A01532:178
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 4: Division 4.Part 2 › Division 4: Diuision 4.
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.
And first, because he thought he had found out a pretty quirk and a strange crotchet, which he was desirous to vent: He saith I make a great stir in asking, how the Chalice may be called the New Testament in Christs blood. I half suspect that some body hath sometime pus•ed him with this Question; and he is willing therefore here to explicate it for the salving of his own credit, the rather having lighted upon a new device, that he thinketh will easily help out. For I move no such Question, much less make such ado about asking it, but say only, We must believe our Saviour as well, when he saith, This Cup is the new Testament, or This Cup is my blood; as we must believe him when he saith, This is my body: and that either may be true, though there be no such real conversion either of the Cup into the new Testament, or Christs blood in the one, or of the Bread into his body in the other. And his part had been (if he meant to keep to the point) to show why the one may not be true in a figurative sense as well as the other.
And first, because hee thought hee had found out a pretty quirk and a strange crotchet, which hee was desirous to vent: He saith I make a great stirre in asking, how the Chalice may bee called the New Testament in Christs blood. I halfe suspect that some body hath sometime pus•ed him with this Question; and he is willing therfore here to explicate it for the saluing of his owne credit, the rather hauing lighted vpon a new deuice, that hee thinketh wil easily helpe out. For I mooue no such Question, much lesse make such adoe about asking it, but say onely, We must beleeue our Sauiour as well, when he saith, This Cup is the new Testament, or This Cup is my blood; as wee must beleeue him when he saith, This is my body: and that either may bee true, though there be no such reall conversion either of the Cup into the new Testament, or Christs blood in the one, or of the Bread into his body in the other. And his part had beene (if he ment to keepe to the point) to shew why the one may not be true in a figuratiue sense as wel as the other.
But let us hear how learnedly (though it be beside the matter) he explicateth our Saviours words, This