A01532:96
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 1: Division I.Part 2 › Division 1: Diuision I.
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.
Secondly, pag. 5. he citeth an authority out of Pope Gelasius written by a far different Author of that name Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine mentioned together with his works by Photius Bibliotheca sua Codice 102.
Secondly, pag. 5. he citeth an authoritie out of Pope Gelasius written by a farre different Author of that name Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine mentioned together with his workes by Photius Bibliotheca sua Codice 102.
Thirdly, in his 2. page, on the false report of an other nameless Author like to himself, ignorant and unsincere in his assertions, he maketh Bishop Fisher to affirm the real presence of Christs body in the Sacrament not to be gatherable out of any one word in Scripture, contrary to Bishop Fishers, yea Luther's own doctrine in innumerable places.
Thirdly, in his 2. page, on the false report of an other namelesse Author like to himselfe, ignorant and vnsincere in his assertions, he maketh Bishop Fisher to affirme the reali presence of Christs body in the Sacrament not to be gatherable out of any one word in Scripture, contrarie to Bishop Fishers, yea Luthers owne doctrine in innumerable places.
Fourthly, having traced him throughout his whole Treatise, I find him to be a mere collector out of other Authors: and for his best Arguments be hath stolen Bellarmines objections against our doctrine, craftily dissembling his full and solid solutions of them in those very places: which is the usual trade of such Protestant petty writers. His proofs are tedious, superficial, and stuffed with impertinent allegations, maimedly and corruptly produced: with a very bad hand (which I suppose is his own) he inserteth many notes wholly idle and impertinent to his purpose; as I have in reading his papers particularly observed: which is to me an evident sign, that he hoped his papers should never come to the view of other then Ladies and unlearned pierce unable […] exam them.