THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF TRANSUBTANTIATION proved to be ancient and Orthodoxal.  
Against the slanderous tongue of D. john Cousins a Protestants minister avouching the said doctrine never to have been known, in the Church before the Counsels of Latteran and of Trent.  Aug. in psal. 36. 
Tanto magis debemus commemorare vanitatem Haereticorum, quanto magis quaerimus salutem eorum.  
By how much more we seek the salvation of Heretics; by so much more we ought to maKe the vanity of their lies appear,  Luther Epist. ad Io. Heruagium Typographun. 
The sacramentaries began their opinion of the sacrament with lies, and with lies they defend it.  
PRINTED AT PARIS, M.DC.LVII.   

TO THE READER  
COURTEOUS READER As the cause of my first writing this paper was to satisfy the Countess of Insiquin, & give her not only the true sense and meaning of S. Austin, but also the belief of all Orthodox Antiquity concerning the real presence of Christ in the holy Eucharist: so the reason why I now publish it, is to inform those of the truth, who peradventure may have heard of a conference which casually happened thereupon between myself and D. john Cousins a Protestant minister. Which because it is related by some of his friends with much partiality & prejudice to the truth, I am advised by friends to publish it with all the most material circumstances wherewith it was accompanied, or which were the occasion of it; whereby it will appear that Luther the grand Patriarch of all Protestant Congregations never spoke truer, than when speaking of the Abettors of the Sacramentarian doctrine (which is the doctrine of the English pretended reformation) he said: 
Epist. ad joannem Heruagium Typographun.  The Sacramentaries began their opinion with lies, and with lies they defend it: this I say will appear plainly by the following relation.  
1. The Countess of Insiquin being troubled at her Honourable Lords being become a Roman Catholic, and using all the means she could to draw him to return again to Protestanisme, among other endeavours, she applied the industry of D. Io: Cousins a Protastant minister, who to that effect wrote sundry papers to him, wherein he impugned the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome over the whole Church of Christ, as a doctrine crept-in since the Apostles times, and not warranted by the authority of Orthodox Antiquity.  
2. These papers the earl of Insiquin was pleased to send unto me, and withal requested me to return an answer to them, especially to the authorities alleged therein out out of S. Gregory the great and S. Cyprian against our Catholic doctrine.  
3. In compliance with my Lords request I drew a short answer, wherein I shown first by the testimone of the Doctors own brethren that his urging of S. Gregory's refusing the title of universal Bishop is very vain and idle and grounded upon wilful blindness and Heretical obstinacy; because it is clearer than the sun, and confessed by the greatest scholars of Protestant side, that S, Gregory, notwithstanding the foresaid objection, did claim and exercise the Primacy of authority and jurisdiction over all Churches in causes spiritual and Ecclesiastical, and therefore he termeth the see of Rome the head of all Churches; the mother Church; the mistress of Nations, and avoucheth them to be perverse men that will not be subject to her: and that S. Peter was by God appointed over all the Church etc. These acknowledgements are made of S. Gregory by Bale, Bulinger, Melanchton, the Centurists and other Protestant writers against D. Cousins and his old worn-out objection, which hath been so many times already answered and refuted not only by our Catholic Divines but even by Protestants. In so much that Andrea's Friccius, a Protestant, whom Peter Martyr styleth an excellent learned man writeth thus in confutation of this foolish objection saying: 
L. 2. de Eccles. cap. 10. pa. 570.  Some there be etc. that object the authority of Gregory, who saith that such a title pertaineth to the Precursor of Antichrist: but the reason of Gregory is to be known, and it may be gathered from his words which he repeateath in many Epistles, that the title of universal Bishop is contrary to and doth gainsay, the grace which is commonly poured upon all Bishops. He therefore that calleth himself the only Bishop, taketh the Bishop like power from te rest. Wherefore this title he would have to be rejected etc. But it is nevertheless evident by other places, that Gregory thought 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 Antichrist. Thus Friccius. So evident it is by the Confession of this Protestant that S. Gregory himself claimed and defended the Primacy of the Roman Bishop & Church over all other Bishops and Churches whatsoever. And yet D. Cousins will be still urging against us this objection of s. Greg: which proceeding doth evidently convince him to be either extreme ignorant & little versed even in his own authors; or else, (which is much worse,) to have laid a side all shame and honesty being resolved to maintain any thing though never so clear against his own conscience, so that he may for base ends and secular interest deceive the unlearned.  
4. Having showed that his argument drawn from the authority of s. Gregory was of no credit even with the learnedst of his own school I went on declaring how the minister abused S. Cyprian by disjointing, clipping, and confounding S. Cyprians say that so he might obscure his meaning, which are the ordinary shifts of Protestant ministers and are most unexcusable in D. Cousins, because he wilfully persevers in it, notwithstanding the notice which was lately taken thereof in the very self same controversy by that learned Divine Mr. Thomas Car in his occasional discourses, and in like occasion by D. Thomas Vane in his vindication of the Council of Latteran; both of them laying open his foul perverting and corrupting of the fathers and the Council to his eternal shame and confusion: for it cannot but appear to every indifferent man that the minister is not so much a lover of truth, as he would feign appear to his followers, but rather to be accounted of the number of those who love darkness more than light falsehood more than truth.  
5. These heretical slights being discovered, in the Minister I shown how the places of S. Cyprian being faithfully cited make most clearly for our Catholic doctrine seeing it is clear that he believed and taught that the Roman Church was by divine institution the Principal and chief Church; that she had the prerogative of being the mother Church of all other Churches; that the Primacy or head-governing authority was by Christ given to S. Peter, and his successor; and that his Chair, that is, the see of Rome, is the fountain and head-spring from whence do flow all the streams of pure and infallible doctrine; is the sun from whence all the stars of the firmament that is, all particular Churches receive the light of verity; is the Origen and Centre of unity, from whence do issue all the Lines of Power and jurisdiction which go to the whole circumference of the Eccleasticall Hierarchy.  
6. Having returned this answer to my Lord of Insiquin; his Lady with in few days after sent me another paper of her own hand writing wherein she had collected out of some books of her own some say of S. Austin which she conceived to make very clearly against our Catholic doctrine of the Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, telling me withal that she had shown them to my Lord, and that he had said that he could not well tell how they were to be understood, but that he did not doubt but that I could give a satisfactory answer to them: which therefore she desired of me, and with what speed I could.  
7. Hereupon for my ladies satisfaction I drew the following answer: wherein I first deliver some general Rules to be observed for the right understanding of S. Austin or any other of the ancient fathers in the matter of the H. Eucharist. Then applying the said Rules respectively to the places objected out of S. Austin I show how they make nothing at all against our Catholic doctrine. This done, I prove by clear places of S. Austin that his belief was the same with ours concerning the real presence. And lastly in further confirmation of our doctrine I add the aggreing consent of all Orthodox Antiquity delivered by the fathers of every age from the days of S. Gregory the great up to the Apostles, all of them expounding the Scriptures in favour of our doctri● and professing themselves to believe it, and beating witness that it was in their times the belief of all Orthodox Christians & Churches which they taught and governed. From all which I inferred and concluded against the authors of those books and all Protestant Ministers that pretend to Orthodox Antiquity for warrant of their doctrine, that they be most foul impostors, and wilful deceavers and therefore of no credit nor to be believed nor trusted in matters of religion.  
8. This answer produced, I know ●ot how, a meeting with D. Cousins, and this meeting a verbal contention about the sense of Antiquity concerning the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. For upon my coming to the Palais Royal to present this Answer to my Lady, I was by and by after conducted by my Lord from his own lodgins to D. Cousins his Chamber where I met my Lady with another Protestant Gentleman. After the common salutes of Civility, occasion being given me, I told him the cause of my coming then to the Palais Royal was to bring my Lady an Answer which some three or four days afore she had desired of me to some authorities of S. Austin which &c. The Doctor replied, he knew not what she had done, and that whatsoever it was, she had done it of herself etc.  
After some few words had passed between us about that subject, I began with both their leaves to read my paper. But I had scarce ended the first §. but the minister interrupted me saying: my lady may read your answer another time; if you have any thing to say against our doctrine, you may say it: that which we believe is delivered by Gelasius and Theodoret two ancient fathers of the Church; the rest did not disagree from them, and they agree with us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Theodoret.  
9 I replied first that I come not to dispute about the meaning of Theodoret and Gelasius, but to satisfy my lady concerning S. Austin's sayings which she had sent me, as making against our Catholic doctrine: therefore I desired leave to read what I had made ready for that purpose. Hear the Doctor cried out as before, my lady may read you answer another time etc. And then my lady shown a desire that it might be so, and said she would read my paper afterwards and willed me to answer to Theodoret and Gelasius.  
10. Hereupon I replied to the Doctor and said; first Gelasius is not the man you take him to be: who is he then said the Doctor? not Gelasius the Pope, said I, neither doth he whosoever he be, make any thing against us, as you may see in Bellarmine. Hear the Doctor uttered against Bellarmine some scurrilous language, (of which Heretical mouths are always full,) but I took little notice of it, and went on saying and for Theodoret it is evident his meaning is that in the Eucharist the mystical signs, that is, the outward form of bread and wine after consecration remain in their own proper nature figure and form as before; and not that they remain in the same substance of bread and wine wherein they did inhere, before consecration.  
11. The Doctor here repeated with some vehemency 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; in their substance, in their substance, in their former substance. I answered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nature, essence, yea & substance, doth not only, and always signify substance, as it is divided against accident, but also the true nature and essence of every thing, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth which word Theodoret doth also use in the same place, upon the same occasion, and in the same sense, and you will not deny but that accidents have an intrinsical nature and essence proper to themselves and really distinct from the substance in which they do naturally inhere.  
12. Hear the Doctor to show what a deep Physopher he is, cried out with a repetition: Accidentis est inesse, Accidentis est inesse. What then, said I: I hope you will grant that Accidents have an accidental essence distinct from the nature & essence of the substance wherein they in here. How then doth this accidentis est inesse Prove that Theodoret speaks not of the proper nature & essence of the Accidents, when he says; the mystical signs remain in their former nature etc.  
13. Hear that I might be permitted to read some authorities of the ancient fathers which I had made ready to show my lady the sense of Orthodox Antiquity, I said to the Doctor, we contend here about the meaning of Theodoret; the argument which even now you made for your doctrine: Gelasius and Theodoret taught this, the rest of the fathers did not descent from them ergo etc. This argument I say might be easily turned against you with much more efficacy: but let us ex dato & non concesso suppose without granting that Theodoret and Gelasius did favour your doctrine, and then I argue thus.  
Faith relieth upon authority, and therefore in matters of faith the greatest authority must command our belief and sway our understanding: but the rest of the fathers do evidently hold with us, and their authority is incomparably greater, therefore we are to submit to it, and believe what they believed.  
14. Hear I was with much a do permitted to read 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, again, (because he can do it, and hath promised to do it,) of bread makes his own body and he that of water made wine, now of wine hath made his own blood.  
15. The Doctor not looking, as it seems, for this authority and therefore having no answer or rather shift ready for it, cries out, Gaudentius, who is this Gaudentius? He is, said I, a grave father of the primitive Church, and was Bishop of Brixia. A grave father? said the Doctor, he was some Heretic. Fie Doctor, said I, will you offer to call Heretic a learned father, and Canonised saint? Canonised? said he, by whom? By the Church said I. By the Church? said the Doctor with scorn, by your Church. By that Church said I, which was ever esteemed the church of God.  
16. Hear because the Doctor did not admit S. Gaudentius for an authentical witness; that we might not decline from the main question; without further insisting upon this authority, I went to others better known the Doctor, and cited S. Cyrill of Alexandria. Though now before I cite him, it will not be amiss to make some reflection upon this most  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 clear against them that they cannot shuffle them over by any other Heretical slights. For than you shall hear them, as even now you heard this minister, break out into most disgraceful & reviling language against the ancient fathers of God's Church, though never so learned and holy. So D. Bilson a known Minister of the English pretended reformation, so fare enrageth against S. Epiphanius Bishop of Salamina and a learned father of the fourth age, for rejecting all figurative glosses upon the words of Institution This is my body, that forgetting all modesty & reverence due unto those gray-headed times he saith: 
Bilson 4. part. p. 752. 753.  Epiphanius was a prating deacon of more tongue than wit, more face than learning etc. which scurrilous insolency these Doctors learned of their grand Patriarch Luther, who, whensoever he was pressed by his adversaries with the authorities of fathers which he could not answer, was wont to break out in these and such like profane speeches which declare him to have been more an imp of Satan then a Christian: 
Luther tom. 2. wit: li. de seruo Arbitrio pa. 434. an. 1551. & see the same book printed 8. p. 72. 73 276. 337.  the fathers of so many ages have been plainly blind, and most ignorant in the Scriptures, and have erred all their life time and unless they were amended before their deaths they were neither saints nor pertaining to the Church. But what christian will make any more account of such like lewd and  censures then of a thing that deserves all contempt: for what but wilful ignorance & Heretical pride could have carried these men so precipitously upon such an un christian censure of S. Gaudentins? S. Epiphanius, and the father in general.  
