A01532:318
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.
And surely if the Authority of holy Fathers might prevail with the Minister further then himself listeth, he cannot be so ignorant as not to know that all the ancient Doctors expounding or treating of Christs words, Joh. 6. have literally understood them of the Sacrament, as learned qTolet, rSaunders, sBellarmine, and other of our divines have particularly proved; collecting from them invincible Testimonies also, to prove the verity of our Saviours body and blood really in the Sacrament contained and received: Insomuch as S. Austin affirmeth S. John purposely to have emitted ⟨p. 119⟩all mention of the Sacrament in our Saviours last Supper, because he had in the 6. Chap. of his Gospel so particularly expressed the promised excellency and heavenly fruits thereof: and many evident and unanswerable Arguments are by Catholic expositors of that Chapter made to prove the same; which with silence my Adversary overpasseth. First, (for example) our Saviour from the 31. to the 60. verse of that Chapter maketh a difference betwixt the gift which his Father had given to the Jews loving the world so as to give his only begotten Son for it, and the gift which himself meant to give to them, speaking of the one as a gift already past; but of the other as of a gift afterwards to be given unto them. Secondly, He compareth the eating of his flesh to the Israelites eating of Manna in the desert; which was a corporal food really eaten by them. Thirdly, If by eating his flesh and drinking his blood our Saviour meant no other thing then that they should believe in him, it had been a strange course in him, who so thirsted after the salvation of souls by an obscure manner of speaking to drive away so many, such persons especially as had formerly followed him, without any word added, which might open this obscure doctrine unto them; as Card. Tollet excellently relateth there the whole process of our Saviours doctrine.
ANd surely if the Authoritie of holy Fathers might preuaile with the Minister further then himselfe listeth, he cannot be so ignorant as not to know that all the auncient Doctors expounding or treating of Christs words,