Transubstantiation examined and confuted in two sermons on the Lord's Supper / preached in…Transusbstantiation examin'd and confuted in two sermons on the Lord's Supper / preach'd in…

Now as the breaking of the Bread did signify the breaking of his Body, so the Bread must needs signify his Body: but as his Body was not broken indeed when the Bread was broken, so the Bread could not be his Body indeed, for then his Body should have been broken when the Bread was broken: Yet let them object what they can.

Now as the breaking of the Bread did signifie the breaking of his Body, so the Bread must needs signifie his Body: but as his Body was not broken indeed when the Bread was broken, so the Bread could not be his Body indeed, for then his Body should have been broken when the Bread was broken: Yet let them object what they can.

If (say they) the Bread and Wine be not changed into his ¹Body and Blood, why doth he speak so darkly? he might have spoken plainer.

1. 1Objection.

I answer, though this seem dark to Papists, yet it was not dark to the Apostles, they understood his meaning well enough, ¹and all the rest for 1215 years after Christ, before Transubstantiation was spoken off. If the Apostles had not understood his meaning, they would not stick to ask him, as their manner was, until they were acquainted with Christ's phrase, whensoever they doubted upon any of his speeches, they were wont to come unto him and say; Master, what is the meaning? but they ²were used to such phrases: for it was Christ's manner to teach by similitudes, showing one thing by another, which is the plainest manner of teaching, and most used in holy Scripture, especially in the Types and Shadows of this Sacrament. For example, Christ calleth the Lamb the Passover, in place whereof