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…

This is all most false, as much is also of the rest by him here affirmed. They allege only some passages out of counterfeit works, ^gsome going under Ambrose his name, as the prayers preparing to the Mass, censured by ^hErasmus for such, wherein mention is made of Adoration of the bread in the Sacrament; which they note also not to be found in any of Ambrose his own works; ⁱsome going under Athanasius his name, as an idle Legend of an Image of Christ; which ^kBaronius himself disavoweth; wherein mention is made of no flesh of Christ left in the world, but what is made upon the Altar: (and how have they ^lhis foreskin among their holy relics then?) ^msome under the name of Eusebius Emissemus, confessed by ⁿBellarmine in divers places to be mere counterfeits; as an Homely, wherein the bread and wine are said to be turned into the substance of Christs body and blood: (words not found once in the writings of any one of the Ancients: We produce express places, where the Substance of bread is said to remain still in the Sacrament; they not one where the bread is said to be turned into the substance of Christs body. But a number of such counterfeits do they daily coin and forge, and then cry out that men condemn antiquity, when they censure them, and such gross errors as they meet withal in them:) And withal ^pthey observe that two or three of the Fathers that were, not in Constantine's time, but somewhat after, used some new terms and phrases in their discourses of these Mysteries, that were not usual in ancienter times. But that they condemn any one Father that lived in Constantine, ⟨p. 227⟩