A01532:408
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. Whereas answering that silly shift of theirs, that Christs body is called bread still after Consecration, as Aaron's rod is called a rod after it was turned into a Serpent, because it had sometime so been; I say (among many other things, which he here overslippeth) that the case, by their own confession, is not alike: for that, of the rod it may be said that it was once a Serpent, but of Christs body it cannot be said that ever it was bread; he replieth; that albeit we cannot say of Christs body that ever it was bread, no more then of heat that ever it was cold, nor of fire we can say that ever it was wood, though by the others destruction it be in place thereof produced, Yet it may be said to have bin of bread; because in this their prodigious yMetamorphosis or zmethyleosis, or what ever you will term it; (for new inventions require new names) the whole substance (to use his own terms; that is both the matter and form) of bread passeth into a preexistent substance, to wit, Christs body, in the room of it introduced, so as nothing thereof remaineth, whereas in other natural conversions the matter remaineth still, though receiving another form. In which few lines it is not easy to tell how many contradictions are implied both to his master Bellarmines doctrine, and to his own assertions.
2. Whereas answering that silly shift of theirs, that Christs body is called bread still after Consecration, as Aarons rod is called a rod after it was turned into a Serpent, because it had sometime so beene; I say (among many other things, which he here ouerslippeth) that the case, by their owne confession, is not alike: for that, of the rod it may be said that it was once a Serpent, but of Christs body it cannot be said that euer it was bread; he replieth; that albeit we cannot say of Christs body that euer it was bread, no more then of heate that euer it was cold, nor of fire we can say that euer it was wood, though by the others destruction it be in place thereof produced, Yet it may be said to haue bin of bread; because in this their prodigious yMetamorphosis or zmethyleosis, or what euer you will tearme it; (for new inuentions require new names) the whole substance (to vse his owne tearmes; that is both the matter and forme) of bread passeth into a praeexistent substance, to wit, Christs body, in the roome of it introduced, so as nothing thereof remaineth, whereas in other naturall conuersions the matter remaineth still, though receiuing another forme. In which few lines it is not easie to tell how many contradictions are implied both to his master Bellarmines doctrine, and to his owne assertions.