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.
(neither of which, I suppose, Christs Body now can do,) Or n if a sick body that hath bin houseled, bring it up again; Or oif the Priest being drunk before chance to spew it up again; pto burn both the one and the other, qif no man be found so hardy as to take either, and rto lay up, or reserve, the ashes, of it for a relic: and sif the dogs chance to lick that up that the Priest cased himself of, he must do double penance for it. Or tif a mouse 7chance to pick their God almighty out of the Pyx (of which more anon) and she can be taken again, she must be opened, and Christs body, if it may be, picked out of her, and if no man have a stomach to so delicate a morsel, both she and it must be burnt, and the ashes reserved. For that that is both taken and kept by the Communicanes: let them not blame us if with due reverence to such holy mysteries, we argue from our Saviours own words; the Ancients have done so before us: pWhatsoever (saith our Saviour) goeth into the mouth, entereth not into the heart, but goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught, qwhich is the purging of all meats. Whereupon as Augustine saith, having spoken both of the food that is rsanctified for the sustenance of our bodies, and of the bread that they used to give to the Catechumeni after the celebration of the Sacrament, s
This sanctification of meats hindereth not, but that that which goeth into the mouth, goeth into the belly, and is by corruption cast out into the draught; whereupon our Lord exhorteth us to
the mouth, goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught: then even that Bread also that is sanctified (or consecrated; all is one) by the word of God and by prayer, as it is material, goeth into the belly and is cast out into the draught: nor is it the matter of the bread, but the prayer added to it, and the word spoken of it, that maketh it profitable to the worthy receiver. But to say so or to think so of Christs blessed and glorious Body were most hideous, most horrible. Well therefore saith Ambrose;
It is not this Bread that goeth into the belly, but the Bread of eternal life, that sustaineth the substance of our souls.
(neither of which, I suppose, Christs Body now can doe,) Or n if a sicke body that hath bin houseled, bring it vp againe; Or oif the Priest being drunke before chance to spew it vp againe; pto burne both the one and the other, qif no man be found so hardy as to take either, and rto lay vp, or reserue, the ashes, of it for a relique: and sif the dogs chance to licke that vp that the Priest cased himselfe of, he must doe double penance for it. Or tif a mouse 7chance to picke their God almightie out of the Pyx (of which more anone) and she can be taken againe, she must be opened, and Christs body, if it may be, picked out of her, and if no man haue a stomacke to so delicate a morsell, both shee and it must be burnt, and the ashes reserued. For that that is both taken and kept by the Communicanes: let them not blame vs if with due reuerence to such holy mysteries, we argue from our Sauiours owne words; the Auncients haue done so before vs: pWhatsoeuer (saith our Sauiour) goeth into the mouth, entreth not into the heart, but goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught, qwhich is the purging of all meates. Whereupon as Augustine saith, hauing spoken both of the foode that is rsanctified for the sustenance of our bodies, and of the bread that they vsed to giue to the Catechumeni after the celebration of the Sacrament, sThis sanctification of meates hindreth not, but that that which goeth into the mouth, goeth into the belly, and is by corruption cast out into the draught; whereupon our Lord exhorteth vs to tanother meate that corrupteth not: So Origen speaking of the Sacrament it selfe, uof the typicall and symbolicall Body of Christ; (for so expressely he explaineth himselfe:) xIf, saith he, whatsoeuer goeth in at ⟨p. 30⟩the mouth, goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught: then euen that Bread also that is sanctified (or consecrated; all is one) by the word of God and by prayer, as it is materiall, goeth into the belly and is cast out into the draught: nor is it the matter of the bread, but the praier added to it, and the word spoken of it, that maketh it profitable to the worthy receiuer. But to say so or to thinke so of Christs blessed and glorious Body were most hideous, most horrible. Well therefore saith Ambrose; yIt is not this Bread that goeth into the belly, but the Bread of eternall life, that sustaineth the substance of our soules.
oSi casu gulae Eucharistiam evomuerit. Missal. in cautel.Si casu gulae Eucharistiam euomuerit. Missal. in cautel.
pIncineretur. Ibid. & Du•and. Ibid.
qContritum cum vino sumatur, nisi horror sit sumere. Duran.
rJuxta altar recondatur. Missal. pro reliquiis custodiatur. Durand.Iuxta altare recondatur. Missal. pro reliquiis custodiatur. Durand.
sSi canes lambuerint, vel à canibus consumitur, poeniteat 100 dies. Burch. l. 5. c. 48, 49. ex Poenitent. Theodor. & Rom.
tPetr. de Lap. resol. dub. cap. 7▪ art. 3. dub. 7. apud Viret. de sacrif. Miss. l. 3. c. 17.
7h Si corpus Christi infirmo datum rejicitur. Durand. Ibid.
sIsta ciborum sanctificatio non efficit, ut quod in os intraverit, non in ventrem vadat, & in secessum emittatur per corruptionem: unde ad aliam escam quae non corrumpitur exhortatur nos Dominus. August. de peccat. mer. l. 2. c. 26.Ista ciborum sanctificatio non efficit, vt quod in os intrauerit, non in ventrem vadat, & in secessum emittatur per corruptionem: vnde ad aliam escam quae non corrumpitur exhortatur nos Dominus. August. de peccat. mer. l. 2. c. 26.
xQuod si quicquid ingreditur, &c. & ille cibus qui sanctificatur per verbum Dei perque obsecrationem juxta id quod habet materiale in ventrem abit, & in secessum eiicitur. Nec materia panis, sed precatio quae illi adiicitur & super illum dictus sermo efficit ut profit non indignè Domino comedenti illum. Origen. in Mat. c. 15.Quod si quicquid ingreditur, &c. & ille cibus qui sanctificatur per verbum Dei perque obsecrationem iuxta id quod habet materiale in ventrem abit, & in secessum eiicitur. Nec materia panis, sed precatio quae illi adiicitur & super illum dictus sermo efficit vt profit non indignè Domino comedenti illum. Origen. in Mat. c. 15.
yNon iste panis est, qui vadit in corpus, sed panis vitae aeternae, qui animae substátiam fulcit. Ambr. apud Grat. de confecr. dist. 2. c. Non iste.
And Augustine expressly telleth us that zWe are not to eat that body that the Jews saw, nor drink that blood which they shed that crucified Christ; but there is a Sacrament commended unto us, which being spiritually understood will put life into us. *There can nothing be imagined more absurd (saith Bellarmine himself) then to think that Christs Body should nourish the mortal substance of mens bodies, and so should be the food, not of the mind, but of the belly. But by the Popish doctrine this it must needs do and worse then this; the Popish doctrine therefore is most absurd.
And Augustine expressely telleth vs that zWe are not to eate that body that the Iewes saw, nor drinke that blood which they shed that crucified Christ; but there is a Sacrament commended vnto vs, which being spiritually vnderstood will put life into vs. *There can nothing be imagined more absurd (saith Bellarmine himselfe) then to thinke that Christs Body should nourish the mortall substance of mens bodies, and so should be the foode, not of the minde, but of the belly. But by the Popish doctrine this it must needs doe and worse then this; the Popish doctrine therefore is most absurd.
zNon hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis, & bibituri illum sanguinem, quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent. Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi: spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit vos. Aug. in Psal. 98.Non hoc corpus quod videtis māducaturi estis, & bibituri illum sanguinem, quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent. Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi: spiritualiter intellectum viuificabit vos. Aug. in Psal. 98.
*Nihil absurdius fingi potest, quàm Eucharistiâ nutriri mortalem substantiam corporis nostri, & cibum esse ventris non mentis Eucharistiam. Bellar. de Euchar. l 2. c 4.
