A01532:309
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 6: Division 6.Part 2 › Division 6: Diuision 6.
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.
2. Either Christs flesh is eaten there corporally, or spiritually only. If corporally, why doth this fellow stick at it, and is so loath to acknowledge it? If spiritually only, why urge they those passages of John 6. to prove […] corporal and bodily manducation of Christs body in the Eucharist? And so come we to examine that place by them so much and so oft urged to prove such a carnal eating of Christ.
2. Either Christs flesh is eaten there corporally, or spiritually onely. If corporally, why doth this fellow sticke at it, and is so loath to acknowledge it? If spiritually onely, why vrge they those passages of Iohn 6. to prooue 〈…〉 corporall and bodily manducation of Christs body in the Eucharist? And so come we to examine that place by them so much and so oft vrged to prooue such a carnall eating of Christ.
§ 4. Here this profound and learned Doctor telleth us, that his superficial Adversary hath in an unlearned and slender manner endeavoured to prove that our Saviours discourse there is not to be understood of Sacramental Manducation, but of spiritual eating his flesh and blood by believing in him.
§ 4. Here this profound and learned Doctor telleth vs, that his superficiall Aduersarie hath in an vnlearned and slender manner endeauoured to prooue that our Sauiours discourse there is not to be vnderstood of Sacramentall Manducation, but of spirituall eating his flesh and blood by beleeuing in him.
I propound two Propositions to be proved.