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.
§. 10. In the next words he cometh to prove a Sacrifice there, The very manner (saith he of Christs speeches, Quod pro vobis datur, quod pro vobis effundetur; which ⟨p. 221⟩12is given for you, which shall be shed for you; import plainly a Sacrifice: which he hath (as all that ever he hath almost) out of aBellarmine.
§. 10. In the next wordes hee commeth to prooue a Sacrifice there, The very manner (saith hee of Christs speeches, Quod pro vobis datur, quod pro vobis effundetur; which ⟨p. 221⟩12is giuen for you, which shall bee shed for you; import plainly a Sacrifice: which he hath (as all that euer he hath almost) out of aBellarmine.
the full complement of all other:) that which their own vulgar Translation also plainly importeth, yielding the words (as they are also in the very Canon of the Mass) by the future tense, Tradetur, effundetur; shall be given, shall be shed: as having an eye to the passion then
as (saith he) the Apostle himself also expoundeth it. So Cardinal Hugh; h He took bread, and brake it, thereby signifying that his body should be broken on the Cross, and that he did himself expose it to be so broken and crucified: And when he said
Card. Caietan; who addeth also not unfitly, that Christs body is said then to be given, and his blood to be shed. because his passion was then in a manner begun, l a plot being now laid for his life, and
his body and blood already bought and sold by them. And to omit that Christs words concerning his body do no more intimate a present act of delivering it, then those words of his the like else-where, n I lay down my life for my sheep: Let him but show us how Christs blood is shed in this Sacrifice. For as for Bellarmines bold assertion that
not this eager disputer urge rather that which many of them do, that Christ bad them, r Do this, that is, as they senselessly expound it, Sacrifice this. For that is a
not a few do) yet confesseth that that is but a weak argument:
As if those wordes had not a manifest relation to his passion; (which is ba true Sacrifice indeed, and ca most perfect yea dthe full complement of all other:) that which their owne vulgar Translation also plainely importeth, yeelding the wordes (as they are also in the very Canon of the Masse) by the future tense, Tradetur, effundetur; shall be giuen, shall be shed: as hauing an eye to the passion then eneere at hand, wherein his body was to bee giuen, and his blood to be shed. So Gregorie of Ualence; fThat is or shall be giuen, or broken; that is, that shall bee offered by me for you being slaine or sacrificed on the Crosse: gas (saith hee) the Apostle himselfe also expoundeth it. So Cardinall Hugh; h He tooke bread, and brake it, thereby signifying that his body should be broken on the Crosse, and that hee did himselfe expose it to be so broken and crucified: And when he said kthat shall bee shed, he foretold them of his passion then shortly to ensue. Yea so lCard. Caietan; who addeth also not vnfitly, that Christs body is said then to be giuen, and his blood to be shed. because his passion was then in a manner begun, l a plot being now laid for his life, and mhis bodie and blood already bought and sold by them. And to omit that Christs words concerning his bodie do no more intimate a present act of deliuering it, then those wordes of his the like else-where, n I lay downe my life for my sheepe: Let him but shew vs how Christs blood is shed in this Sacrifice. For as for Bellarmines bold assertion that obread is said to be broken, when it is pgiuen by whole loaues; and wine is said to bee poured out, when it is giuen by qwhole hogs-heads, or rundlets at least, not by pots or pitchers full onely; it is most senselesse and abfurd. But why doth ⟨p. 222⟩13not this eager disputer vrge rather that which many of them doe, that Christ bad them, r Doe this, that is, as they senselesly expound it, Sacrifice this. For that is a 14maine pillar, that they pitch much vpon. Which expositiō yet, as Bellarmine is almost ashamed of, and sblameth Caluin wrongfully as if he had wronged them therein, by charging them with such expositions and arguments as they make not, nor alleadge: so tIansenius acknowledging ingenuously that some did so argue, (as indeede unot a few doe) yet confesseth that that is but a weake argument:
fQuod tradetur sive datur, sive frangitur. 1. quod offeretur à me pro vobis in cruce mactatum. Greg de Valent. de miss. sacr. l. 1. c. 3.Quod tradetur siue datur, siue frangitur. 1. quod offeretur à me pro vobis in cruce mactatum. Greg de Valent. de miss. sacr. l. 1. c. 3.
gTradetur. i. dabitur atque offer•etur in cruce in odorem suavitatis ut Apostolus interpretatus est. Ibid. c. 4.Tradetur. i. dabitur atque offer•etur in cruce in odorem suauitatis vt Apostolus interpretatus est. Ibid. c. 4.
