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.
That Augustine and divers others of the ancient Fathers do expound it of feeding on Christ, yet not corporally, but spiritually in the Sacrament (for so hBishop Jansenius also ingenuously confesseth that Augustine holdeth it to be understood of seeding on Christ spiritually, not corporally; yea and so *Pope Innocent himself, witness Durand, ⟨p. 120⟩and Biel, and “Peter Lombard also, witness Bon• venture, expound it:) I deny not; nor doth it at all impeach our cause in the main point here in question of Christs corporal presence. Yet the rather herein we are enforced (together with diverse Popish writers) to depart from them in that their exposition; so far forth as they understand the same as directly speaking of the Eucharist, (as for the one moiety of that discourse also even *Bellarmine himself doth) in regard of some erroneous consequences that they were by that means enforced unto, which even the Papists themselves now condemn, and for other weighty reasons, as in my first writing I show.
That Augustine and diuers others of the ancient Fathers doe expound it of feeding on Christ, yet not corporally, but spiritually in the Sacrament (for so hBishop Iansenius also ingenuously confesseth that Augustine holdeth it to be vnderstood of seeding on Christ spiritually, not corporally; yea and so *Pope Innocent himselfe, witnesse Durand, ⟨p. 120⟩and Biel, and “Peter Lombard also, witnesse Bon• uenture, expound it:) I deny not; nor doth it at all impeach our cause in the maine point here in question of Christs corporall presence. Yet the rather herein wee are inforced (together with diuerse Popish writers) to depart from them in that their exposition; so farre forth as they vnderstand the same as directly speaking of the Eucharist, (as for the one moitie of that discourse also euen
Bellarmine himself doth) in regard of some erronious consequences that they were by that meanes enforced vnto, which euen the Papists themselues now condemne, and for other weighty reasons, as in my first writing I shew.
*De comestione sacramentali ait Dominus; Accipite & comedite; Hoc est corpus meum: de comestione spirutuali dicit; Nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis, &c. non habebitis vitam in vobis. Innocent. Pp. apud Durand in ration. divin. l. 4. p. 2. ad p. 6. Can. & Biel in Can. lect. 36,De comestione sacramentali ait Dominus; Accipite & comedite; Hoc est corpus meum: de comestione spirutuali dicit; Nisi manducaueritis carnem filii hominis, &c. non habebitis vitam in vobis. Innocent. Pp. apud Durand in ration. diuin. l. 4. p. 2. ad p. 6. Can. & Biel in Can. lect. 36,
“Magister apud Bonaven. in l. 4. sen. d 9. q. 1.Magister apud Bonauen. in l. 4. sen. d 9. q. 1.
Yea but Catholic Expositors (saith this Answerer) by many evident and unanswerable Arguments have proved that it is so to be understood; which his Adversary also (saith he) overpasseth with silence.
Yea but Catholique Expositors (saith this Answerer) by many euident and vnanswerable Arguments haue prooued that it is so to be vnderstood; which his Aduersarie also (saith hee) euerpasseth with silence.
And say I, A Catholic Expositor (in their language) to wit, Corn. Jansenius (no Jesuit now, for so this Answerer hath informed me, and yet) a Bishop of Flanders, in a work of his by common consent of the learned among them well approved of (they are the Popes own Censurers words of it) hath by evident and unanswerable Arguments proved that it cannot so be understood; which this mine adversary also overpasseth with silence: And the like also doth Friar Ferus: and Gabriel Biel at large in the place above recited.
And say I, A Catholique Expositor (in their language) to wit, Corn. Iansenius (no Iesuite now, for so this Answerer hath informed me, and yet) a Bishop of Flanders, in a worke of his by common consent of the learned among them well approoued of (they are the Popes owne Censurers wordes of it) hath by euident and vnanswerable Arguments prooued that it cannot so bee vnderstood; which this mine aduersarie also ouerpasseth with silence: And the like also doth Frier Ferus: and Gabriel Biel at large in the place aboue recited.
1. Our Saviour (saith he) maketh a difference there between the gift which his Father had •iven the Jews, and the gift that himself meant to give, speaking of the one as past, of the other as to come: This out of Bellarmine.
