A discussion of the popish doctrine of transubstantiation wherein the same is declared, by…A discussion of the popish doctrine of transubstantiation vvherein the same is declared, by…
A discussion of the popish doctrine of transubstantiation wherein the same is declared, by the confession of their own writers, to have no necessary ground in Gods Word: as also it is further demonstrated to be against Scripture, nature, sense, reason, religion, and the judgement of t5xxauncients, and the faith of our ancestors: written by Thomas Gataker B. of D. and pastor of Rotherhith.A discussion of the popish doctrine of transubstantiation vvherein 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, and the iudgement of t5xxauncients, and the faith of our auncestours: written by Thomas Gataker B. of D. and pastor of Rotherhith.
Thomas Gataker 1574–1654London: printed by John for William Sheffard, 1624London: printed by Iohn for William Sheffard, 1624
[8], 56, 59-233, [3] p. · 81k words · STC 11657 · ESTC S102914
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
But, had I ever seen the first leaf of his book, I might have known him to be a Bishop of Flanders and no Jesuit. As if as oft as one either readeth or allegeth any Author, he must needs turn always to the title-page, to see what his style is: or as if Jansenius might not as well be Bishop of Gaunt, as Bellarmine a Cardinal, and (if I mistake not) Arch-bishop of Capua, and yet for all that a Jesuit. His proof therefore of my being unacquainted with this Author, (whom, I suppose, he will find me better acquainted with then he would) is very silly and slight: and the exception such, as showeth that he wanted matter of moment to except against.
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 book cometh to be reprinted again, they will take that course with him, (if they have not left their old guise) that they have done formerly with many others; to wipe out of him whatsoever in this kind or any other, either maketh directly against them, or discovereth the weakness of such grounds as they labour to build their gross errors upon. Of which their false and fraudulent dealing, it shall not be amiss 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 Emperor, above 800. years since, there was gmuch disputation and dissension in the Church about the doctrine of the Sacrament, one Bertram a man h
note in those times both for life and learning, willed by the Emperor to declare his judgement therein, wrote a learned discourse thereof, wherein he confirmeth by the testimonies of Augustine, Ambrose, and others of the Ancients, the very same that we now hold: and among other things affirmeth that
there is as great difference between Christs body that was borne of the Virgin Mary, and that which is daily received with the month in the Sacrament, as there is between the pledge, and that for which the pledge is given, between the image, and that whereof it is an image, and between the type and the truth. Now the Popish purgers authorised to main and mangle Authors, as well old as new, cum privilegio, without control, lighting among others on this book of Bertram's, use these words of it, and of their own confessed courses in this kind.
Albeit (say they) we make no great reckoning of this book, and therefore should not greatly care if it were utterly lost, and were no where to be had; (I cannot blame them if they wish it, and many other the like, burnt and abolished) yet seeing that the book hath been oft printed, and reprinted, hath been read of very many, is known commonly by the name of a book forbidden, and the Heretics by diverse Catalogues of Books prohibited, are sure there is such an one, &c.
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 gmuch disputation and dissension in the Church about the doctrine of the Sacrament, one Bertram a man hof great ⟨p. 39⟩note in those times both for life and learning, willed by the Emperour to declare his iudgement therein, wrote a learned discourse thereof, wherein hee confimeth by the testimonies of Augustine, Ambrose, and others of the Ancients, the very same that we now hold: and among other things affirmeth that ithere is as great difference between Christs bodie that was borne of the Virgin Mary, and that which is dayly receiued with the month in the Sacrament, as there is betweene the pledge, and that for which the pledge is giuen, betweene the image, and that whereof it is an image, and betweene the type and the truth. Now the Popish purgers authorised to maine and mangle Authors, as well old as new, cum privilegio, without controll, lighting among others on this booke of Bertrams, vse these wordes of it, and of their owne confessed courses in this kinde. kAlbeit (say they) we make no great reckoning of this booke, and therefore should not greatly care if it were vtterly lost, and were no where to be had; (I cannot blame them if they wish it, and many other the like, burnt and abolished) yet seeing that the booke hath beene oft printed, and reprinted, hath beene read of very many, is knowne commonly by the name of a booke forbidden, and the Heretiques by diuerse Catalogues of Bookes prohibited, are sure there is such an one, &c.
gNon paru• schis••ate dividuntur, quid mysterio corporis sanguinisque Christi non eadem sentientes eloquuntur. Bertram praefat. ad Carol. Imper.Non paru• schis••ate diuidūtur, quide mysterio corporis sanguinisque Christi non eadem sentientes eloquuntur. Bertram praefat. ad Carol. Imper.
