From what has been said it appears, that this whole controversy may be reduced to four heads; 1. Concerning the Signs; 2. Concerning the thing signified; 3. Concerning the union of both; and 4. Concerning their participation. As to the first, the Protestants differ from the Papists in this; that according to the nature of Sacraments, and the doctrine of the holy Scripture, we make the substance of Bread and Wine, and they accidents only to be signs. In the second, they not understanding our opinion, do misrepresent 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 Blood 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 itself, in this respect we own the union betwixt the Body and Blood 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 Blood of our LORD in such sort, that the bare accidents of the Elements do alone remain united with CHRIST'S Body and Blood. And we also deny that the Elements still retain the nature of Sacraments when not used according to divine institution, that is, given by CHRIST'S Ministers, and received by His people; so that CHRIST in the consecrated 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 LORD's Supper we receive only the benefits of CHRIST'S death and passion, but we join the ground with its fruits, that is, CHRIST with those advantages we receive from Him; affirming with St. Paul, "That the bread which we break is kourwvía, the Communion of the Body of CHRIST, and the cup which we bless, the Communion of His Blood," (1 Cor. x. 16.); of that very substance which He took of the blessed Virgin, and afterwards 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 doeth it worthily, receives his absolution and justification; that is, he that discerns, and then receives the LORD's Body as torn, and His Blood as shed for the redemption of the world. But that CHRIST (as the Papists affirm) should give His Flesh and Blood to be received with the mouth, and ground with the teeth, . . . . . . this our words and hearts do utterly deny.

......

So then, (to sum up this controversy by applying it to all that hath been said,) it is not questioned whether the Body of CHRIST be absent from the Sacrament duly administered 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 manner veiled under the Sacrament, so that of itself it cannot be seen. Neither is it doubted or disputed whether the Bread and Wine, by the power of GOD and a supernatural virtue, 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 supernatural and heavenly change, and that the signs cannot become Sacraments but by the infinite power of God, whose proper right it is to institute Sacraments in His Church, being able alone to endue them with virtue 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 Blood 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 accidents continuing to be what they were before; and so the whole question is concerning the Transubstantiation of the outward Elements; whether the substance of the Bread be turned into the substance of CHRIST'S Body, and the substance of the Wine into the substance of His Blood; or, as the Romish Doctors describe their Transubstantiation, whether the substance of bread and wine doth utterly perish, and the substance of CHRIST'S Body and Blood succeed in their place, which are both denied by Protestants.

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 Redeemer 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 CHRIST'S Body, and the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His Blood; which change is fitly and properly called Transubstantiation by the holy Catholic (Roman) Church. Therefore, if any one shall say, that the substance of Bread and Wine remains with the Body and Blood of our Saviour JESUS CHRIST, and shall deny that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the Bread and Wine into the substance of the Body and Blood of CHRIST, the only appearance and outward form of the Bread and Wine remaining, which conversion the Catholic (Roman) Church doth fitly call Transubstantiation, let him be accursed."

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 substance 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 hitherto we read of no such thing done in the Old or New Testament, and therefore this tenet, being as unknown to the Ancients as it is ungrounded in Scripture, appears 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 article of Christian Religion. For it is in vain that they bring Scripture to defend this their stupendous 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 Pope's authority in the Councils of Lateran and Trent.

OXFORD.

The Feast of St. Matthias.

(To be continued.)

[NEW EDITION.]

These Tracts are continued in Numbers, and sold at the price

of 2d. for each sheet, or 7s. for 50 copies.

LONDON: PRINTED FOR J. G. & F. RIVINGTON,

ST. PAUL'S CHURCH YARD, AND WATERLOO PLACE.

1838.

GILBERT & RIVINGTON, Printers, St. John's Square, London.

THE

HISTORY OF POPISH TRANSUBSTANTIATION;

TO WHICH IS OPPOSED THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURE,

THE ANCIENT FATHERS, AND THE REFORMED CHURCHES.

BY JOHN COSIN, BISHOP OF DURHAM.

(Continued.)

CHAPTER V.

The doctrine of Transubstantiation is contained neither in Scripture nor in the writings of the Fathers.

THE Word Transubstantiation is so far from being found either in the Sacred Records, or in the Monuments of the Ancient Fathers, that the maintainers of it do themselves acknowledge that it was not so much as heard of before the twelfth century. For though one Stephanus, Bishop of Autun, be said to have once used it, yet it is without proof that some modern writers make him one of the tenth century; nor yet doth he say, that the Bread is transubstantiated, but as it were transubstantiated, which, well understood, might be admitted.

Nay, that the thing itself without the word, that the doctrine without the expression, cannot be found in Scripture, is ingeniously acknowledged by the most learned Schoolmen, Scotus, Durandus, Biel, Cameracensis, Cajetan, and many more, who finding it not brought in by the Pope's authority, and received in the Romish Church, till 1200 years after CHRIST, yet endeavoured to defend it by other arguments.

**

And, indeed, the words of institution would plainly make it appear to any man that would prefer truth to wrangling, that it is with the Bread that the LORD's Body is given, (as His Blood with the Wine,) for CHRIST, having taken, blessed, and broken the Bread, said, "This is My Body;" and St. Paul, than whom none could better understand the meaning of CHRIST, explains it thus; "The Bread which we break is the kovovia, Communion or communication of the Body of CHRIST," that whereby His Body is given, and the faithful are made partakers of it. That it was Bread which He reached to them there was no need of any proof, the receivers' senses sufficiently convinced them of it; VOL. I.-NO. 28.

B

but that therewith His Body was given none could have known, had it not been declared by Him who is the Truth itself. And though, by the divine institution and the explication of the Apostle, every faithful communicant may be as certainly assured that he receives the LORD's Body, as if he knew that the Bread is substantially turned into it; yet it doth not therefore follow, that the Bread is so changed, that its substance is quite done away, so that there remains nothing present but the very natural Body of CHRIST made of Bread; for certain it is, that the Bread is not the Body of CHRIST any otherwise than as the Cup is the New Testament, and two different consequences cannot be drawn from those two not different expressions. Therefore as the Cup cannot be the New Testament but by a Sacramental figure, no more can the Bread be the Body of CHRIST but in the

same sense.

As to what Bellarmine and others say, that it is not possible the words of CHRIST can be true, but by that conversion which the Church of Rome calls Transubstantiation, that is so far from being so, that if it were admitted, it would first deny the Divine Omnipotency, as though GoD were not able to make the Body of CHRIST present, and truly to give it in the Sacrament, whilst the substance of the Bread remains. 2. It would be inconsistent with the Divine Benediction which preserves things in their proper being. 3. It would be contrary to the true nature of the Sacrament, which always consisteth of two parts. And lastly, it would in some manner destroy the true substance of the Body and Blood of CHRIST, which cannot be said to be made of Bread and Wine by a Priest without a most high presumption. But the truth of the words of CHRIST remains constant, and can be defended without overthrowing so many other great truths. Suppose a testator puts deeds and titles in the hand of his heir, with these words, "Take the house which I bequeath thee;" there is no man will think that those writings and parchments are that very house which is made of wood or stones, and yet no man will say that the testator spake falsely or obscurely. Likewise our blessed SAVIOUR, having sanctified the elements by His words and prayers, gave them to his Disciples as seals of the New Testament, whereby they were as certainly secured of those rich and precious legacies which He left to them, as children are of their Father's lands and inheritance by deeds and instruments signed and delivered for that purpose.