A01532:586
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.
and not bread, but this Host is really destroyed, when the Priest eateth it: then how scapeth Christ from being then destroyed? or how scapeth the Priest from being a destroyer of Christ? Yea at the first Institution either Christ did eat the consecrated Host or bread, or he did not. If he did, (* which yet indeed is not so easily proved) then by Bellarmines doctrine he did therein really destroy himself; and the rather, for that his body was not as yet then impassible. If he did not, then belike there was no sacrifice there. For the Apostles (they say) were not made Priests till Christ bad them, Hoc facite, doe this; and *thereby made them such; which might well be not till after they had eaten. Or if they were Priests when they did eat, then belike they destroyed Christ before the Jews did him to death. But it is not to be marvelled, if they cannot find it in Christs Institution when they know not where to find it in their own Missal. In which kind it is not unworthy the observation, that Corn. Jansenius having sifted over and ransacked the whole story of the Institution, conjoining all the three Evangel•st•, that report it, together, yet can ⟨p. 224⟩find no Sacrifice there expressed save in the bthanksgiving, which is (saith he) a spiritual •inde of Sacrifice, and of which the Lords Supper is called the Eucharist, and may therefore well be •earmed a Sacrifice. Which we deny not; but expressly say the same. Only he saith, cit is probable too, that Christ then offered himself to his Father. But at last he is fain to fly to this, that though it be granted that Christ offered not himself in the Supper, yet it followeth net that the Priests should not therein now offer him. For they 5are bidden by Christ to do something that Christ did not, to wit, to do it in remembrance of him, which could not be done then, when he was present, (nor is he present then belike now when it is done)