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.
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
common 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
Ambrose 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
would 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 third allegation is (as he saith) out of athe voices of the Fathers in the first Nicene Council. Where I might ⟨p. 102⟩well out of Cardinal Baeronius except, that there are bno• Acts of that first Nicene Council now extant: and that the work out of which this allegation is taken, is cno record of those Acts, but a story only of that Council, written by one that lived long after it, dwhom they themselves account to be but a sorry obscure fellow, and one of no great credit. But let the Author, or the Relator rather, pass; and let us hear his relation. Those holy Confessors (saith he) will us at the divine Table not to regard only bread and wine proposed, but to elevate our mind by faith, and be hold on the holy Table the Lamb of God, &c. by Priests unbloodily sacrificed; and receiving his body and blood to believe them to be symbols and pledges of our resurrection. Here is nothing at all that any way hurteth our cause. First, they acknowledge “bread to be and abide in the Eucharist: which these men utterly deny. Secondly, they will us *not basely to regard therein the bread and cup, or the elements only. And the very same in the same place of Baptism they say, that ewe must not so much regard in it the water that we see, as the power of God accompanying it; of which we shall speak more upon another the like occasion fhereafter. Thirdly they will us gto lift up our mind, and by faith to consider (for so their words are) the Lamb of God lying on the Table. And by faith we grant that he is not seen and considered only, but received also in the Eucharist. Fourthly, they say, not (as this man translateth it) that he is unbloodily there sacrificed, but that he is hwithout sacrificing there sacrificed; that is not really, but imystically and symbolically sacrificed; or knot in truth of the thing, but in a mystery signifying the same: as out of Pope Pascasius and Augustine in their Canons themselves speak. Fifthly, they say, that we receive his body and blood in the Eucharist; yea they are reported to say (which he omitteth here) that we do ltruly receive them: which that we do truly also and effectually ⟨p. 103⟩(according to our doctrine) though spiritually and not corporally, hath malready been shown, and shall nin his due place again be further confirmed. And lastly, that these are osymbols or pledges of our resurrection;
The third allegation is (as he saith) out of athe voices of the Fathers in the first Nicene Councel. Where I might ⟨p. 102⟩well out of Cardinal Baeronius except, that there are bno• Acts of that first Nicene Councel now extant: and that the worke out of which this allegation is taken, is cno record of those Acts, but a story onely of that Councell, written by one that liued long after it, dwhom they themselues account to be but a sorry obscure fellow, and one of no great credite. But let the Author, or the Relator rather, passe; and let vs heare his relation. Those holy Confessors (saith hee) will vs at the diuine Table not to regard onely bread and wine proposed, but to eleuate our minde by faith, and be holde on the holy Table the Lambe of God, &c. by Priests vnbloodily sacrificed; and receiuing his body and blood to beleeue them to be symboles and pledges of our resurrection. Heere is nothing at all that any way hurteth our cause. First, they acknowledge “bread to be and abide in the Euchaerist: which these men vtterly deny. Secondly, they will vs *not basely to regard therein the bread and cup, or the elements onely. And the very same in the same place of Baptisme they say, that ewee must not so much regard in it the water that wee see, as the power of God accompanying it; of which wee shall speake more vpon another the like occasion fhereafter. Thirdly they will vs gto lift vp our minde, and by faith to consider (for so their words are) the Lambe of God lying on the Table. And by faith we grant that hee is not seene and considered onely, but receiued also in the Eucharist. Fourthly, they say, not (as this man translateth it) that hee is vnbloodily there sacrificed, but that hee is
aPatres in votis primi Niceni Consilii.
bBaron. annal. tom. 3. anno 325. num 62. & 63.
cIde ex Photio, ibid. et annal. tom. 6. anno 496.
dBaron ibid. & Greg. de Valent. de transubstan. l. 2. c. 7.
