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…

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.