A01532:384
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.
And now I deny his Proposition: The Ministers carried not that that they drew: They drew water; they carried not water but wine.
And for his addition hereunto, that Christ after he took the bread and wine, and before he distributed them, by his miraculous and omnipotent benediction converted them into his own body and blood, as he showeth by his words plainly pronounced of them, This is my body. Though it be nothing to the Argument, and a mere begging of the point in Question, yet let us consider a little of it, where in the Text he findeth that Christ thus converted them: for the words, This is my body (as was formerly showed) do not evince it. But he findeth it (it seemeth) in the benediction or the blessing of the bread; which is yet against the common conceit of his Associates, that say there was no conversion at all till Christ uttered those words, This is my body. Hear we Bellarmine a little parguing this point against Luther. Having acknowledged (as was said formerly) that Christs words, This is my body, may bear either the sense that we give them, or the sense that they give them, but not that sense, that the Lutherans give: For (saith he) the Lord took bread, and blessed it, and gave it his Disciples, saying, This is my body. Bread therefore he took; bread he blessed, and of bread of he said, This is my body. Either therefore Christ by blessing changed the bread into his body truly and properly, or he changed it improperly and figuratively, by adding signification (or as Theodoret rather, *by adding to nature that grace) which before it had not. If he changed it truly and properly, then gave he bread changed, and of that bread so changed he truly said, This is my body, that is, that which is contained under the shape of bread is no more bread, but my body: and ⟨p. 137⟩this we say, If it be said that he changed the bread figuratively, then shall there be that bread given the Apostles, that is figuratively Christs body, and those words, This is my body have this sense, This is the figure of my body: and so the Protestants hold. Yea so indeed (as you have heard before) did Augustine in precise terms after Tertullian expound them, who belike then by Bellarmines ground was in this point a Protestant. Now let either Bellarmine, or this Answerer prove that our Saviour by his blessing wrought any other conversion, and we will yield unto them.