1. Our Sauiour (saith he) maketh a difference there betweene the gift which his Father had •iuen the Iewes, and the gift that himselfe ment to giue, speaking of the one as past, of the other as to come: This out of Bellarmine.
I marvel where this man learned his Logic. He never is lucky in the framing of his Consequences. There is a difference between the gift that God the Father had given; and the gift that Christ would give: Ergò Christs words must needs be understood of his corporal presence in ⟨p. 121⟩the Eucharist. How hang these things together? or by what necessity of consequence doth the one follow from the other?
I maruell where this man learned his Logicke. He neuer is luckie in the framing of his Consequences. There is a difference betweene the gift that God the Father had giuen; and the gift that Christ would giue: Ergò Christs wordes must needs be vnderstood of his corporall presence in ⟨p. 121⟩the Eucharist. How hang these things together? or by what nec•ssity of consequence doth the one follow from the other?
For first, Are they diverse gifts that God the Father had given and that Christ would give? then the words are not meant of Christs corporal presence in the Eucharist. For therein the very same Christ that the Father gave is given to the faithful, as we say, spiritually; to both faithful and unfaithful, as they affirm, corporally. And therefore the gift is not divers, as he saith, but the self same.
For first, Are they diuerse gifts that God the Father had giuen and that Christ would giue? then the wordes are not meant of Christs corporall presence in the Eucharist. For therein the very same Christ that the Father gaue is giuen to the faithfull, as we say, spiritually; to both faithfull and vnfaithfull, as they affirme, corporally. And therfore the gift is not diuers, as he saith, but the selfe same.
2. If he say that the gift is divers in regard of the divers manner of giving: who knoweth not that Christ, who had been given by his Father (and yet by himself also) in his incarnation; was after igiven also by himself (and yet kby his Father also) in his passion. So their own Jansenius expoundeth his words, that lhe would give his b• die also unto death: and Friar Ferus that mhe would give it unto death on the Cross: for nthere (saith he) was that bread to be basked: and there that flesh of his (saith Bonaventure) was to be boiled. Yea so Gregory of Valence, My flesh that I will give, pthat is, that I will offer for the life of the world: Where (think we) but on the Cross?
2. If hee say that the gift is diuers in regard of the diuers manner of giuing: who knoweth not that Christ, who had beene giuen by his Father (and yet by himselfe also) in his incarnation; was after igiuen also by himselfe (and yet kby his Father also) in his passion. So their owne Iansenius expoundeth his words, that lhe would giue his b• die also vnto death: and Frier Ferus that mhee would giue it vnto death on the Crosse: for nthere (saith hee) was that bread to bee basked: and there that flesh of his (saith Bonauenture) was to be boyled. Yea so Gregory of Valence, My flesh that I will giue, pthat is, that I will offer for the life of the world: Where (thinke we) but on the Crosse?
lQuam & in mortem dabo. Jansen. ubi sup.Quam & in mortem dabo. Iansen. vbi sup.
mIn mortem ad crucem. Fe•us in Joan. 6.In mortem ad crucem. Fe•us in Ioan. 6.
nIllic coquetur panis iste. Fer. ibid.
pQuam dab• 1. quā •fferam pro mund• vita. Greg. de. Val. de sacr. Mis. 1. 1. c. 3.Quam dab• 1. quā •fferam pro mund• vita. Greg. de. Val. de sacr. Mis. 1. 1. c. 3.
2. Christ (saith he) compareth the eating of his flesh to the Jews eating of Manna; which was a corporal food really eaten by them: and he must needs therefore speak of the Eucharist. Bellarmine was not so absurd indeed as to 1argue on this manner. As if the Manna were not also a spiritual type of Christ: and Christ might not as well compare the type with the truth; as the type with the countertype; the type of the Manna qa spiritual food then really taken with the spiritual eating of Christ that was therein figured.
2. Christ (saith he) compareth the eating of his flesh to the Iewes eating of Manna; which was a corporall food really eaten by them: and he must needs therefore speake of the Eucharist. Bellarmine was not so absurd indeed as to 1argue on this manner. As if the Manna were not also a spirituall type of Christ: and Christ might not as well compare the type with the truth; as the type with the countertype; the type of the Manna qa spirituall food then really taken with the spirituall eating of Christ that was therin figured.
