A01532:480
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.
Moreover it is a wild kind of arguing from the natural 1and local extension of bodies to infer (as my Adversary doth page 16.) that by no possible power of God any body can want this local extension; this being a secondary effect of quantity, and an accidental propriety, which God may therefore easily hinder, and conserve without it bodily substance; as our Saviour himself insinuateth in the Gospel; affirming for a thing possible with God, to make a great Camel to pass through the eye of a needle; by taking (to wit) from it exterior bigness and local extension. Of which Camel so extenuated and straitened in place all the very same may be proportionably affirmed, which this Minister accounteth so absurd, by us held of Christs body in the Sacrament. And supposing truly that the body of Christ hath no extension in place, it is ridiculous for this ignorant Minister to make such inferences; as that any part of Christs body must be as great and greater then his whole body; and his whole body less then any part of it. For if neither the whole nor any part thereof, as it is in the Sacrament hath any exterior bigness at all, how can one part be said to be bigger then the whole? as of two black things a man should say, one was whiter then the other, when neither had any whiteness at all in them.
MOreouer it is a wilde kinde of arguing from the naturall 1and locall extension of bodies to inferre (as my Adversary doth page 16.) that by no possible power of God any body can want this locall extension; this being a secondary effect of quantity, and an accidentall propriety, which God may therefore easily hinder, and conserue without it bodily substance; as our Sauiour himselfe insinuateth in the Gospell; affirming for a thing possible with God, to make a great Camell to passe through the eye of a needle; by taking (to wit) from it exterior bignesse and locall extension. Of which Camell so extenuated and straitned in place all the very same may be proportionably affirmed, which this Minister accounteth so absurd, by vs held of Christs body in the Sacrament. And supposing truely that the body of Christ hath no extension in place, it is ridiculous for this ignorant Minister to make such inferences; as that any part of Christs body must be as great and greater then his whole body; and his whole body lesse then any part of it. For if neither the whole nor any part thereof, as it is in the Sacrament hath any exterior bignesse at all, how can one part be said to bee bigger then the whole? as of two blacke things a man should say, one was whiter then the other, when neither had any whitenesse at all in them.