hVir in divinis Scripturis valdè peritus, & in literis disciplinarum secularium egregiè doctus; nec minus vi•â quàm doctrinâ in signis. Trithem. in Catalogue.Vir in diuinis Scripturis valdè peritus, & in literis disciplinarum secularium egregiè doctus; nec minus vi•â quàm doctrinâ in signis. Trithem. in Catalog.
iAppar•t quod multâ inter se differentiâ separatur; quantum est inter pignus, & eam rem pro qua pignus traditur; inter imaginem, & rem cuiu• est imago; inter speciem, & veritatem. Bertrā. de corp. & sang. Dom. quaest. 2.Appar•t quod multâ inter se differentiâ separatur; quantum est inter pignus, & eam rem pro qua pignus traditur; inter imaginem, & rem cuiu• est imago; inter speciem, & veritatem. Bertrā. de corp. & sang. Dom. quaest. 2.
And besides, since that in other old catholic writers we bear with very many errors, we extenuate, we excuse them, lwith some devised shift or other we very often times deny them, and by feigning give them some commodio as sense, (such they mean as may serve their own turns) when in disputations with our Adversaries they are objected unto us. (Mark, I pray you, the common dealing of these men in disputation, not charged on them by us, but confessed by themselves; and then judge you what fidelity or sincerity in citing of Authors, is to be expected at their hands.) We see not, why Bertram should not find the like favour with us: The rather, mL•st the Heretics should be snarling at us, and telling us that we burn up and prohibit antiquity, when it maketh for them against us. ⟨p. 40⟩Which, you see, in this Author they would fain, if either they could, or durst do it. So at length they resol• to do Bertram the favour to mangle and misuse his whole book, and having put in, and put out what they list themselves, to let him to pass, taught to speak for them now, that spake all against them before. I may well say here, as Arnobius an ancient Father, sometime said; nTo intercept writings, and seek to suppress things published, what is it but to be afraid of having the truth told and testified?
And besides, since that in other old catholique writers we beare with very many errors, wee extenuate, wee excuse them, lwith some devised shift or other we very often times deny them, and by faining giue them some commodio as sense, (such they meane as may serue their owne turnes) when in disputations with our Adversaries they are obiected vnto vs. (Marke, I pray you, the common dealing of these men in disputation, not charged on them by vs, but confessed by themselues; and then iudge you what fidelity or sincerity in cyting of Authors, is to bee expected at their hands.) We see not, why Bertram should not finde the like fauour with vs: The rather, mL•st the Heretiques should be snarling at vs, and telling vs that we burne vp and prohibite antiquitie, when it maketh for them against vs. ⟨p. 40⟩Which, you see, in this Author they would faine, if either they could, or durst do it. So at length they resol• to doe Bertram the fauour to mangle and misuse his whole booke, and hauing put in, and put out what they list themselues, to let him to passe, taught to speake for them now, that spake all against them before. I may well say heere, as Arnobius an ancient Father, sometime said; nTo intercept writings, and seeke to suppresse things published, what is it but to be afraid of hauing the truth told and testified?
lExcogitato commento persaepe negamus, & commodum eis sensum affingimus.
mNe haeretici ogganniant, nos antiquitatem pro ipsis sacientē ex••ere & prohibe••.Ne haeretici ogganniant, nos antiquitatem pro ipsis sacientē ex••ere & prohibe••.
nIntercipere scripta, & publicam veil submergere lectionē, non est Deos defendere, sed veritatis testificationem timere. Arnob. contr. gent. lib. 3.Intercipere scripta, & publicam velle submergere lectionē, non est Deos defendere, sed veritatis testificationem timere. Arnob. contr. gent. lib. 3.
2. From the first idle Exception I pass to a second, as false, as the former frivolous. He citeth, saith he, an authority out of Pope Gelasius, written by a far different Author of that name, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine. Had not mere malice and a mind bent to cavil, either blinded this wrangler, or made him wilfully to wink, he might easily have seen (that which he could not also be ignorant of) in my very quotation, that the style and •itle I give him, is no other then is commonly given him by Popish writers, as among others by oMargarinus la Bigne, and those with him (besides many pothers) that gathered together the works of the ancient Fathers, in the fourth T•me of their great Library sundry times printed, which […] note there also in the Margin where I cite him. So that it is a mere false and frivolous cavil to tax me for citing Gelasius by […] title that he knew well to be given him, (yea and that truly too, as anon shall evidently be •ed) by those of their own side that have at sundry times set him out by no other name but of G•lasius Pope or Bishop of Rome.
