A01532:325
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.
I marvel where this man learned his Logic. He never is lucky in the framing of his Consequences. There is a difference between the gift that God the Father had given; and the gift that Christ would give: Ergò Christs words must needs be understood of his corporal presence in ⟨p. 121⟩the Eucharist. How hang these things together? or by what necessity of consequence doth the one follow from the other?
I maruell where this man learned his Logicke. He neuer is luckie in the framing of his Consequences. There is a difference betweene the gift that God the Father had giuen; and the gift that Christ would giue: Ergò Christs wordes must needs be vnderstood of his corporall presence in ⟨p. 121⟩the Eucharist. How hang these things together? or by what nec•ssity of consequence doth the one follow from the other?
For first, Are they diverse gifts that God the Father had given and that Christ would give? then the words are not meant of Christs corporal presence in the Eucharist. For therein the very same Christ that the Father gave is given to the faithful, as we say, spiritually; to both faithful and unfaithful, as they affirm, corporally. And therefore the gift is not divers, as he saith, but the self same.
For first, Are they diuerse gifts that God the Father had giuen and that Christ would giue? then the wordes are not meant of Christs corporall presence in the Eucharist. For therein the very same Christ that the Father gaue is giuen to the faithfull, as we say, spiritually; to both faithfull and vnfaithfull, as they affirme, corporally. And therfore the gift is not diuers, as he saith, but the selfe same.