A01532:401
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.
§ 2. And here again, as one running the wild goose 1race, he windeth back to a passage in the former Argument: and saith, he marvelleth not to find me corrupt the sayings of the Fathers (he thought sure every ⟨p. 146⟩one would believe whatsoever he said, though he never assayed to show it) since I make Bellarmine himself speak like a Protestant. No: I make him speak nothing but what ohe saith of himself: and by his own grants prove that either the ancient Fathers spake very absurdly, or else they meant as we mean. The Argument is this: The ancients Fathers say oft, that the Bread in the Eucharist is Christs body. But this saying (saith Bellarmine,) This bread is my body, must either be taken figuratively, or else it is absurd and impossible. The Fathers therefore when they used such speeches, showed evidently thereby that they meant as we mean, (that is, they understood Christs words figuratively) or else (by Bellarmines confession) they spake very absurdly.
§ 2. ANd here againe, as one running the wild goose 1race, he windeth backe to a passage in the former Argument: and saith, he marueileth not to finde me corrupt the sayings of the Fathers (he thought sure euery ⟨p. 146⟩one would beleeue whatsoeuer he said, though he neuer assaied to shew it) since I make Bellarmine himselfe speake like a Protestant. No: I make him speake nothing but what ohee saith of himselfe: and by his owne graunts prooue that either the auncient Fathers spake very absurdly, or else they ment as we meane. The Argument is this: The ancients Fathers say oft, that the Bread in the Eucharist is Christs body. But this saying (saith Bellarmine,) This bread is my body, must either be taken figuratiuely, or else it is absurd and impossible. The Fathers therfore when they vsed such speeches, shewed euidently thereby that they ment as we meane, (that is, they vnderstood Christs words figuratiuely) or else (by Bellarmines confession) they spake very absurdly.