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.
Hitherto we have showed that no Scripture enforceth us to believe, as those of the Romish Church hold, concerning the real conversion of the outward Elements in the Eucharist into the natural Body and Blood of Christ, and a corporal presence of either necessarily flowing there from.
Hitherto we haue shewed that no Scripture enforceth vs to beleeue, as those of the Romish Church hold, concerning the reall conuersion of the outward Elements in the Eucharist into the naturall Body and Blood of Christ, and a corporall presence of either necessarily flowing there from.
Now 2. that the Bread and Wine remain in substance and nature still the same, and are not so converted into the very Flesh and Blood of Christ, we further thus prove.
Now 2. that the Bread and Wine remaine in substance and nature still the same, and are not so conuerted into the very Flesh and Blood of Christ, we further thus prooue.
1. We reason from the very course of the Context in the 1Story of the Institution. Jesu• took bread, and blessed, and 2brake it, and gave it to his Disciples, and said, Take, eat, This is my Body. Whence I thus reason; Look what our Saviour took, that he blessed; what he blessed, that he brake; what he brake, he delivered to the Disciples; what he delivered to them, of that he said, This is my Body. But *
it was Bread that he took, the Evangelist so saith, and Bread therefore that he blessed, bread that he brake, bread that he delivered, and bread consequently of which he said, This is my Body. And hence are those speeches so frequent in the Ancient Fathers.
The Bread, (saith Hicrome,) that the Lord brake, and gave his Disciples, is the Lords body: And if we ask, how Bread is or can be Christs body? as we may well do, and v it is no new Question; It was long since asked by the Ancients and answered by them. The Author of that work in Cyprian of Christs principal works; (to pass by all others;)
Our Lord (saith he) at the Table in his last Supper, gave Bread and Wine with his own hands, and on the Cross he gave up his body to be wounded with the Soldiers hands, (Mark, bread at the Table, his Body on the Cross,) that the sincere truth and true sincerity more secretly imprinted in his Apostles, might expound to the Nations, how Bread and Wine were Flesh and Blood, and by what means the
⟨p. 13⟩
causes agreed with their effects, and divers names or kinds were reduced to one essence, and the things signifying and signified were called by the same names. In which last words he most evidently showeth, how Bread is said to be Christs Body; to wit, because signs and the things by them signified are wont to have the same titles given them. The Bread is Christs Body: as
Augustine well observeth. Yea that the Bread is said to be Christs Body is apparent, and that it can in no other sense so be said, Cardinal Bellarmine himself confesseth:
1. We reason from the very course of the Context in the 1Story of the Institution. Iesu• tooke bread, and blessed, and 2brake it, and gaue it to his Disciples, and said, Take, eate, This is my Body. Whence I thus reason; Looke what our Sauiour tooke, that he blessed; what he blessed, that he brake; what he brake, he deliuered to the Disciples; what he deliuered to them, of that he said, This is my Body. But *it was Bread that he tooke, the Euangelist so saith, and Bread therefore that he blessed, bread that he brake, bread that he deliuered, and bread consequently of which he said, This is my Body. And hence are those speeches so frequent in the Auncient Fathers. rThe Bread that hath beene blessed (saith Irenaeus) is its owne Lords body. God in the Gospel (saith Tertullian) calleth bread his Body. sThe Bread (saith Augustine) is the Body of Christ. tThe Bread, (saith Hicrome,) that the Lord brake, and gaue his Disciples, is the Lords body: And if we aske, how Bread is or can be Christs body? as we may well doe, and v it is no new Question; It was long since asked by the Auncients and answered by them. The Author of that worke in Cyprian of Christs principall workes; (to passe by all others;) uOur Lord (saith he) at the Table in his last Supper, gaue Bread and Wine with his owne hands, and on the Crosse he gaue vp his body to be wounded with the Souldiers hands, (Marke, bread at the Table, his Body on the Crosse,) that the sincere truth and true sinceritie more secretly imprinted in his Apostles, might expound to the Nations, how Bread and Wine were Flesh and Blood, and by what meanes the ⟨p. 13⟩causes agreed with their effects, and diuers names or kinds were reduced to one essence, and the things signifying and signified were called by the same names. In which last words he most euidently sheweth, how Bread is said to be Christs Body; to wit, because signes and the things by them signified are wont to haue the same titles giuen them. The Bread is Christs Body: as uChrist himselfe is bread; *Christ giuing (saith Theodoret) the name of the signe to his Body, and the name of his body to the Signe. Or, The Bread is Christ, as xthe Rocke was Christ; as yAugustine well obserueth. Yea that the Bread is said to be Christs Body is apparent, and that it can in no other sense so be said, Cardinal Bellarmine himselfe confesseth:
2* In hac enim narratione omnia haec verba, accepit, benedixit, fregit, dedit, unum accusativum b•eviter regunt, Panem. Steph. Durant. de rit. Eccl. l. 2. c. 38. n. 15.* In hac enim narratione omnia haec verba, accepit, benedixit, fregit, dedit, vnum accusatiuum b•euiter regunt, Panem. Steph. Durāt. de rit. Eccl. l. 2. c. 38. n. 15.
