CHAP. I. The Original and first Occasion of Transubstantiation.

TRansubstantiation is a barbarous word, never heard of in the Church till above 1000 years after Christ. The first that imagined a Carnal eat­ing were the Capernaites, who ( John 6.) mistook our Saviours words, for a Carnal eating his Flesh with their teeth. This gross conceit vanished with the Authors; of whom St. Augustine speaks nothing, but makes mention of others, who abused, slighted, or despised this Holy Sacrament. Whereupon the old Writers and Fathers of the Church (to preserve the dignity of this Ordinance, and to stir up the more Piety and Reverence in the minds of men to so holy a Mystery) used many Rhetorical expressions and flourishes of Exornation, as giving the names of the things signified, to the signs signifying, &c. which in after-times gave occasion to many mistakes, and came thus to pass.

Gallienus the Emperour, a luxurious Prince, given wholly to pleasure and carnal delights, through his sloth and negligence, gave way to the Goths, and other barbarous Nations, to invade and break into the Empire; who for many years together made such havock and spoyl in France, Spain, Italy, and all Christendom, that there followed a great decay of Learning, and Learned men. In those dark times, [Page 4] Professors of Christian Religion, in reading the Fa­thers, through want of skill to discern, mistook their meanings, and took things as they read them, and commonly one thing for another; their Tropes and Figures, for speeches natural and proper; a change of substance, for a change of power and operation, which is all the Fathers intended. Thus the seeds of Transubstantiation were probably sown, though the blade appeared not in many Ages after.

About the year 870, in the Reign of Charles the Bald, a certain Knight called Fredenardus, moved the question, Whether the Body of Christ was truly in the Sacrament, or only in Figure? Whereto di­vers answered diversly; and some more gross than Capernaites, said there was nothing in the Sacra­ment, neither substance nor accident, but only the body and blood of Christ; and whatsoever appeared, was the outside of his body. The question was put to Bertram a Presbyter well-beloved of the King; whose answer was, That Secundum creaturarum sub­stantiam, &c. According to their substance, the crea­tures of Bread and Wine remained in the Sacrament after Consecration. The Popish Writers, to excuse what they cannot deny, say, That Bertram at that time did not exactly know how these accidents could subsist without their substance.

It was above 300 years after this, that Berengari­us a Deacon, reading the Fathers, and misliking some expressions, as savouring too much of the let­ter, declined as much on the other hand to bare Figure (if Caranza abuse him not:) for others af­firm, [Page 5] That he was of a sounder judgment, holding a Conversion (suo modo) as we also do. Whatever it was, Pope Leo IX. condemned his Opinion in a Council at Vercelles, 1049. and soon after, scil. 1057, Pope Nicholas II. took him in hand, and in the second Council of Lateran, made him Recant, and make this Publick Confession, That the very bo­dy and blood of Christ, was truly and sensibly broken and bruised with the teeth of the faithful. And this Confession the Pope received and allowed for Catholick. But no Papist at this day will undertake the defence of it; and some of their own Doctors utterly dislike it, because then aged People, who have no teeth, cannot eat effectually.

As yet we hear nothing of Transubstantiation; the word was coyned afterwards: for Lombard, who lived a good while after this, saith, L. 4. Sent. D. ii. If any man enquire what manner of conversion is in the Sacrament, he could not resolve him. Howso­ever, it was never received as an Article of Faith, nor decreed by that name, till the third Council of Lateran held under Innocent III. 1215, where Tit. de Fide Cathol. it is declared, That the very body and blood of Christ is truly contained in the Sacra­ment of the Altar, the Bread being transubstantiate into the Body, and the Wine into the Blood of Christ. This is the first News we hear of Transubstantia­tion.

We see now the Antiquity of Transubstantiation. It is one of the Tares that were sowed whil'st men slept, and grew up by degrees; but was scarce known, never decreed as an Article of Faith; till [Page 6] above 1200 years after Christ; and was never re­ceived generally to this day. For some of their own Writers (one a Cardinal) say, That they receive it chiefly out of reverence to the Church, because she hath so decreed; but otherwise in their own judgment rather approve that Opinion, which saith, That the substance of Bread and Wine remain in the Sacra­ment.

CHAP. II. The full growth and present state of Transubstantiation.

