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.
2. Jerome and Bede (saith he) so solve the difficulty. He would make his Reader believe that Jerome and Bede had long since propounded this objection, and so assoiled it as ⟨p. 213⟩he doth. Whereas the truth is; they take no notice, either of them of the two Cups, but allegorising the words (as their manner is to do many times, letting the literal sense alone) expound the vine to be cthe people of the Jews, and so the fruit of the vine, the legal observances, &c. And what is all this to the literal sense of the words, that this trifler is troubled with, and cannot tell how to avoid? Let him produce (if he can) any one Father, who denieth that Christ spake those words of the Eucharistical Cup, and of the liquor therein contained. I alleged dClemens of Alexandria, eCyprian, fChrysostom, gAugustine, and might add many others that affirm it. Yea not only Jansenius ingenuously acknowledgeth that it can be meant of hno other then the Eucharistical Cup, which only Matthew and Mark mention: But Maldonate the Jesuit also freely confesseth that iOrigen, kCyprian, lChrysostom, mEpiphanius, nJerome, o
Christ spake there not of his blood, but of wine. Where first observe we that Jerome and Bede (clean contrary to this fablers assertion, by the Jesuits confession) expound it of the Eucharist. And secondly, conclude we from the Jesuits own grants: It was of that that was in the Eucharistical Cup that our Saviour spake those words, as the ancient Fathers generally and jointly affirm: But our Saviour spake them not of his blood, but of wine; saith the Jesuit: It was not his blood therefore, but wine that was drunk in the Eucharist.
2. Ierome and Bede (saith he) so solue the difficulty. He would make his Reader beleeue that Ierome and Bede had long since propounded this obiection, and so assoiled it as ⟨p. 213⟩he doth. Whereas the truth is; they take no notice, either of them of the two Cups, but allegorising the wordes (as their manner is to doe many times, letting the literall sense alone) expound the vine to be cthe people of the Iewes, and so the fruit of the vine, the legall obseruances, &c. And what is all this to the literall sense of the words, that this trifler is troubled with, and cannot tell how to auoyd? Let him produce (if he can) any one Father, who denieth that Christ spake those wordes of the Eucharisticall Cup, and of the liquor therein contained. I alleadged dClemens of Alexandria, eCyprian, fChrysostome, gAugustine, and might adde many others that affirme it. Yea not onely Iansenius ingenuously acknowledgeth that it can be meant of hno other then the Eucharisticall Cuppe, which onely Matthew and Marke mention: But Maldonate the Iesuite also freely confesseth that iOrigen, kCyprian, lChrysostome, mEpiphanius, nIerome, oAugustine, pBede, qEuthymius, and rTheophylact, doe all expound those wordes of it: howbeit himselfe saith that sChrist spake there not of his blood, but of wine. Where first obserue we that Ierome and Bede (cleane contrary to this fablers assertion, by the Iesuites confession) expound it of the Eucharist. And secondly, conclude wee from the Iesuites owne grants: It was of that that was in the Eucharisticall Cup that our Sauiour spake those wordes, as the ancient Fathers generally and ioyntly affirme: But our Sauiour spake them not of his blood, but of wine; saith the Iesuite: It was not his blood therefore, but wine that was drunke in the Eucharist.
2. We object the words of our Saviour, tDo this in remembrance of me: not as this shameless liar saith, thereby to prove the Sacrament to be a bare memory of Christs body and blood: somewhat like the lye he told before, that his Adversary should affirm it to be nothing but bare bread and wine: but to prove that Christ is not there corporally present: For what needeth a memorial of him, when we have him in our eye? when (if we may believe ⟨p. 214⟩Bellarmine) he is visibly present with us? When we see him, and touch him, as this fellow telleth us else-where? Or who would be so absurd as to say, I give you my self to be a memorial of my self? uIt is as if a man when he dieth (saith Primasius) or, xwhen he goeth to travel, (saith one that goeth for Jerome) should leave a pledge or a token with one that he loveth, to put him in mind of him in his absence, and of the good turns he hath done him; which the party if he love him entirely, cannot look on without tears. And who would be so senseless, as delivering his friend a ring on his death bed, to say, I deliver you this ring to be a pledge of this ring, or to be a pledge of it self?
