A systeme or body of divinity consisting of ten books : wherein the fundamentals and main grounds of religion are opened, the contrary errours refuted, most of the controversies between us, the papists, Arminians, and Socinians discussed and handled, several Scriptures explained and vindicated from corrupt glosses : a work seasonable for these times, wherein so many articles of our faith are questioned, and so many gross errours daily published / by Edward Leigh.

Of Transubstantiation.

The word Transubstantiation (as the Papists grant) was not used of any ancient Fathers, and it was not so named among them before the Councel of Laterane, which* 1.1 was 1215 years after. Vocabulum ante Concilium Lateranense inauditum.

The Jesuites (which call Protestants in scorn Tropists, because they defend a tropical and figurative sense in that speech of Christ, This is my body) are yet themselves constrained to acknowledge six tropes in the other words of Christs institution of this Sacrament, a figure in the word Bread, another in Eat, a third in Given, a fourth in Shed, a fifth in Cup, a sixth in Testament. B. Morton of the Masse, lib. 6. cap. 2. Sect. 4.

The Papists to avoid one signe runne into many strange ones; by the demonstra∣tive* 1.2 Hoc, they understand they know not what, neither this Body nor this Bread, but an individuum vagum, something contained under the accidents of Bread, which when the Priest saith Hoc, it is Bread, but when he hath muttered out Meum, it is Christs body. By the copulative Est, is, they understand either shall be as soon as the words are spoken, or is converted unto, or by Body, they under∣stand such a Body as indeed is no body, without extension of place, without facul∣ty, sense or motion.

The very term Matth. 26. 26. manifestly evinceth the truth. This, What? That which he took, viz. Bread, therefore it must needs be a figurative speech, 1 Cor. 10. 4.

The Apostle speaking of the Bread being consecrated, still calleth it * 1.3 Bread, six times at least. He calleth it indeed the Bread, and this Bread, to shew the differ∣ence of it from other Bread, and the excellency of it above other bread, but yet* 1.4 bread. Therefore it is still bread of the same substance as other bread is, though in respect of use incomparably better. And so for the wine Matth. 26. 29. after con∣secration, he saith, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the Vine. He doth not say in general, Of the fruit of the Vine, but particularly with a demonstrative pro∣noun, Of this fruit of the Vine, viz. that which he had blest and delivered to the Apostles.

Transubstantiation was first occasioned by the unwary speeches * 1.5 of Damascene and Theophylact, they were hyperbolical in their expressions about the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament.

Some of the ancient Fathers speaking of the sacramental Elements after conse∣cration, being then set apart from common use, called it a mutation, saying that

the Elements were changed into another nature, but withall they expresse their meaning to be, not the changing of their substance, but their use, from being common bread and wine to become sacramental or sacred. 1 Cor. 11. 27. The Apo∣stle distinguisheth these four things, Bread, Body, Cup and Bloud, the Bread and Wine therefore receive no other change, but that of use, signification and rela∣tion,* 1.6 1 Cor. 10. 16. He distinguisheth also Bread from the Body, Bread is the sub∣ject of the proposition, and the Communion of his Body the predicate.

Reasons against Transubstantiation:

First, Then Christ must hold himself in his own hands, eat and drink his own flesh and bloud, for the Papists say, He did eat the Sacrament with his Dis∣ciples.* 1.7

Secondly, Christ must needs have two Bodies, the one broken and having the bloud separated from it in the Cup, the other whole and having the bloud in it which holds the Cup.

Thirdly, Christs bloud then should be shed before his crucifying, and so a propitiatory Sacrifice offered to God before the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Crosse.

Fourthly, One body should be now in a thousand places at a time.* 1.8

Fifthly, A true body should be without bignesse, void of all dimensions. Corpus non quantum.

Sixthly, Accidents should be without a subject, but Aristotle saith, Accidents are entis rather then entia. Accident is esse est inesse, the very essence of an Acci∣dent as it is an Accident, is to be in some subject. Vide Aquin. 1a; 1ae. Quaest 90. Artic. 2.

Seventhly, The same thing should be and not be at the same time, or should be before it was.

Eightly, This is an inhumane thing, none eat mans flesh but Cannibals.