WE have seen now how Transubstantiation was first sowed, and how it grew up by de­grees; but came not to its full growth and height, till the Council of Trent, called by Pope Paul III. and assembled in the City of Trent, Decemb. 13. 1545. In this Council, the Doctrine of Transubstan­tiation being called in question, was with some ear­nestness debated between the Franciscan and Domi­nican Fryers. The Dominicans affirmed, That in the Lords Supper, the Bread and Wine are turned in­to the very Body and Blood of Christ, matter into matter, and form into form; and therefore it was called Transubstantiation. On the contrary, the Franciscans contended, That it was called Transub­stantiation, not because one substance was made of the other, as Dominicans say; but because one sub­stance [Page 7] succeeded in the place of the other, the Bread vanishing, and the Body of Christ coming in place of it. I purposely pass over the hot dispute they had about the manner of Being of Christ in the Sacra­ment, and how it differed from the manner of his Being in Heaven; wherein the Learned Fryers were so confounded, that they could neither agree themselves, nor satisfie others. The Fathers of the Council being for most part Lawyers, understood not the subtilties of the Divines; and it is a won­der how they should understand, Locatum sine loco; Quantum sine quantitate, &c. In a place, possessing no place: A Body, without quantity: Quantity, in condition of a Body or Substance: Substance with­out Accidents: and Accidents, not insisting but sub­sisting of themselves without a Subject. And such like monstrous fancies, enough to puzzle all the Wits in the World, as it hath done their own Doctors to this day, that they neither understand it themselves, nor can explain it to others. Such hard shifts men are often put to, that forsake the Truth, to maintain Errour. The Fathers conclude to make an expression so universal, as may be accom­modated to the meaning of both Parties. And so it is declared, Con. Trid. S. 13. Dec. de Euchar. That af­ter the words of Consecration, the whole substance of the Bread is turned into the substance of the Body of Christ, &c. And that whole Christ, Body and Soul, together with his Godhead, is contained in the Sacra­ment, and in every part and particle of it. But this did not please all the Council neither.

CHAP. III. The Grounds and Reasons for Transubstantiation.

THE Grounds and Reasons for this Opinion, are the Power and Truth of Christ. Who being God Almighty, can do whatsoever he will; and will do whatsoever he hath promised, because he is Truth it self. But Christ hath promised to give us his flesh to eat ( John 6.) and afterwards in­stituting a Sacrament, did give his Body to his Dis­ciples, saying, Take, eat, this is my Body. Some think it impossible, but we (say they) must believe it, for his other Miracles that he did: as ( John 2.) he turned water into wine; and many other Mira­cles he did, to witness his Almighty Power and God­head; that they which believed him not for his Word, might believe him for his Works sake.

CHAP. IV. The Grounds and Reasons Considered.

IT is very true, That Christ can do whatsoever he will, and will do whatsoever he hath promi­sed. The question is, not of his Power, nor of his Truth, but of his Will and Promise: when and where made he any such promise? He promised in­deed ( John 6.) to give his flesh for the life of the World; and so he did upon the Cross once for all. He promised also to give us his flesh to eat; and so he doth to every faithful Receiver in the Sa­crament. As he said to his Disciples, Take, Eat, this is my Body. Not his Body Natural and Organical; our Saviour never promised to give us that to eat. That was the gross conceit of carnal Capernaites: which our Saviour reproves and corrects ( John 6.62, 63.) That Body must ascend up into Heaven, there to continue; the flesh profiteth nothing. Our Saviours words are spirit and life, and will quicken us, if understood spiritually. Aug. Leave off then all carnal Thoughts. Quid paras ventrem, &c? August. Why preparest thou belly or teeth? Here is no Belly-chear, but food for the Soul: Believe, and thou hast eaten.

2. Our Saviour turned Water into Wine; that was a true Miracle, as all his Miracles were. Water [Page 10] turned into Wine, for colour, taste, and other qua­lities, true Wine: but this trick of Transubstantia­tion is a meer juggle, that beguiles all the senses, and would have us believe not only above, but against Reason; yea, against Scriptures, Fathers, and Nature it self.

3. In one part of the Sacrament, there is a plain Trope or Figure ( Luke 22.) This Cup is the New Testament in my blood; Cup put for Wine in the Cup. And why there should be a Figure in one part of the Sacrament, and not in the other; when they give us a reason, we shall give them an answer. But indeed we can never expect any reason from them, who reject Scriptures, Fathers, practice of Primitive Times, yea and the Institution of Christ himself; to set up their own monstrous Fancies, as the Coun­cil of Constance doth, ( Sess. 13.) where it is said, That although Christ administred the Sacrament in both kinds, and Primitive Christians received it in both kinds; yet (Hoc non obstante) notwith­standing all this, they think fit to take away the Cup from the Laity, to avoid some perils and scan­dals; no man knows what, nor themselves nei­ther.

CHAP. V. Observations concerning the FATHERS.

BEcause our Adversaries make boast so much of Antiquity, and of all the Fathers on their side, (as Campian doth) and so with great swelling words of Vanity deceive the hearts of the simple: To all their vain Brags, I oppose that one Speech of the Noble King James, who said, That all the Jesuites in the World shall never be able to produce the unanimous consent of the Fathers against us, or for themselves, in any substantial point of Faith. And to Duraeus his Nullam refugio antiquitatem, I oppose that of the Learned Whitaker: Si vel unum potes proferre, &c. Produce but one testimony of pure Antiquity for Transubstantiation, and we will yield the cause.