2. Wee obiect the words of our Sauiour, tDoe this in remembrance of me: not as this shamelesse lyer saith, therby to prooue the Sacrament to be a bare memorie of Christs body and blood: somewhat like the lye he told before, that his Adversarie should affirme it to bee nothing but bare bread and wine: but to prooue that Christ is not there corporally present: For what needeth a memoriall of him, when we haue him in our eye? when (if we may beleeue ⟨p. 214⟩Bellarmine) he is visibly present with vs? When we see him, and touch him, as this fellow telleth vs else-where? Or who would be so absurd as to say, I giue you my selfe to be a memoriall of my selfe? uIt is as if a man when hee dieth (saith Primasius) or, xwhen he goeth to trauell, (saith one that goeth for Ierome) should leaue a pledge or a token with one that hee loueth, to put him in minde of him in his absence, and of the good turnes he hath done him; which the partie if hee loue him entirely, cannot looke on without teares. And who would be so senselesse, as deliuering his friend a ring on his death bed, to say, I deliuer you this ring to bee a pledge of this ringe, or to be a pledge of it selfe?
uPrimas. in 1 Cor. 11. Ut siquis moriens relinquat ei quem diligit, pignus aliquod, &c. Idem habet & Herueus, & Haimo.Primas. in 1 Cor. 11. Vt siquis moriens relinquat ei quem diligit, pignus aliquod, &c. Idem habet & Herueus, & Haimo.
xPeregrè proficiscens. Hieron. nomine in 1 cor. 11. & Sedul. ibid. [Greek or Hebrew]. Basil. Caes. hom. de charit.Peregrè proficiscens. Hieron. nomine in 1 cor. 11. & Sedul. ibid. 〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Basil. Caes. hom. de charit.
But let us hear (I pray you) his Answer. Saint Paul (saith he) interpreteth these words of our Saviour, when he saith; ySo oft as you do this, you represent Christs death, till he come. Would any man that had either brains in his head, or wit in his brain, answer in this manner, or reason on this wise? Christs death is represented in the Lords Supper. Ergo Christs very body and blood must needs be there present. Yea or thus either? In the Lords Supper is a representation of Christs death: Ergò it is not a memorial of it. As if representation were not ordinarily of things absent; or memorials represented not the things that they commemorate. He wanted his Bellarmine here to help him out; who where Tertullian saith, that aChrist represented his body in bread: bsaith that to represent there signifieth cto make a thing really present. But it is well that dthe word used by the Apostle here, will not bear any such sense: else (it may be) we might have had it.
But let vs heare (I pray you) his Answer. Saint Paul (saith hee) interpreteth these wordes of our Sauiour, when he saith; ySo oft as you doe this, you represent Christs death, till hee come. Would any man that had either braines in his head, or wit in his braine, answer in this manner, or reason on this wise? Christs death is represented in the Lords Supper. Ergo Christs very body and blood must needs bee there present. Yea or thus either? In the Lords Supper is a representation of Christs death: Ergò it is not a memoriall of it. As if representation were not ordinarily of things absent; or memorials represented not the things that they commemorate. He wanted his Bellarmine heere to helpe him out; who where Tertullian saith, that aChrist represented his body in bread: bsaith that to represent there signifieth cto make a thing really present. But it is well that dthe word vsed by the Apostle here, will not beare any such sense: else (it may be) we might haue had it.
Mean while he should have done well (as his usual manner is else-where) to have snipped off or concealed at least, the last clause, Till I come. eFor after he is come (saith Theodoret) we shall have no need of signs or symbols of his body any more, when his body it self shall appear. He ⟨p. 215⟩were scarce in his wits (I think) that would leave a thing with his Friends at his departure from them to be remembered by in his absence till he returned again to them, that should lie locked up and kept out of their sight, and should never come in their view, but when himself should come personally in presence to show it them: or should bid them by such a thing remember him, till he came again to them a twelve-month after, when as every week or month in the mean space he meant to return to them, as oft as ever they desired to remember him in it. But mine Adversary thought belike that none but such silly sots should read what he writ, as would mark nothing but what he would have them.
