A01532:403
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.
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⟩any Metaphysics will afford. And this deep Metaphysical Doctor, that hath no want of wit, and understandeth him so well, should have done well to unfold to us these mysteries, and arreade us these riddles: whereas he very uncharitably passeth them by, and only controlling us for our ignorance, leaveth us sticking still in the briers with them, not vouchsafing to help us out.
But I cite Authors (he saith) that I vnderstand not. It is true indeede; In this very place I cite some sayings of Bellarmine, that neither I, nor any such dull-heads as I am (I thinke) can easily vnderstand; 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 againe, qthat the body of Christ that was crucified, was truly or verily made of Bread: And yet confuting Rupertus he saith else-where, that