A DISCOURSE AGAINST Transubstantiation LONDON Printed by M. Flesher for Brabazon Aylmer at the three Pigeons against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill And William Rogers at the Sun over against St. Dunstans Church in Fleetstreet 1684. A DISCOURSE AGAINST Transubstantiation COncerning the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper one of the two great positive Institutions of the Christian Religion there are two main Points of difference between Vs and the Church of Rome One about the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in which they think but are not certain that they have the Scripture and the words of our Saviour on their side The other about the administration of this Sacrament to the People in both kinds in which we are sure that we have the Scripture and our Saviour's Institution on our side and that so plainly that our Adversaries themselves do not deny it Of the first of these I shall now treat and endeavour to shew against the Church of Rome That in this Sacrament there is no substantial change made of the Elements of Bread and Wine into the natural Body and Bloud of Christ that Body which was born of the Virgin Mary and suffered upon the Cross for so they explain that hard word Transubstantiation Before I engage in this Argument I cannot but observe what an unreasonable task we are put upon by the bold confidence of our Adversaries to dispute a matter of Sense which is one of those things about which Aristotle hath long since pronounc'd there ought to be no dispute It might well seem strange if any man should write a Book to prove that an Egg is not an Elephant and that a Musket-Bullet is not a Pike It is every whit as hard a case to be put to maintain by a long Discourse that what we see and handle and taste to be Bread is Bread and not the Body of a man and what we see and taste to be Wine is Wine and not Bloud And if this evidence may not pass for sufficient without any farther proof I do not see why any man that hath confidence enough to do so may not deny any thing to be what all the World sees it is or affirm any thing to be what all the World sees it is not and this without all possibility of being farther confuted So that the business of Transubstantiation is not a controversie of Scripture against Scripture or of Reason against Reason but of downright Impudence against the plain meaning of Scripture and all the Sense and Reason of Mankind It is a most Self-evident Falsehood and there is no Doctrine or Proposition in the World that is of it self more evidently true than Transubstantiation is evidently false And yet if it were possible to be true it would be the most ill-natur'd and pernicious truth in the World because it would suffer nothing else to be true it is like the Roman-Catholique Church which will needs be the whole Christian Church and will allow no other Society of Christians to be any part of it So Transubstantiation if it be true at all it is all truth for it cannot be true unless our Senses and the Senses of all mankind be deceived about their proper objects and if this be true and certain then nothing else can be so for if we be not certain of what we see we can be certain of nothing And yet notwithstanding all this there is a Company of men in the World so abandon'd and given up by God to the efficacy of delusion as in good earnest to believe this gross and palpable Errour and to impose the belief of it upon the Christian World under no less penalties than of temporal death and Eternal damnation And therefore to undeceive if possible these deluded Souls it will be necessary to examine the pretended grounds of so false a Doctrine and to lay open the monstrous absurdity of it And in the handling of this Argument I shall proceed in this plain method I. I shall consider the pretended grounds and reasons of the Church of Rome for this Doctrine II. I shall produce our Objections against it And if I can shew that there is no tolerable ground for it and that there are invincible Objections against it then every man is not onely in reason excused from believing this Doctrine but hath great cause to believe the contrary FIRST I will consider the pretended grounds and reasons of the Church of Rome for this Doctrine Which must be one or more of these five Either 1 st The Authority of Scripture Or 2 ly The perpetual belief of this Doctrine in the Christian Church as an evidence that they always understood and interpreted our Saviour's words This is my body in this sense Or 3 ly The authority of the present Church to make and declare new Articles of Faith Or 4 ly The absolute necessity of such a change as this in the Sacrament to the comfort and benefit of those who receive this Sacrament Or 5 ly To magnify the power of the Priest in being able to work so great a Miracle 1 st They pretend for this Doctrine the Authority of Scripture in those words of our Saviour This is my body Now to shew the insufficiency of this pretence I shall endeavour to make good these two things 1. That there is no necessity of understanding those words of our Saviour in the sense of Transubstantiation 2. That there is a great deal of reason to understand them otherwise First That there is no necessity to understand those words of our Saviour in the sense of Transubstantiation If there be any it must be from one of these two reasons Either because there are no figurative expressions in Scripture which I think no man ever yet said or else because a Sacrament admits of no figures which would be very