A01532:166
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.
London: printed by John for William Sheffard, 1624London: printed by Iohn for William Sheffard, 1624
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Part 2 › Division 3: Division 3.Part 2 › Division 3: Diuision 3.
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.
Division 3.
Diuision 3.
This is the true Doctrine of the ancient Fathers: and 1so plainly and unanswerably do they teach the literal understanding of our Saviours words, and the miraculous conversion of the bread & wine of the Altar by the omnipotent force of them into the body and blood of Christ; telling us that we must not believe our sense or reason telling us the contrary; nor conceive it so impossible, as our carnal and gross Adversaries pretend, for the body of our Saviour to be in heaven, and in numberless places of the earth together i•sibly ⟨p. 69⟩existing. Whose plain testimonies are in a whole Book together by learned fBellarmine truly and particularly collected: where also he refuteth the shifting answers of Protestanticall Divines unto them; solving all Objections gathered out of their obscurer sayings against Catholic doctrine. Who is by this Minister ignorantly or maliciously traduced, and made directly against the whole drift of his Controversy to teach a probability at least of Protestant Doctrine about the figurative and tropical sense of our Saviours words, This is my Body; because disputing against Luther; supposing as well as he the literal sense of our Saviours words, argumento ad hominem, by an Argument drawn from Luther's own grounds, he driveth Luther either to confess Transubstantiation necessarily purported in our Saviours words, This is my Body; or for to admit barely (against the known opinion of himself and all his disciples) a figurative and metaphorical understanding of them. For if Christs words be literally to be understood, and bread also admitted to remain in the Sacrament, the Pronoune, Hoc, This, would naturally and necessarily demonstrate it, and not the body of Christ invisibly therein present, and so bread in our Saviours speech should falsely be affirmed to be Christs body: Whereas if bread remain not, but be truly converted into Christs body, no such absurd and impossible sense followeth out of the literal understanding of Christs words. Why then doth this Minister falsely make Bellarmine in this place seem to affirm that there is nothing in the holy Text, that may enforce us to believe that Christ is corporally present in the Sacrament, or (which is all one) that may enforce us literally and not figuratively to understand Christs words, &c.