17. S. Gaudentius was a famous Bishop of the primitive times, never stained with any error in faith, noted by any ancient or modern writer. He was so eminent both for his learning & for his virtues, that, though he were under years, he was by the persuasion chief of S. Ambrose chosen to succeed S. Philastrius in the Bishop rick of Brixia: and being then fare absent in a pilgrimage in the East and hearing of his election, he gave a rare example of many admirable virtues not to be found among Protestant Ministers. For he laboured all that he could to decline that dignity, and for that end stayed there in the East, till by the threats of an excommunication he was constrained to return home and undergo that burden. The Doctor therefore remains convicted of great ignorance, and of great temerity, and of being greatly injurious to this ancient holy father, and remains obliged under pain of damnation to make him restitution, and clear him from the foul slander he hath laid upon him, and dispossess my lady of the evil opinion she hath conceived against so great a saint by his lewd and temerations language.  
18. And this were enough to make any man th●t hath a care of his salvation to detest and abhor the Protestant spirit which carries men that are throughly possessed with it, into such vast absurdities or rather sacrilegious impieties; and to hate that religion which cannot be maintained, but by insimulating the Orthodox fathers of the primitive times of heresy, and razing out of the Calendar of God's saints such as the Church ever looked on as mirours of sanctity. And to the contrary (which is as detestable as the other,) to canonize for saints, and register in the number of worthy and reverend men, the foulest monsters for their lives that ever the sun beheld. For, occasion being given me by the Doctor to object Luther against him as a most vicious man, and yet the first founder of the Protestant Kerke: the Doctor replied saying: sir, you do Luther wrong; he was a worthy and reverend man. And yet if there be any credit to be given to their own Ecclesiastical histories, to Luther himself the bestwitnes of his own life and actions, this reverend man was the foulest and lewdest Heretic that ever 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 affirm that erat superbiae & arrogantiae plenus; he was puffed up with pride and arrogancy? Doth not Conradius Rhegius avouch that for the same pride wherewith he doth extol himself, God took from him his true spirit, and in place of it, gave him a proud, angry, and lying fpirit? 
Tom. 5. wittem. de matrim. f. 119 & Colloq. mens. f. 529.  Doth not he himself with most horrid impudence relate the shameful exorbitances into which the rage of his lust carried him after he became an Apostata from his faith and religious Order, and had yoked himself with a vowed Nun, so ushering his vocation to Protostanisme with the sin of sacrilegious adultery, for which he deserved to be hanged by the imperial laws? Doth he not seek to justify these horrid crimes with fouler doctrine, 
ubi supra & 2 wit. f. 328.  and acknowledge to have learned the doctrine of his pretended reformation of the Devil; 
S●e H●spinian Histor. Sacram part. altera f. 131. & Manlius loc. Comm. pa. 42.  & to have had all along after his revolt such intrinsical and inward familiarity and friendship with him, that he did often eat at the same table and lay in the same bed with him, and as near unto him as to his Kate, that is, to his sacrilegious whore? to be short, doth he not confess both of himself and the rest of his reformed ministers: 
Praef. in Proposi. de Bigam. an. 1528. proposit. 62. 63. 66.  That lustful desires do burn in us we cannot deny, seeing by reason thereof we are become infamous in the sight of our congregations? Such are D. Cousin's saints; fuch the first Apostles and founders of his Church; Luther the grand Patriarch a lewd Apostata friar yoked to a Nun, instructed by the Devil: Zuinglius a firebrand of Hell for his seditious and bloody spirit: Caluin and Beza two most infamous Sodomites; Carolostadius a rude and savage man istructed also by the Devil: Oecolampadius, Bucer, Bullinger, Peter Martyr and the rest; all of them as foul and uggly 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 ministry are form & framed and of which they are living copies: such lips, such lettuce: such, saints such Churches.  
19 S. Gaudentius being rejected as an insufficient witness of the faith of those primitive times, I cited S. Cyril of Alexandria and the Council of Ephesus. 
sec §. 30. 31.  To which the Doctor answered this is just our doctrine: and then fell into a contestation with my Lord of Insiquin about the Eucharist being a sacrifice: and one while he avouched it to be a true & real sacrifice: another while that it was a sacrifice only as it is a memorial of the sacrifice our Saviour offered of himself on the cross. And indeed he delivered himself so confusedly & so unconstantly, that he made it clear that he neither knows how to define a sacrifice, nor what a true sacrifice means. And as to the authority of S. Cyril, I leave it to any understanding Protestant to judge, wheter Protestants do generally believe that the things offered on the Altar, that is, the bread and wine, be by the power of life converted into the true body and blood of our Lord, as S. Cyril cited § 30. doth believe and teach.  
20. After S. Cyril I alleged S. Ambrose saying how many examples do we use to prove that the thing is not th● which nature hath made but that which the blessing hath consecrated; & that the power of consecration is greater than the power of nature: for by consecration the very nature itself is changed etc.  
21 The Doctors answer to this authority was, that that which was before instituted and ordained by nature for the nourishment of our bodies, is now by our Saviour's institution designed to signify th● spiritual nourishment of our souls. I replied: it is clear S. Ambrose speaks of a change in nature, of an intrinsical, Physical change, of such a change as none but the omnipotent power of the Creator can make in his creatures, which the deputation and designation you speak of doth not do. Hear I would have gone on citing the authority of S. Ambrose to show that he speak of an intrinsical, Physical change. But the Doctor being now grown loud and clamorous, and having in that heat of words said that the doctrine of Transubstantiation was never known nor heard of in the Church before the Council of Latteran, my Lord of Insiquin urged him to show where the Church was, that then opposed that pretended error, and maintained the truth against that Council defining as it did. But the Doctor came so short in satisfying my Lords demand, that verily, though he did loudly word it for almost a quarter of an hour, yet he did not utter any one word that could satisfy any rational man to the Queree which which my Lord urged against him very handsomely and very home. For he could not so much as name any one Pastor of the Church that did show himself for the truth against that Council and oppose himself as a wall for the house of God in defence of the Catholic 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 ever opposed the authority and definition of the Council of Latteran; and much less that he could make him, who was not then borne, appear as a Church opposing such a Council, as was that of Latteran which consisted of 1285. fathers assembled from all parts of the Christian World, the Pope himself Innocentius the third, being present, and the four Prtriarkes, two in person, the other two by their Legates, themselves being hindered, the one by sickness, the other by the difficulty of passing through the Turks dominions.  
22. The Doctor having, as I said, vociferated for almost a quarter of an hour, without giving any kind of satisfaction to my Lords Queree, he risen up & made his excuse that his affairs would not not permit him to stay any longer time; and so all taking leave one of another, we parted every one which way his occasions called him.  
23. Since this meeting, some of his friends have raised reports of great victories gained by him; as in like occasions they did of the occasional discourses which were held with him by that learned Divine Mr. Thomas Car about several Articles of our Catholic faith, and by D. Thomas Vane about the Council of Latteran. But the victories he gained were over himself, not over his adversaries, as the relation, which I have here made, doth demonstrate. For what was his insimulating S. Gaudentius of heresy, but a conviction of his own ignorance and a confession that that ancient father believed and taught that which the now Roman Church doth believe and teach concerning the doctrine of Transubstantiation? What was his saying to the testimony of S. Cyril and the Council of Ephesus, This is just our doctrine, but an open acknowledgement that he neither knows the doctrine of the English convocation creed, nor what S. Cyrill and the Council of Ephesus doth teach, nor what the Council of Trent hath defined? What was the exposition he gave to the testimony of S. Ambrose, but an open professing himself to be a man that is carried away with wilful obstinacy, 
See Reynerus c. 3. §. tertia causa: & exeodem Illyricus: tit. de Walden. §. sui.  not guided by the love of verity? One of his brethren & as great a pretended gospeler, coming to translate those words of S. john v, c. 1. v. sui eum non receperunt; his own received him not: took sui, his own, for the nominative plural of sus, a sow, and turned it thus: the swine received him not. This beastly Heretic might as well, and with as much reason defend and justify this his profane exposition of God's holy word, as D. Cousin's can defend and justify the sense he gives to S. Ambrose his words. Lastly what is his granting the Council of Lateran to have defined and authentically declared the doctrine of Transubstantiation to be an article of faith & a divine revealed verity conveyed down to us by full tradition of the Church; and yet that we must contemn it as an error upon 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 have his brains inverted, and prefer the corrupt fancies, wilful mustakes, and damnable lies of a few, new, Turbulent and f●ctious Apostatas before the unanimous testimony of a world of learned, wise and holy men; and that, in a matter of above 300. years before Luther or any of his lewd associates 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 time, what the doctrine of faith which their Ancestors every where professed and delivered to them as an Apostolical Tradition and divine revealed verity concerning the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. These are the vicctories D. Cousins hath gained, to wit, over himself and over his Protestant Congregation; which as they prove D. Cousins to be no Doctor of saving truth, so they prove the religion which he doth profess and teach to be most profane and false and altogether grounded upon slanderous lies uttered out of malice against the Roman Church & truth of her Catholic faith.  
23. Hear again I cannot but beseech the Protestant Reader for the love he bears to that sacred ransom of his soul the precious blood of our Saviour, that he will consider what a kind a thing the Protestant religion is which relies upon such Principles and which hath no more certainty of truth, than it is certain that the bare word of Luther, Caluin, swinglius, B●za and the rest of that black-gard is to be preferred before the unanimous testimony of 1285. fathers assembled together in general Council from all parts of the Christian world bearing witness in a matter of fact of their own times, & above 300. years before any of those other lewd Apostatas were borne.  
24. Though that which hath been hitherto related of the Answers which D. Cousins made to the authorities of the fathers, and of the slanderous untruths he uttered against the Roman Catholic faith, do sufficiently declare him to be a man of the very same stamp with all the rest of the ministry of the Protestant kerke, that is, one that is always ready to say and unsay as shall be most for the advantage of his cause and to utter any thing without remorse that may prove disgraceful to the Roman Church, yet in this meeting he gave upon several occasions two or three other strong proofs thereof much to be observed by all those that suffer themselves to be deceived by him, and rely upon his word and doctrine in matters of faith and religion. One is, that whereas I had upon occasion affirmed of Luther that he denied S. james his Epistle to be the word of God, D. Cousins denied this of Luther with as much confidence as if he had had a face of brass. And yet there is nothing more acknowledged by those of Luther's school then this, that Luther says of S. james his Epistle that it is straminea epistola an epistle of straw and unworthy altogether of an Apostolical spirit. In which respect, 
Luther in Prologue. huius epistola.  In which respect, as also for other his horrible prophanings of Gods holy word, 
L. de Sacram. fol. 412.  swinglius dorh style him a foul corrupter and horrible falsifyer of God's word, one that followed the Marcionites and Arians, that razed out such places of holy writ that were against them.  
Another argument of D. Cousin's inconstancy in his assertions, and confidence in impugning the known truth, is, that, after he had most boldly avouched that the doctrine of Transubstantiation and adoration of the Sacrament was never known nor practised in the Church before the Lattetan Council, he presently corrected himself as if he had been two favourable towards the truth and not uttered a falsehood lo●de enough, and therefore to make it wider he said that neither then was the foresaid doctrine defined by the Council, but afterwards by the Decree of Innocentius the third. And yet there can be nothing more clear than that the whole Council did define the doctrine we speak of. For it is one of the very first Heads or Articles of faith which the Council doth define, beginning the Decrees with firmiter credimus & simpliciter confitemur we firmly believe and plainly confess etc. that the true body and blood of Christ is truly contained in the Sacrament of the Altar under the forms 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 divina: Decreta: Concil. Lat. 4. cap. 1.  the bread being by divine power transubstantiated into the body, and the wine into the blood. Thus the Council. And yet D. Cousins is not ashamed to avouch that not the Council of Lateran, but Innocentius the third defined the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Neither is his impudence less intolerable in denying the Adoration of the Sacrament to be more ancient than the Latteran Council; for no Catholic Divine can now speak plainer than the fathers of the purest times of the Church do for it, namely Theodoret, S. Austin, S. chrysostom S. Ambrose, S. Gregory Nazianzen and others whose authorities may be seen in Coccius, Gualterus, and Bellarmine and are arkdowledged by Chemnitius, 
Chemnit. exam. part. 2. pag. 92.  Parkins, Chrispinus, Bilson, the Centurists and other Protestant writers; and Marbachius another Protestant author doth confess it to be a Most ancient custom, which the Church used in showing to the people the Eucharist to be adored in the Mass etc. How then is the Doctor not ashamed to maintain such foul and palpable untruths with so much boldness? Who would be a minister of the Protestant Kerke seeing it is an office which no man can personate, but by laying a side all regard to truth, and publish himself to be a mere impostor, and seeing the building which he is to sustain is so ruinous, that he cannot uphold it and keep it from ruin but by ruining his own soul, and running wilfully into damnation?  
25. And what man is there desirous of salvation that will not hold himself obliged to abandon such a man as a most unsafe guide to heaven, yea as a certain deceiver of souls & one of the number of those whom S. Paul says are subverted and condemned by their own judgement, because it is evident that he defends a cause, a doctrine, a faith, a religion which cannot be defended, but by forging lies, impugning the known truth, and maintaining Principles contrary to the light of nature and common reason, as hath been partly already she●ed, and will hereafter more fully & clearly appear by the testimony of the ancient father's bearning witness against him that in asserting ●he Doctrine of Transubstantiation never to have been known in the Church before the Council of Latteran, he doth utter so madifest a falsehood that he remains convicted either of much malice or of great ignorance; both which considerations oblige all men to look upon him as a man of no credit in matters of religion.  
WE whose are names underwritten Doctors in Divinity of the sacred Faculty of Paris, have perused the Treatise entitled The doctrine of Transubstantiation ancient & Orthodoxal. And we do testify that we have not found any thing therein, that doth not perfectly agree with the Catholic Roman faith, & sense of Orthodox Antiquity & therefore we judge that it may be profitably published for the clearing of the truth against the slanderous tongue of D. Io Cousins a Protestant minister who is said to have occasioned the writing of it, by boldly affirming the Doctrine of Transubstantiation never to have been known nor heard of in the Church be fore the Council of Latteran. O LONERGAN R. Nugent.   

