the threates of an [Page 30] excommunication he was constrayned to returne home and vndergoe that burden. The Doctour therefore remaines conuicted of great ignorance, and of great temerity, and of being greatly iniurious to this ancient holy father, and remaines obliged vnder paine of damnation to make him restitution, and cleer him from the foule sclander he hath layd vpon him, and dispossesse my lady of the euil opinion she hath conceiued against so great a sainct by his lewde and temerations language.
18. And this were enough to make any man th [...]t hath a care of his saluation to detest and abhorre the Protestant spirit which carryes men [Page 31] that are throughly possessed with it, into such vast absurdities or rather sacrilegious impieties; and to hate that religion which cannot be maintayned, but by insimulating the Orthodox fathers of the primitiue tymes of heresy, and razing out of the Calender of Gods saincts such as the Church euer looked on as mirours of sanctity. And to the contrary (which is as detestable as the other,) to canonize for saincts, and register in the number of worthy and reuerend men, the foulest monsters for their liues that euer the sunne beheld. For, occasion being giuen me by the Doctour to obiect Luther against him as a most vicious [Page 32] man, and yet the first founder of the Protestant Kerke: the Doctour replyed saying: sir, you do Luther wrong; he was a worthy and reuerend man. And yet if there be any credit to be giuen to their owne Ecclesiasticall histories, to Luther himselfe the bestwitnes of his owne life and actions, this reuerend man was the foulest and lewdest Heretick that euer appeared in the Church of God. Caluin apud Schlus. lib. 1. Theolog Cal. fo. 126. Oecol. Confess. ad resp Lutheri Rheg. l. contra Io: Hosium de Caena. Doth not Caluin say of him, that magnis vitiis laborabat he was infected with great vices? Doth not Oecolampadius affirme that erat superbiae & arrogantiae plenus; he was puffed vp with pride and arrogancy? Doth not Conradius Rhegius auouch that for the same pride [Page 33] wherewith he doth extoll himselfe, God tooke from him his true spirit, and in place of it, gaue him a proud, angry, and lying fpirit? Tom. 5. wittem. de matrim. f. 119 & Colloq. mens. f. 529. Doth no he himselfe with most horrid impudency relate the shamfull exorbitances into which the rage of his lust carryed him after he became an Apostata from his faith and religious Order, and had yoaked himselfe with a vowed Nunne, so vshering his vocation to Protostanisme with the sinne of sacrilegious adultery, for which he deserued to be hanged by the imperiall lawes? Doth he not seeke to iustify these horrid crimes with fouler doctrine, vbi supra & 2 witt. f. 328. and acknowledge to haue learned the doctrine of his pretended [Page 34] reformation of the Diuel; S [...]e H [...]spinian Histor. Sacram part. altera f. 131. & Manlius loc. Comm. pa. 42. & to haue had all along after his reuolt such intrinsecall and inward familiarity and frindship with him, that he did often eate at the same table and lay in the same bed with him, and as 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 [Page 35] 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: [Page 36] 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 [...]emoriall of the sacrifice our Sauiour offered of himselfe on the crosse. And indeed he deliuered himselfe so cōfusedly & so vncōstātly, that he made it cleere that he neither knowes how to define a sacrifice, [Page 37] 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 th [...] which nature hath made but that which the blessing hath consecrated; & that the power of consecration is greater then the power of nat [...]re: for by consecration the very nature it selfe is changed &c.
[Page 38]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 th [...] 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 deputa [...]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 [Page 39] 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 [Page 40] 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 [Page 41] 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 [Page 42] 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 [Page 43] 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 obstina [...]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. [Page 44] 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 [Page 45] 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 f [...]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 [Page 46] 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 [Page 47] 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, B [...]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 [Page 48] 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 [Page 49] 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 [Page 50] 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 lo [...]de enough, and therefore to make it wider he sayd that neither then was the foresayd [Page 51] 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 [Page 52] 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 [Page 53] 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 [Page 54] 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 beene partly already she [...]ed, and will heereafter more fully & cleerly appeare by the testimonie [Page 55] of the ancient fathers bearning witnesse against him that in asserting [...]he Doctrine of Transubstantiation neuer to haue beene knowne in the Church before the Councel of Latteran, he doth vtter so madifest a falshood that he remaines conuicted either of much malice or of great ignorance; both which considerations oblige all men to looke vpon him as a man of no credit in matters of religion.
