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…

Name: A discussion of the popish doctrine of transubstantiation wherein the same is declared, by…
Author: Thomas Gataker

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.

Thomas Gataker 1574–1654London: printed by John for William Sheffard, 1624London: printed by Iohn for William Sheffard, 1624

[8], 56, 59-233, [3] p. · 81k words · STC 11657 · ESTC S102914

Title page typeset from the transcription.

Part 1: A Brief Discourse containing divers Arguments against the Popish Doctrine of Transubst…Part 1: A Briefe Discourse conteining diuers Arguments against the Popish Doctrine of Transubst…

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.

[ Earlier:40–55 of 601

:40p. 11

Since then the places produced to prove this corporal presence of Christ in the Sacrament, are by our Adversaries their own confession such as either do not necessarily prove the point, or are otherwise to be understood, we have little reason to yield unto them therein.

Since then the places produced to prooue this corporall presence of Christ in the Sacrament, are by our Aduersaries their owne confession such as either doe not necessarily prooue the point, or are otherwise to be vnderstood, we haue little reason to yeeld vnto them therein.

:41p. 11

Hitherto we have showed that no Scripture enforceth us to believe, as those of the Romish Church hold, concerning the real conversion of the outward Elements in the Eucharist into the natural Body and Blood of Christ, and a corporal presence of either necessarily flowing there from.

Hitherto we haue shewed that no Scripture enforceth vs to beleeue, as those of the Romish Church hold, concerning the reall conuersion of the outward Elements in the Eucharist into the naturall Body and Blood of Christ, and a corporall presence of either necessarily flowing there from.

:42p. 11

Now 2. that the Bread and Wine remain in substance and nature still the same, and are not so converted into the very Flesh and Blood of Christ, we further thus prove.

Now 2. that the Bread and Wine remaine in substance and nature still the same, and are not so conuerted into the very Flesh and Blood of Christ, we further thus prooue.

:43p. 12–13

[ Earlier passages Later passages ]

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…

The author

Transcription key

Reformers309

Puritans1,782

Westminster Assembly24

Evangelicals36

The author

Transcription key