A01532:108
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 1: Division I.Part 2 › Division 1: Diuision I.
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.
But how doth this trister prove that he was not Bishop of Rome? Forsooth, because Photius maketh mention of one Gelasius Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, that wrote against the Heretics called Anomoei. The place wringeth them, and therefore they would fain shift off the Author, from being Bishop of Rome at least. And Bellarmine, qhe telleth us that it was one Gelasi•• a Bishop ⟨p. 41⟩of Caesarea, of whom Jerem maketh mention. But Baronius confuteth Bellarmine; (here is Cardinal against Cardinal:) and rsaith, it cannot be that Gelasius: their times are too far asunder: both he was dead and his next successor, before that business was on foot, that he dealeth in. Thus they stick not to make men write books after they are dead, and laid up in their graves. But who is he then, saith Baronius? for Bishop of Rome he must not be. He is sthat Gelasius (saith he) that Photius maketh mention of: and this Defendant saith the same. Gennadius and divers other, telleth us that Gelasius of the City of Rome Bishop, wrote against the Eutychians and Nestorians. And that is the very title of the book• that I cite. Now Photius telleth us of another Gelasius Bishop of Caesarea, that wrote against the Anomaeans. Therefore saith Baronius, and from him this Defendant, the one must needs be the other. As if two Bishops of the same name could not write books against Heretics, but they must needs be by and by the same. But observe 4I pray you, how handsomely these things hang together. The tAnomaeans were Arians and Aetians, so called, because they held the Son to be unlike the Father. The u Eutychians heretics, that held that Christs humanity was turned into, or swallowed up of his deity. And now mark how these men reason; Gelasius of Caesarea (saith Photius) writ against those that oppugned Christs divinity: and this Gelasius writeth against those that took away his humanity: this and the other therefore must needs be all one. Rather I reason on this manner: Gennadius reporteth that Glasius Bishop of Rome writ against Eutyches and Nestorius: so doth this whom I cite; and all Editions of him, so stile him: this Gelsius therefore was Bishop of Rome. And how doth this now prove, that