“[Greek or Hebrew]〈non-Latin alphabet〉
*[Greek or Hebrew]〈non-Latin alphabet〉
e[Greek or Hebrew]. Gelas. Cyzic de act. Conc. Nic. diatyp 4.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Gelas. Cyzic de act. Conc. Nic. diatyp 4.
which how they was are was before showed out of Tertullian, who pfrom those Sacraments and sacred rites and exercises in general (as well other as these) that the body partaketh in, draweth rArguments to confirm the faith of the resurrection of it.
which how they was are was before shewed out of Tertullian, who pfrom those Sacraments and sacred rites and exercises in generall (as well other as these) that the body partaketh in, draweth rArguments to confirme the faith of the resurrection of it.
pCaro abluiter, ungitur, signatur, manuum imposition adumbratur, corpore & sanguine Christi vescitur, &c. Tertul. de resur. carn.Caro abluiter, vngitur, signatur, manuum impositione adumbratur, corpore & sanguine Christi vescitur, &c. Tertul. de resur. carn.
rQuam Deus sacramentis suis disciplinis que vestivit, cuius munditias amat, castigationes probat, passions adpreciar, haeccine non resurget? Ibid.Quam Deus sacramentis suis disciplinis que vestiuit, cuius munditias amat, castigationes probat, passiones adpreciar, haeccine non resurget? Ibid.
The next allegation is out of S. Ephrem, whose both praises and speeches he hath borrowed from sBellarmine: which Bellarmine when he hath cited, addeth withal in a bravery, as if the proofs were so pregnant that there were no gainsaying of them, tTo this testimony our adversaries neither do answer, nor indeed can answer ought. That none had then answered, was not much to be marvelled: as uHarding saith of their Cyril; few had yet the 4sight of him. One of that name indeed wrote many things xin the Syriac tongue long since, having no skill at all in the Greek. And under his name our Popish Fatherbreeders have of late set out a many of Sermons and Treatises, that have no testimony at all from antiquity the most of them; translated (as they tell us) out of Greek, which he good man never spake; quoting some of them Greek Authors at large, whom he never understood; wanting all of them that asubtlety and sublimity of wit, that Jerome commendeth in Ephrems works, and bappeared even in the translations of them, as both he and others affirm of them; very sorry and silly things a great part of them; not free from gross untruths and ccontradictions, yea and ridiculous too, if not impious assertions; as that dthe damned spirits in hell salute all the Saints in ⟨p. 104⟩10heaven, and by name the Apostles, Prophets, and Martyrs, the Patriarchs, Monks, and the Virgin Mary: and lastly their eseveral editions of them so chopped and changed, mangled and made up again, cut off or pieced out, as they pleased that had the breeding of them, that scarce any one of them is any whit like another. The testimonies cited out of him could not be answered, before the Author himself was hatched, and his works abroad in mens hands, that they might be seen and known what they were. And now that they are seen and known what they are, they appear plainly to be such, that they are not worthy of any answer. Unless it be deemed equal that we be tied to answer to every saying that is alleged out of any counterfeit, that they shall at any time thrust out with the glorious title of some Ancient Father clapped on his Frontispiece. And yet neither are this Authors words (what ever he be) by the Cardinals good leave, for all his great brag, so pregnant and full for them that no answer can be given to them. He saith that the mysteries of Christ are most admirable and inscrutable:
The next allegation is out of S. Ephrem, whose both praises and speeches he hath borrowed from sBellarmine: which Bellarmine when hee hath cited, addeth withall in a brauery, as if the proofes were so pregnant that there were no gainesaying of them, tTo this testimonie our aduersaries neither doe answer, nor indeede can answer ought. That none had then answered, was not much to be maruelled: as uHarding saith of their Cyrill; few had yet the 4sight of him. One of that name indeed wrote many things xin the Syriacke tongue long since, hauing no skill at all in the Greeke. And vnder his name our Popish Fatherbreeders haue of late set out a many of Sermons and Treaeises, that haue no testimonie at all from antiquity the most of them; translated (as they tell vs) out of Greeke, which hee good man neuer spake; quoting some of them Greeke Authors at large, whom hee neuer vnderstood; wanting all of them that asubtilty and sublimitie of wit, that Ierome commendeth in Ephrems workes, and bappeared euen in the trarslations of them, as both hee and others affirm of them; very sorry and silly things a great part of them; not free from grosse vntruths and ccontradictions, yea and ridiculous too, if not impious assertions; as that dthe damned spirits in hell salute all the Saints in ⟨p. 104⟩10heauen, and by name the Apostles, Prophets, and Martyrs, the Patriarches, Monkes, and the Uirgin Mary: and lastly their eseuerall editions of them so chopped and changed, mangled and made vp againe, cut off or pieced out, as they pleased that had the breeding of them, that scarce any one of them is any whit like another. The testimonies cited out of him could not be answered, before the Author himselfe was hatched, and his workes abroad in mens hands, that they might bee seene and knowne what they were. And now that they are seen and known what they are, they appeare plainely to be such, that they are not worthy of any answer. Vnlesse it bee deemed equall that wee bee tied to answer to euery saying that is alleadged out of any counterfeite, that they shall at any time thrust out with the glorious title of some Ancient Father clapt on his Frontispice. And yet neither are this Authors wordes (what euer he be) by the Cardinals good leaue, for all his great bragge, so pregnant and full for them that no answer can be giuen to them. He saith that the mysteries of Christ are most admirable and inscrutable:
sBella. de Euchar. l. 3 c. 19.
