A01532:416
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.
8. If the whole substance of bread (that is, both matter and form) passeth into Christs body, why may it not as well be said of Christs body, that that body was once bread; as of qMoses his rod it might well be said, that that rod was once a Snake; or of rthe wine that our Saviour so miraculously produced, that that wine was sometime water? the rather since that but part of the substance, to wit, the matter only of the Snake and the water passed into the substance of the rod and the wine there, whereas the whole substance (as this fellow beareth us in hand) that is, both matter and form of bread, passeth into Christs body here.
8. If the whole substance of bread (that is, both matter and forme) passeth into Christs body, why may it not as wel be said of Christs body, that that body was once bread; as of qMoses his rod it might well bee said, that that rod was once a Snake; or of rthe wine that our Sauiour so miraculously produced, that that wine was sometime water? the rather since that but part of the substance, to wit, the matter onely of the Snake and the water passed into the substance of the rod and the wine there, whereas the whole substance (as this fellow beareth vs in hand) that is, both matter and forme of bread, passeth into Christs body here.