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.
1. He falleth into an Invective against our Protestanticall Communion, as acknowledged by me to have nothing holy, heavenly and divinely (for so it pleaseth him to speak) therein contained, but bare bread and wine, &c. adding withal, that never C•ietan, never Bellarmine, never Gratian, never Father or other Catholic Divine believed or taught this sacrilegious doctrine (a lye he meaneth, of his own forging) as my Adversary in these words, They, and we, falsely pretendeth.
1. Hee falleth into an Inuectiue against our Protestanticall Communion, as acknowledged by me to haue nothing holy, heauenly and diuinely (for so it pleaseth him to speak) therein contained, but bare bread and wine, &c. adding withall, that neuer C•ietan, neuer Bellarmine, neuer Gratian, neuer Father or other Catholique Diuine beleeued or taught this sacrilegious doctrine (a lye he meaneth, of his owne forging) as my Aduersarie in these wordes, They, and wee, falsly pretendeth.
In which words first (for he cannot forbear falsifying for his life, no not then and there where he chargeth others with falsehood) he intimateth that in those words, Thus they; I should have reference to Caietan, Bellarmine, and Gratian: whereas my words evidently point at Gelasius and Theodoret, whose own words in precise terms I had next before cited.
In which wordes first (for hee cannot forbeare f•lsifying for his life, no not then and there where he chargeth others with falshood) he intimateth that in those words, Thus they; I should haue reference to Caietan, Bellarmine, and Gratian: whereas my wordes euidently point at Gelasius and Theodoret, whose owne wordes in precise tearmes I had next before cited.
2. He chargeth me falsely to say that of the Eucharist, that neither I, nor any of our Divines ever said: yea which being by way of Objection before produced, I not only disavow and disprove, approving freely and at large proving the contrary; but in this place in plain terms conclude the direct contrary unto in the very words by him foully falsified.
2. He chargeth me falsely to say that of the Eucharish, that neither I, nor any of our Diuines euer said: yea which being by way of Obiection before produced, I not onely disauow and disprooue, approouing freely and at large proouing the contrary; but in this place in plaine tearmes conclude the direct contrary vnto in the very wordes by him fowly falfified.
3. He runneth out (to give us some taste of his rolling Rhetoric as well as his loose Logic) into a solemn invocation of his forged S. Dionyse, together with some of the Ancients, (as if he were raising of Spirits with some magical enchantment, to fight with a shadow, and to skirmish with a man of straw of his own making) to testify in that against us that he would fain put upon us, but none of us (by his own confession) ever said or do say.
3. Hee runneth out (to giue vs some taste of his rowling Rhetoricke as well as his loose Logicke) into a solemn inuocation of his forged S. Dionyse, together with some of the Ancients, (as if hee were raising of Spirits with some magicall inchantment, to fight with a shadow, and to skirmish with a man of straw of his owne making) to testifie in that against vs that hee would faine put vpon vs, but none of vs (by his owne confession) euer said or doe say.
Thus he hath nibbled here and there, cavilled at bymatters, coined lies, forged and faced; but given no direct Answer to the Argument, whereunto he should have answered, and whereby it was proved that these words of our Saviour, This my body, may well bear a figurative ⟨p. 93⟩sense; so expounded by the Ancient Fathers, and confessed by their own writers; not so much as attempted to prove the contrary thereunto.
Thus hee hath nibled here and there, cauilled at bymatters, coined lies, forged and faced; but giuen no direct Answer to the Argument, whereunto hee should haue answered, and whereby it was prooued that these wordes of our Sauiour, This my body, may well beare a figuratiue ⟨p. 93⟩sense; so expounded by the Ancient Fathers, and confessed by their owne writers; not so much as attempted to prooue the contrary thereunto.
§ 3. Now howsoever I might very well let pass, as impertinent, those citations and sayings of the Authors here summoned to give in either testimony or sentence against that that none of us avoweth, and which therefore, though all, that either they do say, or he would have them say, were true, did no way cross us, or once touch us in ought that is herein affirmed of us; and I had sometime therefore determined wholly to pass by them, for fear of overcharging this Discourse: yet considering that some weak ones peradventure may stumble at some passages in them, especially as they are unfaithfully by this alleger of them here translated: I have thought good now ere we part with them, to examine what they say, that may seem to make in any sort not against that here charged on us, which we utterly deny, but against that which of this Sacrament we hold otherwise.
§ 3. Now howsoeuer I might very well let passe, as impertinent, those citations and sayings of the Authors here summoned to giue in either testimony or sentence against that that none of vs auoweth, and which therfore, though all, that either they doe say, or hee would haue them say, were true, did no way crosse vs, or once touch vs in ought that is heerein affirmed of vs; and I had sometime therefore determined wholy to passe by them, for feare of ouercharging this Discourse: yet considering that some weake ones peraduenture may stumble at some passages in them, especially as they are vnfaithfully by this alleadger of them here translated: I haue thought good now ere wee part with them, to examinine what they say, that may seeme to make in any sort not against that heere charged on vs, which we vtterly deny, but against that which of this Sacrament we hold otherwise.
