A01532:560
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.
and that the Heretics (as he esteemeth them, as if none but they so expounded it) had no other inducement so to expound it, but those words only; yIt is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing: all which you see are nothing but gross untruths.
and that the Heretickes (as he esteemeth them, as if none but they so expounded it) had no other inducement so to expound it, but those wordes onely; yIt is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing: all which you see are nothing but grosse vntruths.
- yAnd yet those words also doth Durand use to prove that Christs words John 6. 54, 55. are meant of eating spiritually, not corporally. In rational, divin, p. 2. l. 4. ad 6. p. Can.And yet those words also doth Durand vse to prooue that Christs wordes Iohn 6. 54, 55. are meant of eating spiritually, not corporally. In rational, diuin, p. 2. l. 4. ad 6. p. Can.
Secondly, whereas we prove that Christs words, This is 1my body, &c. as being uttered to the Apostles, to whom it was given to understand the mysteries of Christs Church plainly, and without parable, and containing in them the institution of a Sacrament, fit in plain words to be delivered and understood by all Christians bound to receive it, are as we say literally to be understood, and not in tropical and figurative senses, as our Adversaries expound them; producing for our opinion all the Fathers successively in all ages since Christ so understanding them: Protestant Divines slenderly object, first that of the sacramental Chalice Christ affirmed, that he would no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until after his passion: ergò it was wine contained in the Chalice: we answer that S. Luke expressly mentioneth two Chalices, one drunk after the Paschal Lamb eaten, and the other afterwards blessed by Christ and distributed to his Apostles, and that Christ only called the first the fruit of the vine, &c. So S. Jerome, S. Bede, and other great Authors explicate and solve this difficulty with us. Secondly, they object those words of Christ, Do this in memory of me: ergò the Sacrament is a bare memory of Christs body and blood, &c. We answer