A DISCVSSION OF THE POPISH DOCTRINE OF Transubstantiation Wherein the same is declared by the Confession of their owne Writers to haue no necessary ground in Gods Word As also it is further demonstrated to be against Scripture Nature Sense Reason Religion the Iudgement of the Auncients and the Faith of our Auncestours Written by THOMAS GATAKER B. of D. and Pastor of Rotherhith LONDON Printed by I. L. for William Sheffard and are to bee sold at his shoppe at the entring in of Popes-head Alley out of Lombard-streete 1624. This Treatise consisteth of two parts 1. A briefe Discourse containing diuers Arguments against the Popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation 2. A Iust Defence of the same Discourse and Arguments against the Answer of a namelesse Popish Priest thereunto To the Reader BE pleased I pray thee to vnderstand in a word as the occasion of vndertaking so the motiue of publishing this Controuersie Hauing had some Conference with an Honourable Lady nobly descended whom some Factors for Rome had endeauoured to peruert about the Point of Transubstantiation and Christs corporall presence in the Eucharist I was by her requested to deliuer her in writing the summe of that that had passed then by word of mouth from me as well in way of Answere to the exceptions taken to our Doctrine as in way of opposition to the Romane tenet therein Whereupon within a few daies after hauing digested it as well as streights of time would permit and added some further enforcements of the generall heads then insisted on I deliuered it verbatim as here thou now hast it Which writing being imparted to one of those Factors a speedy answere was promised and after long expectation of it at length performed such as here it is exhibited vnder the letters of N. P. put for a Namelesse Popish Priest without word or syllable detracted added or altred Vnto which I soone after dispeeded a Reply which was to the same Honourable Personage also not long after represented Now hauing hitherto heard of nothing returned further thereunto albeit some yeeres be past since the exhibition of it I haue thought good by the aduice of some iudicious Friends to publish all together my Reply onely in some few places enlarged as well thereby the more fully to cleere some obiections vrged commonly to the simpler sort especially against our Faith and Doctrine concerning that Sacrament and our exposition of some passages of holy writ either concerning or supposed to concerne the same as also further to discouer to such especially as are not so well acquainted therewith the grosse and palpable frauds and falshoods with such Popish Factours too frequent which in the aduised reading and perusing hereof may easily and euidently be descried And this is all that not listing to detaine thee long from the discourse it selfe I was desirous by way of Preface to fore-acquaint thee withall The Lord vouchsafe thee and vs all true vnderstanding sound iudgement and a loue of the truth both in this and in all other things Thine in our common Sauiour THO GATAKER Errata IN the Text. page 31. line 21. for said reade say p. 33. lin 10 for these r. those l. 20. for a mans r. mans l. 23. for difficultie r. difficulties p. 39. l. 3. for confimeth r. confirmeth l. 12. for maine r. maime l. 27. for commodioas r. commodious p. 40. lin 5. for to passe r so passe p. 41. l. 11. for and r. with p. 42. l. 8. for is r. is not p. 47. l 7. for Crosse r. Grosse p. 51. l. 24. put out simply and p. 53. l. 7. for these r. in those p. 54. l. 17. for to conclude r. concluded p. 56. l. 25. after Christs put in body p. 60. l. vlt. for things r. thing p. 64. l. 30. for Catechising r. Catechisings p. 65. l. 5. for one r. of one p. 66. l. 17. for Glosse r. Gospell p. 74. l. 9. for this r. this is p. 75. l. 30. for their r. that their p. 87. l. 34. for either r. either p. 99. l. 24 26 36. put out 1. 2. 3. l. 35. for receiue r. receiuing p. 103. l. 5. after they put out was p. 199. l. 9. for Galathians r. Galatians p. 148. l. 10. for conuersion r. conuersion l 33. for it r. it p. 149. l. 35. for here read how l. 37. for before r. before p. 1â—0 l. 25. for body r. bodies p. 151 l. 20. for therefore r. thereof p. 152. l. 4. for to as r. as to l. 26. for bread r. bred p. 154. l. 31. for what r. what this p. 155. l. 31. for like like r like nature p. 158. l. 28. for whinch r. which l. 34. for those r. that those p. 169. l. 8. for Christ r. Christs p. 171. l. 3 for places r. place p. 187. l. 16 for seemed r. seeme p. 189. l. 27. for assumped r. assumpted p. 197. l. 31. for canot r. can not p. 199. l. 24. for in r. is in l. 33. for that is r. that which is p. 202. l. 21. for prooe r. proue p. 212. l. 13. place the before The contrary p 219. l. 20. for tempored r. tempered p 222. l. 29. after not put out he p. 226. l. 19. for Emissemus r. Emissenus In the Margent page 13. letter z. for signifitatiuè r. significatiuè p 17. l. e. for Videt r. Vide p. 20. * for dentis r. dentibus p. 21. * for mittar r. mittam p. 33. l. vst for est et r. esset p. 64 l. m. for Lenserus r Leuâ—aeus p. 66. l. k for Greg. 8 r. Graec. 82. p. 98. l q. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 100. * for hom r. nom p. 118. l. f. for ducatur iestis r. ducaturi estis p. 131 l. b. sor oniensis r. omensis p. 138. l. s remoue Gal 4. 3. to p. 139. p. 140. l. f. for l. 8. r. l. 1. p 165. l. b. for Sticorum r. Stoicorum p. 173. l. c. for Gerob r. Gorol p. 177. l. l. for paâ—is r. panis p. 192. l. x. for and r. ad l. a. for frantur r. frangitur l. b for sacerdotes r sacerdos p. 199. l x. for Christum r. Christi p. 219. l. u for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 220 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Briefe Discourse conteining diuers Arguments against the Popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation THE Question is whither Christ be corporally present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist by vertue of a Transubstantiation or a reall conuersion of the Bread and Wine into the naturall Body and Blood of Christ. This those of the Church of Rome affirme we deny refuse to yeeld to for these Reasons 1. That which no Scripture enforceth vpon vs that in matter of Faith wee are not bound to beleeue For the Scripture is the Rule of our Faith In it saith August are found all those things Which concerne faith and good life And That which hath not authoritie from it saith Ierome may as