kAccepit & fregit 1. frangendum in cruce signavit. Hugo in Math. 26. i Sponte sua frangendum & crucifigendum exposuit. Idem in Marc. 14.Accepit & fregit 1. frangendum in cruce signauit. Hugo in Math. 26. i Sponte sua frangendum & crucifigendum exposuit. Idem in Marc. 14.
sBellarm. de miss. l. 1. c. 12. Fingit Catholico• ità probare, &c. Non tam ineptè argumentantur.
tJansen. concord. cap. 131. Sunt qui Sacramentum istud esse Sacrificium ostendere conantur ex verbo facere, quod aliquando per sacrificare accipitur, &c.Iansen. concord. cap. 131. Sunt qui Sacramentum istud esse Sacrificium ostendere conantur ex verbo facere, quod aliquando per sacrificare accipitur, &c.
uInter caeteros Sanderus nostras de Coena Dom. l. 3. c 9. circumst. 19. Item Gregor. de Valent. de Miss. Sacrif. l. 1. c. 4.
and granteth in effect, that it cannot either out of that or any other place of the Gospel be proved, that the Sacrament of Christs body and blood is a Sacrifice: And is fain therefore to run to tradition for it: and yet there also findeth he little footing for such a Sacrifice as they would have it to be. For Irenaeus (x saith he) that lived near the Apostles times, ycalleth the Sacrament of Christs body and blood a Sacrifice in regard of the bread and wine therein offered (as types of Christs body and blood:) as also in regard of the thanksgiving therein offered, as well for the work of our Creation, as for the work also of our redemption. And howsoever this doughty Doctor say that our Saviours words so plainly import it, yet is their grand Champion Bellarmine, where at large he debateth this business, evil troubled to find it out either in Christs Institution, or in their own Mass book, or to show wherein it consisteth. Where it is not, indeed he can easily tell us: but he cannot so easily tell us where it is. oIt is not he (saith he) pin the oblation that goeth before Consecration: for then not Christs body, but bare bread should be sacrificed. It is not in the Consecration: for qtherein appeareth no oblation, nor no sensible immutation, which is needful in an external sacrifice. It is not in the Oblation that▪ cometh after Consecration: for rthat oblation neither ⟨p. 223⟩Christ; nor his Apostles at first used. It is not in the breaking: for sthat is sometime •mitted: tnor do we (saith) use such breaking as Christ did now adays. It is unot in the peoples communication: for then the 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 xno true or real, but a mystical death only 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 yin the whole action of the Mass there is no real destruction of an Host but there only. Thus you see how they delude the people, telling them of a true, proper, real Sacrifice, wherein they offer Christ again for the poor souls in Purgatory, to pick their purses: And yet cannot tell themselves what or where it is, or wherein it consisteth. But if Christ (as they say) be the thing sacrificed or the Host:
and granteth in effect, that it cannot either out of that or any other place of the Gospel be prooued, that the Sacrament of Christs body and blood is a Sacrifice: And is faine therefore to runne to tradition for it: and yet there also findeth he little footing for such a Sacrifice as they would haue it to be. For Irenaeus (x saith he) that liued neere the Apostles times, ycalleth the Sacrament of Christs body and blood a Sacrifice in regard of the bread and wine therein offred (as types of Christs body and blood:) as also in regard of the thankesgiuing therein offred, as well for the worke of our Creation, as for the worke also of our redemption. And howsoeuer this doughty Doctor say that our Sauiours words so plainly import it, yet is their graund Champion Bellarmine, where at large he debateth this businesse, euill troubled to finde it out either in Christs Institution, or in their owne Masse booke, or to shew wherein it consisteth. Where it is not, indeede hee can easily tell vs: but he cannot so easily tell vs where it is. oIt is not he (saith he) pin the oblation that goeth before Consecration: for then not Christs body, but bare bread should be sacrificed. It is not in the Consecration: for qtherein appeareth no oblation, nor no sensible immutation, which is needfull in an externall sacrifice. It is not in the Oblation that▪ commeth after Consecration: for rthat oblation neither ⟨p. 223⟩Christ; nor his Apostles at first vsed. It is not in the breaking: for sthat is sometime •mitted: tnor doe we (saith) vse such breaking as Christ did now adaies. It is unot in the peoples communication: for then the 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
xJansen. ibid.Iansen. ibid.
