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.
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
as the Apostle faith, that rChrist was crucified in the sight of the Galatians, who in likely hood many of them never saw piece of his Cross: and as August. saith, she lies not, that saith that Christ is immolated on Easter day, in regard of the similitude that that Sacrament hath of his passion, that that day is celebrated: and in like manner may it very well be understood, when he saith that Christs blood is in the Cup. Nor hindereth it, but that this speech of Chrysostom may be taken tropically, because he saith, tThat that flowed out of Christs side: (as uAugustine also, though no friend to Transubstantiation, is reported to say the same) no more then it would have hindered, but that the Apostles words might have bin taken figuratively (as Caietan also well observeth) hough of the Rock he should have said, That Rock was that Christ, that was crucified, and died, and rose again from the dead.
as the Apostle faith, that rChrist was crucified in the sight of the Galatians, who in likely hood many of them neuer saw peece of his Crosse: and as August. saith, she lies not, that saith that Christ is immolated on Easterday, in regard of the similitude that that Sacrament hath of his passion, that that day is celebrated: and in like manner may it very well be vnderstood, when hee saith that Christs blood is in the Cup. Nor hindreth it, but that this speech of Chrysostome may be taken tropically, because he saith, tThat that flowed out of Christs side: (as uAugustine also, though no friend to Transubst antiation, is reported to say the same) no more then it would haue hindered, but that the Apostles words might haue bin takē figuratiuely (as Caietan also well obserueth) hough of the Rocke hee should haue said, That Rocke was that Christ, that was crucified, and died, and rose againe from the dead.
t[Greek or Hebrew]. Chrys. in 1 Cor. hom 24.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Chrys. in 1 Cor. hom 24.
uIn sacramē to spei consociatur Ecclesia quamdiu bibirur, quod de Christi latere manavit. Aug. contr. Faust. Bede in 1 Cor. 11. Hoc accipite in Calice quod manavit de Christi latere. Ex Aug. serm. ad Neophyt. I•• ad Haimer. de corp. Dom.In sacramē to spei consociatur Ecclesia quamdiu bibirur, quod de Christi latere manauit. Aug. contr. Faust. Beda in 1 Cor. 11. Hoc accipite in Calice quod manauit de Christi latere. Ex Aug. serm. ad Neophyt. I•• ad Haimer. de corp. Dom.
§. 10. In the next words he cometh to prove a Sacrifice there, The very manner (saith he of Christs speeches, Quod pro vobis datur, quod pro vobis effundetur; which ⟨p. 221⟩12is given for you, which shall be shed for you; import plainly a Sacrifice: which he hath (as all that ever he hath almost) out of aBellarmine.
§. 10. In the next wordes hee commeth to prooue a Sacrifice there, The very manner (saith hee of Christs speeches, Quod pro vobis datur, quod pro vobis effundetur; which ⟨p. 221⟩12is giuen for you, which shall bee shed for you; import plainly a Sacrifice: which he hath (as all that euer he hath almost) out of aBellarmine.
As if those words had not a manifest relation to his passion; (which is ba true Sacrifice indeed, and ca most perfect yea dthe full complement of all other:) that which their own vulgar Translation also plainly importeth, yielding the words (as they are also in the very Canon of the Mass) by the future tense, Tradetur, effundetur; shall be given, shall be shed: as having an eye to the passion then enear at hand, wherein his body was to be given, and his blood to be shed. So Gregory of Valence; fThat is or shall be given, or broken; that is, that shall be offered by me for you being slain or sacrificed on the Cross: gas (saith he) the Apostle himself also expoundeth it. So Cardinal Hugh; h He took bread, and brake it, thereby signifying that his body should be broken on the Cross, and that he did himself expose it to be so broken and crucified: And when he said kthat shall be shed, he foretold them of his passion then shortly to ensue. Yea so lCard. Caietan; who addeth also not unfitly, that Christs body is said then to be given, and his blood to be shed. because his passion was then in a manner begun, l a plot being now laid for his life, and mhis body and blood already bought and sold by them. And to omit that Christs words concerning his body do no more intimate a present act of delivering it, then those words of his the like else-where, n I lay down my life for my sheep: Let him but show us how Christs blood is shed in this Sacrifice. For as for Bellarmines bold assertion that obread is said to be broken, when it is pgiven by whole loaves; and wine is said to be poured out, when it is given by qwhole hogs-heads, or rundlets at least, not by pots or pitchers full only; it is most senseless and absurd. But why doth ⟨p. 222⟩13not this eager disputer urge rather that which many of them do, that Christ bad them, r Do this, that is, as they senselessly expound it, Sacrifice this. For that is a 14main pillar, that they pitch much upon. Which exposition yet, as Bellarmine is almost ashamed of, and sblameth Calvin wrongfully as if he had wronged them therein, by charging them with such expositions and arguments as they make not, nor allege: so tJansenius acknowledging ingenuously that some did so argue, (as indeed unot a few do) yet confesseth that that is but a weak argument:
As if those wordes had not a manifest relation to his passion; (which is ba true Sacrifice indeed, and ca most perfect yea dthe full complement of all other:) that which their owne vulgar Translation also plainely importeth, yeelding the wordes (as they are also in the very Canon of the Masse) by the future tense, Tradetur, effundetur; shall be giuen, shall be shed: as hauing an eye to the passion then eneere at hand, wherein his body was to bee giuen, and his blood to be shed. So Gregorie of Ualence; fThat is or shall be giuen, or broken; that is, that shall bee offered by me for you being slaine or sacrificed on the Crosse: gas (saith hee) the Apostle himselfe also expoundeth it. So Cardinall Hugh; h He tooke bread, and brake it, thereby signifying that his body should be broken on the Crosse, and that hee did himselfe expose it to be so broken and crucified: And when he said kthat shall bee shed, he foretold them of his passion then shortly to ensue. Yea so lCard. Caietan; who addeth also not vnfitly, that Christs body is said then to be giuen, and his blood to be shed. because his passion was then in a manner begun, l a plot being now laid for his life, and mhis bodie and blood already bought and sold by them. And to omit that Christs words concerning his bodie do no more intimate a present act of deliuering it, then those wordes of his the like else-where, n I lay downe my life for my sheepe: Let him but shew vs how Christs blood is shed in this Sacrifice. For as for Bellarmines bold assertion that obread is said to be broken, when it is pgiuen by whole loaues; and wine is said to bee poured out, when it is giuen by
fQuod tradetur sive datur, sive frangitur. 1. quod offeretur à me pro vobis in cruce mactatum. Greg de Valent. de miss. sacr. l. 1. c. 3.Quod tradetur siue datur, siue frangitur. 1. quod offeretur à me pro vobis in cruce mactatum. Greg de Valent. de miss. sacr. l. 1. c. 3.
gTradetur. i. dabitur atque offer•etur in cruce in odorem suavitatis ut Apostolus interpretatus est. Ibid. c. 4.Tradetur. i. dabitur atque offer•etur in cruce in odorem suauitatis vt Apostolus interpretatus est. Ibid. c. 4.