tIdem ibid.
uHarding answer to Jewel. art. 10. Sect 6.Harding answer to Iewel. art. 10. Sect 6.
4q Sacrificia Deo grata de bonis carnis adolentur Deo.
xHieron. in catolog. Script.
aA cumen sublimis ingen i. Hieron. catal. scr
bHieron. ibid. & Sozom. hist. l. 3. c. 16.
cIn his last Will and Testament, that he never in all his life spoke foolish word, nor cursed any one, nor was contentious, &c. And yet the direct contrary in his Relation to the Monks of his Conversion.In his last Will and Testament, that he neuer in all his life spoke foolish word, nor cursed any one, nor was contentious, &c. And yet the direct contrary in his Relation to the Monks of his Con•ersion.
dSaluete omnes Sancti, saluete Apostoli, Prophetae, &c. De poenit. c. 7.
10y [Greek or Hebrew]. Theodoret. hist. l 4. c. 19. & Sozom. l. 3. c. 16.y 〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Theodoret. hist. l 4. c. 19. & Sozom. l. 3. c. 16.
eTot ferè mutations, inversions, & additions, dumb iste omittit quae ille habet, & contra, quot verba. Rivet. specim. Criti. l. 3. c. 21.Tot ferè mutationes, inuersiones, & additiones, dum iste omittit quae ille habet, & contra, quot verba. Riuet. specim. Criti. l. 3. c. 21.
and who denieth it? this follow himself fbringeth in Calvin and Beza saying the same: and that men ought not to gpry over curiously into them: wherein not we, but their *S. Dennis is faulty, & their hSchoolmen who with their wanton wit have therein exceeded all bounds as well of modesty as of measure: *that we partake with our Lords immaculate body by faith: (for so in Uossius his edition are his words distinguished) which we may well without any such corporal presence of it, as iby their own Authors is confessed: that kwe must be assured that we eat the Lamb himself whole: which is contrary, not to our doctrine, who say and show evidently, that lthe Fathers did as much that lived even before ⟨p. 105⟩Christ was incarnate, but to mthe doctrine of their Pope Nicholas, as else-where is showed. So that here is nothing that we need so much to stick at, or that should be deemed so unanswerable: unless he will press us with that that followeth, that nChrist giveth us fire to feed on, when he giveth us his body: as Chrysostom saith sometime that ofire floweth from the Lords table, and it is a coal of fire that we receive in the Eucharist. Which if they will expound figuratively and spiritually, as I suppose they must needs, let them give us the like liberty to understand the former words in like manner. I will add only and so leave this Ephrem, what in the very same discourse himself saith: pwhat this potion and perception is (saith he) it is our part to learn: (And it is lawful then belike, yea and our duty too, to make some kind of inquiry into it.) Mark diligently, how Christ taking bread into his hands, qblessed it, and brake it, for a figure of his immaculate body; and how he rblessed the Cup, for a figure of his blood. Which words (I take it) incline rather to our doctrine then to theirs. And yet further in the same Treatise: sWith the eyes of faith, when like light it shineth bright in a mans heart, doth he clearly see the Lamb of God, that was slain for us, and that hath given us his holy and immaculate body tperpetually to feed upon, and to partake of unto remission of sins. uThis eye of faith he that hath, doth clearly and openly see the Lord, and xby a sure and full faith eateth of the body of that immaculate Lamb, the only begotten son of the heavenly Father, and drinketh his blood, &c.
