A01532:402
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.
Nor is it enough to prove that I corrupt Bellarmine, to say that he disputeth in that place against Luther, who taught that bread remained still in the Sacrament: For what is that to the purpose? much less to say untruly, that he spake not of bread consecrated; when the very Question is there concerning the consecrated bread.
Nor is it enough to prooue that I corrupt Bellarmine, to say that he disputeth in that place against Luther, who taught that bread remained still in the Sacrament: For what is that to the purpose? much lesse to say vntruly, that he spake not of bread consecrated; when the very Question is there concerning the consecrated bread.
But I cite Authors (he saith) that I understand not. It is true indeed; In this very place I cite some sayings of Bellarmine, that neither I, nor any such dull-heads as I am (I think) can easily understand; as for example, where phe saith, as I here cite him, that The Priest maketh Christs body of bread; and yet Christs body is not made by the Priest: And again, qthat the body of Christ that was crucified, was truly or verily made of Bread: And yet confuting Rupertus he saith else-where, that rit was not a breaden body that was crucified for us; as Tertullian inferred from the doctrine of the Marcionites; and as we may well infer from theirs. He waiveth selse-where Metaphysical subtleties in disputing of this Sacrament. And ttaxeth Calvin for his fond and foolish Metaphysics. But these are such transcendent subtleties, if not absurdities, as ⟨p. 147⟩