kAccepit & fregit 1. frangendum in cruce signavit. Hugo in
and granteth in effect, that it cannot either out of that or any other place of the Gospel be proved, that the Sacrament of Christs body and blood is a Sacrifice: And is fain therefore to run to tradition for it: and yet there also findeth he little footing for such a Sacrifice as they would have it to be. For Irenaeus (x saith he) that lived near the Apostles times, ycalleth the Sacrament of Christs body and blood a Sacrifice in regard of the bread and wine therein offered (as types of Christs body and blood:) as also in regard of the thanksgiving therein offered, as well for the work of our Creation, as for the work also of our redemption. And howsoever this doughty Doctor say that our Saviours words so plainly import it, yet is their grand Champion Bellarmine, where at large he debateth this business, evil troubled to find it out either in Christs Institution, or in their own Mass book, or to show wherein it consisteth. Where it is not, indeed he can easily tell us: but he cannot so easily tell us where it is. oIt is not he (saith he) pin the oblation that goeth before Consecration: for then not Christs body, but bare bread should be sacrificed. It is not in the Consecration: for qtherein appeareth no oblation, nor no sensible immutation, which is needful in an external sacrifice. It is not in the Oblation that▪ cometh after Consecration: for rthat oblation neither ⟨p. 223⟩Christ; nor his Apostles at first used. It is not in the breaking: for sthat is sometime •mitted: tnor do we (saith) use such breaking as Christ did now adays. It is unot in the peoples communication: for then the people should be Priests. But where is it then? Surely it is partly in the Consecration: and yet it is not there neither: because there is xno true or real, but a mystical death only there; and partly in the Priests manducation, or eating of it. And why there? forsooth, because it is no where else, and somewhere it must needs be: For yin the whole action of the Mass there is no real destruction of an Host but there only. Thus you see how they delude the people, telling them of a true, proper, real Sacrifice, wherein they offer Christ again for the poor souls in Purgatory, to pick their purses: And yet cannot tell themselves what or where it is, or wherein it consisteth. But if Christ (as they say) be the thing sacrificed or the Host:
and granteth in effect, that it cannot either out of that or any other place of the Gospel be prooued, that the Sacrament of Christs body and blood is a Sacrifice: And is faine therefore to runne to tradition for it: and yet there also findeth he little footing for such a Sacrifice as they would haue it to be. For Irenaeus (x saith he) that liued neere the Apostles times, ycalleth the Sacrament of Christs body and blood a Sacrifice in regard of the bread and wine therein offred (as types of Christs body and blood:) as also in regard of the thankesgiuing therein offred, as well for the worke of our Creation, as for the worke also of our redemption. And howsoeuer this doughty Doctor say that our Sauiours words so plainly import it, yet is their graund Champion Bellarmine, where at large he debateth this businesse, euill troubled to finde it out either in Christs Institution, or in their owne Masse booke, or to shew wherein it consisteth. Where it is not, indeede hee can easily tell vs: but he cannot so easily tell vs where it is. oIt is not he (saith he) pin the oblation that goeth before Consecration: for then not Christs body, but bare bread should be sacrificed. It is not in the Consecration: for qtherein appeareth no oblation, nor no sensible immutation, which is needfull in an externall sacrifice. It is not in the Oblation that▪ commeth after Consecration: for rthat oblation neither ⟨p. 223⟩Christ; nor his Apostles at first vsed. It is not in the breaking: for sthat is sometime •mitted: tnor doe we (saith) vse such breaking as Christ did now adaies. It is unot in the peoples communication: for then the people should be Priests. But where is it then? Surely it is partly in the Consecration: and yet it is not there neither: because there is
xJansen. ibid.Iansen. ibid.
yIren. lib. 4. cap. 31.
oBellarm. de miss. l. 1. c. 27.
pIn oblation panis & vini non consistit.In oblatione panis & vini non consistit.
qIn consecratione non apparet ulla oblatio, nec sensibili• ulla immutario, &c.In consecratione non apparet vlla oblatio, nec sensibili• vlla immutario, &c.
rOblationem i••am n•c Christus nec Apostoli faci•bant, quam nos post co•ationem fac•.
sNon solet frangi quandoque.
tFractio nostra Christum autorem non habet.
uManducatio & consumptio non sit à Solo Sacerdote.
xConsecratio non veram & realem mortem, sed mysticam tantum efficit.
yIn tota actione Missae nulla est alia realis destructio victimae preter istam.
