tion. They use indeed to scrape together many testimonies of the Fathers of the first and middle age, whereby they would fain prove, that those Fathers believed and taught the Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the natural Body and Blood of CHRIST, just as the Roman Church, at this day, doth teach and believe. We will therefore briefly examine them, that it may yet more fully appear that Antiquity and all Fathers did not in the least favour the new tenet of transubstantiation; but that that true doctrine which I have set down in the beginning of this book, was constantly owned and preserved in the Church of CHRIST.

Now, almost all that they produce out of the Fathers will be conveniently reduced to certain heads, that we may not be too tedious in answering each testimony by itself.

1. To the first head belong those that call the Eucharist the Body and Blood of CHRIST. But I answer, those Fathers explain themselves in many places, and interpret those their expressions in such a manner that they must be understood in a mystic and spiritual sense, in that Sacraments usually take the names of those things they represent, because of that resemblance which they have with them; not by the reality of the thing, but by the signification of the mystery; as we have been shown before out of St. Austin and others. For nobody can deny, but that the things that are seen are signs and figures, and those that are not seen, the Body and Blood of CHRIST. And that therefore the nature of this mystery is such, that when we receive the Bread and Wine, we also together with them receive at the same time the Body and Blood of CHRIST, which in the celebration of the holy Eucharist, are as truly given as they are represented. Hence came into the Church this manner of speaking, "The consecrated Bread is CHRIST's Body."

2. We put in the second rank those places that say, that the Bishops and Priests make the Body of CHRIST with the sacred words of their mouth, as St. Hierom speaks in his Epistle to Heliodorus, and St. Ambrose, and others. To this I say, that at the prayer and blessing of the Priest, the common bread is made Sacramental Bread, which, when broken and eaten, is the Communion of the Body of CHRIST, and therefore may well be called so, sacramentally. For the Bread (as I have often said before, doth not only represent the Body of our LORD, but also being received, we are truly made partakers of that precious

Body

Body. For so saith St, Hierom ; "the Blood and Blood of CHRIST is made at the prayer of the Priest;" that is, the Element is so qualified, that being received, it becomes the Communion of the Body and Blood of CHRIST, which it could not without the preceding prayers. The Greeks call this, "To prepare and to consecrate the Body of the LORD." As St. Chrysostom saith well; "These are not the works of man's power, but still the operation of Him who made them in the last Supper as for us, we are only Ministers, but He it is that sanctifies and changeth them."

3. In the third place, to what is brought out of the Fathers, concerning the conversion, change, transmutation, transfiguration, and transelementation of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist, (wherein the Papists do greatly glory, boasting of the consent of Antiquity with them,) I answer, that there is no such consequence. Transubstantiation being another species of change, the enumeration was not full, for it doth not follow, that because there is a conversion, a transmutation, a transelementation, there should be also a Transubstantiation; which the Fathers never so much as mentioned. For because this is a Sacrament, the change must be understood to be sacramental also, whereby common Bread and Wine become the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of CHRIST; which could not be, did not the substance of the Bread and Wine remain, for a Sacrament consisteth of two parts, an earthly and a heavenly. And so because ordinary bread is changed by consecration into a bread which is no more of common use, but appointed by divine institution to be a sacramental sign, whereby is represented the Body of CHRIST, in whom dwelleth the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and being thereby dignified, having great excellencies superadded, and so made what it was not before, it is therefore said by some of the Fathers to be changed, to be made another thing. And truly that change is great and supernatural, but yet not substantial, not of a substance, which substantially ceaseth to be, into another substance which substantially beginneth to be, but it is a change of state and condition which alters not the natural properties of the Element. This is also confirmed by Scripture, which usually describes and represents the conversion of men, and the supernatural change of things, as though it were natural, though it be not so. To those that are renewed by the Word, and Spirit,

and Faith of CHRIST, are said to be regenerated, converted, and transformed, to put off the old man, and put on the new man, and to be new creatures; but they are not said to become another substance, to be transubstantiated; for men thus converted are still the same human body, and the same rational soul as before, though in a far better state and condition, as every Christian will acknowledge. Nay, the Fathers themselves used those words Transmutation, Transformation, Transelementation, upon other occasions, when they speak of things whose substance is neither lost nor changed.

4. To the fourth head I refer what the Fathers say of our touching and seeing the Body of CHRIST, and drinking His Blood in the Sacrament; and thereto I answer, that we deny not but that some things emphatical, and even hyperbolical, have been said of the Sacrament by Chrysostom, and some others; and that those things may easy lead unwary men into error. That was the ancient Fathers' care, as it is ours still, to instruct the people not to look barely on the outward Elements, but in them to eye with their minds the Body and Blood of CHRIST, and with their hearts lift up to feed on that heavenly meat! for all the benefit of a Sacrament is lost, if we look no further than the Elements. Hence it is that those holy men, the better to teach this lesson to their hearers, and move their hearts more efficaciously, spake of the signs as if they had been the things signified, and like orators, said many things which will not bear a literal sense, nor a strict examen. Such is this, of an uncertain author under the name of St. Cyprian; "We are close to the Cross, we suck the Blood, and we put our tongues in the very wounds of our REDEEMER, So that, both outwardly and inwardly we are made red thereby." Such is that of St. Chrysostom; "In the Sacrament the Blood is drawn out of the side of CHRIST, the tongue is made bloody with that wonderful Blood." Again, "Thou seeth thy LORD sacrificed, and the crowding multitude round about sprinkled with His Blood;" " He that sits above with the FATHER is at the same time in our hands. Thou doth see and touch and eat Him. For I do not show thee either Angels or Archangels, but the LORD of them Himself." Again; "He incorporates us with Himself, as if it were but the same thing. He makes us His Body indeed, and suffers us not only to see, but even to touch, to eat Him, and to put our teeth in His Flesh; so that by

that food which He gives us, we become His Flesh." Such is that of St. Austin; "Let us give thanks not only that we are made Christians, but also made CHRIST." Lastly, such is that of Leo; "In that mystical distribution, it is given us to be made His Flesh." Certainly, if any man would wrangle and take advantage of these, he might thereby maintain, as well that we are transubstantiated into CHRIST, and CHRIST's Flesh into the Bread, as that the Bread and Wine are transubstantiated into His Body and Blood. But Protestants, who scorn to play the sophisters, interpret these and the like passages of the Fathers, with candour and ingenuity (as it is most fitting they should). For the expressions of Preachers, which often have something of a paradox, must not be taken according to that harsher sound wherewith they at first strike the auditor's ears. The Fathers spake not of any transubstantiated bread, but of the mystical and consecrated, when they used those sorts of expressions; and that for these reasons; 1. That they might extol and amplify the dignity of this mystery, which all true Christians acknowledge to be very great and peerless. 2. That communicants might not rest in the outward Elements, but seriously consider the thing represented, whereof they are most certainly made partakers, if they be worthy receivers. 3. And lastly, that they might approach so great a mystery with the more zeal, reverence, and devotion. And that those hyperbolic expressions are thus to be understood, the Fathers themselves teach clearly enough, when they come to interpret them.

5. Lastly, being the same holy Fathers who (as the manner is to discourse of Sacraments,) speak sometimes of the Bread and Wine in the LORD's Supper, as if they were the very Body and Blood of CHRIST, do also very often call them types, elements, signs, the figure of the Body and Blood of CHRIST; from hence it appears most manifestly, that they were of the Protestants', and not of the Papists' opinion. For we can without prejudice to what we believe of the Sacrament, use those former expressions which the Papists believe do most favour them, if they be understood, as they ought to be, sacramentally. But the latter none can use, but he must thereby overthrow the groundless doctrine of Transubstantiation; these two, the Bread is transubstantiated into the Body, and the Bread also is the type, the sign, the figure of the Body of CHRIST, being wholly inconsistent. For it is impossible that a thing that loseth its being should yet be the sign

and representation of another; neither can any thing be the type and the sign of itself.

But if, without admitting of a sacramental sense, the words be used too rigorously, nothing but this will follow; that the Bread and Wine are really and properly the very Body and Blood of CHRIST, which they themselves disown, that hold Transubstantiation. Therefore in this change it is not a newness of substance, but of use and virtue that is produced; which yet the Fathers acknowledged with us to be wonderful, supernatural, and proper only to God's omnipotency; for that earthly and corruptible meat cannot become to us a spiritual and heavenly, the Communion of the Body and Blood of CHRIST, without GOD'S especial power and operation. And whereas it is far above philosophy and human reason, that CHRIST from Heaven, (where alone He is locally,) should reach down to us the divine virtue of His flesh, so that we are made one body with Him; therefore it is as necessary as it is reasonable, that the Fathers should tell us that we ought with singleness of heart to believe the Son of GOD, when He saith, This is my body; and that we ought not to measure this high and holy mystery by our narrow conceptions, or by the course of nature. For it is more acceptable to GOD

with an humble simplicity of faith to reverence and embrace the words of CHRIST, than to wrest them violently to a strange and improper sense, and with curiosity and presumption to determine what exceeds the capacity of men and Angels.

CHAPTER VII.

History of the rise of the Romish Doctrine of Transubstantiation.

We have proved it before, that the leprosy of Transubstantiation did not begin to spread over the body of the Church in a thousand years after CHRIST. But at last the thousand years being expired, and Satan loosed out of his prison to go and deceive the nations and compass the camp of the Saints about, then, to the great damage of Christian peace and religion, they began here and there to dispute against the clear, constant, and universal consent of the Fathers, and to maintain the new-started opinion. It is known to them that understand History, what manner of times were then, and what were those Bishops who then governed the Church of Rome; Sylvester II. John XIX. VOL. I.-No. 28.

C