*Deus in Evangelip panem corpus suum appellans. Tertull. contr. Marc. l. 3. c. 19.Deus in Euangelip panem corpus suum appellans. Tertull. contr. Marc. l. 3. c. 19.
rPanem in quo g•iae actae sunt, corpus esse Domini sui. Iren. contr. Valent. l. 4. c 34.
sPanis est corpus Christi. Aug. apud Grat. de consecr. d. 2. c. Qui manducant.
tPanis, quem fregit Dominus, deditque discipulis, est corpus Dom•ni. Hieron. ad H•dybiam. […]. Praecepisti ut credamus, expone ut intelligamus Quomodò est panis corpus evis, & calix, vel quod habet calix, quomodo est sanguis eius? Ista ideò dicuntur Sacramenta, quia aliud videtur, aliud intelligitur: quod vide. […] speciem habet corporalem, quod intelligitur fructum habet spiritualem. Aug. apud Beda in 1 Cor. 10Panis, quem fregit Dominus, deditque discipulis, est corpus Dom•ni. Hieron. ad H•dybiam. 〈…〉. Praecepisti vt credamus, expone vt intelligamus Quomodò est panis corpus euis, & calix, vel quod habet calix, quomodo est sanguis eius? Ista ideò dicuntur Sacramenta, quia aliud videtur, aliud intelligitur: quod vide. 〈…〉 speciem habet corporalem, quod intelligitur fructum habet spiritualem. Aug. apud Beda in 1 Cor. 10
uDedit Dominus noster in mensa propriis manibus panem & vinū, in cruce verò manib. militum corpus tradidit vu•nerandum, ut in Apostolis secretius impressa si•cera veritas, et vera sinceritas exponeret gentibus, quomodo vinum et panis caro esse• et sanguis, et quibus rationibus causae effectibus conuenirent, et diversa nomina vel species ad unā reducerentur essentiam, et significantia et significata eisdem vocabulis censerentur. Author de Cardinal. Christi oper. c. de unct.Dedit Dominus noster in mensa propriis manibus panem & vinū, in cruce verò manib. militum corpus tradidit vu•nerandum, vt in Apostolis secretius impressa si•cera veritas, et vera sinceritas exponeret gentibus, quomodo vinum et panis caro esse• et sanguis, et quibus rationibus causae effectibus conuenirent, et diuersa nomina vel species ad vnā reducerentur essentiam, et significantia et significata eisdem vocabulis censerentur. Author de Cardinal. Christi oper. c. de vnct.
zThis sentence (saith he) This Bread is my Body, either must be taken figuratively, that the Bread be Christs body significatively, (that is, by signification only) or else it is altogether absurd and impossible: for it cannot be that the Bread should be the Body of Christ: (he meaneth, essentially, or otherwise then by signification or representation.) So that The Bread is said to be Christs body: the course of the Text showeth it; and the Ancients commonly acknowledge it: but it cannot so be (saith Bellarmine) but figuratively. In no other sense therefore are our Saviours words to be understood.
zThis sentence (saith he) This Bread is my Body, either must be taken figuratiuely, that the Bread be Christs body significatiuely, (that is, by signification onely) or else it is altogether absurd and impossible: for it cannot be that the Bread should be the Body of Christ: (he meaneth, essentially, or otherwise then by signification or representation.) So that The Bread is said to be Christs body: the course of the Text sheweth it; and the Auncients commonly acknowledge it: but it cannot so be (saith Bellarmine) but figuratiuely. In no other sense therfore are our Sauiours words to be vnderstood.
zHaec sententia, Hic panis est. corpus meum, aut accipi debet tropicè ut panis sit corpus Christi signifitativè, aut est planè absurda et impossibilis: nec enim fieri potest, ut panis sit corpus Christi Bellan. de •uchar. l. 1. c. 1.Haec sententia, Hic panis est. corpus meum, aut accipi debet tropicè vt panis sit corpus Christi signifitatiuè, aut est planè absurda et impossibilis: nec enim fieri potest, vt panis sit corpus Christi Bellan. de •uchar. l. 1. c. 1.
2. We reason from the express words of Scripture, wherein after Consecration there is said to be Bread and Wine in the Sacrament. aThe Bread which we break (saith the Apostle) is it not the Communion of Christs Body? It is apparent by the Story of the Institution that bConsecration goeth before fraction. The Bread is blessed, that is, consecrated, (for cthe Benediction is in truth the Consecration) before it be broken. But it is bread (saith the Apostle) even when it is broken. It is bread therefore still, even after it is consecrated. Yea, is it bread when it is broken? and is it not bread when it is eaten? Yes, if the Apostle may be credited; even when it is eaten 100. dFor as oft (saith he) as you ⟨p. 14⟩eat this bread, and, eWhosoever shall eat this bread unworthily. And, fLet a man therefore examine himself, and so eat of this bread. It is not so oft called Christs Body, but it is called bread as oft, even after it is consecrated, and by consecration made Symbolically and Sacramentally Christs body. The Apostle then telleth us of the one Element that it is bread even after it is consecrated: and of the other our Saviour himself saith that it is wine. For after that he had delivered them the Consecrated Cup, he telleth them that gHe will drink no more of this Fruit of the Vine, &c. Now the fruit of the vine what is it but wine? There was wine (saith Augustine) in the mystery of our redemption, when our Saviour said; I will drink no more of this fruit of the vine. And yet was that after consecration that he spake it. And if it be wine still, then sure it is not essentially Christs blood, howsoever it may well be symbolically, as we say.
