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…

Secondly, whereas we prove that Christs words, This is ¹my body, &c. as being uttered to the Apostles, to whom it was given to understand the mysteries of Christs Church plainly, and without parable, and containing in them the institution of a Sacrament, fit in plain words to be delivered and understood by all Christians bound to receive it, are as we say literally to be understood, and not in tropical and figurative senses, as our Adversaries expound them; producing for our opinion all the Fathers successively in all ages since Christ so understanding them: Protestant Divines slenderly object, first that of the sacramental Chalice Christ affirmed, that he would no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until after his passion: ergò it was wine contained in the Chalice: we answer that S. Luke expressly mentioneth two Chalices, one drunk after the Paschal Lamb eaten, and the other afterwards blessed by Christ and distributed to his Apostles, and that Christ only called the first the fruit of the vine, &c. So S. Jerome, S. Bede, and other great Authors explicate and solve this difficulty with us. Secondly, they object those words of Christ, Do this in memory of me: ergò the Sacrament is a bare memory of Christs body and blood, &c. We answer ⟨p. 212⟩and make S. Paul to interpret these words of our Saviour for us, 1 Cor. 11. saying. As oft as you shall do this, you shall represent or declare Christs death till he come. Which is best declared and represented by the parts of the Sacrifice and Sacrament, as they contain the very body and blood of our Saviour in them. For so himself present seemeth to triumph more gloriously, and exhibit unto us a more lively memory of his passion, then if the Sacrament were no more then a bare sign thereof.

SEcondly, whereas we prooue that Christs wordes, This is ¹my body, &c. as being vttered to the Apostles, to whom it was giuen to vnderstand the mysteries of Christs Church plainely, and without parable, and containing in them the institution of a Sacrament, fit in plaine wordes to be deliuered and vnderstood by all Christians bound to receiue it, are as we say literally to bee vnderstood, and not in tropicall and figuratiue senses, as our Aduersaries expound them; producing for our opinion all the Fathers successiuely in all ages since Christ so vnderstanding them: Protestant Diuines slenderly obiect, first that of the sacramentall Chalice Christ affirmed, that he would no more drinke of the fruit of the vine, vntill after his passion: ergò it was wine contained in the Chalice: wee answer that S. Luke expressely mentioneth two Chalices, one drunke after the Paschall Lambe eaten, and the other afterwards blessed by Christ and distributed to his Apostles, and that Christ onely called the first the fruit of the vine, &c. So S. Ierome, S. Bede, and other great Authors explicate and solue this difficulty with vs. Secondly, they obiect those words of Christ, Doe this in memory of me: ergò the Sacrament is a bare memorie of Christs body and blood, &c. We answer