A Pct fcript to the Reader. 486 cating in'one kinde faith, Adds here unto that the Greek, Fa- thers expoundthis place of the common table , whereof there is an e- vident confirmation , in that thiííbread here spoken of is called a ta- king offood, and nourishment ; for he faith not, that they brake bread and took food ; but breaking bread, they tookfood , which hardly can be faid of the Lords Supper. 5. Mailer Tombes hath no more to fay for this interpretation, but that it femes to him certain,becaufe it Was the end of their Cufio- mary meeting on that day.. But he does bring us no text of Scri- pture to prove that this was 'he end oftheir cuftomary meeting on that day. Parebu out of Turtullian, and JHftin Martyr ob- ferves , that Sacrament,was celebrated every day. And where it isJaid,that they continueeldaily in the temple and breaking bread from bottle to houfe,did eat their meat With gladne f fe and finglene f fe of heart, A &s 2.46. it cannot be meant of the Sacramen t is confeft byCha- mier and Calvin , and proved by Cartwright, and the thing it felfe is plain; Chriffs refort to the Pharifees houle to eat bread, Luk.e.iq. r. might as fairely fpeak a Sacrament, as meeting to break bread,whereas the Sacrament was not then inftituted. And fo alfo Pauls breaking bread in the ship, Át`ís 27.35. which yet cannot be meant of the Sacrament is confeff, yea; the very text it felfe, ATts 2o. helpes us to a better argument to conclude a- gainft this interpretation then for it ; That bread which they did break in their meetings,is that which they met to break: This at leafs is very probable : If Mailer Tombes had it for his party , it would be undeniable : But they did break Common bread,ver,i i. When he eras come up again,and had broken bread and eaten, and talk- ed a long While even till break of day, fo he departed. Mafier Tombes yet referres me for farther fatisfac`fion to Chamier,lib. 9. de Eu- chariftia, Cap. 2. Sec. 34. where I finde nothing but a lift of fome few names that were of that ¡udgemenr, which rather tends to my diffatisfaaion, Peeing if reasons had been at hand , he would not have fat down with authorities and quoting againff himfelfAuthours of another opinion. Therefore it is ffrange, that (to humour a party) he should leave the Common received name, by which this Ordinance is known,according to the undoubted language of Scriptures, and take up one (as we fee he doth in his Pracurfor) and bath no more to fpeak in defence of it. The fecond exception is,that I farther fay, that Calvin fuppo- fes
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=