yIren. lib. 4. cap. 31.
oBellarm. de miss. l. 1. c. 27.
pIn oblation panis & vini non consistit.In oblatione panis & vini non consistit.
qIn consecratione non apparet ulla oblatio, nec sensibili• ulla immutario, &c.In consecratione non apparet vlla oblatio, nec sensibili• vlla immutario, &c.
rOblationem i••am n•c Christus nec Apostoli faci•bant, quam nos post co•ationem fac•.
sNon solet frangi quandoque.
tFractio nostra Christum autorem non habet.
uManducatio & consumptio non sit à Solo Sacerdote.
xConsecratio non veram & realem mortem, sed mysticam tantum efficit.
yIn tota actione Missae nulla est alia realis destructio victimae preter istam.
and not bread, but this Host is really destroyed, when the Priest eateth it: then how scapeth Christ from being then destroyed? or how scapeth the Priest from being a destroyer of Christ? Yea at the first Institution either Christ did eat the consecrated Host or bread, or he did not. If he did, (* which yet indeed is not so easily proved) then by Bellarmines doctrine he did therein really destroy himself; and the rather, for that his body was not as yet then impassible. If he did not, then belike there was no sacrifice 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 eat, then belike they destroyed Christ before the Jews did him to death. But it is not to be marvelled, if they cannot find it in Christs Institution when they know not where to find it in their own Missal. In which kind it is not unworthy the observation, that Corn. Jansenius having sifted over and ransacked the whole story of the Institution, conjoining all the three Evangel•st•, that report it, together, yet can ⟨p. 224⟩find no Sacrifice there expressed save in the bthanksgiving, which is (saith he) a spiritual •inde of Sacrifice, and of which the Lords Supper is called the Eucharist, and may therefore well be •earmed a Sacrifice. Which we deny not; but expressly say the same. Only he saith, cit is probable too, that Christ then offered himself to his Father. But at last he is fain to fly to this, that though it be granted that Christ offered not himself in the Supper, yet it followeth net that the Priests should not therein now offer him. For they 5are bidden by Christ to do something that Christ did not, to wit, to do it in remembrance of him, which could not be done then, when he was present, (nor is he present then belike now when it is done) “since that remembrance is of a thing absent only: and that therefore it may well be called a Sacrifice, because it is done in memory of Christs Passion. This is the very same that Peter Lombard before said:
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 sacrific• 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 Euangel•st•, that report it, together, yet can ⟨p. 224⟩finde no Sacrifice there expressed saue in the bthankesgiuing, which is (saith he) a spirituall •inde of Sacrifice, and of which the Lords Supper is called the Eucharist, and may therefore well be •earmed a Sacrifice. Which we deny not; but expressely say the same. Onely he saith, cit 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 5are 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) “
*Vide Bonavent. in sent. l. 4. d. 9. q. 4. a Jansen. concord. cap. 131.Vide Bonauent. in sent. l. 4. d. 9. q. 4. a Iansen. concord. cap. 131.
bGratiarum eunim actio est quoddam Sacrificium. Idem ibid.Gratiarum eūim actio est quoddam Sacrificium. Idem ibid.
cProbabile est quod oblatio sui Deo sit facta. Ibid.
5* Ut demus Christum non obtulisse, &c. non consequitur sacerdotes non offerre debere.* Vt demus Christum non obtulisse, &c. non consequitur sacerdotes non offerre debere.
and to the same purpose Gabriel Biel (applying that out of Augustine to the Sacrifice, which we did formerly to the Sacrament, whereupon mine Adversary took occasion to keep such a coil, as if I made the Sacrament nothing but a bare Sign, like Alexander's picture, &c.) dAugustine (saith he) saith that eImages 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 Sallust: Now the celebration of this Sacrament is a kind of Image or representation of Christs Passion; which is the true immolation or sacrificing of him: And therefore is it also called an immolation, or an oblation & a Sacrifice, because it is a representation and a memorial of that true Sacrifice and holy oblation made on the Cross. And this also we all willingly and generally grant. But such a Sacrifice will not serve their turn. They must have a Real and a proper Sacrifice, the very self same with Christs on the Cross, though they know not whence to fetch, nor where to find it. Nor is it to be […] (as I said before, if in Christs Institution there be f[…] •ing […] all found of this their Sacrifice: ⟨p. 225⟩since they confess that the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and the Sacrifice of the Mass are two several things; which both the Council of Trent therefore dealeth with severally, and Bellarmine handleth under several heads: as also M. Harding derideth Bishop Jewel for confounding the Communion and the Mass together. We find in the Gospel Christs Institution of the one, and therefore willingly embrace it: but we find there not so much as any mention at all of the other; and therefore justly we reject it.
