Synopsis papismi, that is, A generall viewe of papistry wherein the whole mysterie of iniquitie, and summe of antichristian doctrine is set downe, which is maintained this day by the Synagogue of Rome, against the Church of Christ, together with an antithesis of the true Christian faith, and an antidotum or counterpoyson out of the Scriptures, against the whore of Babylons filthy cuppe of abominations: deuided into three bookes or centuries, that is, so many hundreds of popish heresies and errors. Collected by Andrew Willet Bachelor of Diuinity.

THE SECOND QVESTION CONCERNING Transubstantiation.

The Papists.

IF any man shall say, that there remaineth the substance of bread and wine in the Sacrament, after the words of consecration; or shall denye that the whole [error 115] substance of bread is changed and conuerted into the bodie of Christ, and the whole substance of wine into the blood of Christ, the formes and shewes onely of bread and wine remaining, which singular and miraculous conuersion the Church calleth Transubstantiation; let him be accursed, Concil. Tridentin. sess. 13. can. 2. Bellarm. lib. 3. de sacra. euchar. cap. 19. Rhemist. Matth. 17. sect. 1.

Argum. 1. Christ transfigured his bodie marueilously in the Mount, as wee reade, Math. 17. sect. 1. Ergo, he is able to exhibite his bodie vnder the formes of bread and wine, Rhemist.

Ans. First, your argument followeth not, Christ could giue a glorious forme to his passible bodie: Ergo, he can take away the essentiall properties of his na∣turall bodie, and yet keepe a true bodie stil. Or thus, Christ could glorifie his bo∣die not yet glorified: Ergo, he can or will dishonour his glorious impassible bo∣die: by enclosing it vnder the formes of base creatures to be deuoured of dogs and mice: which is honoured and worshipped of the Angels and Saints in heauen. Secondly, the question is not so much of Christs power, as of his will: therefore you conclude not aright, Christ is able to doe it: Ergo, he will.

Argum. 2. He that seeth water turned into wine by the power of Christ, need not to doubt how he changeth bread into his bodie, Rhemist. Ioh. 2. sect. 2.

Ans. First, when you can bring any warrant out of scripture for your imagi∣ned conuersion, as we haue for this miracle, we will giue eare vnto you. Second∣ly, and when it shall appeare to the senses, that the bread is changed into flesh, as the water was knowne to be turned into the wine, by the colour and tast: we shall then no more doubt of this conuersion of the bread, then they did of the other of water. Thirdly, if Christ could alter and change the substances of crea∣tures: what reason haue you to giue such an omnipotent power to euery priest, with a fewe words to doe as much, as Christ himselfe could when he was pre∣sent?

Fourthly, all this proueth but an abilitie and power in Christ, not a will or purpose, to worke any such change or conuersion.

Argum. 3. Though the substance of bread and wine be chaunged, yet the formes remaine still for these causes. First, because if the formes also should be changed, there should be no sensible signe left, and so no Sacrament. Secondly, the faith of the receiuer is the better tried this way: who beleeueth the flesh of Christ to be present, though he see it not. Thirdly, Christ would not haue the formes altered, because man abhorreth to eate humane flesh in the proper shape, Bellarm. cap. 22.

Ans. First, your first reason is insufficient: for neither doe the bare and naked signes or accidents of the elements make a Sacrament, but the substance of thē: for betweene the Sacrament and the thing thereby represented, there ought to be some conueniencie and agreement: namely, as the bodie is nourished by bread and wine, so doth the soule feed vpon the bodie and bloud of Christ. But they are not the accidents of bread and wine that nourish vs, but the substance: Ergo, not the accidents but the substance is the visible signe. Likewise in Bap∣tisme, it is not the forme or outward accident of water, that is the signe, but the substance of water that washeth.

2. It is a more liuely operation of faith, to beleeue in Christ absent in hea∣uen, then present in earth, although he appeare not to the senses. And Christ is indeed properly the obiect of faith, as he is now in heauen: Hope (saith the A∣postle) entreth into that which is within the vaile, whither our forerunner Iesus is entred for vs, Heb. 6.19. Faith and hope therefore doe leade vs to things with∣in the vaile, that is, things in heauen, and not vpon the earth.

