A01532:524
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 14: Division 14.Part 2 › Division 14: Diuision 14.
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.
§ 2. Such Arguments (he saith) as these were made by the ancient Heretics, to wit, the Eutychians, Nestorians, Arians, &c. against our Saviours divinity and the personal union of two natures in him, viz. that it was unfit to conceive that God to be man so united, or man Deified should be beaten, buffeted, whipped, torn with nails and thorns, &c.
§ 2. Such Arguments (hee saith) as these were made by the ancient Heretickes, to wit, the Eutychians, Nestorians, Arrians, &c. against our Sauiours diuinitie and the personall vnion of two natures in him, viz. that it was vnfit to conceiue that God to be man so vnited, or man Deified should be beaten, buffetted, whipped, torn with nayles and thorns, &c.
1. It is true that some Heretics; yet not the Eutychians (how should they argue against Christs Deity, that held his humanity wholly turned into it?) no nor the Arians; but the Nestorians, and long before them the Marcionites (whose absurd dotages these men revive again) made objection of the things here spoken of. But he knoweth well enough, what was then answered them (if he know ought at least in the Fathers, whom he would seem to have at his fingers ends) by those that refuted them; to wit, that our Saviour was then in a state of humiliation; whereas now he is in a state of glorification; and freed consequently from all those infirmities and indignities that he was then content to expose and subject himself unto, to bring us unto glory.
1. It is true that some Heretickes; yet not the Eutychians (how should they argue against Christs Deitie, that held his humanity wholly turned into it?) no nor the Arrians; but the Nestorians, and long before them the Marcionites (whose absurd dotages these men reuiue againe) made obiection of the things here spoken of. But hee knoweth well enough, what was then answered them (if he know ought at least in the Fathers, whom he would seeme to haue at his fingers ends) by those that refuted them; to wit, that our Sauiour was then in a state of humiliation; whereas now he is in a state of glorification; and freed consequently from all those infirmities and indignities that hee was then content to expose and subiect himselfe vnto, to bring vs vnto glory.