A01532:149
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.
§. 5. He telleth us in Conclusion; that the meaning of our Saviour Christs words is this; The Substance which I hold in my hands is my Body made by the miraculous conversion of bread into it. But where is ought in the Text that inti nateth this miraculous conversion? yea if this were the sense of them, it should be made Christs body ere those words were spoken of it: Whereas he and his associates commonly hold that this miraculous conversion is wrought by those words, This is my body, and *is not effected till those words be all out; which they give the Priest a special charge thereof gto utter speedily with one breath. And here let this profound doughty Doctor give an ignorant petty writer leave to demand of him, what is meant by the word This, in those words, This is my body; (for I suppose he will not be so absurd as the Glosser is, to say that hHoc or this there signifieth nothing at all:) or what that substance was (as he speaketh) that Christ held in his hands when he spake the word, Hoc, or this. If it were Christs body made before of bread, then the uttering of those words did not then, nor doth now work any conversion of the bread into Christs body: for nothing can be turned into it self, or into that that already it is: or iif it were bread still, (as for ought ap ⟨p. 56⟩[…] ⟨p. 59⟩[…] ⟨p. 56⟩[…] ⟨p. 59⟩[…] ⟨p. 60⟩peareth in the text, still it was) then must this needs be the sum and sense of Christs words, This bread is my body: and so by his own rule, when disparatum de disparato dicitur, one thing is said to be another different in nature from it, it must needs be taken figuratively.