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.) dAugustine (saith he) saith that eImages 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 f〈…〉•ing 〈…〉 all found of this their Sacrifice: ⟨p. 225⟩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 1fourth Century Dedicated unto our late Sovereign Queen Elizabeth undertaking to declare the Primitive estate of the Church, which in Constantine's time illustrated the whole world, blame almost universally all the ancient Fathers for teaching free-will, Justification by works, merit of works done by the assistance of grace, confession of sins to a Priest, and enjoined Penance, absolution of such as had confessed given with Imposition of hands, Invocation of Saints, Purgatory, Altars called the seat of the body and blood of Christ offered on them, the real Presence, Transubstantiation, with care, more then was had of the water of Baptism, that no part of the Sacrament should fall to the ground, reservation of the Sacrament, worshipping of it, receiving it fasting and chaste, offering it in Sacrifice to God as being propitiator•e not only for the living, but for the dead, affirming it to be a Sacrifice according to the order of Melchizedek, liberty for Deacon• to distribute it but not to offer it, terming it Viaticum for sick persons, Images in the Church sumptuously built for celebration of Masses in them, holy vestments used by the Priest in time of the Sacrifice, Corporals and Coverings of the Altar, Lights by day burning on them, placing of Saints Relics under them, the care of deceased persons, praying before them, and making pilgrimages unto them, and other like confessed points and practises of Catholic Doctrine.
THE Protestant Writers of Magdeburgh in their 1fourth 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 propitiator•e not onely for the liuing, but for the dead, afferming it to be a Sacrisice according to the order of Melchisedeck, liberty for Deacon• to distribute it but not to offer it, tearming it Viaticum for sick persons, Im•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 d•ceased persons, praying before them, and making pilgrimages vnto them, and other like confessed points and practises of Catholike Doctrine.
§ 11. TO make us believe that this their doctrine of 1Transubstantiation is of great antiquity, he telleth us that the Centurists blame almost all the Fathers universally of Constantine's time, among other things, for teaching the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and adoration of the Sacrament.
§ 11. TO make vs beleeue that this their doctrine of 1Transubstantiation 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 allege only some passages out of counterfeit works, gsome going under Ambrose his name, as the prayers preparing to the Mass, censured by hErasmus 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 own works; isome going under Athanasius his name, as an idle Legend of an Image of Christ; which kBaronius himself disavoweth; wherein mention is made of no flesh of Christ left in the world, but what is made upon the Altar: (and how have they lhis foreskin among their holy relics then?) msome under the name of Eusebius Emissemus, confessed by nBellarmine in divers places to be mere counterfeits; as an Homely, wherein the bread and wine are said to be turned into the substance of Christs body and blood: (words not found once in the writings of any one of the Ancients: We produce express places, where the Substance of bread is said to remain still in the Sacrament; they not one where the bread is said to be turned into the substance of Christs body. But a number of such counterfeits do they daily coin and forge, and then cry out that men condemn antiquity, when they censure them, and such gross errors as they meet withal in them:) And withal pthey observe that two or three of the Fathers that were, not in Constantine's time, but somewhat after, used some new terms and phrases in their discourses of these Mysteries, that were not usual in ancienter times. But that they condemn any one Father that lived in Constantine, ⟨p. 227⟩9time or within that age, much less all of them almost universally for teaching Transubstantiation and adoration of the Eucharist, is most untrue. He should have done well to have added, what indeed they observe, and therein he should not have lied, qthat they did in those times deliver the Sacrament entire to all, and not mangle it, as their Church doth now adays, bereaving the people of one principal part of it: as also rthat they delivered them the bread into their hands, and not popped it into their mouths, as their manner now is.