1o In cruce facta est de•octio ca••is, &c. Bonaven. in sent. l 4. c. 9. q 2.o In cruce facta est de•octio ca••is, &c. Bonauen. in sent. l 4. c. 9. q 2.
Or […] •f he might not compare our spiritual feeding on him with some corporal food really eaten (which both here and else-where it is confessed, as shall presently be showed, that he doth) and yet not mention the Sacrament of the Eucharist at all.
Or 〈…〉•f he might not compare our spirituall feeding on him with some corporall food really eaten (which both here and else-where it is confessed, as shal presently be shewed, that he doth) and yet not mention the Sacrament of the Eucharist at all.
Bellarmine saith indeed that rChrist compareth there with the Manna his body, not as it is received by faith alone, (and then belike by Bellarmines grant it is truly so also received, even out of the Sacrament) but as in the Sacrament it is received. But how doth he prove it?
Bellarmine saith indeede that rChrist compareth there with the Manna his bodie, not as it is receiued by faith alone, (and then belike by Bellarmines grant it is truely so also receiued, euen out of the Sacrament) but as in the Sacrament it is receiued. But how doth he proue it?
But how doth this follow; The Apostle doth so there: therefore our Saviour doth so here? especially considering how divers the scope of either in either place is. The Apostles scope is to show that tthe old Israelites had as good and as sure outward pledges of Gods favour and love as we Christians now have; and yet “were not spared when they provoked him to wrath, for all that. Our Saviours scope is to prove that the spiritual food of his flesh, which uhe there tendered them and advised them to seek after, was much more excellent and of far greater virtue and efficacy, then the Manna that their Fathers did once eat in the Wilderness. For, that xthat (considered as corporal food) was it self corruptible, and could not ypreserve them that eat of it from death, whereas this was zfood incorruptible, and being spiritually fed on would cause them ato live for ever. For the Apostles purpose therefore it was necessary to consider the Manna as a Sacrament and to compare the Eucharist with it, as with our Baptism he had paralleled the Red Sea before. But for our Saviour so to do there was no necessity at all: Nor indeed doth he consider the Manna there as a Sacrament, no more then the Jews did, that there mentioned it to him; nor doth he speak cught of the Sacrament where he speaketh of the Manna, as bBellarmine also himself acknowledgeth. His speech to them occasioned by the cbread that they had eaten of, and dthe Manna that they spake of, is the very like to that other speech of his to the Samaritan woman, occasioned by ethe water that he had asked of her; fHe that drinketh of this water shall thirst again; but he that drinketh of the ⟨p. 123⟩water that I shall give him, shall never thirst more, &c. Which had it been considered, would easily have assoiled those difficulties, that (as gJansenius observeth) so much troubled Augustine, and Caietan, yea and Jansenius himself too. Nor was there any necessity that the bread of the Eucharist should be more mentioned in the one place, then the drink of it in the other.
But how doth this follow; The Apostle doth so there: therefore our Sauiour doth so heere? especially considering how diuers the scope of either in either place is. The Apostles scope is to shew that tthe old Israelites had as good and as sure outward pledges of Gods fauour and loue as wee Christians now haue; and yet “were not spared when they prouoked him to wrath, for all that. Our Sauiours scope is to prooue that the spirituall food of his flesh, which uhe there tendred them and aduised them to seeke after, was much more excellent and of farre greater vertue and efficacie, then the Manna that their Fathers did once eate in the Wildernesse. For, that xthat (considered as corporall food) was it selfe corruptible, and could not ypreserue them that eate of it from death, whereas this was zfood incorruptible, and being spiritually fed on would cause them ato liue for euer. For the Apostles purpose therefore it was necessary to consider the Manna as a Sacrament and to compare the Eucharist with it, as with our Baptisme hee had paralleled the Red Sea before. But for our Sauiour so to do there was no necessity at all: Nor indeed doth he consider the Manna there as a Sacrament, no more then the Iewes did, that there mentioned it to him; nor doth hee speake cught of the Sacrament where hee speaketh of the Manna, as bBellarmine also himselfe acknowledgeth. His speech to them occasioned by the cbread that they had eaten of, and dthe Manna that they spake of, is the very like to that other speech of his to the Samaritane woman, occasioned by ethe water that hee had asked of her; f
2. Because hChrists body, as by faith it is received, was not wanting to those of old time, that lived before Christs Incarnation.
