A01532:179
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.
But let us hear how learnedly (though it be beside the matter) he explicateth our Saviours words, This ⟨p. 75⟩Cup is the New Testament in my blood. Thus forsooth; My blood in this Chalice really contained and unbloodily offered on the altar is that by the effusion whereof my last Will and Testament is confirmed, and the eternal inheritance purchased and applied unto us: and it is therefore called the New Testament in my blood. Did any man in his right wits (think we) ever expound Scripture on this manner? Yea but he hath a singular piece of Scholarship by himself to justify his Exposition. For all learned men (saith he) know that the word Testament is apt to import, not the dying mans Will only, but the deed wherein it is contained, and the legacy conveyed by it; which here in the Chalice is our Saviours blood, to cleanse and inebriate devout souls, &c. If he had been himself inebriated when he writ this, he could not lightly have been more absurd. For,
But let vs heare how learnedly (though it bee beside the matter) he explicateth our Sauiours wordes, This ⟨p. 75⟩Cup is the New Testament in my blood. Thus forsooth; My blood in this Chalice really contained and vnbloodily offered on the altar is that by the effusion whereof my last Will and Testament is confirmed, and the eternall inheritance purchased and applied vnto vs: and it is therefore called the New Testament in my blood. Did any man in his right wits (thinke wee) euer expound Scripture on this manner? Yea but he hath a singular piece of Schollership by himselfe to iustifie his Exposition. For all learned men (saith hee) know that the word Testament is apt to import, not the dying mans Will onely, but the deed wherein it is contained, and the legacy conueighed by it; which here in the Chalice is our Sauiours blood, to cleanse and inebriate deuout soules, &c. If he had beene himselfe inebriated when hee writ this, hee could not lightly haue beene more absurd. For,
1. By this exposition of his, our Saviour should say, This Cup, that is, this blood contained in the Chalice, is the New Testament in my blood. And so