and not bread, but this Host is really destroyed, when the Priest eateth it: then how scapeth Christ from being then destroyed? or how scapeth the Priest from being a destroyer of Christ? Yea at the first Institution either Christ did eat the consecrated Host or bread, or he did not. If he did, (* which yet indeed is not so easily proved) then by Bellarmines doctrine he did therein really destroy himself; and the rather, for that his body was not as yet then impassible. If he did not, then belike there was no sacrifice there. For the Apostles (they say) were not made Priests till Christ bad them, Hoc facite, doe this; and *thereby made them such; which might well be not till after they had eaten. Or if they were Priests when they did eat, then belike they destroyed Christ before the Jews did him to death. But it is not to be marvelled, if they cannot find it in Christs Institution when they know not where to find it in their own Missal. In which kind it is not unworthy the observation, that Corn. Jansenius having sifted over and ransacked the whole story of the Institution, conjoining all the three Evangel•st•, that report it, together, yet can ⟨p. 224⟩find no Sacrifice there expressed save in the bthanksgiving, which is (saith he) a spiritual •inde of Sacrifice, and of which the Lords Supper is called the Eucharist, and may therefore well be •earmed a Sacrifice. Which we deny not; but expressly say the same. Only he saith, cit is probable too, that Christ then offered himself to his Father. But at last he is fain to fly to this, that though it be granted that Christ offered not himself in the Supper, yet it followeth net that the Priests should not therein now offer him. For they 5are bidden by Christ to do something that Christ did not, to wit, to do it in remembrance of him, which could not be done then, when he was present, (nor is he present then belike now when it is done) “since that remembrance is of a thing absent only: and that therefore it may well be called a Sacrifice, because it is done in memory of Christs Passion. This is the very same that Peter Lombard before said:
and not bread, but this Hoast is really destroied, when the Priest eateth it: then how scapeth Christ from being then destroied? or how scapeth the Priest from being a destroier of Christ? Yea at the first Institution either Christ did eate the consecrated Host or bread, or he did not. If he did, (* which yet indeede is not so easily prooued) then by Bellarmines doctrine he did therein really destroy himselfe; and the rather, for that his body was not as yet then impassible. If hee did not, then belike there was no sacrific• there. For the Apostles (they say) were not made Priests till Christ bad them, Hoc facite, doe this; and *thereby made them such; which might well be not till after they had eaten. Or if they were Priests when they did eate, then belike they destroied Christ before the Iewes did him to death. But it is not to be marueiled, if they cannot finde it in Christs Institution when they know not where to finde it in their owne Missall. In which kinde it is not vnworthy the obseruation, that Corn. Iansenius hauing sifted ouer and ransackt the whole story of the Institution, conioyning all the three Euangel•st•, that report it, together, yet can ⟨p. 224⟩finde no Sacrifice there expressed saue in the bthankesgiuing, which is (saith he) a spirituall •inde of Sacrifice, and of which the Lords Supper is called the Eucharist, and may therefore well be •earmed a Sacrifice. Which we deny not; but expressely say the same. Onely he saith, cit is probable too, that Christ then offred himselfe to his Father. But at last he is faine to flie to this, that though it be granted that Christ offred not himselfe in the Supper, yet it followeth net that the Priests should not therein now offer him. For they 5are bidden by Christ to doe something that Christ did not, to wit, to doe it in remembrance of him, which could not be done then, when he was present, (nor is hee present then belike now when it is done) “
*Vide Bonavent. in sent. l. 4. d. 9. q. 4. a Jansen. concord. cap. 131.Vide Bonauent. in sent. l. 4. d. 9. q. 4. a Iansen. concord. cap. 131.
bGratiarum eunim actio est quoddam Sacrificium. Idem ibid.Gratiarum eūim actio est quoddam Sacrificium. Idem ibid.
cProbabile est quod oblatio sui Deo sit facta. Ibid.