WE whose are names vnderwrittē Doctours in Diuinity of the sacred Faculty of Paris, haue perused the Treatise entituled The Docttrine of Transubstantiation ancient & Orthodoxall. And we do testify that we haue not found any thing therein, that doth not perfectly agree with the Catholick Romā faith, & sense of Orthodox Antiquity & therefore we iudge that it may be profitably published for the cleering of the truth against the sclanderous tongue of D. Io Cozens a Protestāt minister who is sayd to haue occasioned the writing of it, by boldly affirming the Doctrine of Trāsubstātiation neuer to haue beene knowne nor heard of in the Church be fore the Councel of Latteran. O LONERGAN R. Nugent.
THE DOCTRINE OF Transubstantiation Ancient & Orthodoxall.
§. 1.
FOR the right vnderstanding of S. Augustine (& the same is to be sayd of any other of the fathers,) we are to suppose that he being so eminently learned doth not contradict himselfe in doctrines of faith & the most important mysteries of Christian Religion, this [Page 2] being a thing which euen the meanest writers, though in triuiall matters, do euer scorne as too cleer an argument of grosse obliuion & wors inconstancy; though throw gods iudgment, Hereticks haue euer beene lyable to this reproach & shame & none more then the sectaries of these tymes.
§. 2.
SECONDLY to know assuredly what the fathers did beleeue and theach touching any article of faith, we are to looke into those their elaborate workes where they do expresly & professedly treate of that matter: there we are the likeliest to finde what their beleef & practice [Page 3] was concerning it. Protestants do very much decline from this Rule; all their endeauours are to cull heere & there all the obscure sayings they can finde in other places of the fathers, that by their strayned & violent constructions they may wrest them to giue a shadow vnto their Hereticall senses, and make their vnlearned followers beleeue that the Fathers were of their opinion & taught their doctrine.
§. 3.
AND in like manner if in any of all those plaine sentences, which we alleage in proof of our doctrine there be any One word that can [Page 4] afford them matter of Cauil, they will be sure to take hold of it, & contend without all shame & honesty, though the Meaning of the fathers be there in it selfe most cleer & euident. But who doth not see this way of proceding in Protestant ▪ Ministers to be most injurious to the holy fathers; seing heereby they will presently appeare euen to euery ignorant person to contradit themselues, & so lose all credit & authority: for he that is once discouered to say & vn say the same thing, can be esteemed no better then either a wilfull Lyer, or at least a person most forgetfull and inconstant, and so of no credit at all as a witnesse of verity; for who can [Page 5] giue credit to a man whom he findes to be full of contradictions! And in very truth this is all that Protestant ministers ayme at, to bring men into a high contempt of the fathers, whitak de sacra scrip pa. 670. 676. 678. 690. D. Bear. D. Morton Lubbertus & alij. when they instance & vrge against them their owne contradictions, saying as whitaker doth: Basil fighteth with himselfe; Damascen is contrary to himselfe; I oppose Chrysostome against Chrysostome; Let vs not attend what Cyprian sayd, but let vs examin him by his owne lawe. For were it not euident to them that the fathers do condemne their opinions, & patronize ours, they would neuer endeauour so fowly to, blemish them by vrging contradiction with themselues, [Page 6] which, as I sayd a fore, the meanest writers though in triuiall matters do euer scorne.
§. 4.
THirdly a most effectuall and sure meanes to know what any one of the ancient fathers beleeued and thaugt in any particular matter of faith, is the testimony of the Pastours & Doctours of the Church of the same age, & of the ages immediatly following: for these being neerest to these fathers & some of them eye-witnesses of their practice, & Hearers of their doctrine, are best able to tell vs what religion such & such fathers of their tymes professed. Wherefore, if the Church, [Page 7] for example in S. Augustin tyme, & immediatly after, did take no notice of any new doctrine deliuered by him concerning the reall presence of Christ in the Eucharist, we are not to doubt but that S. Austine did agree in this point of beleef with the rest of the ancient fathers & with the whole Church, not withstanding some obscure places which per aduenture May befound here & there in him, & which to vs now, so farre off, May seeme to carry agreat deale of difficulty for their right wnderstanting: & therefore Protestants can take no aduantage against vs from any such hard sayings of the fathers, which to the vnlearned may seeme to make [Page 8] against our Catholick Doctrine, for though they seeme to make against the generall receiued doctrine of the Church, yet we are to beleeue that it is but seemingly only, & not really, if the Church tooke no notice att all of it: for had they beene then vnderstood so by the Ch [...]rch, it is certaine she would haue taken notice of it, & opposed it, as we see she did in the case of S. Cyprian about the doctrine of rebaptization.
§. 5.
