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…

AS for the names of bread and wine after given by Saint Paul and the holy Fathers to the consecrated parts of ¹the Sacrament; which with this Minister is a great argument tediously urged, page 10. he cannot be ignorant (I suppose) as not to conceive the little source of the Argument. For if Aaron's red after it was converted into a Serpent, and retained not the essence or figure of a rod, be notwithstanding called so; with much more reason may the Accidents of bread and wine still remaining and containing in them Christs body and blood, retain their old names: especially with articles superadded, importing the singular and divine excellency of them, still used by Saint Paul, 1 Cor. 10, 11. as this bread, this Chalice; the bread which we break, &c. willing them to prove themselves, &c. before they come to eat of this bread; least eating it unworthily, they eat their own damnation, not discerning the body of Christ; or (which is all one) not distinguishing it from other common bread, it being indeed bread blessed and converted into the very body of Christ, and therefore not irreverently and unworthily to be received by any Christian under pain of damnation; as the ancient Doctor and holy Mariyr of Christs Church ^aS. Cyprian affirmeth: ^bS. Basil also, ^cS. Chrysostom, ^dS. Jerome, ^eOrigen, and ^fS. Augustine, with other Fathers expressly teach the sin of such as come unworthily to the Sacrament to be heinous, and equal even to the sin of such as betrayed and killed Christ, because they presume unworthily to eat that bread wherein the Son of God himself is contained.

AS for the names of bread and wine after giuen by Saint Paul and the holy Fathers to the consecrated parts of