5* Ut demus Christum non obtulisse, &c. non consequitur sacerdotes non offerre debere.* Vt demus Christum non obtulisse, &c. non consequitur sacerdotes non offerre debere.
and to the same purpose Gabriel Biel (applying that out of Augustine to the Sacrifice, which we did formerly to the Sacrament, whereupon mine Adversary took occasion to keep such a coil, as if I made the Sacrament nothing but a bare Sign, like Alexander's picture, &c.) dAugustine (saith he) saith that eImages or Pictures are went to be called by the Names of these things whereof they they are Pictures or Images, as when looking on a Table or a painted Wall, we say; that is Cicero, that is Sallust: Now the celebration of this Sacrament is a kind of Image or representation of Christs Passion; which is the true immolation or sacrificing of him: And therefore is it also called an immolation, or an oblation & a Sacrifice, because it is a representation and a memorial of that true Sacrifice and holy oblation made on the Cross. And this also we all willingly and generally grant. But such a Sacrifice will not serve their turn. They must have a Real and a proper Sacrifice, the very self same with Christs on the Cross, though they know not whence to fetch, nor where to find it. Nor is it to be […] (as I said before, if in Christs Institution there be f[…] •ing […] all found of this their Sacrifice: ⟨p. 225⟩since they confess that the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and the Sacrifice of the Mass are two several things; which both the Council of Trent therefore dealeth with severally, and Bellarmine handleth under several heads: as also M. Harding derideth Bishop Jewel for confounding the Communion and the Mass together. We find in the Gospel Christs Institution of the one, and therefore willingly embrace it: but we find there not so much as any mention at all of the other; and therefore justly we reject it.
and to the same purpose Gabriel Biel (applying that out of Augustine to the Sacrifice, which we did formerly to the Sacrament, whereupon mine Aduersarie tooke occasion to keepe such a coile, as if I made the Sacrament nothing but a bare Signe, like Alexanders picture, &c.) dAugustine (saith he) saith that eImages or Pictures are went to be called by the Names of these things whereof they they are Pictures or Images, as when looking on a Table or a painted Wall, we say; that is Cicero, that is Salust: Now the celebration of this Sacrament is a kinde of Image or representation of Christs Passion; which is the true immolation or sacrificing of him: And therfore is it also called an immolation, or an oblation & a Sacrifice, because it is a representation and a memoriall of that true Sacrifice and holy oblation made on the Crosse. And this also we all willingly and generally graunt. But such a Sacrifice will not serue their turne. They must haue a Reall and a proper Sacrifice, the very selfe same with Christs on the Crosse, though they know not whence to fetch, nor where to finde it. Nor is it to be 〈…〉 (as I said before, if in Christs Institution there be f〈…〉•ing 〈…〉 all found of this their Sacrifice: ⟨p. 225⟩since they confesse that the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and the Sacrifice of the Masse are two seuerall things; which both the Councell of Trent therefore dealeth with seuerally, and Bellarmine handleth vnder seuerall heds: as also M. Harding derideth Bishop Iewel for confounding the Communion and the Masse together. We finde in the Gospel Christs Institution of the one, and therefore willingly embrace it: but we finde there not so much as any mention at all of the other; and therefore iustly we reiect it.
THE Protestant Writers of Magdeburgh in their 1fourth Century Dedicated unto our late Sovereign Queen Elizabeth undertaking to declare the Primitive estate of the Church, which in Constantine's time illustrated the whole world, blame almost universally all the ancient Fathers for teaching free-will, Justification by works, merit of works done by the assistance of grace, confession of sins to a Priest, and enjoined Penance, absolution of such as had confessed given with Imposition of hands, Invocation of Saints, Purgatory, Altars called the seat of the body and blood of Christ offered on them, the real Presence, Transubstantiation, with care, more then was had of the water of Baptism, that no part of the Sacrament should fall to the ground, reservation of the Sacrament, worshipping of it, receiving it fasting and chaste, offering it in Sacrifice to God as being propitiator•e not only for the living, but for the dead, affirming it to be a Sacrifice according to the order of Melchizedek, liberty for Deacon• to distribute it but not to offer it, terming it Viaticum for sick persons, Images in the Church sumptuously built for celebration of Masses in them, holy vestments used by the Priest in time of the Sacrifice, Corporals and Coverings of the Altar, Lights by day burning on them, placing of Saints Relics under them, the care of deceased persons, praying before them, and making pilgrimages unto them, and other like confessed points and practises of Catholic Doctrine.