absurd for any man to say since it is of the very nature of a Sacrament to represent and exhibite some invisible grace and benefit by an outward sign and figure And especially since it cannot be denied but that in the institution of this very Sacrament our Saviour useth figurative expressions and several words which cannot be taken strictly and literally When he gave the Cup he said This Cup is the new Testament in my bloud which is shed for you and for many for the remission of Sins Where first the Cup is put for Wine contained in the Cup or else if the words be literally taken so as to signify a substantial change it is not of the Wine but of the Cup and that not into the bloud of Christ but into the new Testament or new Covenant in his bloud Besides that his bloud is said then to be shed and his body to be broken which was not till his Passion which followed the Institution and first celebration of this Sacrament But that there is no necessity to understand our Saviour's words in the sense of Transubstantiation I will take the plain concession of a great number of the most
learned Writers of the Church of Rome in this Controversie Bellarmine Suazer and Vasquez do acknowledge Scotus the great Schoolman to have said that this Doctrine cannot be evidently proved from Scripture And Bellarmine grants this not to be improbable and Suarez and Vasquez acknowledge Durandus to have said as much Ocham another famous Schoolman says expresly that the Doctrine which holds the substance of the Bread and Wine to remain after consecration is neither repugnant to Reason nor to Scripture Petrus ab Alliaco Cardinal of Cambray says plainly that the Doctrine of the Substance of Bread and Wine remaining after Consecration is more easie and free from absurdity more rational and no ways repugnant to the authority of Scripture nay more that for the other Doctrine viz. of Transubstantiation there is no evidence in Scripture Gabriel Biel another great Schoolman and Divine of their Church freely declares that as to any thing express'd in the Canon of the Scriptures a man may believe that the substance of Bread and Wine doth remain after Consecration and therefore he resolves the belief of Transubstantiation into some other Revelation besides Scripture which he supposeth the Church had about it Cardinal Cajetan confesseth that the Gospel doth no where express that the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ that we have this from the authority of the Church nay he goes farther that there is nothing in the Gospel which enforceth any man to understand these words of Christ this is my body in a proper and not a metaphorical sense but the Church having understood them in a proper sense they are to be so explained Which words in the Roman Edition of Cajetan are expunged by order of Pope Pius V. Cardinal Contarenus and Melchior Canus one of the best and most judicious Writers that Church ever had reckon this Doctrine among those which are not so expresly found in Scripture I will add but one more of great authority in the Church and a reputed Martyr Fisher Bishop of Rochester who ingenuously confesseth that in the words of the Institution there is not one word from whence the true presence of the flesh and bloud of Christ in our Mass can be proved So that we need not much contend that this Doctrine hath no certain foundation in Scripture when this is so fully and frankly acknowledged by our Adversaries themselves Secondly If there be no necessity of understanding our Saviour's words in the sense of Transubstantiation I am sure there is a great deal of reason to understand them otherwise Whether we consider the like expressions in Scripture as where our Saviour says he is the door and the true Vine which the Church of Rome would mightily have triumph'd in had it been said this is my true body And so likewise where the Church is said to be Christ's body and the Rock which followed the Israelites to be Christ 1. Cor. 10. 4. They drank of that rock which followed them and that rock was Christ All which and innumerable more like expressions in Scripture every man understands in a figurative and not in a strictly literal and absurd sense And it is very well known that in the Hebrew Language things are commonly said to be that which they do signify and represent and there is not in that Language a more proper and usual way of expressing a thing to signify so and so than to say that it is so and so Thus Joseph expounding Pharaoh's dream to him Gen. 41. 26. Says the seven good kine are seven years and the seven good ears of corn are seven years that is they signified or represented seven years of plenty and so Pharaoh understood him and so would any man of sense understand the like expressions nor do I beleive that any sensible man who had never heard of Transubstantiation being grounded upon these words of our Saviour this is my body would upon reading the institution of the Sacrament in the Gospel ever have imagin'd any such thing to be meant by our Saviour in those words but would have understood his meaning to have been this Bread signifies my Body this Cup signifies my Bloud and this which you see me now do do ye hereafter for a Memorial of me But surely it would never have enter'd into any man's mind to have thought that our Saviour did literally hold himself in his hand and give away himself from himself with his own hands Or whether we compare these words of our Saviour with the ancient Form of the Passover used by the Jews from Ezra's time as Justin Martyr tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this Passover is our Saviour and our refuge not that they believed the Paschal Lamb to be substantially changed either into God their Saviour who delivered them out of the Land of Egypt or into the Messias the Saviour whom they expected and who was signified by it But this Lamb which they did eat did represent to them and put them in mind of that Salvation which God wrought for their Fathers in Egypt when by the slaying of a Lamb and sprinkling the bloud of it upon their doors their first-born were passed over and spared and did likewise foreshew the Salvation of the Messias the Lamb of God that was to take away the Sins of the world And nothing is more common in all Languages than to give the name of the thing signified to the Sign As the delivery of a Deed or Writing under hand and Seal is call'd a Conveyance or making over of such an Estate and it is really so not the delivery of mere wax and parchment but the conveyance of a real Estate as truly and really to all effects and purposes of Law as if the very material houses and lands themselves could be and were actually delivered into my hands In like manner the names of the things themselves made over to us in the new Covenant of the Gospel between God and man are given to the Signs or Seals of that Covenant By Baptism Christians are said to be made partakers of the Holy Ghost Heb. 6. 4. And by the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper we are said to communicate or to be made partakers of the Body of Christ which was broken and of his Bloud which was shed for us that is of the real benefits of his death and passion And thus St. Paul speaks of this Sacrament 1 Cor. 10. 16. The cup of blessing which we bless is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ the bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ But still it is bread and he still calls it so v. 17. For we being many are one bread and one body for we are partakers of that one bread The Church of Rome might if they pleased as well argue from hence that all Christians are substantially changed first into Bread and then into the natural Body of Christ by
Mankind And of this the more discerning persons of that Church are of late grown so sensible that they would now be glad to be rid of this odious and ridiculous Doctrine But the Council of Trent hath fasten'd it to their Religion and made it a necessary and essential Point of their Belief and they cannot now part with it if they would it is like a Millstone hung about the neck of Popery which will sink it at the last And though some of their greatest Wits as Cardinal Perron and of late Monsieur Arnaud have undertaken the defence of it in great Volumes yet it is an absurdity of that monstrous and massy weight that no humane authority or wit are able to support it It will make the very Pillars of St. Peter's crack and requires more Volumes to make it good than would fill the Vatican And now I would apply my self to the poor deluded People of that Church if they were either permitted by their Priests or durst venture without their leave to look into their Religion and to examine the Doctrines of it Consider and shew your selves men Do not suffer your selves any longer to be led blindfold and by an implicit Faith in your Priests into the belief of non-sense and contradiction Think it enough and too much to let them rook you of your money for pretended Pardons and counterfeit Reliques but let not the Authority of any Priest or Church persuade you out of your senses Credulity is certainly a fault as well as Infidelity and he who said blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed hath no where said blessed are they that have seen and yet have not believed much less blessed are they that believe directly contrary to what they see To conclude this Discourse By what hath been said upon this Argument it will appear with how little truth and reason and regard to the interest of our common Christianity it is so often said by our Adversaries that there are as good arguments for the belief of Transubstantiation as of the Doctrine of the Trinity When they themselves do acknowledge with us that the Doctrine of the Trinity is grounded upon the Scriptures and that according to the interpretation of them by the consent of the ancient Fathers But their Doctrine of Transubstantiation I have plainly shewn to have no such ground and that this is acknowledged by very many learned men of their own Church And this Doctrine of theirs being first plainly proved by us to be destitute of all Divine warrant and Authority our Objections against it from the manifold contradictions of it to Reason and Sense are so many Demonstrations of the falsehood of it Against all which they have nothing to put in the opposite Scale but the Infallibility of their Church for which there is even less colour of proof from Scripture than for Transubstantiation it self But so fond are they of their own Innovations and Errours that rather than the Dictates of their Church how groundless and absurd soever should be call'd in question rather than not have their will of us in imposing upon us what they please they will overthrow any Article of the Christian Faith and shake the very foundations of our common Religion A clear evidence that the Church of Rome is not the true Mother since she can be so well contented that Christianity should be destroyed rather than the Point in question should be decided against her FINIS A Catalogue of the several Cases c. 1. A Perswasive to Communion with the Church of England 2. A. Resolution of some Cases of Conscience which respect Church-Communion 3. The Case of Indifferent things used in the Worship of God proposed and stated by considering these Questions c. 4. A Discourse about Edification 5. The Resolution of this Case of Conscience Whether the Church of Englands Symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes it unlawfull to hold Communion with the Church of England 6. A Letter to Anonymus in answer to his three Letters to Dr. Sherlock about Church-Communion 7. Certain Cases of Conscience resolved concerning the Lawfulness of joyning with Forms of Prayer in Publick Worship In two Parts 8. The Case of mixt Communion Whether it be Lawfull to Separate from a Church upon the account of promiscuous Congregations and mixt Communions 9. An Answer to Dissenters Objections against the Common Prayers and some other parts of Divine Service prescribed in the Liturgy of the Church of England 10. The Case of Kneeling at the Holy Sacrament stated and resolved c. In two Parts 11. A Discourse of Profiting by Sermons and of going to hear where Men think they can profit most 12. A serious Exhortation with some important Advices relating to the late Cases about conformity recommended to the present Dissenters from the Church of England 13. An Argument to Union taken from the true interest of those Dissenters in England who profess and call themselves Protestants 14. Some Considerations about the Case of Scandal or giving Offence to the Weak Brethren 15. The Case of Infant-Baptism in Five Questions c. 16. the Charge of Scandal and giving Offence by Conformity Refelled and Reflected back upon Separation c. 17. Case of Lay-Communion 18. A Perswasive to Frequent Communion 19. A Defence of Symbolizing 20. A Vindication of Indifferent Things 21. The Case of Compelling Men to the Holy Sacrament 22. A Case of the Cross in Baptism 23. A Discourse of Conscience 1. A Discourse about the charge of Novelty upon the Reformed Church of England made by the Papists asking of us the Question Where was our Religion before Luther 2. A Discourse about Tradition shewing what is meant by it and what Tradition is to be received and what Tradition is to be rejected 3. The Difference of the Case between the Separation of Protestants from the Church of Rome and the Separation of Dissenters from the Church of England 4. The Protestant Resolution of Faith c. 5. A Discourse concerning a Guide in matters of Faith c. 6. A Discourse concerning Invocation of Saints 7. A Discourse concerning the Unity of the Catholick Church maintained in the Church of England 8. A Discourse of Auricular Confession 9. A Discourse against Transubstantiation ADVERTISEMENT A Demonstration of the Messias In which the Truth of the Christian Religion is proved especially against the Jews By Richard Kidder in Octavo Printed for B. Aylmer a de â—â—uch l. 3. c. 23. b in 3. dis 49. Qu. 75. Sect. 2. c in 3. part disp 180. Qu. 75. art 2. c. 15. d in Sent. l. 4. dist 11. Q. 1. n. 15. e in 4. Sent. Q. 5. Quodl 4. Q. 3. f in 4. Sent. Q. 6. art 2. g in canon Miss Lect. 40. h in Aquin. 3. part Qu. 75. art 1. i Aegid Conink de Sacram Q. 75. art 1. n. 13. k de Sacram l. 2. c. 3. l Loc. Theolog l. 3. c. 3. m contra captiv Babylon c. 10. n. 2. n Dialog cuus Tryph. p. 297. Edit Pâ—ris 1639. * Matth. 26. 29. * Apol. 2. p. 98. edit Paris 1636. * lib. 4. c. 34. * lib. 5. c. 2. * Comment in 1 Pet. c. 3. * Advers Marcionem l. 4. p. 571. Edit Rigalt Paris 1634. * lib. de Animâ p. 319. * Edit â—â—uetii * Cap. 10. * Ep. 63. * Aug. Tom. 6. p. 187. Edit Basil. 1569. †Enarrat in Psal. Tom. 8. p. 16. ‖ Id. Tom. 9. p. 1105. * Id. Tract 50. in Johan †Id. Tom. 2. p. 93. ‖ de Consecr dist 2. Hoc est * de consecrat dist 2. Sect. Vtrum * Lib. 3. Tom. 1 8. p. 53. * Gen. 49. 11. †Dialog 1. * Biblioth Patr. â—om 4. * Facund p. 144. edit Paris 1676. a In Sent. l. 4. Dist. 11. Q. 3. b In Sent. l. 4. dist 11. q. 1. â— 15. c de â—nchar l. 1. p. 146. d In 1. Epist ad Corinth c. 7. citante etiam Salmerone Tom. 9. Tract 16. p. 108. e de Haeres l. 8. * de Eucharist l. 1. c. 1. †Ibid. * de Scriptor Eccles. †in vita Paschasâ—◠‖ Epist. ad Heribaldum c. 33. * Gratian. de consecrat distinct 2. Lanfranc de corp sang Domini c. 5. Guâ—tmund de Sacram. l. 1. Alger de Sacram l. 1. c. 19. †Gloss. Decret de consecrat dist 2. in cap. Ego Berengarius * Waldens Tom. 2. c. 13. * Matth. 13. 24. * De Nat. Dâ—orum l. 3. * Dionys. Carthus in 4. dist 10. art 1. †2 Thess. 2. 10. * Luk. 24. 〈◊〉 39.
these words me ye have not always He speaks says he of the presence of his body ye shall have me according to my providence according to Majesty and invisible grace but according to the flesh which the word assumed according to that which was born of the Virgin Mary ye shall not have me therefore because he conversed with his Disciples fourty days he is ascended up into heaven and is not here In his 23d Epistle if the Sacrament says he had not some resemblance of those things whereof they are Sacraments they would not be Sacraments at all but from this resemblance they take for the most part the names of the things which they represent Therefore as the Sacrament of the body of Christ is in some manner or sense Christ's body and the Sacrament of his bloud is the bloud of Christ So the Sacrament of faith meaning Baptism is faith Upon which words of St. Austin there is this remarkable Gloss in their own Canon Law the heavenly Sacrament which truly represents the flesh of Christ is called the body of Christ but improperly whence it is said that after a manner but not according to the truth of the thing but the mystery of the thing signified So that the meaning is it is called the body of Christ that is it signifies the body of Christ And if this be St. Austin's meaning I am sure no Protestant can speak more plainly against Transubstantiation And in the ancient Canon of the Mass before it was chang'd in complyance with this new Doctrine it is expresly call'd a Sacrament a Sign an Image and a figure of Christ's body To which I will add that remarkable passage of St. Austin cited by Gratian that as we receive the similitude of his death in Baptism so we may also receive the likeness of his flesh and bloud that so neither may truth be wanting in the Sacrament nor Pagans have occasion to make us ridiculous for drinking the bloud of one that was slain I will mention but one Testimony more of this Father but so clear a one as it is impossible any man in his wits that had believed Transubstantiation could have utter'd It is in his Treatise de Doctrina Christiana where laying down several Rules for the right understanding of Scripture he gives this for one If says he the speech be a precept forbidding some heinous wickedness or crime or commanding us to do good it is not figurative but if it seem to command any heinous wickedness or crime or to forbid that which is profitable and beneficial to others it is figurative For example Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud ye have no life in you This seems to command a heinous wickedness and crime therefore it is a figure commanding us to communicate of the passion of our Lord and with delight and advantage to lay up in our memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us So that according to St. Austin's best skill in interpreting Scripture the literal eating of the flesh of Christ and drinking his bloud would have been a great impiety and therefore the expression is to be understood figuratively not as Cardinal Perron would have it onely in opposition to the eating of his flesh and bloud in the gross appearance of flesh and bloud but to the real eating of his natural body and bloud under any appearance whatsoever For St. Austin doth not say this is a Figurative speech wherein we are commanded really to feed upon the natural body and bloud of Christ under the species of bread and wine as the Cardinal would understand him for then the speech would be literal and not figurative But he says this is a figurative speech wherein we are commanded Spiritually to feed upon the remembrance of his Passion To these I will add but three or four Testimonies more in the two following Ages The first shall be of Theodoret who speaking of that Prophecy of Jacob concerning our Saviour he washed his garments in Wine and his clothes in the bloud of grapes hath these words as we call the mystical fruit of the Vine that is the Wine in the Sacrament after consecration the bloud of the Lord so he viz. Jacob calls the bloud of the true Vine viz. of Christ the bloud of the grape but the bloud of Christ is not literally and properly but onely figuratively the bloud of the grape in the same sense as he is said to be the true Vine and therefore the Wine in the Sacrament after consecration is in like manner not literally and properly but figuratively the bloud of Christ. And he explains this afterwards saying that our Saviour changed the names and gave to his Body the name of the Symbol or Sign and to the Symbol or Sign the name of his Body thus when he had call'd himself the Vine he call'd the Symbol or Sign his bloud so that in the same sense that he call'd himself the Vine he call'd the Wine which is the Symbol of his bloud his bloud For says he he would have those who partake of the divine mysteries not to attend to the nature of the things which are seen but by the change of names to believe the change which is made by grace for he who call'd that which by nature is a body wheat and bread and again likewise call'd himself the Vine he honour'd the Symbols with the name of his body and bloud not changing nature but adding grace to nature Where you see he says expresly that when he call'd the Symbols or Elements of the Sacrament viz. bread and Wine his Body and Bloud he made no change in the nature of the things onely added grace to nature that is by the Divine grace and blessing he raised them to a Spiritual and Supernatural vertue and efficacy The Second is of the same Theodoret in his second Dialogue between a Catholique under the name of Orthodoxus and an Heretique under the name of Eranistes who maintaining that the Humanity of Christ was chang'd into the substance of the Divinity which was the Heresie of Eutyches he illustrates the matter by this Similitude As says he the Symbols of the Lord's body and bloud are one thing before the invocation of the Priest but after the invocation are changed and become another thing So the body of our Lord after his ascension is changed into the divine substance But what says the Catholique Orthodoxus to this why he talks just like one of Cardinal Perron's Heretiques Thou art says he caught in thy own net because the mystical Symbols after consecration do not pass out of their own nature for they remain in their former substance figure and appearance and may be seen and handled even as before He does not onely deny the outward figure and appearance of the Symbols to be chang'd but the nature and substance of them even in the proper and strictest sense of