for a man well read in the auncient Fathers as hereafter hee boasteth himselfe to be Diuision 3. THis is the true Doctrine of the auncient Fathers and so plainely and vnanswerably doe they teach the literall vnderstanding of our Sauiours words and the miraculous coÌ„uersion of the bread wine of the Altar by the omnipotent force of them into the bodie and blood of Christ telling vs that we must not beleeue our sense or reason telling vs the contrarie nor conceiue it so impossible as our carnall and grosse Aduersaries pretend for the bodie of our Sauiour to bee in heauen and in numberlesse places of the earth together iâ—…sibly existing Whose plaine testimonies are in a whole Booke together by learned Bellarmine truly and particularly collected where also he refuteth the shifting answeres of Protestanticall Diuines vnto them soluing all Obiections gathered out of their obscurer sayings against Catholicke doctrine Who is by this Minister ignorantly or malitiously traduced and made directly against the whole drift of his Controuersie to teach a probabilitie at least of Protestant Doctrine about the figuratiue and tropicall sense of our Sauiours words This is my Body because disputing against Luther supposing as well as he the literall sense of our Sauiours words argumento ad hominem by an Argument drawne from Luthers owne grounds hee driueth Luther either to confesse Transubstantiation necessarily purported in our Sauiours words This is my Bodie or for to admit barely against the knowne opinion of himselfe and all his disciples a figuratiue and metaphoricall vnderstanding of them For if Christs words be literally to be vnderstood and bread also admitted to remaine in the Sacrament the Pronoune Hoc This would naturally and necessarily demonstrate it and not the bodie of Christ inuisibly therein present and so bread in our Sauiours speech should falsly be affirmed to be Christs bodie Whereas if bread remaine not but be truly conuerted into Christs bodie no such absurd and impossible sense followeth out of the literall vnderstanding of Christs words Why then doth this Minister falsely make Bellarmine in this place seeme to affirme that there is nothing in the holy Text that may enforce vs to beleeue that Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament or which is all one that may enforce vs literally and not figuratiuely to vnderstand Christs words c. Ignorance and mistaking must be my aduersaries best meanes to salue this falshood and many others which doe ensue afterward IN the next place hauing digressed all this while from the Argument he should haue answered he addeth that that which they teach coÌ„cerning the literall sense of Christs words and the miraculous conuersion of the bread and wine into the very body and blood of Christ is the true doctrine of the auncient Fathers and to saue himselfe the labour of proouing that which neither he nor any of his side shall euer be able to make good he turneth his Reader ouer to Bellarmine out of whom he picked all that before he had said and telleth him that he hath both prooued it and refuted all the shifting answeres of the Protestanticall Diuines Bellarmine it seemeth is his Aiax behinde whose shield hee must shroud himselfe or else he dare abide no brunt of encounter againe Now to make Bellarmine againe some part of requitall because he is so much beholden to him he will doe his best to cleere him from either the ignorant or malicious abuse of this bad Minister by whom he is traduced and made directly against the whole drift of his Controuersie to teach a probabilitie at least of the Protestant doctrine concerning the figuratiue sense of our Sauiours words and to affirme c. It is true I say that Bellarmine granteth and so he doth I haue set downe his owne words they are not nor can be denied that these words This is my bodie may imply either such a reall change as the Catholickes hold or such a figuratiue change as the Caluinists hold and that is all I say of him The truth contrary to the maine drift and scope of his controuersie as it falleth out oft with those that against their owne knowledge maintaine errour did start from him vnawares Nor is the question now de re but de propositione as Bellarmine there speaketh the question is not of the maine matter in controuersie whether Christ did really conuert the Bread into his Body which Bellarmine affirmeth but whether that speech of our Sauiour may not beare such a figuratiue sense as we giue which Bellarmine in plaine and precise tearmes granteth And all that this his Champion can say for him is nothing but this that Bellarmine doth not say that which in expresse words I haue cited out of him without alteration of any one syllable and the falshood therefore lyeth manifestly on him that denieth it when he knoweth them to be Bellarmines owne wordes in precise tearmes But he hopeth it seemeth that with facing hee may carry away any thing I will adde a little more out of Bellarmine and yet no more then himselfe in precise tearmes saith Scotus and Cameracensis two great Schoolemen grant that the doctrine of Transubstantiation cannot necessarily bee gathered out of the text of the Evangelists howsoeuer they hold it because the Church of Rome that cannot erre hath so expounded it And Bellarmine himselfe granteth that this is not