3. What a strange saying is this, that Christ giueth his flesh to be eatē in the Sacrament, yet hideth it vnder the formes of bread and wine, lest men should abhorre to eate it? for is it to be thought, that Christ would command any vn∣seemely thing, or contrary to humanitie? How could the Apostles command the Gentiles to abstaine frō strangled & blood, Act. 15. whē as, by your doctrine, they did eate dayly in their assemblies, the raw flesh and blood of Christ? And how is it that Christ now forgetteth his owne rule, He that doth the truth (sayth he) commeth to the light, that his deedes may be made manifest? Iohn. 3.21. But Christ now flieth the light, & shrowdeth himselfe vnder the shape of bread and wine, and wil not shew his flesh. These therefore are but sillie causes which you haue rendered, why Christ would haue the substance of bread onely chan∣ged, and not the accidents.

The Protestants.

AS the name of transubstantiation is straunge, and newly deuised: so is the meaning thereof most vnreasonable: that in the Sacrament, the substance of bread should be conuerted into the bodie of Christ, the formes onely remai∣ning: An opinion contrary to scripture, reason and common sense.

Argum. 1. As Christ said, Math. 26. (pointing to the bread) This is my body: so he sayth, Iohn. 6.35. I am the bread: but in this place he was not changed in∣to bread: why then in the other place should the bread be turned into his body? for the speech is all one.

Argum. 2. The bread in the Eucharist after the consecration, is subiect to di∣uers changes and alterations, and so likewise the wine: for they may be boyled and made hot, they may be infected with poyson: for it is certaine that Victor the 3. Pope, and Henry the 7. Emperour, were poysoned with the Sacrament: the wine may waxe sower and turne to vineger: the bread may putrifie and breed wormes: Ergo, the substance of bread and wine remaine still: for the ac∣cidents cannot be subiect to such alterations: and to say that Christs bodie may be thus handled, it were great impietie, Argum. Pet. Martyris.

Bellarmine answereth: Materia substituitur à Deo in ipso instanti, in quo desi∣nunt esse illae species: God supplieth some other matter in the very instant, when the formes begin to be changed, Cap. 24. argum. 6.

Ans. Is not here good geare, thinke you, that if a man should come to poyson the Sacrament, that is, the bread and wine, which are alreadie consecrate, and made the bodie of Christ, God should supplie by a miracle some other matter for him to worke vpon, and so God himselfe should be accessarie vnto that wic∣ked act? Or if a sillie mouse should be so bold as gnaw vpon a consecrate Host, that then likewise some other matter and substance should for that instant be appoynted: and so God shall make miracles for mice? And why, I pray you, may not the substance of bread still remaine, as well as another substance to be put in the stead thereof?

Arg. 3. When Christ spake these words, Hoc est corpus meum, the bread was transubstantiate, before, or after, or while the words were spoken. Before, they will not say, for the elements were not then consecrate: nor after, for thē Christs words, This is my bodie, had not been true in that instant when they were spo∣ken. Neither was the transubstantiation wrought in the while of speaking: for then should it not haue been done all at once, but successiuely, and one part af∣ter another, as the words were spoken one after another. But this is also contra∣rie to the opinion of the Papists, that would haue it done all together.

Argum. 4. It is against the nature and propertie of accidents and externall formes to be without a subiect, or substance, wherein they should rest: such are the whitenes and roundnes of the bread, the rednes and sweetnes of wine: if bread be gone, what is become of the roundnes and whitenes, and so of the wine. If a man aske what round or white thing is this, or what red and sweete thing is this, shewing the cup: what shall be answered? we cannot say, it is bread, or wine: for there is none left. And I am sure, they will not say, that the bodie of Christ is either round or white, or such like: and yet somewhat there must needes be, that must take denomination of these accidents.

