Discussion of the Popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation, Part 2 · Division 3
Diuision 3.
THis is the true Doctrine of the auncient Fathers: and N. P.so plainely and vnanswerably doe they teach the literall vnderstanding of our Sauiours words, and the miraculous cōuersion of the bread & wine of the Altar by the omnipotent force of them into the bodie and blood of Christ; telling vsus that we must not beleeue our sense or reason telling vsus the contrarie; nor conceiue it so impossible, as our carnall and grosse Aduersaries pretend, for the bodie of our Sauiour to bee in heauen, and in numberlesse places of the earth together i…sibly existing. Whose plaine testimonies are in a whole Booke together by learned fLib 2. de Euchar.Bellarmine truly and particularly collected: where also he refuteth the shifting answeres of Protestanticall Diuines vntounto them; soluing all Obiections gathered out of their obscurer sayings against Catholicke doctrine. Who is by this Minister ignorantly or malitiously traduced, and made directly against the whole drift of his Controuersie to teach a probabilitie at least of Protestant Doctrine about the figuratiue and tropicall sense of our Sauiours words, This is my Body; because disputing against Luther; supposing as well as he the literall sense of our Sauiours words, argumento ad hominem, by an Argument drawne from Luthers owne grounds, hee driueth Luther either to confesse Transubstantiation necessarily purported in our Sauiours words, This is my Bodie; or for to admit barely (against the knowne opinion of himselfe and all his disciples) a figuratiue and metaphoricall vnderstanding of them. For if Christs words be literally to be vnderstood, and bread also admitted to remaine in the Sacrament, the Pronoune, Hoc, This, would naturally and necessarily demonstrate it, and not the bodie of Christ inuisibly therein present, and so bread in our Sauiours speech should falsly be affirmed to be Christs bodie: Whereas if bread remaine not, but be truly conuerted into Christs bodie, no such absurd and impossible sense followeth out of the literall vnderstanding of Christs words. Why then doth this Minister falsely make Bellarmine in this place seeme to affirme that there is nothing in the holy Text, that may enforce vsus to beleeue that Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament, or (which is all one) that may enforce vsus literally and not figuratiuely to vnderstand Christs words, &c. Ignorance and mistaking must be my aduersaries best meanes to salue this falshood and many others which doe ensue afterward.
IN the next place hauing digressed all this while from T. G.the Argument he should hauehave answered, he addeth that that which they teach cōcerning the literall sense of Christs words and the miraculous conuersion of the bread and wine into the very body and blood of Christ, is the true doctrine of the auncient Fathers: and to saue himselfe the labour of proouing that which neither he, nor any of his side shall euer be able to make good, he turneth his Reader ouer to Bellarmine, out of whom he picked all that before he had said, and telleth him that he hath both prooued it, and refuted all the shifting answeres of the Protestanticall Diuines. Bellarmine (it seemeth) is his Aiax, behinde whose shield hee must shroud himselfe, or else he dare abide no brunt of encounter againe.
Now to make Bellarmine againe some part of requitall, because he is so much beholden to him, he will doe his best to cleere him from either the ignorant or malicious abuse of this bad Minister, by whom he is traduced and made directly against the whole drift of his Controuersie to teach, a probabilitie at least of the Protestant doctrine concerning the figuratiue sense of our Sauiours words, and to affirme, &c. It is true; I say that Bellarmine granteth, and so gBellarm. de Euchar. lib. 3. cap. 10.he doth, (I hauehave set downe his owne words; they are not, nor can be denied) that these words, This is my bodie, may imply either such a reall change as the Catholickes hold, or such a figuratiue change, as the Caluinists hold: and that is all I say of him. The truth contrary to the maine drift and scope of his controuersie, (as it falleth out oft with those that against their owne knowledge maintaine errour) did start from him vnawares. Nor is the question now de re, but de propositione, as Bellarmine there speaketh: the question is not of the maine matter in controuersie whether Christ did really conuert the Bread into his Body; which Bellarmine affirmeth; but whether that speech of our Sauiour may not beare such a figuratiue sense as we giuegive, which Bellarmine in plaine and precise tearmes granteth. And all that this his Champion can say for him is nothing but this, that Bellarmine doth not say that which in expresse words I hauehave cited out of him, without alteration of any one syllable; and the falshood therefore lyeth manifestly on him that denieth it, when he knoweth them to be Bellarmines owne wordes in precise tearmes. But he hopeth (it seemeth) that with facing hee may carry away any thing.
I will adde a little more out of Bellarmine, and yet no more then himselfe in precise tearmes saith. hScotus in sent. l 4. dist. 11. quaest. 3.Scotus and iCameracens. ibid.Cameracensis, two great Schoolemen, grant that the doctrine of Transubstantiation cannot necessarily bee gathered out of the text of the Evangelists; howsoeuer they hold it, because the Church of Rome, that cannot erre, hath so expounded it. And Bellarmine himselfe kBellar. de Euchar. l. 3. c. 23.granteth that lNon est omnino improbabile.this is not improbable: For mEtiamsi Scriptura, quā nos adduximus, videatur tam clar…, vt possit cogere hominem non prote…uum, tamen an ita si… meritò dubitar… potest, cū homines doctissin…i, ac acutissimi, &c. contrar. sentiant.though the Scripture (saith he) that we bring, may seeme so cleere, that it may constraine a man that is not wilfull to yeeld it, yet it may well bee doubted, whether it be so or no; since most learned men, and most acute, such especially as Scotus was, are of a contrary minde. And now we hauehave besides Scotus and others, three Cardidinals, Card. Bellarmine, Card. Caietan, and Card. Cameracensis, all confessing that the Popish doctrine of Transubstantiation cannot cleerely or vnanswerably bee prooued by Scripture. I conclude then with mine Adversaries grant; It is all one (saith he) to say that there is nothing in the text that may enforce vsus to beleeue that Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament, and to say that there is nothing to enforce vsus literally and not figuratiuely to vnderstand Christs words. Card. Caietan freely confesseth the latter: and vnlesse hee can disprooue Caietan (which as yet hee hath not assaied to doe) he must by his owne confession yeeld the former.