Lastly, what can be more horrible, then to imagine that Christs body, or any part of it, should be not in the belly of a man, but in the belly of a beast? aChristian ears (saith Bonaventure) abhor to hear that Christs body should be in the draught or in a mouses maw. Yet by this Popish doctrine both the one & the other too must needs be, if a mouse chance (as he may) to meet with a consecrated Host. Nor do the Popish writers ordinarily make dainty of it to acknowledge as much. If a pig or a dog, (saith Alexander of Hales) should swallow down an whole consecrated host, I see not why or how Christs body should not pass into its belly. And, ⟨p. 31⟩2Thomas Aquinas, cA brute beast may by accident eat Christs body. And, dThough a Mouse or a Dog eat a consecrated Host, yet the substance of Christs body ceaseth not to be there, no more then it doth, if the Host be cast into the dirt. eIf it be said (saith the Glosser) that a mouse eateth Christs Body, there is no great inconvenience in it; since that the most wicked men that are, receive it. fNone eateth Christs flesh (saith Augustine) but he that first worshippeth it. And I doubt much whether any of these dogs, pigs, or mice, ever adored it: howsoever Cardinal Bellarmine and some others tell us either of gan Horse or an Ass that worshipped the Host. But let them and their brutish miracles and imaginations, go together. Yet so necessarily doth this follow upon their doctrine of the Eucharist; that whereas some of their Doctors seem to doubt hwhat the mouse eateth when she meeteth with an Host, and maketh a good meal of it; And the great Master of the Sentences saith, iGod knoweth; for he knoweth not; but he inclineth rather to think, that kthe mouse eateth not Christs body, though she seem so to do; whereupon the Masters of Paris give him a wipe for it by the way, and said, the Master is out here. And others of them, to salve the matter, would coin us a new miracle, and say, that mso soon as the mouses mouth cometh at it, or her lips kiss it, Christs Body conveyeth it self away, and nthe bread miraculously cometh again in the room of it: oand this (say they) is the commoner and the honester opinion. Here is miracle upon miracle; such as they are.
Lastly, what can be more horrible, then to imagine that Christs body, or any part of it, should be not in the belly of a man, but in the belly of a beast? aChristian eares (saith Benauenture) abhorre to heare that Christs body should be in the draught or in a mouses maw. Yet by this Popish doctrine both the one & the other too must needs be, if a mouse chance (as he may) to meete with a consecrated Hoast. Nor doe the Popish writers ordinarily make daintie of it to acknowledge as much. If a pigge or a dogge, (saith Alexander of Hales) should swallow downe an whole consecrated hoast, I see not why or how Christs body should not passe into its belly. And, ⟨p. 31⟩2Thomas Aquinas, cA brute beast may by accident eate Christs body. And, dThough a Mouse or a Dog eate a consecrated Hoast, yet the substance of Christs body ceaseth not to be there, no more then it doth, if the Hoast be cast into the durt. eIf it be said (saith the Glosser) that a mouse eateth Christs Body, there is no great inconuenience in it; since that the most wicked men that are, receiue it. fNene eateth Christs flesh (saith Augustine) but hee that first worshippeth it. And I doubt much whether any of these dogs, pigs, or mice, euer adored it: howsoeuer Cardinal Bellarmine and some others tell vs either of gan Horse or an Asse that worshipped the Hoast. But let them and their brutish miracles and imaginations, goe together. Yet so necessarily doth this follow vpon their doctrine of the Eucharist; that whereas some of their Doctors seeme to doubt hwhat the mouse eateth when she meeteth with an Hoast, and maketh a good meale of it; And the great Master of the Sentences saith, iGod knoweth; for he knoweth not; but he enclineth rather to thinke, that k
aAures piae hoc abhorrent audi•e, quod in ventre muris vel in cloaca sit corpus Christi. Bonavent. in 4. Sent. dist. 13. quaest. 2. art. 1. apud Aftesan. sum. part. 4. tit. 17. quaest. 2.Aures piae hoc abhorrent audi•e, quod in ventre muris vel in cloaca sit corpus Christi. Bonauent. in 4. Sent. dist. 13. quaest. 2. art. 1. apud Aftesan. sum. part. 4. tit. 17. quaest. 2.