THE Protestant Writers of Magdeburgh in their 1fourth Century Dedicated vnto our late Soueraigne Queene Elizabeth vndertaking to declare the Primatiue estate of the Church, which in Constantines time illustrated the whole world, blame almost vniuersally all the ancient Fathers for teaching free-will, Iustification by works, merite of workes done by the assistance of grace, confession of sinnes to a Priest, and enioyned Penance, absolution of such as had confessed giuen with Imposition of hands, Inuocation of Saints, Purgatorie, Altars called the seate of the body and bloud of Christ offered on them, the reall Presence, Transubstantiation, with care, more then was had of the water of Baptisme, that no part of the Sacrament should fall to the ground, reseruation of the Sacrament, worshipping of it, receiueing it fasting and chast, offering it in Sacrifice to God as being propitiator•e not onely for the liuing, but for the dead, afferming it to be a Sacrisice according to the order of Melchisedeck, liberty for Deacon• to distribute it but not to offer it, tearming it Viaticum for sick persons, Im•ges in the Church sumptuously built for celebration of Masses in them, holy vestments vsed by the Priest in time of the Sacrifice, Corporals and Couerings of the Altar, Lights by day burning on them, placing of Saints Reliques vnder them, the care of d•ceased persons, praying before them, and making pilgrimages vnto them, and other like confessed points and practises of Catholike Doctrine.
§ 11. TO make us believe that this their doctrine of 1Transubstantiation is of great antiquity, he telleth us that the Centurists blame almost all the Fathers universally of Constantine's time, among other things, for teaching the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and adoration of the Sacrament.
§ 11. TO make vs beleeue that this their doctrine of 1Transubstantiation is of great antiquitie, he telleth vs that the Centurists blame almost all the Fathers vniuersally of Constantines time, among other things, for teaching the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and adoration of the Sacrament.
1T. G.
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.
not this eager disputer vrge rather that which many of them doe, that Christ bad them, r Doe this, that is, as they senselesly expound it, Sacrifice this. For that is a
sBellarm. de miss. l. 1. c. 12. Fingit Catholico• ità probare, &c. Non tam ineptè argumentantur.
tJansen. concord. cap. 131. Sunt qui Sacramentum istud esse Sacrificium ostendere conantur ex verbo facere, quod aliquando per sacrificare accipitur, &c.Iansen. concord. cap. 131. Sunt qui Sacramentum istud esse Sacrificium ostendere conantur ex verbo facere, quod aliquando per sacrificare accipitur, &c.
uInter caeteros Sanderus nostras de Coena Dom. l. 3. c 9. circumst. 19. Item Gregor. de Valent. de Miss. Sacrif. l. 1. c. 4.
no true or reall, but a mysticall death onely there; and partly in the Priests manducation, or eating of it. And why there? forsooth, because it is no where else, and somewhere it must needs be: For
in the whole action of the Masse there is no reall destruction of an Host but there onely. Thus you see how they delude the people, telling them of a true, proper, reall Sacrifice, wherein they offer Christ againe for the poore soules in Purgatorie, to picke their purses: And yet cannot tell themselues what or where it is, or wherein it consisteth. But if Christ (as they say) be the thing sacrificed or the Hoast:
since that remembrance is of a thing absent onely: and that therefore it may well bee called a Sacrifice, because it is done in memorie of Christs Passion. This is the very same that Peter Lombard before said:
