A01532:192
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 4: Division 4.Part 2 › Division 4: Diuision 4.
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.
Theodoret and Gelasius both aver that the Elements in the Eucharist after consecration retain still not the same shape and form only, but the same Nature and Substance. Can any thing be more plain? or any testimony more pregnant? Yet this nimble-headed Doctor wanteth not 1an evasion for it, such as it is. For (saith he) Theodoret and Gelasius do not mean thereby that the physical nature and substance, but the Accidents (that is, the shape and outward •o•me, &c.) only remain unaltered. They say that they retain still the same both shape and substance too. And this shameless fellow sticketh not to tell us that they mean contrary; that they retain the same shape, but not the same substance. It is ka cursed gloss (they say) that corrupteth the Text. Yet such is the gloss that this Sophister giveth Gelasius and Theodoret, not corrupting only, but directly crossing that that they say, & denying them to say that that in precise terms they do. The Substance, say they: Not the Substance, saith he. The Substance, say they: that is, The Accidents, saith he. Not unlike that Gloss on Gratian, that expoundeth, We ordain, lthat is, We abrogate, or disannul. If this be not a most sorry and senseless shift, I know not what is.
Theodoret and Gelasius both auerre that the Elements in the Eucharist after consecration retaine still not the same shape and forme onely, but the same Nature and Substance. Can any thing be more plaine? or any testimony more pregnant? Yet this nimble-headed Doctor wanteth not 1aneuasion for it, such as it is. For (saith he) Theodoret and Gelasius doe not meane thereby that the physicall nature and substance, but the Accidents (that is, the shape and outward •o•me, &c.) onely remaine vnaltered. They say that they retaine still the same both shape and substance too. And this shamelesse fellow sticketh not to tell vs that they meane contrary; that they retaine the same shape, but not the same substance. It is