2b Si canis, vel porcus deglutiret hostiam consecratam integram, non video quare vel quomodo corpus Domini non trai•ceretur in ventrem canis vel porci. Alex. Ales, sum. part. 4. quaest. 3. mem. 1. art. 2.
cBrutum animal per accidens corpus Christi manducat. Thom. sum. part. 3. quaest. 80. art. 3.
dEtiamsi mus vel canis hostiam consecratā manducet, substantia corporis Christi non desinit esse sub specibus, &c. sicut etiam, s• proiiceretur in •utum. Thom. Ibid.Etiamsi mus vel canis hostiam consecratā manducet, substantia corporis Christi non desinit esse sub specibus, &c. sicut etiam, s• proiiceretur in •utum. Thom. Ibid.
eSi dicatur, quod sumat, non est m•gnum inconueniens, cum sceleratissimi homines istud sumant. Glos. ad Grat. de consecr. dist. 2. c. Qui benè.
fNemo carnē illam manducat, nisi priùs adoraverit. Aug. in Psal. 98.Nemo carnē illam manducat, nisi priùs adorauerit. Aug. in Psal. 98.
gJumentū corpus Christi suppliciter adoravit. Bellarm. de Euchar. l. 3. c. 8. ex Antonin. sum. hist. part. 3. tit. 24. c. 3. Sect. 2. & Sur. tom. 3. in vita Anton•• de Padua.Iumentū corpus Christi suppliciter adorauit. Bellarm. de Euchar. l. 3. c. 8. ex Antonin. sum. hist. part. 3. tit. 24. c. 3. Sect. 2. & Sur. tom. 3. in vita Anton de Padua.
Yet Thomas Aquinas their pchief Schoolman, and one that could not be deceived herein, for they say that his doctrine of the Sacrament ⟨p. 32⟩2was confirmed by Miracle, a wooden Crucifix miraculously saluting him with these words, qThou hast written well of me, Thomas; telleth us peremptorily that it cannot be otherwise, if Christs body be in the Eucharist, but that Mice and Rats must eat it, when they meet with the Host and make meat of it. rSome say (saith he) that so soon as the Sacrament is touched by a dog or a mouse, Christs Body ceaseth to be there: But this opinion derogateth from the truth of the Sacrament. Thus you may see what hideous, horrid and horrible conclusions this carnal and Capernaiticall conceit of Christs corporal presence in the Eucharist hath bred and brought forth, and must needs breed and bring forth with all those that uphold it.
Yet Thomas Aquinas their pchiefe Schooleman, and one that could not be deceiued herein, for they say that his doctrine of the Sacrament ⟨p. 32⟩2was confirmed by Miracle, a woodden Crucifix miraculously saluting him with these words, qThou hast written well of me, Thomas; telleth vs peremptorily that it cannot be otherwise, if Christs body be in the Eucharist, but that Mice and Rats must eate it, when they meete with the Hoast and make meate of it. rSome say (saith he) that so soone as the Sacrament is touched by a dogge or a mouse, Christs Body ceaseth to be there: But this opinion derogateth from the truth of the Sacrament. Thus you may see what hideous, horride and horrible conclusions this carnall and Capernaiticall conceite of Christs corporall presence in the Eucharist hath bred and brought forth, and must needs breede and bring forth with all those that vphold it.
pAngelicus Doctor.
2l Hîc Magister non tenetur. Censur Paris.
qBenè scrip sisti de me, Thoma. Erphurd. de fact. memor. c. 9. 5.
rQuidā dixerunt, quod statim dum sacramentum tangitur à mure vel cane, desinit ibi esse corpus Christi. Sed hoc derogat veritati sacramenti. Thou. sum. part. 3. q. 80. a. 3.Quidā dixerunt, quod statim dum sacramentum tangitur à mure vel cane, desinit ibi esse corpus Christi. Sed hoc derogat veritati sacramenti. Thō. sum. part. 3. q. 80. a. 3.
1. That there is nothing in the Gospel whereby it may appear that those words of our Saviour, This is my Body, may not be figuratively understood, is by Cardinal Caietan confessed.
1. THat there is nothing in the Gospel whereby it may appeare that those words of our Sauiour, This is my Body, may not be figuratiuely vnderstood, is by Cardinal Caietan confessed.
2. That our Saviours words of eating his flesh and drinking his blood are to be understood not corporally but spiritually, is acknowledged by many Popish writers of great note: and is, beside other Reasons, by a Rule given by Augustine evidently proved.
2. That our Sauiours words of eating his flesh and drinking his blood are to be vnderstood not corporally but spiritually, is acknowledged by many Popish writers of great note: and is, beside other Reasons, by a Rule giuen by Augustine euidently prooued.