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, gsome going vnder Ambrose his name, as the praiers preparing to the Masse, censured by hErasmus 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; isome going vnder Athanasius his name, as an idle Legend of an Image of Christ; which kBaronius himselfe disauoweth; wherein mention is made of no flesh of Christ left in the world, but what is made vpon the Altar: (and how haue they lhis foreskin among their holy reliques then?) msome vnder the name of Eusebius Emissemus, confessed by nBellarmine in diuers places to be meere counterfeits; as an Homely, wherein the bread and wine are said to be turned into the substance of Christs body and blood: (words not found once in the writings of any one of the Auncients: We produce expresse places, where the Substance of bread is said to remaine still in the Sacrament; they not one where the bread is said to be turned into the substance of Christs body. But a number of such counterfeits doe they daily coine and forge, and then cry out that men condemne antiquity, when they censure them, and such grosse errors as they meete withall in them:) And withall pthey obserue that two or three of the Fathers that were, not in Constantines time, but somewhat after, vsed some new tearmes and phrases in their discourses of these Mysteries, that were not vsuall in auncienter times. But that they condemne any one Father that liued in Constantine, ⟨p. 227⟩9time or within that age, much lesse all of them almost vniuersally for teaching Transubstantiation and adoration of the Eucharist, is most vntrue. He should haue done well to haue added, what indeed they obserue, and therein hee should not haue lied,
gCentur. 4. cap 6. p. 430.
hIn Censur. ad Ambros. Non esse Ambrosii.
iCentur. 4. c. 4. pag. 294.
kBaron. in Martyrolog. Novembr. 9. Planè constat Autorem illius historiae non esse Athanasium Alex.Baron. in Martyrolog. Nouembr. 9. Planè constat Autorem illius historiae non esse Athanasium Alex.
lCaluin. de reliq. Charrovienses Monachi jactant see praeputium habere.Caluin. de reliq. Charrouienses Monachi iactant se praeputium habere.
mCentur. 4. cap. 10. pag. 985.
nBellarm. de Euchar. l. 2. c. 30. de confir. lib 2. cap 6. de script. Eccles. an. 430. & in recognit. Reverâ Eusebius Emissenus non potuit esse.Bellarm. de Euchar. l. 2. c. 30. de confir. lib 2. cap 6. de script. Eccles. ann. 430. & in recognit. Reuerâ Eusebius Emissenus non potuit esse.
AND of Constantine that renowned first Christian 1Emperor they confess from the testimony of Eusebius living with him and writing his life, of S. Jerome likewise and other certain Authors, that he erected Temples in memory of Martyrs, dedicated a most sumptuous Church in honour of the Apostles, provided his sepulchre there, to the end that after his death he might be made partaker of the prayers there offered; he dedicated his Church with great solemnity, and celebrated the dedication thereof with a yearly festival day; he carried about with him a portable Church or tabernacle, and Priests and Deacons attending it for the celebration of the divine mysteries; he had lights by day burning therein; he translated to Constantinople the holy relics of S. Andrew, S. Luke, and Timothy, at which devils did roar, and certain relics of the Cross, found by his Mother for conservation of the City built by him; he honoured sacred Virgins professing perpetual chastity; Under him were Monks throughout all Syria, Palestine, Bithynia, and other places of Asia and Africa; he greatly reverenced Anthony the Monk; he went to embrace the sepulchre of Saint Peter, and Saint Paul, humbly praying to their Saints that they would be intercessors to God for him; he much honoured the Cross and signed his face with it; Under him in that age were Pilgrimages made to Jerusalem: he reproved Acesius the Novatian for denying the power given unto Priests to remit sins, under pretence that God only remitteth ⟨p. 228⟩sins: of his Clergy, Priests and Bishops assembled by him to the dedication of his Church some of them did did preach and interpret holy Scriptures, others of them, who could not do so, appeased the Deity with unbloody Sacrifices and mystical consecrations, praying for the health of the Emperor: At the time of his death he intended to expiate his sins by efficacy of the holy Mysteries, and confessed his sins in the house of Martyrs: After his death prayer was made for his soul, and the mystical Sacrifice offered. So evident was he and the Primitive flourishing Church of Christ in his days, in these and all other points Catholic, and continued so in our Country and other Christian parts of the world until Luther's foul Apostasy and revolt from it.