THE DOCTRINE OF Transubstantiation Ancient & Orthodoxal.  

§. 1.  
FOR the right understanding of S. Augustine (& the same is to be said of any other of the fathers,) we are to suppose that he being so eminently learned doth not contradict himself in doctrines of faith & the most important mysteries of Christian Religion, this being a thing which even the meanest writers, though in trivial matters, do ever scorn as too clear an argument of gross oblivion & worse inconstancy; though throw gods judgement, Heretics have ever been liable to this reproach & shame & none more than the sectaries of these times.   

§. 2.  
SECONDLY to know assuredly what the fathers did believe and theach touching any article of faith, we are to look into those their elaborate works where they do expressly & professedly treat of that matter: there we are the likeliest to find what their belief & practice was concerning it. Protestants do very much decline from this Rule; all their endeavours are to cull here & there all the obscure say they can find in other places of the fathers, that by their strained & violent constructions they may wrest them to give a shadow unto their Heretical senses, and make their unlearned followers believe that the Fathers were of their opinion & taught their doctrine.   

§. 3.  
AND in like manner if in any of all those plain sentences, which we allege in proof of our doctrine there be any One word that can afford them matter of Cavil, they will be sure to take hold of it, & contend without all shame & honesty, though the Meaning of the fathers be there in itself most clear & evident. But who doth not see this way of proceeding in Protestant▪ Ministers to be most injurious to the holy fathers; seeing hereby they will presently appear even to every ignorant person to contradit themselves, & so lose all credit & authority: for he that is once discovered to say & un say the same thing, can be esteemed no better than either a wilful Liar, or at least a person most forgetful and inconstant, and so of no credit at all as a witness of verity; for who can give credit to a man whom he finds to be full of contradictions! And in very truth this is all that Protestant ministers aim 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 & urge against them their own contradictions, saying as whitaker doth: Basil fighteth with himself; Damascen is contrary to himself; I oppose chrysostom against chrysostom; Let us not attend what Cyprian said, but let us examine him by his own law. For were it not evident to them that the fathers do condemn their opinions, & patronise ours, they would never endeavour so foully to, blemish them by urging contradiction with themselves, which, as I said a fore, the meanest writers though in trivial matters do ever scorn.   

§. 4.  
THirdly a most effectual and sure means to know what any one of the ancient fathers believed and thaugt in any particular matter of faith, is the testimony of the Pastors & Doctors of the Church of the same age, & of the ages immediately following: for these being nearest to these fathers & some of them eye-witnesses of their practice, & Hearers of their doctrine, are best able to tell us what religion such & such fathers of their times professed. Wherefore, if the Church, for example in S. Augustin time, & immediately after, did take no notice of any new doctrine delivered by him concerning the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, we are not to doubt but that S. Austin did agree in this point of belief with the rest of the ancient fathers & with the whole Church, not withstanding some obscure places which per adventure May befound here & there in him, & which to us now, so fare off, May seem to carry agreat deal of difficulty for their right wnderstanting: & therefore Protestants can take no advantage against us from any such hard say of the fathers, which to the unlearned may seem to make against our Catholic Doctrine, for though they seem to make against the general received doctrine of the Church, yet we are to believe that it is but seemingly only, & not really, if the Church took no notice att all of it: for had they been then understood so by the Ch●rch, it is certain she would have taken notice of it, & opposed it, as we see she did in the case of S. Cyprian about the doctrine of rebaptisation.   

§. 5.  
FOurthly for the understanting of the fathers, we are to observe that they do often times in the pharse of scripture call the blessed Eucharist bread, & the Chalice wine even after Consecration. 1. Because the Elements were bread & wine before. 2. 
See the like manner 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. joan. 6. v. 35. 48 51.  Because they reserve the outward forms of bread & wine, as the Angels gen 18. are called men because they appeared in humane shape. 3. Because it containeth wnder the shape of bread the true bread of life, Christ jesus. The Eucharist therefore may be sometime called bread by the fathers in one of these senses without making any thing at all against our doctrine of the real presence.   

