Of the institution of the sacrament of the blessed bodie and blood of Christ, (by some called) the masse of Christ eight bookes; discovering the superstitious, sacrilegious, and idolatrous abominations of the Romish masse. Together with the consequent obstinacies, overtures of perjuries, and the heresies discernable in the defenders thereof. By the R. Father in God Thomas L. Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield.

The Second Father, expresly defending the Existence of Bread in this Sacrament, after Consecration, is Pope GELASIVS.

SECT. XIII.

THis Authour haue Protestants called Pope Gelasius, and ur∣ged his Testimony. Your Disputers cavill; First at the name of the Authour, calling Protestants e Impudent, for stiling him Pope Gelasius. But if he were not that Pope Gelasius, what Gelasius might hee be then? Gelasius Bishop of Caesarea, saith your Cardi∣nall Bellarmine. Contrarily your Cardinall f Baronius contendeth that he is a more ancient Gelasius, Anno 476. (namely) Gelasius Ci∣tizenus; yet so, as confounding himselfe, insomuch that hee is for∣ced to expound the speeches of this Gelasius by the propriety of the speech (as he confesseth) of Gelasius Pope of Rome. But what shall we answere for the Impudent Protestants, as your Cardinall hath called them? Surely nothing, but wee require more modesty in him, who hath so called them; considering that Protestants had no fewer Guides, nor meaner to follow than these g Historians, viz. Genadius, yea your Bibliothecarie Anastasius, Alphonsus de Castro, Onuphrius, Massonius, Margarinus la Bigne: all which have in∣tituled this Gelasius Pope of Rome. Howsoever, it is confessed on all sides, that he was an Orthodoxe Father, and very Ancient.

Now then, Gelasius said that h The Sacraments of the Body, and Blood of Christ, being Divine things, yet cease not to be the nature and substance of Bread, and Wine. In Answere whereunto, both your foresaid i Cardinals here, (as before) by Substance interpret Accidents: one of them labouring to prove that Gelasius some∣where else called Accidents, Substances. Were this granted, yet

the Argument, which Gelasius hath in hand, will compell the un∣derstanding Reader to acknowledge in this his Sentence a proper signification of Substance. For whereas the Heretique Eutyches taught that Christ his Body was changed into the Substance of his Divinity, after the Resurrection, and that the substance of his Body remained no more the same; Gelasius confuteth him by a Simili∣tude, and Comparison, viz. That as the Substance of Bread remai∣neth after Consecration: So Christ his Bodily Substance remained af∣ter the Resurrection. Wherein if the word, Substance, be not in both places taken properly, Gelasius should have made but a mad Rea∣son, as any reasonable man will confesse. For albeit Similitudes doe not amble alwayes on foure feet, yet if they halt upon the right foot (which is the matter in Question) they are to be accoun∣ted perfit Dissimilitudes.

Master k Brereley would have you to know, that this Gelasius (whosoever hee were) writeth against the same Eutychian Heresie, that Theodoret did; and thereupon useth accordingly, to his like ad∣uantage, the words Substance, and Nature in the same sence, as did Theodoret. So he. And he saith true; and therefore must wee assure our selves of the consent of this Gelasius with us, untill you shall be able to free your selves from our former Interpretation of Theodoret. But M^r. Brerely opposeth against us another sentence of Gelasius, from whence he concludeth that Gelasius held Transubstantiation: so that Gelasius must rather contradict himself, then that he shal not consent to the Romish Tenet. Whereas, indeed, hee saith no more than, in a mysticall sence, any Protestant must, and will allow, viz. that The Sacrament is a Divine thing, and that whosoever eate spiritually the Body of Christ, are by it made partakers of the blessing of his Di∣vine Nature, which dwelleth in Christ bodily, saith the Apostle. So Gelasius.