improbable For though the Scripture saith he that we bring may seeme so cleere that it may constraine a man that is not wilfull to yeeld it yet it may well bee doubted whether it be so or no since most learned men and most acute such especially as Scotus was are of a contrary minde And now we haue besides Scotus and others three Cardidinals Card. Bellarmine Card. Caietan and Card. Cameracensis all confessing that the Popish doctrine of Transubstantiation cannot cleerely or vnanswerably bee prooued by Scripture I conclude then with mine Adversaries grant It is all one saith he to say that there is nothing in the text that may enforce vs to beleeue that Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament and to say that there is nothing to enforce vs literally and not figuratiuely to vnderstand Christs words Card. Caietan freely confesseth the latter and vnlesse hee can disprooue Caietan which as yet hee hath not assaied to doe he must by his owne confession yeeld the former Diuision 4. PAge 3. He maketh a great stir in asking how the Chalice may be called the new Testament in our Sauiours blood I answer him because our Sauiours blood by the effusion whereof his last Wâ—ll and Testament was confirmed and our eternall inheritance purchased and applied vnto vs is in this Chalice really contained and vnbloodily offered on the altar for vs. For the word Testament as all learned men know is apt to import not onely the interiour act of the dying mans Wil but also the authenticall instrument or deed wherein that his dying
that Christ as a louing Spouse doth there visitt and imbrace vs It is true indeed that their Priests vse much wanton dalliance with their breaden God while they make the poore people like silly ideots adore him and like Ixion for a substance embrace a meere shadow THis is that cleane hoast as S. Irenaeus affirmeth which the Gentiles were by Malachy foretold to offer vnto God in all places and the onely sacrifice of Christians as S. Augustine calleth it figured by Melchisedechs oblation of bread and wine as the holy Fathers ioyntly teach vs and represented by the Iewish as well bloody as vnbloody sacrifices not distinct from the sacrifice of the Crosse by which alone our redemption was consummated as S. Paul teacheth vs but the same in the hoast and chiefe offerer thereof daily repeated now in an other vnbloody and mysterious manner by the Ministery of Christs consecrated servants So as all Christian Nations of the world Grecians for example Rutenians Armenians Mozaribites Cataians Ethiopians and other Christians in India neere mount Libanus and in other the remotest places in the world such as haue not euer heard peraduenture of the Roman Church since their first Apostolicall conuersions or had any commerce between themselues are knowne to conspire not withstanding their other late errors with vs in the celebration and true beliefe of this great sacrifice and Sacrament as Dr. Philippus Nicolai a chiefe Protestant Diuine in his Commentary of Christs Kingdome and Sir Edwin Sands in his Relation of Religion c. with other aduersaries of our Church plainely acknowledge Which may bee to any wise and well minded man an euident argument that they receiued this common beliefe and celebration of this diuine sacrifice from no other fountaine but the instruction and example of their first Apostolicall conuerters And when Luther taught by the Diuell as hee plainely confesseth vpon plaine sophismes and doceitfull arguments by himselfe particularly related as I haue seene in his works first printed at Iene and now extant in the great Library at Oxford began to impugne that holy sacrifice which hee had formerly offered and presented that his hereticall doctrine and whole confession of Augusta to be accepted as he hoped by the Grecian Churches Ieremias their Patriarch in his Censure as he calleth his booke of the East Church yet extant in Greeke and Latine plainely condemneth amongst their other hereticall doctrines this very denyall of Christs sacrifice transubstantiation c. vrging as we doe invincible arguments and the vniuersall euer continued practise of Christs Church to prooue them vsing as I my selfe haue seene in their Churches alike forme to ours for the mysterious and decent celebration thereof causesly wont by our Aduersaries to be derided whereas their owne Liturgie or forme of diuine seruice is as a shadow chosen in place of the substance hauing nothing decent therein but what they haue stollen from vs and picked here and there out of our Missals gracing all with a riming Psalme sung to a liggish tune with iarring and for the most part vntunable voyces neuer vsed before in any Christian Churches The first Authors of this new Sect were Apostaâ—aes of our Church for their confessed disorders of life and miserable ends plainely discouered to haue been no Apostolicall persons whose endeauours haue neuer tended at any time to conuert Pagans to Christ as his true Church shall euer doe but to corrupt Christians truly already conuerted And they haue seldome planted themselues in any Countrey but vpon very carnall grosse occasions as here in England or with open rebellion and tragicall acts against lawfull Princes and Magistrates namely in Scotland France Flanders Swisserland Sueuia Polonia seuerall Prouinces of Germany Geneua it selfe and other Protestant territories The pretence of a Church and Religion like to theirs in former ages canot colourably be defended without many shifts contradictory deuices Some will haue it to haue beene latent and inuisible for 800. others 900 other 1000 or 1200. yeers Others contrarily teach it to haue beene euer visible and conspicuously dilated into many Christian Countries as the Oraculous predictions of the Prophets and expresse promises of God himselfe describe it Others say that our Church was euer the true Church of Christ onely in some