and who denieth it? this follow himselfe fbringeth in Caluin and Beza saying the same: and that men ought not to gpry ouer curiously into them: wherein not we, but their *S. Dennis is faulty, & their hSchoolemen who with their wanton wit haue therein exceeded all bounds as well of modestie as of measure: *that we partake with our Lords immaculate bodie by faith: (for so in Uossius his edition are his wordes distinguished) which we may well without any such corporall presence of it, as iby their owne Authors is confessed: that kwee must be assured that we eate the Lambe himselfe whole: which is contrary, not to our doctrine, who say and shew euidently, that lthe Fathers did as much that liued euen before ⟨p. 105⟩Christ was incarnate, but to mthe doctrine of their Pope Nicholas, as else-where is shewed. So that here is nothing that we need so much to stick at, or that should be deemed so vnanswerable: vnlesse he wil presse vs with that that followeth, that nChrist giueth vs fire to feed on, when hee giueth vs his body: as Chrysostome saith sometime that ofire floweth from the Lords table, and it is a coale of fire that wee receiue in the Eucharist. Which if they will expound figuratinely and spiritually, as I suppose they must needs, let them giue vs the like liberty to vnderstand the former wordes in like manner. I will adde only and so leaue this Ephrem, what in the very same discourse himselfe saith: p
fDivision. 12.Diuision. 12.
gCuriosè rimari.
*Qui tamen ipse in Eccles. Hierar. c. 2. [Greek or Hebrew].Qui tamen ipse in Eccles. Hierar. c. 2. 〈non-Latin alphabet〉.
hVide Eras. in moria, & in enchirid. Sarcer. de vanit. Schol. Theolog. Statum lacessunt omnipollentis Dei calumniosis litibus: Fidem mintuis dissecant ambagibus: Ut quisque lingu• nequior; Soluunt ligantque quaestionū vincula Persyllogismos Plectiles Quid non libido mentis humanae stru•t? Quid non malo•um prutiat? Prudent. apotheos.Vide Eras. in moria, & in enchirid. Sarcer. de vanit. Schol. Theolog. Statum lacessunt omnipollentis Dei calumniosis litibus: Fidem mintuis dissecant ambagibus: Vt quisque lingu• nequior; Soluunt ligantque quaestionū vincula Persyllogismos Plectiles Quid non libido mentis humanae stru•t? Quid non malo•um prutiat? Prudent. apotheos.
By faith (saith he) we see the Lamb of God, (as expounding that that was said out of the story of the Nicene Council before) and by faith we seed on him, and his body and blood, and partake of him, perpetually; and not in the Eucharist only. Which as it fitteth not their oral manducation, which without faith may be effected, so it agreeth well with that spiritual feeding, that we expound our Saviours words of. So little doth this their Ephrem further or avail them in this Argument.
By faith (saith hee) wee see the Lambe of God, (as expounding that that was said out of the storie of the Nicene Councell before) and by faith wee seede on him, and his bodie and blood, and partake of him, perpetually; and not in the Eucharist onely. Which as it fitteth not their orall manducation, which without faith may bee effected, so it agreeth well with that spirituall feeding, that we expound our Sauiours wordes of. So little doth this their Ephrem further or auaile them in this Argument.
Lastly, for the high terms and stately titles that the Ancient Fathers give the Eucharist; let him but compare them with sthose that they give to its elder sister, the other Sacrament of Baptism, and I suppose he will find little odds between either. Only for what he saith of their affirming that the Angels adore it: let the places be produced, and they shall then be answered. That they are present oft, (and if present, no doubt present with much reverence) as well at the celebration of the Lords Supper, as at other parts of Gods worship; and zthat they adore him who is therein represented, (which is all that Chrysostom saith in the places produced out of him by *Bellarmine) we deny not: and of Baptism in effect their “Cyrist saith as much. But that they do adore as 5God a piece of bread or a sorry wafer cake, as the Papists do in their Mass, therein committing as gross idolatry (it is *their own grant, if it be not Christ, which we well know it is not) as ever any was in the world, that we utterly deny, nor will this Defendant ever be able to produce any one Orthodox Father that ever so said. And thus much for his allegations, though produced here to no purpose, to disprove (as they might well enough without hurting of us) no assertion of ours, but a fiction of his own framing; nor was it necessary therefore that they should have been answered. Let us now proceed to the next part of his Answer.
