A01532:520
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.
3. If these things cannot befall Christs body, because it is after a spiritual manner present; then belike these things may befall it, yea must needs befall it when they do fall out, if it be present in a carnal or corporal manner; which uBellarmine granteth it is, and they stick not usually to affirm.
3. If these things cannot befall Christs body, because it is after a spirituall manner present; then belike these things may befall it, yea must needs befall it when they doe fall out, if it be present in a carnall or corporall manner; which uBellarmine granteth it is, and they sticke not vsually to afifrme.
- uCarnaliter. Bellar. de Euchar. l. 2. c. 12. Corporaliter. Idem ibid. l. 1. c. 12.
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