A01532:405
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 8: Division 8.Part 2 › Division 8: Diuision 8.
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.
And albeit we cannot say of Christs body, that it was bread, (which is another Argument of the Minister, ibidem) yet may it be said to have been of bread, as being by the same miraculous and omnipotent power of Christs words, whereby bread looseth natural being in place thereof Sacramentally produced and made present. And this is without any difficulty affirmed by us, who know the same in a proportionable manner to be found in all other substantial and accident all conversions, howsoever his poor Judgement will not serve to consider it: heat (for example) was never cold, albeit in place thereof produced; fire was never wood, but as a substance (as natural ⟨p. 148⟩understanding might teach him) essentially different, and produced by the others destruction.
And albeit we cannot say of Christs body, that it was bread, (which is another Argument of the Minister, ibidem) yet may it be said to haue beene of bread, as being by the same miraculous and omnipotent power of Christs words, whereby bread looseth naturall being in place thereof Sacramentally produced and made present. And this is without any difficultie affirmed by vs, who know the same in a propertionable manner to be found in all other substantiall and accident all conuersions, howsoeuer his poore Iudgement will not serue to consider it: heate (for example) was neuer cold, albeit in place thereof produced; fire was neuer wood, but as a substance (as naturall ⟨p. 148⟩vnderstanding might teach him) essentially different, and produced by the others destruction.
§▪ 3. After he hath thus recoiled back a little, now he 1beginneth to make again forward. And 1. whereas they not knowing well how to salve or shift of such absurdities as follow necessarily upon this their senseless conceit of the conversion of bread into Christs body, affirm that Christs body is therefore said to be made of bread, and the bread said to be turned into Christs body, because the bread ceasing to be there, Christs body (as they say) doth only come in the room of it: For they dare not say that Christs body is produced of it, or that the Substance of the bread is that whereof as the material cause Christs body is framed, as ashes are made of wood, or glass of some ashes: And I thereupon reply, that it is absurd to say that a thing is made of that in the room whereof it only succeedeth, or is turned into that that succeedeth only in the room thereof. (That which