Lastly, for the high tearmes and stately titles that the Ancient Fathers giue the Eucharist; let him but compare them with sthose that they giue to its elder sister, the other Sacrament of Baptisme, and I suppose hee will finde little oddes betweene either. Onely for what hee saith of their affirming that the Angels adore it: let the places bee produced, and they shall then bee answered. That they are present oft, (and if present, no doubt present with much reuerence) as well at the celebration of the Lords Supper, as at other parts of Gods worship; and zthat they adore him who is therein represented, (which is all that Chrysostome saith in the places produced out of him by *Bellarmine) we deny not: and of Baptisme in effect their “Cyrist saith as much. But that they doe adore as 5God a piece of bread or a sorry wafer cake, as the Papists doe in their Masse, therein committing as grosse idolatry (it is *their owne grant, if it be not Christ, which we well know it is not) as euer any was in the world, that we vtterly deny, nor will this Defendant euer be able to produce any one Orthodox Father that euer so said. And thus much for his allegations, though produced here to no purpose, to disprooue (as they might well enough without hurting of vs) no assertion of ours, but a fiction of his owne framing; nor was it necessarie therefore that they should haue beene answered. Let vs now proceede to the next part of his Answer.
s[Greek or Hebrew]. Dionys. hier. eccles. c. 2. Punici Christiani Baptis. salutem, Sacramentum corporis Christi vitam vocant. Aug. de pecc. mer. l. 1. c. 24.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Dionys. hier. eccles. c. 2. Punici Christiani Baptis. salutem, Sacramentum corporis Christi vitam vocant. Aug. de pecc. mer. l. 1. c. 24.
*Talis error qualis in orb terrarum nunquā visus vel auditus fuit. Tolerabilior est enim error eorum qui pro Deo colunt statuam aureā aut argenteam, aut alterius materiae imaginem, quomodo Gentiles Deos suos venerabantur, vel pannum ubrum in hastam elevatum, quod narratur de Lappis, vel viva animalia ut quondam Aegyptii, quàm eorum qui frustum panis, &c. Coster. Jesuit, enchirid. de Transubstan.Talis error qualis in orbe terrarum nunquā visus vel auditus fuit. Tolerabilior est enim error eorum qui pro Deo colunt statuam aureā aut argenteam, aut alterius materiae imaginem, quomodo Gentiles Deos suos venerabantur, vel pannum ubrum in hastam eleuatum, quod narratur de Lappis, vel viua animalia vt quondam Aegyptii, quàm eorum qui frustum panis, &c. Coster. Iesuit, enchirid. de Transubstan.
