A01532:376
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 7: Division 7.Part 2 › Division 7: Diuision 7.
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.
Yet ere he come to my first Argument he must needs have a fling at me for confounding their doctrine of Transubstantiation and the real presence (corporal, he should have said for more perspicuity; for so I speak) ignorantly the one with the other. I perceive well what his drift herein is; to make some believe that howsoever Transubstantiation was not generally held till of late times; yet a real, that is a corporal presence was ever acknowledged. But if we will believe Bellarmine, Aquinas, and the Council of Trent, the one of them is every jot as ancient as the other, yea the one cannot possibly be without the other. hThis, (the Council of Trent telleth us,) was always the faith of the Church, that by the consecration of Bread and Wine, the whole Substance of the Bread was turned into the Substance of Christs body, and the whole Substance of wine into his Blood. And, iA body, (saith Aquinas) cannot be, where it was not before, but either by local motion, or by the conversion of some other thing into it. But it is manifest that Christs body beginneth not to be in the Sacrament by any local motion: And therefore it must needs come there by the conversion of the bread into it. Yea, kby local motion it cannot be there, nor by any means but by this. And Bellarm. clean contrary to himself else-where, ⟨p. 135⟩lIt cannot be, that the words of Christ should be true, but by such a conversion and transmutation as the Catholic Church calleth Transubstantiation. It is no matter of ignorance therefore in this Controversy to confound those things, which those we deal with conjoin, yea which they tell us cannot be dis-joined.
Yet ere he come to my first Argument he must needs haue a fling at me for confounding their doctrine of Transsubstantiation and the reall presence (corporall, hee should haue said for more perspicuitie; for so I speake) ignorantly the one with the other. I perceiue well what his drift herein is; to make some beleeue that howsoeuer Transubstantiation was not generally held till of late times; yet a reall, that is a corporall presence was euer acknowledged. But if we will beleeue Bellarmine, Aquinas, and the Councel of Trent, the one of them is euery iot as ancient as the other, yea the one cannot possibly bee without the other.