FOurthly for the vnderstanting of the fathers, we are to obserue that they do often tymes in the pharse of scripture call the blessed Eucharist bread, & the Chalice wine [Page 9] euen after Consecration. 1. Because the Elements were bread & wine before. 2. See the like mā ner of shepec. Io. 2.9. Matt. 11.15. Luc. 7.15. Gen. 9.19. Exod. 7 12. Concedo solere quae mutata [...]ūt vocari de nomine pristino. Camier l. 10. de Euch. c. 22. Ioan. 6. v. 35. 48 51. Because they reserue the outward formes of bread & wine, as the Angells gen 18. are called men because they appeared in humane shape. 3. Because it contayneth wnder the shape of bread the true bread of life, Christ Iesus. The Eucharist therefore may be sometyme called bread by the fathers in one of these senses without making any thing at all against our doctrine of the reall presence.
§. 6.
IN like manner the fathers do in a true & Catholik sense call the Eucharist a Sacrament, a signe à figure of [Page 10] Christs body & à remembrance of his passion. It is a Sacrament, that is, as. S. August. defines it, a visibile signe of inuisibile grace which doth inwardly refresh & feede our souls. The externall formes of bread & wine are a signe of Christs true body & blood contayned by way of foode vnder them. It is a figure and remembrance of Christs death & passion, but to inferre from hence, as Protestant Ministers do, ergo Christ is not there really present, is as idle as this, Herod made a supper in rembrance of his birth day to the Chief of Gelilee; ergo he was not present at it. We therefore say that Christ as being in a different manner in the Sacrament, is a figure & type of [Page 11] himselfe as offered on the Crosse for our Redemption. What opposition Protestants heere make against the truth of Christs being present in the Sacrament; the same did Apollinaris & Marcion Make against the truth of our sauiours Humanity; because, forsooth, the scriptures auouch him to be made according to the similitudi [...]e, shape, & likenesse of man: and the same did other ancient hereticks vrge against his diuinity, because S. Paul intitleth him the image of God, the Caracter & figure of his fathers substance. And as the fathers then replyed to both those sortes of hereticks, that Christ had the likenesse of a man, & was a true & perfect man; was the image [Page 12] of God, yet true God; the figure of his fathers substance, & the substance it selfe: so we say to these new Capharnaites the Eucharist is a commemoration, a signe, à figure of Christs body & also his true & naturall body; and that not only the outward formes, but the very body of Christ as vnder them without extension, & in a manner impassible, is a sacrament, signe, figure & remenbrance of his body as offered on the Crosse: for though it be the same in substance, yet not in shew & appearance, nor indued with the same qualities of extension, circumscription, passibility and the like. Wherefore these manner of speekes rightly vnderstood do no wayes preiudice [Page 13] or exclude the truth of Chtists being really present in the Eucharist vnder the formes of bread and wine.
§. 7.
LAstly we must obserue that there are three sortes of eating Christ insinuated by the fathers of the Primitiue Church: One is Sacramentally only, as when euil men receiue the Sacrament vnworthily. For these though they receiue the very Sacrament, and in it the true body and blood of Christ; yet do they not receiue the true spirituall effect and fruict thereof which is grace & nourishment of their soules.
§. 8.
ANother manner of eating Christ is spiritually only; for that without Sacracramentall receiuing, good men by faith and grace do communicate with Christ & participate the fruit of his passion. In this sense S. Austin saies, crede & manducasti, beleeue & thou hast eaten, which māner of speech in the fathers hath no relation at all to the Orall manducation of Christ in the Eucharist. Wherefore when your Ministers do apply such like sayings of the fathers, where they treate of this spirituall eating Christ the bread of life by faith & beleefe only, to the eating of Christ by the [Page 15] Sacrament; they do wrong the fathers in peruerting their meaning, that so vnder the shadow of their authority they may freely vent their prophane & Hereticall doctrine, abusing thereby the fathers, as all Heretiks euer haue done the holy scriptures.
§. 9.
THe third manner of eating Christ mentioned by the Fathers is both Sacramentally and spiritually, as all good Christians do when with due preparation and dispositiō they receiue both the outward Sacrament, & the inward grace and fruit of it. To which manner of eating Christ by faith in the Sacrament the [Page 16] sathers do frequently exhort vs, and for that end, to cleanse the soul, prepare the hart &c.
And therefore they call it spirituall food, the bread of the minde, the proper nourishmēt of the spirit, because indeed the spirituall repast, and refection of the minde is the chief and most souueraigne effect of this diuine Bāquet. Neuerthelesse it excludeth not, as S. Cyril notheth, but presupposeth the corporall eating from which, 20. in Ioan. cap. 13. as from the fountaine and sea of grace the spirituall is deriued. Hence Tertullian saith the flesh is fed with the body and blood of Christ, that the soul may be fattened with God. [...]de Resu [...]rect. carn. ca. p.
