A01532:406
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.
§▪ 3. After he hath thus recoiled back a little, now he 1beginneth to make again forward. And 1. whereas they not knowing well how to salve or shift of such absurdities as follow necessarily upon this their senseless conceit of the conversion of bread into Christs body, affirm that Christs body is therefore said to be made of bread, and the bread said to be turned into Christs body, because the bread ceasing to be there, Christs body (as they say) doth only come in the room of it: For they dare not say that Christs body is produced of it, or that the Substance of the bread is that whereof as the material cause Christs body is framed, as ashes are made of wood, or glass of some ashes: And I thereupon reply, that it is absurd to say that a thing is made of that in the room whereof it only succeedeth, or is turned into that that succeedeth only in the room thereof. (That which uSuarez himself also confesseth to be rather a translocation, then a transubstantiation, or a true & substantial conversion. He telleth me, that, if my poor judgement would serve to consider it, such a succession is to be found in every substantial conversion, whereby one substance is destroyed, and another succeedeth in the room of it.) And consequently (for that or nothing must follow) that it is not absurd so to say. Did ever man (think we) either sober or in his right wits thus reason? In every substantial conversion one thing succeedeth in the room of another, and is turned into it. Therefore whatsoever thing doth succeed only in the room or place of another, is converted into it. Suppose a puppy should get up into the Chair that this Disputant had sat in when he writ this discourse, after he quitted it: would he not take it evil, if a man should say therefore that he were turned into a puppy, because the puppy were got into his place. Or suppose some light-fingered person having picked his purse and taken a piece of gold or two out of it, should put in a copper counter or two in the room of it; would it follow that his gold were really ⟨p. 149⟩turned into copper, because the one is gone, and the other is come in the room of it? Or suppose an old house pulled or burnt down, and an other raised up again in the room of it, and that just of the same proportion with it: