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…

But like a dull Scholar (he saith) herein I understood not my Master Calvin. ^bMaster in these matters we acknowledge none but Christ; whose Word alone is absolutely authentical with us. Calvin we reverence as a worthy servant of Christ. And as dull a Scholar as I am, I understand him well enough, where in that book he calleth Transubstantiation a device of the Devil; ^*their Consecration a kind of Incantation; ^dthe Mass an Histrionical action; and the Priest acting it a mere Ape. The signs indeed, saith he, in the Eucharist are not ^enaked signs, but such as have the truth of the thing conjoined ⁵with them, (that which is true of Baptism, as well as of the Lords Supper.) Yet not enclosed in them, nor carnally but spiritually partook. Nor doth God delude us with bare figures, though there be no such real change of the elements in the Eucharist, more then he doth us now in Baptism, or did the Israelites of old, when he fed them with ^gspiritual food and water in the Wilderness.

But like a dull Scholler (he saith) herein I vnderstood not my Master Caluine. ^bMaster in these matters wee acknowledge none but Christ; whose Word alone is absolutely authenticall with vs. Caluine we reuerence as a worthy seruant of Christ. And as dull a Scholler as I am, I vnderstand him well enough, where in that booke he calleth Transubstantiation a deuice of the Diuell; ^*their Consecration a kinde of Incantation; ^dthe Masse an Histrionicall action; and the Priest acting it a meere Ape. The signes indeed, saith hee, in the Eucharist are not