The first testimony is S. Dennis his, showed before to be but a counterfeit by the confession even of Popish writers themselves. But whosoever he were (for lcertain enough it is that he was not the party whose name he beareth, but one of a far later time, unknown utterly to Athanasius, Eusebius, and Jerome, though curious searchers and enquirers after the works of those that were before them, mnor known commonly to the world before Gregory's days, as Bellarmine also himself acknowledgeth) he maketh little for them in this point, either in that that here is alleged, or in ought else that Bellarmine can fish or fetch out of him. His words in the place here cited are these and no more: O most divine and holy Mystery, symbolically discovering those nenigmatical ⟨p. 94⟩enfoldments, be declared brightly unto us, and replenish our intellectual eye sights with osingle (or immixt) and unenueloped light. These (I say) his words are as near as I can express them: Which I so do to give you a taste of this Dennis his stile, writing rather like pa Dithyrawhicall Poet (the boldest sort of them) then like a sober and sound Divine; as qtaking upon him to determine the degrees, orders, and offices of the Angels in heaven, which other rthe Ancients durst not do; so discoursing of them and such other matters as he entreateth of in an affected swelling and abstruse strain, and coining a world of strange words and phrases no where else to be found. And no more they are then these; which I add, because to the end of his allegation this fellow putteth an, &c. as if the Author had in that place used some longer discourse of that kind. Nor is the sp••ch (as he would have it) a prayer; but a mere prosopopoeia, or rhetorical compellation, directed not to the Elements alone, but to the Eucharist, or the Lords Supper (if with the sApostle tthey will give us leave at least so to term it) the whole Mystery, or mysterious rite, as uthe word there used properly importeth. Which Pachymeres the Greek paraphraser of this Dennis well paralleleth with another of Gregory Nazianzenes of the same nature; (and as well might Bellarmine or this Defendant have alleged the one as the other.) Who in his Easter-day Sermon turning his speech to the Festivity it self, and then from it to Christ himself, the substance of it, as Nicetas also well observeth;
The first testimony is S. Dennis his, shewed before to be but a counterfeit by the confession euen of Popish writers themselues. But whosoeuer hee were (for lcertaine enough it is that he was not the party whose name hee beareth, but one of a farre later time, vnknowne vtterly to Athanasius, Eusebius, and Ierome, though curious searchers and enquirers after the workes of those that were before them, mnor knowne commonly to the world before Gregories dayes, as Bellarmine also himselfe acknowledgeth) hee maketh little for them in this point, either in that that here is alleadged, or in ought else that Bellarmine can fish or fetch out of him. His wordes in the place heere cited are these and no more: O most diuine and holy Mysterie, symbolically discouering those nenigmaticall ⟨p. 94⟩ensoldments, bee declared brightly vnto vs, and replenish our intellectuall eye sights with osingle (or immixt) and vnenueloped light. These (I say) his wordes are as neere as I can expresse them: Which I so doe to giue you a taste of this Dennis his stile, writing rather like pa Dithyrawhicall Poet (the boldest sort of them) then like a sober and sound Diuine; as qtaking vpon him to determine the degrees, orders, and offices of the Angels in heanen, which other rthe Ancients durst not doe; so discoursing of them and such other matters as hee entreateth of in an affected swelling and abstruse straine, and coining a world of strange wordes and phrases no where else to bee found. And no more they are then these; which I adde, because to the end of his allegation this fellow putteth an, &c. as if the Author had in that place vsed some longer discourse of that kinde. Nor is the sp••ch (as he would haue it) a prayer; but a meere prosopopoei•, or rhetoricall compellation, directed not to the Elements alone, but to the Eucharist, or the Lords Supper (if with the s
lIllum esse de quo in Actis fit mentio, solely, in hac luce literarum, imperiti, & cum linguae Graecae, tum antiquitatis Ecclesiasticae penitus rudes audent affirmare. Casaub, ad Baron. annal. exerc. 16. ss. 43.Illum esse de quo in Actis fit mentio, soli, in hac luce literarum, imperiti, & cum linguae Graecae, tum antiquitatis Ecclesiasticae penitus rudes audent affirmare. Casaub, ad Baron. annal. exerc. 16. ss. 43.
mScripta Dionys•i ante tempora B. Georgij non videntur fuisse cog•ita mundo Bellarm. in Indic. Scrip. MS. apud Rob. Cocum in Cens. Patr. Qui & u•dendus de Dionysio isto. Et Anastasius Biblioth, ad Carol, Reg. apud Andr. Rivet. in specim. Critit. l. 1. c. 9.Scripta Dionys•i ante tempora B. Georgij non videntur fuisse cog•ita mundo Bellarm. in Indic. Scrip. MS. apud Rob. Cocum in Cens. Patr. Qui & u•dendus de Dionysio isto. Et Anastasius Biblioth, ad Carol, Reg. apud Andr. Riuet. in specim. Critit. l. 1. c. 9.
n[Greek or Hebrew].〈non-Latin alphabet〉.
o[Greek or Hebrew].〈non-Latin alphabet〉.
pDithyrambos concinit. Ma•sil. Fi•in. Genus dicendi cothurno Tragi•o vel Dithyrambicis ampullis non multum distat. Casaub. ubi sub.Dithyrambos concinit. Ma•sil. Fi•in. Genus dicendi cothurno Tragi•o vel Dithyrambicis ampullis non multum distat. Casaub. vbi sub.
x O great and holy Passover (saith he) the purgation of the whole world. yFor I will speak to thee as t• some living thing. O word of God, and light, and life, and wisdom, and might. For I take delight in reckoning up all thy titles. Have thou this Oration as well•g•atul•torie as supplicatory, and so forth. And Nicet as thereupon; Those ⟨p. 95⟩2words, O Pasch or Passover, zhe speaks or referreth to the Feast it self. But those, O word of God, and so forward, by way of acclamation he directeth to Christ the spiritual Passover. Nor is it unlike to the speech that Ambr. makes 4in general to the Element of water, though with more special allusion and application to the water of Baptism: fO water that hast merited (that is, in the usual language of those Ancients, too much abused by our Adversaries, hast been vouchsafed the grace) to be a Sacrament of Christ: that washest all, unwashed of any. Thou bringest in the first; thou closest up the last Mysteries. The beginning is from thee; and the end in thee: or rather thou makest us to be without end. And so he goeth on in a long speech to the Element, which yet no wise man will say that he had any purpose there to pray unto. Nor any more had this Dennis 6when he discoursed thus to the Eucharist; the rather to be admitted and so conceived in him, considering his Poetical and enigmatical vain and manner of discourse. I might well put them in mind of that Hymn of theirs, wherein they thus if not invocate, at least parley with the Cross:
x O great and holy Passeouer (saith he) the purgation of the whole world. yFor I will speake to thee as t• some liuing thing. O word of God, and light, and life, and wisedome, and might. For I take delight in reckoning vp all thy titles. Haue thou this Oration as well•g•atul•torie as supplicatorie, and so forth. And Nicet as thereupon; Those ⟨p. 95⟩2wordes, O Pasch or Passeouer, zhe speakes or referreth to the Feast it selfe. But those, O word of God, and so forward, by way of acclamation hee directeth to Christ the spirituall Passeouer. Nor is it vnlike to the speech that Ambr. makes 4in generall to the Element of water, though with more special allusion and application to the water of Baptisme: fO water that hast merited (that is, in the vsuall language of those Auncieuts, too much abused by our Aduersaries, hast beene vouchsa•ed the grace) to be a Sacrament of Christ: that washest all, vnwasht of any. Thou bringest in the first; thou closest vp the last Mysteries. The beginning is from thee; and the end in thee: or rather thou makest vs to bee without end. And so he goeth on in a long speech to the Element, which yet no wise man will say that he had any purpose there to pray vnto. Nor any more had this Dennis 6when he discoursed thus to the Eucharist; the rather to be admitted and so conceiued in him, considering his Poeticall and aenigmaticall vaine and manner of discourse. I might well put them in minde of that Hymne of theirs, wherein they thus if not inuocate, at least parley with the Crosse:
y[Greek or Hebrew].〈non-Latin alphabet〉.
2* [Greek or Hebrew]* 〈non-Latin alphabet〉
zAd festum ipsum perinde ac vita praeditum refert.
4* Ad Christum spi•itale Pascha per acclamationem dirigit.
fO qua, quae Sacramentum Christi esse mesuisti: quae omnia lavas, nec lavaris. Ambr. in Lue. l. 10. c. 22.O qua, quae Sacramentum Christi esse mesuisti: quae omnia lauas, nec lauaris. Ambr. in Lue. l. 10. c. 22.
6g Tu incipis prima, tu con ples perfecta mysteria. A te principium; in te finis. vel potius tu facis ut finem nesciamus, &cg Tu incipis prima, tu cō ples perfecta mysteria. A te principium; in te finis. vel potius tu facis vt finem nesciamus, &c
hAll hail, O Cross, our only Hope;
This Passion time [thy power set ope:]
In righteous Persons grace increase:
To sinful souls their sins release.
hAll h•ile, O Crosse, our onely Hope;
This Passion time [thy power set ope:]
In righteous Persons grace encrease:
To sinfull soules their sinnes release.
hO ave, Crux, spes unica: Hoc passionis tempore, Auge piis justitiam; Reisque dona veniam.O aue, Crux, spes vnica: Hoc passionis tempore, Auge piis iustitiam; Reisque dona veniam.
Which howsoever they would fain salve with such a prosopopoeia isome of them; yet kAquinas ingenuously confesseth that therein they give divine worship to the wooden Cross: or of the like speeches that in a form both of praise, and prayer, they use to lthe Veronica or the print of Christs face in a towel; and mto our ⟨p. 96⟩Ladies girdle, and other the like, wherein they crave •o less of them, beside sundry other graces, then to be cleansed from all sin, and to attain eternal happiness: in so much that one of their writers relating the latter of them breaketh out into these words; nO how many, and how marvellous things are requested of that holy girdle! To which I might well adjoin also, what Aquinas saith, that othey speak & pray to the Cross as to Christ crucified himself: and what Bellarmine telleth us that their pPriests and Friars in the pulpit are wont to say to the wooden Crucifix, qThou hast redeemed us, and reconciled us to God the Father. Which he thus salveth, that this they say to it, not as it is a piece of wood, nor as it is an image neither, but as it supplieth the place of him whom it representeth, that is, rthey say it to Christ, whose Deputy & vicegerent the Image there is. And yet from all this (though too too bad and gross indeed, yea absurd and blasphemous by this mans own grant) will no man infer, that they hold either that girdle to be the Virgin Mary, or either the wooden Cross, or the stained towel, or the carved Crucifix to be Christ himself. So that though that of Dennis were a prayer indeed, which yet plain it is that it is not, yet were it not, by their own grounds and grants, sufficient to prove that he held the Sacrament therefore to be Christ himself. I add only what sfrom Augustine venerable Bede hath, that holy tSigns not only are called by the names, but do in some sort sustain the persons also of those things that they represent. Which as being well considered it may help to clear many speeches of the Ancients wherein they speak those things of the sacred Elements, which cannot be understood but of the things by them signified, so it occasioned them to take the more liberty to themselves for such Rhetorical compellations, as before have bin spoken of.