Meane while hee should haue done well (as his vsuall manner is else-where) to haue snipt off or concealed at least, the last clause, Till I come. eFor after hee is come (saith Theodoret) we shall haue no neede of signes or symbols of his body any more, when his body it selfe shall appeare. He ⟨p. 215⟩were scarce in his wits (I thinke) that would leaue a thing with his Friends at his departure from them to bee remembred by in his absence till hee returned againe to them, that should lie lockt vp and kept out of their sight, and should neuer come in their view, but when himselfe should come personally in presence to shew it them: or should bid them by such a thing remember him, till hee came againe to them a twelue-moneth after, when as euery weeke or moneth in the meane space hee meant to returne to them, as oft as euer they desired to remember him in it. But mine Adversary thought belike that none but such silly sots should reade what hee writ, as would marke nothing but what he would haue them.
eEtenim post eius adventum non amplius erit opus symbolis seu signis corporis, cum ipsum corpus apparebit. Theodoret. in 1 Cor. 11.
Lastly S. Paul literally declaring the institution of the Sacrament, 11 Cor. 11. to the end that the Corinthians might understand the excellency thereof, maketh the sin of such as unworthily receive it to consist in this, that they discern not that bread to be the body of Christ: and his words read alone without heretical glosses express plainly Catholic doctrine. And in the Chapter before he mentioneth benediction or consecration of the Chalice then used, saying, Calix benedictionis, The Chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communication of Christs blood? and the bread which we break, is it not the communication of Christs body? &c. Of which words saith S. Chrysostom, this is the meaning; That which is in the Chalice, is that which floweth out of Christs side, and we are made partakers thereof. Which is out of the Greek text of S. Luke plainly to be gathered: And the very manner of Christs speeches, Quod pro vobis datur, quod pro vobis effundetur; Which is given for you, which shall be effused for you; import plainly a Sacrifice of his body and blood, wherein the one is offered not to us, but for us; the other was to be not infused as wine, but effused as blood for us, &c.
LAstly S. Paul literally declaring the institution of the Sacrament, 11 Cor. 11. to the end that the Corinthians might vnderstand the excellency thereof, maketh the sinne of such as vnworthily receiue it to consist in this, that they discerne not that bread to be the body of Christ: and his words read alone without hereticall glosses expresse plainely Catholicke doctrine. And in the Chapter before hee mentioneth benediction or consecration of the Chalice then vsed, saying, Calix benedictionis, The Chalice of benediction which wee blesse, is it not the communication of Christs blood? and the bread which we breake, is it not the communication of Christs body? &c. Of which words saith S. Chrysostome, this is the meaning; That which is in the Chalice, is that which floweth out of Christs side, and wee are made partakers thereof. Which is out of the Greeke text of S. Luke plainely to be gathered: And the very manner of Christs speeches, Quod pro vobis datur, quod pro vobis effundetur; Which is giuen for you, which shall be effused for you; import plainely a Sacrifice of his body and blood, wherein the one is offered not to vs, but for vs; the other was to be not infused as wine, but effused as blood for vs, &c.
§ 9. AT last remembering himself, wherein he failed 1at the first, he will prove out of S. Paul (he saith) that Christs words are literally to be understood. This had been more seasonable, where it was questioned at first. But better at last (we say) then never.
§ 9. AT last remembring himselfe, wherein he failed 1at the first, hee will prooue out of S. Paul (hee saith) that Christs words are literally to be vnderstood. This had beene more seasonable, where it was questioned at first. But better at last (we say) then neuer.
For the former: how followeth it, Men sin in not discerning the Lords body, when they come unreverently to the Lords board: Ergò our Saviours words, This is my body, are to be understood properly. Let him hear Augustine expounding the words of the Apostle, what it is not to discern the Lords body, to wit, hnot to discern that from other meats by a reverence singularly due unto it; which is as he speaketh else-where, iin some sort Christs body, because a Sign and a Sacrament of it. Yea let him hear himself where he saith, kThe sin of such persons is made this by the Apostle, that they distinguish not this bread from other common bread. And then see how well they serve to prove that that here they are alleged for.
For the former: how followeth it, Men sinne in not discerning the Lords body, when they come vnreuerētly to the Lords board: Ergò our Sauiours words, This is my body, are to bee vnderstood properly. Let him heare Augustine expounding the words of the Apostle, what it is not to discerne the Lords body, to wit, hnot to discerne that from other meates by a reuerence singularly due vnto it; which is as he speaketh else-where, iin some sort Christs body, because a Signe and a Sacrament of it. Yea let him heare himselfe where he saith, kThe sinne of such persons is made this by the Apostle, that they distinguish not this bread from other common bread. And then see how well they serue to prooue that that here they are alleadged for.
hAug. epist. 118. c. 3. Qui hoc non discernebant à caeteris cibis veneration singulariter debita.Aug. epist. 118. c. 3. Qui hoc non discernebant à caeteris cibis veneratione singulariter debita.
