ARTICLE I.

This I renounce, because it is contray to the Doctrine of the Church of England; which, Article 28th. faith thus, Transubstantia∣tion, or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain Page  2 words of Scripture; overthroweth the Nature of the Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many Superstitions. The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner: and the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is faith. And Homily of the worthy receiving the Sacrament, it saith thus: It is well known that the meat we seek for in the Supper, is spiritual food, the nourishment of our souls, an heavenly refection, and not earthly; invisible meat, and not bodily; a ghostly substance, and not carnal. p. 200. It's also contrary to the Church of England's declaration concern∣ing kneeling at the end of the Communion-service: The Sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natural substances, therefore may not be adored (for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christi∣ans) and the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ are in heaven, and not here, it being against the truth of Christs natural body to be at one time in more places than one.

This declaration is not only against the Papists Transubstantia∣tion, but also fully against the Lutherans Consubstantiation, viz. That Christs body and blood is really and corporally in the bread and wine: Both which erroneous opinions destroy the humane nature of Christ, and consequently all those Articles of our Creed which concern the bodily part of his humane nature, and depend upon the verity there∣of. Besides, Transubstantiation is also contrary to Canonical Scrip∣ture, Mat. 26. 29, But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the Vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Fa∣thers Kingdom. Where 'tis clear, that the wine which he drank and gave to his Disciples, and which they did drink, was naturally the fruit of the Vine, and not the natural blood of Christ, but called his blood Sacramentally, because it did by the institution of Christ, signifie or represent the blood of Christ; as Circumcision by a like Sa∣cramental phrase, is called the Covenant, Gen. 17. 10, 11, This is my Covenant which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee; every man-child among you shall be circumcised, and ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a token of the Covenant betwixt me and you. Lo here, Circumcision, which is properly but a sign of the Covenant, that was made between God and Abraham, and his seed, as 'tis called in the 11th. verse, is yet in the 10th. verse figurative, or if you will, Tropically called the Covenant, because 'twas a sign of it by Gods special appointment; and so these words, This is my body, and this is my blood, Mat. 26. 26, 28. are to be understood. If the bread which he did eat, and the wine which he drank and gave to his Dis∣ciples, Page  3 and that they did eat and drink, had been Christs body and blood corporally and naturally, then Christ and his Disciples did eat his natural humane body, and drink his natural humane blood; which is not only blasphemous to be spoken against Christ, and slan∣derous against his holy Apostles; but also improbable to be done, and directly against Gods word, Gen. 9. 4. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat; and if not of beasts, then sure not of man. And 'tis contrary (as well as Consubstantiation) to Act. 3. 21. The Heavens must contain him (that is Christ) until the times of restitution of all things. If Christ be corporally according to his humane nature in Heaven, than he is not corporally present in the Sacrament of the Lords-Supper; for his body is not, cannot be in two * pro∣per places; distant the one from the other (as Heaven and that Sacrament are) at one and the same instant of time. That he was not in two places at one time while he was here on earth, read Mat. 28. 5, 6, And the Angel an∣swered and said unto the women, Fear not ye, for I know that ye seek Jesus which was crucified, he is not here; for he is risen; and he said, come, see the place where the •ord lay. Read also Mark▪ 16. 5, 6, They went into the Sepulchre, &c. And Luk. 24. 6. is the same relation and demonstration; and vers. 12. is one circum∣stance more: Peter ran unto the Sepulchre, and stooping down he beheld the linnen clothes laid by themselves, but found not Jesus there. And vers. 23, The women found not his body in the Sepulchre. And vers. the 24th. Certain men went to the Sepulchre and found it as the women had related, but him they saw not. Read also Joh. 20, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. and there you'l see more of Christs Resurrection, and that his body was not in the grave. Tha• his body cannot be in two proper places at once, is also evident, because every body is circumscribed with his own pro∣per place. Christs body is a true humane body, as our bodies are, and therefore cannot be in two proper places at one and the same time; and the proper place of Christs proper body cannot be a little bit o• bread or wafer, but his proper place is and must be proportionable to the quantity or extension of the parts of his body; and to affirm, that Christs natural humane body is in Heaven, and in the Sacra∣ment too, properly and circumscriptively, is to affirm, that his body is properly in a thousand places at once. To affirm that Christs body▪ Page  4 is essentially, substantially, and truly present in the Elements of the Sacrament of the Supper (as Dr. Laurence, with Papists, doth) doth necessarily imply a contradiction, to wit, * that his body is a true humane body, and that it is not a true humane body; which two Propositions cannot be true of the same subject at the same time. Idem non potest esse & non esse: God hath absolute power (as Thomas Aquinas speaks truly) over the whole nature of the creature, but not so as that he should cause it to be, and not to be, at once. The object of Gods power (as the Jesuits con∣fess) is whatsoever implies not a contradiction in it self; now that the self-same body should sit down, and not fit down, should be visible and not visible, sho•ld be divisible, and not divisible, should be here and yet elsewhere, should be one, and yet many, are manifest con∣tradictions, saith Bishop Hall in his no peace with Rome, Sec. 18. p. 658. of his Works.

Moreover, it is contrary to 1 Cor. 11. 26. As oft as ye shall eat this bread, (not Christs real body) and drink this wine, (not Christs real blood of his body) ye shew forth the Lords death till he come: and therefore he is not come corporally, which he is and must be, if he be in that Sacrament corporally under the forms of bread and wine. And besides, this Doctrine of Transubstantiation overthrows the nature of the Sacrament, as the Church of England saith truly; for where there is no Element or sign, there can be no Sacrament; and there is no Element if the bread and wine be turned into the substance of Christs body and blood. Ergo, it's false.

Finally, It hath been the occasion of much Superstition and Idolatry, as the Church of England saith in her 28th. Article; for from hence proceeded the reservation of the transub∣stantiated bread for sundry * superstitious purposes; hence the adoration of the bread injoined, even as God himself; hence carrying the Wafer-god about in pompous Processions; hence the Popish Feast called Corpus-Christi day. Yea hence, I mean from Christs real or corpor•l presence in the Sacrament, came kneeling, or adoration at receiving the bread and wine at the Sacrament of the Lords-Supper, as may be gathered from Dr. Heylin's words, who saith thus, That both the Lutherans as well as the Catholicks knew, that if Christ be not really present in the Sacrament, there is no reverence due to the Elements or Sa∣crament, Page  5 History of Presbytery, p. 2. He must mean by his real pre∣sence a corporal presence, as Papists * our godly Martyrs, learned † King James, and many others understood, and do so understand the phrase; else he speaks not ad rem to the purpose: For if he mean a spiritual presence, so Christ is in the Sacrament of Baptism, and in all his Ordinances; and yet he saith not that there is such a bodily reverence due to it or them, as he and his party plead, is due unto the Elements in the Sacrament of the Lords▪ Supper. And what he means by his Reverence, Bishop Prideaux knew right well he meant kneeling, in his former Books put forth in his time, who in his Fasciculus Controversiarum, loc. 4. Sec. 3. q. 6. p. 241. saith thus, That kneeling is * injoined only as a thing indifferent, and is received of our men as a gesture of the highest reverence due to so great a mystery. Mark it, he saith 'tis received of our men as a gesture to so great a mystery, and a gesture of the highest reverence; he spake or wrote not his own, but their sense. And that which they call rever∣ence, Bishop Sparrow plainly calls ado∣ration. For in his Rationale, p. 273. he saith, That 'tis the duty of people to re∣ceive kneeling, for it is a sin not to adore when we receive this Sacramen. And Dr. Kellet in his allowed Tricennium, p. 637. 654, 655, 620. saith, That the presence of Christ in the Sacrament is such, as the Eucharist it self must be adored; and that if any desire proof that the Eucharist is to 〈◊〉 adored▪ he adviseth him to read 〈1 line〉 taken with the peoples 〈1 line〉 in for• of 〈1 line〉 form of the Crucifix may 〈1 line〉 in the eating or handling 〈1 line〉 and that the people▪ 〈1 line〉 of the cup of a silver pipe; and that sitting, •• Communion, 〈◊〉 of Page  6 the * Lords-Supper; and that not only the Eucharist it self, but also the very Altar upon which it lies, must be ado∣red. What Laud thought of this matter, you will see in the next particular; and I doubt not but you'l find him of the same judgment, and as superstiti∣ous as they, and one of those whom Bishop Prideaux meant by our men. And Dr. Sutton †, a Prebend of Westminster, pleads for kneeling at receiving the Sacrament upon such a moral account, as if God our Maker were more pre∣sent in the bread and wine, than in the water in Baptism, and in any other Ordinance; for he urgeth Psal. 95. 6, O come let us worship and fall down, and kneel before the Lord our Maker; as if God by the Pro∣phet in that place of Scripture did call upon all the members of his Church to worship, fall down, and kneel before him in the bread and wine at the Sacrament, in a religious state put before them in the act of receiving, and so make Christ and his holy Apos•les, and all others that use not that gesture, transgressors. And the learned Pa∣pists holds, That if the Elements, bread and wine in the Sacrament, be not turned really into Christs body and blood, kneeling at recei∣ving them is not lawful; but that 'tis Idolatry, if any created substance remain there, So Aquinas 3. q. 75. Hardings Answer to Bishop Jewels Challenge, fol. 111. a. Bellarmine de Sacramento Eucharistia, l. 2. c. 8. 〈◊〉•. & cap. 13. a 5. & cap. 24. q. 6. Of the same mind were Scotus, and Durand, and therefore they removed the bread out of the Sa∣crament, as Bishop Jewel shews in his Sermon upon 1 Cor. 11. 23. p. 52. What many of our men have written in favour of Transubstan∣tiation and Consubstantiation, may be seen in Laudensium Autocata∣crisis, p. 107, 108. and the Supplement thereunto, c. 3. p. 34, 35.