AND of Constantine that renowmed first Christian 1Emperour they confesse from the testimonie of Eusebius liuing with him and writing his life, of S. Ierome likewise and other certaine Authors, that he erected Temples in memorie of Martyrs, dedicated a most sumptuous Church in honour of the Apostles, prouided his sepulcher there, to the end that after his death he might be made partaker of the praiers there offered; he dedicated his Church with great solemnitie, and celebrated the dedication thereof with a yeerely festiuall day; he carried about with him a portable Church or tabernacle, and Priests and Deacons attending it for the celebration of the diuine mysteries; he had lights by day burning therein; he translated to Constantinople the holy reliques of S. Andrew, S. Luke, and Timothie, at which diuels did roare, and certaine reliques of the Crosse, found by his Mother for conseruation of the Citie built by him; hee honoured sacred Virgins professing perpetuall chastitie; Vnder him were Monkes throughout all Syria, Palestine, Bithynia, and other places of Asia and Affrick; he greatly reuerenced Anthony the Monke; hee went to embrace the sepulcher of Saint Peter, and Saint Paul, humbly praying to their Saints that they would be intercessours to God for him; he much honoured the Crosse and signed his face with it; Vnder him in that age were Pilgrimages made to Ierusalem: he reprooued Acesius the Nouatian for denying the power giuen vnto Priests to remit sinnes, vnder pretence that God onely remitteth ⟨p. 228⟩sinnes: of his Cleargie, Priests and Bishops assembled by him to the dedication of his Church some of them did did preach and interpret holy Scriptures, others of them, who could not doe so, appeased the Deitie with vnbloody Sacrifices and mysticall consecrations, praying for the health of the Emperour: At the time of his death he intended to expiate his sinnes by efficacie of the holy Mysteries, and confessed his sinnes in the house of Martyrs: After his death praier was made for his soule, and the mysticall Sacrifice offered. So euident was hee and the Primatiue flourishing Church of Christ in his daies, in these and all other points Catholike, and continued so in our Countrey and other Christian parts of the world vntill Luthers foule Apostasie and reuolt from it.
The British ancient Inhabitant of this Isle converted in or near the time of the Apostles, agreed in all other points of faith with S. Austin our first Apostle, excepting some different Ceremonies of Baptism, and the Jewish observation of Easter, as S. Bede testifieth: whose religion is evidently known and confessed by our chief Adversaries to have been Roman and Catholic. And never any country was in any age converted from Paganism to Christ, but it received our doctrine, namely, the practise of the Mass and belief of the Sacrament.
The Brittish auncient Inhabitantt of this Ile conuerted in or neere the time of the Apostles, agreed in all other points of faith with S. Austin our first Apostle, excepting some different Ceremonies of Baptisme, and the Iewish obseruation of Easter, as S. Bede testifieth: whose religion is euidently knowne and confessed by our chiefe Aduersaries to haue beene Romane and Catholike. And neuer any countrey was in any age conuerted from Paganisme to Christ, but it receiued our doctrine, namely, the practise of the Masse and beleefe of the Sacrament.
§ 12. TO pass by his impertinent Catalogue of bymatters 1in Constantine's time; (whereof some also are untrue, and some uncertain;) which he is very forward to run out into, willing to be dealing with any thing, though never so impertinent, then the point that against his will he must be held to: Whereunto I answer no more for the present, but this; Let him first quit himself of the task that he hath already undertaken, to wit, to maintain this their Metaphysical Transmutation in the Eucharist; and when he hath so done let him then produce, if he can, any one Article of Faith, that was held generally as such in Constantine's time by us now rejected, and he shall not want an Answer. But to pass by this (I say) he would make us believe (if we will take ⟨p. 229⟩it on his word) that the British ancient inhabitants of this Isle held the same belief concerning this Sacrament, that the Romanists do at this day. All the reason he produceth for it is this, that they differed from Augustine that was sent by Pope Gregory into England only in some ceremonies about Baptism, and the observation of Easter.
§ 12. TO passe by his impertinent Catalogue of bymatters 1in Constantines time; (whereof some also are vntrue, and some vncertaine;) which he is very forward to run out into, willing to be dealing with any thing, though neuer so impertinent, then the point that against his will he must be held to: Whereunto I answer no more for the present, but this; Let him first quit himselfe of the taske that he hath already vndertaken, to wit, to maintaine this their Metaphysicall Transmutation in the Eucharist; and when he hath so done let him then produce, if he can, any one Article of Faith, that was held generally as such in Constantines time by vs now reiected, and he shall not want an Answere. But to passe by this (I say) he would make vs beleeue (if we will take ⟨p. 229⟩it on his word) that the Brittish auncient inhabitants of this Ile held the same beleefe concerning this Sacrament, that the Romanists doe at this day. All the reason he produceth for it is this, that they differed from Augustine that was sent by Pope Gregorie into England onely in some ceremonies about Baptisme, and the obseruation of Easter.