For the latter: Not to demand of them, how chance they oft celebrate (contrary to both our Saviours, and the Apostles practice) without any breaking of bread at all; if their paper wafer-cake at least deserve that name. Who denied ever a communication of Christs body and blood in the Sacrament? But must it needs be corporal; or else it is none at all? lThe tongue tripping now and then telleth truth. And the truth start out of his mouth before unawares, where he said, that Christ is present there in a spiritual manner. And in a spiritual manner (as out of Athanasius and Augustine, yea and their own Jansenius I have showed) do we participate of, and communicate ⟨p. 217⟩with the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament; msending the hand of our faith (as Augustine speaketh) up into heaven; yea reaching it (as I may well say) to Christs Cross. I will add to the former only one observation of Bernard, who in many places speaketh of this our communication with Christ: Alluding to those words of our Saviour, nHe that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him: oChrist (saith he) both eateth us, and is eaten of us; that we may the more firmly and strictly be fastened unto him. Otherwise should we not be perfectly united to him. For if I eat and be not eaten, he may seem to be in me, but not I yet in him. Again, if I be eaten, but eat not; he may seem to have me in him, but not to be yet in me. For there is no absolute unition in either of these alone. But when pboth he eateth me, that I may be in him; and is eaten of me, that he may be in me; then is there indeed a firm and an entire connection, I being in him and he in me. But Christs eating of us is not oral or corporal, but mental and spiritual: of the like kind therefore is our eating of him, and our mutual participation alike in either: Which in these words also most sweetly doth Jansenius express:
For the latter: Not to demand of them, how chance they oft celebrate (contrary to both our Sauiours, and the Apostles practice) without any breaking of bread at all; if their paper wafer-cake at least deserue that name. Who denied euer a communication of Christs body and blood in the Sacrament? But must it needes bee corporall; or else it is none at all? lThe tongue tripping now and then telleth truth. And the truth start out of his mouth before vnawares, where he said, that Christ is present there in a spirituall manner. And in a spirituall manner (as out of Athanasius and Augustine, yea and their owne Iansenius I haue shewed) doe wee participate of, and communicate ⟨p. 217⟩with the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament; msending the hand of our faith (as Augustine speaketh) vp into heauen; yea reaching it (as I may well say) to Christs Crosse. I will adde to the former onely one obseruation of Bernard, who in many places speaketh of this our communication with Christ: Alluding to those words of our Sauiour, nHee that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him: oChrist (saith he) both eateth vs, and is eaten of vs; that wee may the more firmely and strictly be fastened vnto him. Otherwise should wee not bee perfectly vnited to him. For if I eate and be not eaten, he may seeme to be in me, but not I yet in him. Againe, if I be eaten, but eate not; he may seeme to haue me in him, but not to be yet in me. For there is no absolute vnition in either of these alone. But when pboth he eateth me, that I may be in him; and is eaten of me, that he may be in me; then is there indeed a firm and an entire connexion, I being in him and hee in mee. But Christs eating of vs is not orall or corporall, but mentall and spirituall: of the like kinde therefore is our eating of him, and our mutuall participation alike in either: Which in these wordes also most sweetly doth Iansenius expresse:
l[Greek or Hebrew].〈non-Latin alphabet〉.
mQuomodo mittam manuum in coelum? Fidem mitt; tenuisti. Aug. in loan. tr 50.Quomodo mittam manuum in coelum? Fidem mitte; tenuisti. Aug. in loan. tr 50.
oBernar. in Cant. serm. 71. Et manducat nos, & man ducatur à nobis; quo arctius illi astringamur.Bernar. in Cant. serm. 71. Et manducat nos, & mā ducatur à nobis; quo arctius illi astringamur.
pSi manducat me, ut habeat me in se, & à me vicissim manducatur, ut sit in me, quatenus integra firmaque sit connexio, &c.Si manducat me, vt habeat me in se, & à me vicissim manducatur, vt sit in me, quatenus integra firmaque sit connexio, &c.