2. From the first idle Exception I passe to a second, as false, as the former frivolous. Hee citeth, saith hee, an authority out of Pope Gelasius, written by a farre different Author of that name, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine. Had not meere malice and a minde bent to cavill, either blinded this wrangler, or made him wilfully to winke, hee might easily haue seene (that which he could not also be ignorant of) in my very quotation, that the style and •itle I giue him, is no other then is commonly giuen him by Popish writers, as among others by oMargarinus la Bigne, and those with him (besides many pothers) that gathered together the workes of the ancient Fathers, in the fourth T•me of their great Library sundry times printed, which 〈…〉 note there also in the Margine where I cite him. So that it is a meere false and friu••us cauill to taxe me for cyring Gelasius by 〈…〉 title that hee knew well to be giuen him, (yea and that truly too, as anone shall euidently be •ed) by those of their owne side that haue at sundry times set him out by no other name but of G•lasius Pope or Bishop of Rome.
oGelasii Episcopi Romani, &c. Biblioth. Patrū à Margar. la Bigne 2. edit. Paris. 1589. tom. 4. Et ib. in margin, Gelasius 1. Afer. anno Dom. 564.Gelasii Episcopi Romani, &c. Biblioth. Patrū à Margar. la Bigne 2. edit. Paris. 1589. tom. 4. Et ib. in margine, Gelasius 1. Afer. anno Dom. 564.
But how doth this trister prove that he was not Bishop of Rome? Forsooth, because Photius maketh mention of one Gelasius Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, that wrote against the Heretics called Anomoei. The place wringeth them, and therefore they would fain shift off the Author, from being Bishop of Rome at least. And Bellarmine, qhe telleth us that it was one Gelasi•• a Bishop ⟨p. 41⟩of Caesarea, of whom Jerem maketh mention. But Baronius confuteth Bellarmine; (here is Cardinal against Cardinal:) and rsaith, it cannot be that Gelasius: their times are too far asunder: both he was dead and his next successor, before that business was on foot, that he dealeth in. Thus they stick not to make men write books after they are dead, and laid up in their graves. But who is he then, saith Baronius? for Bishop of Rome he must not be. He is sthat Gelasius (saith he) that Photius maketh mention of: and this Defendant saith the same. Gennadius and divers other, telleth us that Gelasius of the City of Rome Bishop, wrote against the Eutychians and Nestorians. And that is the very title of the book• that I cite. Now Photius telleth us of another Gelasius Bishop of Caesarea, that wrote against the Anomaeans. Therefore saith Baronius, and from him this Defendant, the one must needs be the other. As if two Bishops of the same name could not write books against Heretics, but they must needs be by and by the same. But observe 4I pray you, how handsomely these things hang together. The tAnomaeans were Arians and Aetians, so called, because they held the Son to be unlike the Father. The u Eutychians heretics, that held that Christs humanity was turned into, or swallowed up of his deity. And now mark how these men reason; Gelasius of Caesarea (saith Photius) writ against those that oppugned Christs divinity: and this Gelasius writeth against those that took away his humanity: this and the other therefore must needs be all one. Rather I reason on this manner: Gennadius reporteth that G•lasius Bishop of Rome writ against Eutyches and Nestorius: so doth this whom I cite; and all Editions of him, so stile him: this Gel•sius therefore was Bishop of Rome. And how doth this now prove, that ⟨p. 42⟩6I cite Authors, whose works I am altogether unacquainted with, when the work I cite in their own printed Editions hath no other title, then that I give it?
But how doth this trister prooue that he was not Bishop of Rome? Forsooth, because Photius maketh mention of one Gelasius Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, that wrote against the Heretikes called Anomoei. The place wringeth them, and therefore they would faine shift off the Author, from being Bishop of Rome at least. And B•llarmine, qhe telleth vs that it was one Gelasi•• a Bishop ⟨p. 41⟩of Caesarea, of whom Iereme maketh mention. But Baronius confuteth Bellarmine; (here is Cardinal against Cardinall:) and rsaith, it cannot be that Gelasius: their times are too farre asunder: both hee was dead and his next successor, before that businesse was on foot, that he dealeth in. Thus they sticke not to make men write bookes after they are dead, and laid vp in their graues. But who is hee then, saith Baronius? for Bishop of Rome hee must not be. Hee is sthat Gelasius (saith hee) that Photius maketh mention of: and this Defendant saith the same. Gennadius and diuers other, telleth vs that Gelasius of the City of Rome Bishop, wrote against the Eutychians and Nestorians. And that is the very title of the book• that I cite. Now Photius telleth vs of another Gelasius Bishop of Caesarea, that wrote against the Anomaeans. Therefore saith Baronius, and from him this Defendant, the one must needs bee the other. As if two Bishops of the same name could not write bookes against Heretiques, but they must needs be by and by the same. But obserue 4I pray you, how hansomely these things hang together. The tAnomaeans were Arrians and Aetians, so called, because they held the Sonne to bee vnlike the Father. The u Eutychians heretiques, that held that Christs humanity was turned into, or swallowed vp of his deitie. And now marke how these men reason; Gelasius of Caesarea (saith Photius) writ against those that oppugned Christs diuinitie: and this Gelasius writeth against those that tooke away his humanity: this and the other therefore must needs be all one. Rather I reason on this manner: Gennadius reporteth that G•lasius Bishop of Rome writ against Eutyches and Nestorius: so doth this whom I cite; and all Editions of him, so stile him: this Gelsius therefore was Bishop of Rome. And how doth this now proue, that
qBellar. de Euchar. lib. 2. cap. 27. Quā quā de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 10. haesitantius idem, vel Gennadii vel Gelasii Caesariensis.Bellar. de Euchar. lib. 2. cap. 27. Quā quā de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 10. haesitantius idem, vel Gennadii vel Gelasii Caesariensis.
