A01532:374
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 7: Division 7.Part 2 › Division 7: Diuision 7.
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.
Which is a formel•sse and fallacious kind of arguing, wholly forceless, if we suppose the former doctrine of the holy Fathers to be true, that Christs words have force now as then they had, when himself uttered them, to change the substance of Bread and Wine into his Body and Blood: As if after the like manner of the water converted by Christ into wine, I should make this deduction: The Ministers drew water out of the well; carried what they drew: therefore that which they drew and carried was water. If the Minister shall tell me, that they drew water; but carried it made wine by our Saviours omnipotent operation: so I will tell him, that ⟨p. 134⟩Christ took bread and wine, and converted them by his miraculous and omnipotent benediction into his own body and blood before he distributed them, as he by his plain words pronounced of them, saying, This is my Body, &c.
Which is a formel•sse and fallacious kinde of arguing, wholly forcelesse, if we suppose the former doctrine of the holy Fathers to be true, that Christs words haue force now as then they had, when himselfe vttred them, to change the substance of Bread and Wine into his Body and Blood: As if after the like manner of the water conuerted by Christ into wine, I should make this deduction: The Ministers drew water out of the well; carried what they drew: therefore that which they drew and carried was water. If the Minister shall tell me, that they drew water; but carried it made wine by our Sauiours omnipotent operation: so I will tell him, that ⟨p. 134⟩Christ tooke bread and wine, and conuerted them by his miraculous and omnipotent benediction into his owne bodie and blood before he distributed them, as he by his plaine words pronounced of them, saying, This is my Body, &c.
Hitherto, if you will believe this worthy Doctor, his Adversary hath disputed without form or figure,