3. That the Elements in the Sacrament remain in Substance the same, and are not really transubstantiated into Christs Body and Blood, is evinced by divers Arguments.
3. That the Elements in the Sacrament remaine in Substance the same, and are not really transubstantiated into Christs Body and Blood, is euinced by diuers Arguments.
4. From the Nature of Christs Body, that hath flesh, blood, and bones, which the Eucharistical bread hath not, that. ⟨p. 33⟩which our taste, our sight, and our sense informeth us, by which our Saviour himself hath taught us to discern his body.
4. From the Nature of Christs Body, that hath flesh, blood, and bones, which the Eucharisticall bread hath not, that. ⟨p. 33⟩which our taste, our sight, and our sense informeth vs, by which our Sauiour himselfe hath taught vs to discerne his body.
6. From the quality of the Communicants, good and bad, promiscuously feeding on the Elements in the Eucharist, whereas none but the faithful can feed upon Christ.
6. From the qualitie of the Communicants, good and bad, promiscuously feeding on the Elements in the Eucharist, whereas none but the faithfull can feede vpon Christ.
7. From these infirm and unseemly, yea foul and filthy things that do usually, or may befall the Elements in the Eucharist, which no Christian ear can endure to hear that they should befall Christs blessed and glorious body.
7. From these infirme and vnseemely, yea foule and filthy things that doe vsually, or may befall the Elements in the Eucharist, which no Christian eare can endure to heare that they should befall Christs blessed and glorious body.
Whence I conclude, that since this Corporal presence, such as the Church of Rome maintaineth, hath no warrant from Gods word, as their own Cardinal confesseth; and is besides contrary to Scripture, to nature, to sight, to sense, to reason, to religion, we have little reason to receive it, as a truth of Christ, or a principle of Christianity, great reason to reject it, as a figment of a mans brain, yea as a doctrine of the devil, invented to wrong Christ and Christianity.
Whence I conclude, that since this Corporall presence, such as the Church of Rome maintaineth, hath no warrant from Gods word, as their owne Cardinal confesseth; and is besides contrary to Scripture, to nature, to sight, to sense, to reason, to religion, we haue little reason to receiue it, as a truth of Christ, or a principle of Christianitie, great reason to reiect it, as a figment of a mans braine, yea as a doctrine of the diuell, inuented to wrong Christ and Christianitie.
The author
Thomas Gataker 1574–1654
PuritansEngland
Rector of Rotherhithe; member of the Westminster Assembly.
Transcription key
•
an illegible letter
〈…〉
illegible words
〈non-Latin alphabet〉
Greek or Hebrew the transcribers did not key
▪
illegible punctuation
⟨p. 12⟩
a page break in the printed book
the mouse eateth not Christs body, though shee seeme so to doe; whereupon the Masters of Paris giue him a wipe for it by the way, and said, the Master is out here. And others of them, to salue the matter, would coine vs a new miracle, and say, that
and this (say they) is the commoner and the honester opinion. Here is miracle vpon miracle; such as they are.
••
hQuid à mure comeditur cum sacramentum corroditur? Lomb. sent. l. 4. dist. 13. A.
iDeus novit. Ibid.Deus nouit. Ibid.
kDici potest, quod corpus Christi à brutis non sumitur, quamuis videatur. Ibib.
mQuam citò mus rodit, corpus Christi esse desinit. Bonavent. in sent. l. 4. d. 13. p. 1. q. 2. art. 1. & Astesan. sum l. 4. tit. 17. q. 2.Quam citò mus rodit, corpus Christi esse desinit. Bonauent. in sent. l. 4. d. 13. p. 1. q. 2. art. 1. & Astesan. sum l. 4. tit. 17. q. 2.
nPanis miraculosè revertitur. Innocent. de Miss. l. 4. c. 11. & Fortalit. fid. lib. 3. consid. 6. imposs. 17.Panis miraculosè reuertitur. Innocent. de Miss. l. 4. c. 11. & Fortalit. fid. lib. 3. consid. 6. imposs. 17.
oEt haec opinio communior est, & honestior. Astesan. Ibid.