§. 10.
APplying these obseruations respectiuely to the places obiected against vs, you will easily vnderstand the true meaning of the ancient fathers, and finde a solid answer to all that your ministers do most cl [...]amourously, and most impertinently vrge against vs. The first place where Austin saies: That which you see is bread &c. you will find answered § 5. And therefore the argument which Protestants vrge from this notiō of bread, and which fox relates as a kilcow, tow it: Fox pag 1258. col. 2. n. 80. that which he tooke blessed; that which he blessed, he brake: that which he brake he gaue; but he tooke [Page 18] bread; ergo he gaue bread; This argument, I say, is no wiser then this: that which Good tooke out of Adams syde, Gen. 2. was a ribb: but what he tooke, that he brought & deliuered to Adam for his wife: ergo [...] deliuered Him a ribb for his wife.
§. 11.
TO the second place, what dost thou prepare thy teeth & belly? beleeue & thou hast eaten: you haue an answer §. 8. for S. Austin speakes non there of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, nor of those who receiue it: but of the incredulous Iewes who had now giuen an expresse commandment to lay hold on our Sauiour, (for he expounds the 56. verse of S. Iohn cap. 11.) [Page 19] & he exhorts them to apprehend him by faith, that is to beleeue in him and receiue him for the Messias & Sauiour.
§. 12.
When S. Austin sayes he that feedeth with the hart, not he that grindeth with the teeth &c. He doth not denye the latter, that is, Sacramentall receiuing the true body and blood of our Sauiour; but only signifyes that not he that grindeth with the teeth only, can partake of the fruit of the Sacrament; & that he that feedeth with the hart without Orall eating, may benefit himselfe by it.
§. 13.
IN like sorte I answer to the third place obiected out of S. Austin; for he only denyeth the wicked to eate of the bread of our Lord &c. because they are not incorporated in his mysticall body, or els because they do it not fruitfully to the benefit of their soules; Psal. 1.5. as Dauid saies: The wiked shall not rise in iudgement, because they shall nat rise to saluation but to damnation. Otherwise S. Austin doth in many places grant that the wicked do truly eate the body of Christ in the Sacrament, though, as S. Paul sayes, to their iudgment.
§. 14.
ALl the other places that are or may be alleadged out of S. Austin or any other ancient Father may in like manner be easily answered by applying some one of the premitted obseruations to them, if the sayd places be faithfully and fully, without deprauation, corruption, 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 [Page 22] 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 exāple, 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, [Page 23] 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 thē, & 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 [Page 24] 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 cōfidence & 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 [Page 25] 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 [Page 26] 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 [Page 27] 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. [Page 28] 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 schoo [...]e boy know that Transubstantiation, [Page 29] according to the Etymology and proper interpretation of the word, Beza de Coen. cout. westph. vol. 1. tract. 6. Geneu. 1582. Hocquidem saepe d [...]ximus quòdnūc 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, [Page 30] 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 [Page 31] 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 [Page 32] 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, [Page 33] 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 [Page 34] 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 [Page 36] 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 [Page 37] 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 [Page 39] 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, & [Page 40] 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 [Page 41] 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 [Page 42] 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 [Page 44] 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 [Page 45] 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 [...]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 [...]earth. And, Because he would, though heere be the figure of [Page 47] bread and wine; they are to be beleeued to be no other thing (according to the interiour] after cōsecratiō, but the body & bloud of Christ. Hēce 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 thē 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; [Page 48] 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 [Page 49] 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- [Page 50] 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 [Page 51] 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 [Page 52] 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 [Page 53] 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 [Page 55] 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 of this Century. And Although English ministers may be as ignorant of him, as Doctor Cozens was of S. Gaudentius: yet he is famously knowne for a great scholler and an Apostolicall man heere in France, therefore let the Doctor take heede that he vse him more ciuilly then he did S. Gaudentius, & east him not out of the number of the ancient Orthodox fathers amōg the Hereticks of those tymes.
In the 5. Age. §. 29. S. Leo the great serm. 9. de ieiun. Alens. 7.
YOV ought to Commumunicate of the Holy Table, that you doubt nothing at all of the truth of the body and bloud of Christ: for that is receiued with the mouth, which by faith is beleeued.
§. 30. S. Cyril Patriark of Alex. ad Calosyr.
THat we should not feele horrour to see flesh and [Page 57] bloud on the sacred Altar, God condescending to our frailty floweth into the things offered the Power of life Conuerting them into the verity of his owne flesh to the end that the body of life may be found as a quickening seede in vs.
§. 31. The Councel of Ephes.
