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…

Afterward in the same page confusedly and tediously he endeavoureth to show the bread and wine to be no other then bare signs and types of Christs true body and blood; as Alexander's picture representeth his absent person; as Circumcision is called the Covenant, because it was a sign thereof, &c. either not understanding like a dull Scholar his Master Calvins doctrine, or over saucily willing to contradict him; who towards the end of his book de Coena Domini expressely denieth bread & wine to be empty signs of our Saviours body and blood, but such signs as have the signified substances of our Saviours body and blood conjoined with them. For ⁿChrist (saith he) is no deceiver to delude us with bare figures, &c. According to which doctrine of Calvin it will be easy for my Adversary himself to salve many of his own objections: that for example, which he maketh out of Tertullian, page 3. saying, The bread which Christ took and distributed to his Disciples he made his body, saying, This is my body, that is, a figure of my body. For as Calvins former words import, so also Tertullian meaneth, the sacramental symbols not to be naked signs of Christs absent body and blood (as the Minister would have them) but such signs as have the signified substance conjoined unto them; as smoke is the sign of fire; warm blood of life; the fiery tongues over the Apostles, in that day of Pentecost, and the Dove over our Saviour in his Baptism, were signs of the holy Ghost present, &c. Which manner of being signs of Christs body and blood doth not exclude but suppose the Accidents of bread and wine to contain the true substances of our Saviours body and blood in them. So is Saint Augustine to be understood, where he saith, Our Lord doubted not to say, This is my body, when he delivered ⟨p. 73⟩the sign of his body. And when out of Gratian my Adversary citeth those words, The heavenly bread, which is the flesh of Christ, &c. is a Sacrament of Christs body visible, palpable, mortal, and pierced on the Cross, &c. So when Theodoret and Gelasius affirm the substance and nature of bread and wine still to remain in the Sacrament; they mean not physical substances and nature of bread and wine still to remain after the consecration, but only the accidents to remain unaltered in their nature, signifying and containing our Saviours body and blood under them.

Afterward in the same page confusedly and tediously hee endeauoureth to shew the bread and wine to bee no other then bare signes and types of Christs true body and blood; as Alexanders picture representeth his absent person; as Circumcision is called the Couenant, because it was a signe thereof, &c. either not vnderstatding like a dull Scholler his Master Caluines doctrine, or ouer sawcily willing to contradict him; who towards the end of his booke de Coena Domini expressely denieth bread & wine to be empty signes of our Sauiours body and blood, but such signes as haue the signified substances of our Sauiours body and blood conioyned with them. For