§. 6.  
IN like manner the fathers do in a true & Catholic sense call the Eucharist a Sacrament, a sign à figure of Christ's body & à remembrance of his passion. It is a Sacrament, that is, as. S. August. defines it, a visibile sign of invisibile grace which doth inwardly refresh & feed our souls. The external forms of bread & wine are a sign of Christ's true body & blood contained by way of food under them. It is a figure and remembrance of Christ's death & passion, but to infer 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 himself as offered on the Cross for our Redemption. What opposition Protestant's here make against the truth of Christ's being present in the Sacrament; the same did Apollinaris & Martion Make against the truth of our saviours Humanity; because, forsooth, the scriptures avouch him to be made according to the similitudi●e, shape, & likeness of man: and the same did other ancient heretics urge against his divinity, because S. Paul intitleth him the image of God, the Character & figure of his father's substance. And as the fathers than replied to both those sorts of heretics, that Christ had the likeness of a man, & was a true & perfect man; was the image of God, yet true God; the figure of his father's substance, & the substance itself: so we say to these new Capharnaites the Eucharist is a commemoration, a sign, à figure of Christ's body & also his true & natural body; and that not only the outward forms, but the very body of Christ as under them without extension, & in a manner impassable, is a sacrament, sign, figure & remembrance of his body as offered on the Cross: for though it be the same in substance, yet not in show & appearance, nor endued with the same qualities of extension, circumscription, passibility and the like. Wherefore these manner of speekes rightly understood do no ways prejudice or exclude the truth of Chtists being really present in the Eucharist under the forms of bread and wine.   

§. 7.  
LAstly we must observe that there are three sorts of eating Christ insinuated by the fathers of the Primitive Church: One is Sacramentally only, as when evil men receive the Sacrament unworthily. For these though they receive the very Sacrament, and in it the true body and blood of Christ; yet do they not receive the true spiritual effect and fruit thereof which is grace & nourishment of their souls.   

§. 8.  
ANother manner of eating Christ is spiritually only; for that without Sacracramentall receiving, good men by faith and grace do communicate with Christ & participate the fruit of his passion. In this sense S. Austin says, crede & manducasti, believe & thou hast eaten, which manner of speech in the father's hath no relation at all to the Oral manducation of Christ in the Eucharist. Wherefore when your Ministers do apply such like say of the fathers, where they treat of this spiritual eating Christ the bread of life by faith & belief only, to the eating of Christ by the Sacrament; they do wrong the fathers in perverting their meaning, that so under the shadow of their authority they may freely vent their profane & Heretical doctrine, abusing thereby the fathers, as all Heretics ever have 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 disposition they receive both the outward Sacrament, & the inward grace and fruit of it. To which manner of eating Christ by faith in the Sacrament the sathers do frequently exhort us, and for that end, to cleanse the soul, prepare the hart etc.  
And therefore they call it spiritual food, the bread of the mind, the proper nourishment of the spirit, because indeed the spiritual repast, and refection of the mind is the chief and most soweraigne effect of this divine Banquet. Nevertheless it excludeth not, as S. Cyril notheth, but presupposeth the corporal eating from which, 
20. in joan. cap. 13.  as from the fountain and sea of grace the spiritual is derived. 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 observations respectively to the places objected against us, you will easily understand the true meaning of the ancient fathers, and find a solid answer to all that your ministers do most cl●amourously, and most impertinently urge against us. The first place where Austin says: That which you see is bread etc. you will find answered § 5. And therefore the argument which Protestants urge from this notion of bread, and which fox relates as a kilcow, tow it: 
Fox pag 1258. col. 2. n. 80.  that which he took blessed; that which he blessed, he broke: that which he broke he gave; but he took bread; ergo he gave bread; This argument, I say, is no wiser than this: that which Good took out of Adam's side, 
Gen. 2.  was a rib: but what he took, that he brought & delivered to Adam for his wife: ergo 〈◊〉 delivered Him a rib for his wife.   

§. 11.  
TO the second place, what dost thou prepare thy teeth & belly? believe & thou hast eaten: you have an answer §. 8. for S. Austin speaks none there of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, nor of those who receive it: but of the incredulous jews who had now given an express commandment to lay hold on our Saviour, (for he expounds the 56. verse of S. john cap. 11.) & he exhorts them to apprehend him by faith, that is to believe in him and receive him for the Messiah & Saviour.   

§. 12.  
When S. Austin says he that feedeth with the hart, not he that grindeth with the teeth etc. He doth not deny the latter, that is, Sacramental receiving the true body and blood of our Saviour; but only signify 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 Oral eating, may benefit himself by it.   

§. 13.  
IN like sort I answer to the third place objected out of S. Austin; for he only denyeth the wicked to eat of the bread of our Lord etc. because they are not incorporated in his mystical body, or else because they do it not fruitfully to the benefit of their souls; 
Psal. 1.5.  as David says: The wiked shall not rise in judgement, because they shall nat rise to salvation but to damnation. Otherwise S. Austin doth in many places grant that the wicked do truly eat the body of Christ in the Sacrament, though, as S. Paul says, to their judgement.   

§. 14.  
ALl the other places that are or may be alleged out of S. Austin or any other ancient Father may in like manner be easily answered by applying some one of the premitted observations to them, if the said places be faithfully and fully, without depravation, corruption, addition, substraction, & such like Heretical frauds and deceits alleged. Which precaution I add as a thing very much to be taken notice of, in order to a right understanding of the fathers: for as it hath ever been the Custom of all Heretics to deprave & corrupt both the scriptures and the fathers; so none have been ever more guilty of this heighnous crime than your Protestant ministers; for I dare boldly avouch 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 us,) most notoriously corrupt, and falsify their words and say. So that whatsoever you find in their books cited as the saying for example, of S. Austin or any other ancient father, in proof & confirmation of their doctrine against us; you have as much reason as any formerly ever had in like case, to mistrust their fidelity, for it is most certain that Protestant ministers, & our English in particular, have in this point laid a side all shame and honesty, as may be seen in Morton, Usher and others, by any man that is so much a scholar, as to be able to vndestand the father's language, and will but take the pains to confer the Cotations with their originals, for to any such indifferent man it will manifestly appear that these Ministers do fraudulently use the authorities of the ancient fathers merely to help a bad cause as well as their wits Will serve them, & not that they do verily believe the fathers to be on their side against us, for this, if they be scholars & understand what they read, they cannot but see to be most false; as I shall now demonstrate by giving you the sense. Not only of S. Austin, but of all orthodox Antiquity, beginning from S. Gregory the great, & so through all ages up to the Apostles.  

NOTE.  
Here in the first paper which I made ready in answer to your objections, I began with the testimony of S. Gregory: But because your minister did with much confidence & boldness avouch that our Catholic Doctrine of the real presence and of Transubstantiation was never received nor known in the Church before the Council of Lateran; that you may clearly see how manifest an untruth this is, I will begin from the age immediately before the Council of Lateran, and show by the irrefragable testimonies of the writers of that, and other ages between the Leteran Council and S. Gregory, that our doctrine of transubstantiation hath been ever believed and taught by the Pastors & Doctors of the Church, as a divine revealed verity conveyed unto us through all ages by full Tradition from Christ our Saviour and his blessed Apostles. And that I may proceed with more perspicuity therein, and demonstrate the truth more convincingly. I will first set down what the Church doth propose by the Council of Trent unto all Christians to be believed concerning it.    

§. 15.  
THat then which the Church doth believe & teach, concerning Transubstantiation, the Council of Trent doth deliver as followeth: Because Christ our Redeemour hath said, that that was truly his body, which he offered under the shape of bread; 
sess. 13. c. 4.  therefore it hath been always believed in the Church of God, & the same this holy Synod doth now again declare that by consecration of the bread and of the wine there is made a Conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood; which Conversion is fitly and properly called Transubstantiation by the Catholic Church. The Council doth here deliver three things. The first is the doctrine itself which the Council, (the teaching part of the Church,) doth here expound declaring the meaning of her belief to be that in the Eucharist there is made à Conversion 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, & form, and figure as before. This is her doctrine, this the belief which she doth profess & teach, a substantial Conversion of the bread and wine into the body & blood of our Lord, the outward forms of bread and wine still remaining as before.   

§. 16.  
THe second thing, which the Council doth declare is, that the said Conversion is fitly and properly called Transubstantiation by the Catholic Church. And what man in his wits can make any doubt of this, that such a Conversion is fitly and properly called Transubstantiation? Doth not every school boy know that Transubstantiation, according to the Etymology and proper interpretation of the word, 
Beza de Coen. cout. westph. vol. 1. tract. 6. Geneu. 1582. Hocquidem saepe d●ximus quòdnunc 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.  signify a Conversion, 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 School, say that the property of speech in these words of Christ, this is my body, cannot be retained, but the Papistical Transubstantiation must be established? Why doth Morton the pretended Bishop of Durham say to us Catholics: If the words (this my body,) be certainly true in a proper & literal sense, than we are to yield unto you (Papists) the whole cause; to wit, the doctrine of Transubstantiation, corporeal & material presence, Propitiatory sacrifice, proper adoration, and the like? Wherefore supposing there be in the Eucharist a Conversion made of the bread and wine into the body and blood of our Saviour, this Conversion according to your own Divines may be fitly and properly called Transubstantiation, seeing the words of our Saviour, according to these men, have no other proper & literal signification. Which is all the Church doth here declare against our new Capharnaïtes, who according to the Custom of all Heretics, deride & Cavil at the language of the Church, when they are not able to say any thing against the truth of her doctrine. 
jud. Epist. v. 10.  But against these men who as S. jude saith, blaspheme what things soever they are ignorant off; you may take notice first that the doctrine being supposed, the word is so proper to express the same, that according to your own greatest scholars, it cannot be avoided. Secondly, that all the venom they spit against the use of this word not heard of in the Church before the Council of Lateran, is the very same which other ancient Heretics did womit out against these sacred words, Trinity, Consubstantial, hypostasis, Person & the like, which are now received by the Catholic Church to express more particularly the Christian doctrine in those particular points which Heretics did then begin to oppose. And so all they object from the not use of the word in former times, proves only this, (which is a Confirmation of our doctrine,) that before the time of Berengarius, [the first that moved open war against the B. Eucharist,) the doctrine of transubstantiation had been believed & taught in the Church as a divine revealed thruth for so many ages without contradiction, no Heretikall that time lifting up his Head to hisse against it.  
The third thing which the Council of Trent doth declare and testify, is, that this doctrine of Transubstantiation is Ancient and orthodoxal, that is, is the same which the Pastors and Doctors of the Church have with one accord beleveed & taught as an Apostolical Tradition, as a doctrine of faith which the Apostles received from our blessed Saviour delivered to their successors to be by them conveyed down all along to Posterity. The proof of this truth is the subject of all that here follows, and that I may more fully & clearly demonstrate it I make this argument.   