WE Celebrate in the Church the Holy, S. Cyril. Declar. Anathom 11 in Concil. Eph. Quiekning and vnbloudy sacrifice. beleeuing not that that which is set before vs, (to wit the Eucharist) is the body of some common man like vs, and his bloud; but we receiue it rather as the life-giuing words owne flesh and bloud for common flesh cannot giue life.
§, 32. Theodoret Dialog. 2.
THe mysticall signes after Consecration depart not from their nature, [...] but abyde still in the figure & forme of their former substance, and may be seene and touched as before. But are vnderstood, (that is perceiued by the vnderstanding) to be that which They are made [to wit, by consecration,) and are beleeued, and adored, as being that which they are beleeued to be.
Heere Theodoret doth teach, 1. that the mystical, signes, [Page 59] [the outward formes of bread & wine,] after consecration do not recede from their nature: but remaine still in the figure & forme of their former substance, (to wit, of bread and wine) 2. [...]. That there is a Change made, by the inuocation of the Priest; and 3. such a Change as brings in adoration of the things before vs vnder the exteriour signes: before Consecration there are other things, obiects of faith, things to be adored, things which are beleeued and adored as being the very things which they are beleeued to be; [...]. which therefore is not bread and wine but the body and bloud of our Lord. And this was the Custome of the Church in Theodorets dayes [Page 60] [...] to adore in the Sacrament the flesh and body of Christ. So that, laying aside all strayned and violent constructions which Protestants force vpon his words, Theodoret is plaine for the doctrine of Transubstantiation,
§. 33. S. Austine. l. contra Aduers. leg. & Proph. cap. 9.
WE receiue mith faitfull hart and mouth the Mediatour of God and man Christ Iesus, giuing vs his flesh to eate and bloud to drinke, though it seeme more horrible to eate mans fle [...]h, then to slay: and to drinke mans bloud, then to shed it. Heere we haue by [Page 61] the testimony of S. Austine, that the Church in his tyme, and he too, did beleeue and practice the eating with the mouth, a mans body a whole man, God and man, as the now Roman Church doth beleeue and practice, though to carnall men, not acquainted with diuine mysteries, it seemed horrible & inhumane, as it doth now to our new Capharnaites, that is, mis beleeuing Protestants.
§. 34. Againe Epist. 162.
OVR Lord doth patiently sustaine Iudas, a Diuell, a theefe, his betrayer: he permitteth him to receiue [Page 62] among the innocent disciples, that which the faithfull do know to be the price of our redemption. Now do the faithfull know, do they beleeue bakers bread to be the price of our redemption? yet S. Austine saith Iudas receiued that which the faithfull beleeue to be the price of our redemption.
Againe: His holy mother, as he relates l. 9. Confess. cap. 13. departing out of this world, desired memory to be made of her at the Altar, from whence she knew the holy sacrifice to be dispensed wherewith the indightment against vs was blotted out. She then beleeued that on the Altar was offered the life-giuing body, and bloud of our Lord.
§. 35. S. Chrysostome Homil. de Ench.
AS Wax ioigned with fire is likened vnto it, so as nothing of the substance of it remaineth, nothing aboundeth, so heere conceiue the mysteries to be consumed with the substance of the body of our Sauiour. Againe Homil 83, in Matt. The things set before vs, are not the workes of humane power, w [...] hold but the place of ministers, it is he [Christ] who doth Sanctify and Change these thing. And Homil. 24. Prior. ad Cor. That which is in the Chalice, is that which issued from our Sauiours syde. This [Page 64] body the sages adored in the Crib: thou seest it not in the Crib, but on the Altar-Thou dost not see it only, but also doest thouch it, thou dost not touch it only, but also doest eate it — Thinke Wit thy selfe what honour is done vnto thee, Homil. 60. ad Popul. Antioch & what a table thou art made partaker off: We are vnited vnto, & fed with that very thing, at which the Angels, when they behold it, do tremble.
In the 4. Age. §. 36. S. Gaudentius Bishop of Brixia tract. 2.
THE Lord & Creator of creatures that of earth made bread, againe (because [Page 65] he can doth it, and hath promised to do it,) of bread makes his owne body: and he that of water made wine, now of wine, hath made his owne bloud.
§. 37. S. Ambrose de myster. init. cap. 9.
HOW many examples do we vse to proue that the thing is not that which nature made, but that which the blessing hath consecrated; and that the power of Consecration is greater then the power of nature: for by Consecration the wery nature it selfe is changed. Thou hast learned therefore that of bread is made the body of Christ, and that wine & water is put into the [Page 66] Chalice, but by the Consecration of the heauenly word it is made bloud. And hauing alleadged many examples, as of Moyses his rod change into à serpent, wat [...]er into wine he goes on saying. Now if human benediction preuailed so farre as to Change & conuert nature, what say we of the diuine Consecration, where the very words of our Sauiour are operatiue & do worke? for this Sacrament, which thou receiuest, is made by the word of Christ. If the word of Elias preuailed so farre, as to bring downe fyre from heauen; shall not the word of Christ preuaile so farre as to Change the species or nature of the Elements? Of the workes of the whole word thou hast read, that he sayd the [Page 67] word and they were made; he commanded, and they were created: the word of Christ then which was able to make of nothing that which was not, cannot he change the things that haue being into that which they were not? it is not a lesse matter to giue new natures, then t [...]o change them. Thus S. Ambrose: by all which it is cleere that he speakes not heere of an accidentall Morall change in vse and office, not of an externall deputation of the bread and wine (corporall foode) to signify spirituall nourishment; butt of a Physicall change; of a change in nature, of such a change as none but omnipotent power of the Creator can make in his Creatures.
§. 38. S. Gregory Nyssen. Orat. Cathec. cap. 37. [...] &c. ic transmade into the body. [...].
WE do rightly and with good reason beleeue that the bread being sanctifyed by Gods word, is changed into the body of God the word. Christ through the dispensation of his grace entreth by his flesh into all the faithfull, and mingleth himselfe with their bodyes which haue their consistence from bread and wine, to the end that man being vnited to that which is immortall, may attaine to be made partaker of incorruption. And these things he bestoweth transelementing by the vertue of his benediction [Page] the nature of the things that are seene into it. Now to change bread into the body of Christ, to trāselement the nature of bread into the flesh of Christ really and substantially vnder the remayning signes, and outward forme of bread; is to Change and conuert the Elements of bread, that is, the primordiall and fundamentall entities (the matter and the forme) whereof the nature of bread is compounded, and doth consist, into the body, and flesh of our Sauiour; which is the expresse doctrine of Transubstantiation.
§. 39. S. Cyril of Hierus [...]lem Cathec. 4.
HE (our Sauiour) changed once water into wine; and is he not worthy to be beleeued of vs that he hath changed wine into bloud; Cathec 1. The bread and wine of the Eucharist before the sacred inuocation of the adored Trinity were simple bread & wine; but the inuocation being once done, the bread indeed is made the flesh of Christ, and the wine his bloud. And Cathec. 4. with assurance let vs receiue the body and bloud of Christ; for in the forme of bread the body is giuen to thee, and in the forme of wine [Page 71] the bloud; knowing and beleeuing most assuredly, that that which appeareth bread is not bread though it seeme so to the tast, but it is the body of Christ; and that which appeareth wine is not wine, as the tast doth iudge it to be; but the bloud of Christ. Conceaue it not as bare bread and bare wine, for it is the holy body & bloud of Christ: for though the sense doth suggest this vnto thee; yet let faith confirme thee that thou iudge not according to the tast but rather take it as of faith most certaine without doubting in the least degree, that the body & bloud is giuen thee. Doth the Councel of Ttent it selfe speake plainer, and deliuer in cleerer words the doctrine of [Page 72] Transubstantiation, then the fathers of this age haue done almost 1300 yeares agoe? do they not acknowledge a substantiall Conuersion of the bread and Wine into the body and bloud of our Lord? do they not acknowledge it to be an obiect of faith; a great and vnsearchable mystery; a worke wrought by the omnipotent Power and word of God? How vnexcusable are then your ministers who would make you beleeue the doctrine of Transubstantiation to be no ancienter then the Councel of Latteran.
In the 3. Age. §. 40. The Author of the serm. de Coena Domini.
(Which Caluin and Peter Mattyr acknowledge and cite for S. Cyprians) That bread which our Lord gaue vnto his Disciples, being changed not in shape, but in nature is by the omnipotency of the word made flesh: & as in the person of Christ the Humanity did appeare & the Diuinity lay hid; so [heere] a Diuine essence doth vnspeakably poure it selfe into a visible Sacrament. Heere this Author doth teach that as in [Page 74] Christ some thing was visible, something invisible; so heere in the Sacrament: the species are visible, the Deifyed flesh is inuisible; the nature of bread is changed by Gods omnipotence into flesh & therefore is no more, heere in the Sacrament.
§. 41. Origen. Homil. 5. in Diuers. Lec. Eu.
When thou receiuest the incorruptible banquet, when thou enioyest the bread & cup of life, & eatest & drinkest the body & bloud of our Lord, then our Lord enters vnder thy roofe. Do thou therefore humbling thy selfe [Page 75] imitate the Centurion, and say: Lord I am not worthy thou shouldst enter vnder my roofe &c. for where he enters vnworthily, there he enters to iudgment to the receiuer. Heere according to Origen we have that in the Eucharist there is one that may be spoken vnto, & called Lord; & that this Lord enters into those also that receiue him vnworthyly; into the wicked, but not into their soules, therefore into their bodyes, at the mouth, into that house which we carry about vs.
