A01532:506
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.
1. For the Apostle, he saith expressly, hHe that eateth this bread: as plainly as can be telling us more then once or twice, that it was bread that they did eat, though termed also Christs body (as hath oft been said, and as Augustine showeth) because a Sacrament of it.
1. For the Apostle, he saith expresly, hHe that eateth this bread: as plainely as can bee telling vs more then once or twice, that it was bread that they did eat, though tearmed also Christs body (as hath oft beene said, and as Augustine sheweth) because a Sacrament of it.
2. Is not this shameless dealing to say the Fathers affirm that Judas received Christs natural body (for of that is the question) yet not alleging any one tittle out of any of them for the proof of it? and that when the saying of one them is produced directly to the contrary, that Judas ate Christs bread, but not the bread Christ; which he answereth not a word to. If they say that Judas ate with the rest Christs body; they expound themselves what thereby they mean, to wit, iChrists bread, kthe Sacrament of his body.
2. Is not this shamelesse dealing to say the Fathers affirme that Iudas receiued Christs naturall body (for of that is the question) yet not alleadging any one tittle out of any of them for the proofe of it? and that when the saying of one them is produced directly to the cōtrary, that Iudas ate Christs bread, but not the bread Christ; which he answereth not a word to. If they say that Iudas ate with the rest Christs body; they expound themselues what thereby they meane, to wit,