Surely this man hath a notable vain in disputing and arguing: he can prove any thing, if you do but grant him all that he saith. The British Inhabitants (saith he) here presently after the Apostles time held Transubstantiation then, as we do now at Rome. Whereas he well knoweth that *for above 1000. years after Christ their Transubstantiation was not generally held; scarce heard of for far more then half that time. Neither is he able to produce any title of true Antiquity to show, that it was then held here.
Surely this man hath a notable vaine in disputing and arguing: he can prooue any thing, if you doe but grant him all that he saith. The Brittish Inhabitants (saith he) here presently after the Apostles time held Transubstantiation then, as we doe now at Rome. Whereas he well knoweth that *for aboue 1000. yeeres after Christ their Transubstantiation was not generally held; scarce heard of for farre more then halfe that time. Neither is hee able to produce any title of true Antiquitie to shew, that it was then held here.
*Doctrinam hanc de conuersione hac, seu de Transsubstantiatione non admodum antiquam esse dicunt Scholastici, inter quos lo, Scotus dist. 4. q. 1. & d. 11. q 3. & Gabr. Biel in Can. lect. 41. Suarez. Tom. 3. disp. 5. quaest. 75. art. 5. Ait Scotus ante Lateranense Concilium (quod fuit Anno Domini 1215.) Transsubstantionem non fuisse dogma fidei. Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 3. cap. 22. In Synaxi Transubstantiationem serò definivit Ecclesia. Erasm in 1 Cor. 7.Doctrinam hanc de conuersione hac, seu de Transsubstantiatione non admodum antiquam esse dicunt Scholastici, inter quos lo, Scotus dist. 4. q. 1. & d. 11. q 3. & Gabr. Biel in Can. lect. 41. Suarez. Tom. 3. disp. 5. quaest. 75. art. 5. Ait Scotus ante Lateranense Concilium (quod fuit Anno Domini 1215.) Transsubstantionem non fuisse dogma fidei. Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 3. cap. 22. In Synaxi Transubstantiationem serò definiuit Ecclesia. Erasm in 1 Cor. 7.
Yea but (saith he) there was no difference here about it, when Austin came into these parts, between him and them that he found here. But I demand how it appeareth that Gregory that sent Austin, held Transubstantiation? or that in the Church of Rome it was then held? Till he can prove this to us, not out of lying Legends or bastard writings, but out of some authentic Story, or Gregory's own undoubted works, we have little reason to believe him. sBellarmine (I am sure) can fish very little out of him, nothing at all, that proveth ought.
Yea but (saith he) there was no difference here about it, when Austin came into these parts, betweene him and them that hee found here. But I demand how it appeareth that Gregorie that sent Austin, held Transubstantiation? or that in the Church of Rome it was then held? Till hee can prooue this to vs, not out of lying Legends or bastard writings, but out of some authentick Story, or Gregories owne vndoubted workes, we haue little reason to beleeue him. sBellarmine (I am sure) can fish very little out of him, nothing at all, that prooueth ought.
Sure we are that our Country-man venerable Bede, whom he here citeth as the reporter of Augustine's arrival here, was of an other judgement, as by his writings appeareth. For Commenting on the story of the Institution of this Sacrament; tThe old Paschal solemnity (saith he) being ended, which was celebrated in memory of the deliverance out of Egypt, Christ passeth to a new one, which he would have the Church use in memory of redemption by him, ⟨p. 230⟩uinstead of the flesh and blood of a Lamb substituting a Sacrament of his body and blood, in a figure of bread and wine, &c. And xhe breaketh himself the bread that he delivereth, to show that the breaking of his body to come was by his own will and procurement. And again, ybecause bread strengtheneth the flesh, and wine breedeth blood, the one is mystically referred to Christs body, and the wine unto his blood. Where is any tittle here that may stand well with their Transubstantiation? much less that soundeth ought that way? A Sacrament of his body and blood: a memorial of his redemption: bread broken and given: and both bread and wine having a mystical reference to the body and blood of Christ. It was well and advisedly therefore done by Bellarmine, zto leave Bede clean out of the Catalogue of his Authors, though a writer of the greatest note in those times, because he could find nothing in him, that might seem but to look that way; which if he could, we should be sure to have heard of.
