A01532:308
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 6: Division 6.Part 2 › Division 6: Diuision 6.
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.
In a word; 1. Either Bread or Christs body must needs be corporally eaten in the Eucharist: but not bread, if we believe them; for there is none there: and to say that mere accidents only are chewed and fed upon is most senseless and absurd: It remaineth therefore that Christs body, if that alone be there, be corporally eaten there, as Pope Nicholas before affirmed.
In a word; 1. Either Bread or Christs body must needs be corporally eaten in the Eucharist: but not bread, if we beleeue them; for there is none there: and to say that meere accidents onely are chewed and fed vpon is most senselesse and absurd: It remaineth therefore that Christs body, if that alone be there, be corporally eaten there, as Pope Nicholas before affirmed.
2. Either Christs flesh is eaten there corporally, or spiritually only. If corporally, why doth this fellow stick at it, and is so loath to acknowledge it? If spiritually only, why urge they those passages of John 6. to prove […] corporal and bodily manducation of Christs body in the Eucharist? And so come we to examine that place by them so much and so oft urged to prove such a carnal eating of Christ.
2. Either Christs flesh is eaten there corporally, or spiritually onely. If corporally, why doth this fellow sticke at it, and is so loath to acknowledge it? If spiritually onely, why vrge they those passages of Iohn 6. to prooue 〈…〉 corporall and bodily manducation of Christs body in the Eucharist? And so come we to examine that place by them so much and so oft vrged to prooue such a carnall eating of Christ.