A01532:145
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 2: Division 2.Part 2 › Division 2: Diuision 2.
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.
1. In this speech of our Saviour, This is my body, as well as in that speech of the Prophet, mThis is Jerusalem, or in that speech of the Apostle, nThe Rock was Christ, is one thing, to wit, bread (as is afterward proved both by the course of the context, the words of the Apostle, and the doctrine of the ancient Fathers) said to be an other thing, to wit, the flesh of Christ, which is wholly different in nature from it. Nor can this worthy Disputer prove ⟨p. 55⟩thē contrary, unless you grant him the point in question, which here he shamefully beggeth to make good his Assertion, to wit, that that which Christ had in his hands was his body made by the miraculous conversion of bread into it?
1. In this speech of our Sauiour, This is my body, as well as in that speech of the Prophet, mThis is Ierusalem, or in that speech of the Apostle, nThe Rocke was Christ, is one thing, to wit, bread (as is afterward prooued both by the course of the context, the words of the Apostle, and the doctrine of the ancient Fathers) said to bee an other thing, to wit, the flesh of Christ, which is wholly different in nature from it. Nor can this worthy Disputer prooue ⟨p. 55⟩thē contrary, vnlesse you grant him the point in question, which heere hee shamefully beggeth to make good his Assertion, to wit, that that which Christ had in his hands was his bodie made by the miraculous conversion of bread into it?