His next ground for overthrowing our literal understanding of Christs words and real presence of his true 1body and blood in the Sacrament, is an unlearned and slender manner of proving our Saviours large discourse in S John. 6. ⟨p. 107⟩not to be at all understood of sacrament all manducation, but spiritual eating his flesh and blood by believing in him. And first he quarreleth at Pope Nicholas manner of speech, making Berengarius in the abjuration of his heresy to affirm not only the sign, but the body it self of Christ to be handled by the Priests hands, and rent and bruised with the teeth of the faithful, &c. Which manner of speech was purposely by Pope Nicholas in a Council of learned Doctors devised to make this slippery shifting heretic make a direct and plain confession of his faith concerning our Saviours being present in the hands of the Priest consecrating the Sacrament, and mouths of such as receive him impassible now in his own corporal nature glorified, and uncapable of renting or any kind of corporal mutation, as being not with the sacramental signs also quantitatively extended, but indivisibly and after a spiritual manner existing, yet really handled and received as Angels in assumed bodies are said to be seen, and felt, and as S. John Baptist likewise Joh. 1. said he saw the holy Ghost, when he only saw a Dove the sign of his presence, &c. which manner of speech is not unusual with the holy Fathers. Thou seest him, (saith S. Chrysostom speaking of Christ in the Sacrament) Thou touchest him, Thou eatest him, &c. Which is the same in sense which Pope Nicholas affirmeth, only he explicateth somewhat more particularly the division and fraction of the sacramental forms containing the very body and blood of Christ, under them all and each particle of them entirely and undividedly remaining. Insomuch as John Hussy falsely wont by our Adversaries to be claimed for Patron and faithful witness of their doctrine, singeth thus in certain verses of Christs presence and manner of being received in the Sacrament, which he with us to his dying day constantly believed, as now also his disciples do after him;
HIs next ground for ouerthrowing our literall vnderstanding of Christs wordes and reall presence of his true 1bodie and blood in the Sacrament, is an vnlearned and slender manner of proouing our Sauiours large discourse in S Iohn. 6. ⟨p. 107⟩not to bee at all vnderstood of sacrament all manducation, but spirituall eating his flesh and blood by beleeuing in him. And first hee quareleth at Pope Nicholas manner of speech, making Berengarius in the abiuration of his heresie to affirme not onely the signe, but the body it selfe of Christ to bee handled by the Priests hands, and rent and bruised with the teeth of the faithfull, &c. Which manner of speech was purposely by Pope Nicholas in a Councell of learned Doctors devised to make this slippery shifting hereticke make a direct and plaine confession of his faith concerning our Sauiours being present in the hands of the Priest consecrating the Sacrament, and mouthes of such as receiue him impassible now in his owne corporall nature glorified, and vncapable of renting or any kinde of corporall mutation, as being not with the sacramental signes also quantitatiuely extended, but indiuisibly and after a spirituall manner existing, yet really handled and receiued as Angels in assumpted bodies are said to bee seene, and felt, and as S. Iohn Baptist likewise Ioh. 1. said he saw the holy Ghost, when hee onely saw a Doue the signe of his presence, &c. which manner of speech is not v•usuall with the holy Fathers. Thou seest him, (saith S. Chrysostome speaking of Christ in the Sacrament) Thou touchest him, Thou eatest him, &c. Which is the same in sense which Pope Nicholas affirmeth, onely hee explicateth somewhat more particularly the diuision and fraction of the sacramentall formes containing the very bodie and blood of Christ, vnder them all and each particle of them entirely and vndeuidedly remaining. Insomuch as Iohn Husie falsely wont by our Aduersaries to be claimed for Patron and faithfull witnesse of their doctrine, singeth thus in certaine verses of Christs presence and manner of being receiued in the Sacrament, which hee with vs to his dying day constantly beleeued, as now also his disciples doe after him;
Non est panissed est Deus
Qui in cruce pependisti
Non augetur consecratus;
Nec divisus in fractura,
Homo liberator meus:
Et in carne defecisti:
Nec consumptus fit mutatus;
Plenus D•us ju statura.
Non est panissed est Deus
Qui in cruce pependisti
Non augetur consecratus;
Nec diuisus in fractura,
Homo liberator meus:
Et in carne defecisti:
Nec cōsumptus fit mutatꝰ;
Plenus D•us iu statura.