Sure we are that our Country-man venerable Bede, whom he here citeth as the reporter of Augustines arriuall here, was of an other iudgement, as by his writings appeareth. For Commenting on the storie of the Institution of this Sacrament; tThe old Paschall solemnity (saith hee) being ended, which was celebrated in memorie of the deliuerance out of Egypt, Christ passeth to a new one, which hee would haue the Church vse in memory of redemption by him, ⟨p. 230⟩uinstead of the flesh and blood of a Lambe substituting a Sacrament of his body and blood, in a figure of bread and wine, &c. And xhee breaketh himselfe the bread that he deliuereth, to shew that the breaking of his bodie to come was by his owne will and procurement. And againe, ybecause bread strengtheneth the flesh, and wine breedeth blood, the one is mystically referred to Christs body, and the wine vnto his blood. Where is any tittle here that may stand well with their Transubstantiation? much lesse that soundeth ought that way? A Sacrament of his body and blood: a memoriall of his redemption: bread broken and giuen: and both bread and wine hauing a mysticall reference to the body and blood of Christ. It was well and aduisedly therefore done by Bellarmine, zto leaue Bede cleane out of the Catalogue of his Authors, though a writer of the greatest note in those times, because he could finde nothing in him, that might seeme but to looke that way; which if he could, we should be sure to haue heard of.
Yea that long after Augustine's time the same belief of the Sacrament, that we at this day hold, was commonly taught and professed publicly in this Island, notwithstanding the manifold monuments by that Popish faction suppressed, appeareth by some of them in ancient Manuscripts yet extant, and of late published also in print. Among others of this kind are the aEpistles and Sermons written in the Saxon tongue, of one Aelfric a man of great note for learning, that lived about the year 990. wherein the same doctrine is taught concerning the Sacrament that we hold at this day, and the contrary Popish doctrine is impugned.
Yea that long after Augustines time the same beleefe of the Sacrament, that we at this day hold, was commonly taught and professed publikely in this Iland, notwithstanding the manifold monuments by that Popish faction suppressed, appeareth by some of them in ancient Manuscripts yet extant, and of late published also in print. Among others of this kinde are the aEpistles and Sermons written in the Saxon tongue, of one Aelfricke a man of great note for learning, that liued about the yeere 990. wherein the same doctrine is taught concerning the Sacrament that we hold at this day, and the contrary Popish doctrine is impugned.
aThey are of late reprinted and set forth by M. William Lisle.
In an Epistle of his written for Wulfsine then Bishop of Shyrburn to his Clerks bearing title of a Sacerdotal Synod, he saith, that The holy Housell is Christs body, not bodily, but ghostly: Not the body that he suffered in, but the body of which he spake, when he blessed bread and wine to housell, and said by the blessed bread, This is my body; and by the holy wine, This is my blood. And that the Lord that then ⟨p. 231⟩turned that bread to his body, doth still by the Priests hands bless bread and wine to his ghostly body and his ghostly blood. And in another Epistle to Wulstane Archbishop of York; that The Lord halloweth daily by the hands of the Priest, bread to his body, and wine to his blood in ghostly mystery. And yet notwithstanding that lively bread is not bodily so, nor the self same body that Christ suffered in: nor that holy wine is the Saviours blood, which was shed for us in bodily thing, but in ghostly understanding. And that that bread is his body, and that wine his blood, as the heavenly bread, which we call Manna, was his body, and the clear water which did then run from the stone in the wilderness was truly his blood; as S. Paul saith, bAnd that stone was Christ.
In an Epistle of his written for Wulfsine then Bishop of Shyrburn to his Clerks bearing title of a Sacerdotall Synode, he saith, that The holy Housell is Christs bodie, not bodily, but ghostly: Not the body that he suffered in, but the body of which he spake, when hee blessed bread and wine to housell, and said by the blessed bread, This is my body; and by the holy wine, This is my blood. And that the Lord that then ⟨p. 231⟩turned that bread to his body, doth still by the Priests hands blesse bread and wine to his ghostly body and his ghostly blood. And in another Epistle to Wulstane Archbishop of Yorke; that The Lord halloweth daily by the hands of the Priest, bread to his body, and wine to his blood in ghostly mystery. And yet notwithstanding that liuely bread is not bodily so, nor the selfe same body that Christ suffered in: nor that holy wine is the Sauiours blood, which was shed for vs in bodily thing, but in ghostly vnderstanding. And that that bread is his body, and that wine his blood, as the heauenly bread, which we call Manna, was his body, and the cleere water which did then run from the stone in the wildernes was truely his blood; as S. Paul saith, bAnd that stone was Christ.
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:
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:
that they did in those times deliuer the Sacrament entire to all, and not mangle it, as their Church doth now adaies, bereauing the people of one principall part of it: as also