parts of faith not fundamentall erring and by them since Luther reformed Others deny that euer our Church was the true Church of Christ or other than a preuailing faction in the true Church professing at all times visibly and in all Christian countries their present doctrine But no one of these dreamers and Church-deuisers as I may tearme them is able before Luther to assigne in any age since Christ or Country of the world one Parish of Protestant true prosessors or single person iumping in all points with any one sect of them their religion indeed being like a beggers cloake patched together out of olde condemned Heresies and vnsutably composed Their markes of a Church to wit preaching of true doctrine and a rightfull administration of Sacraments are such as any hereticall sect past or to come may equally peetend according to the maine grounds of Protestant doctrine which are to admit no common translation or interpretation of Scripture but what themselues list for discerning of true doctrine and rightly administring Sacraments § 4. HE magnifieth their Masse by telling vs that this is that cleane hoast that Irenaeus saith Malachie foretold the Christians onely sacrifice figured by that of Melchisedeck and represented by the Iewish as well bloody as vnbloody Sacrifices not distinct from the Sacrifice of Christ on the Crosse but the same repeated in another vnbloodie manner 1. It is true indeede that Irenaeus vnderstandeth by that pure Offring in Malachie the Eucharist now in vse and that the Avncients many of them suppose it resembled in that action of Melchisedeck And they call it the Christians yet not the onely Christian Sacrifice succeeding in the roome of the Iewish Sacrifices the Sacrament I say of the Eucharist not their Sacrifice of the Masse In what sense Augustine will tell vs A Sacrifice of praise saith he out of the Psalmist shall glorifie me and there is the way that I will shew him my Saluation The flesh and blood of this Sacrifice before Christs comming was promised by Sacrifices resembling it in Christs passion it was exhibited in the truth it selfe since his ascension it is celebrated in a Sacrament of remembrance And againe The Hebrewes in their Sacrifices of beasts which they offered vnto God did celebrate a prophecie of the Sacrifice to come that Christ offred And Christians now celebrate the memorie of the same Sacrifice past in an holy oblation and participation of Christs body and blood And Procopius vpon Genesit Christ dranke to his Disciples in mysticall Wine saying This is my Blood and gaue them withall a type figure or image of his Body no more admitting or
possible and intelligible should be chosen and held A IVST DEFENCE OF THE FORMER DISCOVRSE AND ARGVMENTS AGAINST THE ANSWER OF A NAMELES Popish Priest thereunto VVherein is set downe first his Answer word for word and then a Refutation thereof according to his owne Distribution of it Diuision I. NOBLE Ladie I finde your Diuine vtterly ignorant and vnacquainted with the Authors workes by him frequently cited For example pag. 9. he tearmeth Cornelius Iansenius more then once a Iesuite whereas the first leafe of his booke if he had euer seene it witnesseth him to haue beene a Bishop of Flaunders and no Iesuite Like herein to an other of his owne coate for I guesse him to be a Minister who to my selfe and other worthy persons confidently auerred Cardinal Bellarm. to haue beene an English man borne at Harrâ—â— on the Hiâ—â— where there hath beene indeede an auncient familie of the Bellamies not Bellarmines as he foolishly conceiued Secondly pag. 5. he citeth an authoritie out of Pope Gelasius written by a farre different Author of that name Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine mentioned together with his workes by Photius Bibliotheca sua Codice 102. Thirdly in his 2. page on the false report of an other namelesse Author like to himselfe ignorant and vnsincere in his assertions he maketh Bishop Fisher to affirme the reali presence of Christs body in the Sacrament not to be gatherable out of any one word in Scripture contrarie to Bishop Fishers yea Luthers owne doctrine in innumerable places Fourthly hauing traced him throughout his whole Treatise I finde him to be a meere collector out of other Authors and for his best Arguments be hath stolne Bellarmines obiections against our doctrine craftily dissembling his full and solide solutions of them in those very places which is the vsuall trade of such Protestant petie writers His proofes are tedious superficiall and stuffed with impertinent allegations maimedly and corruptly produced with a very bad hand which I suppose is his owne he inserteth many notes wholy idle and impertinent to his purpose as I haue in reading his papers particularly obserued which is to me an euident signe that he hoped his papers should neuer come to the view of other then Ladies and vnlearned persâ—… vnable 〈…〉 examâ—â—â— them It is the vsuall manner of those that defend a bad cause to leaue the matter and fall foule on the aduerse party and like the crauen Cocke that hauing eaten garlicke by his strong and stinking breath endeauoureth to driue him away from him whom he is not able well to bicker with by railing reâ—iling and aboundance of bad language to seeke to beate off their aduersary or by lying and out-facing to cry downe those that they deale with when by euidence of truth and strength of Argument they are vnable to conuince them hoping by such meanes to delude the simpler sort at least that cannot so well discerne their shifts This as I haue heretofore by experience found to be the common practise of Popish companions so this Defendant loath to degenerate from the kinde he commeth of at the first dash beginneth with charging the Diuine he dealeth with to be one vtterly ignorant vnacquainted with the Authors workes that he citeth a petty-writer a meere collector a false filcher a foule corrupter a superficiall disputer and what not This is his charge Let vs heare how he prooueth it 1. He tearmeth Iansenius whom he citeth more then once a Iesuite when he is not It is true indeede I confesse I doe twise so tearme him and I tooke him to haue beene so wherein if I were mistaken the matter is not great I hope the authoritie of a famous Bishop and a great writer of speciall note among them our of a worke of his written with much learning and mature iudgement as the Louaine professor acknowledgeth and approoued by the common iudgement of the learned among them as the King of Spaines to whom also it is dedicated and the Popes Censurer of bookes testifieth may well be deemed of as much weight as the word or worke if not of any yet of many a Iesuite at least As for the idle tale hee telleth of the Bellarmines and Bellamies which a Minister forsooth should take the one for the other and therupon affirme Card. Bellarmine to haue beene borne at Harrow on the Hill it may well be thought to haue beene brought in for no other end being so little to the purpose but to let vs vnderstand that hee is a man of some worth for so much hee intimateth when he saith it was averred to himselfe and other worthy persons Hee doubteth belike that his worke would scarce make his worth knowne if hee should not otherwise acquaint vs with it The thing it selfe is like enough to be but a meere fiction and might easily be requited with the tale of the Frier that tooke Messias for the Masse and so would prooue out of the Gospell that Christ said Masse or of the Priest that tooke vnigeniti written short for viginti and so read to his people Gods twenty sonnes or of him that bad the Epiphanie day but could not tell whether it weere an hee or a she-Saint or of him that bad Solin Cancro for an Holy-day because he found it written in red letters and with many moe the like probable enough if the learning of their lacke-Latin Priests be well weighed But had I ever seene the first leafe of his booke I might haue knowne him to be a Bishop of Flanders and no Iesuite As if as oft as one either readeth or alleadgeth any Author hee must needes turne alwayes to the title-page to see what his style is or as if Iansenius might not as well be Bishop of Gaunt as Bellarmine a Cardinall and if I mistake not Arch-bishop of Capua and yet for all that a Iesuite His proofe therefore of my being vnacquainted with this Author whom I suppose hee will finde mee better acquainted with then he would is very silly and slight and the exception such as sheweth that hee wanted matter of moment to except against But I hope when this Bishop of Flanders booke commeth to be reprinted againe they will take that course with him if they haue not leaft their old guise that they haue done formerly with many others to wipe out of him whatsoeuer in this kinde or any other either maketh directly against them or discouereth the weakenesse of such grounds as they labour to build their grosse errors vpon Of which their false and fradulent dealing it shal not be amisse to insert one Example by the way the rather because it concerneth the point here debated Whereas therefore in the time of Carolus Calvus King of France and Emperour aboue 800. yeeres since there was much disputation and dissension in the Church about the doctrine of the Sacrament one Bertram a man of great note in those times both for life and
Theodorets owne words By Sacramentall Signes saith he Theodoret meaneth not the Substance of Bread and Wine 1. He vnderstandeth by the mysticall Signes that that is offered to God by Gods Priests And doth the Priest then offer nothing to God but accidents onely Indeed they tell vs that Melchisedech offred bread and wine and that their Priests are Priests after the order of Melchisedech and so offer such offerings as he did And the auncient Fathers alluding to that story by them allegorised say that Bread and Wine are offred to God in the Eucaarist But in the Popish Masse according to their opinion of it no such thing can be offred because no such thing is there present 2. More particularly explaining himselfe he saith that by the one signe he meaneth the food that of certaine graine is made and by the other the fruite of the Vine And is there any such foode or fruit at all that is no physicall substance or that consisteth of meere accidents He deserueth to be fed till he starue with such food that would feede or infect rather mens soules with such draffy stuffe as this is Yea in precise tearmes he saith that Christ called Bread not the accidents of bread his Body as he called his Body else-where bread 3. The very maine drift and scope euidently manifesteth his meaning which is to shew that the Lords Body though it be not a common body but hath glorious endowments yet remaineth a true body still as the Sacramentall bread though it be not common bread yet retaineth still it former nature and substance and is true bread still 4. If wee aske Theodoret himselfe what hee meaneth here by Substance and whether hee take the word in such sense as it is vsually taken hee telleth vs himselfe a little before he entreth into this discourse that by Substance he vnderstandeth a body and by Accidents which hee opposeth to Substance such things as betide bodies and yet may depart from them And they may as well say that by Substance Theodoret meant Accidents when hee saith that Christs body retaineth still the same bodily substance as they may say hee so meaneth when of the bread which hee compareth therewith hee saith the very same But what take I so much paines to set vp a light when the Sun shines the proofe is so plaine and his meaning so perspicuous that it may seem written as Tertullian speaketh with a beame of the Sunne saue to lay open a little this mans shamelesse carriage and senslesse shifts who yet with a confident face telleth his Reader that his Aduersarie both heere and else-where sheweth how learned and iudicious hee is in the choice of his authorities as if this allegation made wholly for them and against vs were it read all out or were nothing pertinent at least to the purpose § 5. In conclusion for Gratians Glosse acknowledging the truth by vs maintained that our Sauiours wordes are figuratiuely to bee vnderstood and Cardinall Caietan confessing that they may well beare that sense hauing nothing and that is maruell for he dare say any thing to except against either hee excuseth himselfe that hee hath not the bookes by him as if they were not commonly in Pauls Church-yard to be had if hee had listed to looke after them A bad excuse as we say is better then none at all with him Onely hee addeth that they are both of small account with them Caietan especially In regard whereof hee wondereth that I should so much magnifie him as if he were the Oracle of their Church c. For the former none can be ignorant what Authority among their Canonists the Glosses haue and in the place cited the rather because hee buildeth vpon Augustines owne wordes For the latter I cite him onely by the name of Cardinall Caietan nor had they many Cardinals in his time for learning his equals one of our Aduersaries that is all my magnifying of him But mine Adversaries lips must need ouer-runne Yet of what repute and esteeme Caietan was for both kinds of learning as well Philosophy as Diuinity to omit the titles commonly giuen him in the Inscriptions of his workes by those that set out some of them stiling him the most eminent Doctour and professor of diuinity his Commentaries on Thomas whence this testimony is taken most luculent and euen diuine Commentaries his smaller Treatises golden workes I may referre you to the workes themselues so many so learned so elaborate and to the storie of his life written by Antonius Fonseca and set out with some of them It is apparent and it is enough that a prime Cardinall of the Sea of Rome confesseth ingenuously that the wordes of our Sauiour This is my body may be siguratiuely taken for ought in the text were it not that their Church that is the Pope will haue them otherwise expounded Diuision 5. HE concludeth his first Discourse thus page 5. Thus they and thus we and yet neither doe they nor wee therefore make the Sacrament of Christs body and blood ANY thing but bare bread and wine Which Corollarium of his plainely so delivered may make any man see the Protestanticall Communion truely anathomized and plainely shewed to haue nothing holy heauenly and diuinely as the Fathers speake therein contained but bare bread and wine which any man may eate when and where hee pleaseth remembring withall our Sauiours passion Neuer Caietan neuer Bellarmine neuer Gratian neuer Father or other Catholique Diuine of our Church beleeued or taught this grosse and sacrilegious doctrine as my Aduersarie in his wordes They and Wee falsely pretendeth Neither doth Caluine or any other noted Diuine of their Church speake at least whatsoeuer they thinke so poorely and grossely of this Sacrament but they endeauour with Epithets and wordes to couer the bready nakednesse thereof making it seeme mysterious at least if not miraculous Blessed Saint Dennis great Scholler of Saint Paul himselfe I will heere presume to aske thee If the Sacrament of the Altar bee but bare bread and wine why doest thou so absurdly speake and blasphemously praey vnto it in this manner O most diuine and holy Sacrament vouchsafe to open those signifying signes and appeare perspicuously vnto vs and replenish the spirituall eyes of our soule with the singular and cleere splendor of thy light c. Why likewise thou holy Martyr and great Doctor of Christs Church Saint Itaeneus liuing so neere the Apostles times as to know great Polycarpus S. Iohns disciple and deeply seene in the knowledge of heauenly verities doest thou deny this bread after consecration to bee any more accounted common bread but the Eucharist cōsisting of two things heauenly and earthly that being receiued into our bodies they may bee no more corruptible hauing the hope of resurrection If no more then bare bread and wine be in this Communion as my Aduersarie affirmeth why did yee noble Confessors of
sticke to contemne them Had he any wit in his adle braine he would neuer haue asked this idle Question It is as if in a Law-suite because a man taketh hold as he may well doe of somewhat that falleth from his Aduersaries or is granted him and confessed by them because it furthereth his owne cause he were therefore bound to beleeue or admit all that euer they say to the preiudice of his right The greater differences are betweene them and vs yea in the present controuersie concerning the manner of Christs presence in the Sacrament the lesse cause there is to suspect that they should speake partially for vs and the greater cause to suppose they were by euidence of truth enforced to confesse that that should take away some of those grounds whereby the cause that themselues stiffely maintained is ordinarily vpheld 3. He addeth in the end These men herein without hereticall intention or obstinâ—cie of iudgement differed from vs. Whom he meaneth by that Vs I leaue to himselfe to explaine And the lesse hereticall their intention was as he vnderstandeth hereticall the lesse suspition there is of collusion or any purpose therein to gratifie vs and so much the stronger therefore is their testimonie for vs. The testimonie of a meere stranger or no well-willer to the cause maketh it to be of more moment But when he speaketh of obstinacie of iudgement he glaunceth at a secret in their Church which I shall in a word or two take occasion hereby to discouer It is no matter what a man hold or maintaine among them so long as he acknowledgeth the Popes Supremacie the maine pillar of their faith and submit himselfe and his workes wholly to his censure and so be ready to vnsay what he saith when he will haue him so to doe For his censure indeede alone is that which they call commonly the censure of the Church And to this purpose they confesse that many of their writers haue held the very same points for which they condemne vs now as Heretikes of whom yet they say that they were not Heretikes because they submitted themselues to this Censure I will adde an instance or two hereof out of Bellarmine 1. In this very particular he confesseth that many of the Authors before mentioned expound that 6. Chap. of Iohn as the Heretikes doe but they submit themselues saith he and their writings to the Censure of the Councels and Popes which the Heretikes doe not 2. In the present controuersie Durandus held not a Transubstantiation but a transformation in the Sacrament which opinion saith he is hereticall and yet was hee no Heretike because he was ready to yeeld to the iudgement of the Church 3. Ambrose Catharines opinion of the Ministers intention in the Sacrament differeth not saith he for ought I see from the opinion of Chemnicius and other Heretikes saue that he in the end of his booke submitteth himselfe to the Apostolike Sea and Councel 4. Durandus in the point concerning merite of workes held as we now doe that no reward was due to them but out of Gods meere liberalitie and that it were temerarious and blasphemous to say that God were vniust if he should not so reward them And yet was he also no Heretike for the cause before-mentioned And thus are we at length arriued after much winding to and fro while wee follow a shifting wind at the end of the former part of my Discourse wherein hath beene shewed beside other Arguments confirming the same by the confession of their owne Authors that those places of Scripture doe not enforce any such corporall presence of Christ in the Sacrament as Papists maintaine which they commonly produce to prooue it Diuision 7. PAg. 9. My Aduersarie becommeth a more formall Disputant then before and against our Doctrines of Transubstantiation and reall presence of our Sauiour in the Sacrament ignorantly by him in many places confounded he frameth this wise Argument Looke what our Sauiour tooke that he blessed what he blessed that he brake what he brake that he deliuered to his Disciples what he deliuered of that he said This is my Body But it was bread that he tooke And bread therefore that he blessed bread that hee brake and bread that he deliuered and bread consequently of which he said This is my Body Which is a formelâ—sse and fallacious kinde of arguing wholly forcelesse if we suppose the former doctrine of the holy Fathers to be true that Christs words haue force now as then they had when himselfe vttred them to change the substance of Bread and Wine into his Body and Blood As if after the like manner of the water conuerted by Christ into wine I should make this deduction The Ministers drew water out of the well carried what they drew therefore that which they drew and carried was water If the Minister shall tell me that they drew water but carried it made wine by our Sauiours omnipotent operation so I will tell him that Christ tooke bread and wine and conuerted them by his miraculous and omnipotent benediction into his owne bodie and blood before he distributed them as he by his plaine words pronounced of them saying This is my Body c. HItherto if you will beleeue this worthy Doctor his Aduersarie hath disputed without forme or figure that you may not maruaile why his Answer is so diffused deformed and mis-figured for the fault it seemeth was in his Aduersaries mishapen Syllogismes which made him also so loath to meddle with any of them Here he confesseth he becommeth a more formall Dissutant and I hope therefore we shall finde him a more formall Defendant Yet ere he come to my first Argument he must needs haue a fling at me for confounding their doctrine of Transsubstantiation and the reall presence corporall hee should haue said for more perspicuitie for so I speake ignorantly the one with the other I perceiue well what his drift herein is to make some beleeue that howsoeuer Transubstantiation was not generally held till of late times yet a reall that is a corporall presence was euer acknowledged But if we will beleeue Bellarmine Aquinas and the Councel of Trent the one of them is euery iot as ancient as the other yea the one cannot possibly bee without the other This the Councel of Trent telleth vs was alwaies the faith of the Church that by the consecration of Bread and Wine the whole Substance of the Bread was turned into the Substance of Christs body and the whole Substance of wine into his Blood And A body saith Aquinas cannot be where it was not before but either by locall motion or by the conuersion of some other thing into it But it is manifest that Christs bodie beginneth not to bee in the Sacrament by any locall motion And therefore it must needs come there by the conuersion of the bread into it Yea by locall motion it cannot be there nor by any meanes but