Ninthly, Then the senses should be deceived, we see bread, we smell bread, we touch bread, and taste bread.

Tenthly, There is no alteration in the sign of Baptism, and there is the same use of the sign of the Lords Supper.

Matth. 26 26. Iesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave it to his Dis∣ciples, and said, Take, Eat, This is my Body. What our Saviour took, that he blessed; what he blessed that he brake; what he brake, he delivered to the Disciples; what he delivered to them, of that he said, This is my Body. But it was Bread that he took, the Evangelist so saith, and Bread therefore that he bles∣sed, Bread that he brake, Bread that he delivered, and Bread consequently of which he said, This is my Body.

The universal custom of the Scripture in all places where like kinde of speaking* 1.9 is used, plainly leades us to a figure, see 1 Cor. 10. 4. The Hebrews wanting a proper word to set forth that which we mean by signifying, do ever in stead of that use the word is. When Ioseph had heard Pharaohs dream, he saith, The seven years of good corn are seven years of plenty, and the seven thin ears seven years of dearth, Gen. 41. 26, 27. so the seven fat kine are seven years, that is, by way of sig∣nification and representation. So Ezek. 37. 11. & Dan. 2. 38. & 7. 17. whence it

comes that in the New Testament where the manner of speaking by the Hebrews is imitated, the word is in matter of signs, is used for the word signifie. So in the Parable, That which is sowed upon stony ground is he that heareth, and after. The seed is the Word, Luk. 8. 11. the Reapers, the Angels, so, I am the Vine, Revel. 17. 12. The ten Kings are ten horns. Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia. 2. The Apostle Paul clearly goes before us in this interpretation, for he saith, the bread which we break is the communion of the body of Christ, because it was appointed for a certain means of making us partakers of his body.

Our Saviour said long before, viz. John 6. 63. that the flesh profiteth nothing, that is, the flesh by eating of it profits nothing, for in no other sense can it be said to profit nothing. See 2 Cor. 5. 16, 17.

Their Legend tels us, that some Boyes getting by heart, and pronouncing the words of Consecration, Hoc est Corpus meum, turned all the Bakers bread in the street into flesh.

In the Book of the Conformities of S^t Francis there is a miracle recorded for Transubstantiation; that on a time Prier Francis saying Masse, did finde a Spider in the Chalice, which he would not cast out, but drink it up with the bloud. Af∣terward rubbing his thigh and scratching where it itched, the Spider came whole out of his thigh without any harm to either.

It is a spiritual eating because it is wrought by the aid of the holy Ghost, and this mystery is perceived by faith, which the Spirit of God works in our mindes, and this excellent nourishment belongs to a spiritual and eternal life. Sadeel de spi∣rit, manducat. corporis Christi. c. 1.

A conjunction includes a presence, and as the conjunction between Christ and us is spiritual, so also is his presence.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Transubstan∣tiation is commentum▪ quo nihil vi∣di•• orbis ab∣surdius. Cha∣mierus. B. Morton of the Masse, lib. 3. cap. 1. Sect. 3. Si quis negaverit mirabilem & Angelicam conversionem totius substantiae panis & vini in corpus & sangui∣nem, Anathema fit. Concil. Trident. Can. 3. Nullum exemplum dari potest, vel ordinarium, vel extra ordinem per miraculum, totalis conversionis alicu••us substantiae individualis, in aliam substantiam individualem praeexistentem & manen∣tem. Haec igitur transubstantiatio (quae res est ordinariae procur••tionis secundum Pontificios) tale quid est, quale simile ni∣hil Deus unquam per hominem aut Angelum effecit, id est, commentum sine exemplo. Ames. Bellarmin. Enervat. Tomo tertio cap. 3.
• * 1.2

  See M. Cartw. Answ. to the Marquess of Worc. Reply, from p. 122. to 140. and Ga∣ges new Survey of the West Indies, c. 21.
• * 1.3

  1 Cor. 10. 16. & 11. 26, 27.
• * 1.4

  Fictitia illa transubstantia∣tio pro qua hodiè acrius depug∣nant quàm qro omnibus aliis fidei suae capiti∣bus. Calv. Inst. l. 4. c. 17. Vide plura ibid.
• * 1.5