2. Because hChrists bodie, as by faith it is receiued, was not wanting to those of old time, that liued before Christs Incarnation.
hQuia corpus Domini ut sumitur sola fide, non defuit veteribus. Bellar. ibid.Quia corpus Domini vt sumitur sola fide, non defuit veteribus. Bellar. ibid.
What he giveth us here we take, that Christs body was by faith received even before he was incarnate. But how proveth this that Christ therefore spake there of a sacramental eating of it? and not rather that he called home those his carnal followers, from the corporal feeding, either on ithe bread that they had eaten of, or the kManna that they mentioned, and lwould fain still have been fed with, that they might live without labour, not to an eating of sacramental bread, which they would not have much misliked, but to that tspiritual feeding, uwhich as well their holy forefathers, as all true and faithful Christians now, were eternally saved by. Yea this may be confirmed by Bellarmines own grants: Who first confesseth this as xa certain truth, that there is no mention at all of the Eucharist in all that our Saviours discourse, before those words, (which were spoken after he had done yspeaking of the Manna) zThe bread that I will give is my flesh, that I will give for the life of the world. 2. He granteth expressly that those words, aI am the brad of life; he that cometh to me shall not hunger, &c. do bnot properly belong to the Sacrament. 3. He observeth ca three fold bread spoken of by our Saviour: the first, that dmaterial bread, ethat Christ had fed them withal: the second fspiritual bread, ghimself incarnate, hwhich he ⟨p. 124⟩wisheth them to get, and must iby faith be apprehended, that it may feed and refresh •s: the third (he might well have said kM•nna, which he omitteth, termed also lbread there, but) mthe sacramental bread (saith he) expressed in those words. nthe bread that I will give, is my fl•sh that I will give for the life of the world: as if this were not the same spiritual bread that he spake of before. 4. Being pressed with this that there is no bread at all in the Eucharist 22(as they say) k & therefore it cannot be the sacramental bread that is there spoken of, neither can it be meant of the bread that Christ was to give in the Supper, as he elsewhere had said: he saith that pbread there signifieth not wheaten bread, qnor Christs body absolutely, but rmeat or food in general: and so the sense of it is this; The bread, that is, the meat, that I will give, is my flesh it self, that is to be crucified and stain for the salvation of mankind.
What hee giueth vs heere wee take, that Christs body was by faith receiued euen before hee was incarnate. But how prooueth this that Christ therefore spake there of a sacramentall eating of it? and not rather that he called home those his carnall followers, from the corporall feeding, either on ithe bread that they had eaten of, or the kManna that they mentioned, and lwould faine still haue been fed with, that they might liue without labour, not to an eating of sacramentall bread, which they would not haue much misliked, but to that tspirituall feeding, uwhich as well their holy forefathers, as all true and faithfull Christians now, were eternally saued by. Yea this may be confirmed by Bellarmines owne grants: Who first confesseth this as xa certaine truth, that there is no mention at all of the Eucharist in all that our Sauiours discourse, before those wordes, (which were spoken after hee had done yspeaking of the Manna) zThe bread that I will giue is my flesh, that I will giue for the life of the world. 2. Hee granteth expresly that those wordes, aI am the brad of life; hee that commeth to me shall not hunger, &c. doe bnot properly belong to the Sacrament. 3. He obserueth ca three fold bread spoken of by our Sauiour: the first, that dmateriall bread, ethat Christ had fed them withall: the second f
xConstat in magna parte capitis de Eucharistia non agi. Solū quaestio est de illis verbis, Panis quem ego dabo, &c. & sequentibus Bellarm, de Euchar. l. 1. c. 5.Constat in magna parte capitis de Eucharistia non agi. Solū quaestio est de illis verbis, Panis quem ego dabo, &c. & sequentibus Bellarm, de Euchar. l. 1. c. 5.
