A01532:496
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 13: Division 13.Part 2 › Division 13: Diuision 13.
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.
Division 13.
Diuision 13.
MY Adversaries next Argument from the quality of 1the Communicants, page 18. is this; If Christs body be really and corporally present in the Eucharist, then all that eat thereof must of necessity eat Christ in it. But many eat of the Eucharist, that yet eat not Christ in it: for none but faithful and lively members of Christ eat him in this Sacrament. In which Argument he endeavoureth to prove one falsehood by another, equally by us denied; because the holy Fathers expressly affirm that Judas and the Corinthians blamed by Saint Paul received, albeit unworthily, and to damnation, the body of Christ, as the Apostles words 1 Cor. 11. evidently import; and when S. Augustine and others seemed to deny them to receive Christ in the Sacrament, they speak not of bare sacramental, but of profitable and fruitful receiving of him.
MY Aduersaries next Argument from the qualitie of 1the Communicants, page 18. is this; If Christs body be really and corporally present in the Eucharist, then all that eate thereof must of necessity eate Christ in it. But many eate of the Eucharist, that yet eate not Christ in it: for none but faithfull and liuely members of Christ eate him in this Sacrament. In which Argument hee endeavoureth to prooue one falshood by another, equally by vs denyed; because the holy Fathers expressely affirme that Iudas and the Corinthians blamed by Saint Paul receiued, albeit vnworthily, and to damnation, the body of Christ, as the Apostles words 1 Cor. 11. euidently import; and when S. Augustine and others seemed to deny them to receiue Christ in the Sacrament, they speake not of bare sacramentall, but of profitable and fruitfull receiuing of him.