A01532:315
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 6: Division 6.Part 2 › Division 6: Diuision 6.
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.
1. Were it not an absurd thing for Augustine to speak obscurely there, where he giveth rules for the opening and right understanding of places obscure? where should he speak more plainly and perspicuously then there; where his main aim is to make things clear?
1. Were it not an absurd thing for Augustine to speake •bscurely there, where he giueth rules for the opening and right vnderstanding of places obscure? where should he speake more plainely and perspicuously then there; where his maine aime is to make things cleere?
2. This shifters answer borrowed from Bellarmine is but a bare shift; to wit, that the place proveth no more, but that our Saviours speech concerning the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood is figurative so far forth, as that his flesh was not carnally to be eaten, and in a bloody manner, as flesh sold in the shambles is wont to be eaten, &c. As if flesh bought in the shambles used to be eaten raw and in bloody manner. Here is a deal of dirt indeed and mud raised to trouble Augustine's clear water. The Question is whether our Saviours words be to be understood properly or figuratively. yThey say properly; and not figuratively: Augustine saith figuratively; and so consequently, not properly: which is as much as is here required. zChrists body (saith Bellar mine) is with the body properly eaten in the Eucharist. But it is no proper, but a figurative eating, saith Augustine, that Christ speaketh of John 6. It is no such eating of Christs body therefore, as they imagine to be in the Eucharist. Yea so contrary to them, and so pregnant for us is that passage of Augustine, that in Fulbertus his works, where those words of his are related, they have with a foul insertion branded them for