A01532:344
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.
His next Argument pag. 8. maketh more (if this Minister had wit to discern the force thereof) against his own exposition of Christs words, then it doth against our understanding of them. For as all that receive Sacramentally Christs flesh and blood, are not saved; no more are all that spiritually and by faith eat him. This being sufficient for the verity of our Saviours speeches that the Sacrament is ordained to produce those excellent and heavenly effects which Christs promises there import in the souls of such as worthily receive it; and such contrarily as come unworthily thereunto receive death and judgement to themselves by it.
His next Argument pag. 8. maketh more (if this Minister had wit to discerne the force thereof) against his owne exposition of Christs words, then it doth against our vnderstanding of them. For as all that receiue Sacramentally Christs flesh and blood, are not saued; no more are all that spiritually and by faith eate him. This being sufficient for the veritie of our Sauiours speeches that the Sacrament is ordained to produce those excellent and heauenly effects which Christs promises there import in the soules of such as worthily receiue it; and such centrarily as come vnworthily thereunto receiue death and iudgement to themselues by it.
As for those few Catholic writers who have denied Christs words in that 6. Chap. of Saint John to have been understood at all of Sacramental manducation; I answer, that their number is not great, and their authority of no weight at all against a numberless multitude of ancient Fathers and modern Doctors of better note contrarily understanding them; yielding better reasons for that their literal ⟨p. 128⟩true explication, and easily solving all heretical Objections gathered from the literal sense of our Saviours words in that Chapter against our communion under one kind and other points of Catholic doctrine. And sithence my Adversary will not stick to contemn these very Authors in their other known Catholic doctrines, why doth he so highly value and mainly urge them in this opinion, wherein without any heretical intention or obstinacy of Judgement they differ from us?