rBaron. • nal. tom. 6. anno 496. Opus illud Gelasio Palestino nullo modo potest asscribi.
sBaron. ibid. Sed & Greg. de Valent. de Transsub. l. […]. c. 7. & C••. loc. come. l▪ […]. c. 8.Baron. ibid. Sed & Greg. de Valent. de Transsub. l. 〈…〉. c. 7. & C••. loc. com. l▪〈…〉. c. 8.
4s Ge•nad. in Catalog. Et cum eodem consentiunt Anastasius, Platina, Philip. Bergom. Trithem. & alii.s Ge•nad. in Catalog. Et cum eodem consentiunt Anastasius, Platina, P•ilip. Bergom. Trithem. & alii.
tAthanas▪• mine contra Anomaeos d• alog. 2. quos Maximo ttibui restatur▪ Schottus ad. Photium. Chrys. contr. Ancmaeos. hom. 2. Aug. de haeres. c. 54 dissimilem per omnia p•i asserentes filium. Socrat. hist. Eccles. l. 2. c. 45. & Sozom, hist l. 4. c. 29. [Greek or Hebrew].Athanas▪• mine contra Anomaeos d• alog. 2. quos Maximo ttibui restatur▪ Schottus ad. Photium. Chrys. contr. Ancmaeos. hom. 2. Aug. de haeres. c. 54 dissimilem per omnia p•i asserentes filium. Socrat. hist. Eccles. l. 2. c. 45. & Sozom, hist l. 4. c. 29. .
But for the further and fuller clearing of the truth in this point, and the vindicating of this piece of Antiquity to his right Author: Besides that Phetius flatly affirmeth that that Gelasius that wrote against the Anomaei, is the same with that Gelasius whom they would have this Author to be, to wit, he that wrote of the Nicene Council, but aone that both for stile and learning goeth far beyond him: Nor is the frame of this Authors discourse such as he describeth his to have been in that work, to wit, bfastidiously and childishly, or youthfully at least, full of Logic rules and terms, for which himself maketh an Apology; which this neither doth, nor (writing in a far other strain) needed to do: As also that in this very work, the Author intimateth himself to have been Bishop of Rome, or (as he speaketh) of dthe Apostolic Sea: Nor is it needful that with eMelchior Canu• we turn sedem into fidem, as (to shift off this Author) he would there do: Besides all this, I say, Eulgentius an African Bishop who lived together in the same time with Pope Gelasius, and was his own Countryman, doth (as fHenry Spondan the Popes Protonotary himself informeth us) gascribe this work to Pope Gelasius, citing out of it certain passages; as hJohn the second, who not long after succeeded this Gelasius in the same sea, also doth. That which putteth this truth so far out of all doubt, that Spondan by such evidence undeniable convinced, is enforced to icontrol Cardinal Baronius and those other of their own writers therein. It is clear therefore that this Gelasius was not Bishop of C•sare•, as this Defendant would have him; but Bishop of Rome, as I allege him, above a thousand years since, and both held and taught then the same doctrine of the sacrament of the Eucharist, that we do at this day.
But for the further and fuller cleering of the truth in this point, and the vindicating of this piece of Antiquity to his right Author: Besides that Phetius flatlyaffirmeth that that Gelasius that wrote against the Anomaei, is the same with that Gelasius whom they would haue this Author to be, to wit, hee that wrote of the Nicene Councell, but aone that both for stile and learning goeth farre beyond him: Nor is the frame of this Authors discourse such as hee describeth his to haue beene in that worke, to wit, bfastidiously and childishly, or youthfully at least, full of Logicke rules and tearmes, for which himselfe maketh an Apologie; which this neither doth, nor (writing in a farre other straine) needed to doe: As also that in this very worke, the Author intimateth himselfe to haue beene Bishop of Rome, or (as he speaketh) of dthe Apostolike Sea: Nor is it needfull that with eMelchior Canu• we turne sedem into fidem, as (to shift off this Author) he would there do: Besides all this, I say, Eulgentius an African Bishop who liued together in the same time with Pope Gelasius, and was his owne Countriman, doth (as fHen•y Spondan the Popes Protonotary himselfe informeth vs) gascribe this work to Pope Gelasius, cyting out of it certaine passages; as hIohn the second, who not long after succeded this Gelasius in the same sea, also doth. That which putteth this truth so farre out of all doubt, that Spondan by such euidence vndeniable conuinced, is enforced to icontroll Cardinall Baronius and those other of their owne writers therein. It is cleere therefore that this Gelasius was not Bishop of C•sare•, as this Defendant would haue him; but Bishop of Rome, as I alleadge him, aboue a thousand yeeres since, and both held and taught then the same doctrine of the sacrament of the E•christ, that we doe at this day.
