A01532:444
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 10: Division 10.Part 2 › Division 10: Diuision 10.
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.
Division 10.
Diuision 10.
His next Argument pag. 13. is grossly carnal and unfit 1indeed to be answered. For who but a babbling ignorant ⟨p. 162⟩Person would as he doth there, make such an inference? Christs hands and feet were visible and palpable after his passion (which tediously and needlessly he proveth,) But they are not so in the Eucharist: Ergo, the natural parts of Christs body are not at all in it. For if the Argument were good, we might rightly infer that Christ had no body at all when in Emmaus (for example) after he had blessed and brake bread, he vanished out of the Disciples sight; when he hid himself from the Jews, who would have stoned him, in the Temple, not by running into a corner (as this gross fellow peradventure may of Christ basely and unworthily imagine) but by becoming undiscernible by them; as he became also invisible and impalpable to the Nazarites holding and drawing him towards the hill on which there City was built, whence they meant to tumble him. As if local extension, visibility, palpability and other natural Accidents and sensible properties could not by Gods omnipotency be severed from his own body without the total destruction thereof. This is a gross kind of Philosophy and Divinity fit for such a stupid Professor.
HIs next Argument pag. 13. is grossely carnall and vnfit 1indeede to be answered. For who but a babbling ignorant ⟨p. 162⟩Person would as he doth there, make such an inference? Christs hands and feete were visible and palpable after his passion (which tediously and needelesly he prooueth,) But they are not so in the Eucharist: Ergo, the naturall parts of Christs bodie are not at all in it. For if the Argument were good, we might rightly inferre that Christ had no body at all when in Emaus (for example) after he had blessed and brake bread, he vanished out of the Disciples sight; when he hid himselfe from the Iewes, who would haue stoned him, in the Temple, not by running into a corner (as this grosse fellow peraduenture may of Christ basely and vnworthily imagine) but by becomming vndiscernable by them; as he became also inuisible and impalpable to the Nazarites holding and drawing him towards the hill on which there Citie was built, whence they ment to tumble him. As if locall extension, visibilitie, palpabilitie and other naturall Accidents and sensible properties could not by Gods omnipotency be seuered from his owne bodie without the totall destruction thereof. This is a grosse kinde of Philosophie and Diuinitie fit for such a stupide Professour.