A01532:34
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.
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.
The latter place usually alleged to this purpose, is that large Discourse our Saviour hath concerning the eating of his flesh, and drinking of his blood. Joh. 6. 51-58.
The latter place vsually alledged to this purpose, is that large Discourse our Sauiour hath concerning the eating of his flesh, and drinking of his blood. Ioh. 6. 51-58.
True it is indeed, that if the bread and wine in the Eucharist be transubstantiated into the natural body and blood of Christ, and there be such a corporal presence, as Papists imagine; it must needs follow that Christs very flesh is eaten, and his very blood it self is corporally drunk in the Sacrament: And to this purpose also Pope Nicholas in that solemn form of recantation that he enjoined Berengarius inserted into the body of the Canon, avoweth that kthe very body of Christ in the Eucharist is broken with the Priests hands, and torn in pieces with mens teeth, not sacramentally only, but sensually: and that all that hold the contrary deserve to be eternally damned. A sensual indeed and a senseless assertion, yea an horrible and an hideous speech; full fraught (I may well say, though it proceeded from a Pope, who, they say, cannot err) with extreme impiety and blasphemy, and such as Christian e•res cannot but abhor to hear. In so much that their own Glosser upon the place well warneth us to ⟨p. 8⟩take heed how we trust him, lLest […] fall into a worse heresy then Berengarius ever held. But thus one monstrous opinion breedeth and begetteth another. And this indeed must needs follow upon the former. The corporal presence of Christ in the thing eaten, must needs infer and enforce a corporal eating of him: and to prove the same they press commonly our Saviours words in that place of eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Which as, with some of the Ancients indeed, they understand of the Eucharist, so they expound (though without their consent therein) of a corporal and carnal eating of Christs flesh.