A01532:453
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.
As also that the ancient Fathers used then the very same Arguments against them, that we do now against these; which yet it pleaseth this vain trifler to term grossly carnal and unworthy to be answered.
As also that the ancient Fathers vsed then the very same Arguments against them, that we doe now against these; which yet it pleaseth this vaine trifler to tearme grossely carnall and vnworthy to be answered.
§ 2. Oh but (saith he) it is a gross kind both of divinity and philosophy fit for such a stupid Professor, to hold that local extension, visibility, palpability, and other natural accidents and sensible proprieties cannot by Gods omnipotency be severed from his own body without the destruction of it.
§ 2. Oh but (saith hee) it is a grosse kinde both of diuinity and philosophie fit for such a stupide Professor, to hold that locall extention, visiblitie, palpability, and other naturall accidents and sensible proprieties cannot by Gods omnipotency be severed from his owne body without the destruction of it.
1. Yea and to omit that it is a very sorry shift to have recourse to Gods omnipotency for the justifying of such monstrous fictions and forged miracles as either in this their prodigious dotage, or in their lying Legends they have endeavoured to obtrude upon the world: To say that God can make Christs body to remain still in his full stature, and yet at the same time to be no bigger then to enter in at a mans mouth, or go down a child's throat, or to make *a mans body consisting of flesh, blood and bone to have no dimensions or extension at all, not other accidents and properties of a natural body; is manifestly to say that God can make a thing at the same time to be and not to be, to be a body and no body; which implieth contradiction. And