A01532:469
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 11: Division 11.Part 2 › Division 11: Diuision 11.
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.
So that in none of these Examples there is any necessity of two bodies being in one place at once. Which yet if it were proved (if they will believe their own Schoolmen) were not sufficient. For howsoever this great Doctor tell us, that it is equally above nature for many bodies to ⟨p. 171⟩be in one place, and for one body to be in many places: yet they say, that it is not so. yThough two bodies (saith Aquinas) may be in one places at once; yet it followeth not that one body may be in two places at once. The former is not possible but by miracle; the latter not at all. zIt is not alike (saith Durand) for two bodies to be at once in one place; and for one body to be at once in more places then one. For the one implieth a contradiction; the other doth not, (the former he meaneth) though it may seem so to do.
So that in none of these Examples there is any necessitie of two bodies being in one place at once. Which yet if it were prooued (if they will beleeue their owne Schoolemen) were not suffiicient. For howsoeuer this great Doctor tell vs, that it is equally aboue nature for many bodies to ⟨p. 171⟩be in one place, and for one body to bee in many places: yet they say, that it is not so. yThough two bodies (saith Aquinas) may be in one places at once; yet it followeth not that one bodie may bee in two places at once. The former is not possible but by miracle; the latter not at all. zIt is not alike (saith Durand) for two bodies to be at once in one place; and for one body to be at once in more places then one. For the one implieth a contradiction; the other doth not, (the former he meaneth) though it may seeme so to doe.
- yTho. Aqui. quodlib. 1. art. 22.
- z