And he addeth that speradventure our Saviour called his flesh sometimes bread, to show that under the species of bread it was to be eaten. So that all the force of Bellarmines Argument is but merely conjectural, and dependeth upon a peradventure, which he cannot certainly aver. But 2without all peradventure he affirmed before that the bread of which our Saviour said; uMy Father giveth you the true bread from heaven; and xThe bread of God is he that came from heaven and giveth life to the world: and yI am the bread of life; he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth in me shall never thirst: and zI am the bread that came down from heaven: and again, aI am the bread of life: and bThis is the bread that came down from heaven, that whosoever eateth thereof should never die: and cI am the living bread that came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever: that the bread I say, of which he said all this, was not the Eucharist, or the sacramental bread, and none of all this directly and properly concerneth it. And well may we put it out of peradventure, that the bread of which our Saviour saith dit is his flesh that he will give for the life of the ⟨p. 125⟩world, and ewhosoever eateth of it, hath life everlasting; fwhich no man also can have without it; is no other then that of which he had before said, that git is himself, and that hit giveth life to the world, and ilife everlasting to every one that eateth of it: the rather also for that our Saviour himself so informeth us when he saith, (not kpassing as Bellarmine would have it from a second bread to a third, but more particularly expressing what the second bread was, and repeating more fully what before he had said) mI am the living bread that came down from heaven: 18if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: nand the bread that I will give (what bread, think we, but the same that he was even then speaking of? which yet was onone of the sacramental bread, saith Bellarmine) is my flesh that I will give for the life of the world. Those ensuing passages therefore are not meant of the sacramental bread or the Eucharist, no more then the former. But leave we Bellarmine, and return we to this our Defendant, whom we are principally now to deal with.
And he addeth that speraduenture our Sauiour called his flesh sometimes bread, to shew that vnder the species of bread it was to be eaten. So that all the force of Bellarmines Argument is but meerely coniecturall, and dependeth vpon a peraduenture, which hee cannot certainely auerre. But 2without all peraduenture hee affirmed before that the bread of which our Sauiour said; uMy Father giueth you the true bread from heauen; and xThe bread of God is hee that came from heauen and giueth life to the world: and yI am the bread of life; hee that commeth to mee shall neuer hunger; and hee that beleeueth in mee shall neuer thirst: and zI am the bread that came downe from heauen: and againe, aI am the bread of life: and bThis is the bread that came downe from heauen, that whosoeuer eateth thereof should neuer die: and cI am the liuing bread that came downe from heauen: if any man eate of this bread hee shall liue for euer: that the bread I say, of which hee said all this, was not the Encharist, or the sacramentall bread, and none of all this directly and properly concerneth it. And well may wee put it out of peraduenture, that the bread of which our Sauiour saith dit is his flesh that he wil giue for the life of the ⟨p. 125⟩world, and ewhosoeuer eateth of it, hath life euerlasting; fwhich no man also can haue without it; is no other then that of which hee had before said, that
sPan•s, i. cibus, &c. Ibid.
2t Fortasse ideò carnem suam aliquoties panem appellavit, &c. Ibid.t Fortasse ideò carnem suam aliquoties panem appellauit, &c. Ibid.
Iansenius obserueth) so much troubled Augustine, and Caietan, yea and Iansenius himselfe too. Nor was there any necessity that the bread of the Eucharist should bee more mentioned in the one place, then the drinke of it in the other.
the bread that I will giue, is my fl•sh that I will giue for the life of the world: as if this were not the same spirituall bread that hee spake of before. 4. Being pressed with this that there is no bread at all in the Eucharist
(as they say) k & therfore it cannot be the sacramentall bread that is there spoken of, neither can it bee meant of the bread that Christ was to giue in the Supper, as hee elsewhere had said: he saith that
meate or food in generall: and so the sence of it is this; The bread, that is, the meate, that I will giue, is my flesh it selfe, that is to be crucified and staine for the saluation of mankind.
nVers. 51.
22o De pane quē da•u•us erat in coena. Ibid. c. 6.o De pane quē da•u•us erat in coena. Ibid. c. 6.
passing as Bellarmine would haue it from a second bread to a third, but more particularly expressing what the second bread was, and repeating more fully what before hee had said)
none of the sacramentall bread, saith Bellarmine) is my flesh that I will giue for the life of the world. Those ensuing passages therefore are not meant of the sacramentall bread or the Eucharist, no more then the former. But leaue wee Bellarmine, and returne we to this our Defendant, whom we are principally now to deale with.