people should be Priests But where is it then Surely it is partly in the Consecration and yet it is not there neither because there is no true or reall but a mysticall death onely there and partly in the Priests manducation or eating of it And why there forsooth because it is no where else and somewhere it must needs be For in the whole action of the Masse there is no reall destruction of an Host but there onely Thus you see how they delude the people telling them of a true proper reall Sacrifice wherein they offer Christ againe for the poore soules in Purgatorie to picke their purses And yet cannot tell themselues what or where it is or wherein it consisteth But if Christ as they say be the thing sacrificed or the Hoast and not bread but this Hoast is really destroied when the Priest eateth it then how scapeth Christ from being then destroied or how scapeth the Priest from being a destroier of Christ Yea at the first Institution either Christ did eate the consecrated Host or bread or he did not If he did which yet indeede is not so easily prooued then by Bellarmines doctrine he did therein really destroy himselfe and the rather for that his body was not as yet then impassible If hee did not then belike there was no sacrificâ— there For the Apostles they say were not made Priests till Christ bad them Hoc facite doe this and thereby made them such which might well be not till after they had eaten Or if they were Priests when they did eate then belike they destroied Christ before the Iewes did him to death But it is not to be marueiled if they cannot finde it in Christs Institution when they know not where to finde it in their owne Missall In which kinde it is not vnworthy the obseruation that Corn. Iansenius hauing sifted ouer and ransackt the whole story of the Institution conioyning all the three Euangelâ—stâ— that report it together yet can finde no Sacrifice there expressed saue in the thankesgiuing which is saith he a spirituall â—inde of Sacrifice and of which the Lords Supper is called the Eucharist and may therefore well be â—earmed a Sacrifice Which we deny not but expressely say the same Onely he saith it is probable too that Christ then offred himselfe to his Father But at last he is faine to flie to this that though it be granted that Christ offred not himselfe in the Supper yet it followeth net that the Priests should not therein now offer him For they are bidden by Christ to doe something that Christ did not to wit to doe it in remembrance of him which could not be done then when he was present nor is hee present then belike now when it is done since that remembrance is of a thing absent onely and that therefore it may well bee called a Sacrifice because it is done in memorie of Christs Passion This is the very same that Peter Lombard before said and to the same purpose Gabriel Biel applying that out of Augustine to the Sacrifice which we did formerly to the Sacrament whereupon mine Aduersarie tooke occasion to keepe such a coile as if I made the Sacrament nothing but a bare Signe like Alexanders picture c. Augustine saith he saith that Images or Pictures are went to be called by the Names of these things whereof they they are Pictures or Images as when looking on a Table or a painted Wall we say that is Cicero that is Salust Now the celebration of this Sacrament is a kinde of Image or representation of Christs Passion which is the true immolation or sacrificing of him And therfore is it also called an immolation or an oblation a Sacrifice because it is a representation and a memoriall of that true Sacrifice and holy oblation made on the Crosse. And this also we all willingly and generally graunt But such a Sacrifice will not serue their turne They must haue a Reall and a proper Sacrifice the very selfe same with Christs on the Crosse though they know not whence to fetch nor where to finde it Nor is it to be 〈…〉 as I said before if in Christs Institution there be 〈…〉 â—…ing 〈…〉 all found of this their Sacrifice since they confesse that the Sacrament of the Eucharist and the Sacrifice of the Masse are two seuerall things which both the Councell of Trent therefore dealeth with seuerally and Bellarmine handleth vnder seuerall heds as also M. Harding derideth Bishop Iewel for confounding the Communion and the Masse together We finde in the Gospel Christs Institution of the one and therefore willingly embrace it but we finde there not so much as any mention at all of the other and therefore iustly we reiect it THE Protestant Writers of Magdeburgh in their fourth Century Dedicated vnto our late Soueraigne Queene Elizabeth vndertaking to declare the Primatiue estate of the Church which in Constantines time illustrated the whole world blame almost vniuersally all the ancient Fathers for teaching free-will Iustification by works merite of workes done by the assistance of grace confession of sinnes to a Priest and enioyned Penance absolution of such as had confessed giuen with Imposition of hands Inuocation of Saints Purgatorie Altars called the seate of the body and bloud of Christ offered on them the reall Presence Transubstantiation with care more then was had of the water of Baptisme that no part of the Sacrament should fall to the ground reseruation of the Sacrament worshipping of it receiueing it fasting and chast offering it in Sacrifice to God as being propitiatorâ—e not onely for the liuing but for the dead afferming it to be a Sacrisice according to the order of Melchisedeck liberty for Deaconâ— to distribute it but not to offer it tearming it Viaticum for sick persons Imâ—ges in the Church sumptuously built for celebration of Masses in them holy vestments vsed by the Priest in time of the Sacrifice Corporals and Couerings of the Altar Lights by day burning on them placing of Saints Reliques vnder them the care of dâ—ceased persons praying before them and making pilgrimages vnto them and other like confessed points and practises of Catholike Doctrine § 11. TO make vs beleeue that this their doctrine of Transubstantiation is of great antiquitie he telleth vs that the Centurists blame almost all the Fathers vniuersally of Constantines time among other things for teaching the doctrine of Transubstantiation and adoration of the Sacrament This is all most false as much is also of the rest by him here affirmed They alleadge onely some passages out of counterfeit workes some going vnder Ambrose his name as the praiers preparing to the Masse censured by Erasmus for such wherein mention is made of Adoration of the bread in the Sacrament which they note also not to be found in any of Ambrose his owne workes some going vnder Athanasius his name as an idle Legend