A01532:345
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.
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?
As for those few Catholike writers who haue denied Christs words in that 6. Chap. of Saint Iohn to haue beene vnderstood at all of Sacramentall manducation; I answer, that their number is not great, and their authoritie of no weight at all against a numberlesse multitude of ancient Fathers and moderne Doctors of better note contrarily vnderstanding them; yeelding better reasons for that their literall ⟨p. 128⟩true explication, and easily soluing all hereticall Obiections gathered from the literall sense of our Sauiours words in that Chapter against our communion vnder one kinde and other points of Catholike doctrine. And sithence my Aduersaerie will not sticke to contemne these very Authors in their other knowne Catholike doctrines, why doth he so highly value and mainely vrge them in this opinion, wherein without any hereticall intention or obstinacie of Iudgement they differ from vs?
§ 6. AT length he cometh to refute mine Arguments; 1which he saith are topical, and prove nothing.