An answer to a certain book, writtenAn answere to a certeine booke, written

For tell us, Master Rainolds, doth Epiphanius draw an argument from Christs walking on the water, to prove his body really present in the sacramental bread? No such matter can you find in Epiphanius, or any ancient father of Christs Church. That which Christ hath said, he that believeth not to be true, is fallen from grace and salvation, as Epiphanius writeth: but Christ hath never said, that his body should be in the compass of a little bread. Howbeit what talk you of a little bread? when you teach no bread at all remaineth, but only signs and shadows of bread. False is your doctrine, and foolish is your argument: but bad reasons are good enough for such a bad religion.

For tell vs, Master Rainolds, doth Epiphanius drawe an argumente from Christs walking on the water, to prooue his bodie reallie present in the sacramentall bread? No such matter can you finde in Epiphanius, or any auncient father of Christs Church. That which Christ hath said, he that beleeueth not to be true, is fallen from grace and saluation, as Epiphanius writeth: but Christ hath neuer said, that his bodie should be in the compasse of a litle bread. Howbeit what talke you of a litle bread? when you teach no bread at all remaineth, but onelie signes and shadowes of bread. False is your doctrine, and foolish is your argument: but bad reasons are good enoughe for such a bad religion.

Of Peters walking on the water,¹ is gathered an other argument of like quality, to prove the Popes supreme authority: which argument was first invented ⟨p. 389⟩and devised by Saint Bernard in his second book and eight Chapter to Eugenius a Pope. Many waters are many people: Peter walked on the waters, therefore Peter and his successors are rulers over many people, saith good Saint Bernard: to whom your Pope is greatly bound for devising such a fine argument, which no ancient Doctor was able to find. But must we now receive Bernards phantasies, for substantial proofs of the papal supremacy? No Master Rainolds, Saint Bernard hath no warrant to make allegories at his pleasure for confirmation of that Antichristian tyranny, which in those days was established. Your comparison of this argument with that of Christs about the brazen serpent, and of Pauls concerning Isaac and Ismael, is no better then blasphemous. Might Saint Bernard with like authority reason thus, Peter walked on the waters, therefore he and his successors are supreme governors of the universal Church, as Christ did show the manner of his death by the lifting up of the brazen serpent in the desert? or as Saint Paul did prove the haved and persecution of false brethren against the true Christians