  D. Fulk on 1 Cor. 11. 24.
• * 1.6

  Attersol hath twenty six rea∣sons against Transubstan∣tiation, l. 3. of the Sacrament, cap. 5.
• * 1.7

  See D. Primrose on the Sacram. p. 127. to 158. and D. Hall•• No peace with Rome, p. 656. D. Featl••ys Vertum. Rom. p. 63.
• * 1.8

  D. Chaloner on Matth. 13. 2••. p. 279. to 283. To make bread to be flesh while it is bread, is a con∣tradiction in it self, and as much as to say, Bread is no bread, and therefore im∣possible. D. Morton. The pretence of Gods omni∣potency hath been anciently Asylum haereticorum, the Sanctuary of hereticks. C••saub. exercit. 3. Vide Amyraut▪ de l'elevation de la Foy & de l'abaisement de la raison, Ch. 3, 4, 8 9, 10. & Thess Theol. Sa••mur. part. 3. de Transub. Vobis (ut multi seutiunt) praestitisset, vertiginosam hanc de Transubstantiatione opinionem non attigisse. Nam, ex quo Helenam hanc vestram i•• Christianismum advexistis, tot vos, tot Scholam vestram quotidiè exerce••t, tam ••••inosae, tam nodosae quaestiones (tam id autem tristi successu:) De quantitate Christi sub pane, An sit ibi Christus sub sua, an sub panis quantitate? Et si sub suâ, an sub quantitate sine modo quantitativo? An sit ibi Christi substantia sub accedentibus, remotâ tamen inhaerentia? contra Logicam. In iis verbis, Quod pro vobis frangitur, cùm frangi jam corpus non possit, quippe nec pati: an frangi non sit ibi verbum passivum, contra Grammaticam? An ex accidentibus mures nutriantur, an ex iis vermes generentu••? contra Physicam? Episc. Andr. ad Bellarm. Apolog. ••esp cap. 1. Vide plura ibid. Nullum exemplum dari potest, ubi omnes sensus omnium hominum (organo, medio, objecto benè disposito) adh••bitis omnibus mediis explorandi veritatem, circa obje∣ctum sensibile fallatur. 2. Nullum Sacramentum institu••t ita Deus ut fundamentum suam habeat in sensuum delusione. Ames. Bellarm. Enerv. Tom. 3. de Transub.
• * 1.9

  In illis orationi∣bus Petra erat Christus, Semen erat verbum Dei, ego sum ostium, Verbum substantivum▪ est interpretandum pro signifi∣cat aut sigurat. Salmeron. Tom. 9. Tract. 10. Rogant Domi∣num qu•• esset Parabola jam dicta, boc est, quia illa signifi∣caret. Est enim hic ponitur pro significat, quem∣admodum & ibi, Petra autem erat Christus. Jansen, concord c. 51. Reprobata Cornel••o à Lapide fuisset audacia Maldonati, negantis verbum substanti∣vum aut Latinè, aut Graecè, aut Ebraicè, a••t t••lla prosus in lingua aut apud ull••m au•••••••••• pro verbo significat ••ccip•• solor••, ••••t etiam posse, hominesque imperitissimos qui id dicunt, esse affirmantis. Sic insolentissi••••us, Hispanus in Mat. 26 26▪ Rive••. i•• ••. 46. Manifestium est, est accipi ordinarie pro signifi••a••: •••• amare est diligere, id est, significat. Petra erat Christus, id est, in Petra erat significans Christum. Septem boves sunt septem anni, Gen. 41. Semen est verbum Dei, Mat. 13. Hoc est foedus meum, id est, significat Chamier. de Euchar. l. 10▪ c. 7. Vide Mo••nayum de▪ sac Euch▪ l. 4. c. 3. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9▪ La veritè de la Religion Reformee. Par. de Croi. p. 543, 544, 545, &c. Nullus Patrum affirmat substantiam panis, ••ffi•••• substantiam cor∣poris Christi, pro••er vel unum, & monstrum illud admittam & amplectar Transubstantiationis. Loquuntur scio Autres eo mo∣do, ut dicant tran••mutari, transire, transelementari, in aliam naturam cedere, & quae sunt alia ejus generis. Montac. Orig. Eccles. Tom. prior. part▪ poster. p. 264.