To which saying of Gelasius, touching the Eucharist, is answe∣rable a like saying of Gregory Nyssen, concerning Baptisme, calling it a l Divine Laver, working miraculous effects. Yea, and Diony∣sius the m Areopagite bestowed the same Attribute, viz. Divine, upon the Altar, the Symbols, the Priest, the People, and the Bread it selfe in the Eucharist. If therefore the Epithet [Divine] must argue a Corporall Change, what a number of Transubstantiati∣ons must you be inforced to allow? Fie upon blind boldnesse! This mans falsity, in alledging Chemnitius, I let passe.

It is further worthy your Reflection, to observe your Disputers how earnest they have bin to prove that this Author was not Pope Gelasius; contrary to the acknowledgement of your owne Histo∣rians. May wee not therefore suspect that the Testimony obiected was distastfull unto them, when they so greatly feared, lest this Witnesse should be thought to have beene a Pope and Supreame Pa∣ster of your Church?

Notes

• e

  Non fuit hic Papa Gelasius, ut Ad∣versarij impudentèr iactant; sed Gelasius Caesariensis Episco∣pus. Bellar. lib. 2. de Euch. c. 27.
• f

  Baronius himselfe contendeth that it was not that Pope Gelasius Anno 496. num. 123. &c. yet comming to answer to the Sentence of Gelasius, doth ex∣pound the doubtfull wordes thereof by the Phrases of Pope Ge∣lasius ex Epist. ad Pi∣cenos, & Dardan. E∣pisc. num. 13, 14. which Epistles he before cited, as the true Epistles of Pope Gelasius. Anno 493. num. 23. and An∣no 494. num. 2. And after Anno 496. num. 17. telleth his Reader, saying: Vides, Lector, ex vsu verborū Phra∣siqúè dicendi Gelasij Papae, & alia eius sententia perspicuè demonstratum esse, &c. Et Anno 496. num. 13. Gelas. in Epist. ad Picen. ait, Peccato Originali substantiam ho∣minis esse depravatam, cum tamen eadem substantia mansit, & Accidentia; utpote iustitia originalis, & alia dona erant corrupta.
• g

  Gelasius Papa scripsit contra Eutychetem. Genad. de scriptoribus Eccles. c. 14. Anastas. de vita Gelasij. Margarinus de la Bigne lib. 5. Biblioth. Patrum p. 467. Masson. de Episc. Rom. in vita Gelasij. Alphons. lib. de haeres. Tit Christus. haeres. 3. in fine. Onuphrius de Creat. Pontif. & Cardin. Gelasius (inquit) scripsit volumen adversus Eutychetem, & Nestorium. Fu••sse Caesariensem Episcopum, non posse jure affirmari, videtur. And pro∣veth, why not.
• h

  Gelasius lib. de duab. natur. cont. Eutych. Sacramenta certa, quae sumimus corporis & sanguinis Christi divina res est, propter quod per eadem divinae efficimur participes naturae, & tamen non desinit esse substantia vel natura panis, & vini; & certè imago & similitudo corporis & sanguinis Christi in Actione mysticâ celebratur. And againe. Permanentin proprietate naturae.
• i

  Bellar. & Baron. quo suprà. At dicit Gelasius, In Divinam t••anseunt Spiritu sancto perficiente substantiam, permanent tamen suâ proprietate naturae. [By this it may be seene, indeed, that this Gelasius was a Latine Authour, (but what is this to the Greeke Theodoret?) when the Latine Language was not so perfect, and that he did use the word equivocally, but yet so, that the matter it selfe doth challenge a proper use thereof, when he speaketh of the Substance of Bread.]
• k

  Master Brereley Liturg. Tract. 2. §. 2. Subd. 3. p. 259.
• l

  Greg. Nyssen. A∣quam per benedicti∣onem sic mutari, ut divinum Lavacrū sit, à quò mirabiles exi∣stunt effectus. Orat. de Baptismo.
• m

  Dionys. Hierarch. Eccles. cap. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. §. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.