A01532:488
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 12: Division 12.Part 2 › Division 12: Diuision 12.
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.
AT the end of this Argument I answer an Objection, 1how Christs body and blood can be conveyed unto us, or eaten and drunk of us in the Eucharist, if he be not there present. Which Question from the Fathers (as you heard before) may in a word be soon answered. Because our Saviour showed it by those words of his concerning his ascension, & his speech thereunto annexed, to be a spiritual not a corporal kind of communication. And if they will hear one of their own Bishops, Jansenius; he will tell them, that qto eat Christs flesh and drink his blood is to believe in his Incarnation and in his passion and blood, shedding; and that so by faith either of them are both present with us, and conveyed to us as well in the Sacrament, as out of it. But hereupon this mine Adversary befooling me for my labour, for taking such a task upon me, to answer such a Question; saith, I undertake to declare that by comparisons, as if there were no difficulty at all in it, cwhich Calvin and Beza confess to be a mystery, unconceivable, incomprehensible, inexplicable, yea which (as we hold it) implieth an evident contradiction: affirming that Christ is no more present therein, nor in any manner conjoined with the sacramental signs, then the land conveyed by an Indenture sealed is present with the same, or then he is present with the water in Baptism. Whereupon he worthily inferreth; that this our Sacrament then is but a bare sign or figure of Christs body having no mystery at all worthy of admiration; and Calvin and Beza, &c. are but Jugglers and Impostors.
AT the end of this Argument I answer an Obiection, 1how Christs body and blood can be conveighed vnto vs, or eaten and drunke of vs in the Eucharist, if hee be not there present. Which Question from the Fathers (as you heard before) may in a word be soone answered. Because our Sauiour shewed it by those wordes of his concerning his ascension, & his speech therunto annexed, to be a spirituall not a corporall kind of communication. And if they will heare one of their owne Bishops, Iansenius; hee will tell them, that q