2. We reason from the expresse words of Scripture, wherein after Consecration there is said to be Bread and Wine in the Sacrament. aThe Bread which we breake (saith the Apostle) is it not the Communion of Christs Body? It is apparent by the Story of the Institution that bConsecration goeth before fraction. The Bread is blessed, that is, consecrated, (for cthe Benediction is in truth the Consecration) before it be broken. But it is bread (saith the Apostle) euen when it is broken. It is bread therefore still, euen after it is consecrated. Yea, is it bread when it is broken? and is it not bread when it is eaten? Yes, if the Apostle may be credited; euen when it is eaten 100. dFor as ost (saith he) as you ⟨p. 14⟩eate this bread, and, eWhosoeuer shall eate this bread vnworthily. And, fLet a man therefore examine himselfe, and so eate of this bread. It is not so oft called Christs Body, but it is called bread as oft, euen after it is consecrated, and by consecration made Symbolically and Sacramentally Christs body. The Apostle then telleth vs of the one Element that it is bread euen after it is consecrated: and of the other our Sauiour himselfe saith that it is wine. For after that he had deliuered them the Consecrated Cup, he telleth them that gHe will drinke no more of this Fruite of the Vine, &c. Now the fruit of the vine what is it but wine? There was wine (saith Augustine) in the mysterie of our redemption, when our Sauiour said; I will drinke no more of this fruit of the vine. And yet was that after consecration that he spake it. And if it be wine still, then sure it is not essentially Christs blood, howsoeuer it may well be symbolically, as we say.
gMat. 26. 29. Mar. 14. 25. Ostendit vinū esse, quod benedictum est. Clem. Alex. paedag. l. 2. c. 2.Mat. 26. 29. Mar. 14. 25. Ostendit vinū esse, quod benedictum est. Clem. Alex. paedag. l. 2. c. 2.
So Origen; *In the first place he gave his Disciples bread. Yea, “He gave them (saith Cyril) pieces of bread. And, Cyprian saith. “It was wine, that he called his blood. And, wHe delivered wine, (saith Chrysostom) when he delivered this mystery: which he proveth also by those words of our Saviour, Of this fruit of the vine.
So Origen; *In the first place he gaue his Disciples bread. Yea, “He gaue them (saith Cyril) pieces of bread. And, Cyprian saith. “It was wine, that hee called his blood. And, wHe deliuered wine, (saith Chrysostome) when hee deliuered this mysterie: which he prooueth also by those words of our Sauiour, Of this fruite of the vine.
*Vinum fuit in redemptionis nostrae mysterio, cum dixit, non bibā amodò de hoc gel•mine vitis. Aug. de dogmat. Eccles. c. 75. Et Burchard. decret. l. 5. c. 2.Vinum fuit in redemptionis nostrae mysterio, cum dixit, non bibā amodò de hoc gel•mine vitis. Aug. de dogmat. Eccles. c. 75. Et Burchard. decret. l. 5. c. 2.
“Fragmenta panis discipulis dedit. Cyril, in Joan. l. 4. c. 14.Fragmenta panis discipulis dedit. Cyril, in Ioan. l. 4. c. 14.
“Vinum fuisse, quod sanguinem suum dixit. Cypr. l. 2. ep. 3.
wQuando mysterium hoc tradidit, vinum tradidit. Chrys. in Math. hom. 83.
And here let me debate the matter with those that use to press us with Christs words, which yet we think not much to be pressed with, if they be understood as they ought; 1Christ saith, This is my Body: And shall we not believe what he saith? The Apostle saith it is bread that is broken, and that is eaten in the Eucharist: and our Saviour himself saith, it was the fruit of the vine that he gave them in the Cup. And will they not believe what the Apostle saith, or what Christ saith? Or shall we believe those that tell us contrary to the express words of either, that the one is not bread, though the Apostle say it is: or the other was not wine, albeit our Saviour say it was? For how our Saviours words may be true in the one place, though the bread be not essentially, but symbolically Christs body, we can easily show, and themselves ⟨p. 15⟩see and acknowledge, as hath formerly been shown. But how the Apostles and Christs words should be true, or bear fit sense in the other places, unless there be bread and wine in the Eucharist after consecration, I suppose, they will not easily show.
And here let me debate the matter with those that vse to presse vs with Christs words, which yet we thinke not much to be pressed with, if they be vnderstood as they ought; 1Christ saith, This is my Body: And shall wee not beleeue what he saith? The Apostle saith it is bread that is broken, and that is eaten in the Eucharist: and our Sauiour himselfe saith, it was the fruite of the vine that he gaue them in the Cup. And will they not beleeue what the Apostle saith, or what Christ saith? Or shall we beleeue those that tell vs contrary to the expresse words of either, that the one is not bread, though the Apostle say it is: or the other was not wine, albeit our Sauiour say it was? For how our Sauiours words may be true in the one place, though the bread be not essentially, but symbolically Christs body, we can easily shew, and themselues ⟨p. 15⟩see and acknowledge, as hath formerly beene shewen. But how the Apostles and Christs words should be true, or beare fit sense in the other places, vnlesse there be bread and wine in the Eucharist after consecration, I suppose, they will not easily shew.