It is not bread, but God and Man my Redeemer, who hanged on a Cross, and died in flesh for me. He is not increased on multiplied by Consecration, nor divided in breaking of the Host, but God full in stature. So likewise S. Andrew in his passion authentically (as lBellarmine proveth) written by the Clergy of Achaia present thereat, told the Proconsul Egeus; I daily offer to God, who is one and omnipotent, not the flesh of Bulls & blood of Goats, but the immaculate Lamb upon the Altar, whose flesh when all the multitude of faithful people hath received, the Lamb sacrificed integer persevere at ac vivus; doth live and remain entire, &c. So as Pope Nicholas doctrine understood of Christs flesh being eaten in the Sacrament, needeth not Gratians Gloss to save it from heretical blasphemy and the danger of a worse opinion then Berengarius renounced, unless he had taught Christs flesh in it self to have been torn with teeth and bloodily eaten, as the Capharnites imagined; and mthe Gentile persecutors were went to object against poor Christians, that they did eat the flesh of a certain man in their synaxes and meetings; calling them men eaters, &c. to wit, because they did eat bread and drink wine consecrated by the miraculous force of Christs words into his natural flesh and blood; as Saint Justine that holy Martyr and great Christian Philosopher told Aurelius the Emperor in his second Apology for Christians; where he describeth (as much as it was fit for him to open the heavenly mysteries of our faith to the Gentiles) the whole order of the Sacrifice and distribution of the Sacrament as it is now celebrated by us: this being the new Oblation of the New Testament, as nS. Irenaeus termeth it, instituted by Christ in his last Supper, and that clean Sacrifice which Malachi foretold should succeed in place of the Jewish Sacrifices, and be offered by the Gentiles in all places.
It is not bread, but God and Man my Redeemer, who hanged on a Crosse, and died in flesh for me. Hee is not encreased on multiplied by Consecration, nor diuided in breaking of the Host, but God full in stature. So likewise S. Andrew in his passion authentically (as lBellarmine proueth) written by the Clergie of Achaia present thereat, told the Procounsul Egeus; I dayly offer to God, who is one and omnipotent, not the flesh of Buls & blood of Goats, but the immaculate Lambe vpon the Altar, whose flesh when all the multitude of faithfull people hath receiued, the Lambe sacrificed integer perseuer at ac viuus; doth liue and remaine entire, &c. So as Pope Nicholas doctrine vnderstood of Christs flesh being eaten in the Sacrament, needeth not Gratians Glosse to saue it from hereticall blaspemy and the danger of a worse opinion then Berengarius renounced, vnlesse hee had taught Christs flesh in it selfe to haue beene torne with teeth and bloodily eaten, as the Capharnites imagined; and mthe Gentile persecutors were went to obiect against poore Christians, that they did eate the flesh of a certaine man in their synaxes and meetings; calling them men eaters, &c. to wit, because they did eate bread and drinke wine consecrated by the miraculous force of Christs wordes into his naturall flesh and blood; as Saint Iustine that holy Martyr and great Christian Philosopher told Aurelius the Emperor in his second Apologie for Christians; where hee describeth (as much as it was fit for him to open the heauenly mysteries of our faith to the Gentiles) the whole order of the Sacrifice and distribution of the Sacrament as it is now celebrated by vs: this being the new Oblation of the New Testament, as nS. Irenaeus tearmeth it, instituted by Christ in his last Supper, and that cleane Sacrifice which Malachie foretold should succeed in place of the Iewish Sacrifices, and be offered by the Gentiles in all places.
Where first I quarrel (he saith) at P. Nicholas his manner of speech devised purposely (as this mine Adversary here informeth us) in a Council of learned Bishops to make a slippery shifting heretic, make a direct and plain confession of his faith concerning the real presence. His words are, as I have related them, that the very body of Christ in the Eucharist is broken with the Priests hands, and torn in pieces with mens teeth, not sacramentally only, but sensually. Which palpable absurdities, and carnal and Capernaiticall assertions this Defendant would fain salve if he could; (but he showeth himself therein but a sorry Quacksalver.)
Where first I quarell (he saith) at P. Nicholas his maner of speech deuised purposely (as this mine Aduersary here informeth vs) in a Coūcell of learned Bishops to make a slippery shifting heretike, make a direct and plain confession of his faith concerning the reall presence. His words are, as I haue related thē, that the very body of Christ in the Eucharist is broken with the Priests hands, and torn in pieces with mens teeth, not sacramētally only, but sensually. Which palpable absurdities, and carnall and Capernaiticall assertions this Defendant would faine salue if hee could; (but he sheweth himselfe therein but a sorry Quackesaluer.)
1. By citing (besides some of his own counterfeits, of which more anon) a saying of S. Chrysostom, affirming that the faithful see, and touch, and eat Christ in the Eucharist: which neither they nor we deny; nor is it ought to the purpose, unless Chrysostom should also say, that he is eaten in such sort as Pope Nicholas averreth, not sacramentally only, or spiritually, but even sensually: so he saith. For so tthe Galatians also saw him crucified (as the Apostle telleth them) in their sight: and some of the Ancients say that even uat this day he is crucified.
