A01532:393
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 8: Division 8.Part 2 › Division 8: Diuision 8.
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.
1. The little force of this Argument (he saith) I cannot be so ignorant as not to conceive: because Aaron's rod after it was converted into a Serpent, and retained not the essence or figure of a rod, yet was notwithstanding so called, &c. And he cannot be so ignorant as not to conceive that this very Objection is there by me propounded and answered: yea, and that Bellarmine himself rejecteth it as gnot very sound, but such as just exception may be taken unto. Did he think that any one not void of common sense would not soon see this?
1. The little force of this Argument (hee saith) I cannot be so ignorant as not to conceiue: because Aarons rod after it was conuerted into a Serpent, and retained not the essence or figure of a rod, yet was notwithstanding so called, &c. And hee cannot bee so ignorant as not to conceiue that this very Obiection is there by me propounded and answered: yea, and that Bellarmine himselfe reiecteth it as gnot very sound, but such as iust exception may be taken vnto. Did hee thinke that any one not voyd of common sense would not soone see this?
- gHaec solutio non videtur solidissima. Bellar. de Euchar. l. 1. c. 14.
2. He saith that the accidents of bread and wine remaining retain still their old names. To what purpose? For who doubteth but that the accidents, that is, the colour, savour, shape, size, &c. of the elements, remain still in the Eucharist, not without a subject, as they say, (for how can accidents so do, when the very *essence of an accident, as it is an accident, is to be in some subject?) but in the self same subject, wherein formerly they were? And what should hinder but that remaining so, they should retain still their old names? But neither are the accidents of bread and wine, bread and wine: and it is absurd to say either that the Apostle by bread meant the accidents of bread only; when he said