1Primū dat panem discipulis suis. Origen in Mat. hom. 12.Primū dat panem discipulis suis. Origen in Mat. hom. 12.
If they will say, it is called bread because it was bread before, as hAaron's rod is called a rod, after it was turned into a serpent.
If they will say, it is called bread because it was bread before, as hAarons rod is called a rod, after it was turned into a serpent.
hExod. 7. 12. Baculus, i. draco, nomine eius rei ex qua versa, et in quam reversura. Aug. in Exod. quaest. 21.Exod. 7. 12. Baculus, i. draco, nomine eius rei ex qua versa, et in quam reuersura. Aug. in Exod. quaest. 21.
For 1. The Serpent was made of that Rod: but it is absurd to say that Christs body is made of bread. Yea the Papists themselves are at a stand here, and cannot well tell what to say. For they say indeed commonly, that ithe Bread is turned into Christs Body: and they say sometime also that kChrists body is made of bread: and that lthe Priest maketh Christs body of bread. Yea Bellarmine sticketh not to say, that mThat body of Christ which was crucified, was truly, or verily made of bread. They may believe him that lift. And yet they deny that nChrists Body is made by the Priest: (He maketh Christs body of bread, and yet Christs body is not made by him:) or that othe body of Christ is produced of bread, but doth succeed only in the room of bread. But it is absurd to say a thing is made of that in the room whereof it only succeedeth, or is turned into that that succeedeth only in the room of it: or to call a thing seriously (for in mockery indeed sometime we do) by the name of some other thing, only because it is now in the place where that thing before was: unless it be in some Magical action, pwherein that seemeth to be done that indeed is not, and so the speech is not according to the truth of the thing, but according to that that seemeth to be. In a word we may truly say, of that Serpent, that it was once a Rod: but we cannot truly say of Christs body, that ever it was bread.
For 1. The Serpent was made of that Rod: but it is absord to say that Christs body is made of bread. Yea the Papists themselues are at a stand here, and cannot well tell what to say. For they say indeede commonly, that ithe Bread is turned into Christs Body: and they say sometime also that kChrists body is made of bread: and that lthe Priest maketh Christs body of bread. Yea Bellarmine sticketh not to say, that mThat body of Christ which was crucified, was truly, or verily made of bread. They may beleeue him that lift. And yet they deny that nChrists Body is made by the Priest: (He maketh Christs body of bread, and yet Christs body is not made by him:) or that othe body of Christ is produced of bread, but doth succeede onely in the roome of bread. But it is absurd to say a thing is made of that in the roome whereof it onely succeedeth, or is turned into that that succeedeth onely in the roome of it: or to call a thing seriously (for in mockery indeed sometime we doe) by the name of some other thing, onely because it is now in the place where that thing before was: vnlesse it be in some Magicall action, pwherein that seemeth to be done that indeede is not, and so the speech is not according to the truth of the thing, but according to that that seemeth to be. In a word we may truly say, of that Serpent, that it was once a Rod: but we cannot truly say of Christs body, that euer it was bread.
iPanis conuertitur in corpus Christi. Bellar. de Euchat. l. 3. c. 11. 19.
kCorpus Christi ex pane fieri non est absurdum. ibid. c. 24.
lChristi corpus ex pane conficiunt sacerdotes. ibid.
mVerè corpus illud quod suit crucifixū, factum suit ex pane. ibid.Verè corpus illud quod suit crucifixū, factum suit ex pane. ibid.
nNego Christi corpus absolutè à sacerdotibus fieri. ibid.
oCorpus Domini in Eucharistia non producitur, sed solum succedit pani. ibid.
pExod. 7. 12. Videbantur esse quod non erant ludificatione venefica. Aug. in Exod. quest. 21.
2. The Serpent there though termed a Rod, because it so had been, and qshould again so be, yet appeared evidently ⟨p. 18⟩to be a Serpent, in so much that rMoses himself at the first sight was afraid of it. And so we shall find it to have been ever in all miraculous conversions, that the change wrought in them was apparent to the outward sense, to the sight, as in the water turned into blood, to the taste, as tin the 4water turned into wine. Whereas in the Sacrament there is no such matter. We see no flesh there, we taste no blood there. Nay we see evidently the contrary to that these men affirm. For we see Bread and Wine there: and we find the true taste of either. And we have no reason upon their bare words to distrust either sense, and believe the contrary to that that we see and taste, only because they say it. uThat which you see (saith Augustine) is bread and a cup: that which our eyes also inform us: that which your faith requireth you to be informed of, is, that the bread is Christs body, and the cup his blood: which they cannot be but figuratively, as Bellarmine before confessed. A mystery we acknowledge, we deny a miracle: vthey may be honoured, saith Augustine, as religious things, not wondered at as strange miracles,) save in regard of the supernatural effects of them, in regard whereof there is a miraculous work as well in Baptism, as in the Eucharist. And yet no such miraculous transubstantiation in either. *It is a rule (saith the Schoolman) that where we can salve Scriptures by that which we see naturally, we should not have recourse to a miracle, or to what God can do.
