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…

^yJerome maketh answer out of the Text it self, that it was not because his body was not the same it had been, but because their eyes were held that they might not know him. And the same ⟨p. 165⟩Jerome else-where dealing against the same dotages, ^zChrist (saith he) had hands and sides, had breast and belly too: he that had hands and feet, had arms and thighs too. And seeing he had all the members of the body, he must needs have a whole body that consisteth of those members. Let us reason backward, as well we may. If Christ have an entire body consisting of those limbs, then he hath all those limbs, whereof such a body consisteth. And then let us say to these, as he then to them, ^aYou hear of flesh, and feet, and hands, and other limbs. And ^bdo you forge us some ^cStoical round balls, and airy dotages. (As these do little round wafer-cakes, which they bear us down to be Christs body.) He alludeth to the Stoics, who held that the Gods had some shape; and ^dthat shape was as a body, but yet no body; and had as it were blood and yet no blood. Wherein the Marcionites also in a manner agreed with them, (and our Romanists at this day with either) imagining our Saviour (^e saith Tertullian) to have ^fflesh hard without bones, solid without muscles, bloody without blood, clad without coat, speaking without tongue, eating without teeth, &c. Whereupon Tertullian concludeth, that since Christ had all his limbs when he showed them to his Disciples, they that imagined such a Christ as this, ^g