The history of Popish transubstantiation to which is premised and opposed, the Catholick doctrin of Holy Scripture, the ancient fathers and the Reformed churches, about the sacred elements, and presence of Christ in the blessed sacrament of the eucharist / written nineteen years ago in Latine, by the Right Reverend Father in God, John, late Lord Bishop of Durham, and allowed by him to be published a little before his death, at the earnest request of his friends.

CHAP. IV. (Book 4)

1. Of the change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Bloud of Christ, which the Papists call Transubstan∣tiation. 2. Of Gods Omnipotency. 3. Of the Accidents of the Bread. 4. The Sacramental Union of the thing signified with the sign. 5 and 6. The question is stated Negatively and Affirmatively. 7. The definition of the Council of Trent. The Bull of Pope Pius IV. and the form of the Oath by him appointed. The Decretal of Innocent III. The Assertions of the Jesuits. 8. Transubstantiation a very monstrous thing.

1. IT is an Article of faith in the Church of Rome, that in the Blessed Eucha∣rist the substance of the Bread and Wine is reduced to nothing, and that in its place succeeds the Body and Bloud of Christ, as we shall see more at large § 6,

and 7. The Protestants are much of ano∣ther mind; and yet none of them denies altogether but that there is a conversion of the Bread into the Body (and conse∣quently of the Wine into the Bloud) of Christ: For they know and acknowledge that in the Sacrament, by vertue of the words and blessing of Christ, the condi∣tion, use, and office of the Bread is whol∣ly changed, that is, of common and or∣dinary, it becomes our Mystical and Sa∣cramental food; whereby, as they affirm and believe, the true Body of Christ is not only shadowed and figured, but also gi∣ven indeed, and by worthy Communicants truly received. Yet they believe not that the bread loseth its own, to become the sub∣stance of the Body of Christ; for the holy Scripture, and the ancient Interpreters thereof for many ages, never taught such an Essential change and conversion, as that the very substance, the matter and form of the Bread should be wholly taken away, but only a mysterious and Sacra∣mental one, whereby our Ordinary is changed into Mystick bread, and there∣by designed and appointed to another use, end, and office than before: This change, whereby supernatural effects are wrought by things natural, while their

Essence is preserved entire, doth best agree with the grace and power of God.

2. There is no reason why we should dispute concerning Gods Omnipotency, whether it can do this or that, presuming to measure an infinite power by our poor ability which is but weakness. We may grant that he is able to do beyond what we can think or apprehend, and resolve his most wonderful acts into his absolute will and power, but we may not charge him with working contradictions. And though Gods Almightiness were able in this Mystery to destroy the substance of Bread and Wine, and essentially to change it into the Body and Bloud of Christ, while the accidents of Bread and Wine subsist of themselves without a subject, yet we desire to have it proved that God will have it so, and that it is so indeed. For, that God doth it because he can, is no Argument; and that he wills it, we have no other proof but the confident Assertion of our Adversaries. Tertullian against Praxias declared, That we should not conclude God doth things because he is able, but that we should enquire what he hath done; For God will never own that praise of his Omnipotency, whereby his unchange∣ableness

and his truth are impaired, and those things overthrown and destroy'd, which, in his word, he affirms to be; for, take away the Bread and Wine, and there remains no Sacrament.

3. They that say, that the matter and form of the Bread are wholly abolished, yet will have the accidents to remain: But if the substance of the Bread be changed into the substance of Christs Bo∣dy, by vertue of his words, what hin∣ders that the accidents of the Bread are not also changed into the accidents of Christs Body? They that urge the express Letter, should shew that Christ said, This is the substance of my Body without its accidents. But he did not say, That he gave his Disciples a Phantastick Body, such a visionary figment as Marcion be∣lieved, but that very Body which was gi∣ven for us, without being deprived of that extention and other accidents of hu∣mane bodies without which it could not have been crucified, since the Main∣tainers of Transubstantiation grant that the Body of Christ keeps its quantity in Heaven, and say it is without the same in the Sacrament; they must either ac∣knowledge their contradiction in the mat∣ter, or give over their opinion.

4. Protestants dare not be so curious, or presume to know more than is delive∣red by Scripture and Antiquity, they firmly believing the words of Christ, make the form of this Sacrament to con∣sist in the Union of the thing signified with the sign, that is, the exhibition of the Body of Christ with the consecrated bread, still remaining bread; by divine appointment these two are made one; and though this Union be not natural, substantial, personal, or local by their be∣ing one within another, yet it is so straight and so true, that in eating the blessed Bread, the true body of Christ is given to us, and the names of the sign and thing signified are reciprocally changed, what is proper to the body is attributed to the bread, and what belongs only to the bread, is affirmed of the body, and both are united in time, though not in place. For the presence of Christ in this Mystery is not opposed to distance but to absence, which only could deprive us of the benefit and fruition of the object.

5. From what hath been said it appears, that this whole controversie may be re∣duced to four Heads; 1. Concerning the Signs; 2. Concerning the thing signified;

3. Concerning the Union of both; and 4. Concerning their participation; As for the first, The Protestants differ from the Papists in this, that according to the nature of Sacraments, and the Doctrine of holy Scripture we make the substance of Bread and Wine, and they acci∣dents only to be signs. In the second, they not understanding our opinion do mis∣represent it, for we do not hold (as they say we do) that only the merits of the Death of Christ are represented by the blessed Elements, but also that his very Body which was crucified, and his Bloud which was shed for us, are truly signified and offered, that our Souls may receive and possess Christ, as truly and certainly as the material and visible signs are by us seen and received. And so in the third place, because the thing signified is offered and given to us, as truly as the sign it self, in this respect we own the Union be∣twixt the Body and bloud of Christ, and the Elements, whose use and office we hold to be changed from what it was before. But we deny what the Papists affirm, that the substance of Bread and Wine are quite abolished, and changed into the Body and Bloud of our Lord in such sort, that the bare accidents

of the Elements do alone remain united with Christs Body and Bloud. And we also deny that the Elements still retain the nature of Sacraments when not used according to divine institution, that is, given by Christs Ministers, and received by his People; so that Christ in the con∣secrated bread ought not, cannot be kept and preserved to be carried about, because he is present only to the Communicants. As for the fourth and last point, we do not say, that in the Lords Supper we re∣ceive only the benefits of Christs Death and Passion, but we joyn the ground with its fruits, that is, Christ with those ad∣vantages we receive from him, affirming with St. Paul, That the bread which we break * 1.1 is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Communion of the body of Christ, and the Cup which we bless, the Communion of his bloud; of that very substance which he took of the blessed Virgin, and after∣wards carried into heaven; differing from those of Rome only in this, that they will have our Union with Christ to be corporal, and our eating of him likewise, and we on the contrary maintain it to be, indeed as true, but not carnal or natural. And as he that receives unworthily, (that is, with the mouth only, but not with a faithful heart) eats and drinks his own

damnation, so he that doth it worthily, receives his Absolution and Justification; that is, he that discerns, and then receives the Lords Body as torn, and his Bloud as shed for the redemption of the world. But that Christ (as the Papists affirm) should give his flesh and bloud to be re∣ceived with the mouth, and ground with the teeth, so that not only the most wic∣ked and Infidels, but even Rats and Mice should swallow him down, this our words and our hearts do utterly deny.

6. So then, (to sum up this Contro∣versie by applying to it all that hath been said) It is not questioned whether the Body of Christ be absent from the Sacra∣ment duly administred according to his Institution, which we Protestants neither affirm nor believe: For it being given and received in the Communion, it must needs be that it is present, though in some man∣ner veiled under the Sacrament, so that of it self it cannot be seen. Neither is it doubted or disputed whether the Bread and Wine, by the power of God and a su∣pernatural vertue, be set apart and fitted for a much nobler use, and raised to a higher dignity than their nature bears; for we confess the necessity of a super∣natural and heavenly change, and that

the signs cannot become Sacraments but by the infinite power of God, whose pro∣per right it is to institute Sacraments in his Church, being able alone to endue them with vertue and efficacy. Finally, we do not say that our blessed Saviour gave only the figure and sign of his body; neither do we deny a Sacramental Union of the Body and Bloud of Christ with the sacred Bread and Wine, so that both are really and substantially received together: But (that we may avoid all ambiguity) we deny that after the words and prayer of Consecration, the bread should remain bread no longer, but should be changed into the substance of the Body of Christ, nothing of the Bread but only the acci∣dents continuing to be what they were before: And so the whole question is con∣cerning the Transubstantiation of the outward Elements; whether the sub∣stance of the Bread be turned into the substance of Christs Body, and the sub∣stance of the Wine into the substance of his Bloud; or as the Romish Doctors de∣scribe their Transubstantiation, whether the substance of Bread and Wine doth utterly perish, and the substance of Christs Body and Bloud succeed in their place, which are both denied by Protestants.

7. The Church of Rome sings on Corpus Christi-day, This is not bread, but God and man my Saviour. And the Council of Trent doth thus define it, Because Christ our Redee∣mer * 1.2 said truly, that that was his Body, which he gave in the appearance of bread; therefore it was ever believed by the Church of God, and is now declared by this sacred Synod, that by the power of Consecration the whole substance of the bread is changed into the substance of Christs Body, and the whole substance of the Wine into the substance of his Bloud, which change is fit∣ly and properly called Transubstantiation by the holy Catholick (Roman) Church. Therefore * 1.3 if any one shall say, That the substance of Bread and Wine remains with the Body and Bloud of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and shall deny that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the Bread and Wine into the sub∣stance of the Body and Bloud of Christ, the on∣ly appearance and outward form of the Bread and Wine remaining, which conversion the Ca∣tholick (Roman) Church doth fitly call Tran∣substantiation, let him be accursed. The Pope confirming this Council, defines it after * 1.4 the same manner, imposeth an Oath and Declaration to the same purpose, and so makes it one of the new Articles of the Roman Faith, in the form, and under the penalty following: I. N. do profess and

firmly believe all and every the singulars con∣tained in the Confession of Faith allowed by the holy Church of Rome; viz. I believe in one God, &c. I also profess that the Body and Bloud with the Soul and Godhead of our Saviour Jesus Christ are truly, really, and substantially in the Mass, and in the Sacrament of the Eu∣charist, and that there is a conversion of the whole substance of the Bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the Wine into the Bloud of Christ, which conversion the Roman Catholick Church calls Transubstantiation. I fully embrace all things defined, declared, and delivered by the holy Council of Trent, and withall I do reject, condemn, and accurse all things by it accurs'd, condemned, or rejected. I do confidently believe that this Faith, which I now willingly profess, is the true Catholick Faith without the which it is impossible to be saved; and I do promise, vow, and swear, that I will constantly keep it whole and undefiled to my very last breath: So help me God and these Holy Gospels. Afterwards he bravely con∣cludes this Decree with this Comminati∣on: Let no man therefore dare to attempt the breaking of this our Deed and Injunction, or be so desperate as to oppose it. And if any one pre∣sumes upon such an attempt, let him know that he thereby incurs the wrath of Almighty God, and of his blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

Given at Rome in St. Peters Church the Thir∣teenth of November in the year of our Lord 1564. the fifth of our Pontificat. Which is as much as to say, That he had received this his Roman Faith from Pope Innocent the Third, who first decided and imposed this Doctrine of the Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Bloud of Christ, and made it an Ar∣ticle of Faith, adding this new-devised Thirteenth to the ancient Twelve Arti∣cles, for so we find it published in his De∣cretal propounded to the Assembly at Lateran in 1215. and proclaimed after∣wards by his Nephew Pope Gregory the Ninth. Thus: We firmly believe and simply acknowledge that there is one only true God, &c. * 1.5 and that in the Sacrament of the Altar the Body and Bloud of Christ are truly contained under the accidents of Bread and Wine, which are transubstantiated, the Bread into the Body, and the Wine into the Bloud. To these defini∣tions of Popes I will add only the Tenets of three Jesuits, which are highly ap∣proved by the late followers of the new Roman Faith. First, Of Alphonsus Salmeron, We must of necessity (saith he) hold Tran∣substantiation, that the substance of Bread * 1.6 and Wine, which Luther and some others admit, may be excluded; that the words of

Christ (which yet are most true without that) may be verified; that how few of these many are pertinent to their purpose will be seen hereafter; many Testimonies of the Fa∣thers, concerning Conversion, Mutation, Con∣secration, Benediction, Transformation, Sancti∣fication (for by all these names almost, they have called Transubstantiation) may stand firm, and not be vain and insignificant; and lastly, that we may maintain a solid presence of the Body and Bloud of Christ. Item, as David * 1.7 changed his Countenance before Abimelech, and then received the Shew bread, that was a certain Type of the Eucharist, so Christ in the Sacrament seigns himself to be bread, and yet is not bread, though he seems so to be most visibly. Secondly, Of Cardinal Francis Tolet; The words of Consecration are efficacious * 1.8 instruments whereby to Transubstantiate the substance of the Bread into the true Body of Christ; so that after they are spoken, there re∣mains in the Host none of the substance of the Bread, but only the accidents of it, which are called the properties of the Bread, under which the true Body of Christ is present. Thirdly, and lastly, Of Cardinal Bellarmine, The Catho∣lick * 1.9 Church ever taught, that by the conversion of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Bloud of Christ (which conversion hath been in after times called Transubstantiation) it comes to pass,

that the Body and Bloud of our Lord are truly and really present in the Sacrament. It would be to no purpose to bring the Testimonies of others of the Latine or Roman Church who give to the Pope an absolute power of defining what he pleaseth, for they are but the same stuff as these: but if any one hath a mind let him consult Gretserus * 1.10 his defence of Bellarmine, or his Dialogue who first writ against Luther, who both reduce the whole matter to the judgment and decree of the Pope.

8. Now we leave inquiring what God is able to do, for we should first know his will in this matter, before we examine his power: Yet thus much we say, that this Roman Transubstantiation is so strange and monstrous, that it exceeds the nature of all Miracles. And though God by his Almightiness be able to turn the sub∣stance of bread into some other substance, yet none will believe that he doth it, as long as it appears to our senses, that the substance of the Bread doth still remain whole and entire. Certain it is, that hither∣to we read of no such thing done in the Old or New Testament, and therefore this Tenet, being as unknown to the Anci∣ents as it is ungrounded in Scripture, ap∣pears as yet to be very incredible, and

there is no reason we should believe such an unauthorised figment, newly invented by men, and now imposed as an Ar∣ticle of Christian Religion. For it is in vain that they bring Scripture to defend this their stupendious Doctrine; and it is not true, what they so often and so confidently affirm, that the Universal Church hath always constantly owned it, being it was not so much as heard of in the Church for many Ages, and hath been but lately approved by the Popes Authority in the Councils of Lateran and Trent, as I shall prove in the following Chapters.

Notes

• * 1.1

  1 Cor. 10. 16.
• * 1.2

  Conc. Tri∣dent. Sess. 13. c. 4.
• * 1.3

  Ibid. Can. 2.
• * 1.4

  Bulla Pii Papae 4. Consir. Conc. Tri∣dent.
• * 1.5

  Decret. de sum. Trin. & fide Cathol. Tit. 1.
• * 1.6

  Tom. 9. Tract. 16.
• * 1.7

  Tom. 16. disp. 3. in Ep. 9. Pe∣tri.
• * 1.8

  Instr. Sa∣cerd. l. ••. c. 2••.
• * 1.9

  Lib. 3. •••• Euchar. cap. 11.
• * 1.10

  Grets. def Beliar. l. 2. c ••. Syl. Prior. sub initio.