2. The Serpent there though tearmed a Rod, because it so had beene, and qshould againe so be, yet appeared euidently ⟨p. 18⟩to be a Serpent, in so much that rMoses himselfe at the first sight was afraid of it. And so we shall finde it to haue beene euer in all miraculous conuersions, that the change wrought in them was apparent to the outward sense, to the sight, as in the water turned into blood, to the taste, as tin the 4water turned into wine. Whereas in the Sacrament there is no such matter. We see no flesh there, we taste no blood there. Nay we see euidently the contrary to that these men affirme. For we see Bread and Wine there: and we finde the true taste of either. And we haue no reason vpon their bare words to distrust either sense, and beleeue the contrary to that that we see and taste, onely because they say it. uThat which you see (saith Augustine) is bread and a cup: that which our eyes also informe vs: that which your faith requireth you to be informed of, is, that the bread is Christs body, and the cup his blood: which they cannot be but figuratiuely, as Bellarmine before confessed. A mysterie we acknowledge, we deny a miracle: vthey may be honoured, saith Augustine, as religious things, not wondred at as strange miracles,) saue in regard of the supernaturall effects of them, in regard whereof there is a miraculous worke as well in Baptisme, as in the Eucharist. And yet no such miraculous transubstantiation in either. *It is a rule (saith the Schooleman) that where we can salue Scriptures by that which we see naturally, we should not haue recourse to a miracle, or to what God can doe.
uQuod vidistis, panis est & calix; quod nobis etiam oculi renunciant: quod autem fides vestra postulat instruenda, panis est corpus Christi, & calix est sanguis. Aug. apud Bedam in 1 Cor. 10.
vAliquando ad significationē aliquam fit species vel aliquantulū mansura, sieut serpens, aeneus, vel per acto ministerio transitura, ficut panis ad hoc factus in accipiendo sacramento consumitur, sed quia haec hominibus nota sunt quia per homines fiunt, honorē tanquā religiosa habere possunt, stuporē tanquā mira non possunt. Aug. de Trin. l. 3. c. 10.Aliquando ad significationē aliquam fit species vel aliquantulū mansura, sieut serpens, aeneus, vel per acto ministerio transitura, ficut panis ad hoc factus in accipiendo sacramento consumitur, sed quia haec hominibus nota sunt quia per homines fiunt, honorē tanquā religiosa habere possunt, stuporē tanquā mira non possunt. Aug. de Trin. l. 3. c. 10.
*Regula est, quod si possumus saluare Scripturas sacras •er ea quae naturaliter videmus, non debemus ad miraculum, vel ad potentiam divinam recurrere. Aegidius Hexaemer. l. 2. c. 3.Regula est, quod si possumus saluare Scripturas sacras •er ea quae naturaliter videmus, non debemus ad miraculum, vel ad potentiam diuinam recurrere. Aegidius Hexaemer. l. 2. c. 3.
3. We reason from the nature of Signs and Sacraments. That which athe Apostle saith of one Sacrament, to wit, Circumcision, is true of all: for there is one general nature of all: Sacraments are Signs. bA Sacrament, (saith Augustine) that is a sacred Sign. And, cSigns appertaining to divine ⟨p. 17⟩things are called sacraments. Now this is the Nature of Signs that dthey are one thing and signify another thing: that they signify some other thing beside themselves, or divers from themselves. And in like manner, (saith Augustine) eSacraments being Signs of things, they are one thing, and they signify some other thing. But the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist are Signs of Christs body and blood, as hath been before showed, and the Ancients generally avow: And therefore are they not essentially either. They signify Christs body and blood: and what they signify they are not. And gIt is a miserable servitude (as Augustine well saith) for men to take the Signs for the things themselves by them signified.
3. We reason from the nature of Signes and Sacraments. That which athe Apostle saith of one Sacrament, to wit, Circumcision, is true of all: for there is one generall nature of all: Sacraments are Signes. bA Sacrament, (saith Augustine) that is a sacred Signe. And, cSignes appertaining to diuine ⟨p. 17⟩things are called sacraments. Now this is the Nature of Signes that dthey are one thing and signifie another thing: that they signifie some other thing beside themselues, or diuers from themselues. And in like manner, (saith Augustine) eSacraments being Signes of things, they are one thing, and they signifie some other thing. But the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist are Signes of Christs body and blood, as hath beene before shewed, and the Auncients generally auow: And therefore are they not essentially either. They signifie Christs body and blood: and what they signifie they are not. And gIt is a miserable seruitude (as Augustine wel saith) for men to take the Signes for the things themselues by them signified.
