A01532:195
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.
2. Here is a strange Interpretation, and a most absurd assertion: The Sacramental Signs, that is, the Accidents, retain still their Substance, that is, their Accidents. This is like Christs blood in his blood, that we had a little before. These are abstruse riddles indeed: and it is no great marvel, if dull pates and shallow brains cannot easily conceive them.
2. Here is a strange Interpretation, and a most abfurd assertion: The Sacramentall Signes, that is, the Accidents, retaine still their Substance, that is, their Accidents. This is like Christs blood in his blood, that wee had a little before. These are abstruse riddles indeede: and it is no great maruell, if dull pates and shallow braines cannot easily conceiue them.
3. Will you see how gross and palpable this evasion is? Theodoret and Gelasius (saith Bellarmine, whom he learned some of this from) mteach the very self same thing. Now look what Theodoret calleth the mystical Signs, that Gelasius termeth expressly Bread and Wine. By the mystical Signs therefore in Theodoret is the Bread and Wine meant, not the Accidents (as this corrupt and corrupting Glosser saith) of either.
3. Will you see how grosse and palpable this euasion is? Theodoret and Gelasius (saith Bellarmine, whom hee learned some of this from) mteach the very selfe same thing. Now looke what Theodoret calleth the mysticall Signes, that Gelasius tearmeth expressely Bread and Wine. By the mysticall Signes therefore in Theodoret is the Bread and Wine meant, not the Accidents (as this corrupt and corrupting Glosser saith) of either.
- mIdem prorsus docent. Bellarm. de Euchar. lib. 2. cap. 27.