A27011:117
Roman tradition examined, as it is urged as infallible against all mens senses, reason,…
Roman tradition examined, as it is urged as infallible against all mens senses, reason, the Holy Scripture, the tradition and present judgment of the far greatest part of the Universal Church; in the point of transubstantiation; in answer to a book called A rational discourse of transubstantiation.Roman tradition examined, as it is urged as infallible against all mens senses, reason, the Holy Scripture, the tradition and present judgment of the far greatst part of the Universal Church; in the point of transubstantiation; in answer to a book called A rational discourse of transubstantiation.
S.l. : s.n., 1676
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.
In the last place I should speak to your Testimonies out of some Ancients. But 1. Why should we put it to the trial of Fathers, when you dare not stand to it, but fly to the Authority and Judgment of your present Church; that is, your Pope. 2. Can any Fathers speak plainer than St. Paul himself doth, who calleth it Bread after Consecration thrice in the three next Verses? Or did the Fathers contradict him? If they delivered what they received, we see what that was. Is oral Tradition contrary to the Scripture? Is not this a certain Argument? Paul in 1 Cor. 11. saith oft that it is Bread after Consecration; ergo, that Speaker, or Writer is deceived, or a ⟨p. 48⟩Deceiver, who saith, that he or any other Apostle delivered the contrary by word of Mouth.
In the last place I should speak to your Testimonies out of some Ancients. But 1. Why should we put it to the tryal of Fathers, when you dare not stand to it, but fly to the Authority and Judgment of your present Church; that is, your Pope. 2. Can any Fathers speak plainer than St. Paul himself doth, who calleth it Bread after Consecration thrice in the three next Verses? Or did the Fathers contradict him? If they delivered what they received, we see what that was. Is oral Tradition contrary to the Scripture? Is not this a certain Argument? Paul in 1 Cor. 11. saith oft that it is Bread after Consecration; ergo, that Speaker, or Writer is deceived, or a ⟨p. 48⟩Deceiver, who saith, that he or any other Apostle delivered the contrary by word of Mouth.
3. Doth this Discourser mean sincerely in talking of Tradition and the Fathers Testimonies, and yet never once attempt any answer to all those Testimonies to the contrary, out of their plain words, which our Writers have copiously and often cited. How many, and many more, plain Testimonies of the Fathers against Transubstantiation doth one Edmundus Albertinus give you? to which, instead of answers, a few mere words, or cavils are returned: But all these are overlooked by this Discourser.