A01532:419
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 8: Division 8.Part 2 › Division 8: Diuision 8.
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.
Neither is it a good or Christian kind of Argument 1which my Adversary in the end of the same 12. page to this purpose maketh; Other substantial conversions are sensible and easily discerned, albeit miraculous, as when Aaron's rod was made a Serpent, &c. Whereas in the Sacrament we see wholly the contrary: therefore we are not to believe therein any such conversion; citing thus for proof thereof a place of S. Augustine in his margin, which directly if he had marked it, overthroweth his own doctrine, and purpose of citing it: That which you see (saith this Father) is bread and a Cup: but that which your faith requireth you to be informed of, is, that the bread is Christs body, and the Cup his blood. Could he affirm any thing more plainly against this Ministers sensual and absurd Argument; which were it good, would lead us to believe nothing; gfaith being only of things which appear not to our understanding or senses. How far is this carnal, poor, unlearned man from the holy Fathers spirit and doctrine, as I have formerly cited their assertions? wherein they teach us to renounce the natural judgement of our understanding and senses, and with the Apostle to captivate our understandings to the obedience of faith in this and many other mysteries of faith, humbly to be upon the warrant of Gods word assented unto, and not over-curiously searched after by us. hWe are (saith S. Hillary, that great Doctor of Christs Church, and victorious Champion of his deity) not to dispute (as my Adversary doth) in a secular and sensual manner of divine things. For of this natural verity of Christ in us (speaking of the Sacrament) unless we learn of Christ himself, we speak foolishly and impiously. Wherefore sithence he saith, iMy flesh is truly food, and my blood is truly drink: He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, remaineth in me and I in him: there is no place of doubting left concerning the verity of Christs body and blood. For now by the profession of our Lord and faithful belief which we have thereof, it is his true flesh and blood: and these being received by us do make us to be in Christ ⟨p. 154⟩