A01532:554
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 14: Division 14.Part 2 › Division 14: Diuision 14.
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.
They pretend clear places of Scripture for each point of 1their doctrines wherein they differ from us. But when they come to be duly discussed, they either make against themselves, or prove nothing at all against us; as I will briefly declare in this very controversy, for a Corollarium of my whole doctrine. For whereas S. aCyprian, S. Hilary, Saint Ambrose, S. Chrysostom, S. Augustine, Cyril, Hesychius, Theodoret, and universally all the ancient Fathers commenting the 6. Chapter of S. Johns Gospel have literally understood Christs promise of giving his flesh to eat and his blood to drink in the Sacrament, these men restrain them to a metaphorical and spiritual eating by faith only; and for this their interpretation quite contrary to the judgement of the ancient Church, they only cite those words of Christ, It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing, &c. and affirm them to import that Christs words are figuratively to be understood, and not at all according to the literal signification of them, to wit, of Christs body and blood received in the Sacrament. Whereas at most they can import, that Christ promised not to give his flesh and blood carnally, as the Capharnaits understood him, cut (to wit) in pieces, and by bits eaten, as S. Augustine explicateth them; but that Christs body and blood were to be after a spiritual manner present, and received in the Sacrament, which we deny not: And great Authors (as Tolet noteth) so expound them, as to make this sense, It is the deity or divine spirit which is united with my flesh, that vivificateth by grace souls worthily receiving it, and not by flesh alone barely of it self eaten. Neither of which explications prove a figurative understanding of Christs words: this being a Gloss of ⟨p. 208⟩their own besides the text, never before them taught by any Catholic Doctor: and so it can be no solid sufficient ground for them to rely upon for their heretical denial of Christs true body and blood really present and received in the Sacrament. For Scripture ill understood is no Scripture, but Gods word abused.
THey pretend cleare places of Scripture for each point of 1their doctrines wherein they differ from vs. But when they come to be duly discussed, they either make against themselues, or prooue nothing at all against vs; as I will briefely declare in this very controuersie, for a Corollarium of my whole doctrine. For whereas S.