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…

and granteth in effect, that it cannot either out of that or any other place of the Gospel be proved, that the Sacrament of Christs body and blood is a Sacrifice: And is fain therefore to run to tradition for it: and yet there also findeth he little footing for such a Sacrifice as they would have it to be. For Irenaeus (^x saith he) that lived near the Apostles times, ^ycalleth the Sacrament of Christs body and blood a Sacrifice in regard of the bread and wine therein offered (as types of Christs body and blood:) as also in regard of the thanksgiving therein offered, as well for the work of our Creation, as for the work also of our redemption. And howsoever this doughty Doctor say that our Saviours words so plainly import it, yet is their grand Champion Bellarmine, where at large he debateth this business, evil troubled to find it out either in Christs Institution, or in their own Mass book, or to show wherein it consisteth. Where it is not, indeed he can easily tell us: but he cannot so easily tell us where it is. ^oIt is not he (saith he) ^pin the oblation that goeth before Consecration: for then not Christs body, but bare bread should be sacrificed. It is not in the Consecration: for ^qtherein appeareth no oblation, nor no sensible immutation, which is needful in an external sacrifice. It is not in the Oblation that▪ cometh after Consecration: for ^rthat oblation neither ⟨p. 223⟩Christ; nor his Apostles at first used. It is not in the breaking: for ^sthat is sometime •mitted: ^t