A27011:13
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.
Two things yet I must note, that make me doubt whether the Author be so honest in his dealing as I could wish him, and as a Man that talketh of God and Jesus Christ should be. 1. That he so blindly, or fraudulently stateth the Question. 2. That he taketh so little notice of the Books and Arguments that are Written against his Cause, ⟨p. 3⟩as if they needed no Answer, when we suppose that they have put the Error of Transubstantiation so far past all rational doubt, that it is scarce possible for a Man that hath understandingly, and seriously read them, to believe it: It is but lately that a small Book, on that Subject, was published by R. Baxter, Dedicated to the Duke of Lauderdale, called, [Full and easy satisfaction, which is the true Religion,] which all the Papists in the World can never give a rational Answer to; and therefore this Man dare scarce take notice of such, lest it should bring them to the notice of his Reader. But doth he think that we must not know that his Book is Answered before it was Written, because he will take no notice of it? or must we therefore repeat the same things again?
Two things yet I must note, that make me doubt whether the Author be so honest in his dealing as I could wish him, and as a Man that talketh of God and Jesus Christ should be. 1. That he so blindly, or fraudulently stateth the Question. 2. That he taketh so little notice of the Books and Arguments that are Written against his Cause, ⟨p. 3⟩as if they needed no Answer, when we suppose that they have put the Error of Transubstantiation so far past all rational doubt, that it is scarce possible for a Man that hath understandingly, and seriously read them, to believe it: It is but lately that a small Book, on that Subject, was published by R. Baxter, Dedicated to the Duke of Lauderdale, called, [Full and easie satisfaction, which is the true Religion,] which all the Papists in the World can never give a rational Answer to; and therefore this Man dare scarce take notice of such, lest it should bring them to the notice of his Reader. But doth he think that we must not know that his Book is Answered before it was Written, because he will take no notice of it? or must we therefore repeat the same things again?