§. 41. Tertullian. l. 4. cont. Marc, cap. 40.
THE bread taken & distributed to his Disciples he made it his body saying This is my body. In these few words Tertullian deliuers three things. First, the r [...]all presence of Christs body in the Eucharist. 2. The Change of one substance into another substance, to wit of the bread into the body of Christ. 3. the Power & efficacy of his words fecit dicendo Hoc est corpus meum. He made it his body saying this is my body.
In the 2. Age. §. 42. S. Irenaeus l. 5. c. 32.
HE (Christ) took bread which is of the Creature, & gaue tanckes saying. Thi [...] is my body: & likewise he confessed the Chalice which is of the creature to be his bloud: & taught the new oblotion of the new Testamēt, which the Church receiuing from the Apostles doth offer to God in all the world.
Againe l. 4. cap. 34. How can they (those Hereticks who denyed our Sauiour to be true God, & yet beleeued the Eucharist) be assured that [Page 78] the bread in which tankes is giuen (that is the consecrated bread) is the body & bloud of their Lord, & the Chalice his bloud, if they do not acknowledge him to be the sonne of the maker of the world by whom wod doth fructisy, fountaines flow, the earth bringeth forth grasse &c.
And cap. 37. How if our Lord be the sonne (not of God,) but of another father, did he rightly taking bread of the condition of the Creature which is according to vs, confesse it to be his body? & how hath he confirmed the mixture of Chalice to be his bloud?
Heere S. Irenaeus doth proue & establish the article of out Saviours being the [Page 79] sonne of God, & true God, by the omnipotent power he doth exercise in the Eucharist by making the bread & the wine his body & bloud for his Confessing the bread to be his body, his Confirming the wine to be 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 omnipot [...]nce in the [Page 80] speaker to make them good. And it is cleere that S. Iren [...]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 fai [...]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 [Page 81] 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 u [...] que communem p [...]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,) [Page 82] 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 [Page 84] 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 [Page 85] 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 [Page 86] 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 [Page 87] 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 [Page 88] 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 [Page 89] & 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 b [...] 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 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 [Page 91] 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 [Page 92] 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, [Page 93] 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 [Page 94] 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; & [Page 95] Protestants must yeeld vnto vs Papists the whole cause, to wit of Transubstantiation, adoratiō 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 & l [...]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, [Page 96] 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 littera [...] 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 [Page 97] cause will be ours, is the free confession [...], 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 euidētly demōstrate 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. & libe [...]è & libenter respondaemus [...] interpretandum In cellat men sal cap. d [...] Patribus Eccles. If that be the truth which the Fathers haue professed with mutuall consent, it is altogether on the Papists syde. Transsubstantiation [Page 98] 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 sēse; (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 [Page 99] 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 excelle [...]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 [Page 100] might be say on either syde, but I haue sought out the iudgmēt 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 [Page 101] 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 [Page 102] 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 [...]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 [Page 104] 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 [Page 105] 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 [Page 106] 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, [...]. [...]. 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 [Page 107] 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 pretēce the Communiō 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 [Page 108] of truth, and render themselues capable to vnderstand the things which are of God, by captiuating their vnderstanding into the obediēce 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 & affo [...]d thē 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 [Page 109] 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 frō 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 ascende [...]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 [Page 110] 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 [Page 111] 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 master our sense and raison: let vs do this in [Page 112] 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 sēsible 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 [Page 113] securer to saluation then the new pretended light of a few, vpst [...]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 Typographū. 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 [Page 114] 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 [Page 115] 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 [Page 116] 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 [Page 117] 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 [Page 118] not what vntruths they vtter though neuer so much against their conscience, so that they may but disgrac [...] 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 [Page 119] 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 leu [...]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 dis [...]guised, false Prophets, deceiptfull teachers, vnsent messengers who preach their owne [Page 120] 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 Protestāts 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 Madam [...], to make your recourse to the throne of Grace with a deepe sense of your saluation [Page 121] 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.
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 dir [...]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 & teach; that is, whether they did not beleeue & teach that in the Sacrament of the Eucharist there is by Consecration made a conuersion of the substance of the bread and wine into the body and bloud of our Lord, the outward formes of bread and wine still remaining; which is the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, as the Councel of Trent aboue cited §. 15. doth expresly declare.
This being the question controuerted between vs and the Nouelists of these tymes; we maintaine the affirmatiue, and auouch that the ancient holy fathers of all ages did with one accord beleeue and teach in this point, what the now Roman Church doth beleeue and teach; and in proof thereof we haue alleadged the testimonies which they giue both of their owne faith and of the faith of the whole Christian world in their tymes; and that so fully, and in as cleer and as expresse words, as the Councel of Trent it selfe doth deliuer the same; in words, which taken in their proper and litteral sense, doe formally auouch a Conuersion and [Page 125] Change of the substance of the bread and wine into the body and bloud of our Lord; in words, which cannot without manifest violence, be wrested into any other sense, no more then the words of the Councel of Trent. Wherefore the Doctour, if he will say any thing at all to the purpose in opposition to vs, must either bring a greater authority as plainely and as expresly denying and contradicting what the abouecited fathers do affirme and teach, (which he will neuer be able to do, seing there can be no greater authority on earth then the vnanimous consent of the fathers, and the testimony of the whole Catholick and vniuersall [Page 126] Church;) or els he must proue the fore alleadged testimonies not to be the sayings of those fathers vnto whom they are ascribed: which will be as hard for him to doe as the former: for he may as well deny that there were euer any such men as those fathers, as deny the cited bookes and authorities to be theirs.
One of these two things the Doctor must necessarly performe to weaken our assertion which maintaines the doctrine of Transubstantiation to haue beene beleeued and taught by the ancient Orthodox fathers of all ages. For what wise man will not dispise and contemne as the foolish and idle conceipts of [Page 127] Hereticks, the faigned glosses, the senselesse expositions the violent and strayned constructions so manifestly contrary to the proper and litteral sense of the words and to the plaine meaning of the fathers, which Protestant ministers do frequently make of their sayings when they are vrged against them as making cleerly on our sydes in their plaine and litterall sense.
As we haue cleerly stated our doctrine of faith concerning Transubstantiation, as it is proposed by the Councel of Trent to all Christians to be beleeued; and as we haue demonstrated it by the full testimony of Orthodox Antiquity to haue euer beene [Page 128] beleeued and taught by the Pastors and Doctors of the Church who did, all, vnderstand and expound in our Catholick sense our Sauiour promise Io. 6. and the words of Institution. So the Doctor to cleere himselfe and his Protestāt congregation from the note of innouation and damnable heresy; must first set downe his doctrine cleerly not obscurely; particularly, not confusedly; in such a manner as all may know what they are to beleeue in particular concerning our Sauiours being really present or not present in the Eucharist.
Secondly hauing cleerly particularized his doctrine, he must produce cleere testimonies of the Orthodox fathers [Page 129] of euery age from Luther vp to the Apostles, which do formally auouch the sayd Protestant doctrine, taking the words [...] according to their proper and naturall signification, in the sense which they do offer immediatly. Thirdly he must produce cleere Scripture, that is, Scripture which, taking the words in their plaine and litteral sense, doth establish that doctrine Scripture that is cleerly so expounded by the fa [...]hers of euery age vp to the Apostles Scripture, and that chiefly of the Institution which doth affirme it formally, and was alwayes so vnderstood by the fathers.
This we haue done in confirmation of our Catholick [Page 130] doctrine: and this the Doctour must do for the establishment of his opinion, Otherwise he will neuer proue his doctrine to be ancient and Orthodoxall nor she himselfe a scholler, nor a louer of truth, nor free himselfe from the note of heresy, But this task he will neuer be able to performe solidly and truly, & so as any man that is but meanly conuersant in the fathers, may rest sat [...]sfyed, and therefore he will euer remaine guilty of the greuous sinne of schisme t [...]ll he enter into the Communion of the Roman Church out of which no man is saued.
ERROVRS OF THE PRINT corrected.
| Errour | Reade |
| pag. 6. l. 7. thaught | taught |
| p. 14. l. 13. maud: | mand: |
| p 17. l. 18., blessed, | he blessed. |
| p 18. l. 4. Good | God |
| p. 33. l. 20. Christ then: | Christ; then |
| p. 59. l. 13. Reade: before consecration there is bread and wine; after consecration, there are &c. | |
| p. 66. l. 5. Change | Changed |
| p. 75. l. 17. Cany | Carry |
| p. 78 l. 3. dele, & bloud | |
| ibidem l. [...]9, of Cbalice | of the Chalice |
| p. 91. l. 4. the some | the sonne |
| ibidem. l. 13. hards | bands |
| p. 120. l. 4. whose they ministers they | whose |
| ibidem l. 7. dele ministers | |
| l. 10. sauin: | sauing |
| p. 129. l. 18. the, instit: | the institution |