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…

1. The Eucharistical Bread was ^ebroken in pieces and divided into parts by our Saviour at his last Supper. And the like rite was observed ^fby the Apostles in the administration of the Eucharist: And is ^gin the Romish Church also not unusual. But as Christ (saith the Apostle) is not divided; so Christs Body is not divided into parts; as they themselves confess; nor broken into pieces. ^hHis Body indeed is said to be broken, not that it was really broken into pieces; but as by the Prophet it is said, that ⁱIt pleased God to break him, and to put him to grief: (which was fulfilled in those pains and torments that for us he sustained) and as we use to say of men that with grief and care they are broken. Otherwise it was never broken; much less is it now broken, being wholly quit even of all those infirmities that it was so broken with before. Yea the Papists themselves not daring to avow that of Christs very body; are enforced to affirm, that every Communicant receiveth ^kthe whole and entire body of Christ. Yet they receive but a part, (saith their own Canon, as you shall hear anon) of the Element in the Sacrament. That therefore, that is so divided there, is not Christs natural Body. And here the Popish Glosser is strangely troubled to salve and reconcile the words of their Canons, and to make their own doctrine agree with the sayings of some of the Ancients there cited. There is inserted ⟨p. 26⟩into the Canon, this saying of Augustine; ^lWe do […] make parts of Christ, when we eat him. Indeed in the Sacrament we do so, and the faithful know how we eat Christs flesh there. Each one taketh his part: and the Eucharist it self is therefore called their Parts. Christ is eaten by parts in a Sacrament, and yet remaineth whole in Heaven; and yet remaineth whole in thy heart. On which place saith the Glosser;