qBy faith this bread is not simply taken, but being chewed as it were with teeth, while it is well considered what and what manner of food it is, and rso broken, it is conveyed with a kind of delight and spiritual taste into the bowels of the soul, and sis incorporated into us, that so Christ being in an hidden and secret manner by faith united unto us, may tdwell (as the Apostle speaketh) in our hearts, by his presence there quickening and nourishing them, and so expel all hunger and thirstiness out of them, while he removeth both the want of things needful to true life, and the desire of other transitory things. And it is the same in effect that Calvin meaneth when he saith, *To feed on Christ is somewhat more then barely to believe in him, and that it is ynot so much belief ⟨p. 218⟩7it self, as an effect and fruit of it. That which Bonaventure the Schoolman also not unfitly thus expresseth: zEating (saith he) is properly spoken of the body, and is by way of similitude applied to the soul. That therefore we may know what is meant by spiritual eating, we must have an eye unto corporal feeding. Now in corporal manducation there are these two things, amastication and incorporation, or a chewing of the meat in the mouth, and an incorporating of it into the body. In like manner in spiritual eating there is first ba spiritual chewing, that is, a recogitation or a serious consideration and faithful meditation of the spiritual meat, that is, of Christs flesh exposed for us, both as a ransom to redeem us, and as food also to feed us; and secondly, ca spiritual incorporation, when upon such recogitation or consideration the soul is by a loving affection united and incorporated to the thing considered, and is thereby refreshed or nourished, and so made in grace more and more like unto it. So that unto spiritual manducation are two things required, da faithful recogitation, and a loving affection. Whence it followeth that eneither is every kind of faith sufficient to effect this spiritual feeding on Christ, but such ffaith only as worketh by love: gnor is every effect of faith a feeding on Christs flesh, but that only whereby Christs flesh, that was boiled (as it were) to make food for us, on the Cross, is so considered, and in a spiritual manner digested and con••cted (as was before said) for the feeding and refreshing of our souls.
qBy faith this bread is not simply taken, but being chewed as it were with teeth, while it is well considered what and what manner of food it is, and rso broken, it is conueighed with a kinde of delight and spirituall taste into the bowels of the soule, and sis incorporated into vs, that so Christ being in an hidden and secret manner by faith vnited vnto vs, may tdwell (as the Apostle speaketh) in our hearts, by his presence there quickening and nourishing them, and so expell all hunger and thirstinesse out of them, while he remooueth both the want of things needfull to true life, and the desire of other transitorie things. And it is the same in effect that Caluine meaneth when he saith, *To feede on Christ is somewhat more then barely to beleeue in him, and that it is ynot so much beliefe ⟨p. 218⟩7it selfe, as an effect and fruite of it. That which Bonauenture the Schooleman also not vnfitly thus expresseth: zEating (saith hee) is properly spoken of the body, and is by way of similitude applied to the soule. That therefore we may know what is meant by spirituall eating, wee must haue an eye vnto corporall feeding. Now in corporall manducation there are these two things, amastication and incorporation, or a chewing of the meate in the mouth, and an incorporating of it into the body. In like manner in spirituall eating there is first ba spirituall chewing, that is, a recogitation or a serious consideration and faithfull meditation of the spirituall meate, that is, of Christs flesh exposed for vs, both as a ransome to redeeme vs, and as food also to feed vs; and secondly, ca spirituall incorporation, when vpon such recogitation or consideration the soule is by a louing affection vnited and incorporated to the thing considered, and is thereby refreshed or nourished, and so made in grace more and more like vnto it. So that vnto spirituall manducation are two things required,
qPer fidem panis iste non simpliciter sumitur, sed veluti dentibus quibusdā masticatur, &c. Jansen. concord. c. 59.Per fidem panis iste non simpliciter sumitur, sed veluti dentibus quibusdā masticatur, &c. Iansen. concord. c. 59.
*Amplius quiddam esse Christum manducare, quam in Christum credere Vide Caluin. Institut. l. 4. c. 17. sect. 5, 6, 7.
yNon tam ipsum credere, quam effectum eius. Ex Caivini sent. Bellar. de Euch. l. 1. c1.Non tam ipsum credere, quam effectum eius. Ex Caiuini sent. Bellar. de Euch. l. 1. c1.
zBonavent. in sent. l. 4. dist. 9. quae. z.Bonauent. in sent. l. 4. dist. 9. quae. z.
aMasticatio & incorporatio.
bSpiritualis masticatio est recogitatio cibi i. carnis Christi pro nobis expositae in pretium ad redimendū & in cibum ad reficiendum.Spiritualis masticatio est recogitatio cibi i. carnis Christi pro nobis expositae in pretium ad redimendū & in cibum ad reficiendum.
cIncorporatio dumb recogitans charitatis amore ei quod cogitatur jungitur, & sic incorporatur, & dumb incorporatur reficitur, eique assimilatur.Incorporatio dum recogitans charitatis amore ei quod cogitatur iungitur, & sic incorporatur, & dum incorporatur reficitur, eique assimilatur.
So that Calvins doctrine and ours concerning this spiritual feeding on Christ, and so communicating with his body and blood, is no other then the Ancients long since taught, and their own writers themselves acknowledge: Which in one word I shut and seal up with that short saying of Chrysostom, tha tboth in Baptism and the Eucharist, hIt is faith that doth all.
So that Caluines doctrine and ours concerning this spirituall feeding on Christ, and so communicating with his body and blood, is no other then the Ancients long since taught, and their owne writers themselues acknowledge: Which in one word I shut and seale vp with that short saying of Chrysostome, tha tboth in Baptisme and the Eucharist, hIt is faith that doth all.
h[Greek or Hebrew] Chrysost in 2 Tim. hom. 2.〈non-Latin alphabet〉 Chrysost in 2 Tim. hom. 2.
Yea but Chrysost. saith that that that is in the Chalice, is that which flowed out of Christs side, and we are made thereof partakers: And out of S. Lukes Greek Text it is plainly gathered.
Yea but Chrysost. saith that that that is in the Chalice, is that which flowed out of Christs side, and we are made therof partakers: And out of S. Lukes Greeke Text it is plainely gathered.
What out of S. Luke he allegeth we shall see anon. Only mark how he fleeth from their only authentical Latin here to the Greek Text, which at other times they *say is so corrupted, that there is little certainty of ought from it, further then their Latin and it concur.
What out of S. Luke hee alleadegth wee shall see anone. Onely mark how he fleeth from their onely authenticall Latine heere to the Greeke Text, which at other times they *say is so corrupted, that there is little certainety of ought from it, further then their Latine and it concurre.
*Vide Lindā. de opt Gen. interp. l. 1 c. 11 Canum. loc. come. l. 2. c 13. & Analys. fid. l. 8. c. […].Vide Lindā. de opt Gen. interp. l. 1 c. 11 Canum. loc. com. l. 2. c 13. & Analys. fid. l. 8. c. 〈…〉.
Chrysostom saith indeed as he is here cited. But it must be remembered what both their Sixtus Senensis, and Bellar. also say of him; to wit, that Chrysostom is wont to speak many things khyperbolically or lexcessively, in his sermons especially. To pass by other places, where he saith, that the Church is mthat very Chamber where Christ celebrated his last Supper; that nwe touch his side with our lips; that owe set our teeth in his flesh; that pwe cut his flesh asunder; that our qtongue is died with blood; and our rmouth is filled with fire; while sno man, but an Angel with tongs reacheth a coal of fire to us; that Christ doth t•neade as dough, and umingleth himself together with us; and that xwe are likewise knod as dough and ymixed or tempered together with him into his flesh. To let these pass, I say; in the very Sermon here cited he hath diverse passages, which themselves will not deny, must needs be figuratively meant; as where he saith, that aChrist suffereth that in the Sacrament, that he did not suffer upon the Cross; to wit, the bbreaking, even of his bones, which there he did not; that dthe altar is bloodied with Christs blood, (as he saith else-where that the people are eall died red with it:) that fthe bread is Christs body: (which in propriety of sense, saith gBellarmine, is impossible) and that by taking it we are not only hunited to Christs body, and become ione body with Christ; or kChrists body; and all ⟨p. 220⟩23of us one body: but that lwe our selves are that self same body that we take: Not unlike that which Haimo hath, that mChrists natural body, and the Eucharistical bread, and the Communicants themselves are all but one and the same body. Yea that he is to be understood figuratively, appeareth, as by that that he addeth there, that nlike Eagles we must so•re aloft up to heaven, and onot flag downward, nor creep below upon the ground, if we will come at Christs body; so by that which he saith elsewhere, that it was pwine that Christ delivered, when he delivered this mystery; that which he proveth also by the words of our Saviour himself in the place before discussed, qI will drink no more of this fruit of the vine. Chrysostom saith that the Altar is bloodied with Christs blood; and his body suffereth that there, which really it doth not:
Chrysostome saith indeede as hee is here cited. But it must be remembred what both their Sixtus Senensis, and Bellar. also say of him; to wit, that Chrysostome is wont to speake many things khyperbolically or lexcessiuely, in his sermons especially. To passe by other places, where hee saith, that the Church is mthat very Chamber where Christ celebrated his last Supper; that nwe touch his side with our lips; that owe set our teeth in his flesh; that pwe cut his flesh assunder; that our qtongue is died with blood; and our rmouth is filled with fire; while sno man, but an Angell with tongs reacheth a coale of fire to vs; that Christ doth t•neade as dough, and umingleth himselfe together with vs; and that xwe are likewise knod as dough and ymixed or tempored together with him into his flesh. To let these passe, I say; in the very Sermon here cited he hath diuerse passages, which themselues will not deny, must needes be figuratiuely meant; as where he saith, that aChrist suffereth that in the Sacrament, that he did not suffer vpon the Crosse; to wit, the bbreaking, euen of his bones, which there he did not; that
kPer hyperbolen enunciare. Sixth. Sen. biblioth. lib. 6. annot. 152.Per hyperbolen enunciare. Sixt. Sen. biblioth. lib. 6. annot. 152.