Argum. 5. You say, the very flesh of Christ that did hang vpon the Crosse,

is in the Sacrament: but that cannot be: for that flesh Christ tooke of the Vir∣gine Mary: this sacramentall flesh is made of bread: Ergo, it is not the same flesh which was crucified vpon the Crosse.

Bellarm. The bodie of Christ is made of bread, but not as any matter or materiall cause thereof, but as the wine was made of water by our Sauiour Christ.

Ans. And I pray you how was the wine made of the water? was not the wa∣ter the very matter which was turned into wine? for one of these three changes and mutations it must needes haue: first, either the water was annihilate and turned to nothing, and so the wine was created of nothing, which I am sure you will not graunt: secondly, or els there was a mixture of wine and water, the one being mingled with the other: which is likewise false, for it was very good and perfect wine: neither, I thinke, will you easily admit, that the bodie of Christ and the bread are mingled together in the Sacrament. Thirdly, there remaineth but the third kind of change, that is, the conuersion of one substance into ano∣ther, as the water was changed into wine: and so is the substance of bread con∣uerted into the substance of Christs bodie, if you will haue any chaunge at all: and thus Christ hath gotten by your helpe a breaden bodie: another from that, which he tooke of the flesh of the Virgine.

Lastly, the diuersitie of opinions, which this grosse conceit of the carnall pre∣sence of Christ hath hatched, doe easily shew and demonstrate vnto vs, what we are to thinke of this popish doctrine.

Some doe hold, that the elements doe still remaine in their owne nature in the Sacrament, and that together with them the bodie of Christ is carnally pre∣sent. Others doe teach, that there remaineth no more bread and wine, but onely the verie naturall bodie of Christ: of each opinion there are three sorts.

First, of them that hold the elements not to be chaunged. 1. Some are of opi∣nion, that the bodie of Christ and the elements are locally ioyned together, ei∣ther for that instant onely, or els because of the vbiquitie and omnipresence of Christs humanitie: of which opinion are the Lutherans.

2. Some there were, that thought onely so much of the bread to be changed into the bodie of Christ, as was receiued of the faithfull: and that part which the wicked receiued, to be bread still.

3. Others taught, that the bread was assumed in the Sacrament to the person of Christ, euen as his humanitie: so that Christ was bread by consecration, as he was man by his incarnation: an horrible and monstrous opinion, which is fa∣thered vpon Rupertus the Abbot. Iohannes Parisiensis also came neere this opi∣nion, who likewise affirmed, that the bread was assumed to the person of Christ, and vnited vnto him, yet not immediatly, as the other taught, but by the media∣tion and meanes of the humanitie of Christ.

Secondly, of those that maintaine the conuersion of the elements. First, some would haue the forme onely of bread chaunged not the matter, as Durandus.

Secondly, some contrariwise, would haue the matter altered, and the forme to remaine. Thirdly, the Iesuits affirme the bread wholly in substance, both in matter and forme to be changed, the outward formes and accidents onely re∣maining. ex Bellarm. lib. 3. de sacram, Eucharist. cap. 11.

Thus men, when they begin once to leaue the truth, the Lord leaueth them to themselues, and they runne mad in their owne inuentions, not finding any end: and so it is iustly come vpon them, as S. Paul saith of the heathen:

Because when they knew God, they did not glorifie him as God, neither were thankfull: they became vaine in their own imaginations, and their foolish hart was full of darkenes: when they professed themselues to be wise, they became fooles, Rom. 1.21.22.

We therefore leauing these shalow pittes of humane inuentions, which will holde no water, will betake vs to the fountaine of truth. This then, to conclude, is our definitiue sentence, and full determination, according to the Scriptures, that Christ indeed is verily present in the Sacrament, neither by con∣uersion of the bread into his body, either wholly, or in parte, nor by assumption of the bread to the vnity of his person; nor yet by the coniunction of his body and bread together▪ but he doth verily exhibite himselfe, with all his benefits, spiritually by faith, to be eaten and drunke of the worthy receiuer, as we haue sufficiently proued before out of the Scriptures.