bSacramentum, i. sacrum signum. Aug. de civit. l. 20. c. 5. Bern. decoen. Dom. Thom. sum. part. 3. q. 60. art 1.Sacramentum, i. sacrum signum. Aug. de ciuit. l. 20. c. 5. Bern. decoen. Dom. Thom. sum. part. 3. q. 60. art 1.
cSigna, cum ad res divinas pertinent, Sacramenta appellantur. Aug. Epist. 5.Signa, cum ad res diuinas pertinent, Sacramenta appellantur. Aug. Epist. 5.
dSignū omne aliquid aliud preter see significat. Aug de doct. Christam. l. 3. c. 1.Signū omne aliquid aliud preter se significat. Aug de doct. Christam. l. 3. c. 1.
eSacramenta quoniam signae sunt rerum, aliud existunt, & aliud significant. Aug. contra Maxim. l. 3 c. 22. videt eundem supra ex Beda in 1 Cor. 10.
gMiserabilis animae seruitus signa pro rebus accipeie. Aug. de doct. Christ. l. 3. c. 5.
4. We reason from the nature of Christs Body, even after his Passion and Resurrection. Christs natural Body hath flesh, blood and bones, the limbs and lineaments of an humane body, such as may be felt and seen to be such. This appeareth plainly by that which he said to his Disciples after he was risen from the dead, when they misdoubted some delusion: hBehold mine hands and my feet: 2for it is I my self: Handle me and see, for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have.
4. Wee reason from the nature of Christs Body, euen after his Passion and Resurrection. Christs naturall Body hath flesh, blood and bones, the limmes and lineaments of an humane body, such as may be felt and seene to be such. This appeareth plainely by that which he said to his Disciples after he was risen from the dead, when they misdoubted some delusion: hBehold mine hands and my feete: 2for it is I my selfe: Handle me and see, for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me haue.
But that which is delivered, handled, and eaten in the Eucharist hath no such thing. iIt is not in any wise, (saith Epiphanius) equal or like unto Christ, either his humanity that is clad with flesh, or his Deity that is invisible, or to the lineaments of his limbs, For it is round, senseless, and lifeless: as Christ himself is not. It is not therefore the natural body of Christ. Our sight and sense evidently inform us the contrary; (howsoever Bellarmine boldly sticketh not to tell us that kChrists body is verily and visibly upon the board, after that the words of Consecration be once uttered: they think belike they may make men believe any thing. And our Saviour himself teacheth us by sight and sense to judge ⟨p. 18⟩of his Body. *As if to this day, (saith Pope Lee) he spake still to each one that sticketh and staggereth, as he spake there to his Apostles. Why sticketh our understanding, where our sight is our Teacher? I may well say here as Augustine in somewhat the like case, *I fear least we seem to wrong our s••ser, in seeking to prove or persuade that by speech, wherein the evidence of truth exceedeth all that can be said.
But that which is deliuered, handled, and eaten in the Eucharist hath no such thing. iIt is not in any wise, (saith Epiphanius) equall or like vnto Christ, either his humanitie that is clad with flesh, or his Deitie that is inuisible, or to the lineaments of his limmes, For it is round, senselesse, and liuelesse: as Christ himselfe is not. It is not therefore the naturall body of Christ. Our sight and sense euidently enforme vs the contrary; (howsoeuer Bellarmine boldly sticketh not to tell vs that kChrists body is verily and visibly vpon the boord, after that the words of Consecration be once vttered: they thinke belike they may make men beleeue any thing. And our Sauiour himselfe teacheth vs by sight and sense to iudge ⟨p. 18⟩of his Body. *As if to this day, (saith Pope Lee) he spake still to each one that sticketh and staggereth, as he spake there to his Apostles. Why sticketh our vnderstanding, where our sight is our Teacher? I may well say here as Augustine in somewhat the like case, *I feare least we seeme to wrong our s••ser, in seeking to prooue or perswade that by speech, wherein the euidence of truth exceedeth all that can be said.
iVidemus nec par esse nec simile; nec carne indutae imagini, nec invisibili deita•i, nec membrorum lineamentis: Est enim ro•undae figurae, & sensu vacans. Epiphan. Serm. anchor.
kPer consecrationem fit ut Christi corpus verè & visibilitet adsit super mensam Bellar. de missa. l. 1. c. 12.Per consecrationem fit vt Christi corpus verè & visibilitet adsit super mensam Bellar. de missa. l. 1. c. 12.
*Quasi ad singulos quosque cunctantes adhuc voc• corporea utatur & dicat, Quid turbati estis? &c. Quid laborat intellectus, ubi magister est aspectus? Leo. epist. 22.Quasi ad singulos quosque cunctantes adhuc voc• corporea vtatur & dicat, Quid turbati estis? &c. Quid laborat intellectus, vbi magister est aspectus? Leo. epist. 22.
*Vereor ne ipsis sensibus nostris facere videamur iniuriam, quando id loquendo suademus, ubi omnes vires officiumque sermonis facilimè superat evidentia veritatis. Aug. epist. 57.Vereor ne ipsis sensibus nostris facere videamur iniuriam, quando id loquendo suademus, vbi omnes vires officiumque sermonis facilimè superat euidentia veritatis. Aug. epist. 57.
5. We reason from the Nature of all true Bodies. lChrists body is in Heaven: mfrom whence we look for him. And nthere is to abide till the end of the world. Now a true natural body as Christs still is, cannot be in two, much less in twenty, or rather in twenty hundred places at once: which yet Christs body must needs be, if that be true that they say. Augustine questioned by one Dardanus how Christ could be both pin Paradise and in heaven at once (supposing Heaven and Paradise to be two several places, howsoever qwith the Apostle Paul they are not) maketh answer, that he could not as he was man, or in his humanity his body and his soul; though he might as he was God, or in his Deity, that is every where. And he addeth, rThe same Jesus Christ, is every wherein his Deity, but in heaven in his humanity. And further in his discourse hereof, saith he, Take spaces and places from bodies, and they will be no where, and because they will be no where, they will not be: Take bodies from qualities, and wanting wherein to subsist, they must needs cease to be: and yet in the Popish host are qualities found, 7(as before) that have no subject body to subsist in, being not the qualities of Christs body, and yet having no other body for them to subsist in; for they are the qualities of Bread, and yet there is no bread there, (if they say true) to bear them. Every Body therefore must needs have a certain place: and they are so circumscribed with and confined unto that place, that they cannot at the same time, or so long ⟨p. 19⟩89as they keep that place, be in any other place but it. And so is it also even with the glorified body of Christ Jesus. sChrists body (saith Leo) in no respect differeth from the truth of our bodies. And therefore, Christ (saith Gregory Nazi•nzen) in regard of his body is circumscribed and contained in a place: in regard of his spirit (or his Deity) he is not circumscribed, nor contained in any place. And Augustine, tOur Lord 12is above; but our Lord the Truth is here too. For our Lords body wherein he rose again must needs be in one place, but his Truth (that is, his divine power) is diffused into all places. And therefore, uDoubt not (saith he) but that the Man Christ is now there, from whence he is to come. He is gone up into heaven: and thence he shall come, as he was seen to go thither, (the Angel saith it;)
5. We reason from the Nature of all true Bodies. lChrists body is in Heauen: mfrom whence wee looke for him. And nthere is to abide till the end of the world. Now a true naturall body as Christs still is, cannot be in two, much lesse in twentie, or rather in twentie hundred places at once: which yet Christs body must needs be, if that be true that they say. Augustine questioned by one Dardanus how Christ could be both pin Paradise and in heauen at once (supposing Heauen and Paradise to be two seuerall places, howsoeuer qwith the Apostle Paul they are not) maketh answer, that he could not as he was man, or in his humanitie his body and his soule; though he might as he was God, or in his Deitie, that is euery where. And he addeth, rThe same Iesus Christ, is euery wherein his Deitîe, but in heauen in his humanitie. And further in his discourse hereof, saith he, Take spaces and places from bodies, and they will be no where, and because they will be no where, they will not be: Take bodies from qualities, and wanting wherein to subsist, they must needs cease to be: and yet in the Popish hoast are qualities found, 7(as before) that haue no subiect body to subsist in, being not the qualities of Christs body, and yet hauing no other body for them to subsist in; for they are the qualities of Bread, and yet there is no bread there, (if they say true) to beare them. Euery Bodie therefore must needs haue a certaine place: and they are so circumscribed with and confined vnto that place, that they cannot at the same time, or so long ⟨p. 19⟩89as they keepe that place, be in any other place but it. And so is it also euen with the glorified body of Christ Iesus. sChrists body (saith Leo) in no respect differeth from the truth of our bodies. And therefore, Christ (saith Gregorie Nazinzen) in regard of his body is circumscribed and conteined in a place: in regard of his spirit (or his Deitie) he is not circumscribed, nor conteined in any place. And Augustine,
rUnus Jesus Christ, ubio; perid quod Deus est, in coelo autem per id quod homo Aug. Epist. 57.Vnus Iesus Christ, vbio; perid quod Deus est, in coelo autem per id quod homo Aug. Epist. 57.
7o August ad Dardā. ep. 57.o August ad Dardā. ep. 57.
8r Spacia locorum tolle corporibus, nusquam erunt: & quia nusquam erunt, nec erunt. Tolle ipsa corpora qualitatibus corporum, non erit ubi sint, & ideò necesse est ut non sint. Aug. Epist. 57.r Spacia locorum tolle corporibus, nusquam erunt: & quia nusquam erunt, nec erunt. Tolle ipsa corpora qualitatibus corporum, non erit vbi sint, & ideò necesse est vt non sint. Aug. Epist. 57.
9* Ita loca suis molibus tenet, ut distantibus spaciis simul esse non possiut, Aug. ibid.* Ita loca suis molibus tenent, vt distantibus spaciis simul esse non possiut, Aug. ibid.
sNulla ratione extra nostri est corporis veritatē. Leo. Ep. 72.Nulla ratione extra nostri est corporis veritatē. Leo. Ep. 72.
tSursum est Dominus, sed etiam hîc est veritas Dominus: Corpus enim Domini in quo resurrexit uno loco esse opottet: veritas eius ubique diffusa est. Aug. in Joan. tract. 30.Sursum est Dominus, sed etiam hîc est veritas Dominus: Corpus enim Domini in quo resurrexit vno loco esse opottet: veritas eius vbique diffusa est. Aug. in Ioan. tract. 30.
that is, in the same form and substance of flesh, which though he have given immortality unto it, yet he hath not taken nature away from it. According to this form he is not every where. For we must take heed, that we do not so maintain the deity of the Man, that we overthrow the verity of his Body. In a word; As the Angel reasoneth, speaking to the women that sought Christ in the Sepulchre; *He is not here: for he is risen again. So reasoneth the same Augustine concerning Christs bodily presence, reconciling those two places that might seem the one to cross the other: *Behold I am with you till the worlds end: And, “Me shall you not have always with you.'' In regard, (saith he) of his Majesty, his providence, his grace we have him always here. But in regard of his flesh, which the word assumed, which was borne of the Virgin, nailed on the cross, &c. We have him not always. And why so? Because he is gone up into ⟨p. 20⟩4heaven, and he is not here. And again speaking of Christ• being on earth and not in heaven as man, and yet in both places as God: *Man according to his body is in a place, and passeth from a place; and when he cometh to another place, is not in that place from which he came. But God is every where, and is not contained in any place.
that is, in the same forme and substance of flesh, which though he haue giuen immortalitie vnto it, yet he hath not taken nature away from it. According to this forme he is not euery where. For we must take heede, that we doe not so maintaine the deitie of the Man, that we ouerthrow the veritie of his Body. In a word; As the Angel reasoneth, speaking to the women that sought Christ in the Sepulcher; *He is not here: for he is risen againe. So reasoneth the same Augustine concerning Christs bodily presence, reconciling those two places that might seeme the one to crosse the other: *Behold I am with you till the worlds end: And, “Me shall you not haue alwaies with you.'' In regard, (saith he) of his Maiestie, his prouidence, his grace we haue him alwaies here. But in regard of his flesh, which the word assumed, which was borne of the Virgin, nailed on the crosse, &c. We haue him not alwaies. And why so? Because he is gone vp into ⟨p. 20⟩4heauen, and he is not here. And againe speaking of Christ• being on earth and not in heauen as man, and yet in both places as God: *Man according to his body is in a place, and passeth from a place; and when hee commeth to another place, is not in that place from which he came. But God is euery where, and is not cont•ined in any place.
4``Secundum maiestatem suam, providentiam, gratiam, impletur, Ecce ego vobiscum. Secundum carnem verò &c. non semper habebitis vobiscum. Quare? Quomam ascendit in coelum & non est hic. Aug, in Joan. tract. 50.``Secundum maiestatem suam, prouidentiam, gratiam, impletur, Ecce ego vobiscum. Secundum carnem verò &c. non semper habebitis vobiscum. Quare? Quomam ascendit in coelum & non est hic. Aug, in Ioan. tract. 50.
*Homo second. corpus in loco est, & de soco migrat: & cum ad alium lolum venerit, in eo unde venit, non est. Deus ubique totus est, nec secumd. spatia tenetur locis. Idem in Joan. tract. 13.Homo secund. corpus in loco est, & de soco migrat: & cum ad alium lolum venerit, in eo vnde venit, non est. Deus vbique totus est, nec secumd. spatia tenetur locis. Idem in Ioan. tract. 13.
The author
Thomas Gataker 1574–1654
PuritansEngland
Rector of Rotherhithe; member of the Westminster Assembly.
is aboue; but our Lord the Truth is here too. For our Lords body wherein he rose againe must needs be in one place, but his Truth (that is, his diuine power) is diffused into all places. And therefore,
Doubt not (saith he) but that the Man Christ is now there, from whence he is to come. He is gone vp into heauen: and thence he shall come, as he was seene to goe thither, (the Angel saith it;)
12* Docemus eundē Christum circumscriptum corpore, incircumscriptum spiritu; qui loco continetur, & loco non continetur. Greg. Naz. ad Clodon. & apud Thedoret dialog. 1.* Docemus eundē Christum circumscriptum corpore, incircumscriptum spiritu; qui loco continetur, & loco non continetur. Greg. Naz. ad Clodon. & apud Thedoret dialog. 1.
uNoli dubitare ibi esse hominem Christum, unde venturus est. Ascendit in coelum; nec aliunde quam inde venturus est angelica voce testante, quemadmodum ire visus est in coelum. i. in eadem carnis forma atque substantia, cui immortalitatem dedit, naturā non abstulit. Secundum hanc formam non est putandus ubique diffusus. Cavendum est enim, ne ita divinitatem astruamus hominis, ut veritatem corporis auferamus. Aug. Epist. 57.Noli dubitare ibi esse hominem Christum, vnde venturus est. Ascendit in coelum; nec aliunde quam inde venturus est angelica voce testante, quemadmodum ire visus est in coelum. i. in eadem carnis forma atque substantia, cui immortalitatem dedit, naturā non abstulit. Secundum hanc formam non est putandus vbique diffusus. Cauendum est enim, ne ita diuinitatem astruamus hominis, vt veritatem corporis auferamus. Aug. Epist. 57.