The same famous Prince also at a Conference with some Learned men, shews out of Vincentius Li­rinensis, and others, how the Fathers, in flourish of Exornation, and in heat of Opposition, may over­strain. And Jesuites themselves confess, That some of the Fathers in heat of opposition against one Heresie, have given occasion to another. The shame­ful work they have made with the Fathers, as their own Books bear witness, is sufficient to stop the mouths of all that are not past shame. There is not [Page 12] one Father that is not of their own spurious brood, in whom they can find any ground for Transubstan­tiation, but onely some words and phrases mistaken.

CHAP. VI. Absurdities that follow this opinion of Transubstantiation.

THE falshood of Transubstantiation appears most clearly by the Absurdities that follow it: As,

First, If this Opinion be true, then Christ eat his own Flesh, and gave to his Disciples his own dead Body before he was dead.

Secondly, If this Opinion be true, then there were two Christs; one giving, another given; one sitting at Table, another in the hands or mouths of his Disciples.

Thirdly, If this Opinion be true, then there are many Christs: for according to this Doctrine, the Body of Christ is in every part and particle of the Sacrament; as the Bread then is divided, Christ is multiplied.

Fourthly, If this Opinion be true, then the Apo­stle did not speak true, to call it Bread after Con­secration (1 Cor. 10. and 11.)

Fifthly, If this Opinion be true, then the Body of Christ is in many places at one time; in a place, pos­sessing no place; whole Christ, in a crum of Bread [Page 13] or Wafer: all contrary to the nature of a true Body, that possesseth as much place as is proportionable to its magnitude.

Sixthly, If this Opinion be true, then the Body of Christ may putrifie, breed Worms, be eaten of Mice, go into the Draught, &c. most unworthy to be spoken of him, of whom it is said, Thou wilt not suffer thine Holy One to see Corruption.

CHAP. VII. The true Doctrine held by the Church of ENGLAND.

THE same that is taught in the Twenty eighth Article.

First, To them which receive it worthily, the Bread which we break, is the Communion of the Body of Christ, &c.

Secondly, It is given, taken and eaten in the Lords Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual man­ner.

Thirdly, The mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Lords Supper, is Faith.

1. Against bare Signe and Figure, we teach, That the Body of Christ is given, taken and eaten in the Lords Supper.

2. Against Transubstantiation, we teach, That the Body of Christ is given, taken and eaten only after an heavenly and spiritual manner, by the mean [Page 14] of Faith. There must be some great and wonder­ful change of the Elements, or else the common Bread made of Corn, could never become an in­strument of heavenly grace and life, to feed, quick­en and strengthen the Soul to life eternal.

And this change of the Elements cannot be in their substance.

First, Because that would overthrow the nature of a true Body, as hath been said.

Secondly, It overthrows the nature of a Sacra­ment.

But the change we acknowledge, is in their use, virtue, power, and operation; so that whereas be­fore Consecration, the Elements were only instru­ments to feed and strengthen the Body; after Con­secration, they are holy instruments to feed and nou­rish the Soul to life eternal. For if the Woman that had the bloody issue ( Matth. 9.) drew Virtue out of Christ to heal her disease, onely by touching the hem of his garment or cloaths in faith; Why should it seem strange, that in receiving those holy Myste­ries that Christ himself hath ordained, we may, and do receive Virtue from him, and are truly made partakers of his precious body and blood by faith? Distance of place cannot hinder the work of faith, ( Eph. 3.17.) Christ dwells in our hearts by faith.

When our Saviour sayes, This is my Body, he in­tends not to shew what the Bread is, but what his Body is: Not that the Bread is turned into his Flesh, but that his Body is Food for our Soul, as Bread is for our Body. It shews not any conversion [Page 15] of one substance into another, but onely the relati­on that is between them. He which before called his Body Bread, now calls the Bread his Body; that by this change of names, we might understand and believe the change that is made by grace; and not so much heed the things we see, as mind the things we see not: Theod. We confess then, that the Body and Blood of Christ is given and received; we agree about the matter, all the question is about the manner. They say it is corporally and carnally; we grant really, if by really ye understand truly and indeed; but yet that it is spiritual, heavenly, and di­vine. The Truth is present with the Signe; the Holy Spirit with the Sacrament, feeding our Souls with the truth of Christs Body and Blood: but the invisible working of that divine Spirit herein is un­searchable; the natural man cannot perceive it, be­cause it is spiritual.

To conclude, Let us firmly believe what we can­not conceive; and rest assured in this truth, That we receive in this Holy Sacrament the Body and Blood of Christ by Faith, though we cannot con­ceive it by Sense and Reason.