Which howsoeuer they would faine salue with such a prosopopoeia isome of them; yet kAquinas ingenuously confesseth that therein they giue diuine worship to the woodden Crosse: or of the like speeches that in a forme both of praise, and praier, they vse to lthe Veronicke or the print of Christs face in a towel; and mto our ⟨p. 96⟩Ladies girdle, and othèr the like, wherein they craue •o lesse of them, beside sundry other graces, then to be clensed from all sinne, and to attaine eternall happinesse: in so much that one of their writers relating the latter of them breaketh out into these words; nO how many, and how marueilous things are requested of that holy girdle! To which I might well adioyne also, what Aquinas saith, that othey speake & pray to the Crosse as to Christ crucified himself: and what Bellarmine telleth vs that their pPriests and Friers in the pulpit are wont to say to the woodden Crucifix, qThou hast redeemed vs, and reconciled vs to God the Father. Which he thus salueth, that this they say to it, not as it is a piece of wood, nor as it is an image neither, but as it supplyeth the place of him whom it representeth, that is, rthey say it to Christ, whose Deputie & vicegerent the Image there is. And yet from all this (though too too bad and grosse indeed, yea absurd and blasphemous by this mans owne grant) will no man inferre, that they hold either that girdle to be the Uirgin Mary, or either the woodden Crosse, or the stained towel, or the carued Crucifix to be Christ himselfe. So that though that of Dennis were a prayer indeede, which yet plaine it is that it is not, yet were it not, by their owne grounds and graunts, sufficient to prooue that he held the Sacrament therefore to be Christ himselfe. I adde onely what
iGabr. Vasquez de Adorat. l. 2. c. 4. dis. 3. num. 430. & Bellar. de cult. Sanct. l. 2. c. 24.
lSalve sancta facies nostri Seruatoris, Impressa panniculo nivei candoris, Dataque Veronicae signum ob amoris: Nos ab omni macula purga vitiorum: Atque nos consortio junge beatorum, &c. Oratio à loan Pp. 22. instituta. Antidote. animae.Salue sancta facies nostri Seruatoris, Impressa panniculo niuei candoris, Dataque Veronicae signum ob amoris: Nos ab omni macula purga vitiorum: Atque nos consortio iunge beatorum, &c. Oratio à loanne Pp. 22. instituta. Antidot. animae.
mO veneranda Zona, fac nos haeredes aeternae & beatae vitae, &c. Oratio ab Euthymio composita.
nO quam magna & mira petit a veneranda Zona. Lipoman.
oCrucem alloquimur & deprecamur quasi ipsum crucifixum. Thom. ubi sup.Crucem alloquimur & deprecamur quasi ipsum crucifixum. Thom. vbi sup.
pSic concionatores alloquuntur imaginem crucifixi, &c. Bellar de imagin. c. 23.
qTu nos redemisti, &c.
rDicuntur Christo, cuius imago vicem gerit.
sEx Aug. de civit lib. 18. c. 28. Bed. in 1. Cor. 10.Ex Aug. de ciuit lib. 18. c. 28. Bed. in 1. Cor. 10.
tOmnia significantia videntur quodammodo earum rerum quas significant sustinere personas.
Yea, but else-where (may some say,) and that but a little after, he turneth himself to the Host, which is said there to be his better or above him, and therefore unot bare bread; excusing himself ⟨p. 97⟩to it, that he presumeth to deal with it. Indeed so it pleaseth xBellarmine to cite him as if he had said; yThe high Priest, that he sacrificeth the saving Host, that is above him, zexcuseth himself to him, or to it, crying out; Thou hast said, Do this; &c. But let Dennis speak in his own language, or but aas their own writers translate him, and both Bellarmines mis-alleging of him will soon be discovered, and the force of his reason drawn from thence utterly dissolved. That which he saith is word for word thus; bThe divine Hierarch standing at the divine Altar, ccelebrateth (that is, praiseth and extolleth) Christs holy divine works out of his most divine care of us for our salvation by the goodwill of his Father in the Holy Ghost by him consummated. Which having celebrated, and by contemplation with intellectual eyes taken a venerable and spiritual view of them, he passeth unto dthe symbolical celebration (or, holy administration) of them, and that eaccording to divine Tradition: Wherefore religiously and hierarchically (that is, as becometh an Hierarch, or a Bishop) after the holy celebration (or, fsolemn praise) of those divine works, ghe maketh an Apology for himself in regard of that boly service (or, sacrifice, as they translate it, though *the word be more general) that is to worthy for him to deal with, crying out to him, (to whom but to Christ Jesus before mentioned?) Thou hast said, Do this in remembrance of me. And then hhaving requested that he may be vouchsafed the grace of performing this holy and divine service in holy manner, and that those that are to communicate may religiously partake in it, he performeth the most divine service, &c. For uncovering ithe bread that was hitherto covered and undivided, and dividing it into many pieces, and kdistributing to them all the one only Cup, be doth symbolically, further their unity, lthereby performing his most holy service. Now where is there here any mention ⟨p. 98⟩of an Host? or affirming that Host to be above him or better then himself? or making any speech at all to it? And yet if it were Christ, to whom should he direct his speech more fitly then to it?