1. By citing (besides some of his owne counterfaits, of which more anone) a saying of S. Chrysostome, affirming that the faithfull see, and touch, and eate Christ in the Eucharist: which neither they nor we deny; nor is it ought to the purpose, vnlesse Chrysostome should also say, that hee is eaten in such sort as Pope Nicholas averreth, not sacramentally onely, or spiritually, but euen sensually: so hee saith. For so tthe Galathians also saw him crucified (as the Apostle telleth them) in their sight: and some of the Ancients say that euen uat this day he is crucified.
uQuotidiè nascitur Christus. Hieron. nomine in Ps. 86. Quotidiè nobis crucifigitur: quotidiè resurgit. Idem in Psal. 95. Quod Bern. explicatius, in vigil. nativ. ser. 6. Immolatur adhuc quotidiè, donec mortem eius annuncia• us: […] videtur, dum nativitatem eius fideliter repraesentamus.Quotidiè nascitur Christus. Hieron. nomine in Ps. 86. Quotidiè nobis crucifigitur: quotidiè resurgit. Idem in Psal. 95. Quod Bern. explicatius, in vigil. nativ. ser. 6. Immolatur adhuc quotidiè, donec mortem eius annuncia• us: 〈…〉 videtur, dum natiuitatem eius fideliter repraesentamus.
The author
Thomas Gataker 1574–1654
PuritansEngland
Rector of Rotherhithe; member of the Westminster Assembly.
Transcription key
•
an illegible letter
〈…〉
illegible words
〈non-Latin alphabet〉
Greek or Hebrew the transcribers did not key
▪
illegible punctuation
⟨p. 12⟩
a page break in the printed book
the first-fruits of Gods creatures, which in way of thankefulnesse,
not in truth of the thing, but in a mystery signifying the same: as out of Pope Pascasius and Augustine in their Canons themselues speake. Fiftly, they say, that wee receiue his bodie and blood in the Encharist; yea they are reported to say (which hee omitteth here) that wee doe
mDiscourse Argument […]. Answer to Objection.Discourse Argument 〈…〉. Answer to Obiection.
nDivision 12.Diuisiō 12.
o[Greek or Hebrew].〈non-Latin alphabet〉.
what this potion and perception is (saith he) it is our part to learne: (And it is lawfull then belike, yea and our dutie too, to make some kinde of inquiry into it.) Marke diligently, how Christ taking bread into his hands,
blessed the Cup, for a figure of his blood. Which wordes (I take it) encline rather to our doctrine then to theirs. And yet further in the same Treatise:
With the eyes of faith, when like light it shineth bright in a mans heart, doth he cleerly see the Lambe of God, that was slaine for vs, and that hath giuen vs his holy and immaculate bodie
by a sure and full faith eateth of the bodie of that immaculate Lambe, the onely begotten sonne of the heauenly Father, and drinketh his blood, &c.
Ignem & spiritum man ducandum ac bibendū praestitit nobis, corpus sci•. & sanguinem suum. Ephrē. ibid.
Ignem & spiritum mā ducandum ac bibendū praestitit nobis, corpus sci•. & sanguinem suum. Ephrē. ibid.
oChrysost, de Euchar. in encaen.
pQuaenam sit ista potio atque perceptio disc•re nostrum est. Ephrem de non scrutā nat. Dei.Quaenam sit ista potio atque perceptio disc•re nostrum est. Ephrem de non scrutā nat. Dei.
qBenedixit & fregit in figuram corporis sui.
rIn figuram sanguinis sui benedixit. ib.
sFidei oculis &c. Dei agnū sincere intuetur.Fidei oculis &c. Dei agnū sincere intuetur.
tUt eo perpetuo vescamur.Vt eo perpetuo vescamur.
uSi quis hunc side• oculum possider, patē ter & lucidè con•picit Dominum.Si quis hunc side• oculum possider, patē ter & lucidè con•picit Dominum.
xFide agni immaculati corpus manducat & sanguinem bibit.