a[Greek or Hebrew]. Pho•. bibliot. cod. 89. Et. ibid. de altero. illo; [Greek or Hebrew] &c.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Pho•. bibliot. cod. 89. Et. ibid. de altero. illo; 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 &c.
b[Greek or Hebrew]. ibid cod 102〈non-Latin alphabet〉. ibid cod 102
d[Greek or Hebrew]. ibid.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. ibid.
fFulgentius qui codem ••mpore vixit, &c. Gelas• Papae absque ulla dubitatione adscrihit. Henr. Spondan. epi•om. Baron. not. ad ann. 496.
gBeatae memoriae Papa Gelasius. Fulgent. ad Ferrand. respons. 2.
hJoan Pp. 2. non 1. in epist. contr. •utych. in Biblioth. Pa•r. •om. 4. edit. 2.Ioan Pp. 2. non 1. in epist. contr. •utych. in Biblioth. Pa•r. •om. 4. edit. 2.
But let him give me leave here to tell him of a trick too common with him and those of his coat; to wit, as to coin and forge Fathers, such as never were, not a few; so to cite oft in their discourses in matters of controversy Authors and writings, either justly suspected, or evidently spurious and counterfeit. In which kind this Defendant is more then once or twice faulty. To omit Cyril of Jerusalem his Catechetical Sermons, which even uPopish writers themselves dare not confidently avow; and diverse passages in them bewray to be of a later date, then that Cyril whom they are fathered on. As also his citing of the very self same Author sometime as xAugustine, and sometime as yAmbrose, which it may well be was neither, and may the rather be so deemed even for this cause, because he beareth the name of both; which both sure he could not be: He citeth these confessed counterfeits as authentical Authors;
But let him giue me leaue here to tell him of a tricke too common with him and those of his coate; to wit, as to coine and forge Fathers, such as neuer were, not a few; so to cite oft in their discourses in matters of cōtrouersie Authors and writings, either iustly suspected, or evidently spurious and counterfeit. In which kinde this Defendant is more then once or twice faulty. To omit Cyril of Ierusalem his Catecheticall Sermons, which euen uPopish writers themselues dare not confidently auow; and diuerse passages in them bewray to be of a later date, then that Cyril whom they are fathered on. As also his citing of the very selfe same Author sometime as xAugustine, and sometime as yAmbrose, which it may wel be was neither, and may the rather bee so deemed euen for this cause, because hee beareth the name of both; which both sure he could not be: He citeth these confessed counterfeits as authenticall Authors;
uMarc. Vd. ser. Catalogue. Codic. MS. apud Possevin. Quem Cytillum esse puto.Marc. Vd. ser. Catalog. Codic. MS. apud Posseuin. Quem Cytillum esse puto.
1. Dionysius Areopagita, branded long since in Photius his time, aas Possevine confesseth, for a counterfeit; bdoubted of by C•ietan; cdenied by Grocinus; dderided by Valla and diverse others.
1. Di•nysius Areopagita, branded long since in Photius his time, aas Posseuine confesseth, for a counterfeit; bdoubted of by C•ietan; cdenied by Grocinus; dderided by Ualla and diuerse others.
aUt pseude•igrapha videntur à Ph•ti• notary. Possevi•▪ i• apparat.Vt pseude•igrapha videntur à Ph•ti• n•tari. Posseui•▪ i• apparat.
2. The passion of S. Andrew pretended to be written by the Ministers of Ach•ia: which Dr. White (not ours but theirs) writing of this very Argument, confesseth to be ewithout controversy an Apocryphal story: and containeth manifest untruth, if Bellarmine himself may be believed.
2. The passion of S. Andrew pretended to be written by the Ministers of Ach•ia: which Dr. White (not ours but theirs) writing of this very Argument, confesseth to be ewithout controuersie an Apocryphall storie: and containeth manifest vntruth, if Bellarmine himselfe may bee beleeued.
eSed sit apo•, •t est absque controve••ia, […] Quod divus Andreas locutus ad Patres Memoratur, &c. Wh• diacos. M•.Sed sit apo•, •t est absque controue••ia, 〈…〉 Quod diuus Andreas locutus ad Patres Memoratur, &c. Wh• diacos. M•.
