A01532:434
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.
They are not therefore essentially either.
To this idle and forceless Argument (as he pleaseth to style it) he thus answereth:
To this idle and forcelesse Argument (as he pleaseth to style it) he thus answereth:
1. That the Sacrament all Signs signify the spiritual nutrition of souls living by grace; as also Christs body and blood dolorously severed in his Passion.
1. That the Sacrament all Signes signifie the spirituall nutrition of soules liuing by grace; as also Christs body and blood dolorously seuered in his Passion.
Now 1. what is this to mine Argument? was this man (think we) ever a disputant, that answereth Arguments on this wise? which part of my Syllogism (I pray you) is this Answer applied to? I had thought that a Syllogism being propounded, the Answerer should either have denied or distinguished of one of the former Propositions.