Yea, but else-where (may some say,) and that but a little after, he turneth himselfe to the Host, which is said there to be his better or aboue him, and therefore unot bare bread; excusing himselfe ⟨p. 97⟩to it, that he presumeth to deale with it. Indeede so it pleaseth xBellarmine to cite him as if hee had said; yThe high Priest, that he sacrificeth the sauing Host, that is aboue him, zexcuseth himselfe to him, or to it, crying out; Thou hast said, Doe this; &c. But let Dennis speake in his owne language, or but aas their owne writers translate him, and both Bellarmines mis-alleadging of him will soone be discouered, and the force of his reason drawne from thence vtterly dissolued. That which he saith is word for word thus; bThe diuine Hierarch standing at the diuine Altar, ccelebrateth (that is, praiseth and extolleth) Christs holy diuine workes out of his most diuine care of vs for our saluation by the goodwill of his Father in the Holy Ghost by him consummated. Which hauing celebrated, and by contemplation with intellectuall eyes taken a venerable and spirituall view of them, he passeth vnto dthe symbolicall celebration (or, holy administration) of them, and that eaccording to diuine Tradition: Wherefore religiously and hierarchically (that is, as becommeth an Hierarch, or a Bishop) after the holy celebration (or, fsolemne praise) of those diuine workes, ghe maketh an Apologie for himselfe in regard of that boly seruice (or, sacrifice, as they translate it, though *
uAt certè purus panis non supra nos est. Bellarm. de Euch. l. 2. c. 3.
xBellarm. Ibid.
yPontifex quod hostiam salutarem quae supra ipsum est litet, &c.
zSe excusat ad ipsum exclamans, &c.
aPerionii versio à Lansselio Soc. Jes. subornata & suppleta.Perionii versio à Lansselio Soc. Ies. subornata & suppleta.
d[Greek or Hebrew]. Sacrificium quod signis continetur. Lauss.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Sacrificium quod signis continetur. Lauss.
e[Greek or Hebrew].〈non-Latin alphabet〉.
f[Greek or Hebrew]. Divinorum operū lauds.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Diuinorum operū laudes.
g[Greek or Hebrew]. De sacrificio quod ipsius dignitatem superat see purgat. Laus.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. De sacrificio quod ipsius dignitatem superat se purgat. Laus.
*It is used by this Author oft. speaking of Baptism. chap. 2.It is vsed by this Author oft. speaking of Baptism. chap. 2.
what should he speak to him as sited else-where, when he hath him corporally there present? The rather if, as they tell us, *he seeth there what we do, and heareth what we say, though he say nothing himself, because he would not be discovered. Yea but he acknowledgeth the holy service then and there to be performed, to be too worthy for him to deal with? And doth not the Apostle say as much of the ministry of the word; that mno man is sufficient, or nworthy enough for such a work? Or may not the same truly be said of the Sacrament of Baptism, and the administration of it? There is nothing here then in either allegation that may at all help to establish the Popish Transubstantiation. And yet this is all, that out of this Dennis Bellarmine is able to produce. Who though indeed otherwise not free from sundry fantastical conceits, yet is so far from inclining to that prodigious fancy, that the whole tenure of his discourse concerning that Sacrament (as the ancient Scholiast also hath well observed on him) runneth clean another way. He calleth the Eucharist, (as you have heard) oa symbolical service; and pa distribution of bread and a Cup: and the bread and the Cup used in it, qsymbols or signs, and rimages, or spictures, and tpatterns uresembling the truth of their principals, to which he doth also there oppose them. And not we, but the Monk Maximus anciently expounding him, xMark you (saith he) how still he calleth this divine service a Symbolical service; that is, ya service (saith he) consisting of Symbols or Signs; and zthe holy gifts themselves signs or symbols of the true things above. And again, *He calleth them pictures and images of true things unseen. And if we ask him what that word Symbol or Sign signifieth; ⟨p. 99⟩aA Symbol or Sign (saith he) is a thing sensible taken for something intelligible, as bread and wine for the spiritual and divine food and refection, and the like. Yea hereupon he inferreth that bbecause these things are Symbols and Signs, they are not therefore the truth it self. For cthe image (saith he else-where, and that from Dennis himself too) albeit it have never so near a resemblance, yet in substance differeth from that whereof it is a resemblance.
what should he speake to him as sited else-where, when hee hath him corporally there present? The rather if, as they tell vs, *he seeth there what we doe, and heareth what we say, though he say nothing himselfe, because he would not be discouered. Yea but he acknowledgeth the holy seruice then and there to be performed, to be too worthy for him to deale with? And doth not the Apostle say as much of the ministery of the word; that mno man is sufficient, or nworthy enough for such a worke? Or may not the same truly be said of the Sacrament of Baptisme, and the administration of it? There is nothing here then in either allegation that may at all helpe to establish the Popish Transubstantiation. And yet this is all, that out of this Dennis Bellarmine is able to produce. Who though indeede otherwise not free from sundry fantasticall conceipts, yet is so farre from enclining to that prodigious fancy, that the whole tenure of his discourse concerning that Sacrament (as the auncient Scholiast also hath well obserued on him) runneth cleane another way. He calleth the Eucharist, (as you haue heard) oa symbolicall seruice; and pa distribution of bread and a Cup: and the bread and the Cup vsed in it, qsymboles or signes, and rimages, or spictures, and tpaternes uresembling the truth of their principals, to which he doth also there oppose thē. And not we, but the Monke Maximus aunciently expounding him, xMarke you (saith he) how still he calleth this diuine seruice a Symbolicall seruice; that is, ya seruice (saith he) consisting of Symboles or Signes; and
*Corpus Christi, sive Christus, ibi videt & audit, quamuis non loquitur, ne deprehendatur. Bonavent. in sent. I. 4. dist. 10. quaest. 2.Corpus Christi, siue Christus, ibi videt & audit, quamuis non loquitur, ne deprehendatur. Bonauent. in sent. I. 4. dist. 10. quaest. 2.
dThe thing indeed it self (saith this Dennis) that by an exact image or picture is represented, is, if we may so say, thereby edoubled, while fthe truth is showed in the type, and gthe precedent or principal in the picture or pattern; but yet there is for all that a diversity of substance in either.
dThe thing indeede it selfe (saith this Dennis) that by an exact image or picture is represented, is, if we may so say, thereby edoubled, while fthe truth is shewed in the type, and gthe precedent or principall in the picture or patterne; but yet there is for all that a diuersitie of substance in either.
From this Dennis his own grounds therefore, we may well reason and conclude thus against the Popish doctrine which they would have him to uphold. No picture is the same in substance with that whose picture it is: But the bread and wine in the Eucharist are pictures and images (so he termeth them) of the spiritual food, to wit, the body and blood of Christ. They are not therefore the same in substance with it. Or as Maximus directeth us; No type is the Truth: *for it were then no type: But these 2are Types: and consequently other then the Truth.
From this Dennis his owne grounds therefore, we may wel reason and conclude thus against the Popish doctrine which they would haue him to vphold. No picture is the same in substance with that whose picture it is: But the bread and wine in the Eucharist are pictures and images (so he tearmeth them) of the spirituall foode, to wit, the body and blood of Christ. They are not therefore the same in substance with it. Or as Maximus directeth vs; No type is the Truth: *for it were then no type: But these 2are Types: and consequently other then the Truth.
*[Greek or Hebrew]. Maxim in lib de divin. nomin. c. 4.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Maxim in lib de diuin. nomin. c. 4.
The second allegation is out of Irenaeus: 1. Irenaeus (saith he) denieth the bread after consecration to be any more accounted common bread, but 2. The Eucharist, consisting of two things, heavenly and earthly, that being received into our bodies they may be no more corruptible, having the hope of resurrection. These words indeed are found the most of them in Irenaeus, but are foully disjointed, and related in other manner then they lye in Irenaeus his context. As the bread (saith he) that is from the earth after divine invocation is no more common bread, but the Eucharist consisting of two things, the one earthly, the other heavenly: So our bodies receive the Eucharist are not now corruptible, having the hope of resurrection. 3. Where first, He denieth the bread after consecration, to be any more ⟨p. 100⟩icommon bread: as before him Justin Martyr, that they received those creatures knot as common bread, or common drink. And doth not their Cyril (as before you heard) deny the oil also after it is consecrate, to be any more lcommon oil? Or may we not say truly as the Ancients also oft do? yea dare any Christian man say otherwise, but that the water in Baptism being once consecrated, is no more *common Water? There is nothing then hitherto said by Irenaeus of the bread, but what may truly be said of any other consecrated creature: since that holy and common in this sense oppose and expel either other. Secondly, he saith that the Eucharist consisteth of two things, the one earthly, the other heavenly. And do not all Sacraments the same? Or doth not Baptism the like? you may be pleased to consider, what out of their own mAmbrose was before said of it; as also out of Gregory Nyssene is here after related. For it is nothing to the purpose that Bellarmine objecteth, that no man would say that the water of Baptism consisteth of two things, the one earthly, the other heavenly: For neither 6doth Irenaeus say that the bread of the Eucharist, but the Eucharist it self of such two things consisteth. But I 7would fain know how the Eucharist according to their doctrine should, when the bread is once consecrated, consist at all of any earthly thing, when the substance thereof is (as they say) thereby utterly abolished? Sure Irenaeus his Eucharist consisting of matter in part earthly, and theirs having none at all such, are not one and the same.
The second allegation is out of Irenaeus: 1. Irenaeus (saith he) denieth the bread after consecration to be any more accounted common bread, but 2. The Eucharist, consisting of two things, heauenly and earthly, that being receiued into our bodies they may be no more corruptible, hauing the hope of resurrection. These words indeede are found the most of them in Irenaeus, but are foulely disioynted, and related in other manner then they lye in Irenaeus his context. As the bread (saith he) that is from the earth after diuine inuocation is no more common bread, but the Eucharist consisting of two things, the one earthly, the other heauenly: So our bodies receiue the Eucharist are not now corruptible, hauing the hope of resurrection. 3. Where first, He denieth the bread after consecration, to be any more ⟨p. 100⟩icommon bread: as before him Iustin Martyr, that they receiued those creatures knot as common bread, or common drinke. And doth not their Cyril (as before you heard) deny the oyle also after it is consecrate, to be any more lcommon oyle? Or may we not say truly as the Auncients also oft doe? yea dare any Christian man say otherwise, but that the water in Baptisme being once consecrated, is no more *common Water? There is nothing then hitherto said by Irenaeus of the bread, but what may truly be said of any other consecrated creature: since that holy and common in this sense oppose and expell either other. Secondly, he saith that the Encharist consisteth of two things, the one earthly, the other heauenly. And doe not all Sacraments the same? Or doth not Baptisme the like? you may be pleased to consider, what out of their owne mAmbrose was before said of it; as also out of Gregorie Nyssene is here after related. For it is nothing to the purpose that Bellarmine obiecteth, that no man would say that the water of Baptisme consisteth of two things, the one earthly, the other heauenly: For neither 6doth Irenaeus say that the bread of the Eucharist, but the Eucharist it selfe of such two things consisteth. But I 7would faine know how the Eucharist according to their doctrine should, when the bread is once consecrated, consist at all of any earthly thing, when the substance thereof is (as they say) thereby vtterly abolished? Sure Irenaeus his Eucharist consisting of matter in part earthly, and theirs hauing none at all such, are not one and the same.
iNon jam communi pani, &c.Non iam communi pani, &c.
k[Greek or Hebrew]. Justin. apolog. 2.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Iustin. apolog. 2.
*Non jam aqua communis. Chrysost. hom. in Psal. 22. & Greg. Nyssen, de Baptism. […] Irenaeus contr. Valent. l. 4. c, 34.Non iam aqua communis. Chrysost. hom. in Psal. 22. & Greg. Nyssen, de Baptism. 〈…〉 Irenaeus contr. Valent. l. 4. c, 34.
Thirdly, Irenaeus saith that our bodies receiving the Eucharist are no more now corruptible; in regard of hope and expectation he meaneth of their future resurrection, which thereby they are assured of and sealed up unto: (for otherwise who seeth not that they are not yet incorruptible?) as he afterward expoundeth himself. And what is said more here of the Lords Supper, then oTertullian and others ⟨p. 101⟩say of Baptism, to wit, that by it the Flesh also hath its assurance of resurrection to life eternal? yea let them look back but a line or two, and they shall soon see, how little Irenaeus favoureth their cause? pHow (saith he) say they that the flesh perisheth and liveth not everlastingly, that is nourished with the body and blood of Christ? He affirmeth our flesh to be nourished with that which he calleth the body and blood of Christ. And else-where more plainly: qWhen the Cup mixed, and the bread broken receiveth the word of God, it becometh the Eucharist of the body and blood of Christ, of which the substance of our bodies groweth and consisteth. rNow how deny they the flesh to be capable of life eternal, that is nourished with Christs body and blood? And again, sThat part of man that consisteth of flesh, sinews and bones, is nourished by the cup that is his blood, and groweth, or is increased by the bread that is his body. The same with that, which out of Justine we shall hereafter further consider of, that tour flesh and blood are nourished by the Eucharistical food by a change thereof, that is, it being changed and turned into them. But to say so uof the very body and blood of Christ is, by these mens own grants, most absurd. That in the Eucharist therefore that Irenaeus, and before him Justine, speak thus of, is not the very flesh and blood of Christ it self, but xthe creature sanctified, as he himself termeth it; or ythe first-fruits of Gods creatures, which in way of thankfulness, zwith thanksgiving, he saith, they offer unto God; why so termed, is out of Augustine and others showed else-where.
Thirdly, Irenaeus saith that our bodies receiuing the Eucharist are no more now corruptible; in regard of hope and expectation he meaneth of their future resurrection, which thereby they are assured of and sealed vp vnto: (for otherwise who seeth not that they are not yet incorruptible?) as he afterward expoundeth himselfe. And what is said more here of the Lords Supper, then oTertullian and others ⟨p. 101⟩say of Baptisme, to wit, that by it the Flesh also hath its assurance of resurrection to life eternall? yea let them looke backe but a line or two, and they shall soone see, how little Irenaeus fauoureth their cause? pHow (saith he) say they that the flesh perisheth and liueth not euerlastingly, that is nourished with the body and blood of Christ? He affirmeth our flesh to be nourished with that which hee calleth the body and blood of Christ. And else-where more plainely: qWhen the Cup mixed, and the bread broken receiueth the word of God, it becommeth the Eucharist of the body and blood of Christ, of which the substance of our bodies groweth and consisteth. rNow how deny they the flesh to be capable of life eternall, that is nourished with Christs body and blood? And againe, sThat part of man that consisteth of flesh, sinewes and bones, is nourished by the cup that is his blood, and groweth, or is encreased by the bread that is his body. The same with that, which out of Iustine wee shall hereafter further consider of, that tour flesh and blood are nourished by the Eucharisticall foode by a change thereof, that is, it being changed and turned into them. But to say so uof the very body and blood of Christ is, by these mens owne grants, most absurd. That in the Eucharist therefore that Irenaeus, and before him Iustine, speake thus of, is not the very flesh and blood of Christ it selfe, but xthe creature sanctified, as he himselfe tearmeth it; or y
oAd spem resurrectionis Baptizatur corpus quae nisi corporalis, non alias sic baptismate corporally obligaretur. &c. Tertull. de resurr. carn. Hinc Hilar. de Trinit. l. 9. Regeneratio baptismi resurrectionis est virtus.Ad spem resurrectionis Baptizatur corpus quae nisi corporalis, non alias sic baptismate corporali obligaretur. &c. Tertull. de resurr. carn. Hinc Hilar. de Trinit. l. 9. Regeneratio baptismi resurrectionis est virtus.
pQuomodo dicunt carnē in corruptionem devenire &c. quae à corpore Domini & sanguine alitur. Iren. l. 4. c. 34.Quomodo dicunt carnē in corruptionem deuenire &c. quae à corpore Domini & sanguine alitur. Iren. l. 4. c. 34.
qQuando mixtus cali• & fractus panis percipit verbum Dei, fit Eucharistia sanguinis & corporis Christi, ex quibus augetur & consistit carnis nostrae substantia. Idem l. 5. c. 4.
rIdem ibid.
sEa dispositio quae est secundum hominem, quae ex carnibus & neruis & ossibus consistit, de calice, qui est sanguis eius nutritur, & de pane qui est corpus eius augetur. Ibid.
the word there vsed properly importeth. Which Pachymeres the Greeke paraphraser of this Dennis well paralleleth with another of Gregorie Nazianzenes of the same nature; (and as well might Bellarmine or this Defendant haue alleadged the one as the other.) Who in his Easter-day Sermon turning his speech to the Festiuity it selfe, and then from it to Christ himselfe, the substance of it, as Nicetas also well obserueth;
Col. 2. 18
. De his rebus magno supercilio pronuncians, de quibus Paulus è coelo tertio reversus non ausus est hiscere. Eras. de ver. Theol.
〈non-Latin alphabet〉Col. 2. 18. De his rebus magno supercilio pronuncians, de quibus Paulus è coelo tertio reuersus non ausus est hiscere. Eras. de ver. Theol.
rIren. cont. Valent. l. 2. c. 55. Cyril. nomi. catech. mystag. 2. Aug. enchit. c. 58. De Athanasio vide Sixt. sen. biblioth l. 3. de Greg. & Bern. Eckium hom. 4. de Michael. & Riber in Heb. c. 1.Iren. cōt. Valent. l. 2. c. 55. Cyril. nomi. catech. mystag. 2. Aug. enchit. c. 58. De Athanasio vide Sixt. sen. biblioth l. 3. de Greg. & Bern. Eckium hom. 4. de Michael. & Riber in Heb. c. 1.
s[…] Cor. 11. 20. vide Casaub. ad Baron. exer. 16. sect. 32.〈…〉 Cor. 11. 20. vide Casaub. ad Baron. exer. 16. sect. 32.
tCaluinistae sinè scripturae autoritate, sine veterum exemplo, si•e ratione, sine judici• coenam vocant. Maldonat. in Math. c. 26.Caluinistae sinè scripturae autoritate, sine veterum exemplo, si•e ratione, sine iudici• coenam vocant. Maldonat. in Math. c. 26.
Signes not onely are called by the names, but doe in some sort sustaine the persons also of those things that they represent. Which as being well considered it may helpe to cleere many speeches of the Ancients wherin they speak those things of the sacred Elements, which cannot be vnderstood but of the things by thē signified, so it occasioned them to take the more libertie to themselues for such Rhetoricall compellations, as before haue bin spoken of.
the word be more generall) that is to worthy for him to deale with, crying out to him, (to whom but to Christ Iesus before mentioned?) Thou hast said, Doe this in remembrance of me. And then
hauing requested that he may be vouchsafed the grace of performing this holy and diuine seruice in holy manner, and that those that are to communicate may religiously partake in it, hee performeth the most diuine seruice, &c. For vncouering
thereby performing his most holy seruice. Now where is there here any mention
⟨p. 98⟩
of an Host? or affirming that Host to be aboue him or better then himselfe? or making any speech at all to it? And yet if it were Christ, to whom should he direct his speech more fitly then to it?
A Symbole or Signe (saith he) is a thing sensible taken for something intelligible, as bread and wine for the spirituall and diuine foode and refection, and the like. Yea hereupon he inferreth that
the image (saith he else-where, and that from Dennis himselfe too) albeit it haue neuer so neere a resemblance, yet in substance differeth from that whereof it is a resemblance.
s[Greek or Hebrew].〈non-Latin alphabet〉.
t[Greek or Hebrew].〈non-Latin alphabet〉.
u[Greek or Hebrew].〈non-Latin alphabet〉.
x[Greek or Hebrew]. Maxim. Schol. in Hierarch. Eccles. c. 3.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Maxim. Schol. in Hierarch. Eccles. c. 3.
y[Greek or Hebrew].〈non-Latin alphabet〉.
z[Greek or Hebrew]. Maxim. ibid.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Maxim. ibid.
*[Greek or Hebrew]. Ibid.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Ibid.
a[Greek or Hebrew]. Idem in interpret. nom.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Idem in interpret. nom.
b[Greek or Hebrew]. Idem in schol.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Idem in schol.
c[Greek or Hebrew]. Idem in cap 4.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Idem in cap 4.
the first-fruits of Gods creatures, which in way of thankefulnesse,
