A01532:186
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 4: Division 4.Part 2 › Division 4: Diuision 4.
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. In the next place, like a man in a maze going backward and forward, as uncertain which way to turn himself, Afterward (saith he, relating, but misrelating, as his usual manner is, some things spoken before) confusedly and tediously he endeavoureth to show the bread and wine to be no other then bare signs and types of Christs body and blood, as Alexander's picture representeth his absent person, as Circumcision is called the Covenant, because it was a sign thereof, &c.
§ 2. In the next place, like a man in a maze going backward and forward, as vncertaine which way to turne himselfe, Afterward (saith hee, relating, but misrelating, as his vsuall manner is, some things spoken before) confusedly and tediously hee endeauoureth to shew the bread and wine to be no other then bare signes and types of Christs body and blood, as Alexanders picture representeth his absent person, as Circumcision is called the Couenant, because it was a signe thereof, &c.
True it is, I say these words of our Saviour, This is my body, may as well be understood figuratively, as those speeches are where the Rock is called Christ, and when pointing to the pictures of Caesar and Alexander (it is the comparison that aAugustine useth) we say, This is Caesar, and That is Alexander. And in Answer to the Objection before recited; I say, that the Cup, that is, the wine in the Cup, is said to be the New Testament, as Circumcision the Covenant, because *a sign and seal of it. But that the bread and wine are no other then bare signs and types, &c. I no where say: It is his untruth, not mine assertion. I say expressly more then so, that they are not signs only, but seals, and signs and seals so effectual, (as after I ⟨p. 78⟩show) that by them the things signified by them, and sealed up in them are truly and effectually, yet spiritually, conveyed unto those that do faithfully receive them. He dealeth herein but as Bellarmine (whom he imitateth) doth with Calvin, one while charging him to make the Sacrament