3. Cyprian de cardinalibus Christi operibus; which fPossevine, gErasmus, hHesselius, and many other Popish writers flatly deny to be Cyprian's, yea or any one in•ere Cyprian's time.
3. Cyprian de cardinalibus Christi operibus; which fPosseuine, gErasmus, hHesselius, and many other P•pish writers flatly deny to be Cypriaus, yea or any one in•ere Cyprians time.
fFalsò tribuitur Cypriano. Possevin. in apparat.Falsò tribuitur Cypriano. Posseuin. in apparat.
gNon esse stylus arguit. Erasm. not. in […].Non esse stylus arguit. Erasm. not. in 〈…〉.
hCypriani. non est, Po. […] de Commun. sub utr. spec.Cypriani. non est, Po. 〈…〉 de Commun. sub vtr. spec.
iAu•▪ ris Cypriano, imò & Augustino posterioris. Beliarm. de am•. grat. l. 6. c. 2. […] ▪•or ignoratur. Bellar. de script. Eccles.Au•▪ ris Cypriano, imò & Augustino posterioris. Beliarm. de am•. grat. l. 6. c. 2. 〈…〉▪•or ignoratur. Bellar. de script. Eccles.
4. Eusebius Emissenus his Homilies; which whose they ⟨p. 44⟩are, saith Bellarmine, is not known; lBaro•i•s coneth to have been foolishly set out under his name; and mSix• Sis (besides many others) affirmeth to have bee•e patched together by some Latin Author out of other mens writings, whereas E•sebi•s was a Greek.
4. Eusibius Emissenus his Homelies; which whose they ⟨p. 44⟩are, saith Bellarmine, is not knowne; lBaro•i•s con•th to haue beene foolishly set out vnder his name; and mSix• S•sis (besides many others) affirmeth to haue bee•e patched together by some Latine Author out of other mens writings, whereas E•sebi•s was a Greeke.
lBaron. annal. tom. 6.
mSixth. Senens. bibloth. l. 4.Sixt. Senēs. bibloth. l. 4.
I add only what Bellarmine saith of the most of these Authors together. Dionysius his book (saith he) Eusebius his Homilies, and Cyprian's Sermons of Christs Cardinal works, nare with some counted doubtful, yea or counterfeit writings: […] nor is it certain whether they be theirs, whose names they bear. Yea of some of them he 2saith else-where, that pit is certain qthey are not. And yet are these of the principal Authors that this Defendant to uphold his tottering fabric produceth; albeit the things alleged out of them do not greatly stand him in steed, as shall appear when we come at them. But such counterfeit feips do they commonly tender us, and will needs enforce us to accept them for curr•nt […]; when they know that their own Critics have marked and bored them for such, neither will they pass in payment among themselves.
I adde onely what Bellarmine saith of the most of these Auth•rs together. Di•nysius his booke (saith hee) Eusebius his Homilies, and Cyprians Sermons of Christs Cardinall workes, nare with some counted doubtfull, yea or counterfait writings: 〈…〉 nor is it certainē whether they bee theirs, whose names they beare. Yea of some of them hee 2saith else-where, that pit is certaine qthey are not. And yet are these of the principall Authors that this Defendant to vphold his tortering fabrique produceth; albeit the things alledged out of them doe not greatly stand him in steed, as shall appeare when wee come at them. But such counterfeit feips doe they commonly tender vs, and will needs enforce vs to accept them for curr•nt 〈…〉; when they know that their owne Criticks haue marked and bored them for such, neither will they passe in payment among themselues.
nApud nonnullos dubiae su•, sc•ipturae, vel etiam supposi•. Bellar. de saerā. confi•. l. 2. c. 7.Apud nonnullos dubiae su•, sc•ipturae, vel etiam supposi•. Bellar. de saerā. confi•. l. 2. c. 7.
2o Licet non sit certum an sint illi quorum no•ina praeferunt. Ibid.o Licet non sit certum an sint illi quorū no•ina praeferunt. Ibid.
pRevera […], s•, Emiss• non po•u•e ess• […] Bellrr. in recogni•• & d• Euchar. l. 2. c. 30.Reuera 〈…〉, s•, Emiss• non po•u•e ess•〈…〉 Bellrr. in recogni•• & d• Euchar. l. 2. c. 30.