§. 17.  
IF the fathers of all ages from the Council of Lateran up to the Apostles, did believe and teach that in the Eucharist the bread and wine is by consecration converted changed, transmuted, transelemented, transmade into the body and blood of Christ then the said fathers did believe and teach the same doctrine of Transubstantiation which the now Roman Church doth believe & teach.  
But the fathers of all ages from the Lateran Council up to the Apostles did believe & teach that in the Eucharist the bread and wine is by consecration converted, changed, Transelemented, Transmuted, Transmade into the body & blood of Christ.  
Therefore the fathers of all ages from the Council of Lateran up to the Apostles did- believe and teach the same doctrine of Transubstantiation which the now Roman Church doth believe & teach, and consequently the said doctrine is ancient and Orthodoxal.  
The argument is inform and therefore the premises being granted, the consequence cannot be denied without manifest contradiction.  
The mayor or first proposition is evident from the Council of Trent above cited, where the Council doth declare the meaning of the Church, and what she doth believe under the notion of Transubstantiation, to wit, that under the outward forms of bread & wine there is by consecration made à Conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of our Saviour. Therefore if the said fathers did believe and teach that in the Eucharist there is made by the powerof Consecration such a substantial Conversion, they did believe and teach the now Catholic Roman doctrine.  
Werefore the whole difficulty of the argument doth consist in the assumption or Minor proposition affirming the fathers of all ages to have believed and thought the foresaid Conversion of the Eucharistical bread and wine into the body and blood of our Saviour, which is, as the Council doth declare, the express doctrine of Transubstantiation.  
Now this I shall demonstrate by the clearest testimonies of the learnedst of every age bearing witness thereof, as Interpreters of the scriptures; as Doctors of the Church; & as witnesses of the Common belief of the Christian world in the times wherein they lived.   

In the 12. Age. §. 18. Euthymius in Cap. 26. Matt.  
Our Saviour did not say, These are the signs of my body and of my blood; but these are my body and my blood: wherefore we are not to regard the nature of the things that are proposed, but to their virtue: for as he supernaturally Deified, [if I may so speak,] the flesh which he assumed; so he ineffably changeth those things into his lifegiving body, and into his most precious blood.   

In the 11. Age. §. 19 Theophylactus Archbishop of Bulgary in cap. 6. joannis.  
THE bread which in the mysteries is not a kind of figure only of the flesh of our Lord, but it is the flesh itself: for he did not say, the bread which I will give is the figure of my flesh; but it is my flesh. For the bread by the Mystical Benediction and Coming of the H. ghost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is transmade into the flesh of our Lord— But how doth it not appear flesh unto us, but bread? that we do noth abhor from eating it: for had it appeared flesh, we had nor been so well disposed to receive it: but now our Lord condescending to our infirmity, our mystical food appears unto us like those we are accustomed unto. 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 powerful and life giving flesh of our Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   

§. 20.  
S. Lanfranck Archbishop of Canterbery, who was the greatest scholar of his age, & flourished above 150. years before the Lateran Council: l. de Eucharist: contra Bereng. All asmany as rejoice to be called Christians, do glory that in this Sacrament they receive the true body & true blood of Christ, both taken of the Virgin-Aske all that have knowledge of the Latin or our Language, demand of the Grecque, Armenian, or other Christians of what Nation soever, and they do confess, all, with One mouth that this is their faith— The Church spread over all the world doth confess that bread and wine are put upon the Altar to be consecrated: but they be in time of consecration after an incomprehensible & ineffable manner Changed into the substance of flesh and blood. Howbeit it doth not deny bread, but rather confirm it, but that bread which came from heaven & gives life unto the world; that bread which Ambrose and Austin in the same words call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, supersubstantial. We believe therefore that the earthly substances which are divinely sanctified by Priestly ministry, be ineffably, incomprehensibly, wonderfully, [the heavenly power working) Converted into the essence, of our Lord's body, the species or external form of the things and certain other qualities being reserved; lest men perceiving crude & bloody things should have horror; and that the faithful might receive a more ample reward of their belief; our Lord's body itself notwithstanding existing immortal, incorrupted, entire, incontaminate and without hurt in heaven at the right hard of the father. So that it may be truly said, that we do receive the body which was taken of the Virgin, the same, and not the same: the same verily according to the Essence, and property, and virtue of the true nature; but not the same, if you regard the species or outward forms, and other [Accidents] before mentioned of bread and wine. Thus S. Lanfranck against Berengarius the first Master of the Sacramentarian heresy.   

§. 21.  
NOw, Madam, I beseech you, before you go any further, to compare the doctrine of the Council of Trent above related §. 15. with that which this ancient father & glory of our English Nation delivers as the faith of all nations than Christian; & see what difference you can find between them; & then consider with yourself whether you have not all the reason in the world to look upon this minister as a man that deserves no credit in matters of faith and Religion; since he dares with such a brazen forehead avouch the doctrine of Transubstantiation never to have been known nor heard off in the Church before the Council of Lateran; seeing this father above 150. years before the Council reports it, in as clear terms as the Council of Trent, to have been 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 lawful to doubt but that, at whose beck all things did presently subsist out of nothing, if by the like power in the spiritual Sacraments The earthly matter of bread and wine transcending the nature and merit of their kind is changed into the substance of Christ; 
Commutetur  seeing he says; This is my body, this is my blood.  
This father flourished above 200. years before the Council of Latteran, and he doth here acknowledge a substantial change, a change of One substance, into another substance and says it was not then lawful 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 troubled about the body & blood of Christ, that in the mysteries the ●re is true flesh & true blood; since he would have it so, who hath created it: for he hath done all that he would in heaven & in ●earth. And, Because he would, though here be the figure of bread and wine; they are to be believed to be no other thing (according to the interior] after consecration, but the body & blood of Christ. Hence truth itself unto the disciples says. This is my flesh for the life of the world. And that I may speak a thing yet more wonderful; it is no other flesh then that which was borne of Mary, & suffered on the Cross, & risen out of the grave. It is I say, the self same; and therefore it is the flesh of Christ, which is even to this day offered for the life of the world.  
And expounding the words of Institution he says: catholics all bear witness that the Eucharist is Christ's own flesh and blood. And though out of ignorance some err; yet there is none as yet, who doth openly contradict what the whole world believeth & confesseth. And again: He (Christ) did not say thus when he broke & gave the bread to them: This is, or in this mystery is à certain virtue or figure of my body; but he says without fiction, This is my body: and therefore it is This which he said; not that which every one feigneth.   

§. 24.  
NOw, Madam, let us ask your Doctor who would feign seem learned in the Records of Antiquity, whether the Protestant doctrine doth agree with that which this ancient father says, all Catholics and the whole world then believed & professed? do Protestants now believe that in the mysteries there is true flesh, & true blood? the same and no other but that which was borne of Mary & c? That there is no other thing upon the Altar after Consecration but the body and blood of Christ? That the weary self same flesh which risen out of the grave, is even 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 says, did then err out of ignorance, but did not, as Protestants now do, oppenly contradict what the whole Christian world hath for so- many age's believed and professed?   

In the 8. Age. §. 25. S. john Damascen l. 4. de fide orthodoxa cap. 14.  
AS Bread and wine & water be by the force of nature changed into the body and blood of him that eateth and drinketh them, & are made an other body distinct from the former: so the bread and wine, and water proposed, are by invocation and the coming of the H. Ghost in a miraculous manner 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Transmade into the body and blood of Christ. Neither are the (consecrated) bread and wine the figure of Christ's body, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the very deified body itself of our Lord. For he did not say, this is the figure of my body: but my body nor this is the sign of my blood, but this is my blood.  
The Council of Trent doth not deliver in plainer words the doctrine of Transubstantiation, than this learned father hath done above 900. years ago. Where is then Doctor Cousins his deep knowledge in Antiquity? He must either disprove this to be the saying of S. john Damascen, or confess his own want either of knowledge, or of honesty or of both. And will you, madame, put the eternal salvation of your soul 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 receive the very thing which did hang upon the Cross; and in the cup you shall receive that which was poured out of the side of Christ.  
If this be true than the very thing which did hang upon the Cross is under the outward form of bread; and in the Cup there is the true blood of Christ which doth imply the doctrine of Transubstantiation.   

In the 6. Age. §. 27. S. Gregory the great Dialog. 4. cap. 58.  
HIs blood is poured into the Mouths of the faithful. Again: This Host doth singularly preserve the soul from eternal damnation: which host doth repair unto us by mystery the death of the only begotten, who rising from the dead now dyeth not, yet living in himself immortally, and incorruptibily he is again sacrificed for us 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 womb of the Virgin and in the unity 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 bodies, but one body. Again: The bread which we break on the Altar is it not the participation of the body of our Lord? verily it is consecrated and blest by the Priests and by the H. Ghost & then it is broken: when as now though it seem bread, it is in verity the body of Christ.  
Hear we see the doctrine of Transubstantiation was believed & taught by the fathers of this age. S. Remigius was a famous Bishop that flourished in the very beginning of this Century. And Although English ministers may be as ignorant of him, as Doctor Cousins was of S. Gaudentius: yet he is famously known for a great scholar and an Apostolical man here in France, therefore let the Doctor take heed that he use him more civilly than he did S. Gaudentius, & east him not out of the number of the ancient Orthodox fathers among the Heretics of those times.   

In the 5. Age. §. 29. S. Leo the great serm. 9 de ieiun. Alens. 7.  
YOU ought to Commumunicate of the Holy Table, that you doubt nothing at all of the truth of the body and blood of Christ: for that is received with the mouth, which by faith is believed.   

§. 30. S. Cyril Patriark of Alex. ad Calosyr.  
THat we should not feel horror to see flesh and blood on the sacred Altar, God condescending to our frailty floweth into the things offered the Power of life Converting them into the verity of his own flesh to the end that the body of life may be found as a quickening seed in us.   

§. 31. The Council of Ephes.  
WE Celebrate in the Church the Holy, 
S. Cyril. Declar. Anathom 11 in Concil. Eph.  Quiekning and unbloody sacrifice. believing not that that which is set before us, (to wit the Eucharist) is the body of some common man like us, and his blood; but we receive it rather as the lifegiving words own flesh and blood for common flesh cannot give life.   

§, 32. Theodoret Dialog. 2.  
THe mystical signs after Consecration depart not from their nature, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  but abide still in the figure & form of their former substance, and may be seen and touched as before. But are understood, (that is perceived by the understanding) to be that which They are made [to wit, by consecration,) and are believed, and adored, as being that which they are believed to be.  
Hear Theodoret doth teach, 1. that the mystical, signs, [the outward forms of bread & wine,] after consecration do not recede from their nature: but remain still in the figure & form of their former substance, (to wit, of bread and wine) 2. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  That there is a Change made, by the invocation of the Priest; and 3. such a Change as brings in adoration of the things before us under the exterior signs: before Consecration there are other things, objects of faith, things to be adored, things which are believed and adored as being the very things which they are believed to be; 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  which therefore is not bread and wine but the body and blood of our Lord. And this was the Custom of the Church in Theodoret's days 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to adore in the Sacrament the flesh and body of Christ. So that, laying aside all strained and violent constructions which Protestants force upon his words, Theodoret is plain for the doctrine of Transubstantiation,   

§. 33. S. Austin. l. contra Adverse. leg. & Proph. cap. 9  
WE receive mith faithful hart and mouth the Mediator of God and man Christ jesus, giving us his flesh to eat and blood to drink, though it seem more horrible to eat man's fle●h, then to slay: and to drink man's blood, then to shed it. Hear we have by the testimony of S. Austin, that the Church in his time, and he too, did believe and practise the eating with the mouth, a man's body a whole man, God and man, as the now Roman Church doth believe and practice, though to carnal men, not acquainted with divine mysteries, it seemed horrible & inhuman, as it doth now to our new Capharnaites, that is, misbelieving Protestants.   

§. 34. Again Epist. 162.  
OUR Lord doth patiently sustain judas, a Devil, a thief, his betrayer: he permitteth him to receive among the innocent disciples, that which the faithful do know to be the price of our redemption. Now do the faithful know, do they believe bakers bread to be the price of our redemption? yet S. Austin saith judas received that which the faithful believe to be the price of our redemption.  
Again: 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 us was blotted out. She then believed that on the Altar was offered the lifegiving body, and blood of our Lord.   

§. 35. S. chrysostom Homil. de Ench.  
AS Wax joined with fire is likened unto it, so as nothing of the substance of it remaineth, nothing aboundeth, so here conceive the mysteries to be consumed with the substance of the body of our Saviour. Again Homil 83, in Matt. The things set before us, are not the works 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 Saviour's side. This body the sages adored in the Crib: thou seest it not in the Crib, but on the Altar-Thou dost not see it only, but also dost thouch it, thou dost not touch it only, but also dost eat it— Think Wit thyself what honour is done unto thee, 
Homil. 60. add Popul. Antioch  & what a table thou art made partaker off: We are united unto, & 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, again (because he can doth it, and hath promised to do it,) of bread makes his own body: and he that of water made wine, now of wine, hath made his own blood.   

§. 37. S. Ambrose de myster. init. cap. 9  
HOW many examples do we use to prove that the thing is not that which nature made, but that which the blessing hath consecrated; and that the power of Consecration is greater than the power of nature: for by Consecration the weary nature itself is changed. Thou hast learned therefore that of bread is made the body of Christ, and that wine & water is put into the Chalice, but by the Consecration of the heavenly word it is made blood. And having alleged many examples, as of Moses his rod change into à serpent, wat●er into wine he goes on saying. Now if human benediction prevailed so fare as to Change & convert nature, what say we of the divine Consecration, where the very words of our Saviour are operative & do work? for this Sacrament, which thou receivest, is made by the word of Christ. If the word of Elias prevailed so fare, as to bring down fire from heaven; shall not the word of Christ prevail so fare as to Change the species or nature of the Elements? Of the works of the whole word thou hast read, that he said the 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 have being into that which they were not? it is not a less matter to give new natures, then t●o change them. Thus S. Ambrose: by all which it is clear that he speaks not here of an accidental Moral change in use and office, not of an external deputation of the bread and wine (corporal food) to signify spiritual nourishment; butt of a Physical 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. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. ic transmade into the body. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   
WE do rightly and with good reason believe that the bread being sanctified by God's word, is changed into the body of God the word. Christ through the dispensation of his grace entereth by his flesh into all the faithful, and mingleth himself with their bodies which have their consistence from bread and wine, to the end that man being united to that which is immortal, may attain to be made partaker of incorruption. And these things he bestoweth transelementing by the virtue of his benediction the nature of the things that are seen into it. Now to change bread into the body of Christ, to transelement the nature of bread into the flesh of Christ really and substantially under the remaining signs, and outward form of bread; is to Change and convert the Elements of bread, that is, the primordial and fundamental entities (the matter and the form) whereof the nature of bread is compounded, and doth consist, into the body, and flesh of our Saviour; which is the express doctrine of Transubstantiation.   

§. 39 S. Cyril of Hierus●lem Cathec. 4.  
HE (our Saviour) changed once water into wine; and is he not worthy to be believed of us that he hath changed wine into blood; Cathec 1. The bread and wine of the Eucharist before the sacred invocation of the adored Trinity were simple bread & wine; but the invocation being once done, the bread indeed is made the flesh of Christ, and the wine his blood. And Cathec. 4. with assurance let us receive the body and blood of Christ; for in the form of bread the body is given to thee, and in the form of wine the blood; knowing and believing most assuredly, that that which appeareth bread is not bread though it seem so to the taste, but it is the body of Christ; and that which appeareth wine is not wine, as the taste doth judge it to be; but the blood of Christ. Conceive it not as bare bread and bare wine, for it is the holy body & blood of Christ: for though the sense doth suggest this unto thee; yet let faith confirm thee that thou judge not according to the taste but rather take it as of faith most certain without doubting in the least degree, that the body & blood is given thee. Doth the Council of Ttent itself speak plainer, and deliver in clearer words the doctrine of Transubstantiation, than the fathers of this age have done almost 1300 years ago? do they not acknowledge a substantial Conversion of the bread and Wine into the body and blood of our Lord? do they not acknowledge it to be an object of faith; a great and unsearchable mystery; a work wrought by the omnipotent Power and word of God? How unexcusable are then your ministers who would make you believe the doctrine of Transubstantiation to be no ancienter than the Council 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 gave unto 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 appear & the Divinity lay hid; so [here] a Divine essence doth unspeakably pour itself into a visible Sacrament. Hear this Author doth teach that as in Christ some thing was visible, something invisible; so here in the Sacrament: the species are visible, the Deified flesh is invisible; the nature of bread is changed by God's omnipotence into flesh & therefore is no more, here in the Sacrament.   

§. 41. Origen. Homil. 5. in divers. Lec. Eu.  
When thou receivest the incorruptible banquet, when thou enjoyest the bread & cup of life, & eatest & drinkest the body & blood of our Lord, than our Lord enters under thy roof. Do thou therefore humbling thy self imitate the Centurion, and say: Lord I am not worthy thou shouldst enter under my roof etc. for where he enters unworthily, there he enters to judgement to the receiver. Hear according to Origen we have that in the Eucharist there is one that may be spoken unto, & called Lord; & that this Lord enters into those also that receive him unworthily; into the wicked, but not into their souls, therefore into their bodies, at the mouth, into that house which we carry about us.   

§. 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 delivers three things. First, the r●all presence of Christ's 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, & gave tanckes saying. Thi● is my body: & likewise he confessed the Chalice which is of the creature to be his blood: & taught the new oblotion of the new Testament, which the Church receiving from the Apostles doth offer to God in all the world.  
Again l. 4. cap. 34. How can they (those Heretics who denied our Saviour to be true God, & yet believed the Eucharist) be assured that the bread in which thanks is given (that is the consecrated bread) is the body & blood of their Lord, & the Chalice his blood, if they do not acknowledge him to be the son of the maker of the world by whom would doth fructisy, fountains flow, the earth bringeth forth grass etc.  
And cap. 37. How if our Lord be the son (not of God,) but of another father, did he rightly taking bread of the condition of the Creature which is according to us, confess it to be his body? & how hath he confirmed the mixture of Chalice to be his blood?  
Hear S. Irenaeus doth prove & establish the article of out Saviour's being the son of God, & true God, by the omnipotent power he doth exercise in the Eucharist by making the bread & the wine his body & blood for his Confessing the bread to be his body, his Confirming the wine to be his blood, was his pronouncing of the form of Consecration over them saying. This is my body, This is my blood, which words were efficacious & practic, 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 proves him to be the son of God & true God, because they are such a confession such a confirmation, as requires omnipotence in the speaker to make them good. And it is clear that S. Iren●us doth here supoose it to be the general received doctrine of faith, that Christ is truly & really in the Eucharist & from this undoubted article of faith & work of omnipotency believed to be in it, he proves him to be God.  
And l. 5. c. 1. Our saviour confessed that the Chalice of the Eucharist was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his proper blood, & affirmed that the bread was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his proper body.  
Again l. 4. c. 34. The bread receiving the invocation of God (Consecration) is no more common bread, but Eucharist (that is bread made heevenly & incorruptible by the invocation) consisting of two things, the earthly and the heavenly, that is the species, & the Deified body of Christ.   

§. 43. S justin Martyr Apolog: 2.  
Which as himself doth there testify was written Anno Domini 150. 
Non ut 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 jesus & carnem & sanguinem esse edocti sumus.  We do not take these things as common bread & common drink, but as by God's word jesus-christ our Saviour incarnate had flesh & blood for our salvation; so we are also taught that the food whence our blood & flesh by mutation be nourished, being by the prayers of the word of God, by him made Eucharist, (that is consecrated,) is the flesh & blood of the same jesus incarnate.  
Hear S. justin doth not say, the blessed Sacrament is earthly bread, (such as our fresh is nourished withal;) but that such food as our flesh is nourished withal, being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consecrated & made Eucharist, is now after consecration the flesh & blood of Christ; & that this was the belief of the Church in those primitive times, which were the very next succceding the Apostles.   

§. 44. S. Ignatius the Disciple of S. john the Apostle: apud Theodoretum Dialog: 3.  
THEY (the simonians & other old Heretics who denied our saviour to have true humane nature,) admit not Eucharist & oblations, because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour which suffered for our firmes.  
Hear this holy father says those Heretics (who denied our saviour to have true humane nature,) denied the Eucharist, lest by confessing the Eucharist, which is the flesh of Christ, they should be enforced to grant that Christ had true human flesh.  
The Doctor cannot question this authority of S. Ignatius, being Theodoret, upon whom he relies, citys it: Besides, The Epistles of S. Ignatius, & this ad Smyrnenses in particular, are cited by Eusebius, S. Athanasius, S. Hierom, & Theodoret, who where nearer to those times, & therefore had better means to know the truth in this particular, than we that are so many ages since, & know nothing of those times, but by their means who succeed them immediately. And these fathers are for these respects, & sundry others, of incomparably greater authority, than all the Protestant ministers that ever were put all together; though we should suppose them to have some moral honesty & were not such forgers of lies as they do prove themselves every where in their writings.   

