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…

§ 6. In the next place he runneth out in an idle discourse of Martin Luther, as if he had learned the doctrine he taught in this point, of the Devil, (a frivolous fable refuted long since by ^pM. Charke, ^qDr. Fulke and others:) by the way glancing at our manner of celebration of the Sacrament; and an invective against the first Authors ⟨p. 205⟩(as he falsely termeth them) of our Religion; with an appendix concerning the marks of a Church, and of the Church before Luther. Concerning all which for the present I say nothing but that of Jerome, ^rAsellus lassus in via quaerit diverticula. He is a weary (it seemeth) of the work he hath in hand, and would fain slip aside therefore into some other debate, that it might not so well appear how he sticketh in the mire here. One thing (they say) at once doth well: and I suppose this will find him work enough for a while; if he have any stomach to rejoin. Let him (if he can) first maintain their prodigious doctrine in the point present; and then (if he desire it) he shall further be dealt with, either in these, or in any other Controversy between them and us.

§ 6. In the next place he runneth out in an idle discourse of Martin Luther, as if he had learned the doctrine he taught in this point, of the Diuell, (a friuolous fable refuted long since by ^pM. Charke, ^qDr. Fulke and others:) by the way glancing at our manner of celebration of the Sacrament; and an inuectiue against the first Authors ⟨p. 205⟩(as hee falsely tearmeth them) of our Religion; with an apendix concerning the markes of a Church, and of the Church before Luther. Concerning all which for the present I say nothing but that of Ierome, ^r