A01532:395
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 8: Division 8.Part 2 › Division 8: Diuision 8.
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 addeth that the Apostle when he calleth it bread, (for so I suppose he would say, and not when he speaketh of the accidents of bread only) speaketh with such articles superadded, as may note the singular and divine excellency of it, This bread, and so This Chalice, and The bread which we break: and requireth men to examine themselves before they come there: least they sin in not distinguishing it from other common bread, &c. And that the ancient Fathers show what an horrible sin it is to come unreverently to it, &c. because they presume to eat that bread, wherein the Son of God himself is contained.
3. He addeth that the Apostle when hee calleth it bread, (for so I suppose he would say, and not when he speaketh of the accidents of bread onely) speaketh with such articles superadded, as may note the singular and divine excellency of it, This bread, and so This Chalice, and The bread which we breake: and requireth men to examine themselues before they come there: least they sinne in not distinguishing it from other common bread, &c. And that the ancient Fathers shew what an horrible sinne it is to come vnreuerently to it, &c. because they presume to eate that bread, wherein the Son of God himselfe is contained.
And is not this a most silly Argument to prove that that he should prove, unless you take in withal his ly at the last, where he saith that the Son of God himself is contained in the bread, which he falsely also fathereth upon those Fathers, as would have appeared, had he cited their words; and which being the point in Question (had it been propounded as it should have been) unless you grant him he sticketh fast still and cannot go forward? For may not a man say as much of Baptism, that the holy Ghost speaks of it with such helogies superadded, as may note the singular & divine excellency of it; that those therefore that are of years iought with great care to address and prepare themselves unto it, when they are to be baptised, and that those that distinguish it not from ordinary water, or use it irreverently, commit an heinous sin even against Christ himself? And yet who ever dreamed therefore of any such Transubstantiation in Baptism? yea the very same Authors here produced by him so plentifully (though by their bare names only out of Bellarmine) in a point for the general not at all denied, to wit the heinousness of their sin that abuse this Sacrament: yet distinguish expressly some of them (as in mine allegations I have noted) between the bread of the Lord, (as