§. 45. S. Denis the Areopagite who was S. Paul's Disciple de Eccles. Hier. c. 3.  
O Most divine & holy sacrifice open those mystical & signifying veils, wherewith thou art covered. Show thyself clearly unto us, & replenish our spiritual eyes with thy singular & revealed brightness. To address such an invocation to the Sacrament would be foolish & impious, if it were only Baker's bread, & not heavenly, divine & living bread in it: for he doth invocate the Sacrament itself and doth ask of it those things, which can only be demanded of God. Therefore he believed that Christ himself God & man was truly contained in the Sacrament.  
The Doctor will peradventure run here to the old shift, & deny the authority of this Book: but, as I said even now of S. Ignatius his epistle, so I say here of this Book, & avouch that the authority of S. Gregory the great, of S. Martin Pope & Martyr in Concilio Romano of Agatho Pope in his Epistle to the Emperor Constantine the fourth, of Pope Nicolas the first in his Epistle to Michael the Emperor, of the 6. General Council Art. 4. & of the 7. General Council Art. 2. of S. Maximus, of S. Thomas & others is so fare above the authority of all Protestant Divines & Churches that ever were, that these are to be by all wise men despised & contemned as the scorn of the world for opposing so great an authority avoucling S. Denis the Aropagite to be author thereof,   

§. 46.  
HITHERTO we are come through all ages from the Concel of Latteran up to the Apostles, showing the doctrine of Transubstantiation to have been believed & taught by the Pastors & Doctors of the Church of God all along as a doctrine of faith every where received & practised by the Church: from whence by the received Rule of S. Augustine it doth immediately follow that for so much as the original or beginning of this doctrine, [such is the Antiquity thereof,] cannot be found, it is to be supposed it hath its Original from the Apostles themselves, which Rule, saith D. Whiteguift the pretended Bishop of Canterbery, 
Witeguift Defen. pag. 351.  is of credit with the writers of our time, namely with Swinglius, Caluin & Gualther & surely, saith he, I think no learned man doth descent from them. But that we may more fully demonstrate this truth & leave no age out, & add to what we said the Apostolical credit together with the supreme & soweraigne authority of Gods own word who is infinite truth, & therefore can neither deceive others, nor be himself deceived; 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 received of our Lord, that which also I have delivered unto you that our Lord jesus, the night wherein he was b● betrayed, took bread: & giving thanks broke, & said: Take ye, & eat, this is my body which shall be delivered for you etc. The very same words & fact of our Saviour are recorded by S. Matthew 26. v. 26. by S. Mark 14. v. 22. & by S. Lucke 22. v. 19 Our dear Lord had long before promised his Disciples to leave unto them this most rich pledge of his eternal love, saying; 
john. 6.51.  The bread which I (the some of God, your Lord & master, & Redeemer of mankind,) will give you, (to be your food unto eternal life, & which shall remain in you as a quickening & lifegiving seed for ever) is, (not that heavenly bread made by the hands of Angels, but it is a food incomparably more excellent, it is that which the Angels themselves do continually feed on & are never satiated with looking & feeding on it, it is my flesh (which I shall give) for the life (& salvation] of the world; & unless you eat (this flesh of mine) the flesh of the son of man you shall not have life in you: but he that eateth my flesh & drinketh my blood, hath (by right of my promise, which never shall fail & therefore is as sure as present possession) life everlasting; for I will most assuredly raise him (that shall eat my flesh worthily) to life everlasting in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, & my blood is drink indeed: why? because He that eateth my flesh & drinketh my blood, abideth in me & I in him. This was the promise our dear Lord made unto his Disciples, & he being goodness & truth itself, was as good as his word: &, as the Apostle & the Evangelists relate in the places above cited, being now to leave the world & to make his last will & testament He took bread into his sacred & venerable hands, & gining thanks blessed it, & broke it & gave it to them saying: Take ye & eat; for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is my own very body, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that very body which is given, delivered, broken, crucified for you; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is my own blood, this is the cup, or drink which is shed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for you, for many unto remission of sins, This is my blood of the new Testament, This is the Cup the new Testament in my blood which shall be shed for you, for many unto remission of sins.   

§. 48.  
BY these words it is manifest our Saviour speaks of his own true body & blood; of that body which was given, broken, sacrificed crucified for us, of that blood which was shed for us: for many, for the whole world unto remission of sins. The words are so cleeer on our side, for Transubstantiation, that, as you have heard Beza Morton & other of the Protestant school confess, they cannot be understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in their proper & literal sense, according to the property of the words, but the Papistical Transubstantiation must be established; & Protestants must yield unto us Papists the whole cause, to wit of Transubstantiation, adoration of the Sacrament & the like: So that our Catholic Doctrine of Transubstantion is confessedly as ancient as the Gospel itself, if the words of truth be true in a proper & l●tter sense; & will any Christian say the words of our Saviour be not true in the sense he spoke them?   

§. 49.  
HERE now Madam I desire you to make a stand, & consider with yourself 1. Wheter there can be any thing more in reason required for to establish the verity of any doctrine of faith, then to hear Christ our Saviour the Oracle & fountain of truth delivering it in words that have but one proper & literal sense, & that have been all along understood & interpreted by the Pastors & Doctors of the Church according to that one proper literal sense; yea &, if the greatest Divines of your own side may be believed, must be so understood? 2. To consider wheter this doctrine of Transubstantiation be not de facto such? The first part, to wit that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is delivered by our Saviour in words so plain that they cannot be understood in their proper & literal sense, but the whole cause will be ours, is the free confession●, as I have showed, of your Divines. The second part, to wit, that the Pastors & Doctors of God's Church in all ages have understood & expounded thE words of institution for Transubstantiation, & according to the proper & literal sense of the words (besides their testimonies which I have alleged in every age, & which do evidently demonstrate their faith to have been the same with ours) your own men do freely acknowledge it, saying universally 〈◊〉 of the whole sum of our religion: 
Duditius apud Bezam epist. 1. Adamus Francisci Marg. Theolo. p. 256. Antonius de Adamo anatom of the mass 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 have professed with mutual consent, it is altogether on the Papists side. Transubstantiation entered early into the Church. We have not yet hitherto been able to know when this opinion of the Real & Bodily being of Christ in the Sacrament did begin. The father's words & say, are with the Papists, they are serviceable to Antichrist, & over much varying from the Scriptures. The third, to wit, that our Saviour's words, This is my body must be understood according to their proper & literal sense; (besides the authority of the Church who is the best mistress of faith & whom by God's command we are to hear & obey), it is the express doctrine of the greatest scholars that ever were in the Protestant school: It is asked, saith Cammierus what is, (or what signifies) these words, my body, my blood? I answer, saith he, ingenuously, freely, & willingly, that they must be understood according to the propriety of the wotds. And melanchton, who for his supposed worth in learning is esteemed by Lavatherus the phoenix of his age, & of whom Luther giveth this testimony saying: He fare excels all the ancient Doctors of the Church, & exceedeth even Austin himself, this great Divine & father of the protestant Church saith: 
Melanchton l. 3. Epist. saying & Oecolamp. fol. 13. 2  There is no care that hath more troubled my mind, than this of the Eucharist: & not only myself have weighed what might be say on either side, but I have sought out the iudgment of the old writers touching the same, & when I have laid all together, I find no good reason, that may satsfy a conscience departing from the Property of Christ's word this is my body. So that here we have by the testimony of most irrefragable witnesses, that our Saviour's words of institution this is my body, this is my blood must be interpreted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to their proper & literal sense: & that being so interpreted according to their proper & literal sense, they do avoidable establish the doctrine of Transubstantiation which is believed & taught as a divine revealed truth by the now Roman Catholic Church. Hence I argue thus.   

§. 50.  
IF our Saviour's words this is my body etc. be true & to be understood in their proper & literal sense; then the Papistical Transubstantiation must be established; & Protestants must yield unto us catholics the whole cause, to wit, Transubstantiation adoration & the like as both Beza Morton and others grant.  
But the said words of our Saviour are to be understood according to their proper & literal sense, as Cammierus Melanchton and othet great Protestants avouch; and the full consent of fathers doth teach. Ergo the said words of our Saviour 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 themselves.   

§ 52.  
AGAIN: that is the truth in matters of faith, which the fathers of all ages have with mutual consent professed. Otherwise it were but vain and idle to dispute about their belief, unless their unanimous 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 have professed with mutual consent, it is altogether on the Papists side as Duditius in general, and Melanchton in this particular point confess Ergo the truth in matters of religion is altogether on our side.   

§. 53.  
SO that we have from the free confessions of Protestants themselves that our doctrine of Transubstantiation is as ●n ancient as the Gospel itself, if the words of truth itself be true in a proper & literal sense, & as they have been understood and interpreted all along in all ages by the Pastors and Doctors of God Church. Can there be any thing more in reason required to establish the verity of any doctrine of faith, then to hear Truth itself teaching it and delivering it in words that have but one proper, literal sense; and that must be understood and interpreted according to it? And to the contrary can there be any thing more convincing the opposite Protestant doctrine to be damnably heretical, than this, that it cannot possibly be true, if our dear Lord and Saviour making his last will and Testament did speak plainly and properly, and so as no man afterwads could groundedly raise any doubts about the sense and meaning of his words.   

§. 54.  
WHEREFORE, Madam, seeing our Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation is so notoriously descended from Christ himself through all ages to us by full Tradition of the Church, by a conspicuous succession of Pastors delivering the same from fathers to sons as a divine revealed verity, you may safely conclude for the truth of our Catholic doctrine & say with S. Hilary expounding the words of institution: There is no place left of doubting of the truth of the flesh and blood of our Saviour: for now both by our Saviour's profession, and our belief it is ttuly flesh and truly blood. Secondly against your Sacramentarian Ministers; that they are men of no credit in matters of faith and religion, seeing it is manifest that all they object against our doctrine are forged lies: for what can be more manifestly untrue then that which your Doctor doth without all shame avouch, 
●. ●. de Trinit.  to wit, that before the latteran Council, the doctrine of Transubstantiation was not known in the Church.   

§. 55.  
YOU will further see that all that these unconscionable men do clamourously object against this divine mystery ' hath no more difficulty than what their first progenitors the murmuring Capharnaites conceived through their gross and inhuman imagination and opposed against our Saviour's heavenly doctrine, forsaking thereupon his dear fociety; 
job. 66.  as Protestants have since forsaken upon the same pretence the Communion of his spouse the Church, justifying their horrid & sacrilegious revolt, as those other carnal men did with this profane and impious excuse: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 
job. v. 52.90.64.  This saying is heard and who can endure to hear it? But if they would open their deaf ears to the voice of truth, and render themselves capable to understand the things which are of God, by captivating their understanding into the obedience of Christ they would in the very same place of the Gospel find these clear lights of truth, which would dispel all the clouds of their infidelity & afford them full and satisfactory answers to all that wilful blindness doth object against a truth so clearly delivered by God in Scripture; they would find, I say, 
v. 51. etc. v. 68 69.  these verities; that this man, who promiseth to give his own flesh under the form of bread, is the son of the living God, and that his words are the words of eternal life infinitely efficacious & operative, that it is his omnipotent and lifegiving spirit that quickeneth and floweth his operative virtue 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 fare more wonderful manner, than ever Manna did that most delicious food and bread made by the hands of Angels; that it is as easy for him to descend from heaven upon 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 avoucheth, and therefore seeing he saith the bread which I will give, 
v, 51. v. 55.  is my flesh: my flesh is meat indeed, 
v. 53.  and, unless you eat the flesh of the son of man, and drink his blood you shall not have life in you and the like, all that are docible of God, all that are endued from above with the light of faith, do readily and firmly believe it to be most certainly true relying on his infinite authority who can neither deceive nor be deceived; and lastly, that the flesh, (that is, as Origen, S. Cyprian, S. chrysostom Thophylactus, Euthymius and others expound it, their carnal understand of our Saviour's speech about his flesh to be eaten in the Sacrament,) profiteth nothing to salvation, but requireth a more spiritual and elevated understanding, unto which those dull, carnal and murmuring jews had been raised by the light of faith convoyed into their souls by the heavenly father had they not wilfully shut their obdurate hearts against him. 
v. 44 45. 4    

§. 56.  
I Conclude therefore with S. Chrysostom's exhortation to you, saying: let us give credit to God every where; 
Homil. 89. in mat.  let us not oppose against him, though what he saith doth seem to our senses and our thinking absurd: let his saying master our sense and raisin: let us do this in all things and especially in the mysteries, not regarding alone the things which lie before us. but holding fast his words we cannot be Cozened our sense may easily be deceived; his words cannot be untrue, our sense is often times beguiled. Seeing therefore our Lord hath said, this is my body, let not staggering nor doubt lay hold on us but let us believe it, and see it with the eyes of our understanding: for nothing that is sensible is given unto us here by Christ, but in sensible thing indeed; yet all that he giveth is insensible. Thus S. chrysostom. And I beseech you, Madam, to give ear unto him and follow his advice and Counsel; much safer and securer to salvation then the new pretended light of a few, upstart, turbulent and factious Ministers, that have nothing in them derseruing credit and authority▪ seeing they are by their own brethren confessed to be foul corrupters and horrible falsifiers of God's word, 
So Swinglius of Luther, Carleile of the English Protestant ministers. p. 116. 144. Epistolae ad Ioan nem Heruagium Typographun.  lovers of darkness more than light, falsehood more than truth & who obtrue upon their unlearned Proselytes a doctrine, which, as Luther the grand Protestant Apostle saith, they began with lies, and with lies they descend it: which I have alfo here demonstrated against your minister who was not ashamed to avouch against the clearest evidence of truth, that the doctrine of Transubstantiation was not known nor heard of in the Church before the Council of Latteran, which assertion how false it is every one that can but read may see, by turning first to the 15. §. taking there out of the Count- of Trent the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and then comparing that doctrine with the testimonies of the fathers of every age whom I have cited as interpreters of the Scripture, as Doctors and Teachers of the Church, and as witnesses of the common belief of the Christian world in their times, all of them delivering in as express terms as the Council of Trent, that the belief of all Orthodox Christians over the world than was, that in the Eucharist there is by Consecration made a Conversion, a Transmutatiation, a Trans-elementation a change of the substance of the bread and wine into the body and blood of our Lord, which is the formal doctrine of Transubstantiation, and all that the Church doth propose to all Christian 1 to be believed as a divine revealed verity. Unless it be that the Council declares that this substantial Conversion is fitly & properly called Tranfubstantiation: Wherein that man must extremely Cozen himself and declare himself to be altogether void of common sense, that should offer to prefer the clamourous non sense of a Protestant minister that knows not the proper sense & meaning of thousands of Latin words, before the judgement of a General Council consisting of thousands of the learnedst of all nations than Orthodox and Chrstian especially considering that Transubstantiation, as every school 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 unto the divine authority, hath power to use, assign and apply words not used before, to express more plainly the truth & meaning of her divine and Apostolical doctrine against those that do oppose it with their profane novelties, as the practice of the Church in all ages doth declare against the Rebels of light that moved worre against her in those times.   

§. 57  
I Shall not add here any more in disproof of your ministers foul Sclauders. That which I have already said takes off their wizard, and is abundantly sufficient to make them appear to any man that is devested of prejudice & passion, to be nothing but the foul impostures of Heretics who care not what untruths they utter though never so much against their conscience, so that they may but disgrace the Church of God and render her contemptible to men by charging he with gross and damnable errors in doctrines of faith and religion and by this persuasion draw ignorant people to contemn her authority and forsake her Communion, and assume unto themselves the authority of judges in matter of Religion, and this for secular ends and private interest.  
Now for conclusion of this answer I beseech you Madam to cast an impartial eye upon the pretended reformation, and consider the first authors of it, and how they do defend it, and the effects which it hath every where produced. The authors you will find to be a rabble of most seditious and leuid Apostatas; the Doctrine they broached is full of sacrilegious blasphemies; the effects it hath produced, in all country's, licentious liberty, rebellion and other horrid vices, all which doth make it manifest to all that do not wifully shut their eyes, that Protestanisme is not a reformed but deformed religion; and therefore an open way leadging straight to perdition; and that the ministers you credit, are wolves dis●●●guised, false Prophets, deceitful teachers, unsent messengers who preach their own foolish dreams & corrupted fancies for Gods holy word and divine revealed verities; you may know them whose they are by their pride, avarice, envy, vicious lives and ministers lying spirit, which are Characters given by Protestants themselves of their own ministry, but are fare from being testimonies of Gods holy spirit inhabiting in them, to teach them all truth and lead them the ways of salvation.  
That you may discover their fraud, avoid their snarres, and free yourself from their tyranny, I beseech you Madam●, to make your recourse to the throne of Grace with a deep sense of your salvation imploring his mercy in the above cited words of S. Denis saying: Replenish, O Lord, our spiritual eyes with thy singular and revealed brightness. And you may not doubt but that he will pour into your soul the light of faith which is to bring you to the knowledge of savin truth, and with his grace enable you to embrace it and profess it: which shall be the daily prayer.  
MADAM Of your most humble and very sincere servant W.W.    

An admonition for Doctor Cousins.  
IF in replying to what is here alleged out of the fathers in proof of the antiquity of our doctrine, he will show himself a Doctor and speak to the purpose; and not a Deceiver using heretical slights and fallacies to deceive the ignorant; let him first reflect on the state of the question which is here between us and Protestants; and let all he says directly tend to confute and disprove that which we maintain to be ancient and Orthodoxal against him & all other sectaries do that oppose us.  
The Question is in a matter of fact, to wit, wheter the ancient fathers (the Pastors and Doctors of God's Church,) did not believe and teach the same doctrine of Transubstantiation, which the now Roman Catholic Church doth believe & teach; that is, whether they did not believe & teach that in the Sacrament of the Eucharist there is by Consecration made a conversion of the substance of the bread and wine into the body and blood of our Lord, the outward forms of bread and wine still remaining; which is the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, as the Council of Trent above cited §. 15. doth expressly declare.  
This being the question controverted between us and the Novelists of these times; we maintain the affirmative, and avouch that the ancient holy fathers of all ages did with one accord believe and teach in this point, what the now Roman Church doth believe and teach; and in proof thereof we have alleged the testimonies which they give both of their own faith and of the faith of the whole Christian world in their times; and that so fully, and in as clear and as express words, as the Council of Trent itself doth deliver the same; in words, which taken in their proper and literal sense, do formally avouch a Conversion and Change of the substance of the bread and wine into the body and blood of our Lord; in words, which cannot without manifest violence, be wrested into any other sense, no more than the words of the Council of Trent. Wherefore the Doctor, if he will say any thing at all to the purpose in opposition to us, must either bring a greater authority as plainly and as expressly denying and contradicting what the abovecited fathers do affirm and teach, (which he will never be able to do, seeing there can be no greater authority on earth than the unanimous consent of the fathers, and the testimony of the whole Catholic and universal Church;) or else he must prove the fore alleged testimonies not to be the say of those fathers unto whom they are ascribed: which will be as hard for him to do as the former: for he may as well deny that there were ever any such men as those fathers, as deny the cited books and authorities to be theirs.  
One of these two things the Doctor must necessarily perform to weaken our assertion which maintains the doctrine of Transubstantiation to have been believed and taught by the ancient Orthodox fathers of all ages. For what wise man will not despise and contemn as the foolish and idle conceits of Heretics, the feigned glosses, the senseless expositions the violent and strained constructions so manifestly contrary to the proper and literal sense of the words and to the plain meaning of the fathers, which Protestant ministers do frequently make of their say when they are urged against them as making clearly on our sides in their plain and literal sense.  
As we have clearly stated our doctrine of faith concerning Transubstantiation, as it is proposed by the Council of Trent to all Christians to be believed; and as we have demonstrated it by the full testimony of Orthodox Antiquity to have ever been believed and taught by the Pastors and Doctors of the Church who did, all, understand and expound in our Catholic sense our Saviour promise Io. 6. and the words of Institution. So the Doctor to clear himself and his Protestant congregation from the note of innovation and damnable heresy; must first set down his doctrine clearly not obscurely; particularly, not confusedly; in such a manner as all may know what they are to believe in particular concerning our Saviour's being really present or not present in the Eucharist.  
Secondly having clearly particularised his doctrine, he must produce clear testimonies of the Orthodox fathers of every age from Luther up to the Apostles, which do formally avouch the said Protestant doctrine, taking the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to their proper and natural signification, in the sense which they do offer immediately. Thirdly he must produce clear Scripture, that is, Scripture which, taking the words in their plain and literal sense, doth establish that doctrine Scripture that is clearly so expounded by the fa●hers of every age up to the Apostles Scripture, and that chief of the Institution which doth affirm it formally, and was always so understood by the fathers.  
This we have done in confirmation of our Catholic doctrine: and this the Doctor must do for the establishment of his opinion, Otherwise he will never prove his doctrine to be ancient and Orthodoxal nor she himself a scholar, nor a lover of truth, nor free himself from the note of heresy, But this task he will never be able to perform solidly and truly, & so as any man that is but meanly conversant in the fathers, may rest satisfied, and therefore he will ever remain guilty of the grevous sin of schism t●ll he enter into the Communion of the Roman Church out of which no man is saved.  
FINIS.   

ERRORS OF THE PRINT corrected.  
Error Read pag. 6. l. 7. thaught taught p. 14. l. 13. maud: manned: 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 etc. p. 66. l. 5. Change Changed p. 75. l. 17. Cany Carry p. 78 l. 3. deal, & blood ibidem l. ●9, of Cbalice of the Chalice p. 91. l. 4. the some the son ibidem. l. 13. hards bands p. 120. l. 4. whose they ministers they whose ibidem l. 7. deal ministers l. 10. savin: saving p. 129. l. 18. the, instit: the institution