lPer excessum Bellarm. de Missa l. 2. c 10.
m[Greek or Hebrew] Chrylost. in Mat. hom 82.〈non-Latin alphabet〉 Chrylost. in Mat. hom 82.
n[Greek or Hebrew]. Idem in encoen sive de poenit. tom. 6. orat.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Idem in encoen siue de poenit. tom. 6. orat.
o[Greek or Hebrew]. Idem in Joan. hom. 46. & ad pop. Ant. 62.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Idem in Ioan. hom. 46. & ad pop. Ant. 62.
p[Greek or Hebrew]. In Mat. hom 82.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. In Mat. hom 82.
q[Greek or Hebrew]. Ibid.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Ibid.
r[Greek or Hebrew]. Ibid.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Ibid.
s[Greek or Hebrew]. In encaen.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. In encaen.
t[Greek or Hebrew]. In Math. hum: 82.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. In Math. hum: 82.
u[Greek or Hebrew] Ibid [Greek or Hebrew] in Joh 46
The author
Thomas Gataker 1574–1654
PuritansEngland
Rector of Rotherhithe; member of the Westminster Assembly.
nor is euery effect of faith a feeding on Christs flesh, but that onely whereby Christs flesh, that was boyled (as it were) to make food for vs, on the Crosse, is so considered, and in a spirituall manner digested and con••cted (as was before said) for the feeding and refreshing of our soules.
Christs naturall bodie, and the Eucharisticallbread, and the Communicants themselues are all but one and the same body. Yea that he is to be vnderstood figuratiuely, appeareth, as by that that hee addeth there, that
wine that Christ deliuered, when hee deliuered this mystery; that which hee prooueth also by the wordes of our Sauiour himselfe in the place before discussed,
I will drinke no more of this fruite of the vine. Chrysostome saith that the Altar is bloodied with Christs blood; and his body suffereth that there, which really it doth not:
〈non-Latin alphabet〉 Ibid 〈non-Latin alphabet〉 in Ioh 46
x[Greek or Hebrew]. In Math. 46.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. In Math. 46.
y[Greek or Hebrew]. In […] 46.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. In 〈…〉 46.
a[Greek or Hebrew]. In 1 Cor. hom. 24.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. In 1 Cor. hom. 24.
b[Greek or Hebrew].〈non-Latin alphabet〉.
d[Greek or Hebrew] Ibid.〈non-Latin alphabet〉 Ibid.
e[Greek or Hebrew]. Dr sacerd lib. 3.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Dr sacerd lib. 3.
f[Greek or Hebrew] In 1 Cor. hom 24.〈non-Latin alphabet〉In 1 Cor. hom 24.
mIlia caro quam assumpsit, & iste panis, omnisque ecclesia, non faciunt tria corpora, sed unum corpus. Haimo in 1 Cor. 10.Ilia caro quam assumpsit, & iste panis, omnisque ecclesia, non faciunt tria corpora, sed vnum corpus. Haimo in 1 Cor. 10.
n[Greek or Hebrew].〈non-Latin alphabet〉.
o[Greek or Hebrew].〈non-Latin alphabet〉.
p[Greek or Hebrew] Chrys. in Mat. hom 82.〈non-Latin alphabet〉 Chrys. in Mat. hom 82.
