A01532:521
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 14: Division 14.Part 2 › Division 14: Diuision 14.
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.
4. If Christs body be in an indivisible manner there, what is it that is there broken? Or what did our Saviour break at his last Supper? at which time also his body was not indivisible, or ximpassible. Or how doth Pope Nicholas tell us that Christs ybody it self is sensually broken? Where mark (I pray you) how the Arguments and Allegations produced to prove the thing broken in the Sacrament to be bread, and to show the absurdity of their doctrine in this point, as well of Pope Nicholas that saith that Christs very body it self is broken and torn in pieces, as also of others that say, that anothing is broken at all, or nothing but accidents only, here is not a word answered. The host (they say) is Christs body, and bthe Priest breaketh the host: and yet he breaketh not Christs body. For Christs body neither is nor can be broken. We may reason well backward: Christs body is not broken: But the host is broken: The host therefore is not Christs body. Or Christ is not divided: But the host is divided: The host therefore is not Christ.
4. If Christs body bee in an indiuisible manner there, what is it that is there broken? Or what did our Sauiour breake at his last Supper? at which time also his body was not indiuisible, or ximpassible. Or how doth Pope Nicholas tel vs that Christs ybody it selfe is sensually broken? Where marke (I pray you) how the Arguments and Allegations produced to prooue the thing broken in the Sacrament to be bread, and to shew the absurdity of their doctrine in this point, as well of Pope Nicholas that saith that Christs very body it selfe is broken and torne in peeces, as also of others that say, that anothing is broken at all, or nothing but accidents only, here is not a word answered. The hoast (they say) is Christs body, and