qRevera no• est Cyp•. Idem de confirm. l. 2. […]. 7. & de E••ha•. l. […]. c. 13•Reuera no• est Cyp. Idem de confirm. l. 2. . 7. & de Eha. l. . c. 13
§ 3. His third Exception is that he citeth a nameless Author, ignorant and unsincere, like himself; who m•keth Bishop Fisher affirm the real presence of Christs body in the Sacrament not to be gatherable out of any word in Scripture. True it is, I say, that I find Bishop Fisher alleged to affirm, that there is no one word in the Gospel, from which the true presence of Christs flesh and blood in their M•sse may be proved. Which because I had not the […] my self, nor knew where to have it, I thus only allege. And now, to put the matter wholly out of suspense; that ignorant and unsincere Author like my self, as […] armeth him, who shall no longer be nameless, is that right Reverend Prelate, now Lord Bishop of Winchester, rin his elaborate work against Bellarmines Apologi•; who (I doubt not) both had the book by him there cited, and cited the words no otherwise then they are in the book. No• (I ⟨p. 45⟩think) is this Popish Doctor so extremely brazen-faced (though they have many of them in their brows too much of that metal) that he dare challenge that Mirror of learning for an ignorant Author. I should esteem it but to great a grace to be counted ignorant as he is.
§ 3. His third Exception is that hee citeth a namelesse Author, ignorant and vnsincere, like himselfe; who m•keth Bishop Fisher affirme the reall presence of Christs bodie in the Sacrament not to be gatherable out of any word in Scripture. True it is, I say, that I finde Bishop Fisher all•adged to affirme, that there is no one word in the Gospell, from which the true presence of Christs flesh and blood in their M•sse may be proued. Which because I had not the 〈…〉 my selfe, nor knew where to haue it, I thus only alledge. And now, to put the matter wholy out of suspence; that ignorant and vnsincere Author like my selfe, as 〈…〉•rmeth him, who shall no longer be namelesse, is that right Re•erend Prelate, now Lord Bishop of Winchester, rin his elaborate worke against Bellarmines Apologi•; who (I doubt not) both had the booke by him there cited, and cited the wordes no otherwise then they are in the booke. No• (I ⟨p. 45⟩thinke) is this Popish Doctor so extreamely brazen-faced (though they haue many of them in their browes too much of that mettall) that he dare challenge that M•rour of learning for an ignorant Author. I should esteeme it but to great a grace to be counted ignorant as he is.
§ 4. Fourthly, having traced him through his whole Treatise •e findeth him to be a mere collector out of other Authors, & to have stol•e out of Bellar. his objections, concealing his answers: and in a word all so poor & so weak, that it may seem written only for Ladies and idiots, unable to examine. I say no more here in way of defence for my self but this only; that this should have been rather discovered by him in particular, then thus charged in general, unless he could in the prosecution of it have better discharged himself then he hath done hitherto. The truth is; he himself is so much beholden to Bellarmine, that he is fain ever and anon to refer his Reader to seek in him what he should say (if he thought it at least worth the saying) himself. As if it were a good proof of what he averreth, or a sufficient refutation of what he findeth objected, to say, that Bellarmine hath largely proved the one, or Bellarmine hath sufficiently answered the other. Which if he have done either, he hath done more by much then he oft attempteth once to do. And surely his manner of dealing, beside the slightness and slenderness of his Answers, with a wet finger (as we say) passing by the manifold allegations produced as well out of the Ancients, as out of their own Authors, doth give a shrewd suspicion, that he thought this his writing would never be examined by any either learned or unlearned, unless they were such as wanted even common sense, sufficient to discover the absurdity of divers passages therein.
§ 4. Fourthly, hauing traced him through his whole Treatise •e findeth him to be a meere collector out of other Authors, & to haue stol•e out of Bellar. his •bi•ctions, cōc•aling his answeres: and in a word all so poore & so weake, that it may seeme written onely for Ladies and ideotes, vnable to examine. I say no more here in way of defence for my selfe but this onely; that this should haue beene rather discouered by him in particular, then thus charged in generall, vnlesse he could in the prosecution of it haue better discharged himselfe then he hath done hitherto. The truth is; he himselfe is so much beholden to Bellarmine, that he is faine euer and anone to referre his Reader to seeke in him what he should say (if he thought it at least worth the saying) himselfe. As if it were a good proofe of what he auerreth, or a sufficient resutation of what he findeth obiected, to say, that Bellarmine hath largely prooued the one, or Bellarmine hath sufficiently answered the other. Which if he haue done either, he hath done more by much then he oft attempteth once to doe. And surely his manner of dealing, beside the slightnesse and slendernesse of his Answeres, with a wet finger (as we say) passing by the manifold allegations produced as well out of the Auncients, as out of their owne Authors, doth giue a shrewd suspition, that he thought this his writing would neuer be examined by any either learned or vnlearned, vnlesse they were such as wanted euen common sense, sufficient to discouer the absurditie of diuers passages therein.
Absurd Positions, and Contradictions.
⟨p. 46⟩1. He saith, that sa Testament, as all learned know, may well signify a Legacis.
2. He maketh tour Saviour to say, This my Blood is the Testament in my blood.
3. He saith, that uChrists blood is offered in the Eucharist, unbloodily, or not as blood.
4. He expoundeth a place of Theod•ret thus; * The 4Sacramental Signs, that is, the Accidents, retain still the same Substance, that is, the same Accidents,
5. He saith that yChrists Body is in the Eucharist, but without bodily existence, that is, his body is there, but not as a body.
6. That zit is there, and yet it followeth not that it is eaten, though that that is there be eaten.
7. He maintaineth aa corporal eating of Christ in the Sacrament, and yet that he is not there corporally eaten.
8. He affirmeth that ball are not saved that believe in Christ, and so fe•de spiritually on Christ.
9. He saith that cthe Son of God is contained in the bread that is ea•en in the Eucharist; whereas they deny any br• at […] to be there.
10. He maintaineth that da thing may truly be said to be turned […] that that cometh only in the place of it.
11. He affirmeth that eone and the self same thing may […].
12 That fChrists body in the Sacrament hath no exte• bigness a• […].
13. He affirmeth gChrists very body to be present in the Sacrament but in a spiritual manner, or as a Spirit; and therefore can no more there be broken, then Angels wounded i•b•di•s •ffirmed, or then his De• on the Cross; and that nothing but acc•••nts are broken in the Eucharist.
14. That hChrists hiding himself in the Sacrament is […] ex•ion of him.
15. He saith, that iChrist is not touched in the Sacrament, and yet we touch him: that he ineth […] there, and yet he cannot be touched of us.
⟨p. 47⟩16. He saith, that kChrists body is not abused, though mice and Rats eat it.
17. That ltheir Mass is the very self same with Christs Sacrifice on the Cross, and yet it is unbloody.
18. He maketh mChrist himself a memorial of himself.
Absurd Positions, and Contradictions.
⟨p. 46⟩1. He saith, that sa Testament, as all learned know, may well signifie a Legacis.
2. He maketh tour Sauiour to say, This my Blood is the Testament in my blood.
3. He saith, that uChrists blood is offered in the Eucharist, vnbloodily, or not as blood.
4. He expoundeth a place of Theod•ret thus; * The 4Sacramentall Signes, that is, the Accidents, retaine still the same Substance, that is, the same Accidents,
5. He saith that yChrists Body is in the Eucharist, but without bodily existence, that is, his body is there, but not as a body.
6. That zit is there, and yet it followeth not that it is eaten, though that that is there be eaten.
7. He maintaineth aa corporall eating of Christ in the Sacrament, and yet that he is not there corporally eaten.
8. He affirmeth that ball are not saued that beleeue in Christ, and so fe•de spiritually on Christ.
9. He saith that cthe Sonne of God is contained in the bread that is ea•en in the E•ch•rist; whereas they dery any br• at 〈…〉 to be there.
10. He maintaineth that da thing may truly be said to be turned 〈…〉 that that commeth onely in the place of it.
11. He affirmeth that
sDivis. 4. § 1.Diuis. 4. § 1.
tIbid.
uIbid.
4x Ibid. §. 4.
yDivis. 6. §. 3.Diuis. 6. §. 3.
zIbid.
aIbid.
bIbid. ad Arg. 2.
cDivis. 8. §. 1.Diuis. 8. §. 1.
dIbid. §. 3.
eDivis. 9. §. 1.Diuis. 9. §. 1.
fDivis. 11. §. 4.Diuis. 11. §. 4.
gDivis. 14. §. 1.Diuis. 14. §. 1.
hIbid. §. 3.
iDivis. 14. §. 3.Diuis. 14. §. 3.
kIbid. §. 1.
lIbid. §. 4.
mIbid. §. 8.
The author
Thomas Gataker 1574–1654
PuritansEngland
Rector of Rotherhithe; member of the Westminster Assembly.
I cite Authors, whose workes I am altogether vnacquainted with, when the worke I cite in their owne printed Editions hath no other title, then that I giue it?
〈non-Latin alphabet〉
6v Theod. haeres. fabul. l. 4. Enagr. hist. l. 2. c. 16. Thedor. Rhaet. de hae••l. Isidor. Orig. l. 8. c. 5. Humanem naturam à divina absorptam.v Theod. haeres. fabul. l. 4. Enagr. hist. l. 2. c. 16. Thedor. Rhaet. de hae••l. Isidor. Orig. l. 8. c. 5. Humanem naturam à diuina absorptam.
Christs very bodie to be present in the Sacrament but in a spirituall manner, or as a Spirit; and therefore can no more there be broken, then Angels wounded i•b•di•s •ffirmed, or then his De• on the Crosse; and that nothing but acc•••nts are broken in the Euch•rist.
14. That
