A01532:431
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 9: Division 9.Part 2 › Division 9: Diuision 9.
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.
MY third Argument was taken from the Nature of Signs and Sacraments: whose nature is to signify 1one thing, and to be another. The Argument is this:
MY third Argument was taken from the Nature of Signes and Sacraments: whose nature is to signifie 1one thing, and to be another. The Argument is this:
- 1T. G.
No Signs or Sacraments are the same with that that they signify:
No Signes or Sacraments are the same with that that they signifie:
But the bread and wine signify Christs body and blood in the Eucharist:
But the bread and wine signifie Christs body and blood in the Eucharist: