A01532:439
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.
3. He saith that a thing in one manner considered may be a Sign of it self in another manner considered: as Christ transfigured of himself now in heaven glorified; his triumphant entrance into Jerusalem of his triumphant entrance into heaven; and an Emperor in his triumph may represent his own victory.
3. He saith that a thing in one manner considered may be a Signe of it selfe in another manner considered: as Christ transfigured of himselfe now in heauen glorified; his triumphant entrance into Ierusalem of his triumphant entrance into heauen; and an Emperour in his triumph may represent his owne victorie.
But 1. If signum & res signata, the Sign and the thing signified by it be relatives (as without all Question they are) a Father may as well be a father to himself, as a sign may be the sign of it self. Not to add that the Ancients (as hath formerly been shown) are wont to call the Sacraments pictures, and pledges: and it is against common sense to say that ought is either a picture, or a pledge of it self.
But 1. If signum & res signata, the Signe and the thing signified by it be relatiues (as without all Question they are) a Father may as well be a father to himselfe, as a signe may be the signe of it selfe. Not to adde that the Ancients (as hath formerly beene shewen) are wont to call the Sacraments pictures, and pledges: and it is against common sense to say that ought is either a picture, or a pledge of it selfe.
2. I might well put this Defendant to prove that Christs transfiguration was a representation of his present 1glorification, or that