The 2. Paragraffe. Of the validitie of consecration.
The papistes teache, that these wordes, (this is my body) doe change and transelementate the substance of bread,* 1.1 into the substance of Christes reall, substantial, and naturall body: and that the bare formes of bread and wine, doe after consecration existe without any subiect. But this doctrine doth confute it selfe. For first, if the wordes of supposed consecration, doe worke transubstantiation; then must euery worde haue his due [ 1] operation in that kinde of worke. For otherwise, some of the wordes should be frustrate and needlesse, as which could haue no proper effect. And yet dareth no papist assigne any effect to euery worde, because it would follow thereupon, that Christes body should be made by diuisible partes.
Secondly, if the fourth word (meum) concurre essentially to [ 2] the consecration: then is Christes body either made by succes∣siue operation, which Aquinas and all learned papistes denie: or the whole effect proceedeth totally of the fourth word, with∣out the actiuitie of the other three. The sequele is euident,* 1.2 be∣cause the prolation of the words is with succession, and not in an instant.
Thirdly, if the wordes of consecration, be of such force as the papistes teach; then must both Christes body and bread be vn∣der [ 3] the forme of bread at once; or els the forme of bread must for a certaine time, be aswell without the substance of bread as without the body of Christ. I prooue it, because as Christes body is made present vnder the forme of bread in an instant, so doth the substance of bread cease to be in instant:* 1.3 and con∣sequently, since two instantes cannot be immediate, they must both either be togither in the same instant, or both absent for the time mediate.
Fourthly, the popish supposed transubstantiation, is very ri∣diculous and absurd. I prooue it, because when the priest saith, [ 4]