A01532:194
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 4: Division 4.Part 2 › Division 4: Diuision 4.
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. Here is a new distinction between the Elements of Bread and Wine, and the Sacramental signs in the Eucharist. And indeed if their doctrine be sound and true, neither Bread, nor Wine, are ever, or ever were Signs of Christs body and blood in the Eucharist, though the Ancients commonly so term them. For before Consecration they are not; and in Consecration they cease to be, as they say: and after Consecration they cannot be, because they have now no being: and so consequently they never are.
1. Here is a new distinction betweene the Elements of Bread and Wine, and the Sacramentall signes in the Eucharist. And indeed if their doctrine be sound and true, neither Bread, nor Wine, are euer, or euer were Signes of Christs body and blood in the Eucharist, though the Auncients commonly so tearme them. For before Consecration they are not; and in Consecration they cease to be, as they say: and after Consecration they cannot be, because they haue now no being: and so consequently they neuer are.
2. Here is a strange Interpretation, and a most absurd assertion: The Sacramental Signs, that is, the Accidents, retain still their Substance, that is, their Accidents. This is like Christs blood in his blood, that we had a little before. These are abstruse riddles indeed: and it is no great marvel, if dull pates and shallow brains cannot easily conceive them.
2. Here is a strange Interpretation, and a most abfurd assertion: The Sacramentall Signes, that is, the Accidents, retaine still their Substance, that is, their Accidents. This is like Christs blood in his blood, that wee had a little before. These are abstruse riddles indeede: and it is no great maruell, if dull pates and shallow braines cannot easily conceiue them.